Agenda item - Adoption of the East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Sites Plan

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

Adoption of the East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Sites Plan

Extract from the proceedings of the Policy, Resources & Growth Committee meeting held on the 19th January 2017 (copy to follow); together with a report of the Executive Director for Economy, Environment & Culture (copy attached).

Minutes:

71.1      Councillor Mitchell introduced the report which detailed the outcome of the public examination of the East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste & Minerals Sites Plan (WMSP) and sought approval for the formal adoption of the Plan.  She noted that it had a number of ambitious targets and that the plan had been unanimously agreed by both Policy Resources and the Council in 2015.  A small number of amendments had then been put to the Government Inspector which had been accepted.  She noted that both East Sussex County Council and the South Downs National Park Authority had approved the Plan and stated that she could not accept the Conservative amendment that had been circulated and would result in a need to start the whole process over again.

 

71.2      Councillor Janio formally moved an amendment on behalf of the Conservative Group to the recommendations of the Policy, Resources & Growth Committee as detailed in the extract from the meeting.  He stated that there was a need to secure the future of Hangleton Bottom and ensure it could not be developed, hence the need to remove it from the Plan.

 

71.3      Councillor Lewry formally seconded the amendment.

 

71.4      The Mayor then called on the Monitoring Officer to clarify the situation.

 

71.5      The Monitoring Officer stated that the adoption of the East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Site Plan was regulated by the Countryside & Planning Act 2004, Section 3.  This meant that a plan could not be approved that was not in line with the recommendations of the examining Inspector.  If the proposal to remove Hangleton Bottom from the Plan was carried, it would not comply with the legal requirements and would result in the council giving an intention to return to square one and start the process again.  He stated that minor non-material changes were permitted but this would be a significant change.  The Plan was also jointly owned by East Sussex County Council and the South Downs National Park Authority and any alterations would need to be agreed by all 3 bodies, which was unlikely at this stage.

 

71.6      Councillor Atkinson noted that Hangleton Bottom was in North Portslade Ward and had been the subject of interest for a bio-fuel plant.  There had been meetings with residents last year to outline the ideas for the plant, however they were only ideas and no formal planning application had been made to date.  If anything was to come forward it was likely to take some time and could result in a Public Inquiry.  He noted Councillor Janio’s concerns for the site and was sure that these would be taken into account but could not see the need for the proposed amendment.

 

71.7      Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he would fully expect local ward councillors to raise questions but the future of the site, but could not support the amendment.  There was a need to have an adopted plan in place and without one; there could be serious consequences for the city.  He therefore hoped that the Plan could be approved.

 

71.8      Councillor Mitchell stated that she wished to echo the comments of Councillor Mac Cafferty.  There was a need to have a Plan in place and therefore hoped that the recommendations could be supported.

 

71.9      The Mayor noted that the Conservative amendment had not been accepted and put it to the vote, which was lost by 18 votes to 34 as detailed below:

 

 

 

For

Against

Abstain

 

 

For

Against

Abstain

1

Allen

 

X

 

 

Marsh

 

X

 

2

Atkinson

 

X

 

 

Meadows

 

X

 

3

Barford

 

X

 

 

Mears

ü

 

4

Barnett

ü

 

 

Miller

ü

 

5

Bell

Not Present

 

Mitchell

ü   

X

 

6

Bennett

  ü

 

 

Moonan

ü   

X

 

7

Bewick

 

X

 

 

Morgan

ü   

X

 

8

Brown

ü

 

 

Morris

 

X

 

9

Cattell

 

X

 

 

Nemeth

ü

 

10

Chapman

 

X

 

 

Norman A

ü

 

11

Cobb

ü

 

 

Norman K

ü

 

12

Daniel

 

X

 

 

O’Quinn

 

X

 

13

Deane

X

 

 

Page

 

X

 

14

Druitt

X

 

 

Peltzer Dunn

Not present

15

Gibson

X

 

 

Penn

 

X

 

16

Gilbey

 

     X

 

 

Phillips

 

X

 

17

Greenbaum

X

 

 

Robins

 

X

 

18

Hamilton

 

X

 

 

Russell-Moyle

 

X

19

Hill

 

X

 

 

Simson

ü

 

20

Horan

 

X

 

 

Sykes

 

X

 

21

Hyde

ü

 

 

Taylor

ü

 

22

Inkpin-Leissner

 

X

 

 

Theobald C

ü

 

23

Janio

ü

 

 

Theobald G

ü

 

24

Knight

 

X

 

 

Wares

ü

 

25

Lewry

ü

   

 

 

Wealls

ü

 

26

Littman

X

 

 

West

 

X

 

27

Mac Cafferty

X

 

 

Yates

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

18

34

0

 

 

71.10   The Mayor then put the recommendations of the Policy, Resources & Growth Committee as moved to the vote, which were carried by 34 votes to 18 as detailed below:

 

 

 

For

Against

Abstain

 

 

For

Against

Abstain

1

Allen

ü

 

 

Marsh

ü

 

2

Atkinson

ü

 

 

Meadows

ü

 

3

Barford

ü

 

 

Mears

 

X

 

4

Barnett

 

X

 

 

Miller

 

X

 

5

Bell

Not Present

 

Mitchell

ü

 

6

Bennett

 

X

 

 

Moonan

ü

 

7

Bewick

ü

 

 

Morgan

ü

 

8

Brown

 

X

 

 

Morris

ü

 

9

Cattell

ü

 

 

Nemeth

 

X

 

10

Chapman

ü

 

 

Norman A

 

X

 

11

Cobb

 

X

 

 

Norman K

 

X

 

12

Daniel

ü

 

 

O’Quinn

ü

 

13

Deane

ü

 

 

 

Page

ü

 

14

Druitt

ü

 

 

 

Peltzer Dunn

Not present

15

Gibson

ü

 

 

 

Penn

ü

 

16

Gilbey

ü

   

 

 

Phillips

ü

 

17

Greenbaum

ü

 

 

 

Robins

ü

 

18

Hamilton

ü

 

 

Russell-Moyle

ü

 

19

Hill

ü

 

 

Simson

 

X

 

20

Horan

ü

 

 

Sykes

ü

 

21

Hyde

 

X

 

 

Taylor

 

X

 

22

Inkpin-Leissner

ü

 

 

Theobald C

 

X

 

23

Janio

 

X

 

 

Theobald G

 

X

 

24

Knight

  ü

 

 

 

Wares

 

X

 

25

Lewry

 

    X

 

 

Wealls

 

X

 

26

Littman

ü

 

 

 

West

ü

 

27

Mac Cafferty

ü

 

 

 

Yates

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

34

18

 

 

71.11   RESOLVED:

 

(1)    That the responses to the consultation on main modifications to the WMSP and contents of the Inspector’s report with his conclusion that the WMSP is legally compliant and ‘sound’ be noted; and

 

(2)    That the WMSP, incorporating the Main Modifications and minor modifications, as part of the Development Plan for the City be adopted, subject to the Head of City Planning agreeing any further minor non-material changes to the text of the Waste and Minerals Plan with East Sussex County Council and the South Downs National Park Authority.

 

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints