Government Policy Clearly not followed

I am writing to you regarding Old Mill Road and the recent decision by the Executive for the area to be considered to maximise employment uses with a mix of retail and leisure. I understand that the Executive has reached this decision without having regard or sight of the minutes from the Scrutiny Panel meeting held on Tuesday 24 January 2017. I understand that the majority of the Scrutiny Panel had voted to safeguard/protect the employment of the area. I am somewhat concerned and surprised that such a decision could have been made by the Executive without any consideration of the minutes from the Scrutiny Panel meeting. I am sure that I don’t need to remind you of North Somerset Council’s, Constitution 2015. However, to be thorough, I feel that the Councillors (decision makers) need to be reminded of their obligations: 1. NSC has agreed that the Constitution will be followed to ensure the efficiency, transparency, and accountability to the local people. 2. Article 1 of the Constitution commits NSC to work with the community to provide services to benefit the community. 3. The Constitution states that the overriding duty of the Councillors is to the whole community with a special duty to their constituents, including those that did not vote for them. 4. The Constitution states that Scrutiny Panels support the work of the Executive and that Scrutiny Panels also monitor the decisions of the Executive. Further, they can ‘call in’ a decision, which has been made by the Executive. My concerns are as follows: On what basis has the Executive made its decision without any regard to the meeting/minutes of the Scrutiny Panel? – The Constitution makes it clear that Scrutiny Panels have been set up to make reports and recommendations to the Executive. Why were the minutes of the Scrutiny Panel meeting not available for the Executive or the constituents? – I fail to understand how a decision could be made by the Executive without any regard to the Scrutiny Panel. Why is the Executive having complete disregard to the outcry of its constituents with regard to Old Mill Road? – There is strong support in Portishead to support and retain the businesses of Old Mill Road. Why is the Executive not supporting the established businesses that already benefit the community and offer employment? – Clearly the Scrutiny Panel understood this need and agreed to protect the businesses of Old Mill Road. Why was the Executive meeting not clearly advertised so that Old Mill Road supporters could have been present? As you will see there are a number of questions that remain unanswered and require clarity. In particular, as a constituent of North Somerset, I require the Scrutiny Panel to ‘call in’ the decision made by the Executive for reconsideration. This decision has not been made with regard to the Scrutiny Panel minutes and without any regard to the concerns of its constituents. I AM ASKING YOU TO ‘CALL IN’ THIS DECISION AND SAFEGUARD THE BUSINESSES ON OLD MILL ROAD I look forward to your response as to how this will be dealt with. Yours sincerely So, to summarise This is the extract from the 24/1 SPED minutes, the accuracy of which has been questioned;- Members considered that the range of employment provided was important to the area – providing skills and opportunities not found elsewhere in the locality. They were concerned that if these businesses were to be supplanted by housing, these important opportunities would be lost to the town given the lack of alternative employment sites, and considered that the acknowledged housing need could be met elsewhere in the area. The Panel recommended to the Executive that the entire site be designated as an employment area and the housing element removed Do we have the evidence that the Panel recommendation was to designate the site as a Safeguarded Employment Site. If so suggest we e-mail Cllr Chris Blades, SPED Chair, and copy to others including Exec Chair to advise that the minute, and therefore recommendation to Exec, is wrong. Secondly, and concurrently, we should e-mail Councillor Ashton, Executive Chair, (copy others) regarding this minute below from 7/2 meeting: Councillor Ashton pointed out the entire site was under the developer’s control and suggested the Council was not in a position to insist the site be designated as an employment area with the housing element removed. We need to request an explanation as to why, in his opinion, the site cannot be designated as a Safeguarded Employment Area and remind him of the Background to policy SA5 of the Site Allocations Plan which says:- As well as allocating new employment sites it is equally important that existing employment sites that have good access, are purpose built, modern and compatible with surrounding uses are retained in employment use. In the past existing sites have been lost to non- employment uses which does not help to redress the balance between residential growth and provision of jobs. For some sites that are poorly located, rundown or incompatible with surrounding uses then their loss to non employment use is acceptable and in some cases a benefit. However the loss of key existing strategic employment sites would be contrary to Core Strategy objectives.