Agenda and minutes

(Head of Research and Democratic Services) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

(a)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, the following Councillors declared a personal interest in item (4) (Local Plan Alterations Redeposit) of the agenda. The Councillors had determined that their interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the item:

(i)            Councillor J Whitehouse;

(ii)            Councillor Mrs Borton;

(iii)            Councillor K Wright;

(b)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs C Pond declared a personal interest in item (4) (Local Plan Alterations Redeposit) of the agenda. The Councillor had determined that her interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the item and voting thereon.

(c)        Mr Stamp (Principal Planning Officer) declared a personal interest in item (4) (Local Plan Alterations Redeposit) of the agenda, by virtue of having submitted an objection as a local resident to the draft document. He determined that his interest was not prejudicial.

Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs 6 and 25 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution require that the permission of the Chairman be obtained, after prior notice to the Chief Executive, before urgent business not specified in the agenda (including a supplementary agenda of which the statutory period of notice has been given) may be transacted.

In accordance with Operational Standing Order 6 (non-executive bodies), any item raised by a non-member shall require the support of a member of the Committee concerned and the Chairman of that Committee. Two weeks’ notice of non-urgent items is required.

It was noted that there was no urgent business as defined in the Council's Procedure Rules for consideration at this meeting.

(Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report  (C/064/2005-06).

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development presented a report on the Local Plan Alterations for re-deposit. He reported that it was incumbent upon the Council to keep the Local Plan as up to date as possible, particularly under the current circumstances when the development plan system was being significantly changed (by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) so as to avoid the possibility of a ‘policy vacuum’ emerging.

The current Local Plan was adopted in January 1998.  This meant, because of all the procedures that had to be followed in its preparation, that much of the information it contains is based on conditions that applied in the early 1990s.  Since 1998, much Government policy had been updated, the Replacement Essex Structure Plan was adopted in April 2001, and the Council’s Housing Needs Survey (2003) identified significant problems with the provision of affordable housing.

Experience of policy implementation, particularly, through appeal decisions, suggested that some policies either needed reconsideration or at least fine-tuning, and some new policies were needed.  In agreeing to review the Plan, the former Development Committee recommended in 2000 that the Alterations should focus on those matters that are essential.

The aims of the Alterations had therefore been to:

(a)        focus resources on matters which are essential and would have a most useful outcome for the future of the district; and

(b)        to be as cost effective as possible, making the best use of limited resources.

Some other local authorities chose to completely review their Local Plan and prepare a new one. Altering the Local Plan, as this Council decided to do, was the most efficient and effective choice.

A conscious decision was taken by the Council not to include a review of Green Belt boundaries / or the allocation of new housing and employment land (although these were originally intended to be included in a second set of Alterations).  The East of England Plan (EEP), now due for adoption in 2007, would set new housing and employment targets for the district up to 2021.  It would be premature to start allocating sites when the final totals are not yet known, nor how location specific the recommendations of the EEP will be. 

A Key Issues document was issued for public consultation in December 2003.  The First Deposit was published in June 2004 (over 800 responses received), and the Redeposit in July 2005 (over 500 responses received).  The new development planning system being introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 removed the modifications stage:  in future all Public Inquiry reports would be binding on the local authority.

GO-East, after discussions with the Planning Inspectorate, has agreed that the Council can prepare a list of proposed minor changes in an attempt to address some of the points which have arisen in the Redeposit consultation. This list will be sent to the inspector before the inquiry and he will decide whether the proposed change is sufficiently minor (a) not to justify further consultation or (b) that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

(Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder/Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/063/2005-06).

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development presented a report on the proposed restructuring of the Planning and Economic Development Services. To enable a full and frank debate on this issue the attending Planning Officers left the chamber, leaving the Head of Planning and Economic Development Services in attendance.

The report considered problems with the existing structure; many of which underscored concerns about performance.  It proposed and explained key attributes of the new structure and the expected outcomes.  It explained the costs envisaged, and how these were to be funded. The report dealt firstly with the administrative arrangements, and secondly with the professional arrangements.

Administrative Staff.

It was noted that the administrative staff operate in small disparate cells, where there is no clear management or supervisory hierarchy, no clear career structure, nor clear opportunities for providing cover for one another, whether that is to answer telephones, or cover leave or peaks of work. The staff operates on a variety of full time and part time hours that compounds the disadvantages.

The proposals could not be seen in isolation from other steps being taken to improve performance, in particular changes to accommodation and changes to ICT.  Indeed each of these supports each other.

Professional Staff.

Further changes to add to the professional team are dependent upon the introduction of the new ICT system, completion of the administration restructure, and completion of accommodation changes.

The meeting noted that this would not be cost neutral, to improve the service two more people must be put in post. The workload for Planning has been very high for some time now and something had to be done soon. It was agreed that Planning Services needed an overhaul, however the need for an immediate agreement to budget growth was debated at length. Some members wondered if this item for growth should not be put into the system in the normal way and decided upon with all the other financial matters by the end of the financial year. It was also debated if the report should firstly go to the full Overview and Scrutiny Committee and then through the biding process, but it was agreed that this would take time and would mean unacceptable delay in implementation. It was decided that the proposed restructure could not go ahead without the immediate approval of the CSB growth items and that the additional expenditure be confirmed.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That the new structure for Planning & Economic Development Services be agreed;

(2)            That, a report be submitted to the Council recommending that the additional costs generated by the new structure be funded:

(a)        in the current year in the sum of up to £19,500 from savings in the Planning and Economic Development staffing budgets;

(b)               in future years in the sum of up to £96,000 (offset by £18,000 per annum from the Building Control ring fenced account) as an increase in the salary budget

(c)        for the purposes of recommendation 2 (b) above, the normal process for approval of CSB  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.