Agenda item

To provide Cabinet with information on the outcome of the Peer Review of the Garden Communities project led by Lord Kerslake, and to note the partnership’s public response and the next steps in responding to the recommendations of the Review.

Decision:

That Cabinet notes:

           

a)       the outcomes of the North Essex Garden Communities Peer Review Report;

 

b)       the key points of the North Essex Garden Communities’ partnership’s public response; and

 

c)       that both documents have been published in full on the Council’s website.

 

Minutes:

Councillor G V Guglielmi declared an interest in this item insofar as he was the Leader of the Council’s designated substitute on the board of North Essex Garden Communities Ltd.

           

There was submitted a detailed report by the Leader of the Council (Report A.1), which provided Cabinet with information on the outcome of the Peer Review of the Garden Communities project led by Lord Kerslake, and the partnership’s public response and the next steps in responding to the recommendations of the Review.

 

Cabinet was reminded that, in October 2016 the Leaders and Chief Executives of Tendring District, Colchester Borough, Braintree District and Essex County Councils had asked Lord Kerslake to lead a Peer Review to look at the local authorities approach to delivering Garden Communities in North Essex.

 

The Brief had been agreed by the North Essex Garden Communities Shadow Delivery Board at its meeting held on 3rd November 2016 and had included the following six questions:-

 

·         Are we ambitious enough (place shaping)?

·         How do we maintain quality and pace of build development?

·         Are we maximising our position with Government in terms of support and

Funding?

·         Are we positioned to exploit any commercial income streams which could

come from the development?

·         What’s the best vehicle for managing the opportunity? and

·       Do we have the capacity and capability to oversee the developments effectively?

 

Cabinet was informed that the Review Team had reviewed a range of background documents provided by the Garden Communities project team and had visited the proposed locations. It had met with the lead Directors of the four Councils who had explained the background and the reasoning behind the approach the Councils were taking towards the proposals. The Directors had also submitted a self-assessment against the six questions. The Review Team had subsequently spoke with the Councils’ planning teams, key advisors, landowners, developers and officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in order to clarify and explore specific areas of interest in more depth. The review had been able to take account of evidence submitted by local groups, including CAUSE, although in the time available it had not been possible for the Review Team to engage directly with local communities.

 

It was reported that the Review Team had presented its findings to the Leaders and Chief Executives of the four Councils in early December 2016. In late January 2017 the report of the Peer Review had been published. The partnership of the four Councils had also produced a response to the Peer Review report and recommendations and both documents had been published on the Council’s website.

 

Members were also informed that an Action Plan was being developed by the Garden Communities Project Team.

 

The Cabinet had before it a summary of the Kerslake report’s findings and recommendations together with a summary of the response of the partnership to those recommendations.

           

Having considered the information submitted, it was moved by Councillor G V Guglielmi, seconded by Councillor Turner and:

 

RESOLVED that Cabinet notes:

           

a)    the outcomes of the North Essex Garden Communities Peer Review Report;

 

b)    the key points of the North Essex Garden Communities’ partnership’s public response; and

 

c)    that both documents have been published in full on the Council’s website.

 

Supporting documents: