Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Cllr J Heron.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 16 February and 21 March 2022 as correct records.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meetings held on 16 February and 21 March 2022, be confirmed and signed.

To note any declarations of interest made by members in connection with an agenda item.  The nature of the interest must also be specified.

Members are asked to discuss any possible interests with Democratic Services prior to the meeting.

There were no declarations of any disclosable pecuniary interests made by Cabinet Members.

To note any issues raised during the public participation period.

There were no issues raised during the public participation period.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the utilisation of government funding towards Citizens Advice New Forest of £35,000 to fund a Debt Supervisor for two years to build up resilience with debt advice to support our residents, be approved.

2.    That the Council continues to work with our partners to explore further funding options and initiatives to support our communities.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

As set out in the report.

KEY DECISION:

No.

PORTFOLIO:

People and Places.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED/REJECTED:

As set out in the report.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST(S):

None.

DISCUSSION:

The Portfolio Holder introduced the report and expressed support for the proposals, which ensured that Citizen Advice New Forest could add targeted support to the District’s most vulnerable residents.

The Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Business, Tourism and High Streets added their support to the recommendations, and highlighted the wider support to Citizens Advice provided by the Council, alongside the specific benefits of wider training for volunteers that the targeted support would provide.

The Leader of the Opposition welcomed the initiative and encouraged similar assistance to other groups in need such as children in poverty.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the “Parking Standards” be adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

2.    That the existing Parking Standards SPD (October 2012) is superseded.

3.    That prior to publication, the final editing of the document (attached in Appendix 1 to the Cabinet report) be agreed by the Executive Head for Planning, Regeneration and Economy in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Regeneration and Infrastructure.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

As set out in the report.

KEY DECISION:

Yes.

PORTFOLIO:

Planning, Regeneration and Infrastructure.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED/REJECTED:

As set out in the report.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST(S):

None.

DISCUSSION:

The Portfolio Holder introduced the report and highlighted that the document would ensure all new developments had an appropriate levelling of parking provision, including accessibility.  It was noted that cars were now on average larger than the previous update of 2012, which was reflected in the parking space sizes in the document.

The Portfolio Holder placed on record her thanks to the Task and Finish Group for their detailed work on this issue which included the reflection of the Council’s Climate Change and Nature Emergency declaration.  The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group extended thanks to officers for the detailed work involved in the preparation of the SPD.

In response to a question on whether electric vehicle charging points would be installed in the Council’s own housing developments and social housing, it was confirmed that the Council would need to conform with planning policies in the same manner as any other developer or applicant.

A number of Members welcomed the SPD and hoped that further charging point provision in Council owned car parks would be pursued wherever possible.  It was acknowledged that this was a commercial initiative.  Two new coastal additions were expected shortly.

RESOLVED:

That the new Local Enforcement Plan 2022, be adopted.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

As set out in the report.

KEY DECISION:

No.

PORTFOLIO:

Planning, Regeneration and Infrastructure.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED/REJECTED:

As set out in the report.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST(S):

None.

DISCUSSION:

The Portfolio Holder introduced the report and highlighted the importance of effective enforcement in ensuring confidence in the planning system.

In response to a question on the level of planning enforcement actions, it was confirmed that over 200 complaints were generally being investigated at any one time by the planning department.  A quarterly report to the Planning Committee was being considered as part of the monitoring process.

RESOLVED:

That the introduction of S106 monitoring charges as set out in the Cabinet report, be agreed.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

As set out in the report.

KEY DECISION:

Yes.

PORTFOLIO:

Planning, Regeneration and Infrastructure.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED/REJECTED:

As set out in the report.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST(S):

None.

DISCUSSION:

The Portfolio Holder introduced the report and highlighted that as development continued to grow, monitoring charges should not fall on residents.  A robust charging scheme would assist with this.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the Strategic Risk Register be adopted, noting it will be under constant review.

2.    That the Register be reviewed by the Cabinet on a quarterly basis.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

As set out in the report.

KEY DECISION:

Yes.

PORTFOLIO:

All.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED/REJECTED:

As set out in the report.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST(S):

None.

DISCUSSION:

The Leader of the Council introduced the report and highlighted the importance of risk management.  Portfolio Holders were encouraged to closely monitor their respective risks.  It was proposed and agreed by the Cabinet that the report be considered on a quarterly basis.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Coastal Services welcomed the mitigation measures which brought all risks to acceptable levels of green or amber.

In response to a question on the progression of a County Deal, the Leader of the Council confirmed that although Hampshire was not in the initial government pilot list, conversations continued to ensure there was engagement across the County.