Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillors Day, Parry, Muldoon and Wincott.  Councillor Wallace was substituting for Councillor Parry (Midlothian Council).

The Chair reported that there were no changes to the order of business or urgent matters to be considered.

The minute of meeting of the Joint Committee of 28 November 2016 was submitted and approved as a correct record.

The Joint Committee considered areport (copies of which had been circulated) by the Acting Strategic Development Plan (SDP) Manager seeking:

·                approval of the Strategic Development Plan Authority’s response to the representations received on the second Proposed Strategic Development Plan (the Proposed Plan);

·                agreement that no modifications should be made to the Proposed Plan in response to these representations;  and

·                approval of the Proposed Plan for submission to Scottish Ministers for examination.

Issue 14 – Strategic Transport Improvements

The Acting SDP Manager advised that SESPlan disagreed with the representation on Strategic Transport Improvements and highlighted that the issue was largely to do with the Cross Boundary Study (CBS) falling significantly behind schedule.  SESplan could not have undertaken a more detailed appraisal as the CBS was not available.  However, the current appraisal was still sufficient to allow the Joint Committee to submit the Proposed Plan for examination as the appraisal indicated that the additional transport impacts as a result of Proposed Plan content would be minimal at a regional scale in comparison to previous plans. There would be more acute impacts within Edinburgh but these could not be identified in detail until sites for housing were identified in the subsequent Edinburgh LDP preparation process.  Further analysis of mitigation options could be undertaken when the CBS is available.

Members expressed concerns that the Joint Committeee were being asked to sign off the Proposed Plan at this meeting when the relevant information had not been received from Transport Scotland to allow a full appraisal to be undertaken.

Decision

1)        To approve, in principle, the summary of unresolved issues and note the representations received set out within the Schedule 4s referred to in Section 2 of the report and detailed in Appendix 1 of the report.

2)        To agree, in principle, that no modifications were made to the Proposed Plan published in October  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Joint Committee considered a report (copies of which had been circulated) by the Acting SDP Manager presenting the proposed Development Plan Scheme No.9 (DPS 9) for approval.

The DPS included a Participation Statement setting out how, when and whom SESPlan would consult on the various Strategic Development Plan (SDP) Stages.

Decision

1)        To approve the proposed Development Plan Scheme No.9 (DPS 9) including the timeline and Participation Statement for SDP2 submission to Scottish Ministers as set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

2)        To note that the DPS would be reviewed and published at least annually.

3)        To authorise the Acting SDP Manager, in consultation with the Chair of the Project Board to make any necessary minor editing and design changes to DPS 9 prior to publication.

The Joint Committee considered a report (copies of which had been circulated) by the Acting SDP Manager presenting the 2016 annual housing update.

Members felt it would be helpful if future reports set out the differential between marketable private housing and affordable social housing need.

Decision

1)        To note the summary and content of the Annual Housing Update as set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

2)        To agree that the Annual Housing Update be produced on an annual basis instead of by a specific end of year timescale to ensure more effective co-ordination.

3)        To note that SESPlan would prepare an easy read non-technical summary to be read alongside the Annual Housing Update.

4)      To authorise the Acting SDP Manager in consultation with the Chair of the Project Board to make any necessary minor editing changes.

The Joint Committee considered a report (copies of which had been circulated) by the Acting SDP Manager presenting an update on the SESPlan Operating Budget for 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 following discussions at the SESPlan Joint Committee on 28 November 2016.

Decision

1)        To note the updated forecast expenditure against the approved Operating Budget for 2016/2017 set out within Appendix 2 of the report.

2)        To approve the updated Operating Budget for 2017/2018 set out within Appendix 2 of the report.

3)        To note that member contributions for financial year 2017/2018 had been reduced and were set at £44,000 (excluding VAT) per authority (as set out within Appendix 2 of the report), payable to Fife Council by the 30 April 2017.

4)        To note that member authorities were required to ratify the decisions above and to make their required contributions subsequently.

5)      To note that an Operating Budget for 2018/2019 would be brought to the November 2017 meeting of the SESplan Joint Committee.

The Joint Committee considered a report (copies of which had been circulated) by the Acting SDP Manager presenting SESPlan’S Annual Audit Plan for 2016-2017.

Decision

To note the Annual Audit Plan for 2016-2017 as set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

Decision

To note that the Project Board had agreed that, as each Local Authority had not finalised their own views on this issue, no SESPlan representations would be submitted to the consultation.

VALEDICTORY

The Chair commended the Joint Committee members and David Leslie, as Chair of the Project Board for their work and commitment of over the past 5 years into making sure SESPlan 2 was in place.  He also gave thanks to the SESPlan Manager and her staff for their work and advice to members.  Final thanks were recorded to Councillors Laird and Perry and their predecessors as Conveners and Vice-Conveners of SESPlan for introducing workshops for members which had proved to be extremely successful in informing the work of the Joint Committee.