Agenda and minutes

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

There were no substitute members present.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items of the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview and Scrutiny members are asked to pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an Overview and Scrutiny Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub-Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub-Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an Overview and Scrutiny meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such  a matter.

There were no declarations of interest made pursuant to the Member’s Code of Conduct.

The notes of the Panel meeting held on 2 September 2010 are attached. The notes of the last Panel meeting, held on 11 October 2010, are yet to be finalised.

RESOLVED:

That the notes of the Panel meeting held on 2 September 2010 be agreed.

The Terms of Reference are attached. These have been re-drafted from the earlier version.

A new version of the Terms of Reference for the Panel were submitted to the Panel. The reference to the East of England Plan had been deleted, as this Plan had been heralded as being replaced by new local arrangement.

The Work Programme is attached.

The following was noted:

(1) (a)  Regional Plan

There was a legal challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision to abolish the Regional Plan. Currently this was awaiting developments.

(b)       Local Development Framework

A Community Visioning Exercise had taken place, the first workshop had been on 29 November 2010.

(c)        Current Staffing

There was a slightly amended version of the staff list in the Business Plan, on the panel’s agenda.

(2)        Value for Money Provision

The New Homes Bonus was on the current agenda. Planning fees set by Local Authorities consultation had a deadline as 9 January 2011. Officers’ views were being forwarded to the Government.

(3)        Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of Area Planning Committees to be invited to a meeting to provide Feedback

A meeting had taken place in August 2010. The intention was to meet more regularly.

(5)        Comments from the Planning Agents and Amenity groups required matching

A successful meeting had taken place on 26 October 2010. The draft notes would be circulated. Again this would be a regular occurrence.

(6)        That a report be produced for the Panel setting out the possible route any planning enforcement investigation could take.

This would be submitted to the Panel at a later date.

(7)        Review the Corporate Planning Protocol

This was being considered by another Panel

(8)        To review a selection of controversial planning decisions to see if lessons can be learnt from their consideration.

Three suggested sites had been located. A report would be scheduled into the Work Programme.

(9)        S106s

Part of this was covered in the New Bonus Homes Consultation

Members were advised that a further item would be scheduled into the Work Programme regarding the standard Directorate letters sent to neighbours regarding planning applications and enforcement.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development). Report to follow.

The Director of Planning and Economic Development went over the Improvement Plan briefly. It was felt that this item should be discussed more fully at a future meeting. Mr J Preston added that there would be a consultation document put before Panel members regarding planning fees.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached report.

At the Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel meeting on 3 June 2010 officers were required to look at the issue of damage to highway infrastructure during construction work, and whether there was a way of forcing developers to make good any damage they had created at their expense.

In attendance at the meeting by invite was Ms Emma Featherstone, Development Manager Engineer at Essex County Council. The County Council advised that ultimately any damage to the highways included grass verges should be reported to the Maintenance Team at the West Area Highway Office. It was advised that the main difficulty was in gathering evidence and proving who had caused the damage and also how those responsible should pay and rectify the damage. Members asked about the sorts of evidence required to prove the extent of damage, perhaps photographs. Ms E Featherstone replied that more evidence was needed apart from photographs. It was problematic proving damage to a developer. There could also be sub-contractors involved. In some cases applicants had signed up to a unilateral agreement to repair any damage made. Conditions can be made when agreeing an application.

Since October 2008 there was now a great deal of extension work to houses that no longer required planning permission. Even where extension work did require planning permission, the highway authority were only consulted if there was a highway safety issue, this was very rare. For large scale planning applications it was possible to condition a construction management plan and a condition survey where construction damage was put right. However planning should not take on a responsibility that is controllable by the landowner, in this case, likely to be the highway authority.

Mr N Richardson advised that he was shortly attending the Essex Development Control Forum and a meeting of the Planning Officer’s Society and would make enquiries about this.

Officers were informed of a particular problem in Theydon Bois where vehicles being used in a development had damaged resident’s gardens. The development had involved match funding, it was felt that the investment made should be protected. Officers suggested that  a Code of practice should be developed for builders. It was only on large scale developments that a maintenance payment was required for damage. Members requested that officers find out how recovery costs take place, members also asked how kerb stones were fixed for householders.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That N Richardson, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, and Ms E Featherstone, Development Manager Engineer at Essex County Council, find out how frequent recovery costs take place; and

(2)        That N Richardson liaise with Essex County Council to seek how damage to footways during construction is resolved.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report from Mr I White, Forward Planning Manager, regarding the Communities and Local Government Consultation on the New Homes Bonus (NHB). The consultation was the Coalition Government’s approach to incentivising local authorities to increase housing supply and it ran from 12 November to 24 December 2010.

The consultation contained the following questions:

1.         Level of Bonus

For each new home built in a specified period within a year, the Council would receive the “Bonus,” equal to the national average for the appropriate Council Tax band. This would be paid for each new property for the following six years as an un-ringfenced grant. The first consultation question was:

(a)  Do you agree with CLG’s proposal to link the level of grant for each additional dwelling to the national average of the Council Tax band?

Response:

There were many other current and complex changes underway to local government financing which would lead to a reduction in Revenue Support Grant. The Housing and Planning Delivery Grant had also been abolished so, unless new housing was built, the Council would be receiving significantly less money from central government. Conversely, local authorities that allocated significant land for housing through the Local Development Framework would receive much more. In the last 5 years an annual average of 158 new houses had been built in the district.

Members asked if there would be a maximum amount of bonus that could be paid to a Council in any one year, and would the scheme be retrospective when it started. Officers were requested to prepare scenarios of different annual building numbers to provide members with some feeling for the potential financial implications.

2.                  Affordable Housing Enhancement

The document proposed an additional £350 for each of the six years for every new affordable unit. This was described as “about 25% of the current average Band D Council Tax.” The second question asked:

(b)   What do you think the enhancement should be?

Response:

An annual average of 43 new affordable houses were built in the last 5 years. Since the Council recognised the importance of, and need for, affordable housing, it was felt that an enhancement would be beneficial. In recent years, permission for 80-100% affordable housing, on some Green Belt sites, had been granted for very special reasons.

Members felt that the enhancement should be a percentage rather than a flat fee.

3.         Definition of Affordable Housing

The definition should include social rented and intermediate housing. In addition pitches on Gypsy and Traveller sites in public ownership were considered to contribute to the supply of affordable homes. While this Council had made significant progress in increasing the number of authorised pitches in the last couple of years, these have all been on privately owned sites. Any further provision in the district was most likely to be on non-public land, so, with this definition of “affordable” the Council would not gain any NHB enhancement from increased number of Gypsy and Traveller pitches. The third question asked:

(c)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached report and supporting documents.

The details of the consultation may be found here

www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/treestreamliningconsult

The Panel received a report regarding Tree Preservation Orders: Proposals for Streamlining – Consultation.

The Government was consulting on a proposal to consolidate legislation and streamline the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) system, the consultation closed on 20 December 2010.

The key measures outlined were:

1.         The creation of a unified system for all TPOs

2.         To shorten and simplify the model TPO

The new regulations were expected to be brought into effect in 2011. Officers considered the consultation proposals to be largely beneficial. The chief benefit were considered to be that new orders would be both easier for the public to understand and for the Local Planning Authority to administer. There would be some saving in the time taken to make an order and the opportunity for error would be reduced.

Of the originally suggested responses members had comments and suggestions to alter or elaborate several.

The Questions and Responses

Question 1     Will the proposal to consolidate legislation and introduce one system for TPOs benefit tree owners and local planning authorities?

Response      There would be real and significant benefits for both. However there would also be drawbacks as well. The particular set of solutions proposed within a single format was not supported by evidence.

Question 2     Will bringing all existing and future TPOs into the same shorter format be clearer for tree owners and help local planning authorities?

Response      It would undoubtedly be clearer for tree owners, and it would assist in effective tree protection be speeding up the production of new TPOs.

Question 3     Is the proposed provisional protection helpful to local planning authorities and, given the interests of tree owners, fair and reasonable?

Response      It confirmed what was the general de facto position in any case. It was felt though, that a provisional order would become void after 6 months, which was negative.

Question 4     Is the proposed minimum notification of new or varied TPOs targeting the right people?

Response      It would still ensure that those most closely affected by a TPO were made aware, and in doing so will reduce the administrative burden of making an order to some extent, and reduce costs.

Question 5     Are the proposals to remove the current exemption for work to dying trees and limiting work to dangerous trees useful clarification, and reasonable?

Response      It provided useful clarification and closed a potential loophole. However it still left the biodiversity value of veteran trees in particular vulnerable to pruning that may have threatened their biodiversity value.

Question 6     Do you agree that the power to vary or revoke consents for work under TPOs made before 2 August 1999 should be removed?

Response      Not a power that this authority had exercised.

Question 7     Is a default period of one year for the duration of consents reasonable?

Response      On balance, two years would be preferable. Many consents were not exercised within a year, so the change would potentially increase the number of applications without an increase in tree protection.

Question 8     Will the opportunity to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached draft Planning Directorate Business Plan 2011-12.

The Panel received the Planning and Economic Development Directorate Business Plan. Mr J Preston advised that this was a first draft and required more work. It was felt that there was not enough time in the meeting to discuss this fully and that it would be brought back to the extra-ordinary Panel meeting in January 2011. It was requested that Mr P Millward, Business Manager, should come to that meeting to present the Business Plan.

RESOLVED:

That the Directorate Business Plan be re-scheduled for the Panel Extra-Ordinary Meeting on 10 January 2011.

There was no other business.

The next programmed meeting of the Panel is on 3 March 2011. In order to deal with other officer reports to the Panel it will be necessary to arrange a further Panel meeting early in the new year.

The next meeting of the Panel was on 10 January 2011, an extra-ordinary meeting, and the following meeting was on 3 March 2011.