Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2021 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2021 as a correct record.

To note any declarations of interest made by members in connection with an agenda item.  The nature of the interest must also be specified.

Members are asked to discuss any possible interests with Democratic Services prior to the meeting.

No declarations of interest were made in connection with an agenda item.

To note any issues raised during the public participation period.

No issues were raised in the public participation period.

To receive an oral update from the Portfolio Holders for Environment and Regulatory Services and for Planning and Infrastructure.

Cllr Hoare, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Regulatory Services provided an update on the following matters:

Keyhaven:  Work had commenced to upgrade the mooring facilities at Keyhaven to install a larger and heavier ground chain.  The old chain was no longer strong and heavy enough to safely secure the berths.  The mooring holders had been informed and permission had been obtained from Lymington Harbourmaster for the mooring holders to berth free of charge at Lymington whilst the work was being carried out.  The work was scheduled to take 8 weeks and upon completion the Council would be able to increase the occupancy rate at Keyhaven.

Crabby littering initiative:  This campaign would be relaunched, following its success last summer to encourage people to take their litter home.  The Council would also be working closely with the National Park Authority and Forestry England to develop a plan to deal with an expected increase in visitor numbers to the New Forest over the summer.  Enhanced cleaning in certain locations would be carried out.

Great British Spring Clean – 28 May – 13 June 2021: The District Council would be involved and provide support towards this campaign.  There was much community interest in litter picking, with a number of litter picking groups in the District Council area.

Fly tipping: It was noted that the number of incidents of fly tipping continued to rise, this had been reported on the Performance Dashboard circulated with the agenda.  An update on this would be provided on later in the meeting.

Cllr Edward Heron, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Infrastructure reported there were a number of items on the agenda within his portfolio area and therefore did not have any further updates.

To receive a presentation regarding the responsibility of the Council and others in relation to coastal defence.

David Martin from the Environment Agency gave a presentation to the Panel which provided an overview of the role of the Environment Agency, the support provided to Risk Management Authorities, and Grant in Aid funding.  The presentation is attached to these notes as an Appendix.

The Environment Agency was noted to take a strategic overview for the management of all sources of flood and coastal erosion.  Government Policy was shaped through the evidence and advice provided by the Environment Agency.  It had responsibility for managing the risk of flooding from ‘main’ rivers, reservoirs and the sea.

There were a number of ways that flood risk was managed and this was explained to the Panel.  The Environment Agency were a statutory consultee on all planning applications where the flood risk potential needed to be considered.  Matters such as climate change, flood risk predictions for the lifetime of the development were taken into account when forming a view.  Each year the Environment Agency agreed a programme of Asset Maintenance work.  It was noted that land owners were responsible for maintaining sites, however, the Environment Agency had the power to undertake maintenance along designated rivers.  The Environment Agency also operated an incident response service and issue flood warnings.

The Environment Agency were noted to provide support to Risk Management Authorities (RMA’s), this included providing advice to help RMAs apply for FCERM (Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management) Grant in Aid Funding.  The Grant in Aid process was explained and noted to be a two stage process.  The first stage was to secure an allocation of funds in a capital programme, updated annually.  If the bid was successful, the second stage was to provide the technical assurance and to submit a business case to access the allocated funds.  It was noted that there were different levels of detail required dependent on the level of funding, with a more complex approval process for larger funding requests.   Funding would not be released if other sources of project funding were not in place. 

In response to a member question, it was clarified that it was the land owners’ responsibility to undertake maintenance of the rivers on their land.  The Environment Agency could make contact with the land owner if a matter was brought to their attention but it did not have the powers to make the land owner carry out any maintenance work to prevent the risk of flooding.

To receive an update on the initial findings of the public consultation on the Mitigation for Recreational Impacts Strategy Supplementary Planning Document.

The Panel received an update on the progress of the Mitigation for Recreational Impacts Supplementary Planning Document, which had been updated following the adoption of the Local Plan in July 2020.

A public consultation exercise had been carried out in January-February 2021 and officers were in the process of reviewing the responses received.  Over 40 responses had been received.  Half of these had been from local residents / local interest groups, 6 from Town and Parish Councils, 7 from other organisations (including the National Park Authority) and 7 from developers / land-owners.

A range of comments had been received, the majority of which were supportive of the SPD.  There was some concern in relation to the operation of the SPD, particularly in terms of the requirements for any new development, and regarding how mitigation projects would function, in particular, in relation to the management and long term maintenance of these projects.  It was recognised that there were benefits to the local community where improvements could be made to open spaces and public rights of way. 

The local Town and Parish Council respondents wanted to be involved in the proposed projects in their local area.  It was noted that some developers / land-owners sought more flexibility in the requirements for new developments.

The Supplementary Planning Guidance would be presented to Cabinet for approval.  A summary of comments received and how these had been addressed would be presented to Cabinet alongside this.  The consultation exercise had identified a need to clarify some aspects of the document.

Members sought clarity on the future management and maintenance of any mitigation projects.  It was noted that the planning approval process would secure a Section 106 agreement and conditions would be attached to any planning consent.  These mechanisms would detail the management and maintenance requirements for any project.

To consider the proposed review and scope of the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document.

The Panel considered the proposal to revise the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).  It was noted that the current SPD had been adopted in October 2012 and covered both residential and non-residential uses and all forms of vehicle.  It was also noted that the document set out standards which were a ‘one size fits all’ regardless of location.

The aim of any new parking standards would be to ensure that an appropriate level of vehicle and cycle parking was provided in all new development to avoid problems created by both the over and under provision of parking.  The new SPD would consider National Guidance and the Local Plan.

A task and finish group was proposed to be established.  The scope of the revision would be addressed as part of this group, for example, whether there should be different standards in different parts of the forest.

RESOLVED:

(i)             That a Task and Finish Group be set up to consider a new Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Guidance; and

(ii)            That Cllrs Tipp and Wade represent the Panel on this Group.

To receive an update on the Government changes to the planning system.

The Panel received a presentation on the proposed changes to the planning system published for consultation in January 2021.  The presentation has been attached to these notes as an appendix. 

The Government had published three documents for consultation, these were; the National Design Guide, National Model Design Code and Guidance Notes for design codes.  The documents set out the aspirations to improve the quality of built development. The Government proposed that good design could be defined using a series of codes. 

The Government proposed that the National Model Design Code would be used as a default document when assessing planning applications, unless a local design code had been adopted.  The Government’s aim was to reduce discussion about design issues and the time taken to determine applications (which were in principle in accordance with the Development Plan) and provide more certainty to developers.  If the design principles in the Design Code had been met, an application was more likely to be granted planning permission.  

The Government had recognised that the National Design Code would not appropriate for all areas and therefore local planning authorities, or other bodies would have the ability to produce their own local design codes.  The Panel noted that significant upfront resources would be required in drafting local design codes due to their complex and technical nature.  In addition, there was a requirement to involve the local community in the development of local design codes. The community’s ability to influence design considerations would be much reduced at planning application stage.

Members recognised that the current local distinctiveness documents and neighbourhood plans would cease to be valid in the consideration of planning applications.  However, it was recognised that the background information within these documents could be used as a starting point for producing any new local design codes.

Officers would be responding to the Government consultation raising a number of concerns, including resource implications and implications for community involvement in planning.

To consider an update on the procurement and use of energy efficient vehicles and the charging infrastructure in Council car parks.

The Panel considered the update on use of electric vehicles purchased by the Council and the installation of electric charging points in Council run car parks.

The Panel noted that four electric vehicles (EVs) had been purchased in 2019, following the conclusions of a Task and Finish Group, set up to explore options to reduce emissions seen as detrimental to the environment. 

A review on the use of the Council’s EVs vehicles had been carried out.  EVs were more expensive to purchase than a diesel alternative, however, there was a reduction in costs relating to fuel and maintenance and over the whole life costs (WLC) of the vehicle.  It was demonstrated that an electric vehicle had an estimated financial saving of £2,887 per vehicle over its WLC when compared with a diesel equivalent.

Carbon emissions had been saved by using 4 electric vehicles over the period December 2019 to November 2020.  This was 2,533kg per vehicle per annum, which equated to a 10 tonne reduction in CO2 per annum as a result of changing 4 vans from diesel to electric.

Members inquired about the lifetime of the battery in electric vehicles.  It was noted that battery would last as long at the useful life of the car, however, the batteries in EV could be recycled afterwards to store energy for wind turbines, increasing their lifetime further.

25 fast (22Kw) electric vehicle charging points (EVCP) had been installed in 9 of the District Council’s car parks, following a decision to select a supplier funding option using the Hampshire EVCP framework.  This had been chosen as there was no cost or risk to the Council.  All the charging points were supplied with green electricity.

The supplier, JoJo was responsible for the installation, management, servicing and repair of the charging points, over 15 years, or when they reached the point where they were in profit, whichever was sooner.  There was a back office system which enabled monitoring of the usage of the EVCPs, and how much CO2 had been reduced since they had been installed.

Members noted that income was generated to the Council from the EVCPs.  Over the current coronavirus lockdown, the income generated was £5 a month, however, in the summer of 2020 income of between £100-£200 per month had been received.  It was anticipated that this would increase over time as the ownership of electric vehicles increased.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the key conclusions identified in the report be supported:

(i)         That Electric Vehicles can continue to be purchased as part of the Council’s small van replacement programme where appropriate.  Large scale introduction of vehicles with EVs will be dependent on continued assessment of technology and cost, and a review of home charging options; and

(ii)        To continue to monitor the usage and revenue from the car park charging points once the public’s car travel patterns return to normal, before considering the scale of further expansion across more car parks.

To receive an update on fly tipping in the District Council area.

The Panel received a presentation which provided an update on fly tipping in the District Council area, which is attached to these minutes as an Appendix.

The number of fly tipping reports per year were presented for the last five years.  It was noted that for 2020/21, 882 incidents had been reported for Quarters 1-3.  591 incidents had been reported at the bring sites between April and June 2020 when the waste and recycling centres were closed during lockdown.   Whilst this figure had reduced, fly tipping at bring sites continued to be the largest proportion of fly tipping incidents reported in the District Council area.

Examples of fly tipping were presented to the Panel.  This included one on the A36 by the Ower roundabout where joint working was required in order to close the road to clear the fly tip.

The difficulties of taking a case through to prosecution were highlighted to the Panel.  Often there was not enough evidence or people did not want to provide statements. 

Initiatives were being carried out to prevent incidents of fly tipping.  This included, the purchase of two ‘wildlife cameras’ to be installed at known hot spots as a deterrent.  Officers were also working with the police and Environment Agency to carry out stop checks along specific roads. 

To receive an update on the work of the working group.

The Panel received a presentation providing an update on the Waste Strategy, this has been attached to these minutes as an Appendix.

A recap was provided of the preferred option for the proposed new waste service, to provide a weekly food waste collection service, a fortnightly collection for paper / card and mixed recyclables and a fortnightly residual waste collection.  A paid for garden waste collection service would continue to be provided.

Modelling work had been carried out on the preferred option.  This concluded that if the preferred option was implemented, the residual waste sent to incineration would decrease by over 8,000 tonnes per annum. 

The current kerbside recycling rate was 32%, however, this was proposed to increase to 49% with the preferred option.  The carbon emissions had also been modelled using an industry standard tool, WRATE.  This looked at greenhouse gases emitted as a result of activities (e.g. vehicles and incineration) and the greenhouse gases saved by diverting them from landfill / incineration, to recycle the raw materials.  It was concluded that the preferred option would save of 1,000 tonnes of carbon emissions per year.

The District Council had carried out an engagement exercise in 2020 on the draft Waste Strategy and some of the headlines were presented to the group.  74% of respondents thought that food waste was a good idea, and 65% thought that improvements to recycling was a good thing.  50% of respondents supported the introduction of wheeled bins.  A free text box had been included in the survey for additional comments.  The main concerns of residents was in relation to the aesthetic impact of wheeled bins on the street scene, their size and ability to store multiple containers.   It was noted that there would be a policy in place to mitigate against the impact of the proposals and that communication to residents would be key to ensure that the residents were informed and educated on any new service.

The Panel noted that the next round of national consultations was expected to be released imminently.  The consultations were anticipated to provide clarity on the consistency of materials to be collected by waste collection authorities, the Deposit Return Scheme, Packaging Producer responsibility and funding from Government on the new burdens for local authorities.

In relation to Hampshire, it was noted that other waste collection authorities in Hampshire had individually carried out modelling work.  The conclusions were in alignment to the NFDC draft Strategy.  Work was continuing to consider the future infrastructure requirements based on the proposed new requirements, set by Government and associated costs.  It was noted that until the national and regional position became clearer, it would not be possible to complete the business case or approve the draft Waste Strategy.

To receive an update on the review of off street car parking.

The Panel noted that the Off Street Car Parking Working Group had made a number of recommendations to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Infrastructure in October 2020.  The recommendations related to the provision of free car parking in town centres in the lead up to Christmas, to freeze the cost of the parking clocks and parking tariffs for 2021, with the exception of the amenity car parks over the summer months, where an increase had been proposed.

A report would be presented to the Panel at the meeting in June 2021 to consider the proposed Council’s car parking strategy, the hierarchy of car park users and the new technologies available to help manage the District Council’s car parks.

To agree the work programme to guide the Panel’s activities over the coming months.

RESOLVED:

That the Work Programme be approved with the inclusion of the following items for the meeting in June 2021:

·       Housing Delivery Plan update

·       Review of the Community Infrastructure Levy process

·       Update on the Joint Strategy for South Hampshire

·       Off Street Car Park Review