Meeting documents

Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Monday 10 May 2010



iv
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

10 MAY 2010

PRESENT: Councillors Mrs Howes (Chairman), Beer, J Evans, Holness, Mrs Kemp and Stretton

In attendance: Councillor Mrs Knight

Officers: Mrs Bailey, Mr Herlinger, Mr Hawkey, Mrs Hornby, Mr Perkins, Mr Slaney and Ms Wylie
part i
    91/09 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

    There were none.

    92/09 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    Councillor Beer declared a Personal interest in the Flood Monitoring item due to being a member of the Parishes Flood Forum and the Royal Borough Flood Forum.

    Councillor Hunt declared a Personal interest in the Flood Monitoring item due to being a Council Representative on Actvar.

    Councillor Stretton declared a Personal interest in the Flood Monitoring item due to being a Parish Councillor for Cookham.

    93/09 MINUTES

    RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on 9 March 2010 be approved subject to the declaration that Councillor Mrs Howes was a member of St Mary’s Church.

    94/09 FLOOD MONITORING

    Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 27 May on the Flood Monitoring report and noted that this was the six monthly update as previously requested. During the discussion, the following points were raised –
      Ø The Panel was pleased to note that the Lead Member for Highways and Streetcare be given approval to write to the write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to demand an explanation why no funding had been received by the Royal Borough for the co-ordination of leading the work on local flood management, and also wished to express concern over this issue.
      Ø That the recently formed Flood Group had met twice. This group also included partner agencies, Parish Councils and other Authorities which would be PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL – 10.05.10
        affected by flooding. It was noted that Authorities who had suffered the worst of the flooding in 2007 would be in receipt of the bulk of the funding. It was also noted that information in relation to the flood group would be placed on the Royal Borough website, although it was reported that it was at present difficult to categorise. It was hoped to evolve the Flood Group to operate.
      Ø It was noted in relation to 3.4.1 that following pressure from the Royal Borough and others the Environment Agency (EA) had been persuaded to monitor the application and that further to information and results the scheme was deemed appropriate. The Panel was also advised that the holding objection had been lifted.
      Ø The Flood and Water Management Bill gained Royal Assent on the 8 April.
      Ø It was noted that the updated flood maps from the Environment Agency, whilst having been sent to the Royal Borough, had not been circulated to the Parish Councils or Ward Councillors of affected Wards within the Borough. Members expressed concern over the appearance of the maps in that details could not be seen easily through the solid red markings. It was agreed that Mr Slaney would approach the EA to discuss alternative options.
      Ø The Borough was known as Lead Local Flood Authority.
      Ø In relation to reservoirs, it was noted that the owner of a reservoir is required to prepare an on-site plan in relation to potential flooding issues and the Local Authority was required to prepare an off-site plan with the Local Authority co-ordinating between the two.
      Ø The Panel commented in relation to 3.2.2 in particular the issue of fat deposits being discharged from restaurants and noted that fat traps were being utilised in relieving the associated surcharging problems. It was also noted that this an Environmental Health issue. The Panel requested updates at a future meeting.
      RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the report be endorsed and recommended to Cabinet with the additional comment that the title of the Royal Borough’s role under the Flood and Water Management Act be noted as Lead Local Flood Authority.

    95/09 SERVICE MONITORING REPORT

    Members considered the Service Monitoring Report and noted that there were no changes from those previously reported. The Panel noted that everything was in place in relation to Crime and Disorder.

    96/09 THAMES BASIN HEATHS SPA – JOINT STRATEGIC ACCESS MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PROCEDURES

    Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 27 May 2010 on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area – Joint Arrangements for Strategic Access Management and Monitoring. It was noted that the Royal Borough would collect contributions in conjunction with ten other local authorities to enable the pooling of financial contributions for the purposes of Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) covering the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.. During the ensuing discussion the following points were noted –
      Ø In relation to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) the collection of S106 funds for SAMM purposes would not be affected by the implementation of CIL and it was noted that legal advice had been sought collectively by all of the SPA affected local authorities which had confirmed this point.. The Panel commented however, that some of the authorities may not be as robust as the Royal Borough in their guidance on S106 matters and that the Royal Borough should perhaps consider sharing some of our practices with them.
      Ø In relation to 3.6 it was noted that a charge of approximately £630 per additional new dwelling would be levied on those granted permission within 5km of the SPA. The amount collected per dwelling would vary according to property size (small dwellings paying less and large dwellings paying more). Based on past trends it would be anticipated that approximately 61 dwellings per annum could be expected to be completed within the SPA affected part of the borough.. The Panel expressed concern that dwellings closer to to the SPA should pay more contributions than those further away and noted that this issue had been investigated but abandoned as it was a complicated procedure to implement in a transparent way.
      Ø The Panel noted that in relation to the Recommendation 2 of the Cabinet Report, that SAMM should be named in full.
      Ø It was noted that information was on the Royal Borough website so that residents were aware of the issues in relation to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.
      Ø It was also noted that there was another, similar, paper due to be brought to this scrutiny panel.
      RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the report be endorsed and recommended to Cabinet with the additional comment that the acronym SAMM, in the Recommendation, be named in full.

    97/09 MAIDENHEAD RIVERSIDE CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL

    Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on the Maidenhead Riverside Conservation Area Appraisal and noted the boundaries of the existing riverside Conservation Areas, those areas to be amended and the formation of a new Conservation Area to be named Maidenhead Riverside Conservation Area. The Panel also noted that the new document be used as a guide for future planning decisions and to inform the Local Development Framework. During a short discussion the following points were noted –
      Ø That the new area encompassed two previous areas and would include significant areas of the Riverside.
      Ø In relation to Lock Avenue, it was noted that Lock Avenue was not in the Riverside Conservation Area, but that it had been explored and rejected as the houses were considered of not a significant age and the street itself does not have a direct relationship with the river. It was noted the Brunel Bridge was in the Conservation Area and therefore protected.
      Ø That South Bucks had increased their area of Conservation in 2003. The Royal Borough was now working closely with South Bucks on matters of Riverside Conservation.
      Ø The Panel expressed concern in relation to Permitted Development (PD) Rights.
      Ø The Panel expressed in relation to 5.1.3 be expanded to clarify why Lock Avenue did not meet the necessary criteria.
      RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the report be endorsed and recommended to Cabinet with the additional comment that the paragraph 5.1.3 be expanded to clarify why Lock Avenue did not meet the necessary criteria.

    98/09 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY REGULATIONS – UPDATE ON GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION

    Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations – Update on Government Consultation, and noted the recommendations to Cabinet of keeping a ‘watching brief’. The Panel noted that the S106 system had proved very successful and saw no reason to change. The Panel expressed concern in relation to 3.1.1 e) that the CIL was levied on the net additional increase in floor space as a result of a development, and that Officers believed this to be reasonable except in relation to Education and that they had expressed a concern that there was insufficient local and/or national data that existed on pupil yields per square metre of residential floor space to enable the justification for education contributions to be put forward and the Panel noted there was an ongoing consultation in relation to this issue.

    The Panel also expressed that in relation to 3.1.1 h) the view should be reinforced that affordable housing should not be made an exception and should share funding with the local community. The Panel also expressed a wish for an update to be brought to the Planning & Environment Scrutiny meeting in September 2010.
      RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the report be endorsed and recommended to Cabinet with the additional comments that an update be provided in September 2010 and 3.1.1. h) reinforced the view that affordable housing should not be made an exception and should share funding with the local community.

    99/09 WORK PROGRAMME

    The following items were scheduled for discussion at the meeting of the Panel to be held on 12 July 2010.
      Ø Policy for Dealing with Planning Applications for Houses in Multiple Occupation.
      Ø Parking Strategy Document
      Ø Thames Basin Heaths SPA – Supplementary Planning Document
      Ø Service Monitoring Report

    100/09 MEETING

    The meeting, which began at 6.31pm, concluded at 8.07pm

    CHAIRMAN: ………………………………………..
    DATE: …………………………………………