Agenda item

To comment on the attached report and make recommendations on the adoption of a Partnership Agreement for the delivery of Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) Strategy for the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation for consideration by Cabinet at its meeting on 11 April 2022.

Vicki Willis (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the detailed report concerned with the potential impact of residential development on the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) in relation to additional visitors using the Forest for recreational purposes. The Council had a legal duty as a ‘competent authority’ under the Habitats Regulations to protect such internationally important sites, which could be best achieved using measures put in place at the Local Plan level. The Partnership Agreement was jointly developed by the Council with other competent authorities, Natural England and the Corporation of London as the delivery body. It would replace the ‘Interim Approach to Managing Recreational Pressure on the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation’ adopted by the Council in October 2018. The document outlined the updated SAMM Strategy for Epping Forest and the governance arrangements to ensure that financial contributions that had been / would be collected from developments were spent in accordance with the purposes for which they had been secured and that proper monitoring of spending would be put in place.

A selection of the questions raised by members were detailed below, which the Planning Officer answered.

Was the Technical Oversight Group there to ensure that the money raised was spent on implementing the measures and costs in Schedule 1 of the Partnership Agreement? Yes, the Epping Forest Conservators had created the list, but work to progress it was ongoing, as the Conservators were the delivery body. The representatives from Natural England and the Conservators had been very supportive.

Regarding the in-perpetuity period in the original SAMM Strategy, 125 years seemed right, but the finance period had been interpreted as an 80-year cost? As the original SAMM Strategy had not had any allowance for in-perpetuity, an 80-year period was determined to be more appropriate with Natural England and the Technical Oversight Group.

There was support for the recommendation that all qualifying development was required to contribute with a ‘tiered’ approach taken, so that development that was closest to the Epping Forest SAC paid proportionately more than those further afield.

Councillor S Murray asked about the £716 per dwelling that would be required from new residential development within 3 kilometres of the Forest in respect of the implementation of the Roding Valley Recreation Ground (RVRG) between Buckhurst Hill and Loughton, as a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). Loughton Town Council had not been consulted yet, but it held a 125-year lease to manage the RVRG. How detailed were the plans for the RVRG as a SANG and how had the £716 per dwelling been worked out? The work was at an early stage, but the Council had adopted a Green Infrastructure Strategy that provided the District wide framework for designating new areas of SANG together with identified opportunities to provide an alternative recreational offer to the Forest, including through enhancements to existing open spaces. N Dawe, Chief Operating Officer, continued that the budgeted figures were from the Green Infrastructure Strategy. The Roding Valley Recreation Ground work was being led by N Linihan with exploratory discussions were underway and proposals would be brought back to Members.

Councillor J H Whitehouse supported the tiered approach but asked where were the 3-kilometre and 6-kilometre radii were measured from? What was the mechanism if other local authorities wanted to make changes and 80 years was not in-perpetuity in her opinion? What was the money being spent on? There was a map that showed the central point for the 3-kilometre and 6-kilometre radii and this could be included in the report to Cabinet on 11 April. There might be changes over the 80-year period, to the actual measures and there might be other factors to address the development over the length of the period of the Local Plan. The monies the projects were to be used on were detailed in appendix 1 of the report. A strategic approach had been taken with the Council apportioned a percentage of overall SAMM Strategy costs. It was up to the Council to determine how it would deliver the amount apportioned to the District.

How was the money being collected being spent, as within 3 kilometres of the SAC it was £352 per dwelling, and what were the totals so far? The Council had collected £45,000 and £200,000 was outlined within completed S106 agreements, which was dependent on these developments coming forward. However, the governance structures needed to be in place first to enable delivery of measures to start.

Would town and parish councils be represented on the Technical Oversight Group?  This would be taken away and the Planning Officer would report back.

Councillor D Wixley commented that part of a border on the RVRG came under Chigwell Parish Council but this was not referred to in the report. The Planning Officer would clarify this further.

Councillor A Lion said that in Chigwell there were several open spaces but where access and parking was restrictive, how could these be improved? The Green Infrastructure Strategy had identified some measures, there might be items within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, so over the lifetime of the Local Plan there would be chances for improvement.

The percentage of visitor pressure was likely to rise but why were the Waltham Forest figures higher? The London Borough of Waltham Forest had higher housing figures so there would be more developments, therefore, there would be a higher percentage of visitors to the Forest.

Regarding clauses 14.3 and 14.4 of the Partnership Agreement, it was preferable if more details on how the expert was decided could be included. Also, in clause 15.8 (Notice), the Committee noted that it was good practice to include a point of contact if a notice was served.

The Chairman asked if the Committee’s recommendations below could be taken into account by the Cabinet on 11 April 2022, as the report was going to that meeting for a decision.

RESOLVED:

(1)          That the Committee reviewed the adoption of a Partnership Agreement for the delivery of the SAMM Strategy for the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation in respect of the Agreement, which comprised governance arrangements, the SAMM Strategy and the approach to apportionment of SAMM Strategy costs to the relevant competent authorities;

(2)          That the Committee supported the recommendation on the approach to securing financial contributions from qualifying development within the District to deliver the SAMM Strategy;

(3)          That a map to show the central point for the 3-kilometre and 6-kilometre radii could be included in the report to Cabinet on 11 April.

(4)        That the Planning Officer would report back on whether town and parish councils could be represented on the Technical Oversight Group;

(5)        That the Planning Officer would clarify if a border came under Chigwell Parish Council; as this was not referred to in the report;

(6)        That within clauses 14.3 and 14.4 of the Partnership Agreement, it was preferable if more details on how the expert was decided could be included, and in clause 15.8 (Notice), the Committee noted that it was good practice to include a point of contact if a notice was served.