Agenda item

(Director of Neighbourhoods) to consider the update on the current position of the Local Plan.

The Planning Policy Manager, Mr Ken Bean, introduced a report updating the Committee on the Local Plan. They noted the key dates of the Local Development Scheme as agreed by the Cabinet on 11 June 2015 and noted that it would be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by October 2017, the examination would be by early 2018 and adoption by September 2018.

The Green Belt Review has reached a key stage. The reports on the high level strategic Stage 1 Green Belt Review and settlement hierarchy was considered by the Cabinet on 3 September 2015. The Council had allowed a 6 week period for comments on the draft reports and received 20 responses (out of 24) from the Parish / Town Councils and 11 from District Councillors.

The original intention had been to work jointly with Harlow, with the appointment of consultants to undertake the more detailed next stage of the Green Belt review work which should be completed early next year. This would be a more detailed assessment of the broad locations identified in Stage 1 of the study. However, Cabinet decided that this second stage work should be undertaken solely for EFDC and outcomes then subsequently shared with Harlow and other neighbouring authorities. The consultant’s brief included provision for workshops with officers, district council members and parish/town representatives.

The government has put a spotlight on Local Councils who fail to produce ‘a published Plan by early 2017’; but it remains unclear how they would define a published plan and the precise timescale allowed for this. It was understood that the government would publish league tables identifying authorities poorly performing in terms of time taken to produce a Local Plan but again details of the crime to be used to judge performance was unknown at present.

Considerable work had been undertaken under the duty to co-operate and working with our Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) partners (Harlow, Uttlesford and East Herts.) to update the SHMA and establish an objectively assessed housing need figure for both the wider area as a whole and for each of the local authorities. It was important to note that this figure was not the housing target for EFDC but represents a major stepping stone for establishing one. The revised SHMA was almost complete and was scheduled to be considered for sign off by the Co-operation for Sustainable Development Board on 22 September 2015 with a report then going to the October Cabinet meeting to be noted and the report added to the Local Plan evidence base. 

The economic and employment work carried out by Hardisty Jones Associates would also shortly be complete and will also be reported to the Cabinet at their October meeting along with the revised SHMA. The economic work will give a range for job growth across the same four authorities during the new Local Plan period up until 2033. Detailed work on EFDC’s local economy by the same consultants would also provide analysis of the employment sectors in our district, which were the strongest, how they were predicted to change and what type of employment space we should look to provide in the Local Plan, for example small business units, office space etc.

There have been delays in the strategic transport assessment work being undertaken by Essex County Council.

With regards recent progress made on Neighbourhood Plans, Moreton, Bobbingworth and the Lavers Parish Council has now submitted their draft plan for examination. Epping Upland Parish Council has applied to establish a neighbourhood area for their parish and this is currently under consideration and being consulted on.

The government has recently issued new guidance, including a change of definition for the Gypsy and Traveller community. All Essex authorities would now need to carefully consider the impact of this for the Essex wide GTAA work and their polices in the light of this new guidance.

Members were reminded of the SHMA and economic work briefing on 21^st September and advised that they would shortly be notified of dates during November when Local Plan workshops are to be arranged.

Councillor Bassett commented that we were now reaching the interesting stage in terms of work on key evidence including the position reached on the green belt review, housing and employment work. He noted that he had been through the SHMA document three times critically questioning the methodology and robustness, assumptions made and accuracy of information on which it relied, as he was not prepared to accept it as it was. As a consequence the headline objectively assessed housing need numbers for EFDC had now come down. This Council was undertaking a full Local Plan unlike many other authorities, who for example had only taken a core strategy to adoption. We have a difficult area to prepare a local plan for, with Harlow to the north, London to the south and two flood plains crossing the District. The more issues that we cover in the plan the more we find other matters that we still need to cover. We are getting into a dialogue with London under the duty to co-operate, and in the context of the next iteration of the London Plan, the GLA was also keen to get into a good dialogue with its neighbours.

Councillor Surtees asked if there was anyway to get the information from the SMHA briefings that were being held if some councillors could not attend them. Councillor Bassett replied that he was willing to set aside time and talk to anyone about this.

Councillor Jon Whitehouse asked what government league table we would be in and when were the detailed policies for Development Control going to be worked out as they were important. Mr Bean said that the members workshops would help shape the Local Plan and views expressed on policy content and detail would inform drafting of the policies. Officers would be sending out dates for the November workshops via emails and the Council Bulletin.  As for the League Tables, it was understood that the government was still looking at criteria used to define these ‘leagues’.

Councillor Neville asked if officers had a timescale for consideration of the Buckhurst Hill comments on the settlement hierarchy report, and in paragraph 8 of the report it mentions ‘VISUM’. What was VISUM? Mr Bean replied that VISUM was one of the traffic models used; this was one of the more sophisticated types. He was still speaking to the Clerk at Buckhurst Hill about timings for responding to the Parish Council but was hopeful that a letter would be sent shortly.

Councillor Patel asked if the contributions made at the workshops that took place in 2012 were still relevant. Councillor Bassett said that yes, most of that was still relevant and comments made then would be considered and taken account of in progressing the Local Plan, although some things may have changed.

RESOLVED:

That the Select Committee noted the progress made on the Local Plan.