EPPING FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL COUNCIL MINUTES

Committee: Council Date: 8 March 2005

Place: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Time: 7.30 p.m. - 10.01 p.m. High Street, Epping

Members Councillors R Morgan (Chairman), J Gilliham (Vice-Chairman), Present: K Angold-Stephens, S Barnes, D Bateman, Mrs M Boatman, Mrs D Borton, Mrs P Brooks, R Chidley, M Cohen, M Colling, Mrs D Collins, J Demetriou, T Farr, K Faulkner, Mrs R Gadsby, R Glozier, P Gode, R Goold, Mrs A Grigg, M Heavens, D Jacobs, D Kelly, J Knapman, Mrs J Lea, A Lee, F Maclaine, J Markham, L Martin, Mrs McEwen, P McMillan, S Metcalfe, Mrs S Perry, Mrs C Pond, Mrs P Richardson, T Richardson, Mrs K Rush, B Sandler, Mrs M Sartin, D Spinks, D Stallan, Ms S-A Stavrou, G Stollar, C Whitbread, Mrs J H Whitehouse, J M Whitehouse, M Woollard, K Wright.

Apologies: Councillors Mrs J Davis, R Haines, J Hart, S Murray, Mrs P Smith

Officers J Scott (Joint Chief Executive) – (Community), J Preston, H Stamp (Planning Present: Services), A Hall (Head of Housing Services), I Willett, T Carne, Z Folley (Research and Democratic Services).

91. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

(a) Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillors D Stallan and Mrs A Grigg declared personal interests in Item (7)(c) and 7(d) (Proposals for North Weald Contained in the East of England Plan (Draft RSS14) and East of England Plan) of the agenda, by virtue of being residents of North Weald and having attended several action group meetings. The Councillors had determined that their interests were not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the item.

(b) Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillors D Kelly and M Woollard declared personal interests in Item (7)(c) and 7(d) (Proposals for North Weald Contained in the East of England Plan (Draft RSS14) and East of England Plan) of the agenda, by virtue of having attended several action group meetings. The Councillors had determined that their interests were not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the item.

92. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

(a) Former Councillor Joan Hewins

The Chairman announced the recent death of Joan Hewins who served on the District Council between 1974 and 1976 and 1980 and 1984.

660 Council 8 March 2005

He advised that she would be remembered as a past Chairman of Waltham Abbey Town Council and the wife of the late Cyril Hewins who was also a District Councillor in those years.

The Chairman reported that the funeral would take place at 1.00 p.m. at the Abbey Church, Waltham Abbey on 15 March 2005. He stated that he would be representing the Council and that any other Members who wished to attend were welcome.

(b) Charity Walk

The Chairman advised that arrangements had been made for a walk in Matching on 8 May 2005 in aid of his charities.

(c) Abseil Event

The Chairman reported that eighteen officers would be abseiling the Church Langley Water Tower on 1 May 2005 in support of his charities. He advised that there was still time for Members to volunteer to take part in the event and sponsor participates.

(d) Skills Training for Overview and Scrutiny

The Chairman reported that two Overview and Scrutiny Training Sessions had been arranged for 11 March 2005. The first would take place at 1.00 p.m. and the second at 6.00 p.m. Members were encouraged to attend and book themselves in by contacting the Head of Research and Democratic Services.

(e) Information Sessions on the Loughton Town Centre Enhancement Scheme

It was reported that there would be an informal session on the Loughton Town Centre Enhancement Scheme between 5.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. on 14 March 2005.

93. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL

The Leader of the Council had no announcements for the meeting.

94. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY PORTFOLIO HOLDER

No Portfolio Holder announcements were made.

95. CHIGWELL PARISH COUNCIL - QUALITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION

The Chairman reported that Chigwell Parish Council had been awarded Parish Quality Status. He reminded Members that the Quality Parish and Town Council Scheme was designed to provide a benchmark standard for parish and town councils and enable them to represent better the communities they served. He introduced and welcomed Mrs Joyce Shephard of the Essex Association of Local Councils to the meeting who explained the status in more detail and the work that Chigwell Parish Council had undertaken to achieve quality status. Following the presentation the Chairman presented the award to Chigwell Parish representatives John Knapman, Christine Buttling, Derick Chapman and Sue Du Luca and joined the representatives for photographs.

661 Council 8 March 2005

96. REPORTS OF THE CABINET

(Mover: Councillor R Glozier – Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development)

(a) Local Plan Alterations

The Chairman reported that there were no recommendations of the Cabinet in relation to the report.

(b) Local Plan Development Scheme

The Chairman reported that there were no recommendations of the Cabinet in relation to the report.

(c) East of England (Draft RSS14) - Response regarding proposals for North Weald

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development asked the Council to consider the implications for North Weald of the emerging East of England Plan. He stated that the proposals could involve the provision of 6,000 new dwellings at the location and park and ride facilities to improve the areas transport links. Members considered the framework and formulated a response.

It was noted that a petition formulated to register concerns about the East of England Plan's proposals for a new housing development at North Weald would be placed in the Members' Room.

Amendment moved by Councillor D Stallan and seconded by Councillor Mrs A Grigg

"That the following recommendation (to be numbered (9)) be added to the report:

The proposals in the plan if implemented would result in the loss of a unique asset, a site of historic importance, a major leisure facility and active airfield which benefits from overwhelming support on a local, national and international level. A consequence would be the loss of not only existing use but also the airfield's potential to play a key role in attracting commercial enterprises to the area supporting sustainable development."

Carried Report as amended: ADOPTED

RESOLVED:

That the following be the basis of a specific response to EERA concerning references to, and policies for, North Weald and the Epping/Harlow high quality public transport spine contained in the East of England Plan:

(1) There is insufficient justification in the draft regional Plan for the development it proposes at North Weald and environs (6,000 homes, employment and Park and Ride) and not the exceptional circumstances required to remove land for this amount of development from the Metropolitan

662 Council 8 March 2005

Green Belt. It would appear that the Plan has overestimated the capacity of North Weald and its environs given PPG2 advice on defensible Green Belt boundaries;

(2) The timescale of the Plan is not practical as it will be difficult to sell or rent this number of homes in such a short time. The timescale is also impracticable due to the need not to prejudice the regeneration of Harlow. Additionally the timescale is inadequate to allow time for planting and landscaping to achieve the necessary noise abatement and screening;

(3) There is, and will be in the future, a need to accommodate the natural increase in households in the district. This is not easy to do in a locality like Epping Forest District (as implied in the Plan) and can be expected to become more difficult in the future. The effect of the Plan’s proposals (including the proposals for Park and Ride) will be to use up a land resource, for short term development which has insufficient justification and to which other locations in the region are available (e.g. a regional large new settlement elsewhere), which should be husbanded so as to meet local needs over the longer term; an approach which is more sustainable;

(4) The Plan’s proposals for North Weald and environs are not sustainable, particularly regarding protection of the environment, use of scarce natural resources, and in social terms;

(5) Proposals for a high quality public transport spine from Epping to Harlow are welcome. But the quality needs to be high enough to provide an attractive enough alternative to the private car for the reasons set out in Sections 25-28 of this report;

(6) Proposals for improvements to Junction 7 of the M11 are welcome as long as they take into account the reduction in traffic that re-routing of A414 traffic via the proposed northern bypass together with a new M11 junction will bring, are proportionate to real need, and do not have an unacceptable impact on the environment;

(7) Employment land to serve Harlow should be provided close to Harlow and integrated with the proposed northern expansion and northern bypass; with employment land at North Weald being of a scale and phased to meet the needs of North Weald itself and the Epping Forest District;

(8) North Weald does not need to be subject to the joint planning arrangements set out in the regional Plan, and certainly should not be part of a Local Delivery Vehicle for Harlow as it is an entirely separate entity. Alternative arrangements for a local partnership are realistic and far more likely to deliver a truly sustainable solution, which relates to people’s needs in a more accountable way;

(9) The proposals in the plan if implemented would result in the loss of a unique asset, a site of historic importance, a major leisure facility and active airfield which benefits from overwhelming support on a local, national and international level. A consequence would be the loss of not only existing use but also the airfield's potential to play a key role in attracting commercial enterprises to the area supporting sustainable development.

663 Council 8 March 2005

(10) The Regional Plan’s proposals regarding North Weald and environs are impracticable and unsustainable, and are very much against the wishes of the local community. Imposing an unaccountable Delivery Vehicle on them will create considerable concern and not contribute to community cohesion.

(d) East of England Regional Plan - General Response

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development presented a report on the East of England Plan. Members considered the economic, environmental and social implications for the District of the emerging proposals and were asked to formulate a response.

Amendment moved by Councillor Mrs D Borton and seconded by Councillor J Knapman

"That the following words be added to the last sentence of recommendation (3): "within the existing boundaries of Harlow"."

Following further debate on this amendment, the mover and seconder accepted revised wording as follows:

"That all words after, "south and west of Harlow" in recommendation (3) be deleted and the following words substituted:

"as the sustainability and environmental issues have not been met"."

The revised amendment was thereupon agreed.

RESOLVED:

(1) That the following be the basis of response to EERA about The East of England Plan:

(a) EERA’s decisions not to accede to Government’s request for another 18,000 dwellings in the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough corridor, nor to back a second runway at Stansted, are supported;

(b) (i) the potential contribution that large new settlements north of the Harlow sub-region could make up to 2021 means that they should be included in the East of England Plan now, and not wait until an early review;

(ii) the review should be undertaken as soon as possible in order to inform Green Belt boundary reviews in the Harlow sub-region where longer-term capacity is limited and economic growth is uncertain;

(iii) the review of other aspects should be informed by the Sustainability Appraisal Report, and reappraise the growth potential of Peterborough; and

(iv) that Green Belt boundary reviews should not be required to include any provision for post-2021 until the early review is completed.

664 Council 8 March 2005

In the meantime, the contribution that large new settlements could make up to 2021 means that the exceptional circumstances required for Green Belt releases have not been demonstrated.

(c) given that the Sustainability Appraisal advises that the proposed scale and pace of change in the southern part of the region is damaging to the environment and quality of life, the EIP panel be asked to challenge the Government's presumptions about:

(i) growth locations in the Sustainable Communities Plan;

(ii) the target of 200,000 extra homes; and

(iii) to consider whether large-scale growth at Harlow and in the Lea Valley is consistent with the Greater London Plan aim of self- sufficiency.

(d) whilst the aims of urban concentration and regeneration are acknowledged, the overall scale and pace of proposed development growth at Harlow are considered to be "high risk" and should be reviewed by the EIP panel against the background of:

(i) the Sustainability Appraisal Report;

(ii) environmental harm;

(iii) high Greenfield and Green Belt land take;

(iv) already over stretched infrastructure; and

(v) serious doubts about linkages between growth and regeneration or an enhanced sub regional role, and about the achievability of less congestion/travel/car dependency.

(e) the scale and type of economic growth envisaged for Harlow is aspirational and uncertain; there is a real danger of more commuting rather than jobs led growth;

(f) the levels of affordable housing proposed within the Plan are welcomed. However, we would like to make the following comments:

(i) EERA's case for the proposed additional 760 affordable properties per annum specifically for key workers (as currently defined) is not yet proven, as evidenced by the poor take-up for intermediate-rented schemes under the Key Worker Living Scheme and the difficulty experienced by the Housing Corporation to utilise its ring-fenced funding for key worker housing;

(ii) the proposed allocation for key worker housing should be substantially reduced, in order to enable additional social housing grant funding to be directed towards non-key worker schemes and that, instead, financial assistance be provided to key workers in the

665 Council 8 March 2005

form of interest free loans (Homebuy), which provide greater flexibility and have proved to be more popular with key workers;

(iii) the definition of "key worker" should be broadened, with local strategic partnerships being allowed to formulate their own local definition, based on the outcomes of local key worker housing studies;

(iv) EERA should seek a commitment from the Government that the overall levels of investment in the East of England for new affordable housing will be increased, to ensure that it meets the overall annual funding requirement; and

(v) the Regional Housing Board for the East of England should be directed to ensure that it provides sufficient funding to the main growth areas in the Region to meet the high levels of increased affordable housing provision.

(g) the EIP panel should consider whether vital funding of affordable housing and adequate infrastructure will realistically be available, for example:

high-enough quality public transport system,

education provision,

healthcare provision,

water supply and drainage provision, and

leisure facilities.

The substantial costs have not yet been fully identified, despite the importance rightly attached by EERA and Ministers (including comments made by Lord Rooker) to timely and adequate provision of infrastructure and ongoing revenue support. Doubts remain to be overcome whilst there is strong competition for public sector funding. This is a major issue in the light of the "suspended endorsement" of the Plan by EERA in December 2004;

(h) the importance of plan-monitor-manage in the Stansted/M11 sub- region deserves greater emphasis. There needs to be a clear and realistic alternative strategy if housing runs ahead of employment growth or infrastructure. An acknowledgement is also needed that some development would almost certainly slip beyond 2021 in any event, given lead-in times for transport infrastructure alone and feasible housebuilding and sales rates;

(i) the various technical comments at Appendix 1 be taken into account and/or incorporated into the Plan.

(2) That the recognition by EERA that Harlow North is a sustainably preferable location instead of development west or south of Harlow be welcomed.

666 Council 8 March 2005

(3) That the District Council endorses the general views of Essex County Council and objects to the proposals for 11,000 homes, for Epping Forest District. The District Council accepts 2,400 dwellings utilising the District's estimated housing capacity, but objects to 6,000 homes at North Weald and to the 2,700 homes to the south and west of Harlow, as the sustainability and environmental issues have not been met.

(4) That the strong wish of the District Council to be represented at the EIP be made known to the Panel.

(5) That in an era of community involvement the communities and Parish Councils most directly affected by the East of England Plan, especially at North Weald, Roydon, Epping Upland and Nazeing should be able to be represented at the EIP.

(6) That the Council's comments be made known to other Local Authorities, Local Councils and local MPs.

97. ADJOURNMENT

Following the adoption of resolutions (1)-(6) above and following the presentation by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development of recommendation (7) and notice of an amendment by Councillor D Stallan and seconded by Councillor Mrs A Grigg concerning the wording of reports and other submissions under that recommendation, the Chairman called an adjournment at 9.20 p.m. to allow the Council to consider the content of the proposed amendment. The Council re-convened at 9.50 p.m.

98. FURTHER ADJOURNMENT

On resumption of the Council meeting, the Chairman sought the Council's approval for a further adjournment in view of the need to permit further discussion of the issues raised by the proposed amendment.

RESOLVED:

(1) That the meeting be adjourned and re-convened at 7.30 p.m. on 10 March 2005 at the Council Chamber, Epping for the purpose of dealing with the remaining items of business; and

(2) That the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Review Panel scheduled for 10 March 2004 be re-arranged.

CHAIRMAN

667