Agenda and minutes

Prayers were led by Chief Executive Andy Ferrier.

There were no apologies for absence.

There was no public participation.

There were no declarations of interest.

Resolved:

That the minutes of the meetings of the Council held on 2 September 2020 and 28 September 2020 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

The Worshipful the Mayor noted that today was Armistice Day. The Mayor had visited that Garden of Remembrance at St Mary’s Andover to lay a wreath on behalf of the residents of the Borough, and the Deputy Mayor had placed a wreath in Romsey.

The Mayor read a note of thanks from the Deputy Lieutenant Weale following his attendance at the, socially distanced, act of Remembrance held in the Garden of Remembrance in Andover on Sunday 8 November.

To receive and, where necessary, adopt reports of Committees

Minutes of Meetings:

Resolved:

That the minutes of the following Committees and Cabinet meetings be received:

To adopt recommendations from the following:

Licensing Committee – 15 October 2020

Licensing Act 2003 – Statement of Licensing Policy

Resolved:

1.  That the revised Statement of Licensing Policy published for consultation in July 2020 attached as Annex 2 to the report be recommended for approval by Council, subject to the revisions set out in the report and a further revision to reference the fact that the Policy may need to be amended to reflect the Coronavirus pandemic.

2.  That the policy be effective for a five year period commencing 7 January 2021 subject to the policy being kept under review and the Council making such revisions to it at such times as it considers appropriate.

There were no questions under rule 11.1.

Councillor Ecclestone submitted a question asking “I note that I asked a question at the last full council meeting as to whether TVBC intended to be compliant with the spirit of the Conservation Area rules with regard to lighting, paving and seating/fixtures at the Town Mills Riverwalk devel. The response was vague with a glib observation that I had been on the ATC Planning committee which had raised no objection. In fact the ATC Planning committee had raised four objections. However on the specific matter of the seating, I note that the filings and documents for 19/01263/FULLN show a disparate number of different designs for the same space, including some sort of S-shaped bench which most definitely is not Conservation Area compliant and neither are most of the other seat designs. This seat is not shown in other versions (see attached). In fact the Design & Access statement does not once mention the words "seats".”

“Are conceptual designs related to a planning application (when it pertains to TVBC) merely that and able to be discarded or over-ruled when it comes to final execution? Would this laissez-faire attitude to detail be tolerated from a private developer?”

“Can TVBC reassure councillors and residents of Andover that it will not flaunt the rules of the Conservation Area when it comes to the fittings, paving and accoutrements of the Riverside Walk project?”

The Planning Portfolio Holder responded that the question was very similar to the question asked at the recent Council meeting. The development of the Town Mills Riverside project came directly from the Andover Vision who identified making more of the river in the town centre as its number one priority. Throughout the process of developing the scheme, partners and local people have been consistently engaged through the Andover Vision

The Planning Portfolio Holder confirmed that the proposed development was given very careful consideration by officers and Members of the Council, and was satisfied that the Town Mills development was fully compliant with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Conservation and Listed Building) Act 1990 and the Councils own planning policies which required development to either preserve or enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area.

The Planning Portfolio Holder confirmed emphasised the development requiring planning permission must be carried out in accordance with the approved plan and that the Council would ensure any development taking place was fully compliant with both National and local planning policies and that any development will either enhance or preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.  The Council would fully involve and consult with the community on the development proposals for the Riverside Walk project just as it has done on the Town Mills project.

Councillor Ecclestone submitted a question asking “It has come to my attention that a gym operator, I Can, shall shortly be moving operations from premises at Charlton lakes to the Rendezvous.

This involves ten exercise machines in a circuit. If true then this will totally occupy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 271.

To consider motions proposed by Councillors Coole, Ecclestone and C Dowden.

Council considered the following motion moved by Councillor Coole and seconded by Councillor P North:

‘That following the adoption of the Andover Masterplan, Test Valley Borough Council ask the Andover Vision Stakeholders Group to lead on two pieces of public engagement. Namely;

1.  Improvements to Andover Town Centre street furniture.

2.  Improvements to Vigo Recreation Ground.’

Upon being put to the vote the motion was carried.

Council considered the following motion moved by Councillor Coole and seconded by Councillor Ecclestone:

‘That Shepherds Spring Lane car park charges mirror those of Romsey Rapids car park, so that both offer four hours free car parking.

(Current charges permit two hours free parking in Shepherds Spring Lane and four hours free parking in Romsey Rapids, yet both are a comparable walking distance from their Town Centre feature buildings (Andover Guildhall and Romsey Town Hall).  Approval of this Motion would provide four hours free parking in both car parks and provide car parking charges parity across the Borough.)’

Upon being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Council considered the following motion moved by Councillor C Dowden and seconded by Councillor P North:

This Council notes:

‘The publication by Government of the White Paper, ‘Planning for the Future’ on 6 August 2020, which set out proposals on reforms to the planning process for the future.

·  That in Test Valley 95% of planning applications have been given the go-ahead by the authority's planning committees, where the recommendation from officers has been to grant permission.

·  That research by the Local Government Association has said that there are existing planning permissions for more than one million homes that have not yet been started.

·  That in the last year Test Valley Borough Council has substantially exceeded its housing target, building 948 new homes of which 315 were designated as 'affordable homes’.

This Council is concerned that the proposals seek to:

1.  Reduce or remove the right of residents to object to applications near them.

2.  Grant automatic rights for developers to build on land identified as ‘for growth’.

3.  Remove section 106/CIL payments for infrastructure and their replacement with a national levy.

4.  Potentially remove control over development on land identified as ‘renewal’ from the local authority in favour of national guidance

This Council Further Notes:

1.  The reforms are opposed by the all-party Local Government Association.

This Council Believes:

1.  That existing planning procedures, as evidenced by the outcomes reported by the Test Valley Borough Council planning committees and TVBC’s housing completions, allow for local democratic control over future development, and give local people a say in planning proposals that affect them, without hindering development of the homes the Borough needs.

2.  That proposals for automatic rights to build in ‘growth’ areas, and increased permitted development rights, risk unregulated growth and unsustainable communities.

3.  That any future standard methodology used to establish the Council’s housing requirement figures should be calculated in a way that does not disadvantage the Borough because of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 272.

To consider the appointments to Committees.

Consideration was given to a report of the Corporate Portfolio Holder which set out details of committee appointments that were required following the resignation of Councillor Watts and the sad death of Councillor Finlay.

As a result of the two vacancies it was necessary to appoint Members to the Council’s Licensing Committee, Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Northern Area Planning Committee and Southern Area Planning Committee to ensure that the committees reflected the overall political balance of the Council and vacancies were filled to allow the committees to operate in an effective manner.

Resolved:

1.  That Councillor Neil Gwynne be appointed to the Licensing Committee to replace Councillor Richard Rowles.

2.  The Councillor Martin Hatley be appointed to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

3.  That Councillor Richard Rowles be appointed to the Northern Area Planning Committee.

4.  That Councillor Alison Johnston be appointed to the Southern Area Planning Committee.

5.  That Councillor Martin Hatley be appointed as Vice Chairman of the Southern Area Planning Committee.

The following item is confidential.

Resolved:

That, pursuant Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following report on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the following Paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended, indicated below. The public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the Public interest in disclosing the information for the reason given below:

Property Matters  Paragraphs 2 and 3

It is considered that this report contains exempt information within the meaning of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended. Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual and information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding the information). It is further considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information because the report contains financially sensitive information and may impede the Council’s ability to achieve best value.

To consider a property matter.

Consideration was given to a report of the Housing and Environmental Health Portfolio Holder which presented details of a property matter.

Resolved:

1.  That the Head of Housing and Environmental Health is authorised to take the steps set out in paragraph 6.4 of the report.

2.  That the property purchase is added to the Capital Programme to be funded from the New Homes Bonus Reserve as described at paragraph 6.5 of the report.