to consider the following question received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8:
(a) From Cllr Baldry to Cllr Bastone, lead Executive Member for Development Management
‘On 15 December 2016 it was:
“RESOLVED
That this Council:
notes the ruling of the High Court (Case No: CO/2241/2016) in support of a housing policy known as ‘H2. Full Time Principal Residence Requirement’ as set out in St Ives Area Neighbourhood Development Plan and which provides that: ‘New second homes and holiday lets will not be permitted at any time…’ and
supports Town and Parish Councils within the South Hams District to adopt similar policies in their own Neighbourhood Development Plan”
1. How many Neighbourhood Plans have been approved? How many include a policy on dwellings which are not the primary residence?
2. Is the Executive Member aware of Parishes or localities which are working on Neighbourhood Plans and how many are considering including a St Ives type policy?
3. In the spirit of the 15 December Resolution, will the Executive Member encourage appropriate parishes to adopt this type of policy?
(b) From Cllr Birch to Cllr Tucker, Leader of Council
‘Various reports show that the Council has incurred waste expenditure of over £250,000 following the failure and/or cancellation of the following four projects:
1. Setting up of a Local Authority Controlled Company;
2. Proposed merger with West Devon Borough Council;
3. Commercial Property Investment Scheme; and
4. Kingsbridge Quayside K2 Project.
Would it not have been better to have spent this sum on employing additional staff so as to improve the provision of Council services and especially in connection with planning and enforcement?’
Minutes:
51/17
It was noted that two questions had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8. These questions were as follows:-
From Cllr Baldry to Cllr Bastone, lead Executive Member for Development Management
(a) That this Council:
notes the ruling of the High Court (Case No: CO/2241/2016) in support of a housing policy known as ‘H2. Full Time Principal Residence Requirement’ as set out in St Ives Area Neighbourhood Development Plan and which provides that: ‘New second homes and holiday lets will not be permitted at any time…’ and
supports Town and Parish Councils within the South Hams District to adopt similar policies in their own Neighbourhood Development Plan”
1. How many Neighbourhood Plans have been approved? How many include a policy on dwellings which are not the primary residence?
2. Is the Executive Member aware of Parishes or localities which are working on Neighbourhood Plans and how many are considering including a St Ives type policy?
3. In the spirit of the 15 December Resolution, will the Executive Member encourage appropriate parishes to adopt this type of policy?
In the absence of Cllr Bastone, Cllr Hopwood replied and made the following points:-
- Currently, the Ivybridge Neighbourhood Plan (NP) was the only NP that had been subject of a Referendum. The Referendum had now been formally approved by the Executive at its meeting on 7 December 2017 (Minute E.40/17 refers) and Cllr Hopwood congratulated Ivybridge accordingly;
- She was aware of a number of NPs that were currently considering the merits of including a St Ives type policy. However, she was not aware of the exact number at present;
- In the event of a NP wishing to pursue this type of policy, Cllr Hopwood confirmed that the Council would provide supporting evidence to supplement this wish.
In response to a supplementary question, Cllr Hopwood was of the view that it was not the responsibility of the Council to be actively encouraging NPs to include a St Ives type policy. That being said, she did also feel that the Council should do all it could to support those Groups who did wish to include the provision of such a policy.
From Cllr Birch to Cllr Tucker, Leader of Council
(b) Various reports show that the Council has incurred waste expenditure of over £250,000 following the failure and/or cancellation of the following four projects:
1. Setting up of a Local Authority Controlled Company;
2. Proposed merger with West Devon Borough Council;
3. Commercial Property Investment Scheme; and
4. Kingsbridge Quayside K2 Project.
Would it not have been better to have spent this sum on employing additional staff so as to improve the provision of Council services and especially in connection with planning and enforcement?
In reply, Cllr Tucker advised that he was of the view that, in order to meet the Council’s severe budgetary pressures, it was necessary to investigate the merits of such projects. In addition, there was a need for adequate information to be gained before a fully informed decision could be reached on such matters. Finally, Cllr Tucker was also aware that the information gained through this expenditure was being utilised by officers on a daily basis and should therefore not be considered as being a waste of money.
Cllr Birch proceeded to ask a supplementary question as follows:
‘Given the lack of officer resource (since there are currently over 300 enforcement cases), what is the lead Executive Member doing about this?’
In light of the lead Executive Member being absent from this meeting, a commitment was given that he would respond to Cllr Birch in the next few weeks.