Agenda and minutes

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

It was noted that Councillor L Leonard was substituting for Councillor Mrs T Thomas.

(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 Council’s Code of Conduct.

To agree the notes of the last meeting held on 11 December 2012 (attached). The previous scheduled Panel meeting of 16 April 2013 was cancelled due to a lack of business.

RESOLVED:

That the notes of the last Panel meeting held on 11 December 2012 be agreed.

The Terms of Reference are attached.

The Panel’s Terms of Reference were noted.

The Work Programme is attached.

It was advised that Item 11 Planning Application Validation Requirements would be put before the September 2013 Panel meeting.

The Planning Portfolio Holder advised that there would be a Local Plan Workshop in September 2013 where the consultant would be present to answer questions. Planning officers would be using the 2011 Census figures in the Plan.

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

The Panel received a report from the Director of Planning and Economic Development regarding the Crossrail 2 consultation.

Crossrail 1 provided improved links and capacity for east west travel across and within London, Crossrail 2 was intended for the same role but on a south west north east axis. Since 1991 a route for Crossrail 2 had been safeguarded which included the Central Line to Epping.

A non-statutory consultation had been issued by Transport for London (TfL) and Network Rail running from 14 May to 2 August 2013, concerning the two proposed rates for Crossrail 2, a north east terminus at Alexandra Palace (Metro Route) or Cheshunt (Regional Route).

Epping as a terminus

Epping had become a terminus after the Epping – Ongar portion of the Central Line was closed. A terminus was likely to have some positive economic impacts, although this could lead to pressures for development near the terminus. Commuters parking outwith the station car park could cause issues for residents and businesses. However it could draw economic viability away from town centre areas.

Overall benefits of Crossrail 2 taking an alignment just to the west of the district using the West Anglia Routes.

An alignment which used the West Anglia Main Line as a regional option just to the west of the district would still give businesses and residents of the district the opportunity to gain access to it. The Regional option assumed that four tracking of this route had been achieved which would bring advantages to residents within easy reach.

What happens to the Central Line without Crossrail 2?

It was considered that the Central Line was already at capacity and would get progressively worse over the next twenty years. The consultation recognised that funding of major public transport improvements over the next 20 years had several very significant calls upon limited resources the Central Line rolling stock was about midway through its 40 year design life. In particular, this was a concern because the service on the Hainault Loop was already restricted compared to that on the Epping Branch. The Hainault Loop did not offer a late evening service, and the station usage levels at Roding Valley were towards the lowest end of the spectrum. Much greater certainty about the Central Line and its upgrades was needed.

Is there a case for a further Crossrail 2 option which EFDC and other councils which the Central Line runs through could support?

Whilst it was recognised that any route would have capacity limits, the options suggested had several routes/termini shown to the south west end of the Regional Option, but only two at the north east end. It appeared unusual that an alignment reaching Stratford had not been found. The station there had seen very significant increases in usage. Stratford was intended as a Crossrail 1 station, Crossrail 1 and 2 were presently intended to have only a single meeting point at Tottenham Court Road, it was felt that consideration should be given to two  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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

The Panel received a report from the Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development (Development Control) regarding Annual Planning Obligation/Section 106 Agreements April 2012 to March 2013.

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. This obligation was often termed a Section 106 Agreement.

Section 106 Agreements could act as a main instrument for placing restrictions on developers, requiring them to minimise the impact of their development on the local community and carry out tasks providing community benefits. Such agreements were sought when planning conditions were inappropriate for ensuring and enhancing the quality of development and enabling proposals that could otherwise have been refused. They were not for taking a share of the developer’s profits nor for gaining a benefit unrelated to the development.

The courts had stated that to be lawful, agreements only had to show that they were relevant to planning and that in all respects were reasonable.

What were Planning Obligations?

Section 106 Agreements contained obligations relating to a person’s land which binded it and the owner. They may:

(a)        Restrict the development or use of the land in a specified way.

(b)        Require specified operations or activities to be carried out.

(c)        Require the land to be used in any specified way.

(d)        Require a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date or dates or periodically.

They provided a means for ensuring that developers offset directly any disadvantage from a development and contribute towards the infrastructure and services that this Council and the County Council believed necessary to accommodate the proposed development.

The Local Plan Alterations 2006 set out the policy in relation to Planning Obligations. They were used to deliver the following:

(i)         Affordable housing

(ii         Require highway works to be carried out

(iii)       Require land to be dedicated and equipped as public open space

(iv)       restoration of a listed building

(v)        Sums of money to be paid for the provision of off-site infrastructure or for the long term maintenance of open space.

Section 106 Agreements were deeds drawn up by legal professionals and had traditionally taken some months to bring to a conclusion. There was no substitute for such a legal document when the benefit being sought was of a complex nature. Since applications were not finally dealt with until the associated agreement was completed, this approach meant that many major applications were exceeding the Government’s targets for determination. Therefore, in common with other planning authorities, the Council was encouraging the submission of Unilateral Undertakings with the application.

Affordable Housing and other requirements relevant to EFDC

Under the current adopted Local Plan, affordable housing was required where a certain threshold 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 affordable and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

It was noted that the Crossrail 2 Consultation would be recommended to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

There was no other business for consideration.

The next programmed meeting of the panel is on Tuesday 10 September 2013 at 7.30p.m. in Committee Room 1 and thereafter on:

• Tuesday 10 December; and

• Tuesday 8 April 2014.

The next meeting of the Panel would be on 10 September 2013.