Issue - meetings

The Leader of the Council presented the report. He said that the purpose of the report was to lay out what infrastructure was required and where and when it was needed to achieve the targets set out in the District Plan such as the number of houses required, sustainable travel and employment. He said that the delivery plan also provided the scale of infrastructure needed, the phasing of it, the costs, the priorities, who was responsible, who paid and identified funding gaps and how developer contributions were shared.

The Leader of the Council said that the plan needed updating after five years due to new local plans, the approvals of planning applications, changes to developer contributions and changes in costs. He said that the role of the document was to provide an evidence base for masterplanning and to assist planning officers in their future discussions to get the delivery of infrastructure at the right time and place. He said that the plan would be updated every 2-3 years to keep up with changes to needs and costs and it was important to endorse now as infrastructure delivery was a key part of achieving the council’s aims.

Councillor Crystall proposed that the recommendations in the report be supported. Councillor Marlow seconded the proposal.

Councillor E Buckmaster felt that the plan was something to be vigilant about as conditions could change over the next 20 years and there could be challenges around infrastructure delivery. He said that the delivery of infrastructure was so important so the plan should be looked at closely. 

Councillor Hollebon referred to pages 66 – 160 of the report and said she found them illegible and could not read the information. She asked for it to be presented in larger font next time.

Councillor Deering echoed the comments of Councillor E Buckmaster and said the Conservative group were supportive of the principle.

The motion to support the recommendation having been proposed and seconded was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared CARRIED.

        RESOLVED – That the HGGT IDP 2023 be approved to form part of the evidence base for the consideration of master plans, pre-application consideration, planning application considered and in relation to all other relevant development management processes in relation to the Garden Town.

The Leader of the Council presented the Harlow and Gilston Garden Town Infrastructure Delivery Plan Review report. He said that the purpose of the report was to lay out what infrastructure was required and where and when it was needed to achieve the targets set out in the District Plan such as the number of houses required, sustainable travel and employment. He said that the delivery plan also provided the scale of infrastructure needed, the phasing of it, the costs, the priorities, who was responsible, who paid and identified funding gaps and how developer contributions were shared.

The Leader of the Council said that the plan needed updating after five years due to new local plans, the approvals of planning applications, changes to developer contributions and changes in costs. He said that the role of the document was to provide an evidence base for masterplanning and to assist planning officers in their future discussions to get the delivery of infrastructure at the right time and place. He said that the plan would be updated every 2-3 years to keep up with changes to needs and costs and it was important to endorse now as infrastructure delivery was a key part of achieving the council’s aims.

Councillor Crystall proposed that the recommendations in the report be supported. Councillor Glover-Ward seconded the proposal.

Councillor Dunlop said that there was no mention in the plan about burial grounds. He said that Gilston currently had capacity for 28 burials and 30,000 people would be moving into the area over the next 30 years. He said he wanted to flag that it was missing in the report.

The Garden Town Lead Officer said the plan would be reviewed in the future when the demand started to present itself. He said a greater evidence base was required to be able to secure infrastructure for burial grounds and said this would start to come forward as the development starts. He said the issue of burial ground would be accommodated by future updates and reassessment of needs.

Councillor Dunlop said he appreciated that the land was there but asked who would pay for it to be turned into burial ground in the future.

The Garden Town Lead Officer said that there would be costs but it was not possible to introduce further requirements into the Gilston Area s.106 agreement (which had established the infrastructure requirements for the Gilston Area) at this stage as the Development Management Committee endorsed the Heads of Terms last year. He said the funding requirements would likely, in part, be covered in the normal way throughthe management and operation of sites, including fees from burials. He also added that through the stewardship arrangements of the s.106 agreement, there was a requirement for considerable areas of land to be handed over to a stewardship organisation, in good order and suitable for its future intended use. Once emerging, the stewardship organisation may decide to safeguard some of  the land for burial purposes.

Councillor Buckmaster said that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 336