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.

To agree the notes of the Panel meeting held on 11 October 2010 (attached).

RESOLVED:

That the notes of the Panel meeting held on 11 October 2010 be agreed, subject to clarifying Item 34 Any Other Business, which should read as follows:

“Councillor A Watts requested that the procedure whereby planning applications were referred to Area Plans Sub-Committees even though a Parish Council had not objected should be reviewed at a future meeting of this Panel.”

The Terms of Reference are attached.

The Panel’s Terms of Reference were noted.

The Work Programme is attached.

The Panel noted the Work Programme. However there was concern that more details were needed describing the individual items and the progress made on them.

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

The Panel received a report regarding the Harlow Council – Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation Document from Mr I White, Forward Planning Manager.

The consultation which ran from 29 November 2010 to 28 January 2011 was the first formal stage of Harlow’s preparation of its Core Strategy.

The exercise was proceeding at a time of significant disruption, and changes, to the planning system. These included:

(a)        The Government’s intention to abolish regional spatial strategies (RSSs);

(b)        The introduction of the New Homes Bonus to stimulate housing delivery; and

(c)        A new tier of neighbourhood plans.

There were 31 questions based around the following issues:

The Questions

Question 1     Do you think the Council has identified all the relevant issues that need to be addressed by the Core Strategy?; and

Question 2     If you disagree, what additional issues need to be considered by the Core Strategy?

Response      Officers believed that the response to Question 1 should be “No.” The sub-regional Green Belt location of the town, its wider landscape setting and the lack of growth options other than the RSS figures should be included as a response. In regard to Question 2 officers felt that while issues like climate change were mentioned in the consultation document, they were dealt with in a slightly offhand manner and should be more prominent in the adopted Core Strategy. There was no recognition of the wider context of the Metropolitan Green Belt, or the purposes of including land within it.

Question 3     Would the provision of 16,000 new homes in and around Harlow meet the current needs of the local community and help secure the regeneration of Harlow?; and

Question 4     If you disagree/strongly disagree, what do you think the scale of growth should be, ensuring that the Core Strategy addresses the particular issues facing Harlow?

Response      In answer to Question 3, the Council supported the regeneration of Harlow and understood than the figure derived from the RSS which itself had an evidence base justifying the total. Nevertheless, the Government had made clear its intention to abolish the RSS and all associated targets. Officers believed that it was not now possible to answer this question, given that some at least of the 16,000 houses would be built in the district. There had been no formal Council engagement with the local community to assess opinion. With respect to Question 4, officers did not believe that an open question of this nature could be realistically answered without an evidence base.

Question 5     Do the visions and priorities set out in the Community Strategy, the Council’s Regeneration Strategy and the Council’s Corporate Plan provide the basis to develop the vision for Harlow’s Core Strategy?; and

Question 6     If you agree/strongly disagree, what do you think the vision for the Core Strategy should be based on?

Response      Officers considered that the visions and priorities, with the possible exception of “a university town” were fairly generic and uncontroversial. As with Question 1, it was strange that the Core  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

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

The Panel received a report from Ms K Polyzoides, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding Request for District Development Fund (DDF) carry over to 2011/12 and 12/13.

As of mid-December 2010 there had been a recruitment freeze on external recruitment to all vacant posts with the exception for posts that have implications for health and safety, demonstrated that they generate surplus income or were externally funded. The report was being submitted in parallel with a Town Centre Officer post extension request report.

The amounts of DDF funding requested to be carried over for 2011/12 and 12/13 were as follows:

Economic Development: £12,000 underspend for Town Centre support and £4,000 for Enhanced Business Contacts.

The Cabinet agreed, in December 2007, to a support package using LABGI funds of £36,000 for 3 years from 2008/09. This enabled each Town Centre Partnership (TCP) to apply for a special projects grant of up to £2,000 per year for delivering a project. Officers felt that given uncertainties of future funding, money left in the budget in the third year should roll forward for use in the following year.

Another reason for the underspend was due to under staffing within the Town Centres/Economic Development Team. It was requested that the outstanding £12,000 was carried forward to 2011/12 and 12/13. Any additional £6,000 CSB amount per annum, available to TCPs for special projects, was being utilised.

The Cabinet had also agreed in December 2007 that a £4,000 sum from LABGI payments should be allocated for enhanced business contact related work. However in the light of reduced staffing in 2011, it was not possible to deliver this work in the current financial year. Members agreed with the principle of Town Centre provision being made. However the uncertainty of the economic situation meant that priorities would need careful evaluation.

Conservation/Trees and Landscape

A Technical Support Officer had been in post since July 2010. The postholder had assisted in developing and delivering the Conservation Area, Management Plans and Character Appraisals, with great progress having been made.

The current Conservation Officer was retiring in February 2011. The £10,000 requested to be carried over to 2011/12 in addition to £7,000 already allocated for the technical support post would allow the postholder to remain until November/December 2011, continuing key work in the Conservation Team in what was anticipated to be a challenging period for service and project delivery.

Business Management

An essential part of the Directorate Improvement Plan identified the need to improve planning processes that were directly linked to the Electronic Document Management System. The current £9,800 PDG budget for ICT equipment and software was the only funding available to the Directorate for essential software upgrades to IPlan and provision of non-standard ICT equipment that was not funded/available from ICT.

Directorate Training

The ongoing CSB Training Budget was fully committed with previous commitments to meet the training needs of one trainee building surveyor in Building Control who was completing a four year Bsc in Building Surveying from 2007/08 to 2011/12  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

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

The Panel received a report from Ms K Polyzoides, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding the Town Centres Officer Post/Future Management of Town Centres.

The Town Centres Officer post (PPC08S) had been funded for a 3 year period from 2008 by LABGI monies. Because the initial post-holder went on an extended period of sick-leave which included a period of reduced salary, the budget would extend for a short period into the financial year 2011/12.

The creation of the post, funded for its first 3 year period through Section 106 monies, reflected the Council’s commitments to economic prosperity.

As of mid-December 2010 there had been a recruitment freeze on external recruitment to vacant posts within the District Council. It was felt that the Town Centre Officer post did not directly fall into these categories and it provided added value to existing Council initiatives. While there was no direct income generation for the Council, the work of the Economic Development Officer and TCO assisted in sustaining viable town centres.

Members were asked to consider whether the post should be continued beyond its current 3 year term, and how this should be budgeted.

Members felt that the Town Centre Officer post should be extended to April 2012 on the basis that this post was delivering valuable work in the district. It was also felt that the District Development Fund underspend within Planning and Economic Development initially allocated for Town Centre Partnership support and other purposes such as succession planning and training should be utilised for the salary costs for the post. It was suggested that should the Cabinet agree to this, that discussions were held with Town Centre Partnerships informing them of changes to initial arrangements regarding funding support.

RECOMMENDED:

(1)        That the Town Centre Officer (TCO) post be continued for a further temporary period until April 2012;

(2)        That an existing District Development Fund underspend within the Planning and Economic Development Directorate in the sum of £25,410 be allocated for the further temporary extension of the Town Centre Officer Post until April 2012; and

(3)        That the option of creating a Social Enterprise for the future operation of the six Town Centres within the District be considered.

The Planning Agents/ Amenity Group Forum was held on 26 October 2010 and there was a good turn out with some Members of this Panel also in attendance.

Attached as an appendix are the notes of the forum which, if agreed, will then be forwarded on to those who turned up. The Panel may wish to comment on what actions may be taken forwarded to further improve the service to its customers.

The Panel received the minutes from the Planning Agents Amenity Group Forum held on 26 October 2010. Mr N Richardson, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, informed members that attendance had been good. The meeting had discussed the following:

(a)        Registration and validation of planning applications

It was advised that planning agents could not always gain access to neighbour’s properties for measuring purposes. Therefore they relied on photographs for illustrating the street scene, which may not guarantee accuracy of perspective. Officer response was that this should be labelled as “indicative,” streetscenes had been requested by Town and Parish Councils to help in decision making.

Planning agents were concerned about inconsistency with planning fees. Although fees were currently set by the Government, officers had experienced difficulties in categorizing some types of development. The website could be updated with attention drawn to Government Circular 04/2008, which gave good examples of fee calculating.

Applications had been returned for initial reasons and following rectification had been returned for another reason. Officers advised that sending plans back to agents had been quite common a year ago, important parts, like scale bars had been missing. Agents also commented that too much detail was required to front-load a planning application. The attendees were informed that validation requirements had been toughened as a response from pressure groups.

(b)       Charging for planning applications/advice

This had been operating for the last 5 years with mixed results. It applied to major category applications only, and was £1,500 + VAT. Agents said that since officer responses were virtually a re-issue of planning policy, it was therefore not worth paying. Officers would review the charging and report to Members.

(c)        Implementing planning policy

It was explained that the timetable for production of the Local Development Framework had been delayed by other priorities. Protection of the Green Belt was raised by amenity groups, as 94% of the District Council was Green Belt.

It was questioned whether Landscape Character Appraisals, Village Design Statements and Ward Profiles should be included in the LDF process. It was felt that loss of bungalows in Theydon Bois should be resisted because there was a need there. Local Plan Policy H4A – Dwelling Mix could be used to defend them. Officers stated that the loss of bungalows needed research.

(d)       Impact of development on existing infrastructure

There was a discussion about North Weald Airfield, the question was posed that if the site was re-developed, the infrastructure would not be able to support new development. However the best forum for this discussion was felt to be the North Weald Airfield and Asset Management Committee.

(e)       Impact of development on Green Belt/Open Spaces

There was general agreement that the Green Belt was important in protecting the forest areas. Small developments close by could have a large impact. For example large agricultural houses, and agricultural vehicles that damaged roadside verges. These aspects should be foreseen before granting planning permission. Officers advised that there was a difficulty in balancing the agricultural requirements against  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

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

The Panel received a report from Mr N Richardson, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding the Planning Enforcement Protocol. However due to administrative errors in compiling the Panel agenda, the incorrect appendices had been attached, therefore it was felt that the correct documents should be submitted to the next Panel meeting.

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

The Panel received a report from Ms K Polyzoides, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding the Essex County Council (ECC) Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper.

Essex County Council was currently in the process of producing a Mineral and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) as required under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004). This replaced the Essex Mineral Local Plan (adopted 1996) and the Essex Waste Local Plan (adopted 2001). The focus of the report was the Minerals Development Document which set out the authority’s vision, objectives, Core Strategy polices and plans for the area with respect to mineral related development over a 15year period.

In all of their previous consultation documents, ECC had identified that an additional 39,025 million tonnes of sand, gravel, silica sand and brickclay aggregate were required within the County between 2007-2026. The MDD Preferred Approach paper now estimated that 42,225 million tonnes would be identified for the 20 year plan period (2009-2028 inclusive).

Of the 20 sites initially selected as the preferred options to meet future mineral need within the county, the site known as land at Shellow Cross Farm, Elm Farm and Newland Hall Farm, Willingale had been included. Within the site assessment, ECC stated that it currently viewed this site as suitable for consideration and anticipated that it would be located to the west of Roxwell.

In response to these findings it was suggested that the District Council should object again to the identification of this site for sand and gravel extraction. It was wholly inappropriate to locate the second biggest mineral extraction site in Essex in terms of its area, in a heavily rural area of Green Belt.

The Council similarly noted that sites currently rejected could later be included as “Preferred Sites.” In light of this, officers suggested stressing approval of the exclusion of the site known as Patch Park Farm, Abridge as one of the initial 20 preferred sites. Officers were keen to ensure that this decision was permanent as the site was highly unsuitable given the negative impact it would have on the local landscape and local ecology of this part of the Roding Valley, and the high risk of flooding.

Officers felt that the issue raised to ECC regarding the belief that the methodology for identifying sites for mineral extraction within the county was flawed, had never been satisfactorily answered. ECC had therefore been relying on an incomplete evidence base to locate potential mineral extraction sites. Officers were therefore very concerned that ECC may not have identified the most appropriate deposits of sand and gravel within this district which consequently had led to the County Council selecting the site at Shellow Cross Farm, Elm Farm and Newland Hall Farm, Willingale which officers felt should not be included in the final list of 20 sites.

RECOMMENDED:

That the potential impacts of the proposals from the Essex County Council Preferred Options Mineral Development Document be approved.

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

The Panel received a report from Mr N Richardson, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding Proposals for Changes to Planning Application Fees in England Consultation.

On 15 November 2010, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (CLG) issued a consultation paper seeking views on proposed changes to the planning application fees regime, which would decentralise responsibility for setting fees to local planning authorities. It also proposed widening the scope of planning application fees allowing authorities to change for applications which were currently free and to set higher fees for retrospective applications.

The handling, checking, administering, assessing, deciding and publicising of planning applications required each one to have appropriate and careful consideration. The Government introduced fee charging over 20 years ago to recover costs of processing most types of planning applications. Subsequently the fees have been increased, the most recent of which was a 23% increase in 2008. So far, setting fees had been restricted so that they were done only nationally. It was advised that the fees were not taking account of differing local circumstances, it had been found that some authorities, including the District Council, were not recouping their costs. The consultation paper assumed that most local planning authorities would increase fees on average by 10-15%. However, the District Council shortfall was greater and required a much greater fee increase to achieve full cost recovery.

Options

There were three options outlined in the Consultation Paper.

Option 1 – Decentralise the responsibility for setting fees for planning applications to local planning authorities, who would establish a changing scheme which reflected full cost recovery and the principle that the user should pay for the service received.

Option 2 – This was similar to Option 1, but with a cap of 25% on maximum fee levels.

Option 3 – Maintain the current centrally set planning fee system, subject to a 10% to 15% increase in fee levels.

Eight questions were posed in the consultation response.

1.         Do you agree that each local planning authority should be able to set its own (non-profit making) planning application fee charges?

Response      Strongly agree

Epping Forest District Council costs and fees were higher than the average 10% shortfall being quoted. Based on the budget for 2011/12, our current fee income would cover 49% of costs and the average fee was £708. By using an initial maximum 25% annual increase based on the budget set for 2011/12 of £481,000, the Council expect to raise a further £120,000, plus a further £80,000 from areas not currently subject to charges. Current fee income would then cover 69% of costs, so the likelihood would be that a further fee increase would be required for 2012/13 and beyond, until full cost recovery was achieved.

2.         Do you agree that local planning authorities should be allowed to decide whether to charge for applications that were re-submitted following withdrawal or refusal?

Response      Strongly agree

There were a number of costs still included in handling, administering and assessing these applications.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached Draft Business Plan.

The Panel received the Directorate of Planning and Economic Development Draft Business Plan 2011-2012, presented by Mr J Preston, Director of Planning and Economic Development and Mr P Millward, Business Manager, Planning and Economic Development.

The District Council had introduced arrangements for the alignment of its business, budget and workforce planning and development processes into a clear framework, enabling the authority to focus on key priorities, improving performance, communication and consultation on key priorities.

The following sections of the Business Plan were discussed:

Section 4        Corporate Objectives and Priorities

Members thought this section needed a SWOT analysis.

Section 6        Conservation

It was advised that there was some doubt as to the funding of conservation work within the district. Officers were awaiting the Essex County Council budget statement. SWOT analysis was required here.

Section 9        Development Control

Under (b) Action Plan – 2011/12 (Forward Look), it was advised that this required more explicit comment, that officers needed to address.

Section 11      Directorate Planning Support Team

Councillor A Watts suggested an ICT, Facilities Management Plan linked in with an office inventory. These should be cross-referenced documents, with a clear statement as to whether the current ICT structure meant the District Council’s requirements

RESOLVED:

That the Draft Business Plan be amended as discussed, where this meets corporate guidelines.

There was no other business.

The next programmed meeting of the Panel is on 3 March 2011 at 7.30p.m.

The next meeting of the Panel was on 3 March 2011.