Meeting Details

Richard Martin addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rules (5). The Committee heard that the allocation in the Local Plan of building 1000 houses on Middlewick was now under discussion in terms of Nightingales that had been discovered on the site. The Committee heard that this had been missed by the Stantec survey for the Local Plan and detailed that a Ministry of Defence (MOD) Source had detailed that these had never been recorded on the site. It was detailed that residents had been hearing the Nightingales there for generations and that the proposed developer for the site of Dandara Homes had been breaching planning conditions in Copford which was raising concern with residents. The Committee heard that concern had been raised about developers getting round the planning conditions on the Middlewick site as well as the biodiversity net gain from the site and how this could not be compensated. The speaker concluded by detailing that there was consensus between experts on the issues at Middlewick and asked when the site would be withdrawn from the Local Plan.

At the request of the Chair, Sandra Scott, Place Strategy Manager responded that the surveys on Nightingales had been received and shared with the Ecologists carrying out the surveys but noted that they were limited to botanical and invertebrate species but noted that these recordings would be shared and added into the considerations going forward. The Committee heard that the puzzle piece of Middlewick needed to be considered as part of the Local Plan for the whole area of Colchester and that the evidence base would inform the new Local Plan.

Richard Martin addressed the Committee in response and asked where the onsite 10% Biodiversity Net Gain would be as it was being considered that the applicant was looking off site and asked for clarification on whether it would be on site or off site.
At the request of the Chair the Place Strategy Manager responded that the Biodiversity Net Gain increase was a statutory requirement and that this would need to be provided in some form.

William Joliffe addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rules (5). The Committee heard that they did not know of anyone who wanted Middlewick developed and that it would be a serious crime to build on the site. The speaker questioned why the proposal was called a Local Plan if it did not reflect the views of local people and detailed that other political parties may shake up the political order on this issue. Further to this the Committee were asked to do the honourable thing and stop the building on Middlewick. The speaker concluded with their hope that sense would prevail.  

At the request of the Chair, the Place Strategy Manager responded that their previous comments applied to this speakers’ comments and detailed that the previous plan had been found to be sound by the Planning Inspectorate but the review of the Local Plan would take into account new evidence going forward.

William Joliffe addressed the Committee in response and questioned whether the area of Middlewick would be safe for housing and that the area would be ruined with traffic going down Mersea Road and onto the Wick.

Councillor Dave Harris addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rule (5). The Committee heard that they shared the same theme as the last two speakers and detailed that if the Council had not agreed the Local Plan previously then there would have been at least two thousand houses on Middlewick. The Committee heard that they were reassured that the evidence regarding Nightingales would be included in the evidence base. Further to this the question was raised regarding the call for sites consultation and why this did not have an option for sites to be removed from the Local Plan. The speaker concluded by asking whether sites could be included at the eleventh hour to ensure that the right decision was made.

At the request of the Chair, the Place Strategy Manager responded that the evidence of surveys regarding the Nightingales had been received and would be considered as relevant evidence by the experts and detailed that the Call for sites was a part of the Local Plan process that had to take place. It was noted that an option for removing sites wouldn’t be included and detailed that the plan making process would be considered at the forthcoming meetings.

Councillor Harris addressed the Committee in response and asked how Councillors could influence the review.

At the request of the Chair the Place Strategy Manager responded that there would be various stages of consultation on the issues and options on various topics that would be ongoing and that there would be the opportunity for wider public consultation, some of which was already underway.

At the request of the Chair, Karen Syrett, Joint Head of Planning added that there was no formal option to remove sites from the Local Plan but there were options to propose alternative uses for sites.

Joseph Beale (RSBP) addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rule (5). The Committee heard that there were serious concerns on the Nightingales in the area which had suffered a decrease in numbers across the UK. It was noted that Middlewick had one of the highest number of Nightingales in the UK and was estimated in spring 2024 to be 125 singing males. The Committee heard that the area was second only to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and detailed that Middlewick was part of a wider site and complex habitat which benefited from varied biodiversity. The speaker detailed that 1000 homes on the site  which would have an impact on the Nightingales with free-roaming cats disturbing ground nesting birds and concluded by detailing that there would be a significant loss of habitat.

At the request of the Chair the Place Strategy Manager responded that the information regarding Nightingales had been received and would be shared with the Council’s ecologists and detailed that the wealth of evidence would be considered by the Council and would inform the Local Plan.

Joseph Beale addressed the Committee in response and outlined that Middlewick was a source of pride and celebration in Colchester and reminded the Council to be aware of its importance. In response to a question from the Joint Head of Planning regarding dog walking on Middlewick the speaker outlined that dogs would also cause a disturbance to the Nightingales.

The Planning Policy Officer, Laura Goulding presented the report to the Committee noting that the Local Development Scheme was regularly updated with the previous iteration of the document created in February 2023 and detailed that it had been updated with the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Joint Community (TCBGJC) and detailed that project chart currently detailed plans until 2027 showing the timescales for both the TCBGJC and the Local Plan. The Planning Policy Officer concluded by detailing that these timescales were detailed in the appendices of the document and asked the Committee to agree the Local Development Scheme as detailed in the recommendation.

In response to Questions from the Committee the Joint Head of Planning detailed that the Local Development Scheme and Monitoring Report monitor the strategies that are taking place across the Councils area and how effective they are and confirmed that issues surrounding a link road for the TCBGJC were not monitored in this document as this was a County Council function.

Members discussed the issue of the link road for the TCBGJC and its sustainability role in supporting the new community and that the Local Plan had detailed that the funding was in place for the link road. 

The Joint Head of Planning responded that the issue of the link road and the TCBGJC was an issue for the TCBGJC Committee and the Planning Inspectorate and that this decision would need to be for the joint Committee and not the Local Plan Committee.
In response to further questions from the Committee the Joint Head of Planning detailed that the Planning Policy team had benefitted from a low turnover of officers with the Council not having to use agency staff to fill gaps and that this was because of the good offer that Colchester provided to workers.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) That the Local Plan Committee approved the changes to the Local Development Scheme.

The Place Strategy Manager presented the report to the Committee detailing that Officers and consultants had worked to inform the potential spatial options which may be appropriate for the strategy for growth up to 2041. The Committee heard that the report contained details in paragraph 5 regarding the terms of the plan and the establishing method  expressed as a number per year of the housing need figure. It was noted that the transition arrangements from the previous local plan detailed that the Housing need per annum was 920 and that for the local plan review this needed to be updated using the standard methodology. The Committee heard that the expectation of the updated number was that the number would be 1043 houses per annum and that there was no expectation that Colchester would be considered for an exception taking into account the Strategic Land Availability Assessment. It was detailed that the appropriate spatial strategy would be put forward for a consultation leading to a preferred strategy and settlement hierarchy and asked the Committee to note the emerging Local Housing need figure for the Local Plan Review covering the period up to 2041.

 In response to a question from the Committee the Joint Head of Planning responded that the  re-introduction of West Tey was not a decision that was before the Committee. 

Members discussed the role of the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) and the role of the infrastructure Audit that needed to be completed by the end of the Autumn, the challenges around the A1120 around Marks Tey, the current state of the Rapid Transport System (RTS) and how much weight could be given to this whilst noting that the funding had not been allocated yet and that the A12 upgrades had not started yet. 

The Place Strategy Manager responded that the Infrastructure Audit was being undertaken by AECOM who were working to deliver the results in time for the plan making process which  would form part of the evidence base. The Joint Head of Planning added that the Infrastructure Audit would inform the plan but that it was a two-stage approach whereby the baseline would be looked at as well as what was needed beyond that. The Committee heard that the Council was reliant on National Highways to provide upgrades to the A1120 and the A12 and that it would be important to engage with them to understand what was possible bearing in mind the history of the road improvements. The Committee heard that the developer could forward fund the RTS and that if this was needed from the beginning then this could be agreed through a Section 106 Agreement following on from a consultations with National Highways and Essex County Council’s Highways Department 

Members continued to discuss the report with issues being raised regarding the confidence in the number of Houses being built per annum, the spatial strategy and its proposed finalisation and agreement, and the current status of Middlewick as a site. 
The Place Strategy Manager and Joint Head of Planning responded that the housing number per annum was based off of evidence and would run until 2041 and that it would be reviewed every 5 years. It was detailed that the preferred options for the Local Plan and the spatial strategy would be consulted on and confirmed that Middlewick’ status was currently as an adopted site. It was noted that the Housing number could vary between the meeting and the adoption process which could be based off of National changes as well as evidence gathered. 

The debate continued with Members discussing issues including: the impact upon the TCBGJC and how this would affect the road links and the RTS. In response to the points raised regarding the TCBGJC the Place Strategy Manager detailed that the housing numbers would be dependent on the evidence provided and outlined that they understood the concerns regarding the TCBGJC and where any additions to this would be placed but confirmed that exceptional circumstances could be taken into account however as referenced in the report these were very limited and Colchester would be unlikely to qualify for these. The Joint Head of Planning added that the RTS was not reliant on developer funding but it could be given priority if required and that nothing at this stage had been ruled in out of the process but that the process would help inform the settlement boundary review.

The debate continued with Members discussing that they were pleased to see Aecom undertaking the Infrastructure Audit and that it was hoped that this would bring attention to some of the infrastructure issues. Some Members detailed their frustration at the current situation whereby infrastructure problems could not be currently solved through the Section 106 framework but concluded that the additional briefings on the Local Plan review were welcomed.

In response to questions from the Committee the Place Strategy Manager and Joint Head of Planning detailed that the items being considered in the infrastructure audit were appropriate to informing the Local Plan review and would inform the evidence base regarding the final housing number. In response to a further question the Committee heard that the Council did not have the funding to introduce design codes and that Colchester did not have strong grounds to bid for additional funding. 

The Committee discussed the Standard Methodology and requested further information on how this was calculated and queried whether this took into account age profiles as well as rural wards where the demographics are significantly different as well as how the transient student population of the city would affect this as well as that of Tendring’s population. 

The Joint Head of Planning detailed that the they would circulate guidance to Members on how the standard methodology works and clarified that if there was the evidence to challenge the annual housing number then that would be undertaken but warned Members that evidence would be needed for any challenge on this as the bar was set very high. It was detailed that the Housing needs study would be circulated once it had been completed. Further to this it was detailed that the evidence would be provide details of demographics including students and the elderly residents in the City and their housing needs in the Council’s area. The Joint Head of Planning concluded by detailing that the Tendring District Council had not completed their review and did not have a new Housing Number yet.

Members continued to discuss the report on issues including the Hythe area and flooding issues that pervaded the area which dated back to the 1960s with concern being raised that further development in the area could exacerbate the flooding issues.
The Place Strategy Manager responded that the flooding issues would be taken into account. The Place Strategy Manager responded to further questions from the Committee outlining that the Council would be consulting with the neighbouring authorities and that if the Garden Community could not be delivered then the housing on that site would need to be found elsewhere.

A short break was taken between 19:30-19:40.

In response to further questions the Place Strategy Manager and Joint Head of Planning detailed that the figure of 920 dwellings per annum was the previous number of dwellings per annum that needed to be built as part of the transitional arrangements however the method that was used last time has changed to the Standard Methodology.
It was proposed and seconded that the report be accepted as detailed in the officer recommendation with an addition to 2.1 that the Committee noted the emerging housing need whilst acknowledging that it would be subject to change as further evidence became available.

RESOLVED (EIGHT votes FOR and ZERO votes AGAINST with ONE ABSTENTION) that:

The Committee noted the emerging housing need whilst acknowledging that it would be subject to change as further evidence became available covering the period up to 2041.

And 

The Committee noted the spatial approaches and spatial options set out in paras 5.19-5.41 of the report which are to be tested by the relevant evidence to inform the consideration and drafting of the preferred options Local Plan Review.

Councillor Sunnucks addressed the Committee as a visiting Councillor. The Committee heard that the Council was making a new plan and that the whole process was being re-litigated and causing too much work. The Committee heard that Great Tey looked more like a town and that there were serious connectivity issues with the A120 which needed to be resolved before further development could take place. The speaker detailed that the figures from the previous years showed that Colchester had been building many more houses than those in Tendring and the surrounding authorities and outlined that the infrastructure audit had been well covered but detailed that they had reviewed the House of Commons Library on the Standard Methodology and outlined that it was not a straightjacket with the Council going too far in its interpretation. The visiting Councillor concluded by asking why the Council did not stick to the number of 920 dwellings per annum and that if further funding for infrastructure was available then and only then could a higher number be considered.

The Joint Head of Planning responded to the Visiting Councillor outlining that the Council was undertaking a review of the Local Plan however in reality it would be a new plan that would need to be conformed to and that the decision had already been made to review the previously agreed Local Plan and that there was not a decision in front of the Committee to reverse the adoption of the plan. The Committee heard that the Housing study would be looking at the wider area and that other historical factors had to be considered into the mix including the Haven Gateway Partnership which took on additional growth in previous years. The Joint Head of Planning concluded by detailing that any lower number for housing would need to be evidence based.

Councillor Sunnucks responded that it was too late to go back to the decision but questioned why the scope of the review was so large and why did it not only look at what had changed and detailed that the lower number of housing could be what the Councils current housing number.

The Joint Head of Planning responded that if the evidence base supported a lower number then that would be put forward but the evidence gathering and reporting needed to be completed first to assess what the final number would be. The Committee heard that the Standard Methodology was the starting point for the plan and that if the Council did not take this into account then it could risk the reviewed plan being unsound and open to appeals.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer (Environment), Shelley Blackaby presented the report to the Committee and outlined the progress that had been undertaken since the last meeting with engagement taking place on the green and blue infrastructure and this was reflected in the comments available online. The Committee heard that vision workshops and public engagements had taken place and that in April Essex County Council’s Climate Change policies had been published and had been included in the review with some strong objections being received which would be considered by officers. The Principal Planning Policy Officer (Environment) detailed that the placemaking engagement would be published on the 25 July 2024 which would inform the vision and outlined how officers were looking at working with younger residents in the Colchester Sixth Form College. The Committee heard that 17 town and parish councils meetings had taken place so far and that officers were working to prepare guiding principles for the green network and waterways and that Stage 1 of the settlement boundary review had been shared with town and parish councils. It was detailed that 197 submissions had been received in the call for sites all of which could be viewed on the interactive map on the Councils website and noted that no sites were put forward for biodiversity net gain and so an offsite biodiversity net gain call for sites would be taking place in the summer.

The Committee discussed the report asking whether engagement could be widened to the Colchester institute as well as other secondary schools, whether the use of terminology was inclusive as many people did not know what a local plan was and whether any additional provisions could be sought at this time for healthcare within the Local Plan review.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer (Environment) and Place Strategy Manager responded that the Officers would engage as much as possible in the budget that was allocated and detailed that the iterative approach to engagement had enabled more contact with places such as the sixth form but this was not an exclusive arrangement. The Committee heard that the vision events were to promote engagement and designed not to be too heavy on planning terms to promote engagement and that a health and well-being workshop would be taking place later in the week that the Committee met so that information in that area could be optimised going forwards.

In response to further questions from the Committee regarding the desktop study for the Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA) the Committee heard that it was a requirement to carry out a desktop study to review sites that were currently in the plan and other potential sites not put forward by land owners through the call for sites. Further to this the Committee heard that the settlement boundary review was shared with parishes  for comments and corrections which would be followed up with meetings where required.

The Committee continued to discuss the report on the issues including: the self-selecting group of people that would respond and whether this would distort the numbers. The Place Strategy Manager responded that all comments were taken into account and that the Council had tried to engage as far as effectively as possible whilst also using the residents panel as well as using the Parish Councils’ as much as possible. 

The discussion closed with some Members thanking officers for the engagement work that had been undertaken and the emphasis that had been places on blue and green infrastructure and the environmental concerns.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the Local Plan Committee note progress made on the Local Plan Review.