To receive any questions or petitions from the public of which notice has been given.  The deadline for notification for this meeting is 2pm, Wednesday 14^th November 2018.

Mr Malcom Andrew of the Trefonen Rural Protection Group asked the following question:

We would request that your Committee undertake a review of Cabinet decisions relating to the Hierarchy of Settlements, and in particular the wording of Para 5.40 relaxing the Lower Hub Threshold criteria.  We have raised our concerns on this matter to Cabinet, but these have always been rejected on the basis that the document was “approved” by Cabinet on 18th October 2017, and therefore it stands as correct; and that our only recourse would be to submit our concerns to the Inspector at Examination stage. We consider that to be far too late in the process, and that it should be reviewed sooner rather than

later. Our concerns stem from the 18th October 2017 Cabinetwhen two documents were supposed to be considered:

a)               Consultation on Preferred Scale and Distribution of Development – for Approval for Consultation; and

b)               Hierarchy of Settlements Assessment – for Approval

but they were taken together and ‘nodded through’ withoutany explanation of the Hierarchy of Settlements and particularly the newThreshold wording contained within it.

Cllr Macey says that an objective assessed methodology is in “the report” but no details are given, and the Chair “asks if everyone happy for the report to go out for consultation” singular report and no vote.  We therefore believe that Cabinet Members thought the Hierarchy of Settlements was for “Approved for consultation” whereas it was taken as “Approved” outright. We raised this concern at the time but were told that it had been properly “Approved”, which we still believe was not the case.  That “Approval” has been relied on subsequently to avoid review of the Threshold wording included within it.

Whilst initially we had concerns on the scoring of differing levels of service (e.g. Library 3points irrespective of main hub, village branch or mobile service), Officers have confirmed that this has been applied consistently, and that on that basis settlements can be compared in their Table 10 scoring.  Unfortunately, due to poor data, that Table was not accurate and therefore the “3point Gap” selected by Officers to set their Threshold might not actually exist. We have shown that and been pursuing this since Oct 2017 and look forward to the release of the updated Table 10 with the new consultation so that it can be reviewed.

Taking the Methodology as being correct and that the scores will be accurate, our main concern still remains- the Officers’ determination of the Lower Hub Threshold The Hub Definition within the initial Issues and Options Para 4.5, the Preferred Options Para6.4, and Hierarchy of Settlements Para 5.34 Table 6, requiring both employment andpeak time public transport has been relaxed within HofS Para5.40 to fit the results – with settlements proposed as Hubs that do not meetthe Definition.  We are well aware of the risks of an “out of date” Plan, which is why we keep raising the point of concern to be addressed sooner rather than later, but the response has been consistently “no – its ‘Approved’ – you can appeal to the Examination Inspector”.

We are not asking for a wholesale review of the Hierarchy of Settlements, just that the wording of

Para 5.40 setting the Lower Hub Threshold is reviewed to match the approved Hub Definition criteria.

We believe that these have concerns have an impact on numerous smaller rural settlementsproposed as Hub settlements, not just our own, and that it warrants scrutiny and correction.

Please will the Place Overview Committee undertake a review of Cabinet decisions relating to the Hierarchy of Settlements, and in particular the wording of Para 5.40 relaxing the Lower Hub Threshold criteria so that it conforms to the approved Definition requiring both employment and peak time public transport, as other services and facilities cannot compensate for not having these key elements.

We are sure that you are well aware that it is crucial that the Review process and draft Plan are seen to be “sound” when it reaches Examination Stage.  Therefore, we believe it is vital to address these points now as part of the next stage of consultation rather than risk having them identified as failings at a key stage later in the process, with the overriding risk of an “out of date” Plan. We would request your support.

The Chair responded that there is a mechanism in the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules included in part 5 of the constitution of the Council which provides for Cabinet decisions to be reviewed by a Scrutiny Committee.  This mechanism requires that the decision is “called-in” by Members within 5 working days of the date on which the decision is published. The decision was taken in October 2017, it was not called in and has, in accordance with the constitution, been implemented. A review of this decision by the Place Overview Committee is not therefore possible.

As previously explained in response to several previous public questions to Cabinet, and as acknowledged by TRPG in their request to the Place Overview Committee, there is an established process for Shropshire Council’s preferred approach to be tested through the formal examination of the Local Plan by an independent Government Planning Inspector, who will consider whether the methodology which the Council has adopted is reasonable and appropriate. As part of the Local Plan Review process, there remain further formal consultation opportunities during which TRPG can register a formal objection to the Council’s approach for subsequent consideration by the Inspector.

In response to a Member’s query, the Head of Economic Growth confirmed that a consultation of the Local Plan was being undertaken and there was a mechanism in place where the issue raised in this question could be investigated.  The Scrutiny Officer confirmed that the Local Plan Review was an item on the Committee’s work programme.  Members agreed that this could be considered as part of this work.