New Forest Borough Council Environment and Sustainability Overview and Scrutiny Panel Meeting

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2021 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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

No issues were raised in the public participation period.

The Leader reported that he did not have much to report on his performance dashboard or the element of his portfolio which fell under the remit of the scrutiny panel, due to the work being carried out to develop a Climate Change and Nature Emergency Action Plan.  This would be considered by Cabinet at a meeting on 16 February 2022 and would set out the strategic direction for the Council having declared a climate change and nature emergency.  It was important to reflect on issues such as the rising energy prices for residents, efficiency and sustainability.

A question was asked about the HCC temporary resource in relation to the Sustainability Strategy detailed in the Performance Dashboard.  In response, the Leader reported that the baseline carbon footprint needed to be calculated.  HCC had experience and expertise in this area, having already carried out its own carbon footprint assessment and therefore it had been agreed that HCC would carry out this work on behalf of the Council on a fixed term basis.

The Environment and Coastal Services Portfolio Holder reported that he had great pleasure in presenting his performance dashboard, which had four Key Performance Indicators (KPI) within it.  He reported that the household waste KPI had been set at a challenging 50%.  He felt this was a positive move, and the forthcoming new Waste Strategy would help to improve the Council’s recycling rate when the proposals within the strategy were implemented.  There was a KPI to increase coastal funding to achieve specific actions, however he recognised this target was a long way off being met.  The Electrical Vehicle charging point (EVCP) project had been progressing.  EVCPs had been installed in Lyndhurst car park and further charging point locations would be identified.  In relation to the CO2 emissions saved through EVCP, the Council was doing well, however it was anticipated that further improvements could be made.  The Portfolio Holder referred to the high risks identified within the dashboard and it was noted that steps had been taken to mitigate against these risks.

Members asked for details of the frequency of use of the EVCPs and it was agreed that this information would be provided outside of the meeting.  In response to a question regarding the Depot review, it was noted that this would be completed by the end of the municipal year.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Regeneration and Infrastructure reported the following:

·       The Local Plan Part 2 Call for Sites had been completed.  The Policy team had been carrying out an assessment of potential smaller scale sites in the District;

·       Changes to the Building Regulations had been announced in late December 2021.  These changes would further address climate change;  

·       The Climate Change Supplementary Planning Document had been progressing.  This work would reflect on the changes to the Building Regulations;

·       The Environment Act would introduce new requirements and responsibilities for the District Council as a planning authority;

·       PfSH work had been progressing on a Joint Strategy and there would be workshops to consider different growth strategies;

·       A significant amount of work within Development Management was being carried out with most of the Local Plan strategic sites either being the subject of pre-application discussions or of planning applications;

·       Work was on-going in relation to phosphates and biodiversity net gain credit generation;

·       Input in Freeport work was continuing;

·       Specific workstreams for each of the towns within the District was being considered;

·       On-going work with partners on Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan/Transport across the Waterside/re-opening the Waterside Passenger line

The Portfolio Holder also drew attention to her performance dashboard, in particular the key priority to “set a vision for the future of each of our towns”.  She reported that this had been agreed as part of the Corporate Plan, however, she felt that this was not possible to achieve at the current time due to the scale of the work.

A member of the Panel spoke about the performance dashboards and felt they should be more data driven with the provision of facts and figures.  Examples were provided, including within the Leaders Portfolio where the key activity was to “work with partners to deliver the greenest Freeport”, and within the specific actions, it was to “actively contribute to the development of the Solent Freeport”.  It was felt that progress was difficult to measure, and that a data driven target would enable members to better understand how this activity was moving forwards.  The Leader responded to the points raised.

The Panel considered a report providing a brief update on the national and regional developments in relation to waste and the key issues which would affect the development of a new Waste Strategy for the New Forest District.

Members noted that there would be a requirement for additional materials to be collected by all authorities and questioned whether materials with no end market would be collected.  In response, it was noted that the Government would require specific materials to be collected and therefore end markets would be developed.  It was also noted that the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) would be introduced requiring producers to pay a charge on packaging.  This would encourage producers to reduce packaging and ensure that any packaging was easier to recycle.

Members noted that the Council’s Waste Strategy would need to align to HCC as the waste disposal authority and the facilities it provided.  A new MRF was proposed to be built to sort recyclable materials, however this was at planning application stage, and therefore it would be several years before it became operational.   Members expressed concern in relation to the timescales for the Council to collect new materials, when the infrastructure which needed to be in place was outside of the District Council’s control.  Further information was expected from Government in relation to the transition period.

The Panel noted that the Waste Strategy was proposed to be considered at the next meeting of the Panel in March 2022 before being taken through the decision making process.  There would be communication with residents and businesses prior to any decisions being taken.

A member of the Panel expressed the view that the waste hierarchy should be more prominent within the waste strategy, in order to reduce the creation of waste.

RECOMMENDED:

That the progress on the Council’s waste strategy be noted.

The Panel considered the report detailing the findings of the review of transportation projects funded through developer contributions.  The audit had identified 14 schemes which could progress to the detailed design stage and 17 schemes which could no longer be progressed.  19 schemes had been completed with funds remaining.  Any residual money was proposed to be held pending the outcome of the Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan which would identify walking and cycling projects in the District.

It was confirmed that the views of the relevant Town and Parish Council’s would be sought on the proposed schemes. 

Members questioned whether the money collected in relation to particular planning developments could be spent in other geographical areas of the District.  In response, it was noted that this was dependent upon the terms of the Section 106 agreement.  Efforts would be made to spend the money in the locality in which it had been collected before considering alternative areas of the District.

RESOLVED:

(i)             That the contents of the report and findings of the audit be noted; and

(ii)            That the proposed way forward to progress the approved schemes through design stage, identified in Appendix 1 be supported

The Panel considered the draft supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in relation to Air Quality in new development, for the district outside of the National Park.  This had been a collaborate piece of work between planning policy and environmental health.  The purpose of the SPD was to provide developers with guidance on whether an air quality statement or assessment was required when submitting a planning application.  Dust impact management had also been included within the SPD.  It was proposed that a six week consultation period be carried out if approved by Cabinet.

Members asked a number of questions in relation to air quality, which sat outside of the remit of the draft SPD. 

In response to a question regarding baseline assessment of air quality monitoring, it was noted that this had been carried out as part of the local plan development.  It was explained to the Panel that air quality monitoring had been established in various locations in order to provide an evidence base for any new planning applications in order to assess the impact on human health.  It was noted that the impact of air quality was also being monitored in relation to nature conversation sites.  Developers were required to pay a contribution towards air quality monitoring with regards to these sites.  It was noted there was a need to put in place air quality monitoring along the A326, to establish a baseline position, due to the proposed development likely to come forward.

A member of the Panel raised the issue of the Environmental Protection Liaison Committee, an outside body which had been set up to discuss air quality and other environmental issues with key industries located along the Waterside.  The meetings of this group had ceased and it was felt that they should resume.  Officers reported that consideration would be given regarding how to work more collaboratively with industries along the Waterside.

RESOLVED:

That the proposed draft Supplementary Planning Document on Air Quality in new development be supported.

The Panel received a presentation providing an update on the Green Infrastructure Strategy, which has been attached to these minutes as an Appendix.  The presentation included the following:

·       Background and importance of green infrastructure;

·       Process stages – this included a survey of existing green infrastructure, identification of improvements and future projects;

·       Assessment of green infrastructure – 4 key aspects;

·       Details of the pilot scheme in New Milton;

·       Emerging types of projects;

·       Next steps

Members welcomed the work carried out to date and looked forward to seeing the further development of the pilot scheme in New Milton and for other parts of the District to be reviewed.

The Panel noted that the Environment Bill had received Royal Assent and had become an Act.  The Act had wide ranging implications across the District Council which would have positive outcomes for the environment.  Matters such as waste, air quality, environmental waste and crime, biodiversity and water resources had been included in the Act.  A new office for environmental protection would be created, which would have an enforcement role, as well as a scrutiny role.  Members would receive training on the Environment Act and the implications for the Council.

RESOLVED:

That the Work Programme be approved with the inclusion of the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document to be considered at the meeting on 10 March 2022.

The Chairman announced that Louise Evans, Service Manager – Policy & Strategy would be retiring at the end of January.  The Panel expressed their thanks for Louise’s hard work over the years and wished her good luck in her retirement.