Agenda item

(Planning Policy Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-025-2015/16).

(1)        That a meeting be held by the Planning Policy Portfolio Holder and Officers with Chigwell Parish Council to discuss in detail the responses to their comments for Stage 1 of the Green Belt Review;

(2)        That the Green Belt Review (Stage 1) report be noted and approved for inclusion in the Local Plan Evidence Base;

(3)        That meetings be held by the Planning Policy Portfolio Holder and Officers with both Buckhurst Hill and Roydon Parish Councils regarding their assessment in the Settlement Hierarchy Technical Paper;

(4)        That the Settlement Hierarchy Technical Paper be noted and approved for inclusion in the Local Plan Evidence Base, subject to any amendments arising from the meetings with Buckhurst Hill and Roydon Parish Councils;

(5)        That paragraph 14 (v)(h) of the methodology be reviewed to consider a more holistic approach than the aggregation of scores for each parcel of Green Belt land;

(6)        That Stage 2 (Detailed Assessment) of the Green Belt Review be undertaken solely by the Council for the Epping Forest District area; and

(7)        That, as amended above, the proposed outline methodology for the Green Belt Review (Detailed Assessment) be agreed, to enable the appointment of consultants to undertake this work.

In the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy, who had been delayed on route to the meeting, the Leader of the Council presented a report on Stage I of the Green Belt Review and the Settlement Hierarchy.

The Leader stated that the Green Belt Review was a critical part of the preparation of the Local Plan, and a number of recent Local Plan Examinations in Public had failed as a direct result of not having completed a rigorous Green Belt review. A two-stage approach was being followed, with the first stage now complete. At this strategic level, the findings concluded that all parcels of Green Belt land scored “strongly” or “relatively strongly” against at least one purpose of the Green Belt.

The Leader reported that the second stage of the Green Belt Review would be undertaken jointly with Harlow District Council, and would analyse areas immediately adjoining the existing settlements within the two Districts in a more detailed assessment. This work would be undertaken by consultants and the overall output of this second stage of work would identify:

·       areas where the Green Belt policy designation should remain;

·       any historic anomalies in the existing boundaries or locations where development had taken place, which might suggest minor amendments to Green Belt boundaries were required; and

·       areas that would be least harmful in Green Belt terms for potential development purposes.

The Leader remarked that the Settlement Hierarchy Technical Paper sought to allocate each settlement to a category, by identifying the type of services and facilities that existed in each location. Following a period for comment and validation by Town and Parish Councils, a number of amendments had been made to both reports, and these were detailed in the Appendices, which had been published as background papers for this meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer (Planning Policy) reminded the Cabinet that the Green Belt Review would be a key component of the Local Plan, but it would not decide ultimately where future development would take place in the District. Following his arrival at the meeting and apologising for his delay, the Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy added that the first stage of the Review was based on factual information; no decisions would be taken from this Review, but it would contribute to the identification of the preferred options.

There were reservations expressed about the classification of Roydon as a ‘Large Village’ by the local Member. It was felt that Theydon Bois and Chigwell had many more facilities, and that the Leisure/Sports Facility in Roydon was really more of a Recreational Facility, which would reduce Roydon to the status of a ‘Small Village’. The Principal Planning Officer undertook to review the facilities in Roydon and respond to the Member.

Local Members from Chigwell were very disappointed that they had not been provided with a version of the Green Belt Review document which highlighted all the changes that had been made, as the Parish Council was initially promised. It was also disappointing that a number of the comments provided by the Parish Council had been answered simply with the response “Will be considered in Stage II”. It was felt that residents should have been provided with individual answers to each comment made. It was also pointed out that, although not designated as a Conservation Area, Chigwell had over 70 listed buildings, and perhaps it should have been considered for ‘Historic Town’ status.

The Portfolio Holder reiterated that the Council was always interested in any response from Local Councils, and would be happy to meet with Chigwell Parish Council to discuss their comments further. The Principal Planning Officer added that the comments on a single point from Local Councils had been grouped together to give a single response, and that there had not been a separate response made to each individual comment received. Some of the comments made would be dealt with by the second stage of the Review, and hence they had not been responded to in detail at this stage. However, local members from Chigwell still felt that Local Councils had a right to an individual response for each comment offered, and that Stage II of the Review should not review facts established during Stage I.

Counsel engaged by the Council commented that the definition of a ‘Historic Town’ was only concerned with settlements clearly defined as towns and their historic character, which encompassed more than more than the number of heritage assets and its setting. If a settlement was not listed as a ‘Historic Town’ in the ‘Essex: Historic Towns Assessment Report’ published in 1999, then it was unlikely to be listed as such now, and under the current national planning policy there were no further Historic Towns within Epping Forest other than those already identified (Chipping Ongar, Epping and Waltham Abbey).

Local Members from Buckhurst Hill expressed their concerns about Buckhurst Hill being classified as a ‘Town’ rather than a ‘Large Village’. Buckhurst Hill had only gained this classification by one point and this was considered unreasonable. There were not enough facilities within Buckhurst Hill, and it was emphasised that it did not have a Bank, Police Station, Fire Station, Leisure Centre or Secondary School. There were also fears that further development could eradicate the green space between Buckhurst Hill and Loughton. The Members requested a discussion between the Portfolio Holder and the Parish Council regarding its status.

The Principal Planning Officer emphasised that the report was clear as to why Buckhurst Hill had been classified as a ‘Town’ rather than a ‘Large Village’. Counsel added that a Settlement Hierarchy was necessary for a District of such varied character as Epping Forest, although it was accepted that it could be arbitrary; it was a essential step in deciding where further development could be accommodated. The Portfolio Holder accepted that there was a contrast between the score for Buckhurst Hill and the other settlements classified as a ‘Town’ and would be happy to discuss the matter further with the local Members and the Parish Council.

In response to a request to further consult with Local Councils during Stage II of the Review, the Portfolio Holder affirmed that the Council had engaged with Local Councils throughout the Local Plan process. A draft version of the Green Belt Review had been provided to Local Councils for consultation and checking, and the District Council would continue to engage with Local Councils over the Local Plan. The Principal Planning Officer added that workshops with the Local Councils would be held during the second stage of the Review.

A number of local Members expressed reservations about the involvement of Harlow District Council in the Green Belt Review; it was felt that a better approach would be for Stage II of the Review to be conducted solely by this Council and then consult with all of the neighbouring authorities, including the London Boroughs to the south of the District. The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that Harlow District Council were at the same stage with their Green Belt Review, and wanted their approach to be consistent with this Council’s; it was considered a appropriate way forward for both Councils. The Principal Planning Officer added that the other neighbouring authorities were engaged in the process, but it was felt to be most appropriate to work with Harlow District Council at the current time for the reasons set out by the Portfolio Holder.

Counsel advised the Cabinet that a point which had emerged from a number of Examinations in Public was that the Duty to Co-operate involved joint working with neighbouring authorities to produce documents. Local Plans had to be based on joint working, and the Duty to Co-operate was still evolving, but Examinations in Public spent a lot of time confirming whether the Duty to Co-Operate had been met or not. Initially, it was thought that a Green Belt Review would not be required, and the Cabinet was reminded that the Initial Options document had been drafted before the National Planning Policy Framework had come into force, but it was clear from the Examinations in Public that had been held so far that it was now necessary to review all Green Belt land in order to justify its exclusion from future development. It was emphasised that the Council was under pressure from the Government to have their Local Plan in place by the end of 2017.

The Portfolio Holder for Governance & Development Management raised further concerns about the methodology employed for both the Green Belt Review and Settlement Hierarchy. The mathematical approach appeared flawed as it did not account for other factors, such as the background of the settlement and its history. In addition, it made sense to collaborate with Harlow District Council for those parcels of Green Belt land which adjoined Harlow, but not for those parcels of Green Belt land which adjoined London Borough Councils for example.

The Leader of Council welcomed the wide-ranging debate on this issue and made a number of additional proposals for the Cabinet to consider alongside the recommendations in the report. Firstly, that Stage II of the Green Belt Review should be conducted solely by this Council, without direct involvement by Harlow District Council. It was suggested that Essex County Council should be involved, as new developments would require further education provision, but the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that discussions were already taking place with the County Council as any new developments had to be sustainable – including the provision of education. The Portfolio Holder also added that information would be provided during Stage II of the review regarding the neighbouring authorities that the Council had consulted with.

Secondly, the Leader proposed that meetings should be arranged between the Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy and Planning Policy Officers with Roydon and Buckhurst Hill Parish Councils to discuss their current ranking in the Settlement Hierarchy, and also with Chigwell Parish Council to discuss in detail the responses to their comments for the first stage of the Green Belt Review. The Portfolio Holder reiterated his willingness to undertake this. And finally, the Leader suggested that the methodology should be reviewed to encompass a more inclusive approach than the simple aggregation of scores for each parcel of Green Belt land to indicate its contribution to the Green Belt when judged against the first four purposes of the Green Belt.

All of the amendments were seconded by the Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy, and agreed by the Cabinet.

Decision:

(1)        That a meeting be held by the Planning Policy Portfolio Holder and Planning Policy Officers with Chigwell Parish Council to discuss in detail the responses to their comments for Stage I of the Green Belt Review;

(2)        That the Green Belt Review (Stage I) report be noted and added to the Local Plan Evidence Base;

(3)        That meetings be held by the Planning Policy Portfolio Holder and Planning Policy Officers with both Buckhurst Hill and Roydon Parish Councils regarding their assessment in the Settlement Hierarchy Technical Paper;

(4)        That the Settlement Hierarchy Technical Paper be noted and added to the Local Plan Evidence Base, subject to any amendments arising from the meetings with Buckhurst Hill and Roydon Parish Councils;

(5)        That paragraph 14 (v)(h) of the methodology be reviewed to consider a more holistic approach than the aggregation of scores for each parcel of Green Belt land;

(6)        That Stage II (Detailed Assessment) of the Green Belt Review be undertaken solely by the Council for the Epping Forest District area; and

(7)        That, as amended above, the proposed outline methodology for the Green Belt Review (Detailed Assessment) be agreed, to enable the appointment of consultants to undertake this work.

Reasons for Decision:

The Green Belt Review was a critical part of the preparation of the Local Plan, given the high proportion of Green Belt that existed in the District. The Settlement Hierarchy Technical Paper was a further piece of evidence that would help guide the preparation of the Local Plan, and was also a key evidence base document in progressing Stage II of the Green Belt Review. Approval of the proposed outline methodology would provide the parameters for Stage II of the Green Belt Review, in which a more detailed analysis of the Green Belt would be undertaken, and allow the appointment of Consultants to undertake the work to proceed.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not add the Green Belt Review (Stage I) or Settlement Hierarchy Technical Paper to the Local Plan evidence base, or to not agree the proposed outline methodology for the next steps of the Green Belt Review work. However, as these were critical pieces of work for the Evidence Base, there would be substantial further delay to the preparation of the Local Plan for the District of Epping Forest.