Agenda item

(Planning and Governance Portfolio Holder) to consider the attached report (C-015-2018/19).

Decision:

(1)  That the process and minimum requirements for the preparation of Strategic Masterplans and Concept Frameworks in the District set out in the report (and in guidance notes – see Appendix 4 of the report) be noted;

(2)  That the arrangements for the preparation, consultation, endorsement and approval process of the Strategic Masterplans and Concept Frameworks be agreed;

(3)  That the Local Plan Cabinet Committee’s Terms of Reference be amended by the deletion of paragraph 3.5 of the current Terms of Reference and its replacement with “ 3.5 To approve draft strategic masterplans and concept frameworks for consultation and to recommend to Cabinet on the endorsement of final masterplans as a material planning consideration or Supplementary Planning Documents”;

(4)  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 enter into Planning Performance Agreements with developers on behalf of the Council;

(5)  That the terms of reference and the approach for the Quality Review Panel and the Development Management Forum be noted (Appendix 5 and Appendix 6 of the report) and;

(6)  That the proposed governance arrangements for documentation associated with the Harlow and Gilston Garden Town be noted and endorsed (Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 of the report).

The Planning and Governance Portfolio Holder introduced the report on Governance arrangements for Local Plan implementation.

It was noted that alongside the progression of the Local Plan, the Council needed to establish the governance arrangements to prepare for the implementation and delivery of the growth identified in the Local Plan.  Cabinet agreed on 15 June 2017 (see C-001-2017/18) the overall approach to the production of Strategic Masterplans in the District, including the identification of sites/areas requiring their production.  Cabinet also agreed the approach to the introduction of Planning Performance Agreements. This report therefore provided proposed amendments to existing governance processes and procedures to enable the masterplanning and PPA processes to be undertaken efficiently and effectively.  Principally this required consideration to be given to: the arrangements for the preparation, consultation, endorsement and approval of the Strategic Masterplans and Concept Frameworks in the District; the proposed governance arrangements for documentation associated with the Harlow and Gilston Garden Town; and appropriate delegated responsibility to nominated officers to act as a signatory on behalf of the Council for future Planning Performance Agreements.

Councillor Chris Pond asked what were the call-in arrangements. Councillor Philip replied that they would be as covered in the Council Constitution. Councillor Chris Pond asked that if any decision made by the Local Plan Cabinet Committee and then approved by the Cabinet could then be called in under normal arrangements. Councillor Philip noted that recommendation 3 allowed the Local Plan Cabinet Committee to approve the draft strategic masterplan for consultation. They can then recommend to Cabinet the endorsement of the final masterplans. As always they were subject to the normal call-in arrangements. But he has always stated that the masterplans could only really work when every one was involved; and to this end he would invite the appropriate ward members to the relevant meetings to ascertain their views.

Decision:

(1)  That the process and minimum requirements for the preparation of Strategic Masterplans and Concept Frameworks in the District set out in the report (and in guidance notes – see Appendix 4 of the report) be noted;

(2)  That the arrangements for the preparation, consultation, endorsement and approval process of the Strategic Masterplans and Concept Frameworks be agreed;

(3)  That the Local Plan Cabinet Committee’s Terms of Reference be amended by the deletion of paragraph 3.5 of the current Terms of Reference and its replacement with “ 3.5 To approve draft strategic masterplans and concept frameworks for consultation and to recommend to Cabinet on the endorsement of final masterplans as a material planning consideration or Supplementary Planning Documents”;

(4)  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 enter into Planning Performance Agreements with developers on behalf of the Council;

(5)  That the terms of reference and the approach for the Quality Review Panel and the Development Management Forum be noted (Appendix 5 and Appendix 6 of the report) and;

(6)  That the proposed governance arrangements for documentation associated with the Harlow and Gilston Garden Town be noted and endorsed (Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 of the report).

Reasons for Proposed Decision:

• To ensure that the appropriate governance arrangements were in place to agree draft strategic masterplans and concept frameworks for consultation and following consultation to endorse the documents as material planning considerations for the use in determining planning applications;

• To put in place appropriate arrangements for the signing of Planning Performance Agreements; and

• To note the proposed arrangements for documentation associated with the Harlow and Gilston Garden Town.

Other Options for Action:

Not to put in place the appropriate governance arrangements would mean that masterplans could not be used as material planning considerations in determining applications.  To adopt a less pro-active approach to managing and overseeing the development and infrastructure proposals emerging as part of the Local Plan would carry a risk of poorly coordinated development being delivered, potentially of lower quality.

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