To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the Motion as set out in the associated notice.
Minutes:
Councillor Rands sought consent to alter the motion of which notice had been given. Consent was granted by affirmation.
Councillor Rands moved, and Councillor Atwood seconded, the motion set out in the notice tabled at the meeting and to be published as a supplement to the agenda.
Debate on the motion included consideration of the following points:
· The importance of sport and active lifestyles was self-evident.
· Local policy backed up national policy that sports facilities should not be lost unless there was an assessed lack of need, reprovision elsewhere or the benefit to the community outweighed the harm.
· Motion is not about a particular site.
· Understand financial pressure to sell valuable land.
· If sites were closed the Council needed to ensure no gaps in provision, temporary closure often lead to migration to other clubs and decline.
· Reprovision before closure would also avoid costly replacement facilities in future.
· The motion was seeking to address an issue through the Planning system and would more appropriately be dealt with through, initially, the Planning Policy Working Group where existing policies (particularly OSSR2) could be reviewed.
· The ability to reprovision sites would come from Section 106 funding which was only payable after development started.
Councillor Hayward moved, and Councillor Pope seconded, a procedural motion under Council Procedure Rule 11.4 to refer the matter to the Planning Policy Working Group.
Councillor Rands replied to the procedural motion:
· The motion sought to put an obligation on Cabinet when it considered the disposal of sites, not to amend planning policy.
The Mayor took a vote on the procedural motion by show of hands. Votes cast were 7 for, 33 against with 3 abstentions.
PROCEDURAL MOTION NOT CARRIED
Debate proceeded on the original motion.
Debate on the motion included consideration of the following points:
· The motion highlighted a problem with the planning system in that Section 106 moneys were only playable when development started. Provision of social infrastructure prior to developments were at the Council’s risk.
· Facilities should be retained within communities.
· Centralisation of sports facilities and the need to travel would dissuade casual activity.
· Phrases such as ‘all reasonable efforts’ were insufficient to protect important services.
· Open spaces would be even more important post-Covid. Anything to increase protection should be welcomed.
· Being ‘reasonable’ allowed flexibility which could be to the benefit of residents in certain circumstances.
· Centralisation of sports facilities would lead to increased journeys through town.
· A duty to reprovision lost facilities was not incompatible with retaining facilities locally.
· The motion deliberately referred to sports and open spaces and would not apply to all community services.
· Sports clubs, some with long histories, should be given fair chance to continue in the event a particular site was to close.
· The motion sought to strengthen the Council’s commitment to both the letter and spirit of national planning policy.
· National policy referred to provision of ‘suitable’ alternative sites which should give comfort to those concerned about centralisation of sports services.
The Mayor took a vote on the motion by show of hands. Votes cast were 33 for, 0 against with 10 abstentions.
RESOLVED – Mindful of the potential for changes in the allocation and use of sports facilities within the Borough, we recognise our commitments under the National Planning Policy Framework in general and paragraphs 96-101 in particular. This Council welcomes the policies in the Pre-Submission Local Plan (in particular Policy OSSR1) on the retention of open spaces and the requirement that losses should be made good by alternative equivalent or better provision. At the same time, we urge Cabinet to commit to always seek to ensure that alternative provision is available before any site is withdrawn for use or, if there are exceptional reasons why this cannot happen, all reasonable efforts are made to ensure that temporary facilities are made available to bridge the gap.
Supporting documents: