MEMORANDUM
______
To: All Members of the Panel,D. Ashley, S. Pile, J. Wood,
R. Brown, J.Tiley, S. Aries,
S Davidson, P Davidson, R.Greenall, R. Rees, officers named for actions. / From: Legal and Member Services
Ask for: Elaine Gibson
Ext: 25469
My ref:
Your ref:
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING CABINET PANEL
9 MARCH 2010
M I N U T E S
ATTENDANCE
MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
D A Ashley, (Chairman and Executive Member, Environment, Planning and Waste), R H Beeching, P J Bibby, I Brandon, C N Brazier, C Clapper, D S Drury, J Fraser,
T C Heritage, I M Reay, W A Storey, S J Taylor, J W A Usher, M A Watkin
Upon consideration of the agenda for the Environment and Planning Relations Cabinet Panel meeting on 9 March 2010 as circulated, copy annexed, conclusions were reached and are recorded below:
Note: No declarations of interest were made by any member of the Panel in relation to the matters considered at this meeting.
PART 1
/ / ACTION /1. /
MINUTES
1.1 / The minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 2 February 2010 were confirmed as correct record.2. / PUBLIC PETITIONS
2.1 / There were none.
3. / WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – ISSUES AND PREFERRED OPTIONS 2 (WASTE CORE STRATEGY, DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND SITE ALLOCATIONS) – RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION
(Officer contact: Sue Davidson Tel: 01992 556265)
3.1 / The Panel received a report which provided an update on the responses to the recent consultation on the Waste Development Framework (WDF) Core Strategy and Development Policies, and Site Allocations Issues and Preferred Options 2.
3.2 / With regard to paragraph 5.5 in the report, Members noted that officers had met with representatives from the Environment Agency and clarified proposals for water course protection zones.
3.3 / There was discussion on spatial planning issues and the detailed consideration that had been given to the advantages of having several smaller sites or one main site. The suitability of the potential sites listed at paragraph 5.10 would be rigorously tested. The planning stage would also fully investigate the advantages and disadvantages of the different methods and technologies that could potentially be used. The WDF would be
robust and backed by sound evidence before it was submitted to the Secretary of State.
3.4 / The Panel noted that their role in considering the Waste Development Framework proposals was to consider all representations received by the County Council as Waste Planning Authority. Some members of the Panel had considered the documents at the Waste Management Cabinet Panel in December 2009. The April meeting of this Panel is to consider comments on the waste development framework documents in detail. So as to avoid perceptions of conflict of interest and predetermination the April Panel would not include members who had considered these documents at the Waste Management Cabinet Panel in December.
3.5 / Conclusions
The Panel noted the report and asked to receive a further report on the consultation at the next meeting together with a summary of all objections.
4. / QUALITY OF LIFE REPORT
(Officer contact: Chris Rose Tel: 01992 556307)
4.1 / The Panel considered a report and received a presentation on the key findings from the Hertfordshire Quality of Life 2009 report which was due to be published at the end of March.
4.2 / A copy of the presentation can be found at:
http://www.hertsdirect.org/yrccouncil/civic_calendar/
4.3
4.4 / The presentation provided an outline of the information that would be included in the report. In response to a request from
a Member officers confirmed that they could provide a detailed breakdown of data included in the report, if required, in future. Members went on to discuss whether the County Council should continue to publish a Quality of Life report each year, given the need to make savings. The Panel considered whether the report was an essential document and if the costs of producing it were justified, and asked that these comments be conveyed to the Hertfordshire Environmental Forum in order to seek their view on the value of continuing to publish the report. / Action:
R Brown
Action:
R Brown
4.5
(i)
(ii)
(iii) / Conclusion
The Panel:
noted the report;
asked that officers seek the views of the Environmental Forum on the value of continuing to publish the report;
agreed that at a future meeting it considers whether the County Council should continue to produce a Quality of Life report. / Action:
R Brown
Kathryn Pettitt
Chief Legal Officer
1
100309 minutes