Meeting documents

Cabinet
Wednesday, 7th November, 2012 6.00 pm

Date:
Wednesday, 10th October, 2012
Time:
6:00pm
Place:
Ramsbottom Civic Hall, Market Place, Ramsbottom, BL0 9HT
 

Attendance Details

Present:
Councillor M Connolly (in the chair)
Councillors G Campbell, G Gartside, A Isherwood, J Lewis, R Shori and J Smith
Co-opted:
-
Apologies for absence:
Councillors N Parnell, T Pickstone and S Walmsley
Buttons
Item Description Decision
Open
CA.382 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Preamble for item CA.382
 
CA.383 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Preamble for item CA.383
 
CA.384 MINUTES
 Delegated decision:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2012 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.
CA.385 BURY LOCAL PLAN - CORE STRATEGY - SECOND DRAFT PUBLICATION

Preamble for item CA.385
Delegated decision:

That approval be given to the Second Draft Publication Core Strategy, and the supporting documentation, together with the proposed measures outlined in the report submitted to receive representations.

Reasons for the decision:
The approval of the Second Draft Publication of the Core Strategy is an important stage in the production of the Core Strategy for Bury’s Local Plan and it is necessary to ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to play a part in this process. The preparation of and consultation on a draft version of the document will enable any necessary changes to be made prior to proceeding to a final Publication version at which stage there is limited scope for making changes.

Other option considered and rejected:
That Cabinet seek revisions to the proposed content of the Second Draft Publication Core Strategy prior to further consultations and participation and/or Cabinet seek revisions to the proposed measures for undertaking consultation and participation. Cabinet is to specify the nature of any revisions to be sought.
CA.386 BURY LOCAL PLAN - LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

Preamble for item CA.386
Delegated decisions:

1. That approval be given to the Local Development Scheme (October 2012) and that it shall have effect from 10 October 2012 and be published on the Council’s website.

2. That approval be given to authorise the Executive Director of Environment and Development Services in consultation with the Executive Member for Neighbourhoods and Regeneration to make any future timetable amendments as necessary (including on the direction of the Secretary of State) together with any changes to the document content of the Local Development Scheme, and to resolve the date from which such amendments shall have effect.

Reason for the decision:
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) requires Local Planning Authorities to prepare and maintain a scheme to be known as their Local Development Scheme (LDS). The approval of the revised LDS will ensure that this requirement is complied with and the LDS is up-to-date. The delegated authority for revisions is considered necessary to allow for amendments to the timetable and contents of the LDS.

Other option considered and rejected:
That Cabinet seek revisions to the proposed Local Development Scheme. Cabinet to specify the nature of any revisions to be sought.
CA.387 DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC TENANCY POLICY FOR THE BOROUGH

Preamble for item CA.387
Delegated decisions:

1. That approval be given to a formal consultation on the draft Strategic Tenancy Policy.

2. That a report summarising the consultation responses and providing a final draft of the Strategic Tenancy Policy be submitted to Cabinet on 19 December 2012.

Reasons for the decision:

Under the Localism Act 2011, all local authorities in England are required to produce and publish a Strategic Tenancy Policy for their area by 13 January 2012. Proceeding to consultation at this stage does not commit the Council to this Policy. The Council may amend any part of the Policy in light of consultation.

Other option considered and rejected:
Do nothing. The Council would fail in its statutory duty to produce and publish a Strategic Tenancy Policy by 13 January 2013.
CA.388 REVIEW OF HOUSING ALLOCATIONS POLICY

Preamble for item CA.388
Delegated decisions:

1. That approval be given to consult on an updated draft Allocations Policy as detailed in the report submitted.

2. That a report summarising the consultation responses be submitted together with the revised draft Allocations Policy to a future meeting of the Cabinet for decision to replace the current Allocations Policy.

Reasons for the decision:
This decision works toward a fully compliant document that guides the effective and efficient allocation of properties in line with housing needs and Localism Act.

Other option considered and rejected:
Do nothing. The Allocations Policy would not be compliant with legislation and leave the Council open to challenge.
CA.389 PLAN FOR CHANGE - DESTINATION MANAGEMENT
Preamble for item CA.389
Delegated decisions:

1. That approval be given to consult on proposals about how the council can support destination management in the future. The consultation will invite comments from stakeholders on the proposals for a new Destination Management function for the council.

2. That it be noted that a final report, noting the comments and suggestions as a result of the consultation exercise, will be submitted in due course for approval. At that time employees will be fully consulted in accordance with the agreed procedures in respect of any implications related to their employment conditions.

Reasons for the decision:
The Plan for Change provides a starting point for the Council to consider the efficiency and effectiveness of the services it provides.

Other option considered and rejected:
To reject the recommendation.
(Note: Councillor Gartside voted against the decision.)
The meeting started at 6.00 pm and ended at 7.15pm

Preamble

Preamble
ItemPreamble
CA.382Councillor Connolly declared a personal interest relating to any matters likely to impact on the fact that his partner is employed by Adult Care Services.
CA.383A period of thirty minutes was allocated for members of the public present at the meeting to ask questions about the work or performance of the Council or Council services.

Topic: Bury Core Strategy - Second Draft
Questions: The Bury Core Strategy - Second Draft states the Council would consider proposals for employment related developments in the Green Belt in an area of 13.5 acres.
- Why is this necessary?
- What development would require an area of 13.5 acres?
- What are the ‘special circumstances’ referred to?
- Are there no other areas that could be identified?
Response: The Council has a responsibility to provide sustainable economic redevelopment for the borough. An analysis of the Employment Land that could provide economic development opportunities within the borough has indicated that the Gin Hall site in Ramsbottom is appropriate and provides a deliverable opportunity. The Gin Hall site is close to motorway and public transport links and is located on a single plot of land. The Bury Core Strategy - Second Draft does state that support for such a proposal would be given only if an applicant is able to satisfactorily demonstrate ‘very special circumstances’. If the Core Strategy is to be accepted as a fit for purpose document by an Independent Inspector, Bury Council must designate appropriately sized and usable areas of land which have infrastructure capable of sustaining economic development. The ‘special circumstances’ a proposal for development must include for consideration on green belt land relate to the significant benefits it would provide to Bury. The identification of Gin Hall as a potential site for economic development is not being hidden and the Council would be prepared to look at a proposal if a suitable scheme is forthcoming.

Topic: Destination Management - Fusiliers Museum
The Destination Management report sets out proposals for the closure of the Tourist Information Centre within the Fusiliers Museum. This would have a major impact on the future sustainability of the Museum. The Fusiliers Museum is an integral part of Bury’s cultural area and Tourist Information is integral to this. The charity that runs the museum is financially just managing to breakeven and would need to find additional funding to replace staff that are lost. There appears to be no business case for the proposals. The Fusiliers Museum is in the process of applying for Heritage Lottery Funding and this investment could be jeopardised as a result of these proposals.
Questions:
- Is there no other way to finance Tourist Information in Bury?
- Could senior officers give up some of their pay?
- Is there a business case in place?
Response: These are only proposals, no decisions have been taken and the Council is open to listen to ideas on how these services could be provided. It is not possible to direct senior officers to give up their pay to help with finances and Council employees have given up three days pay per year. There is a business case being produced to support the proposals and it will be shared at a later date. The Council understands the Fusiliers Museum financial position for the reason that the Council also has urgent financial pressures which must be addressed.

Topic: Destination Management - Ramsbottom Local Business Group
The local business owners within Ramsbottom are very concerned about the impact the proposals would have on their trade. The annual events that are organised in Ramsbottom by the Tourism Officer are essential for increasing the level of footfall and encouraging return visits to Ramsbottom shops throughout the year. Losing posts would result in the loss of the valuable organisational expertise that has been gained over the years that is specific to Ramsbottom. Research has demonstrated that Tourist Information Centres combined with a web site are most successful in boosting visitors.
Questions:
- The development and maintenance of a web site to promote Bury would cost between £30k to £50k per year where will this funding come from?
- The use of Ambassadors depends on the appointment, in the main, of members of the public and effective training would be required for those most appropriate to be appointed. Has research been carried out on their effectiveness? Rochdale MBC also tried to use Ambassadors but that initiative failed.
- Will proposals be made public before a decision is made?
- Why doesn’t the Council pull out of Marketing Manchester because Bury attractions are hardly represented?
Response: No decisions have been made and the Council is listening and is open to receive any information you wish to provide. A response will be given to any emails received. The costs for the development of a Visit Bury web site are not as high as suggested. The Marketing Manchester website makes a good case for a better destination website specific to Bury. Ambassadors would be used for large events in the borough and a core of trained volunteer staff already exists. The details of proposals for final decision making will go public unless they include information of a confidential nature.

Topic: Introduction of a Credit Union in Bury
Questions: Could you advise on whether the Council will introduce a credit union in Bury and when this will happen? Bolton has introduced a credit union could Bury share this scheme?
Response: Bury Council is examining the introduction of a credit union however, to ensure that such a scheme is workable and sustainable it is essential that sufficient capital is in place. A proposal will be brought to Cabinet in March 2013.
CA.385A report by the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Regeneration was submitted presenting the Second Draft Publication of the Core Strategy. The initial draft of the Core Strategy had been significantly amended following the completion of the consultation period held between November 2011 and January 2012.

Cabinet was requested to approve the Second Draft Publication of the Core Strategy for a six week period of consultation. Any further revisions would be incorporated into the final Publication version of the Core Strategy. This final version would be made available for comments in relation to the ‘soundness of the document before it is formally submitted to the Secretary of State for an Examination in Public.
CA.386A report by the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Regeneration was submitted setting out the proposed timetable for the production of Bury’s Local Plan. The report also set out the scope and coverage of the documents the Council intend to produce.
CA.387A report by the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Regeneration was submitted setting out a draft Strategic Tenancy Policy. The draft Policy had been produced following initial consultation with councillors, housing providers and other stakeholders. This will give a framework for registered providers in the borough, dealing with issues such as length of tenancy, type of tenancy offered and circumstances influencing these decisions. These issues will be subject to further discussion during the consultation period.
CA.388A report by the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Regeneration was submitted reviewing Bury Council’s Housing Allocations Policy. The original Policy was approved in 2006 and now requires updating to reflect changes in housing practice, legislation and case law.

The new draft Policy has been developed from initial consultation with housing providers and other stakeholders and designed to ensure that preference is given to people in housing need, whilst promoting choice and making best use of the Council’s housing stock. This would provide a clear correlation between the draft Policy and the Council’s priorities but the report identified a number of issues that could emerge. These issues will be subject to further discussion during the consultation period.
CA.389A report by the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Tourism was submitted outlining the Council’s co-ordinating and enabling role in Destination Management for the borough. The report set out proposals for new arrangements to support this area of work and requested approval to the proposals for consultation with stakeholders. A final revised report will be brought back to a future meeting of Cabinet for approval.