(Epping Forest District Council) The District Council will report to the Committee on the current position with regard to the preparation and publication of the new Local Plan for the Epping Forest District.
Minutes:
The Acting Chief Executive reported that the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 14 December 2017 had agreed on the submission version of the LP, which was published on 18 December 2017. A six-week representation period had followed, Regulation 19, and was in accordance with legislation. The Council had received over a 1,000 responses and these had ranged from landowners, private individuals, developers, authority partners and residents groups. All the responses had been logged for submission to the Inspector. There had been multiple responses received on Jessel Green in Debden. Not all responses had been validated if they had lacked a name and address. Names and addresses had been redacted from responses before being published on the Council’s website but the Inspector would see these personal details. The Council had appointed a project officer to support the Inspector during the public examination of the LP, who had previously worked for East Herts District Council in this capacity during its LP public examination. Another advantage was that East Herts was one of this Council’s strategic partners.
Moving from plan making to plan implementation there were the two developer forums that had been set up, one to deal with the strategic sites in and around Harlow, the Garden Town Forum, and the remaining sites in the corridors around Harlow. Back in December at Full Council, the resources for staffing that would be required were included in the budget for approval. There would be an implementation team, staffed by a panel of specialists that would bring forward the masterplan sites. The team was looking at developing planning performance agreements with developers to help them bring forward their plans. A Quality Review Panel had been set up and had appointed a pool of some sixteen external professionals. It was an independent advisory panel that would draw on their expertise, and advice would be sought from the Panel to ensure schemes submitted would be of the highest quality. The Harlow Gilston Garden Town project did include sites in Epping Forest for the area to the east, south and west side of Harlow. A project director had been appointed and would be based for part of the time at the Civic Offices. The project was looking at the sustainability of the transport corridor with strategic development to the north, south, east and west of Harlow. Councillor J Philip continued that work had been going on and that during the public examination of the LP, the Council would have to ensure that the housing delivery targets must be achievable.
Epping Town Councillor T Church said that strategic infrastructure certainly for Epping was an important consideration and would residents get new roads and parking etc. It should be the first consideration but always seemed to be the last. Councillor J Philip said that the details in masterplan sites would include specific infrastructure that was needed and how it would be funded. The masterplan sites around Harlow and the Garden Town were important in that the infrastructure that would be required for these sites might well have implications for the masterplan sites in Epping Forest. The Council was working on the infrastructure delivery plans so it would come forward as part of the planning procedure as well. The Acting Chief Executive continued that the Implementation Team would be looking for some specialist resource for infrastructure with any community value for masterplan sites.
Councillor Church said that the infrastructure seemed more in relation to masterplan sites but what about all the other LP sites that might need infrastructure, as this was important to residents. Councillor J Philip replied that it depended on what was coming forward. The Council did have an infrastructure delivery plan and the Implementation Team would be looking at what would be needed. Councillor Church said that he had thought it had been promised infrastructure would be looked into at an early stage. Councillor J Philip stressed that the Council was looking up to 2033 and infrastructure would be coming forward at different times in order of delivery. The Council had an infrastructure delivery plan so it would not be developments then infrastructure.
Councillor S Jackman said that as Vice-Chairman of EALC, infrastructure came up time and time again. It did not just concern roads, but GPs and health centres. More houses would require more health facilities and more schools etc. Other authorities were involved, such as Essex County Council for education, and it concerned other services that might or might not come, to allow people to live a reasonable life. Councillor J Philip remarked that it was not just this Council’s infrastructure, but infrastructure was a key requirement and that was related to what we were planning. What the Council needed to get out of the LP was a better place to live and that was the aim.