Agenda and minutes

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To declare interests in any item on the agenda.

(a)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs M Sartin declared a personal interest in agenda item 5, Lee Valley White Water Centre Economic Development Study – Update, by virtue of being a member of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority. The Councillor had determined that her interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the issue.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Cabinet Committee, held on 1 August 2011 (previously circulated).

Resolved:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 August 2011 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To note the Terms of reference for the Cabinet Committee, as agreed by the Council on 17 February 2009; minute 113(a) refers.

(1)        That a Local Development Framework Cabinet Committee be appointed with the following terms of reference:

(a)        To oversee and submit recommendations to the Cabinet as appropriate on:

(i)         the preparation of the Local Development Framework (LDF);

(ii)        the preparation of the Core Strategy including agreement of consultation stages and documentation, and the responses that should be made to any representations received;

(iii)       the preparation of other Development Plan Documents including agreement of consultation stages and documentation, and the responses that should be made to any representations received;

(iv)       the preparation of Supplementary Planning Documents including agreement of consultation stages and documentation, and the responses that should be made to any representations received; and

(v)        the revision of the Local Development Scheme and monitoring the achievement of milestones;

(b)        To consider and provide input to consultants’ reports which contribute to the establishment of an up-to-date evidence base to influence preparation of the LDF;

(c)        To consider options for joint or coordinated working with other councils, which best meet the needs of this District, as required by the East of England Plan and (where relevant) the London Plan and to make recommendations to the Cabinet thereon;

(d)        To consider the comprehensive review of the East of England Plan, and make recommendations to the Cabinet on any responses to be made;

(e)        To liaise with the Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel as appropriate; and

(f)         To work within the budgetary provision for the LDF, as approved by the Cabinet and the Council.

The Cabinet Committee noted its terms of reference, as agreed by the Council on 17 February 2009 (minute 113(a) refers).

(Director of Planning & Economic Development) To consider the attached report (LDF-004-2011/12).

N.B.     The jointly funded Olympic Regeneration Officer will be giving a presentation on this report. A copy of the presentation will be provided to the members of the Cabinet Committee, and will also be published as a supplementary agenda for this meeting on the Council’s website.

The Cabinet Committee received a presentation from the Olympic Regeneration Officer, jointly funded by Epping Forest District, Broxbourne Borough and Hertfordshire County Councils.

The principal points of the presentation were:

·                     the appointment of consultants Nathaniel Lichfield to undertake the Economic Development Study for the White Water Centre;

·                     the development of additional leisure activities around the White Water Centre;

·                     the identification of activities for development in the short, medium and long terms;

·                     a review of existing activities in the area;

·                     the creation of zones for adrenaline, ecology, heritage and sports activities;

·                     the examination of linkages across the immediate and wider areas;

·                     a list of actions in the short, medium and long-terms to bring about the development of the White Water Centre; and

·                     a structure chart showing the responsibilities of the Legacy Board and the Olympic Regeneration Officer.

The Olympic Regeneration Officer stated that the next step would be to create cultural, health and wellbeing hubs. The emphasis would be upon family orientated activities with particular attention paid to the pricing involved. However, the White Water Centre had been oversubscribed since it had opened, despite the relatively high cost of the activities. The other White Water Centre in Nottingham had not been as successful, and the visitor numbers for the Centre in the Lee Valley Park had been very encouraging. The Assistant Director (Policy & Conservation) added that soft market testing of the proposed development ideas with leisure operators and developers would be the next stage, but admitted that the project was dependent to a certain degree on private involvement in the developments; the Legacy Board was laying the foundations for the future success and prosperity of the area.

In response to questions from the Members present, the Olympic Regeneration Officer agreed that it would be difficult to measure the success of some of the proposals and more provision should be made for educational and cultural events; there should not be a complete focus on adrenaline sports. The World Canoe Championships in 2015 would also benefit the area after the Olympics, but it was acknowledged that the potential development of hotels and housing could be problematic given their proposed proximity to the Lee Valley Regional Park. The Cabinet Committee was reminded that nature based educational facilities already existed within the Lee Valley Park.

It was highlighted that the future membership of the Legacy Board would be a critical issue to its future success and would need to command support from local residents and Councils. There was also a further issue over the accountability of the Legacy Board as well. The Olympic Regeneration Officer felt that the Board would develop over time and that its membership would change. However, consideration could be given to develop more local representation on the Board in future.

Finally, the Olympic Regeneration Officer outlined his proposed work programme for the next six months:

(i)         co-ordinate a master plan for an area-wide branding and marketing strategy;

(ii)        co-ordinate a strategy to implement a wayfinding, pathway and gateway improvement scheme for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

(Director of Planning & Economic Development) To consider the attached report (LDF-005-2011/12).

N.B.     This report is being discussed by the Planning Services Scrutiny Panel, which directly follows this meeting, and is also being considered by the Cabinet Committee at the request of the Leader of the Council.

A report on the draft National Planning Policy Framework Consultation was introduced by the Director of Planning & Economic Development, and presented by the Assistant Director (Policy & Conservation).

The Assistant Director reported that the proposed National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) would replace the current Planning Policy Statements, Planning Policy Guidance Notes and a number of the circulars with a more concise single document. The aim was to reduce bureaucracy, promote sustainable growth, empower local communities, and make it easier for the public to engage in local planning decisions. The consultation consisted of 70 questions in total and was due to end on 17 October 2011. The suggested main principles for the Framework were outlined:

(i)         planning should be plan-led;

(ii)        all plans should be up-to-date, contain a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and make adequate provision for growth;

(iii)       plans should be explicit about the housing, business and other development needs of their areas and how these needs would be met; and

(iv)       development proposals should be agreed, except where they would compromise key sustainable development principles.

The four main issues that the Cabinet Committee had indicated an interest in were: Sustainable Development; Green Belt issues; Town and Parish Plans; and Gypsy Roma Travellers.

The Assistant Director advised the Cabinet Committee that the Framework was looking to pursue the three components of sustainable development in an integrated fashion, with solutions that delivered multiple goals. Although never explicitly stated, the key components of sustainable development was assumed to be economic, social and environmental. The suggested Officer response to question 1a was that the Council strongly disagreed that the Framework had the right approach to establishing the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In question 1b, Officers had concerns that there was no practical definition of sustainable development; not even the glossary which accompanied the consultation had a definition. This would provide developers with opportunities to submit statements claiming that their development proposals were sustainable and that the presumption should be for the Council to grant planning permission.

The Cabinet Committee agreed that ‘sustainable’ had different meanings to different people, and that the lack of a specific definition with more loopholes would lead to a lack of clear planning decisions. Large areas of the District were not appropriate for any sort of development as they were designated as Green Belt land. The Framework, as currently worded, was felt to be encouraging an approach that was stronger than a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and that this should be included in the response to question 1b.

The Assistant Director informed the Cabinet Committee that the Framework retained the five key purposes of Green Belts, with the fundamental aim of preventing urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. However, there were four proposed changes to the detail of the policy:

(i)         extending ‘major developed site’ status to similar sites not previously identified;

(ii)        permit a wider range of local transport infrastructure to be permissible, such as bus shelters and small transport depots, within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs (6) and (24) of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution requires that the permission of the Chairman be obtained, after prior notice to the Chief Executive, before urgent business not specified in the agenda (including a supplementary agenda of which the statutory period of notice has been given) may be transacted.

In accordance with Operational Standing Order (6) (non-executive bodies), any item raised by a non-member shall require the support of a member of the Cabinet Committee and the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee. Two weeks’ notice of non-urgent items is required.

There was no other urgent business for the Cabinet Committee to consider.