Meeting Details

The Minutes of the meeting held on the 5 November 2024 were confirmed as a true record subject to an amendment to minute 313, paragraph 2, so that the paragraph read as follows:

“In response to a question from the Committee regarding the evidence from the Middlewick Campaign Group the Place Strategy Manager detailed that evidence could be included to ensure transparency”

Richard Martin addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rule (5). The Committee heard that the in 2017 Middlewick Ranges had been unexpectedly added to the Local Plan and detailed that the Council did know that it was a valuable wildlife site and that previous ecological assessments should have put the emphasis against development and not for it. The speaker detailed that they and others had been criticised for distracting the Council’s work on the plan and outlined that the significant new data received had made their cause a very worthy endeavour. The Committee heard that one of the UK’s leading Mycologists had made an 800-mile round trip to survey the fungi and confirming that it met the SSSI designation. The speaker concluded by asking the Committee whether they would commit to publishing the interim independent ecology report as soon as its available and commit to due process to respect decision making principles.

The Chair responded that the process would be followed as detailed by the Joint Head of Planning at previous meetings and that the evidence would be made public as soon as it possibly could.

Richard Martin responded that the mycologist they spoke of made a second 800-mile round trip and without them it would not be known how special the Middlewick area was.

Martin Pugh addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rule (5). The Committee heard that the Waxcap mushrooms were suited to the acid Grasslands on Middlewick and the number of species on site surpassed the SSSI designation with the list likely to expand with further evaluation of the site from Emma Williams. The Committee heard that the site had much to offer in terms of quality habitats and that it was being preserved. It was detailed that the letter from England was welcomed and detailed that the friends of Middlewick offered collaboration on the site and questioned will the Council look into alternative sites and not delay in doing this if needed.

The Chair responded that the Council would look at all the evidence and that this would be made public as soon as it was possible.

Martin Pugh responded by asking for a response to the question regarding looking at alternative sites as the evidence had always shown that Middlewick was not deliverable and asked who the individuals were looking at the Bats evidence and Nightingale data.

Sandra Scott, Place Strategy Manager responded that the Ecologists looking at the invertebrates and botanical survey and that Natural England were also reviewing this but could not confirm the name of the individuals reviewing this.

Dr Jeremy Dagley addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rule (5). The Committee heard that the current allocation of Middlewick had been made without gathering evidence, that the Mitigation Hierarchy had not been applied properly, that the mitigation proposed was not achievable and that the Stantec report contained fabricated data. The speaker detailed that the Middlewick had high strategic significance as defined in DEFRA’s most recent guidance and detailed that Natural England’s stance had changed noting its national significance and would lead to a strong objection from Natural England. The speaker detailed that the newest version of the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) detailed that the plans should identify map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks. The speaker concluded by detailing that the Essex Wildlife Trust stood ready to work with the Council, Councillors and MoD and Friends of Middlewick to plan Middlewick’s positive future to contribute to an outstanding ecological network along the wildlife corridor of the Roman River Valley.

Sir Bob Russell addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rule (5). The Committee heard that they endorsed the comments of the previous speakers and comments that outcomes were more important than process and if this were to be repeated with the knowledge now known, Councillors would have voted no to the Local Plan. The speaker detailed that Salary Brook and its consideration at the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee was based on the link road that would now not be happening for 17 to 27 years. The Committee heard that the speaker did not trust the developers to screen the development. The Committee heard that the planning application at the ABRO development site had been opposed by 20 Councillors but had been trumped by the Planning Department. The speaker outlined their concerns regarding the possible changes to Planning Committees across England and the impact that this would have on Democracy whereby officers would make decisions instead of Members.

At the request of the Chair, Karen Syrett, Joint Head of Planning, responded to the points made by the Have Your Say Speaker. The Committee heard that a Policy Paper had been published that set out the proposed changes to Officer delegations for Planning decisions but this would not do away with Planning Committee’s entirely as it included three alternative options. The Joint Head of Planning detailed that the issues regarding Salary Brook would be best raised at the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee as the Local Plan Committee did not have oversight of this.

Sir Bob Russell responded that Councillors should be wary of the scenarios they could encounter with regards to changes to Planning Committee with Councillors having less say over what is happening in their area.

Laura Goulding, Planning Policy Officer, presented the report to the Committee detailing that the monitoring period ran from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 and detailed that within this time frame the Local Plan Review had commenced its issues and options iterative consultation starting in Autumn 2023. It was reported that the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document submission consultation had commenced on the 15 May 2023 and  had run for 6 weeks. With regards to development, it was detailed that 1098 New dwellings had been built in Colchester City and 275 Affordable Houses had been delivered including 231 new build units. Over this period 1,455 planning applications had been received, and the following Neighbourhood Plans had been adopted:

- Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan
- Copford with Easthorpe Neighbourhood Plan
- Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

The Committee were asked to approve the 2024 Monitoring Update Report for Publication on the Council’s website.

Members debated the report noting the contents and asked that the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee meeting dates be reflected within the report.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) That the Local Plan Committee approved the 2024 Monitoring Update Report’s publication on the Council’s website.

Councillor William Sunnucks addressed the Committee as a visiting Councillor. The speaker detailed that they were pleased to hear that the infrastructure audit was underway and that this would be a helpful tool in lobbying for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in the future as well as inform Section 106 negotiations and combating NIMBY’s and developers. The Committee heard that there needed to be a top-down approach with the projects being split into the funding sources so that a healthy debate could take place about who will be paying for which elements especially with regards to the A120 and A12 and working with MPs to secure the funding. The speaker detailed that the report read more like a sustainability study and detailed that there needed to be specific details of what was needed.

The Joint Head of Planning, Karen Syrett, presented the report to the Committee detailing that through Section106 the Council had secured £4,428,127.11 and that the Council had received £2,945,096.61 in the funding period of 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2024. It was detailed that the amount spent by the authority was £1,632,009.38 and the total allocated to projects but not spent during the reporting year was £2,216,243.59. The Committee heard that total amount of money under any planning obligations which was received before the reported date which had not been allocated was £8,133,697.08 and confirmed that 222 affordable units had been delivered via Section 106 Agreements in 2023-2024 compared to 74 units in 2022-2023. The Joint Head of Planning concluded by detailing that the no decision was required from the Committee as the report was for information only and needed to be published prior to the 31 December 2024.

In response to questions from the Committee the Joint Head of Planning detailed that mitigation and Section 106 contributions could only cover what was necessary and that with regards to leisure facilities, Leisure World was the only publicly available swimming pool and confirmed that these spends were monitored to ensure that they were appropriate.

Members debated the report and asked whether there was a set date that the water study would be ready as there was concern from Members regarding new developments and what would happen if the requirements could not be met from developer contributions. Further questions were raised regarding Ward Members signing off on Section 106 payments and what was the process for this.

At the request of the Chair the Joint Head of Planning responded and confirmed that there was no Ward Councillor sign off required and that the process involved the front loading of projects so that they can be added to applications wherever possible and appropriate. It was confirmed that spending over £250,000 needed sign off from the Cabinet Member. In response to a question from the Committee the Joint Head of Planning confirmed that Members were actively encouraged to put forward proposals that could be added to the programme and Parish Councils were involved in this process as well however once agreed the spending in the Section 106 was prescribed on what the money would be spent on.

Councillor Dave Harris addressed the Committee as a visiting Councillor. The speaker thanked the Officers for their work on the review and detailed that the Council was in the middle of the review process and commented on the Colchester Gazette article detailing that Natural England would be working with the Council and that there were indications that the Middlewick area would be protected. The speaker concluded by asking how this relationship with Natural England would be maintained going forward and what input they would have.

At the request of the Chair the Place Strategy Manager detailed that the Council would be accepting Natural England’s offer to review the evidence and that the collaborative working would be continuing into the next stage of the Local Plan process where their offer would be reviewed.

In response to the Officer Councillor Harris queried how the housing that was allocated to Middlewick would be accommodated instead of on the site. 
In response to Cllr Harris the Place Strategy Manager detailed that the Local Plan Review would take into account the whole City area and that would be considered in an evidence-based approach.

Councillor Martyn Warnes addressed the Committee as a visiting Councillor. The speaker detailed that Berechurch did not have a dedicated Community Centre and instead there were numerous Church Halls. It was requested that this was reviewed so that the community needs could understood and met in the future. The Committee heard that there were improvements that could be made to the rail network specifically with regards to the Colchester Town station which would work alongside the Councils Climate Emergency declaration. Councillor Warnes concluded by detailing that the requirements for Middlewick should be measured against the core principles to achieve a biodiversity net gain and minimise the adverse effects on the land.

At the request of the Chair the Joint Head of Planning responded that the improvements at the Colchester Town Station could be looked into further and that the concerns regarding the community facilities in the Berechurch area were noted and will ask the Community Development team to get in touch so that these concerns could be factored in. 

In response to the Officers, Councillor Warnes queried whether there were any requests for facilities that had yet to be accepted.

The Joint Head of Planning detailed that some projects had been put forward but were not acceptable in planning terms due to the statutory tests necessary for making the applications and projects acceptable.

Sandra Scott, Place Strategy Manager, presented the application to the Committee noting that it was appreciated that there were a large number of lengthy documents as well as technical reports detailing factual evidence. The Committee heard that the Local Housing needs assessment considered the overall need of the different groups in Colchester which worked out to be 1300 dwellings per annum. This assessment had been based on the current and future housing needs and included the mix, tenure split and the range of specialist housing needs as well as Gypsy and Traveller sites. It was noted that these were identified in appendix B which identified the overall need until 2041.

The Committee heard that the Infrastructure Audit and delivery plan key points were summarised in 5.20-5.26 of the report and that they identified the growth for the Local Plan period and confirmed that this would form part of the evidence base once it was published. It was noted that there were 37 different types of infrastructure that would be included in the report as well as a planned baseline position,  where there were supply gaps, and the inclusion of stakeholder engagement which would inform stages 1 and 2 of the report. This would be considered with the mitigation requirements and retail and leisure study and commercial leisure sectors whose key points were included at 5.27-5.33 of the report. These looked at all the separate centres within Colchester regardless of scale and identifying the appropriate change and viability of functions whilst providing health checks. The report also included details of the Landscape assessments providing an up-to-date evidence base which would inform the baseline. It was detailed that the Strategic Land Availability Assessment was detailed within the report at 5.42 and confirmed that the methodology had been agreed in the previous year. Through this stage one assessment it had been found that 72% of those identified were suitable and details of these specific sites were detailed in appendix 1. The Place Strategy Manager concluded by detailing that as more information became available then this would be published and that the recommendation was to note the progress made on the evidence base and note the publication of the completed evidence documents referred to in section 5 of the report.

The Committee debated the report and raised questions regarding the infrastructure audit and detailed that there was concern regarding sewage capacity that would be included in the Water Cycle Study and how this would be looked at in terms of growth options being proposed and queried how this would be shown in the recommended plan. 

At the request of the Chair, The Place Strategy Manager detailed that the evidence needed to be fully tested to understand the implications of the plan as the Water Cycle Study was only one part of the wider evidence base. It was confirmed that the water and sewage element would be included within the water cycle study which would be a statement at a point in time but would be looking at growth and the challenges thereafter. In response to a further question from the Committee the Place Strategy Manager confirmed that the Housing Numbers in the NPPF could not be delayed due to a lack of infrastructure.

In response to a question from the Committee the Place Strategy Manager confirmed that the report on Middlewick was expected in the upcoming week and confirmed that once this was available it would be published on the website.

Members debated the report on issues including: that the evidence base was a starting point which could be used as a guide for infrastructure through Section 106, CIL and wider government funding, especially as the A120 was a challenge in every option. Marks Tey was noted as requiring major investment to support the plan going forward as well as other utilities including wastewater and electricity in more rural areas such as Tiptree and Copford. 

With regard to retail the report on retail and leisure trends and predicted supply and demand were noted.  The landscape character assessment was described and confirmed it would help inform potential impacts from development proposals. 

Members continued to debate the report on issues including: when the water cycle study would be completed, that the Government had promised the building of new reservoirs and queried whether they were considering one in the Colchester Area as it was projected there would be significant population growth. On page 592 the Committee queried the spare sewage capacity and detailed that West Mersea had been promised an upgrade that had not happened and currently meant that 3-4 tankers a day were removing waste and had meant that residents in East Mersea had not been able to sit in their back gardens because of the smell. Further to this it was detailed that there had been a 20cm rise in sea level since the 1953 floods and the land was sinking at a rate of 0.8mm a year leading to a more likely 1 in 10-year flood event.

At the request of the Chair the Place Strategy Manager responded that these points raised regarding flooding would be taken up with the consultants and the water cycle study  would be available before the plans publication but could not confirm a definitive time on this and detailed that they were not aware of any conversations regarding new reservoirs.

Members discussed the measuring of average income per household and how on West Mersea this was below the normal average due to more than one third of the population being retired which was twice the national average and as such this was interpreted that residents couldn’t afford properties. It was queried whether this was the case in other wards.

At the request of the Chair the Place Strategy manager responded that they did not have the specialist knowledge with regards to the methodology regarding this scenario but accepted that there were certain factors that were skewing the relationship between income and home ownership however it was detailed that this would be set out in the guidance to follow. With regards to the question of where people had moved from to areas such as West Mersea the Council relied upon input from those contacted and if this information was not provided then it couldn’t be recorded.

In response to the Have Your Say Speaker earlier in the meeting the Joint Head of Planning clarified that further that the Council’s scheme of delegation for planning applications was held up as best practice to other Councils when conducting peer reviews and detailed that this would be sent round to all Members.

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

Members queried p93 of the report where it detailed that 21,400 additional jobs would be created and whether this was in construction or lifetime of the plan. Further to this it was questioned whether the 877 additional affordable homes as listed on page 93 were in addition to current stock or included it.

At the request of the Chair the Place Strategy Manager responded that the figure of 21,400 jobs was looking at the calculation and population and what that could support as a crude calculation and detailed that there would be an employment land needs assessment. With regard to the Affordable Housing this was confirmed as being additional to current stock and it was recognised that this would not all be developed but that the Council would be securing the maximum going forward and of the right mix with the starting point being the policies in the Local Plan.

Concern was raised that the proposed number of affordable homes would not meet the needs of the community and could lead to more people living in Housing Association’s properties. Members discussed how the delivered dwellings total of 1098 and how a large number of these came from the University of Essex. It was queried if the University had not built the student accommodation whether the Council would have missed its housing target and how that number could be included in the numbers as it was not a formal dwelling.

The Joint Head of Planning confirmed that the Council would have missed the target if they had not been completed and detailed that the student accommodation flats were not considered a dwelling on a 1-1 base but that 2.46 student flats counted as 1 dwelling in the housing target.

Points were made regarding the long-term plans to ensure future generations using services in Colchester rather than further away and plans to improve transport to employment hubs. The Joint Head of Planning said that retaining affordable homes was key and detailed that there were plans to reform the Right to Buy housing scheme. 
Members questioned whether the university accommodation had been delivered in one year and that there was concern regarding infrastructure in the rural parts of the City area including phone signal and how the proposals from National Grid were not shown in the documentation.

The Joint Head of Planning and Place Strategy Manager responded that the council monitored the completions of developments and that this had been completed in time for the relevant term. It was detailed that the infrastructure work said that more could be done for phone signal improvement and confirmed that there was not a reference to pylons in the information before the Committee.
Members questioned the use of “low income” in the report with regards to housing and how this was defined. 

At the request of the Chair the Joint Head of Planning responded that the use of “low income” was a Government definition which disregarded all other factors as it was a benchmark level identified for the area.

Members debated the information noting that the Council had benefitted from the very high-density development at the University but this could not be relied upon again. Members discussed the table on p184 of the agenda regarding the proportion of people who were able to rent and buy property whilst living in the Private Rented sector. It was discussed that the table did display people who could buy and rent and showed that in the future people will not be able to rent or buy as detailed in the Council Tax support scheme. It was detailed that the Right to Buy discount had been returned to the pre 2012 levels and meant that there was an effective 14% discount. As such this meant that less people would be buying their homes and there would be no need to replace the ones that would have been bought. However, this was noted to also mean that the Council had less income to put into new homes and some of them were no longer viable and there was further work to be done. The debate concluded with it being noted that there had been a surge in fraudulent requests for the Right to Buy scheme.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) That the Local Plan Committee noted the progress made on the evidence base to support the Colchester Local Plan Review and the publication of the completed evidence documents referred to in section 5 of the report.