Agenda item

Planning and Sustainability – (C-052-2021-22) - This report specifically concerns the potential impact of development on the SAC in relation to visitor pressure primarily from residential development creating additional visitors using the Forest for recreational purposes.

(1)        The Cabinet agreed that the Partnership Agreement for the delivery of the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring measures for the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation set out in Appendix 1of the report, be adopted as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and prior approval consents under permitted development rights proposals for residential development which would result in a net increase in new dwellings within the Epping Forest District Council administrative area.

(2)        The Cabinet agreed that the Service Director for Planning (or any another Service Director in their absence or officer duly authorised by the Service Director for Planning) be given delegated authority to implement minor amendments to the Partnership Agreement which may arise during the process of final sign-off of the Agreement by the Council and partners to the Agreement, in consultation with the Planning and Sustainability Portfolio Holder.

(3)        The Cabinet agreed that the tiered level of financial contribution to be sought from net increases in new dwellings within 0-3km and 3-6.2km radius of the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation arising from the granting of planning permissions and prior approval consents under permitted development rights shall be as set out in paragraph 20 of the report.

(4)        The Cabinet agreed that the contributions as outlined in paragraph 19 of the report in relation to the implementation of the Roding Valley Recreation Ground/Pubic Rights of Way infrastructure enhancement projects be reviewed by the relevant Portfolio Holder and the Leader, once the Masterplanning work for these projects had been carried out.

The Planning and Sustainability Portfolio Holder, Councillor Bedford, introduced the report.

Epping Forest contains land which was subject to international protection for its biodiversity value by way of its designation as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The Council has a legal duty as a ‘competent authority’ under the Habitats Regulations to protect internationally important sites, such as the Epping Forest SAC, from the effects of development. This can be best achieved using measures put in place at the Local Plan level.

This report specifically concerns the potential impact of residential development on the Epping Forest SAC in relation to additional visitors using the Forest for recreational purposes.

The Partnership Agreement presented replaces the ‘Interim Approach to Managing Recreational Pressure on the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation’ adopted by the Council in October 2018. The Agreement has been jointly developed by the Council with other competent authorities, Natural England, and the Corporation of London as Delivery Body. The document outlines the updated Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) Strategy for the Epping Forest and the Governance Arrangements to ensure that financial contributions that have been/will be collected from development were spent in accordance with the purposes for which they have been secured and that proper monitoring of spending was put in place. Further, it outlines the robust approach to apportioning the SAMM Strategy costs to individual local authorities, based upon the likely increase in visitor pressure from each local authority as a result of development through respective Local Plans.

Finally, the report sets out the proposed approach for how Epping Forest District Council would secure funding from development in its administrative area in order to meet the SAMM Strategy costs apportioned to the local authority area. 

The Partnership Agreement was considered by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 31 March 2022. As the report outlines, the Conservators of Epping Forest and the London Borough of Redbridge have approved the Partnership Agreement via their respective Committees and other neighbouring competent authorities are similarly progressing reports through their Committee processes.

Councillor Philip noted that recommendation 3 referred to paragraph 25, it should be paragraph 20 and changed accordingly. He then asked if the costs in paragraph 19 of the report were in addition to the “per dwelling” costs in paragraph 20. He also had a concern on the £716 per dwelling for the Roding Valley Recreational Ground work and noticed that Theydon Bois Parish Council was missing from the list. He noted that the SANG of the south Epping Masterplan area was significantly closer to Theydon Bois than Roding Valley Recreational Ground and as such it would be more sensible to tie those together, otherwise it may be that development in Theydon would be paying for work going on Roding Valley Recreation Ground. Can this be looked at again. Nicky Linihan the consultant for this work replied that Theydon Bois was included because the footpaths and other infrastructure enhancement projects was looking at doing improvements to the footpath network linking Debden to the Theydon Bois wood and then from Theydon Bois itself on to the woods. She agreed that the way the costs were set out in the Strategy was not clear in terms of that separation. She suggested that once the masterplan was done, then that might be an appropriate time to review the costings and how they were attributed. Councillor Philip was all in favour of improving the public rights of way, but the public rights of way that was most in need of improving was a part of the Oak Trail that leads up from the allocated site, but he welcomed the idea that this be revisited, and it should form part of the recommendations. The Chairman agreed that was good amendment to make to the recommendations.

Councillor Murray thanked Councillor Bedford on how he had listened to what Overview and Scrutiny had said and responded appropriately. He agreed that TOG was not the right group for Parishes to have representatives on as it was an officer group.  He added that we needed to identify how we spent this money and was pleased to have the explanation on the £716 and was glad we were to have consultation. At Scrutiny it was also felt that the document needed to be clearer on dispute resolution but had not heard a response to that. Councillor C Whitbread agreed that it was around dispute resolution and that the agreement should have more comment on it. Nicky Linihan commented that one of the points was that we should have a named contact in terms of a dispute. The way the agreement was structured was that if there was a dispute it would first be raised at the Technical Officers group and to try to resolve it informally. If this was not achievable then each authority had a named position who this could be escalated to and resolve it and if necessary, an expert would be called in to help resolve it; and to a certain extent Natural England would act as an arbiter around the dispute.

Councillor Jon Whitehouse noted that there were a number of access points to the forest other than High Beech and these areas also need to be looked at. Also, there did not seem to be anything in there about active travel to the forest.  Councillor Bedford agreed that there were various area that would benefit from improvement and we need to set up some sort of monitoring of visitor numbers to those areas so money could be spent appropriately across the district.

Decision:

(1)        The Cabinet agreed that the Partnership Agreement for the delivery of the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring measures for the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation set out in Appendix 1of the report, be adopted as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and prior approval consents under permitted development rights proposals for residential development which would result in a net increase in new dwellings within the Epping Forest District Council administrative area.

(2)        The Cabinet agreed that the Service Director for Planning (or any another Service Director in their absence or officer duly authorised by the Service Director for Planning) be given delegated authority to implement minor amendments to the Partnership Agreement which may arise during the process of final sign-off of the Agreement by the Council and partners to the Agreement, in consultation with the Planning and Sustainability Portfolio Holder.

(3)        The Cabinet agreed that the tiered level of financial contribution to be sought from net increases in new dwellings within 0-3km and 3-6.2km radius of the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation arising from the granting of planning permissions and prior approval consents under permitted development rights shall be as set out in paragraph 20 of the report.

(4)        The Cabinet agreed that the contributions as outlined in paragraph 19 of the report in relation to the implementation of the Roding Valley Recreation Public Rights of Way infrastructure enhancement projects be reviewed by the relevant Portfolio Holder and the Leader, once the Masterplanning work for these projects had been carried out.

Reasons for Proposed Decision:

To comply with the Council’s legal duty as a ‘competent authority’ under the Habitats Regulations to protect internationally important sites, such as the Epping Forest SAC, from the effects of development. As the report outlines, this could be best achieved using strategic measures put in place at the Local Plan level. Natural England and the Conservators of Epping Forest both voiced their support for the progress made in finalising the approach to SAMM for Epping Forest in their representations on the Main Modifications to the Local Plan Inspector, although expressed concern that this needs to be swiftly finalised to enable the delivery of mitigation to commence. Adoption of the Partnership Agreement is therefore important to support the final stages of Examination of the Council’s emerging Local Plan and to enable financial contributions to be paid to the accountable body for the SAMM delivery programme to commence.

Other Options for Action:

For Cabinet to decide not to adopt the Partnership Agreement for the delivery of SAMM measures for the Epping Forest SAC. This would mean that the Council would fail to comply with its legal duty under the Habitats Regulations and may be prevented from determining planning applications and applications for prior approval under permitted development rights which result in a net increase in new dwellings.

For Cabinet to decide on an alternative approach to secure funding to meet the SAMM Strategy costs apportioned to Epping Forest District.