Agenda and minutes

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

It was noted that Councillor G Waller was substituting for Councillor A Boyce.

(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.

It was noted that there were no declarations of interest made pursuant to the Members Code of Conduct.

To agree the notes of the last meeting held on 3 March 2011 (attached).

RESOLVED:

That the notes of the last meeting of the Panel held on 3 March 2011 be agreed.

The Terms of Reference are attached.

The Panel’s Terms of Reference were noted. It was advised that a proposed draft of the Terms of Reference, from Councillor A Lion, would be considered at a future meeting.

The current Work Programme is attached, along with the Panel’s 2010/2011 Work Programme, as Appendix 1.

The following was noted:

(1) (a)  Regional Plan

The Regional Plan was being removed from the Localism Bill.

(2) (c)  Value for Money Provision: Development Control (including Appeals)

A report was being planned for the September 2011 meeting of the Panel.

(3)        Review of a selection of controversial planning decisions.

This work was currently uncompleted.

(6)        Liaise with other planning authorities to learn from their work.

A continuous process of liaising with other Essex local authorities was taking place.

(8)        Community Infrastructure Levy

Although a report was on the agenda. It was advised that the current situation would change. It was felt that this item should be a Panel standing item.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development). To note the attached Improvement Plan.

The Panel received the Draft Planning and Economic Development Improvement Plan 2011 – 2012.

The members were updated as follows:

1.         Continue to improve procedures.

(a)        Confirm a programme of areas where information, primarily held in hard copy versions, can be scanned into I-Plan.

Fully achieved

(b)        Make more information available by improving the content of the sections of the website concerning Planning.

Partially achieved. Due to fewer staff resources, it was important to undertake more transactions electronically.

(c)        One particular project is working with local Council’s to further improve the I-Plan system and, once completed, to gradually remove duplicate manual systems.

Partially achieved

2.         Create a shorter and simpler Business Plan for 2012-13.

(a)        Re-focus Business Plan 2012-13

Partially achieved

3.         Green Issues

(a)        Create a revised and improved section on the Council’s website to give greater clarity and prominence to these matters.

Not achieved

(b)        Run training sessions for Members and Officers

Not achieved

There had been no progress on this. It was advised that Green Issues encompassed how the authority used its buildings.

4.         On the assumption that the Government introduces legislation to allow planning fees to be set locally.

(a)        Complete benchmarking exercise

Partially achieved

(b)        Compile fee schedule based on existing national schedule and with similar arrangements to adjoining authorities

Partially achieved

(c)        Compile a set of charges based on evidence of EFDC costs

Not achieved

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

The Panel received a report from Mr J Preston, Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding the Communities and Local Government (CLG) Consultation Planning for Traveller Sites.

The consultation, which ran for 12 weeks, from 13 April to 6 July 2011, was essentially about a draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) (Planning for Traveller Sites) which was intended to replace Circulars 01/2006 and 04/2007 (Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites, and Planning for Travelling Showpeople). There were 13 questions associated directly with the content of the PPS, and a further 15 specific questions related to the consultation stage impact assessment.

The draft PPS stated that “the Government’s overarching objective is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community.”

The Government had made plain its intentions to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and all associated housing and Gypsy Roma Traveller (GRT) pitch targets. This would take place when the Localism Bill was enacted in early 2012. The Government was also intending to replace all existing planning guidance with a National Planning Policy Framework in April 2012 and this draft PPS had been written with that in mind.

The Panel considered its responses to the following consultation questions:

PPS Consultation Questions

1.         Do you agree that the current definitions of “gypsies and travellers” and “travelling showpeople” should be retained in the new policy?

Response – Yes - It was sensible to retain both definitions because of the different land use requirements associated with the lifestyles of the two groups, but by only excluding the recognised ethnic groups from the definition of travelling showpeople this left uncertainty about others who might be included in the definition of “gypsies and travellers.” Members also felt that with a large housing list and a shortage of affordable housing, it was not possible to make adequate provision for the local community. It was difficult defending the making of provision for one group when the District Council could not make provision for others.

2.         Do you support the proposal to remove specific reference to “Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments” in the new policy and instead refer to a “robust evidence base?”

Response – No - The lack of reference to the GTAA could lead to the production of needs assessments of widely differing approach and quality. A more consistent nationwide approach should result in fewer successful challenges at EiP or other Planning Inquiries. Members added that the district was diverse in terms of urban and rural settlement, it was difficult to settle Gypsies and Travellers in areas that were very different from them.

3.         Do you think that local planning authorities should plan for “local need in the context of historical demand?”

Response – Undecided - The Council supported the principle, but was concerned about the advice in paragraph 20 (e) of the draft PPS in relation to determining planning applications for traveller sites – “….applications  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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

The Panel received the Staffing Organisational Charts for the Planning and Economic Directorate. It was noted that there were two vacancies within the Forward Planning Team, at senior officer level. The Chairman advised that there were concerns regarding filling officer posts and the recent freeze on external recruitment. It was suggested that a report should be submitted, initially to the Leader of Council, regarding these concerns. However the Portfolio Holder for Planning requested that the report should be submitted to himself initially for consideration.

RESOLVED:

That a report be submitted to the Portfolio Holder for Planning regarding the current policy of restricting external entrants from vacancies, particularly in Planning and Economic Directorate.

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

The Panel received a report from Mr N Richardson, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding Section 106 Agreements and Affordable Housing.

Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allowed a local planning authority to enter into a legally binding agreement or planning obligation with a land owner/developer over a related issue. The obligation was often termed a “Section 106 Agreement.”

Section 106 Agreements could act as a main instrument for placing restrictions on developers, often requiring them to minimise the impact of their development on the local community and to carry out tasks providing community benefits.

Such agreements were sought when planning conditions were inappropriate to ensure and enhance the quality of development and enable proposals that might otherwise have been refused to go ahead in a sustainable manner. They were not used to take a share of the developer’s profits into the public purse, nor were they used to gain a benefit that was unrelated to the development.

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing was required where a certain threshold (15 dwellings or more or where the site was 0.5 hectare or above) was reached in a single development proposal where the population of the settlement was greater than 3,000 people. The requirement in this case would be 40% of all houses would be affordable and the only way to secure this was through a legal agreement. In smaller settlements outside the Green Belt, up to 50% would be sought.

Negotiation became more complex and delayed the determination of planning applications, when community or off-site affordable housing contribution was sought. The Council had no formulae or standard charges worked up and requests made at planning committee meetings were sometimes interpreted as a take of the developer’s profit and therefore not necessary or reasonable in planning terms. An affordable housing contribution should cover the difference between the value of a residential unit on the open market and the amount a housing association could pay for it to charge affordable rents. An evaluation was needed for each unit and a development appraisal based on a cash flow of a housing association managing the units over 30 years netted back to the present value.

Performance for the Year 2010/11

There were 7 Section 106 Agreements concluded between April 2010 and March 2011.

Benefits negotiated through the year provided:

(1)        A total of £703,400 to be received into the public purse;

(2)        In the region of 6 affordable housing units;

(3)        Various highway improvements at the developer’s expense; and

(4)        Parish Council facilities

Benefits actually realised through the year have provided:

(5)        A total of £545,512 received into the public purse;

(6)        165 affordable housing units;

(7)        Improvements to public transport facilities at the developer’s expense;

(8)        Various highway works at the developer’s expense; and

(9)        Town Centre improvements

The Future

Essex County Council had been working on proposing a “standard charge” for development within the county. This meant, for example, that for every new dwelling granted permission, they may  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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

The Panel received a report from Mr N Richardson, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding the Community Infrastructure Levy.

It was anticipated to replace Section 106 planning obligations as a means of providing payment for the provision of infrastructure in a local area. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was a new financial charge which would entitle local planning authorities to charge on development taking place in their area. The money would be spent on local infrastructure.

After April 2014, if the Council wished to collect infrastructure charges or monies, it would formally adopt a CIL as this would be the only option available, and therefore collection through Section 106 legal agreements would no longer be possible. The CIL would include a charging schedule document prepared by the charging authority.

Monies raised under CIL could only be spent on “infrastructure,” which was defined to include the following:

• Roads and other transport facilities
• Flood defences
• Schools and other educational facilities
• Medical facilities
• Sporting and recreational facilities
• Open spaces

It was for officers to determine what was to be infrastructure in the area, and allowed flexibility to include community and cultural facilities.

Pre-requisite to making a CIL payment. Before an obligation to pay CIL could arise there were a number of sequential steps which needed undertaking and conditions satisfied before any landowner or developer would be required to make a CIL payment.

Not every planning permission would be liable to pay CIL, only specific developments defined as:

• The creation of new non-residential buildings where the gross internal floor area space was 100 square metres or more; and/or
• The creation of residential buildings, irrespective of its size

Who can spend CIL?

The charging authority could spend monies on infrastructure, but the charging authority could also pass receipts to other infrastructure providers, such as Essex County Council, Environment Agency, Highways Agency. The authority could also forward funding to other bodies, this included local councils, as well as neighbourhood groups, they must be locally “elected” bodies.

The Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development (Policy and Conservation), was preparing a draft EFDC CIL strategy for the next Planning Scrutiny Services Standing Panel in September 2011. This would contain the preferred approaches for our District based on emerging evidence, and new guidance. It was important to add that ongoing changes to the planning system would change the course of action taken.

RESOLVED:

That the Community Infrastructure Levy report be noted.

The Planning Portfolio Holder advised that there was Local Development Framework training taking place on July 14.

The next programmed meeting of the Panel is on Tuesday 13 September 2011 at 7.30p.m. in Committee Room 1 and thereafter on:

Tuesday 20 December at 7.30p.m.;

Tuesday 7 February 2012 at 7.30p.m.; and

Tuesday 24 April at 7.30p.m.

The next Panel meeting was taking place on 13 September 2011.