Agenda and minutes

Public Speaking: To register your intention to speak at a Council, Cabinet or Committee meeting, please contact Democratic Services on committee@uttlesford.gov.uk or 01799 510410, 510548, 510369 or 510460. Panel, Forum and Working Group meetings do not generally permit public speaking. Please refer to a specific meeting's pdf agenda pack for further information and registration deadlines.

Live Broadcast: For Council, Cabinet and Committee meetings the video player will be available on this page under the Media banner a few minutes before the meeting is due to begin. Please note that Panel, Board, Forum and Working Group meetings are not generally broadcast on the website. We believe that live streaming video of our formal decision making meetings, and publishing the recordings to be watched back later, is good for democracy – and you can find these videos on our website. This video technology sits alongside the longstanding practice of providing seats in the public gallery for members of the public and journalists to turn up and watch our in-person meetings live. Please understand that whilst we will continue to make every reasonable effort to ensure that our key public meetings at which important decisions are live streamed and recorded, any failure in that technology does not in any way invalidate the legitimacy of that meeting or of the decisions taken at it. Even in the event of such occasional technical failures, the public gallery will still have been open, as required by law, and the minutes of the meetings will still be made available in due course.

Zoom and YouTube have their own privacy and data security policies, which can be accessed at www.zoom.us and www.youtube.com.

Contact: Democratic Services  Email: Committee@uttlesford.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest

To receive any apologies and declarations of interest.

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence or declarations of interest.

 

2.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 211 KB

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 October 2021 were approved.

 

3.

Public Speakers

Minutes:

Andy Dodsley spoke about the Landscape Sensitivity report. He had some questions about Easton Park and whether a listed building and a heritage asset needed to be added to the assessment.  He also had concerns about the former Dunmow Airfield and Highwood Quarry in terms of intervisibility and a missing reference to the Local Wildlife Site, register reference ufd 194.

 

He asked for clarification from Officers regarding the drawn potential settlement boundary on page 17 of Appendix C.

 

The Chair thanked the speaker and said that the questions raised would be addressed fully at a later date.

 

The Local Plans and New Communities Manager said that the boundary drawn in the assessment of the landscape phase 2 work did not match the proposed sites and was determined with the Consultant taking into account the landscape in conjunction with the sites put forward.  He also clarified that large sites had been grouped when they were in close proximity, and this was for ease of working and did not mean one or both would necessarily be chosen.

 

Richard Haynes spoke about the landscape study carried out by LUC and the Oxford Archaeology study on heritage.  He was concerned that these were not effective as a tool to determine appropriate areas for development.  The LUC had said that there would be no assessment of views which would be devasting for places like Thaxted.  He said the Oxford Archaeology study did not consider the setting of heritage assets. 

 

He said that neighbourhood plans needed to be considered in the technical assessments as well as the Local Plan from 2005.

 

The Local Plans and New Communities Manager said he would go back to the consultants and would consider the points made.

 

The New Communities Senior Planning Officer said that the neighbourhood plans would be considered in the broader site assessments.

 

4.

Uttlesford Employment Needs & Economic Development Evidence pdf icon PDF 134 KB

To note the Uttlesford Employment Needs & Economic Development Evidence.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Planning Policy Officer said that the report looked at the economic growth and employment need of the district, and that it followed on from 3 working papers presented earlier in the year.   She said it looked at the employment structure of the district, a commercial market review, a business survey, the growth of Stansted Airport, the employment land supply and floor space required.

 

Matt Kingham from Iceni Projects presented the report.          

 

Councillor Caton asked what the skills and income levels would be at the Northside development as he was concerned that although it would provide jobs, the majority of employees would not be able to afford to live in the district.  He was concerned about the additional pressure on affordable housing stock. 

 

Mr Kingham said that it was likely to be low skill and low wage jobs with some managerial positions.  He said he could circulate income details on projects of a similar style. 

 

Members were concerned about Live/Work spaces as mentioned in the report as these had been unsuccessful in the past. 

 

Mr Kingham said he could provide details of some successful schemes in North London, but agreed to revisit that emphasis in the report.  

 

Councillor Light asked about Chesterford Retail Park (CRP) and the statement made that it was a key economic driver, she thought there was no real evidence behind this.  She asked how many local people were employed at CRP and how much it contributed to the local economy.

 

The Chair asked the Planning Policy Officer to circulate some statistics after the meeting. 

 

Councillor Pavitt said that apart from CRP there was nowhere else in the district that would benefit from the life sciences and bio tech companies’ sector.  He was concerned that this was because of the Council’s interest in the research park. 

 

The Local Plans and New Communities Manager said that CRP had a great deal of capacity for further growth.  He said that the companies worked closely together and would benefit from the conglomeration. 

 

The Chair said that the rationale for why other areas were not being considered needed to be clear within the report.

 

Councillor Reeve said that there was a good argument for start-up hubs to be built throughout the district not only for the life science industry but also for others including the emerging green economy.  He said a second CRP should be considered, 

 

In reply to a question from Councillor Reeve, the Local Plan and New Communities Manager said that there would be further work on establishing the need for extra housing in terms of the growth of jobs in the district, but the paper on housing requirements that came to the group in the Spring/Summer did start to cover this. 

 

Councillor Merifield raised the large number of mobile businesses within the report and said if this increased there would be a lot of cars on the road. She said that CRP needed to encourage apprenticeships within the district.  She said it was the whole district that was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Update pdf icon PDF 115 KB

To note the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment update.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The New Communities Senior Planning Officer said the report had been compiled by consultants JBA and highlighted all types of flood risk throughout the district.  This provided evidence to make informed decisions as to where and how developments took place.

 

Jo Chillingworth from JBA Consultants presented the report.  She set out the next steps which involved looking at the flood risk percentages compiled using data from the ‘call for sites’ boundaries.  Once the sites had been shortlisted a decision would be made as to whether a more detailed Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) needed to be carried out.

 

Councillor Pavitt said the report highlighted the need for policies in order to better understand where the development sites should be situated.  He said there was a case for excluding development near main waterways because of flood displacement, to protect the function of rivers to be natures corridor and because of the Council’s function as a custodian to protect and restore chalk streams.   He said the report focused on enabling development but did not cover these points. 

 

He said that page 280, 5.1 Historical Flooding was missing data he said that this needed to be captured from the Parishes and Members as it was important to have as accurate data as possible. 

 

Ms Chillingworth agreed but said there was more detailed information on historical flooding events in Appendix F. 

 

There was further discussion as the report data in appendix F only went up to 2016 and although further data was awaited from Essex County Council it was agreed that the Parish Councils would be able to provide more information on historical flooding.  It was also acknowledged that this would rely on responses from the Parishes and consistency of data provided. 

 

Councillor Pavitt also raised the Cam and Ely Ouse on page 300 which was a duplication of the data above. 

 

He finally asked if the areas in flood zone 3B, functional flood plains had been assessed recently to consider climate change.  Ms Chillingworth said that they had been mapped but it was the Council’s decision whether to develop on these sites which were not too widespread within Uttlesford’s district.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Merifeld who asked if a policy could be developed in terms of flooding from street drains which were not cleared properly.  The Local Plans and New Communities Manager said that a policy could be developed but it would need to be proportionate to the development and could not fix past problems.

 

The Group noted the report.

 

 

6.

Landscape Sensitivity - Phase 2 pdf icon PDF 116 KB

To note the findings of Phase 2 of the landscape work undertaken toinform the emerging Local Plan.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Local Plans and New Communities Manager said that the phase 2 report looked at the landscape around new settlements.

 

Katrina Davies from LUC presented the report.  She said the aim of the study was to assess the 12 potential new settlement locations in the context of the rural character of the district on a strategic level.  It provided a commentary on the sites without comparing them to each other. 

 

Areas of discussion included: -

·         The parcels of land had been submitted by different promotors and were therefore assessed according to what had been submitted.

·         The consultants had not been asked to look at other districts.

·         Carver Barracks had been included because it was the largest brown field site in the district, there was no indication from the Ministry of Defence that they wanted to sell the land.

·         The visual representations did not reflect the differences in topography throughout the district.

·         Councillor Caton raised a concern about the inconsistency of sites, for example, at Ugley, which was immediately adjacent to Stansted the coalescence of the site was not being taken into consideration.  The Local Plans and New Communities Manager agreed to provide a response after the meeting.

·         Councillor Tayler said that the views from the perspective of walkers were important alongside the private views of residents and asked if he could have further discussion with the Local Plans and New Communities Manager and the New Communities Senior Planning Officer, this was agreed.

 

Councillor Freeman left the meeting at 9:06pm

 

7.

Development Options Process pdf icon PDF 287 KB

To note the Development Options Process report.

Minutes:

The Local Plans and New Communities Manager presented the report.  He said it detailed the next step of the process for identifying development options for appraisal, which was an important stage of the Local Plan process.   

 

He said that therefore the next meeting on the 9th December would be a workshop for evaluation and discussion of the generation of reasonable alternatives.  This would be restricted to Local Plan Leadership Group Members.  The Chair said he would have discussions after the meeting regarding Members who were unable to attend and wanted to send substitutions.

 

 

 

The meeting ended at 9.21 pm