Agenda item

(Planning and Governance Portfolio Holder) to consider the attached report (C-014-2018/19).

Decision:

(1)  That the Interim Approach to Managing Recreational Pressures on the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation set out at Appendix 1 of the report was adopted as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and permitted development rights proposals for residential development which would result in a net increase in new homes within the Epping Forest District Council administrative area.

(2)  That the Service Director for Planning (or any another Service Director (in their absence) or an officer at level 2 or above or an officer duly authorised by the Service Director for Planning) be given delegated authority to undertake minor amendments to the Interim Approach which may arise as a result of consultation responses received as set out in paragraph 11 of the report in consultation with the Planning and Governance Portfolio Holder.

(3)  That the level of contribution to be sought from net increases in new residential units within 3km of the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation arising from the granting of planning permissions and of prior approval consents under permitted development rights shall be as set out in paragraph 10 of the report.

The Planning and Governance Portfolio Holder introduced the report on the interim approach to managing recreational pressure on the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation. He noted that a letter from Natural England had been tabled; this was in response to proposed interim approach to managing recreational pressures on the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation.

The meeting noted thatthe Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017 (Habitats Regulations) came into force on 30 November 2017 and transposes into domestic law the EU Habitats Directive 1992.

The Habitats Regulations implement the purposes of the Habitats Directive, in particular, the protection of certain natural habitats, known as European Sites that are considered to be under serious threat.

The legislation provides that where a land use plan or project, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, was likely to have a significant effect on a European site, the plan-making authority must undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of the plan or project for that site in view of the site’s nature conservation objectives.

This report sets out the proposed approach to managing and mitigating the effects of new residential development on the SAC as a result of additional recreational pressure. 

Councillor Mohindra looking at paragraph 10 of the report and the cost per dwelling said it should say ‘net’ dwellings, a charge for every additional unit on a plot. Councillor Philip agreed to change the report to read “Cost per additional dwellings”.

Councillor Grigg noted that the tabled letter mentioned the Suitable Alternative Natural Green Spaces (SANGS) that could be reviewed including North Weald Bassett and South of Epping masterplan area. Her understanding was that the SANGS would be in the buffer zones, but the letter seems to indicate that they would be in the sites themselves. Could this be clarified? Councillor Philip replied that where a SANG went would be part of the master-planning. The key part of the SANGS was to take the pressure of the forest by providing an appropriate amount of recreational land. If we can get more SANGS, so much the better.

Councillor Lion referred to page 41 and the zones of influence of 6.2km and 3km, why had these been chosen. Councillor Philip said that this came from data from the visitor’s survey, noting where people came from. 75% were from within 6.2km, the median was 3km and we took the approach that this was the right place to set the charge.

Councillor Bedford said that this SAC was set by a directive from the EU; after Brexit would we still reinforce this or was there a possibility that we could do away with it. Councillor Philip replied that this had now been incorporated into British Law so it could not be ignored.

Councillor Chris Pond said that this report did not touch on the air quality issue. This was vexed subject and asked how was work on this issue progressing? On the 2 mile distance proposed, why was that figure chosen, why not graduated figures, so something within 1 mile attracted more of a contribution than something 3 miles away. Was this considered and if so, why was it rejected. He also noted that paragraph 3 of the report regarding SANGS and mitigation strategy by providing extra open land was something that he thought was something that could be challenged as it was a contradiction.  Councillor Philip did not think that there was major contradiction here; they had been very clear in the Plan in providing appropriate alternative natural green space. As for the distance from the forest, there were many different ways that this could be achieved. The Council had to come forward with a sensible approach that allowed the Council to collect the amount of money needed to fund the mitigation strategy.  This was how we chose to fund it. As for air quality, they were working on this and as a result of a number of court decisions, were given instructions on how to do this. The Council was currently working with natural England to find out what their requirements were to enable us to progress this relatively quickly.

Decision:

(1)  That the Interim Approach to Managing Recreational Pressures on the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation set out at Appendix 1 of the report was adopted as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and permitted development rights proposals for residential development which would result in a net increase in new homes within the Epping Forest District Council administrative area.

(2)  That the Service Director for Planning (or any another Service Director (in their absence) or an officer at level 2 or above or an officer duly authorised by the Service Director for Planning) be given delegated authority to undertake minor amendments to the Interim Approach which may arise as a result of consultation responses received as set out in paragraph 11 of the report in consultation with the Planning and Governance Portfolio Holder.

(3)  That the level of contribution to be sought from net increases in new residential units within 3km of the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation arising from the granting of planning permissions and of prior approval consents under permitted development rights shall be as set out in paragraph 10 of the report.

Reasons for Proposed Decision:

To comply with the Council’s general obligations as a competent authority under the Habitats Directive [article 6(3)] and Regulation 9(1) of the Habitats Regulations

Other Options for Action:

Not to adopt the Interim Approach to Managing Recreational Pressures on the SAC as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and permitted development rights schemes which result in a net increase in residential units.  This would prevent the Council, as local planning authority, from positively determining such proposals, where appropriate, as advised by Natural England, as the responsible statutory body, in its letter of 15 June 2018.

In addition it would mean that the Local Plan may not be seen as deliverable at examination and therefore not be found sound.