Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Cllr Glass.  The Panel also noted the apologies of Cllr Diane Andrews, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Regeneration and Infrastructure.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2021 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2021 be signed by the Chairman 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 by members 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.

An opportunity for the Portfolio Holders to raise any issues in respect of developments within their portfolios.

The Leader addressed the Panel and drew attention to the revised Corporate Plan, which was on the agenda for the Panel’s consideration.  He reported that the Plan covered areas in his portfolio which fell under the remit of the Panel.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Coastal Services addressed the Panel and reported on the following:

Waste: The Portfolio Holder had attended his first Project Integra Board meeting and a Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy meeting, where the priorities for this strategy had been discussed and agreed.  The biggest challenge facing the Council currently was the garden waste collection service, which had been suspended.  He was however, delighted to announce that this service would recommence shortly.  He praised the HCC Waste and Recycling Centres for working with the Council and had provided additional garden waste bins to make the disposal of this waste easier for residents.

Coastal: The Portfolio Holder had visited Milford-on-Sea to ensure that he was familiar with the challenges along this stretch of coastline.  The beach replenishment project had been completed. He reported he had reservations over the risks along the new promenade and that they would be addressed in due course. 

The Portfolio Holder had attended a tour of the coastline with officers and the Christchurch Bay Partners, BCP.   Detailed discussions were ongoing with the Environment Agency, Historic England and Hampshire County Council in relation to Hurst Spit, Milford-on-Sea.

Car parks:  The Council had seen an increase in the use of NFDC car parks.  The Portfolio Holder had visited a number of the major NFDC car parks in order to understand the issues and challenges.  Electrical vehicle charging points (EVCP) were due to be installed at the car park in Lyndhurst.  Further opportunities to introduce further EVCPs would be reviewed. 

To consider the revised Corporate Plan 2020-2024 ‘Community Matters’ to reflect the changes to the Cabinet portfolios and their responsibilities.  Appendix 1 (Corporate Plan 2020-2024 ‘Community Matters’) is to follow.

The Panel considered the revised Corporate Plan which had been reviewed in light of the changes to the Cabinet structure and the portfolio holder responsibilities.  The Plan also reflected on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic and placed greater emphasis on sustainability as well as supporting the local economy.  The next meeting of the Panel in January would consider the Portfolio Holder Performance Dashboards, incorporating the new responsibilities.

A few members of the Panel spoke in support of the greater emphasis being placed on climate change and sustainability.  The Leader addressed the Panel as sustainability was within his portfolio.  He reported that the revised Corporate Plan had sustainability, as a golden thread, running through it.  This included all types of sustainability; environmental, ecological as well as social, financial and the local economy. 

RESOLVED:

That the revisions to the Corporate Plan 2020-2024, ‘Community Matters’ be noted and supported.

To receive an overview of coastal protection.

The Panel received a presentation which provided an overview of the coastal protection in the District Council area, this included, the work of the coastal team, the future capital FCERM (Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management) programme, the location of the Council’s coastal assets and the current and future challenges.

A map was shown to the Panel of the coastline which identified the sections of coastline which were defended, undefended and identified the ownership.  Out of 60 km of coastline in the District Council area, only 6km was owned and managed by NFDC.

The council was the coastal protection authority, however, there was no statutory duty to provide flood and coastal erosion protection.  The Council had permissive powers only. The importance of the coastline was recognised and therefore careful consideration needed to be given to how the coastline was managed, balancing the financial, technical and environmental requirements to deliver projects.

FCERM was explained, noting that there was a framework to be followed from setting management policies through to delivering schemes, starting with shoreline management plans (SMP) which provide a broad overview of future flood and erosion risk over a 100 year period. SMP set management policies for the coastline, these could be; no active intervention, hold the line, managed realignment and advance the line.   Along the coastline within the District Council area there were two SMP; the Christchurch Bay SMP which had been adopted in 2011 and the North Solent SMP was adopted in 2010.  The programme of future FCERM activities was outlined to the Panel.  It was recognised that all projects were subject to funding and could progress if partnership funding was available, as well being able to demonstrate technical, environmental and economic viability.

The Coastal defences at Barton, Milford, Hurst Spit and Calshot were shown to the Panel.  It was noted that beach volumes vary over time and that the beach plays an important role in providing protection to the defence structures. 

The Panel noted the challenges along the coastline, which including, funding / resources, aging defences and declining beach levels and climate change.

Members sought reassurance that any projects carried out on the coastline would be future proofed and include for example, rises in the sea level.  This was confirmed and an assessment of any project would consider the risk over 100 years.  Developer funded schemes were expected to come forward through the planning system which would protect some areas of the coastline and prevent flooding. 

A question was asked about the SMP which covered Barton and the “hold the line” policy, in particular whether this included the unstable cliffs.  The policy at Barton  “managed realignment”.  This was a complex site and it was recognised that cliff recession would continue to occur over time.  The “hold the line” and “managed realignment” policies identify the need for management activities and would support funding bids as being justified, they would not though guarantee funding.  The Panel noted that the SMP for this area was due to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

To consider a report detailing transportation projects funded through developer contributions.

The Panel considered the report which sought to review the developer contributions held for transportation projects. 

The Panel noted that Section 106 contributions were currently held by the Council for 47 transportation schemes.  It was proposed that an audit be carried out of the schemes to identify those which could not be progressed, were undeliverable or did not comply with current standards.  Cabinet had agreed between 2012 to 2015 to allocate funding to these projects, however, since this approval, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) had been adopted and restrictions had been introduced regarding the ability to pool contributions.  It was also noted that all transport schemes will now be expected to comply with LTN1/20 when designing cycle schemes.  This had been introduced in July 2020.  LTN1/20 stated that networks and routes should be coherent, direct, safe, comfortable and attractive.

Members sought detail on specific projects, however, it was noted that the review would be carried out of those projects listed in Appendix 1.  This would determine whether projects could be progressed, prior to the consideration of any alternative projects.  It was proposed that the outcome of the review would be presented to the Panel at a future meeting. 

Members requested that officers engage with the Town and Parish Councils in relation to future transportation projects.

RESOLVED:

i)               That the report be noted and supported: and

ii)              That the proposed way forward to review the current allocations be agreed with a full report to Cabinet.

To receive an update on the progress of the Green Infrastructure Strategy.

The Panel received a brief update on the progress of the Green Infrastructure Strategy.  At the previous meeting, members had agreed to all member workshop and this had been held on 28 July 2021.  14 members had attended the workshop.  The presentation had been circulated to all members.  The key points arising from the workshop were noted as follows:

·       The importance of ‘planning’ for Green Infrastructure was recognised.  It was important for delivering social / health and well-being objectives, as well as environmental / biodiversity objectives;

·       Avoid duplicating work already being done by others;

·       Concentrate on the local scale and local opportunities to bring benefits to local communities;

·       Use the strategy to co-ordinate and give focus to local initiatives;

·       The District Council should lead by example, ensuring good practise in NFDC activities; and

·       NFDC should act as a centre of knowledge for good practise and to provide an information resource to assist community initiatives

The workshop had helped officers to focus on the scope of the Green Infrastructure (GI) Strategy work.  The Strategy would consider the needs and opportunities within, and adjoining the district’s main settlements.  The Green Infrastructure Strategy would set out the general principles, but the main area of work would be to establish a local GI framework for each of the main settlements in the district. This would involve an audit of existing provision, identification of deficiency areas and identification of priority areas and / or projects.

The Panel noted 9 settlements, as follows:

1.     Totton and Eling

2.     Marchwood

3.     Hythe and Dibden

4.     Fawley / Blackfield / Holbury

5.     Fordingbridge / Ashford / Sandleheath

6.     Lymington and Pennington

7.     Ringwood

8.     New Milton

9.     Milford on Sea

Councillors were asked to pass on any information they had regarding local groups and organisations engaged in pursuing local/community-based initiatives to improve GI in their area.

New Milton would be used as a trial area to establish a methodology and approach.  After the trial, the Panel would be informed of the outcomes of this work in New Milton.

To receive an update on the Waste Strategy.

The Panel considered the report providing an update on the Waste Strategy and detailed the regional developments which had an impact on the District Council’s waste service. 

The Panel noted the work of the Waste Partnership, Project Integra (PI) which comprised all authorities in Hampshire.  Each authority in the PI partnership had carried out work to consider the future collection service, recycling and disposal infrastructure in Hampshire, in the context of national policy and legislation.

Three main pieces of work were being undertaken by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Authorities group, comprising of all the Councils in the PI partnership.  These were to revise the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS), develop a new Partnering Agreement and a new financial model.  This was in the context of national policy and legislation and the desires of the authorities to reduce waste and increase recycling.  The JMWMS was still in draft form, however the key priorities for the Strategy, were detailed in section 4 of the report.  They included for example, Partnership Working, best practice and waste reduction.  The JMWMS was expected to be finalised shortly and Cabinet approval would be sought for the Strategy at a meeting on 6 October 2021.  This strategy would need to be agreed by all Hampshire authorities. 

Work was continuing on the District Council’s Waste Strategy, in particular the financial and resource considerations for the proposed future service.

Members sought clarification regarding the disposal of waste and whether it would go to landfill.  It was noted that the waste hierarchy would be used, whereby the aim was to reduce waste, at the top of the hierarchy, followed by reuse and recycle.   In terms residual waste, this would be taken to an energy recovery facility.  Landfill would be used as a last resort. 

The key principles of the JMWMS were supported by the Panel.  Members noted that there could be opportunities for authorities to work together with, for example, the introduction of food waste collections, where containers and new vehicles would need to be purchased.  This could enable cost savings as well as reducing the procurement burden on individual authorities.

The issue of contamination was raised and the importance of good communication and education to residents was recognised in order to reduce this.  It was anticipated that the proposed preferred option, with the introduction of wheeled bins, would make it easier to identify contamination at the source and this could be addressed with local residents.  This was difficult with the current plastic sack collection service.

The report proposed to hold a Special meeting of the Panel to consider the Waste Strategy on 11 November.  However, it was recognised that some members had prior commitments on this day and therefore it was suggested that a meeting be held in mid November.

RESOLVED:

i)               That the progress on the Council’s Waste Strategy be noted;

ii)              That the key principles and priorities within the draft Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS) be supported; and

iii)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

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

RESOLVED:

That the Work Programme be approved.

To agree the following dates of meetings for 2022/2023 (all Thursdays commencing at 2.00 pm):

16 June 2022

8 September 2022

12 January 2023

9 March 2023

RESOLVED:

That the following dates of meetings for 2022/2023 (all Thursdays commencing at 2.00 pm) be agreed:

·       16 June 2022

·       8 September 2022

·       12 January 2023

·       9 March 2023