Minutes of a meeting of Amble Town Council held on Thursday 2 nd August 2012 at 6.30pm in the Council Office, The Quayside, Harbour Road, Amble.
1. PRESENT : Councillors Hinson, Palin, Weir, Mrs Lewis, Mrs Dargue and Rev d Nicholson together with the Clerk, Miss Brown.
2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Cllrs Arckless- other meeting, Cllr Miss Morrison other commitments, Cllr Bilboe illness.
These were proposed for acceptance by Cllr Mrs Lewis, seconded by Weir and agreed.
3. ACCEPTANCE OF DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST : None.
4. NORTHUMBERLAND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation: Cllr Hinson suggested going through the consultation point by point for any comments.
Q1.Agree , however a diverse economy implies much re-skilling- however efforts tend to be centralised in the south east of the region so this issue needs addressed and a level playing field across the County. Q2. Very wide reaching but appropriate objectives for the area but consideration must be given to local residents views.
With regard to objective 8, how can this be done pragmatically while bus services are being cut. Q3. Agree option C best for Northumberland but planning should recognise that the economic situation may last at least another 10 years.
Q4. Do not agree: Option A will once again concentrate NCC staff and resources on larger towns which up to now have had a tremendous amount of assistance for sustainability and growth; Option B will place too much emphasis on the smaller rural locations to the detriment of other parts of the area; Option C, whilst claiming to help sustain both small rural settlements as well as the larger ones, has the danger of the staffing and resources still being concentrated on the larger areas. There has been a lot of support for these larger areas yet sustainability does not appear to have been proportionately improved by this; these should now have limited resources used on them.
Development should be targeted where it is merited or most needed and not based solely on geographical location. More needs to be concentrated not only on the key locations mentioned in Option C but also including the larger locations classed as more rural such as Amble as this type of area is desperate for support to encourage more housing and employment which in turn will enhance the sustainability of the town as this will limit the drift of their younger people and newer families to other locations. Q5.
Agree Q6. Correct areas. Interesting that in this section Amble actually is mentioned as a key hub despite not being highlighted in Strategic Development & Spatial Distribution section!
The boundary for the northern area shold include the villages of Hadston and Red Row. However it fails to mention in the North Northumberland Development Area that there are large areas of deprivation in this area- although more concentrated in Amble, due to the unemployment ratio and the current economic climate, this can be said of the whole area. Q7.
Agree Q8. Disagree with Tier 2 as these areas will still need a certain amount of housing and employment expansion or their future existence as even a service centre will be questionable. Q9.
Yes Q10. Many developments have unsold properties which suggests a rethink of the type of housing being provided within them. Needs to be revisited using Housing needs survey.
Q11. Yes -all different Q12. Too general- breakdown of types of housing would be much better.
Local views need to be considered. Q13. Option C Q14.
Yes- target should be at least 50% but the utilisation of underdeveloped, derelict or vacant properties, brownfield sites and less environmental impact areas should be prioritised before greenfield sites. Q15. No comment.
Q16. Yes Q17. Yes- but requires flexability.
Q18. No; disagree with percentages this should be equal across delivery areas. Q19.
This should be 2 tier- This ensures an equal playing field so that all developers are contributing but at an appropriate rate. Q20.
1 & 2 should be prioritised- any amount should be retained for that settlement or parish as for example the people in Lesbury will not want it to be used in Longhoughton or Alnwick. All too often this has happened in smaller areas and the population there, while having reservations about a development, have still endorsed it expecting affordable housing for their own community members to then find this converted to a contribution going miles away and of no value at all to their community who are left with expensive houses for sale which their people cannot afford and so young people and families are forced to move elsewhere affecting that areas sustainability.
Completely disagree with 3 & 4. Due to time constraints it was agreed only to answer questions that were directly relating to Amble and the immediate surrounding area. Q21.
N/A Q22. Agree affordable homes for local people. Q23.
Yes- if Northumberland continues to maintain such a high proportion of over 65yrs old, then this is essential as family homes will be freed by migration to this specific housing. Q24. Yes, agree.
Employment : more needs to be done to encourage small/ medium businesses to start up in larger settlements like Amble- we are desperate for employment opportunities for all ages but more so to train our young people and retain them in the town for its future sustainability. Q25. Agree Q26.
No- flexibility is needed. Q27. Disagree- levels should be at least maintained in each area to allow for growth Q28.
Yes Q29. Agree- needs as much support to diversify as necessary to continue sustainability Q30. Agree with criteria but non- permanent structures need a more sensitive approach- this may be necessary in order to encourage visitors and help a small area s economy to locate these in more prominent positions and without landscaping e.g.
beach huts as a local area could benefit greatly from such development. Q31. Definitely agree that these need to be defined, supported and encouraged to develop Q32.
No this will mean efforts are more concentrated on bringing developers to certain centres to the detriment of others- all too often in the past a firm has wanted to be based in one area but been discouraged by planners who have pushed forward the areas where expansion is forecasted to be achieved. Any developer should be encouraged and even given incentives to locate to any centre they choose as a lot of smaller areas are desperate for employment; creating diverse areas thus also decreases the travelling required by employees and shoppers and thereby the carbon footprint. There is a great need for a good mix of retail offer within Ambles high streets, a need to promote choice and competition in order to encourage regeneration of our town centres and to discourage internet shopping and also out of town shopping- these should be included in policy.
Q.33. No disagree for reason given in the answer to question 32. Q34.
N/A Q35. No-policy for large scale leisure facilities should be encouraged in any part of the county to reduce the carbon impact and also due to a sizeable amount of the financially poorer population being located outside of the south east; other areas will draw significantly on their hinterlands. Q36.
Yes- agree. Q37. Flexibility is essential Q38.
N/A Q39. N/A Q40. N/A Q41.
N/A Q42. YES Q43. N/A Q44.
N/A Q45. N/A Q46. Yes Q47.
Most definitely- the health and interests of those in the locality must be a prime consideration. Q48. Yes Q49.
Yes Q50. Yes Q51. Yes very important Q52.
Yes but there is a need for smaller scale facilities to be encouraged Q53.Yes Q54. N/A Q55. N/A Q56.
N/A Q57. N/A Q58. N/A Q59.
N/A Q60. N/A Q61. N/A Q62.
N/A Q63. N/A Q64. N/A Q65.
N/A Q66. N/A Q67. N/A Q68.
Disagree Q69. Yes support growth of non motorised means of transport. Q70.
Yes- review of parking and traffic management needed as well as equal charging facilities for all Q71. Yes- support rail links for freight transportation enhancing the environment reducing the carbon footprint and encouraging more businesses to relocate here therefore encouraging employment Q72. Yes Q73.
Yes it is required, but disagree with the mitigation through development management decisions. Q74. Most certainly Q75.
N/A Q76. Yes this is vital to maintain and enhance links Q77. Yes this vital to development and expansion of both tourist and business usage Q78..N/A Q79..N/A Q80.
N/A Q81. Yes vital to sustainability of communities. Greater access to a wider range of higher education facilities is needed outside of the South East of the area.
Q82. No Q83. Yes- but tourism is vital to Northumberland and therefore any development of such must be closely looked at and not quickly dismissed.
We must also consider and consult with neighbouring areas to ascertain need and/or resources already available. Q84. Yes Q85.
Yes Q86. Flexibility was enhanced expansion Q87. Yes Q88.
Yes Q89. Yes; specific standards need to be set to minimise discrepancies throughout the area. Q90.
Yes Q91. Appropriate and necessary to include in Core Strategy, increased facilities required in Amble. Q92.
This is only acceptable if the developer agrees a maintenance fund to be handed over; this to cover minimum 5 years as all too often no thought is given to future upkeep of green space areas within developments and parish councils do not always have the resources for their upkeep. Q93. Yes Q94.
Yes Q95 Yes Q96. Yes Q97. Yes Q98.
Yes Q99.Yes Q100.Yes Q101. N/A Q102. N/A Q103.
No- Development should not be targeted to those areas with enough existing or planned capacity as this will inevitably result in lack of development in the smaller areas which desperately need it; the other criteria should be sufficient so as not to stunt growth but to encourage it. Q104. N/A Q105.
N/A Comments The Clerk was required to compile a report summarising each section of the consultation.
The meeting closed at 8.33pm Categories: Agendas & Minutes, Town Council | Permalink
Read the article:
Minutes of the Town Council meeting held 2nd August 2012 Local …