Agenda item

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

Councillor J Philip reported on the development of the new Local Plan (LP), which was the key issue in the Business Plan. The adoption of the LP was not going to happen this year. An update on the progress of its production and the results of the Regulation 18 consultation would go to the next Cabinet meeting on 11 July 2017. The full consultation report of some 250 pages contained a lot of information and set out the feedback from the consultation. Two developer forums had been established; one for the draft strategic site allocations around Harlow, and one for the draft strategic site allocations for the rest of the District. Unfortunately there had been delays in the next stage of plan preparation including the receipt of the consultation analysis and report from Remarkable, which had caused increased pressure on meeting deadlines and keeping the LP moving forwards. Whilst it had been assumed there would be a maximum of between 75 to 100 new sites for consideration through the next stage of site selection, this had now increased to about 176.

Regarding transport modelling, the challenge was to know which sites the Council needed to model and work had started on modelling those sites included in the Draft LP. Habitats’ Regulation Assessment and the impact on air quality in Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) also had to be taken into account. Further work was being undertaken across the Functional Economic Market Area with – Harlow, East Herts and Uttlesford councils to ensure that sufficient employment land was provided through the LPs. The Harlow and Gilston Garden Town project had secured funds of £675,000 from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), and a further funding application had been submitted for 2017/18. This Council was acting as the fund holding authority.

The Council would continue to provide support for Neighbourhood Plans (NPs), along with the Rural Community Council of Essex (RCCE), and hoped to have meetings with local councils to move this forward.

Regarding the community housing fund, this would result in community led housing.

Councillor A Patel asked about the additional new sites and if ward members would still be consulted. Councillor J Philip replied that there would be workshops organised, the level of consultation would be worked out and members would be involved.

Councillor N Avey was concerned that the LP had already required a large public consultation with local site selection. Now a new selection had been added and commented that the public might feel bamboozled and that this would also allow developers to submit additional sites. Councillor J Philip explained that this was a legal requirement that had to be met to allow people the option to nominate new sites. All new sites would be scored on the previous criteria and a list of those sites would soon be published. Additional consultation might be required depending on the size of the housing development, and if a large development of around 500 was involved then there would be a targeted consultation around that area. The Council needed to show it had met its obligations. Developers could continue to put forward new sites until the Council had its LP completed.

D Coleman reported that the Council had organised a meeting on 13 June with a Planning Inspector to receive a preliminary view on the Draft LP, and the meeting had proved very useful. Councillor J Philip commented that if the Council could show that it had met its need, then further consideration of additional sites might not be necessary. Also once the LP was a sound and adopted plan, then any further sites would be for the next plan period. D Macnab added that if the public did not like a site or had a better site for planning reasons, then they should let the Council know. Councillor J Philip said that the Council would prefer to put developments on brownfield land rather than Green Belt land, but this would need to be evaluated properly so the LP did not fail.

Councillor J H Whitehouse asked for further information on the preliminary advice received from the meeting with the Inspector. Councillor J Philip replied that a group of officers had attended the meeting and it was an opportunity to go through what the Council was doing, if it was on track, was further consultation required or transport modelling needed, were there any potential pitfalls to avoid, and were there any other areas that might need further investigation. The meeting was positive as the Council was fulfilling its obligations and no large criteria were missing. Its ‘duty to co-operate’ was very good. D Macnab said that the Inspector had read the LP which was thorough and robust with no obvious omissions. The Inspector had given specific feedback and the Council had responded confirming the advice received. D Coleman added it was very good advice and that the Council was moving in the right direction, which was very encouraging.

Councillor E Webster referred back to 2012 when several possible gypsy / traveller sites that were put forward had, for various reasons, not met the relevant criteria, but one clear point was that there would be no eastern sprawl. She asked how was this fair if new sites were now coming forward for the LP when they did not appear to meet those criteria. Councillor J Philip replied that the same set of criteria would be applied to the sites and guidance on how they would be processed was given in Regulation 18. If new sites had previously scored badly this would not change, and the Council would be transparent and clear so everyone would be treated fairly.