Agenda and minutes

Apologies: Julia Beeden, Lee Bevens, Dino Biagioni, Ted Brand, Eugene Cooper, Marcel Cooper, Hilary Ellis, Keith Hutchinson, Graham Moore, Nick Seaton, Councillor Will Sutton and David Wyatt

Present: Stephen Buddle, Nick Harding, Ben Hornigold, Peter Humphrey, Shanna Jackson, Councillor Mrs Dee Laws, John Maxey (Chairman), Victoria McIlroy, Carol Pilson, David Rowen, Adam Scott, Tim Slater, David Thomas, Gemma Wildman, Martin Williams and Christian Wilson 

Observing: Councillor Ian Benney and Councillor Mrs Jan French

The Chairman asked if there was now a Flood Management Report as Gary Garford had indicated at his last update there may be one available late summer. Nick Harding said he would check and circulate if there is one.

Peter Humphrey noted that the Schedule stated Gary Garford would be giving a presentation at this forum on the Garden Town Project. Carol Pilson said that this would be rescheduled.

The action schedule of the meeting of 10 July 2019 was then agreed and approved.

Presented by Charles Roberts and Emma Grima, East Cambs

This presentation was deferred to the next meeting in January at the request of East Cambs. 

Presented by Gemma Wildman and Ed Dade, FDC

Gemma Wildman gave a presentation on the Fenland Local Plan which is now under review. The new plan will set out how Fenland will grow up until 2040. The public consultation is now open and will run until 21/11/19 and all the information and reports are available on the FDC website.

The Chairman thanked GW for her presentation and asked if all members of the forum received her notification. GW stated that due to data protection laws it was not possible to use the same list but she had advised people on the list to register their details and believed most had.

Martin Williams said that he had seen the evidence re the flood risk assessment. If a piece of land is in FZ3, would the report carry weight? GM said that we have to follow national policy, therefore we would have to assess sites by looking at FZ1 first and if we could not meet our requirements then we would have to assess FZ2 then FZ3. There has to be a sequential approach, however in this area it is very likely that we will be unable to meet all our housing needs in FZ1 so we will look at our water cycle and flood risk assessments to find the most appropriate sites. MW mentioned that the last action plan stated the cost of the barrier in respect of Wisbech development and that it could be removed from FZ3. The Chairman suggested that MW read the documents that GW had referred to as this would give him the information he required and showed how sites are scored. The points MW made had been raised in a meeting that the Chairman and PH had attended with CP, GW and NH; flood zone on its own is not the best indicator of the actual risk of flood on site. FDC is constrained by national policy that says they have to look at FZ1 but if the intention is to have a strategy of growth they do have to be able to assess the individual sites as to where the lower risk points and sites that may all be in FZ3 but are not all at the same flood risk. It is a question of finding the process we can properly assess if we are going to have situations where there are villages that are all flood zone 3 and we are still going to allow a certain amount of development, scale to be determined, how we direct that development to the right areas in the village where you minimise the flood risk. GW added that the full site assessment process balances lots of issues, so flood risk is one of many; there may be other constraints on sites but we have to build on the best site based on all sorts of criteria, not just flood risk.

Councillor Mrs Laws said that as Chairman of the working party, what we have said is that we would work any developments and she added  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The Chairman said that members are aware a challenge was raised to FDC and KLWN over the procedure of registering local land charges where there are not full details of drainage proposed for site in place at the time consent was granted.

Following on from this, KLWN has agreed to remove all local land charges and will not place any more on their register following on from planning consent’s reliance on the drainage. The FDC position is they have never have put a local land charge on, but what they have inserted is what Middle Level have requested, which was a note on the record and they continue to maintain they can do this. The remaining disagreement is whether there is such a thing as a note on the register. Advice from a barrister is that there is either a local land charge or nothing. The reason for the disagreement is that there are a lot of these notes being interpreted by search companies as charges.

Discussions are ongoing and if we can arrive at a condition that was put on the planning consent that made it clear that when reserve matters are submitted they need to include full drainage details that may be the satisfactory solution for everyone. There will be further discussion regarding the phrasing of such a condition and the Chairman will continue to pursue this in order to arrive at a resolution.

Nick Harding said that in terms of FDC’s position, generally we would only ask for drainage details on larger sites or where a particular drainage issue is drawn to our attention that needs resolving. We focus only on major applications because we look to the lead local flood authority to assist us in the discharge of those surface water conditions. The IDB concern extends to smaller schemes also. If we were to request drainage details for all applications where there is a surface water discharge, we do not have the manpower or technical knowledge to deal with that workload. There is the possibility of having a compliance condition placed on these planning permissions saying that drainage should be dealt with by certain means unless it is demonstrated that a soakaway is not suitable. Alternatively, all those small schemes have a note highlighting the need for IDB approval if draining into their systems. The IDB have made it clear that for a modest fee you can apply to them with your surface water drainage proposals and they will indicate if the proposals are satisfactory or not. NH added that in his view it is more straightforward to deal directly with organisations rather than through the council as a third party, although he knows there is disagreement on that.

David Thomas said that he found it strange that the planning authority is seen as the third party in the planning process.  It has an obligation to ensure that planning is appropriate in all aspects, and he is getting the impression they want to wash their hands  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Nick Harding provided an update on performance and staffing. 

Performance on validation has improved over the year, with 82% of validations within 5 working days now that staffing issues have been resolved.  Major applications are being decided within 13 weeks. Without extensions of time being agreed we are running at 21% on these. Since April we have determined approximately 25 major applications, but the main reason why we are currently running at this level is because there has been quite a lot of ongoing dialogue on those applications and subsequent re-consultations. As members of the forum are aware, we had a change of approach earlier in the year where we agreed that when a planning application is received and it looks unfavourable, we have asked for it to be withdrawn if a significant amount of work is required to make it successful. In the long term we should see an improvement on that 21% with this new approach. 

The Chairman said that his experience is we are still seeing long periods to get S106 through and this is an ongoing problem and asked if this could be shortened. NH said we are in the process of putting final touches to S106 unilateral agreements which will help move things along, we are also engaging with the County Council and potentially looking at cutting them out as a signatory to S106 where it is a cash only arrangement. The Chairman said that would help.

In respect of staff updates, Jennifer Seaman will be leaving at the end of this month and Kathryn Brand has returned after a break. 

Nick Harding said that the rollout of faster broadband to all parts of the country may yet have an impact on planning. There is also the potential for a planning angle for legal obligations in respect of environmental improvements/ ecology. The new Secretary of State has announced there will be a national design guide with a consultation on a new national design code next year and also a requirement of local authorities to each have their own code in the future.

There is currently a building regulations consultation about future home standards to drive higher the eco credentials of new residential properties, with a web link to the consultation and documents, and NH will circulate the presentation after the meeting. In the autumn there will be an accelerated planning green paper and it is suggested there will be a new tiered planning system. Detached homes will potentially be able to add two storeys without planning permission. Upwards extensions of town centre buildings and the potential to demolish town centre buildings and replace with residential development are some of the other proposals.

The Chairman raised a question submitted in writing by Ted Brand. He asked what the anticipated timescale is for the results of the March Area Transport Study as this appears to be delaying current major applications and is likely to affect future applications. CCC has only stated it will be completed this winter.

NH advised the study is funded by the Combined Authority with the work being carried out by FDC officers in conjunction with CCC. Study work is underway and due to be completed at year end. The outputs from that will include some indicative junction improvement schemes and will be subject to public consultation early in 2020. Post consultation, the package of improvement schemes will be reported back to the CA to agree how they will be carried forward. The Chairman said that hopefully we would have an update for the next meeting.

NH gave an assurance that FDC will be considering planning applications in the usual way whilst this transport study is ongoing. We can only reasonably refuse an application on the grounds that the proposal is running contrary to a transport improvement scheme that may be coming out of the study. 

Councillor Mrs Laws raised that she had spent time with the validation team and was sorry to report that the quality of applications coming in was very poor, i.e. one application had four documents missing. Many of the errors are down to lack of proof reading or not double checking the application. The team cannot move forward with applications that contain such mistakes.  There is an open approach in that staff can contact agents and advise what is missing or incorrect but this causes time delay. We offered a training session on validation but it was cancelled due to lack of support. Councillor Mrs Laws added that she was not directing this comment to anyone around the table but it needed to be noted.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.