Agenda and minutes

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

It was noted that Councillors K Chana and Mrs M Sartin were substituting for Councillors B Sandler and H Ulkan respectively.

In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman assumed the role of Chairman and requested a nomination for the role of Vice Chairman.

RESOLVED:

That Councillor A Boyce be elected Vice Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

(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.

(1)        Pursuant to the Member’s Code of Conduct, Councillor Mrs J Sutcliffe declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being a member of Buckhurst Hill Parish Council. She felt she might be affected by it. The Councillor determined that her interest was not prejudicial and that she would stay in the meeting for the duration of the item and voting thereon:

• Item 7 Environment Agency Consultation – Roding River Area

(2)        Pursuant to the Member’s Code of Conduct, Councillor A Boyce declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of living close to Cripsey Brook, which could be affected by flooding proposals. The Councillor determined that his interest was not prejudicial and that he would stay in the meeting for the duration of the item and voting thereon:

• Item 7 Environment Agency Consultation – Roding River Area

To agree the notes of the last Panel meeting held on 14 June 2011 (attached).

RESOLVED:

That the notes of the last meeting of the Panel meeting held on 14 June 2011 be agreed.

The Terms of Reference are attached.

The Panel’s current Terms of Reference were under review. Following discussion with Panel members, they would be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.

The Work Programme is undergoing a re-draft and will be submitted to the next Panel meeting in October for Member’s approval and recommendation to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

It was advised that the Work Programme was undergoing a re-draft and would be submitted to the next Panel meeting in October for Member’s approval and submission to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

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

The Panel received a report regarding the Environment Agency Consultation on Managing Flood Risk in the River Roding Catchment from Mr J Preston, Director of Planning and Economic Development. In attendance at the meeting on behalf of the Environment Agency were the following officers; T Chinn, G Cowell, D Gor and P Nicholson.

The Environment Agency (EA) was seeking opinion on its recommendations for managing flood risk in the River Roding catchment differently. The consultation initially ran from July to 26 September 2011. Flooding was a natural process that could not be entirely controlled or prevented, the Roding catchment having a long history of flooding, the most recent being in 2000 when more than 300 properties were affected in the Woodford area.

The following parishes in the Roding catchment could be affected by the EA proposals:

Abbess, Beauchamp and Berners Roding, Buckhurst Hill, Chigwell, Fyfield, High Ongar, Lambourne, Loughton, Ongar, Stapleford Abbotts, Stanford Rivers, Stapleford Tawney, Theydon Bois, Theydon Garnon, Theydon Mount and Willingale

Environment Agency Proposals

There were more than 2,000 residential and commercial properties potentially at risk in the southern part of the catchment. However, the EA’s proposals would lead to 15 properties in the district being at greater risk of flooding. The EA justified this on the following basis:

(a)        the financial cost of continuing maintenance of the river was greater than repairing the damage caused by flooding; and

(b)               Slowing the water flow in the upper reaches of the catchment would reduce the risk of flooding to properties in the lower catchment, therefore a small number of properties were negatively affected to benefit the majority.

Proposals Affecting the Epping Forest District

The actual proposals which had direct relevance for the district were as follows:

(i)                  Withdrawal of all maintenance of the Roding from its entry into the district at Berners Roding to its exit into the London Borough of Redbridge at Buckhurst Hill;

(ii)                Loughton and Cripsey Brooks would continue to be maintained (river channel and flood defences) to the current standard of protection;

(iii)               Creation of a large Flood Storage Area (FSA) near Shonks Mill (south west of Ongar) by 2020 designed to deal with a 1 in 200 year flood event;

(iv)              Construction of an earth embankment approximately 700m long across the floodplain adjacent to Shonks Mill Road; and

(v)                The EA hoped that material to build the embankment could be sourced from excavation works for surface run off areas in Woodford but this implied lorry movements along the A113 through Chigwell, Abridge and Passingford Bridge to the Shonks Mill. The EA noted that the design was not yet finalised, therefore lorry movements were not yet known.

The EA maintained that some properties in rural parts of the catchments would experience little change in flood risk, however, a small number of properties, especially in the northern part of the catchment, would remain at high risk of flooding, The EA intended to notify all of these property owners of the risk and work with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached report. Attached is the minutes from the Cabinet meeting of 30 June 2011 regarding The Future Development of Air Transport in the South East – Second Edition.

The Panel received a report regarding a Department for Transport (DfT) consultation document entitled “Developing a Sustainable Framework for UK Aviation – Scoping Document.”

The DoT was consulting on this document because the previous Government’s 2003 White Paper entitled “The Future of Air Transport” was considered out of date as it failed to give sufficient weight to the challenge of climate change. The consultation document before the panel was more a synthesis of points that the Government wished to make, the aim of the document was to define the debate as the Government developed their long term policy for UK aviation.

The consultation had a list of 49 questions, however attention was drawn to question 44:

Is it better to minimise the total number of people affected by aircraft noise or to share the burden more evenly so that a greater number of people are affected by noise less frequently?

The point raised was before landing aircraft circle and descend in stages, this dispersal has caused noise pollution for residents at different locations, times and days or nights. Although it was possible to seek a more concentrated and direct descent path, a consequence of such concentration would be that a location such as Nazeing would be under the flight descent on a regular basis rather than an occasional basis. It was noted that the District Council received very few noise complaints directly about aircraft noise.

The Government suggested that part of its philosophy was to make existing airports better rather than bigger. However it was difficult to envisage how they could eke out more capacity by doing things better at Stansted.

There were vague statements in the document relating to sustainability, without indicating which definition of sustainability was being used. The Government was separately consulting upon a new National Planning framework, which was intended to be a brief document. The document indicated an intention that the final aviation framework document would fulfil the role of a national planning policy for aviation. Quite how sympathetic to growth of aviation it would be, set against environmental concerns, and the views of local communities who get benefits when they flew, but who suffered the effects of aviation, remained to be seen.

The major expansion of Stansted was always locally considered to be a possible future threat to North Weald. However, the document provided no guidance in understanding a Government view of a particular further development.

RECOMMENDED:

(1)        That the District Council welcomes sustainability considerations being given greater prominence in future aviation policy;

(2)        That the District Council welcomes the decision rejecting further runways at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted;

(3)        That the potential for a new owner and operator to take over at Stansted Airport be noted, and that dialogue with them should take place;

(4)        That the District Council should remain vigilant in responding to details in the new National Planning Framework particularly regarding aviation and the impact of night time flight restrictions for Stansted, North Weald and Stapleford Tawney;

(5)        That the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

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

The Panel received a report regarding ECC Minerals Development Document – Further Site Allocations Issues and Options.

ECC was responsible for preparing the County level Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF). As part of this framework, ECC was working towards a new Minerals Development Document (MDD) replacing the existing Minerals Local Plan (1996). The MDD was required by the Government to plan for a steady and adequate supply of minerals in Essex to meet the County’s current and future needs to 2028 identifying suitable sites for mineral extraction, aggregate recycling, and mineral transportation. Several stages of consultation had taken place since 2005 the next opportunity to comment on site A41, Patch Park Farm, Abridge, would be the submission consultation to be held in 2012.

As part of the Preferred Options, ECC invited consultees to suggest any other potential sites which had been overlooked. It was currently consulting on the five new site suggestions received. The consultation closed on 20 October 2011.

Effect on Epping Forest District

The only new site suggestion within Epping Forest District was at Weald Hall Commercial Centre, on Weald Hall Lane, between Thornwood and North Weald. The proposal was that this site became a “Strategic Aggregate Recycling Site” (SARS). “Aggregate” was defined as “crushed rock, or sand and gravel, used in civil engineering work in a bound (as concrete) or unbound condition.” It was proposed that the facility would recycle construction, demolition and excavation waste from construction sites. The amount of material to be recycled at the site is 100,000 tonnes.

The County Council recommended considering criteria in formulating a response. Each criterion was addressed in turn below:

(a)        Mineral Resource and Timetable

It was proposed that the site was used for recycling existing construction, demolition and excavation waste. No materials would be extracted from the ground on the site. The site would be a permanent facility, lasting beyond the current plan period.

(b)       Planning History/Background

This site was currently in employment use, although not designated as an employment site within the Local Plan. It appeared that no consideration had been made of whether the existing businesses could partly remain on site, or could be relocated locally.

(c)        Landscape

The site was entirely within the Green Belt. The proposal was to use the existing buildings for recycling, and that outside storage would be minimal. The use of this site for aggregate recycling could have a materially greater impact.

(d)       Ecology and Designations

Officers were not aware of any ecological issues, or designations other than those answered in other points.

(e)       Historic Environment

Weald Hall Farmhouse, which was on the proposed site, was a Grade II listed building. Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment stated that when considering applications which would not make a positive contribution to the setting of a listed building, the Council should “weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application.”

(f)        Agriculture

It was not thought that the proposal would cause significant impacts on local agriculture,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

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

The Panel received a report from Mr P Millward, Business Manager, regarding Locally Agreed Fee Setting for Planning Services.

Current arrangements for local setting of planning fees was being presented to Parliament for approval in August 2011. However this had now been postponed, possibly to April 2012. Following this legislation, the District Council would be able to set local planning fees.

This delay would have an effect on the Development Control Income this financial year which had been assumed to rise with an increase in fees by £100,000 for 2011-12, with a further £100,000 likely in 2012-13. However it was noted that Development Control income was ahead of budget by £40,000 to date in the current year. The budget was monitored monthly.

An important element of locally setting planning fees was the full cost recovery of all planning fee earning activities. The Directorate had been working with Planning Advisory Service to co-ordinate the development of a low cost model for local fee setting process for planning applications. This was being carried out in conjunction with over two hundred local authorities.

RECOMMENDED:

(1)        That the Locally Agreed Fee Setting for Planning Services report be noted; and

(2)        That the earliest effective date for any increase in Planning Fees to take place being in 2012-13, the resource/financial implications of this be noted.

The next programmed meeting of the Panel is on Monday 3 October 2011 (an extraordinary meeting) and thereafter on:

Tuesday 20 December 2011;

Tuesday 7 February 2012; and

Tuesday 24 April

The Panel was advised that the next meeting of the Panel would be an extraordinary meeting on 3 October 2011 at 7.30p.m. in the Council Chamber. The meeting would immediately follow the Local Development Framework Cabinet Committee.

The following programmed meetings of the Panel were scheduled for:

Tuesday 20 December 2011;

Tuesday 7 February 2012; and

Tuesday 24 April