Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Godden (Councillor Johnston substituting), Councillor Hoare (Councillor Lovatt substituting).

The following requests to speak had been agreed:

Councillors Fawcett,

Councillor Constance

Councillor Webber

Mr Cattermole, Taylor Wimpey

Written notice has been given in accordance with the Council’s Scrutiny procedure Rules requiring the decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment on 9 October 2014 to be called in for review by this Committee.

The following documents are attached:

(a) A report (PSC5(a)) setting out the names of the Councillors who have required the call in and the reasons given for the Call in.

(b) The report considered by the Cabinet Member for Environment (CMDE4) together with an extract of the minutes of the delegated decision session. (PSC5(b)).

(c) Additional information provided in response to the call in (PSC5(c)).

Written notice has been given in accordance with the Council’s Scrutiny procedure Rules requiring the decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment on 9 October 2014 to be called in for review by this Committee.

The Performance Scrutiny Committee had before them:

(1) A report setting out the names of the Councillors who have required the call in and the reasons given for the Call in.

(2) The report considered by the Cabinet Member for Environment together with an extract of the minutes of the delegated decision session.

(3) Additional information provided in response to the call in

Councillor Fawcett, speaking as the originator of the call in outlined the history leading to the decision on 9 October, referring to the decision by the Planning Inspector and the earlier decision taken by the Cabinet Member. Speaking on the 3 reasons given for the call in Councillor Fawcett made the following points:

1)              In relation to reason 1 Councillor Fawcett pointed out that the Cabinet Member at his meeting had made a point of the visit he had made to the location. However many of the concerns were around safety of children and therefore a visit on a Saturday was not appropriate. It was not the main concern but it raised questions about how the decision was made.

2)              In relation to reason 2 there was clear guidance about the location and design of pedestrian crossings. There is a clear process to follow which includes consideration about siting. The impression given at the meeting on 9 October was that the planning inspector had said it should be so and therefore proper process was not followed with regard to siting. In particular it was not clear whether pedestrian desire lines had been considered.

3)              On reason number 3 he stated that congestion had not been properly addressed.

Councillor Webber, speaking as a signatory to the call in felt that the problem was the public perception of the way it was carried out. A great deal of advice, including legal advice, was not available at the meeting. He was not a planning expert and there were many planning aspects to the decision. He queried the role of the Transport Advisory Panel feeling that they had not been listened to.

Councillor Constance, speaking as a signatory to the call in spoke in support of reason 3 which related to the wider traffic issues. She stated that congestion had not been properly considered. The largest number of responses was about congestion. The comments of the Inspector would have been based as a planning decision on the application site and immediate environment. This did not override the need for the Council as a Highway Authority to consider the impact on the wider Abingdon area. The decision would result in obstructing traffic having a severe impact on Abingdon Town.

Mr Cattermole, Planning Manager, Taylor Wimpey, spoke against the call in making the following points:

1)              The site visit by the Cabinet Member had been to familiarise himself  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3/14