Memorandum
TO:
All Members of Strategic
Planning & Partnerships Panel
Environment Executive Members
Director of Environment
FROM
: Kay Povey-Richards
EXT
: 25206
MY REF
: SP3/KPR
YOUR REF :
DATE
: 8 September 2005
STRATEGIC PLANNING & PARTNERSHIPS PANEL
17 JUNE 2005
MINUTES
ATTENDANCE
N Agar (for J Metcalf), R S Clements, S Drury, A F Hunter, S E Jones, D Peek (for A
Dodd), P Ruffles, R A Thomas (Chairman), W A Storey (for D Drake), C J White
Officers
J Hayes-Griffin (Assistant Director – Strategic Planning & Partnerships)
J Rumble (Team Leader – Sustainability)
J Reeve (Team Leader – Minerals & Waste Policy)
K Povey-Richards (Administrator)
1.
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN
CCllr Russell Thomas had been appointed Chairman of the Panel by Cabinet. The
Panel agreed to appoint CCllr Roy Clements as Vice Chairman.
2.
INTRODUCTIONS AND APOLOGIES
Introductions were made and apologies noted from CCllrs A Dodd, D Drake and J
Metcalf. CCllrs Duncan Peek, Nigel Agar and Bill Storey attended as substitutes.
It was agreed to add an item on Declarations of Interest at future meetings. CCllr
Chris White declared a non prejudicial interest as he was Deputy Leader of the
Regional Assembly.
www.hertsdirect.org
1
3.
SCOPE OF THE PANEL
Jan Hayes-Griffin outlined the scope of the Strategic Planning and Partnerships
Panel and the future work programme.
Jan Hayes-Griffin highlighted the link between the Strategic Planning and
Partnerships Panel and the Highways and Transport Panel, particularly in relation to
the Local Transport Plan and strategic and regional transportation issues. This may
require joint meetings of the two Panels on certain issues. Members of the Strategic
Planning and Partnerships Panel were invited to attend the Highways and Transport
Panel meeting on 21 June to consider the draft Local Transport Plan and the results
of the recent consultation exercise.
Members requested information about the latest position on Luton and Stansted
Airports. Officers undertook to circulate information to Members.
Two site visits are being arranged for the Strategic Planning and Partnerships Panel
– one was planned for 23 August (covering Airports and Growth) and a further one
on 25 August (covering Regeneration). The Chairman encouraged Panel Members
to attend.
The Scope of the Panel and Work Programme was agreed.
4.
EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN – EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC
John Rumble introduced a report outlining the process and time scale for the
forthcoming EIP and the matters to be considered by the EIP Panel. HCC have
been formally consulted on the matters to be examined. HCC needs to respond to
the EIP Panel by 29 June.
The County Council attended a preliminary meeting with the EIP Panel on 14 June
2005. The Panel will consider all comments made in response to the consultation
and publish the final timetable/programme and list of matters. The Examination in
Public (EIP) will begin on 14 September and will last until the end of
December/beginning of January. Not all of those who made representations on the
East of England Plan will be invited to give evidence at the EIP.
Participants may submit additional statements to the Panel. These need to focus on
the specific matters to be considered by the Panel, and should be submitted in
August.
Over 28,000 separate submissions have been made to the Plan – most of these
relate to specific growth issues, and the majority are from Hertfordshire.
Airports are not specifically dealt with within the EiP, and separate discussions
would be required. However, the matter is still open for participants to make
representation.
Hertfordshire matters are scheduled to be discussed in week 10, allowing three and
a half days for discussion.
www.hertsdirect.org
2
The draft list of matters to be discussed at the EIP provides the opportunity to cover
the majority of the responses made by the County in relation to the East of England
Plan. However, HCC would be making representations to the EIP Panel regarding
compliance with legislative requirements (particularly the SEA Directive) and need
for a specific session at the beginning of the EIP to address this. In addition officers
felt the EIP Panel needed to expand the session relating to the overall Spatial
Strategy for the East of England to fully test its robustness and justification. Officers
were also of the view that there needed to be a separate session at the EIP to
examine Hertfordshire’s Spatial Strategy issues in its entirety.
A number of points were raised by Members:

CCllr White said that whilst the East of England Plan was not robust, he felt
HCC’s position on the Regional Spatial Strategy was very negative.

There were major concerns about the proposed scale of growth in the East of
England Plan and the level of resources needed for infrastructure. CCllr Peek
expressed particular concern in relation to water resources.

Members felt there was no justification for the 79,600 dwellings proposed for
Hertfordshire and a lack of a robust Spatial Strategy for Hertfordshire. Members
expressed concern about the level of development proposed for north of Harlow,
and at Stevenage. CCllr Storey felt the totals were based on capacity rather than
real housing need.

Members felt strongly that officers should make it clear that the development
north of Harlow was in fact in East Herts; and much of the Stevenage expansion
was in North Herts. Members felt that growth was not a prerequisite for the
regeneration of Harlow; they felt any development in the M11 corridor should be
concentrated south of Harlow.

Members asked for copies of the previous minutes of the Regeneration Issues
Panel to be circulated.

CCllr Agar expressed concern that the potential impact of the Luton/Dunstable
growth areas or North Herts were not be examined by the Panel. This was
because the matter had already been dealt with at the Milton Keynes/South
Midlands EIP.
The officer’s report stated that EERA had identified Stevenage as a significant
centre within Hertfordshire, and that it is different to Harlow for which a sub regional
role is identified, and the only way the EiP can properly explore the role of
Stevenage would be at a separate session. Chris White said that Stevenage should
be dealt with at an appropriate time in an appropriate way. This will be taken on
board.
The selection of participants invited to take part in the discussion at the EiP
depends on the matter being considered. At present the EIP Panel were seeking
only three representatives from county councils to attend for any one issue. Officers
feel this is unacceptable as each county has a statutory function in relation to
www.hertsdirect.org
3
regional planning and the issues are very different between counties. It is felt that
allowing all strategic authorities to be represented would not significantly advance
the numbers of participants. There does not appear to be a process for agreeing
how the authorities will be represented. HCC was present at the preliminary
meeting and raised concerns at the way the strategic authorities are represented.
However, the Chairman is unlikely to change his view.
The Chair of the EiP Panel does not expect the same people to be in the seats
throughout the process. The discussions between the strategic authorities are
expected to take place through EEDET. All the authorities are unhappy with the
process.
It was agreed that the Panel would inform the Executive Member of its
dissatisfaction with the process. A draft response to the EiP Panel will be prepared
before the end of June, in consultation with the Executive Member and Chairman.
The draft will be circulated to Members of the Panel beforehand.
5.
WASTE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Jan Hayes-Griffin and Julie Reeve gave a presentation on the new Planning Policy
Framework for Waste, the content and role of the various documents that will make
up the Waste Development Plan, the Core Strategy, and the site selection criteria. A
copy of the presentation is attached to these minutes.
Members expressed concern about the potential costs of providing new waste
treatment facilities. Jan Hayes-Griffin advised these implications will need to be
considered by the Waste Management Panel.
HCC has employed independent consultants, Entec, to carry out the site selection
study. The process of site assessment involves filtering the sites down using
different criteria – primary, secondary and tertiary. This revised method does not
automatically exclude sites because of their designation, but grades that
designation as to its significance in prohibiting a waste management facility being
identified. The process is different from previous site selection methodology. It
adopts a more matrix or balanced score card approach.
Under PPS10, there is an expectation that waste will be dealt with on site wherever
possible. Members asked if this would be monitored. Jan Hayes-Griffin advised the
Government has recognised a need to tighten up regulation and minimise the
amount of waste.
The County Council is responsible for waste disposal and the District Councils are
responsible for household waste collection. For waste planning purposes, the
County Council needs to plan for the disposal of all waste, not just household
waste. Under proximity principle, HCC is expected to plan for sites within its own
borders. However Members suggested liaising with adjacent counties and sharing
different facilities. It may be acceptable to share facilities that are close to county
boundaries for the disposal of specific waste streams. This will be explored as part
of both the waste planning and waste management process.
www.hertsdirect.org
4
An initial piece of work is to assess how much waste will be generated in
Hertfordshire over the next few years, and the most appropriate technology for
dealing with this. Different waste streams demand different capacities to make them
cost effective. This work needs to happen in parallel with the Waste Management
Panel.
The most appropriate sites were most likely to be on previously developed industrial
areas.
The County’s role is to identify appropriate sites for waste. Waste is a big business
in the private sector and this could be seen as a business opportunity. Facilities
would be developed by the private sector, though with regard to facilities required to
manage municipal waste, partnership agreements with the County Council could be
an option.
The current Waste Strategy, which is under review, is based on a non-incineration
principle. The Waste Management Panel will need to review emerging technologies
for new waste treatment facilities.
Many of these issues will be in the public domain in the autumn as the new planning
system encourages local authorities to engage with the public as early as possible
in the process. Consultation will take place on the draft plan and the list of options.
Members felt criteria relating to noise and possible environmental pollution should
be added to the list of site criteria. Also, concern needs to be given to the immediate
area surrounding the site. A waste facility could jeopardise development in the
surrounding area.
Members asked for clarification between the role of the Strategic Planning and
Partnerships Panel and the Waste Management Panel. Jan Hayes-Griffin advised
the Waste Management Panel is concerned with the provision of waste treatment
facilities for the household waste stream. The Strategic Planning and Partnerships
Panel’s task is to provide a range of sites that can deal with the full range of waste
streams in Hertfordshire.
It was suggested that a Waste Workshop be held for Members of both Panels. This
would provide an understanding of the respective roles and interrelationships.
It was agreed that a presentation on the outcome of the consultants’ study would be
given to this Panel.
6.
LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN
Members of the Strategic Planning and Partnerships Panel are invited to attend the
meeting of the Highways and Transport Panel on 21 June to consider the draft
Local Transport Plan and the response to the public consultation.
7.
MEMBER INFORMATION ITEMS
These items were circulated to Members in advance of the Panel and Members are
asked to raise issues with the relevant officers prior to the Panel meeting.
www.hertsdirect.org
5
8.
FUTURE MEETINGS OF THE PANEL
15 September 2005 at 2.30 pm
17 October 2005 at 2.30 pm
10 November 2005 at 10.00 am
www.hertsdirect.org
6