Issue - meetings

Minute 221 refers

RESOLVED - that (A) the Draft of Chapter 4: Places contained in Essential Reference Paper ‘B’ of the report submitted, and consisting of Sieve 1 and Sieve 2 in the strategy selection process, be supported;

(B)      the scenarios presented in the report and explained in more detail in Essential Reference Paper ‘C’ of the report submitted, be supported for further assessment in Chapters 5 and 6; and

(C)      Essential Reference Papers ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the report submitted, be supported, subject to a period of Member comment in respect of factual content, until 31 August 2012.

(see also Minute 235 above)

Minute 9 refers

The Executive considered the recommendations of the District Planning Executive Panel made at its meeting held on 26 July 2012 in respect of Chapter 4: Places and Next Steps.

The Executive Member for Strategic Planning and Transport commented that the draft document represented the outcome of Officers balancing planning assessments and challenging each other’s professional judgement.  The draft Chapter 4 was still a work in progress and would be subject to further sieving in the process.

Councillor C Woodward welcomed the opportunity to assist Officers with this work in progress and referred to the latest position in respect of Cannons Mill Crossing.  He also expressed concern about specific planning applications in Bishop’s Stortford that might be submitted before the District Plan was adopted and asked how these would be dealt with. 

In reply, the Executive Member commented that any planning applications would be dealt with in accordance with existing Local Plan policies.  He could not comment on the Cannons Mill Crossing position as this was a development control matter.

Councillor M Newman referred to the description of the sieving process in the draft Chapter and asked the Executive Member if he was happy with this.

In reply, the Executive Member commented that he was as he would not risk promoting a Plan that was not robust and did not provide a suitable evidence base.  He believed that the methodology used in each assessment stage was more robust than that used by other local authorities.  He reminded Members that further assessments would still be undertaken in the next stage of the process.  In the meantime, Members were invited to comment on questions of fact by the end of August 2012.

In response to a question from Councillor M Wood relating to Uttlesford District Council’s planning proposals, the Executive Member referred to East Herts Council’s response as detailed in his proposed non-key decision that was due to be taken on 3 August 2012.  He also advised that under the National Planning Policy Framework, the Council was obliged to co-operate, though not necessarily agree, with all neighbouring Authorities.

The Executive supported the recommendations as now detailed.

RECOMMENDED - that (A) the Draft of Chapter 4: Places contained in Essential Reference Paper ‘B’ of the report submitted, and consisting of Sieve 1 and Sieve 2 in the strategy selection process, be supported;

(B)      the scenarios presented in the report and explained in more detail in Essential Reference Paper ‘C’ of the report submitted, be supported for further assessment in Chapters 5 and 6; and

(C)      Essential Reference Papers ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the report submitted, be supported, subject to a period of Member comment in respect of factual content, until 31 August 2012.

(see also Minute 223 below)

The Panel considered a report explaining the obligations of East Herts Council under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  It presented the latest round of work on the agreed strategy selection process and sought agreement to commence further assessment of a list of possible alternative greenfield development options, as a basis for the final stages of strategy selection. 

The Panel was advised that in order to produce a “sound” plan, the Council would be obliged to adhere to processes and procedures which had been designed and agreed by the Council to robustly demonstrate compliance with the NPPF.  Many Local Planning Authorities had recently found their proposed strategies declared unsound, and had therefore had to rewrite their plans in order to achieve compliance.  The Stepped Approach to strategy selection already agreed by the Council provided the basis for compliance.

The Panel noted that the agreed range of figures for housing need was between and 10,000 - 17,000 dwellings over 20 years.  Based on the interim Strategic Land Availability Assessment figure of around 2,000 dwellings within the Built Up Areas of existing settlements, this was still likely to leave a shortfall of between 8,000 and 15,000 dwellings over the period.  Therefore, the Panel was advised of the options,  mostly comprising Greenfield development outside current settlement boundaries, which would need to be assessed further in Chapters 5 and 6.

A number of Members made comments and asked questions relating to the sieve assessments.  Officers advised that it was essential for the Council to be able to demonstrate that the options had been fully tested and subjected to rigorous challenge.  In respect of villages, it was noted that parish councils could look at figures higher than 10% if they wished, via the NPPF provisions for Neighbourhood Plans.  Regarding major settlements on the borders of the District, it was noted that the “duty to cooperate” required the Council to assist neighbouring Authorities and to look objectively at their plans. 

In respect of new settlements, Councillor M Newman expressed concern over the process used in the assessments and the conclusions reached.  He quoted an extract from the report which stated that the evaluations were informed by the assessments but were not based on rigid application of the scoring system.  This suggested to him that the process was not transparent and raised many questions about commercial influences.  In particular, he questioned the conclusions reached for the Area 69: Hunsdon Area and queried why this option had “more potential” than other new settlement areas, given the infrastructure failings identified in the assessment.

Councillor M Newman also referred to the Issues and Options consultation, the findings of which, he believed, had been ignored, as there was no mention of it.  Finally, he referred to the section references in Essential Reference Paper ‘C’ of the report submitted, which did not appear to make sense.

In response, Officers commented on the traffic light assessment and advised that the process was not rigid.  It was acknowledged that there were problems  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9