Planning Committee – 2 May 2008 (Policy Meeting)
Chair: Councillor Collinson
Venue: Function Room 1, Pittwood House, Scunthorpe
2. Declarations of personal or personal and prejudicial interests (if any).
3. The Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy – Planning For The Rising Tides March 2008
4. Local Development Scheme.
5. Community Infrastructure Levy.
6. Consultation and Adoption of a Local Validation Checklist For Planning Applications – report of the Head of Planning.
Any other items, which the chair decides are urgent, by reasons of special circumstances which must be specified.
Note: Reports are by the Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development unless otherwise stated.
PRESENT: Councillor Collinson in the chair.
Councillors Armitage, Bainbridge, Barker, B Briggs, Bunyan, Carlile, Eckhardt, England, C Sherwood , Wardle and Whiteley.
The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.
1033 DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS – The following member declared a personal interest.
Nature of Interest
|Councillor Barker||1034||Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy – Planning for the Rising Tide.||Member of Midland Flood Committee|
1034 (89) HUMBER FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY – PLANNING FOR THE RISING TIDE MARCH 2008 – The Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development submitted a report informing members about the Environment Agency’s (EA’s), Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy – Planning for the Rising Tides March 2008, ) the first of its kind in England and Wales. This Strategy set out a general approach to managing the estuary’s flood defences. It would inform, whenever appropriate, the Development Plan for North Lincolnshire and in making decisions on planning applications.
The report set out the EA’s Humber Flood Defence Strategy and its vision for managing flood risk over the next 100 years and explained the likely implications and consequences it would have on people, property and industry as well as on the area’s landscape, history and wildlife in North Lincolnshire. The EA would not be able to continue defending land from the River Humber and its main tributaries as it had done in the past because of predicted sea level rise and the predicted effects of climate change. The Strategy was not precise in terms of what the EA would actually defend (and fund) but it offered broad guidelines towards providing a good standard of defence for 99 per cent of the population living around the estuary and its main tributaries. The Council would contribute in partnership with the EA and relevant communities towards precise solutions to flood defence strategy and determine what help could be given to a tiny percentage of people and property that might not be defended in the future.
A major implication for the Council would be in negotiating and discussing with the EA the Humber Flood Defence Strategy as it affected North Lincolnshire’s people and property based on the options discussed in chapter 3 of the report. The Humber Flood Defence Strategy was a starting point to develop specific options through further negotiation with the EA and communities. The significant starting point would be to define (with the EA) or interpret precisely what flood defences within North Lincolnshire were going to be considered as uneconomic to maintain in the future – that was where the life cost of maintenance of a flood bank outweighed the value of property that it protected? Where the flood bank became uneconomic to maintain based on assessment by the EA, officers would have to investigate further what help the EA would give to those affected and whether there were any other sources of funding that could help in locations where the Council believed that it was appropriate to defend. Where the EA decided to maintain the flood defences it would be important to determine what solutions would actually be proposed (for example raising existing defences, changing soft defences to hard defences, moving defences back, creating secondary defences etc) and how much of the cost would the EA fund and how much funding would be required from beneficiaries and developers. The Strategy promised that the EA will carry out detailed assessments before taking final decisions about any part of the Estuary or its defences – the options for solutions would become more obvious at such times.
Of note were various references to wider sustainable issues that needed to be balanced with the single focus issue of flood risk and flood defence. The Strategy contained references to the importance to the economy the South Humber Bank Employment site and Lincolnshire Lakes were and would be to North Lincolnshire. It emphasised issues with the existing flood defences opposite Read Island and possible consequences to the A1077 and that the condition of the flood banks between Flixborough and Gunness would need to be repaired in the short term (a separate EA study was ongoing). It was pleasing to note at the launch of the Strategy that Elliot Morely (MP) had supported and recognised the balance that flood defence would have to make with the wider sustainable issues of the area.
Whilst the Strategy only gave a general starting point to future solutions to flood defence of the Estuary and left options open to discussion and negotiation, it was important that the EA understood North Lincolnshire’s position. It would be essential to the future of thousands of people that lived and worked in the more vulnerable areas susceptible to flooding in North Lincolnshire along the Rivers Humber, Trent and Ancholme and in the Isle of Axholme, that they were appropriately defended against the predicted climate change and rising sea levels. Since the Flood Defence Strategy was only a start to working out exactly what has to be done, partnership working would be important to achieve outcomes . Partnership working should not just be single focussed towards flood risk, it should also be inclusive of all sustainable aims in North Lincolnshire. This should lead to acceptable solutions for all. This should be achieved in the short term to enable certainty to be given to all people and property as soon as possible.
Resolved – (a) That report be noted and (b) that the Council work in partnership with the Environment Agency and the Community in achieving acceptable flood defence solutions around the Humber Estuary and its main tributaries.
1035 (90) LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME – The Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development submitted a report informing members of the issues involved in preparing a revised Local Development Scheme and seeking approval of the Draft Local Development Scheme’s timetable.
The Local Development Scheme (LDS) was the project plan for the delivery of the North Lincolnshire Local Development Framework (LDF). The current LDS had been approved by the Planning Committee (Policy) on 1 June 2007 meeting (minute 924 refers)
Since the approval of the current LDS there had been a number of significant events and issues that had impacted on its deliverability, most notably the detailed timetabling. These events and issues, which were detailed in the report included : –
(i) Housing and Employment Land Allocations Issues and Options Development Plan Document (DPD);
(ii) Staffing issues;
(iii) Housing Growth Point Bid;
(iv) Regional Spatial Strategy;
(v) Planning Bill, and
(vi) Core Strategy
A revised LDF timetable had been drafted that reflected the above concerns and issues and this was appended to the report. Through discussions with GOYH it was clear that the LDS could not be formally changed at this stage. However, a revised timetable could be posted on the Council’s website that advertised the amendments.
It was proposed, subject to agreement with GOYH and the Planning Inspectorate, that the Preferred Options Housing and Employment Land Allocations DPD be put back to January/February 2009, with adoption in January 2011. The Submission Core Strategy was suggested for October/November 2008 with the Waste DPD set back further. The Lincolnshire Lakes Area Action Plan was highlighted for the first time within the LDS with an Issues and Options stage that mirrored the Submission Core Strategy.
Recommended to Council – That the revised LDS timetable be approved.
1036 (91) COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY – The Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development submitted a report informing members of the Government’s proposals to establish a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to fund the delivery of infrastructure development, which were included in the Planning Bill, currently before parliament.
CIL was intended to be a major mechanism for securing contributions from developers to fund infrastructure and other facilities.
The new powers would allow councils to set a CIL for their area following an assessment of local infrastructure needs and consultation with their local community.
Different types and sizes of development would pay different amounts depending on local needs to help ensure that the new infrastructure needed to maintain sustainable growth was provided.
The CIL would work in conjunction with other incentives for communities supporting new homes, including the £500m Housing and Planning Delivery Grant (HPDG) and the £1.7 billion housing infrastructure investment from the department
The existing system of section 106 agreements would continue to operate alongside the CIL in terms of the provision of affordable housing.
Resolved – That the report be noted.
1037 (92 ) CONSULTATION AND ADOPTION OF A LOCAL VALIDATION CHECKLIST FOR PLANNING APPLICTIONS – Further to minute 995, the Head of Planning submitted a report informing members of the results of consultations carried out upon the draft Local Checklist for validating planning applications at a local level.
Following approval by the committee in January 2008 consultation with over 150 organisations and individuals had now been undertaken and the results and responses collated and assessed. The overwhelming response was that the local validation checklist was a process to be fully supported and many of the consultees had made detailed comments on the text to be incorporated in the final document.
Attached to the report as Appendix 1 was a list of all the persons/organisations who had responded, together with their comments and a recommendation as to whether or not the comments were agreed to or not. Where the comments were agreed to the details had been incorporated into the text of the final document. In most instances the suggested amendments or changes had been accepted.
Resolved – (a) That the contents of the consultation Appendix 1 attached to this report be noted and that the suggested amendments contained therein be incorporated into the Local Validation Checklist; (b) that all respondents to the consultation process be thanked for their comments and be provided with a copy of the final document, and (c) that the amended Local Validation Checklist be adopted by the Council for the validation of planning applications with effect from the 1 July 2008.