284
The Place Strategy Manager presented the report to the Committee and detailed that there was a requirement for the Local Plan to be reviewed every five years and that officers had taken an iterative approach to the options which set out the scope of the reviews range, extent and timing of evidence, approach to engagement as well as a high level programme for the review. The Committee heard that the review would bring forward the updated evidence needs and the report before the Committee takes this forward expanding on the themes that would be subject to iterative engagement for the issues and options which included:
- Creating a better environment
- Developing a vision
- Climate Change
- Design and Place Making
- Health and wellbeing
The Place Strategy Manager detailed infrastructure need would be embedded in the plan making to ensure that it would be provided through the infrastructure audit and infrastructure delivery plan which would inform sustainable delivery options. The Committee heard that the initial engagement would be on the green network and waterways which was proposed to take place in late October 2023 and would be looking to engage stakeholders to create a better environment based on the green network and waterways as evidence. It was detailed that this was based on the best understanding of the constraints and opportunities for creating a better environment and how to plan for growth including key infrastructure which linked directly into place making. It was considered that this approach provided benefits to the local communities’ health and wellbeing, wildlife, and took into account climate change. The Place Strategy Manager concluded by asking that the Committee approve the officer recommendation as detailed in the Committee report.
At the request of the Chair the Democratic Services Officer read out a statement as follows from Cllr Luxford-Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment, and Sustainability:
“The best plans start from a review of what existing infrastructure provides, including transport networks and employment sites, and then builds on these to determine where the gaps are and where homes would be best situated. Any subsequent call for sites is tailored to facilitate this framework. The preservation and enhancement of existing green and blue infrastructure, and the creation of new ones, is also essential for a sustainable local plan. My frustration with the previous local plan was that it appears to have been approached the opposite way round. Where Landowners put forward sites and the subsequent strategy was then manipulated to suit these locations.
We are in a far more critical situation now. Our current local plan relies on investment in existing infrastructure that is yet to be secured. A significant example is the upgrades to the A120 which we assumed would go ahead and hasn’t. Or a RTS, that is yet to demonstrate that it is more rapid than using a car and a link road that was supposedly of strategic importance and could release land for housing but now doesn’t link anything.
A strong focus on green networks and waterways in the plan is of course completely welcomed and it may even be the right place to start regarding public consultation. However, I think it is an illogical place to start a planning exercise. Where transport and jobs are far more dominant factors in our daily lives and relate directly to where we live.
The infrastructure audit that was commissioned by the previous portfolio holder I believe was one of the most important pieces of work to prepare us for this local plan review. And should form the basis for any future strategy.
We are all aware that there is an infrastructure deficit in Colchester and the wider area and this needs to be resolved.
Health and wellbeing reviews are also welcomed. However, as health facilities are commissioned once demand is present (i.e. the houses have been built) they can end up being vague and non-committal. Either concentrating on healthy living, or identifying where existing services have capacity. This review needs to predict and commit to where new services will go.
My recommendation therefore would be not to sign off this approach but to say it should be led by the infrastructure audit, whilst ensuring that the core value of the plan, is that it creates a better environment that respects the climate emergency.”
The Chair detailed their concern that the statement had not been sent round to the Committee from the Portfolio holder ahead of the meeting so that Members could digest the information.
The Joint Head of Planning, Karen Syrett, detailed that at the last meeting of the Committee it had been agreed unanimously that the report on the issues and options and engagement of the Local Plan be agreed as well as the proposed engagement and consultation. It was noted in paragraph 5.11 of the report that the first stage of the consultation would be around a green network and waterways which would be published online and would be followed by a call for sites. It was confirmed that the Local Plan Committee supported this approach at their previous meeting. The Committee heard that prior to the Local Plan Committee meeting in August the Cabinet were briefed on the approach and had signalled their support. It was confirmed that the Portfolio Holder had been briefed in the week prior to the Committee and that none of the issues in the statement were raised and detailed that they would be addressed after the meeting. The Committee heard that there were some issues that were mutually agreed upon which was the need for infrastructure and for it to support new development, but it required evidence and that if the Cabinet signed off for the infrastructure audit then it would be commissioned and would run alongside any other consultation starting with the blue and green infrastructure as well as the call for sites which underpins all the themes in the Local Plan Review approach agreed at the last meeting.
At the request of the Chair, the Democratic Services Officer advised Cllrs Smith and Sommers that they could continue to take part in the discussions and vote despite being Cabinet Members as they had not taken a formal decision on the reports previously in their Cabinet responsibilities. Further to this the Joint Head of Planning confirmed that the approach to the Local Plan was a decision that could be taken by the Local Plan Committee.
Members debated the proposal before the Committee with some Members agreeing with the points that had been raised by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability but detailed that it did cause Members difficulty having a Portfolio Holder that had a view that contrasted with that of the recommendation and that it would be helpful to have a meeting with the Chair and Group spokespersons on the issues with the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability to run through some of the points raised in the statement. It was confirmed that the delay on Biodiversity Net Gain would not affect the review of the Local Plan process with debate continuing on the possible cycle routes and their role in the highway network as well as private estates with some Members showing support for the proposal. Members also debated the inclusion of tourism hotspots such as Mersea and Dedham especially since Covid as their popularity had exploded since the pandemic and needed to be looked at in infrastructure terms.
At the request of the Chair the Joint Head of Planning, Karen Syrett, responded that with regards to the cycle network Essex County Council had just consulted on this as well as walking routes and detailed that Officers did feel that this could go further and that for tourism hotspots there had been policies in the past in places like Dedham for a car park to relieve some of the pressure there as well as Mersea.
Members debated the proposal noting that some Members had been unable to attend the previous meeting and that the iterative approach did not mean that the Plan would be decided at a single meeting with some Members adding their agreement to the points raised by the Portfolio Holder putting the focus on housing numbers and infrastructure. It was queried that if this had been put through in the holiday period then this should be raised again. Members debated the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) which was currently at 920 dwellings per annum which some Members felt was a very high number and as such Colchester had received a high number of housing and population growth and that under the standard methodology this would be increased to 1061 dwellings per annum compared to Tendring District Council who had detailed that they would be retaining their OAN of 550 dwellings per annum and questioned whether the Council would be resisting these proposed numbers. Members debated the role of infrastructure and the proposed infrastructure audit and the status of the budget as it was fundamental to the plan and detailed that if Essex County Council could not provide an adequate developers guide then the Council should look into creating one as well as the possibility of creating a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) or new infrastructure levy that was being proposed. Some Members questioned why the Council was rushing to review the Local Plan when it was being proposed that it could be completed in 30 months and thereby focus attention on infrastructure matters and that the review of the current Local Plan should be in name only and not start again with a new OAN and call for sites.
The Chair advised the Committee that the Local Plan Committee was a decision-making body of the Council and that if a Member missed a meeting there is nothing stopping Members submitting a statement to the Committee to be read out by the Democratic Services Officer.
The Joint Head of Planning, Karen Syrett, responded to the points raised and confirmed that the review was an iterative approach but it was not appropriate to revisit every decision the Committee had previously made and that moving away from the housing numbers as a starting point was exactly what was being proposed and that the idea of starting from the green and blue infrastructure. It was noted all parties wanted an appropriate housing number for Colchester but that this could not contend with Government commitments to deliver 300,000 new homes a year and that it was not indicated that the way housing targets were calculated would change from the standard methodology and as such the Council needed to create an evidence base in line with to move away from the standard methodology. The Committee heard that the infrastructure audit may be promised but detailed that it would be completed when required in the Local Plan review process to inform the evidence base. It was noted that the difficult financial position meant that all carry forwards were being heavily scrutinised and despite an internal effort this work could not be achieved in house. The Joint Head of Planning elaborated that they had been speaking to Essex County Council regarding CIL and that this would be investigated to see what sort of levy could be imposed and what this would mean for section 106 agreements and infrastructure levies. The Committee heard that with regards to delaying the review of the plan there was no reason to do so with the current uncertainty in the plan making system.
At the request of the Chair the Place Strategy Manager advised the Committee that waiting to review would be a risk and that no formal decision on housing numbers had been made at Tendring District Council, but they had had one verbal report that was minuted recently that they needed to do a Local Plan review and that they relied on the same process that Colchester had to follow with regards to OAN but nothing formally had been decided.
Debate continued with Members discussing the timeline of the plan and getting work on the plan done as soon as possible with some Members expressing sympathy with regards to the call for sites and infrastructure, and that there were real world effects as there were currently 315 families were in temporary accommodation so there was clearly a need for social housing. It was note in section 5.7 a workshop would be held with health and wellbeing professionals. The Committee asked that this is widened to include the users of the service as well.
At the request of the Chair, the Place Strategy Manager outlined that it took over 7 years to create the previous Local Plan and that section 1 had been adopted in February 2021 with Section 2 being adopted in July 2022 but confirmed that Section 1 was the trigger point as it contained the strategic policies which framed the review. It was detailed that the high-level approach would take the Council to submission prior to June 2025 and outlined that there was not a lot of space in the project for time slippage. Further to this it was confirmed that the call for sites gave no status to any site that was put forward and that any and all sites could be discarded at this stage.
Members continued to debate the proposals on issues including: the timing and status of the statement from the Portfolio Holder and whether this represented a collective statement on behalf of the Cabinet, whether the review would connect with the Councils Climate Change Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and the Essex Climate Actions Commissions work specifically with regards to the Essex Design Guide and ensuring that it was binding for developers. Debate continued with regards to Heritage Concerns and how these would be protected in the review as there were issues within the City of possible damage being caused to the Roman Circus through the ABRO development.
At the request of the Chair, the Place Strategy Manager responded that the Climate Change Team at Essex County Council were looking at how planning could keep up to date with the evidence and legislative changes and this review allows an opportunity to do more than the current plan has allowed and that the context and view on climate change had changed significantly but any new evidence from the climate commission and any other sources would be welcomed to inform the Local Plan as well as Heritage. The Joint Head of Planning, Simon Cairns, confirmed that the Essex Design Guide could not be enforced and was guidance only and that as it was a living document it was difficult to formalise and adopt. The Committee heard that there were mechanisms of protection for Heritage Assets through weighting as clearly laid out in statute and the NPPF. The Committee heard that for non-designated Assets the Council had a system in place of assessing these and adding them to a local list which had received support at Planning Appeals. It was noted that the adopted Local Plan did embrace the concept of non-designated heritage assets and a local list and that with regards to the specific site the SPD did have full weight and can ensure that appropriate weight is given and that if it did receive statutory designation then the full weight of the statute would be applicable.
Discussion continued with Members discussing that statutory requirements were a minimum floor and not best practice and will only get stronger controls and that developers did dodge targets and misuse data and that the Council needed to be robust in the plan that was being put forward. Debate continued with Members noting that the plan would come into main effect in 2030 and that the Council needed to be bold to get to Carbon Net Zero and that the Climate Change SPD should not be contradicted. Members asked whether this could be made a requirement as opposed to guidance and discussed the design code, the community and social infrastructure and questioned whether contact had been made to the Architect Climate Action Network (ACAM) regarding support for officers for advice and information.
At the request of the Chair, the Place Strategy Manager responded by thanking Members for their comments which were appreciated, and that further information would be coming before the Committee on specific areas such as Health and Wellbeing and what was involved. The Committee heard that the review would be evidence based and would respond to what is appropriate and up to date with regards to climate change with the anticipation of going a step further than the Climate Change SPD.
Members discussed the role of Neighbourhood Plans and the work undertaken by communities with concern being raised regarding the overriding of the Myland Neighbourhood Plan by the Local Plan and the weight associated with Neighbourhood Plans. Members discussed the current position of the OAN and the examples of Tendring District Council and North Hertfordshire District Council and whether any learning could be found from them so that issues such as applications in Braiswick could be reviewed.
At the request of the Chair the Joint Head of Planning, Karen Syrett outlined that Myland Neighbourhood Plan had just been reviewed so if there were any issues around this then there was the opportunity to raise this and clarified that with regards to Tendring District Council it had done any work on its housing target and had not successfully challenged it. It was noted that Tendring District Council’s last housing target was affected by Unattributable Population Change which may have affected their numbers as it was a rare occurrence. It was noted that since then the 2021 Census data had been published meaning that Tendring District Council had a more robust evidence base to inform their housing targets going forward. With regards to consultation the Committee heard that this had been agreed at the previous meeting as an ongoing basis.
Members discussed the role of the consultations and how some residents felt exhausted by the amount of consultation and the idea that they might dip in and out of consultation was unrealistic as it was all important to them rather than picking a specific area to comment on.
Further questions were raised by the Committee regarding the blue and green infrastructure approach and whether there were examples of other Councils undertaking this method. The Place Strategy Manager responded that there were not any other Councils undertaking this approach that they were aware of but confirmed conversations had taken place with the Planning Advisory Service on how to approach this and how the plan making process could be accelerated.
Following a question from the Committee regarding the priority of the Local Plan and housing need the Place Strategy Manager confirmed that the green and blue infrastructure was a starting point for the plan and that everything was a priority in the Local Plan as it needed to achieve all the required objectives. It was clarified that in the past the Council had looked at housing need first, but the approach proposed was to look at what was currently in place and what opportunities there were to create a better environment.
Members debated the strength of legislation and noted that there was no guarantee that there would be a stronger protection for the environment and that the Council should be doing whatever it can locally as it could not rely on central Government. Debate concluded with Members requesting that there was a definite need for the infrastructure audit, that a CIL was welcomed, that the infrastructure constraints would be used to inform the OAN and standard methodology, that the ratio for social housing should be higher and that some problems should be resolved with the existing housing stock.
It was noted that Cllr Luxford-Vaughan had joined the meeting and the Chair asked for clarification on whether the statement was on behalf of the Cabinet or as a personal statement. At the request of the Chair Councillor Luxford-Vaughan addressed the meeting and detailed that the statement was in their role as Portfolio Holder and confirmed that they did not disagree with there being a review of the Local Plan but that the focus was off kilter with regards to prioritising the blue and green infrastructure.
RESOLVED (EIGHT votes FOR with TWO ABSTENTIONS) That the Local Plan Committee agree to the approach to the Local Plan Review of using the green network and waterways and the “creating a better environment” agenda as the starting point and key purpose of the Local Plan Review.