Meeting Details

The Minutes of the meeting held on the 17 June 2024 were confirmed as a true record.

Councillor Martyn Warnes addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rules (5). The Committee heard that the current Local Plan and its evidence base were unsound and that if Middlewick was removed from the Draft Local Plan then the housing currently allocated would need to be distributed to other areas of the City. The Committee heard that the Stantec report had been widely discredited as well as the withholding of information from Councillors regarding the acid grassland had led the speaker to continue to say that Members should be minded to remove Middlewick from the Local Plan and should reconsider plans for a West Tey development.

Councillor Dave Harris addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rules (5). The Committee heard that the sale of Middlewick Ranges was not desired by the Berechurch Councillors and it was acknowledged by them and Cllr Scordis that this was coming from all sides and that there was a significant environmental impact and that now was the times for action. The speaker asked that Middlewick exhibition be extended, that the site is brought forward for designated future use that is not housing, that alternative sites such as detailed by Cllr Warnes be designated in the Local Plan and that officers investigate this to avoid the destruction of Middlewick.

Dr Jeremy Dagley addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rule (5). The Committee heard that the ecological evidence provided in 2017 identified 50 hectares of woodland and noted that there were crucial alterations to the site and acid grassland which misled and contradicted the local wildlife citation. It was detailed that the Biodiversity Net Gain Score would show a loss of nature and that the site is of a wider importance and should never be considered for development. The Committee heard that the loss of the Middlewick site would undermine the Essex Nature Strategy. 

Glyn Evans addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rule (5). The Committee heard that the Council had published a statement on the 16 October reaffirming its commitment to transparency and environmental protection and thoroughness which detailed that the PBA and Stantec reports were produced by the same Lead Ecologist building on the economic analysis of the site which was false. The Committee heard that the Council had submitted the plan to the Government in October 2017 before it had received the PBA report and quoted the Cabinet Member for Planning that the Council was committed to making planning decisions that protected the environment and supported sustainable development. The Committee heard that this was not the case and raised concern regarding the absence of Nightingales from the Ecology studies and previous Stantec report some of which would be harmed by the installation of a new fence from the MOD. The speaker concluded by detailing that the ecology study being conducted was not independent and asked that Dr Dagley and other experts in the field be brought in as the development on the site was a dead parrot.

Martin Pugh addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rule (5). The Committee heard that they would like to acknowledge the people protesting and outside the building and detailed that Parrot Waxcap mushrooms had been found across the site in high densities and detailed that these were indicators of rich grasslands. The speaker detailed that the original Stantec report had downgraded the mentioning of waxcaps and biodiverse grassland whilst downplaying their significance. The speaker detailed that the that the Stantec report was still being supported by the Council and that the mitigation hierarchy needed to be maintained and needed to be started from the base.

Cllr Michael Lilley addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rule (5). The Committee heard that the Committee needed to make a proper decision on whether to include Middlewick in the Local Plan or not and detailed that they believed that it should have been thrown out a long time ago. The speaker detailed that the there was concern over whether the MOD could be trusted and asked why a previous ecological report on the Middlewick site had not been submitted and queried why this had happened. It was detailed that the MOD had behaved badly and attacked someone over the Middlewick with the Police showing little interest. The speaker concluded by detailing that alternative options such as West Tey should be looked at and that the Middlewick site should be protected. 

Cllr Lee Scordis addressed the Committee pursuant to provisions of Meeting Procedure Rule (5). The Committee heard that they shared similar thoughts to the previous speaker and detailed that the Committee needed to look at the removal of the Middlewick site. The speaker detailed that they had seen the evidence that had been put forward and outlined that the details from an FOI showed that no developer was interested in the site and could mean that the Council did not meet its housing target. The Committee heard that Middlewick was a very important space and detailed that the West Tey site needed to be looked at again and detailed that the white elephant of Middlewick was only going to get bigger and bigger.

At the request of the Chair, Karen Syrett, Joint Head of Planning, responded to the points made by the Have Your Say Speakers. The Committee heard that the Council was the decision-making authority but detailed that the authority was still in the early stages of the process. It was detailed that no site could be removed in isolation and that the Local plan Review was currently underway and that this revolved around the evidence gathered and the sooner officers were able to look at the evidence the sooner progress could be made. The Committee heard that the large amount of questions received on Middlewick and its past inclusion in the plan were time consuming for officers and that it was a tight timescale to be able to publish the draft local plan in January 2025. The Joint Head of Planning detailed that the Local Plan Committee would be asked to vote on the preferred options to be published for consultation and once the consultation had completed then the plan would be reviewed and then put forward to the Local Plan Committee to submit it to the Planning Inspectorate who would decide whether it is sound. It was confirmed that the final decision for adoption would be made by Full Council.

At the request of the Chair, Sandra Scott, Place Strategy Manager detailed that the concerns and criticisms of the evidence base were well documented and understood and that no good would come from revisiting these areas as all the information was considered by the Planning Inspectorate who found the plan to be sound and confirmed that new evidence would be required for the plan under construction. The Committee heard that going over previous evidence was not constructive and that the points regarding ecological value would be considered going forward. The Place Strategy Manager detailed that the Local Plan review was reconsidering the site of Middlewick with all the evidence as a whole and that this needed to be balanced against the constraints of any site as well as the housing requirement. The Committee heard that the current independent surveys taking place on Middlewick were looking at the botanical and invertebrate elements as recommended by Natural England which would inform the masterplanning of the site and noted that these would inform the evidence base and would be shared with the Council’s ecologists.

In response to a follow up question from Cllr Dave Harris the Place Strategy Manager confirmed that it was anticipated that the Plan would be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in the Autumn of 2025. 

Dr Jeremy Dagley addressed the Committee in response to Comments from Officers. The Committee heard that evidence was not a distraction and detailed that they were not convinced that the evidence provided was being seen for what it really was. The Committee heard that there was no masterplan for housing on Middlewick and that this was based on a false premise of the Stantec report that was completely flawed.

Glyn Evans addressed the Committee in response to Comments from Officers. The Committee heard that the timescale for a decision was fixed and that the MOD were acting with impunity and questioned whether any evidence had been received from them to give an indication or to take some responsibility for the site.

Martin Pugh addressed the Committee in response to Comments from Officers. The Committee heard that members of the public had to ask a certain question to get a certain answer and detailed that the ecologist has gone out to look at a very specific brief and of plants and invertebrates and queried how they hadn’t seen the bats on the site. The speaker concluded that there was no independent brief being put forward to the ecologists.

Councillor Lee Scordis addressed the Committee in response to Comments from Officers. The Committee heard that they agreed with the comments made on the evidence from the other public speakers and detailed that the MOD put the Middlewick site forward too late in the process and  asked when the Committee  could take the site out again.

At the request of the Chair the Joint Head of Planning clarified that the review of the local plan had to be decided on the evidence base and that the Council needed evidence to support the plan which would be tested by the Planning Inspectorate and that the Local Plan Committee would be responsible for agreeing the content of the draft local plan, the preferred option and consultation plan that would be sent to the Planning Inspectorate with the adoption of the plan being agreed by Full Council. The Place Strategy Manager added that officers could not pre-empt the botanical and invertebrate survey but an interim report was expected by the end of 2024. 

The Joint Head of Planning , Simon Cairns,  presented the report to the Committee detailing that an article 4 direction had been served in Tiptree and that the Committee were being asked to confirm that order and keep it in place in perpetuity. The Committee heard that this had been taken as an urgent decision following consultation with the proper officer as well as receiving unanimous support from the Chair and Group Spokespersons of the Local Plan Committee. The serving of this notice had prevented the erection of further fencing on site and use of land for camping and stationing of caravans. Following this officers have brought this to the next Local Plan meeting to confirm this order that would remove permitted development rights which would not prevent the uses on site but would require planning permission to be sought. 

In response to questions from the Committee the Joint Head of Planning confirmed that if required the article 4 direction could be withdrawn and unmade and that decision would be brought before the Local Plan Committee as this was not a delegated power to officers. Further to this the Joint Head of Planning Confirmed that there was no registered title on the land but a notice had been served on the land itself and the marketing agent had been informed of this.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) That the Local Plan Committee noted the reasons behind the making of an article 4 direction concerning land at Pennsylvania Lane, Tiptree  

and 

confirmed the article 4 direction within the requisite 6 month period.

The Historic Buildings and Areas Officer, Eirini Dimerouki, presented the report to the Committee detailing that the current order for North Station Road had lapsed  and that the Local Plan Committee were being asked to delegate authority to the Joint Head of Planning  to consider any representations received in response to the matter and to confirm the directions within the statutory timescale and that if substantive new issues were raised then the Joint Head of Planning would refer the confirmation back to the Local Plan Committee for consideration.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Joint Head of Planning (Simon Cairns) detailed that the this had been before the Committee previously but noted that officers had not been aware of the requisite timescale and hence it was being brough back to the Committee to be re-confirmed. The Joint Head of Planning apologised for this and noted that this had been taken on-board for all new Article 4 directions.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) That the Local Plan Committee instruct the Head of Service to re-serve the Article 4 Direction as soon as possible and delegate to the Planning Head of Service Powers to consider any representations received in response and, as appropriate, to confirm the directions within the requisite statutory timescale. In the event that a large volume of adverse responses are received raising substantive new issues, then the Head of Service will refer the confirmation back for the Committee’s further consideration. 

The Planning Policy Officer, Laura Goulding, presented the report to the Committee noting that the previous reporting of the Local Development Scheme had been at the previous meeting in June 2024 and noted that the report set out the timetable for the documents including the approval dates and consultation dates including those surrounding the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It was noted that the consultation included possible changes to the Standard Methodology and plan making system noting that the Council had until 2026 to submit a plan under the current guidelines. 

Members discussed the report noting that there was a correction to be made on p55 of the report where the preferred options consultation should read “February 2025 to March 2025.” Members also questioned when the last opportunity for the Local Plan Committee would be to have input into the local plan prior to examination. 

The Joint Head of Planning (Karen Syrett) confirmed that this would be in July or August of 2025.

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

The Principal Planning Officer (Environment), Shelley Blackaby, presented the report to the Committee detailing that the report provided updates on the themed issues and approach to issues and options as opposed to single issues and options and detailed that these had been collated noting that there had been 197 submissions received regarding the call for sites, details of which could be found on the Council’s website. The Committee heard that the Council had received 9 off site submissions for Biodiversity Net Gain and detailed that questions had been wide ranging about what people liked best about Colchester and noted the themes that had emerged. It was noted that Essex County Council’s Net Zero Carbon Homes had received a mixed response. The Committee heard that there had been 24 responses to the Place Making survey. The Principal Planning Officer (Environment) concluded by detailing that the recommendation was that the Committee note the collated issues and options report and agree to publish it on the Council’s Local Plan webpages.

The Committee raised questions regarding the Biodiversity Net Gain, the inclusion of Middlewick in the documents, the number of respondents to Net Zero, and the level of engagement with the Local Plan consultations. 

At the request of the Chair, the Principal Planning Officer (Environment) detailed that Biodiversity Net Gain was a mandatory requirement and that it is preferred that the 10% uplift is provided on site however this is not possible on all sites. It was noted that residents had been asked to respond to the questionnaire online via the Councils consultation system. The Joint Head of Planning (Karen Syrett) detailed that Middlewick was mentioned 25 times within the report and detailed that residents and groups had engaged in the formal process throughout. It was clarified that on p138 of the agenda the name associated with Pritchard was Gareth Pritchard and not the former Chief Executive of Colchester City Council Adrian Pritchard.

Members continued to debate the engagement in the process with concerns being raised regarding the lack of engagement with less than 0.1% of residents engaging in the process and whether external support was needed in this regard as well as asking about what could be done with the Councils assets and possible microsites for Biodiversity Net Gain sites.

At the request of the Chair the Principal Planning Officer (Environment) and Joint Head of Planning ( Karen Syrett) detailed that it was difficult to get engagement in the Local Plan especially at this stage but the Council had tried to do something different and engage in a different way via the themes as well as using workshops and the residents panel and contacting the sixth form which unfortunately did not work out but progress on this was being made with Cllr Goacher. It was noted that the Council was coming to the end of the consultation stage and would be preparing the preferred options document. The Committee heard that with the next stage of the plan there would be significantly more interest and confirmed that officers were always looking for new ways to engage where possible.

The Committee continued to debate the engagement from the public and questioned what could be done to raise awareness as well as concerns being raised that not enough events were being done in person to engage with those that did not have internet access and what language was being used to engage. 

The Place Strategy Manager and Joint Head of Planning responded that there were no good examples of high level engagement at this stage in the process and it is a common problem for Councils and that people waited for more substantial proposals to come forward before engaging further. It was noted that Officers would be engaging with Parishes as part of the settlement evidence and detailed that the next stage would involve more online meetings as well as in person meetings. Officers detailed that where possible they could put advertisements in local publications and detailed that they had even tried offering free pizza to engage but nobody had turned up and if Members were able to attend and support engagement events this could be organised. 

In response to a question from the Committee the Principal Planning Officer (Environment) detailed that the Biodiversity Net Gain requirements and how this was looked at on a site level and not the whole district so the baseline would need to be provided by an applicant through a qualified ecologist.

The discussion concluded with Cllr Smithson detailing how there had been some high levels of engagement on Local Plan Consultations and outlined that they would send this to officers and the Committee following the conclusion of the meeting. 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) That the Local Plan Committee noted the collated Issues and Options Report and agree to publish it on the Council’s Local Plan webpages.

A short break was taken between 19:45 and 19:55 

The Place Strategy Manager presented the report to the Committee which outlined the progress that had been made since June 2024 with table 5.4 in the report summarising the time timing and the progress of each section. The Committee heard that the report detailed each settlement and town and parish council reflecting the updates from them and amendments or corrections could be made to these where relevant details were incorrect and planning applications approved. It was noted that the details regarding sites in the Strategic Land Availability Assessment and the call for sites would be comprehensively looked at and that their being put forward at this point did not infer support for any site. It was detailed that paragraph 5.16 in the report showed where the evidence was well advanced and confirmed that workshop sessions with Councillors had been planned for later in the month and that further updates would be brought to the following Local Plan meetings.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding the evidence from the Middlewick Campaign group the Place Strategy Manager detailed that there was no reason why reference to evidence could not be included to ensure transparency.
In response to further questions from the Committee the Place Strategy Manager confirmed that the initial outcome of the Water Cycle study would be available for February’s meeting of the Local Plan Committee and that this would be published once it is available.

Members discussed the water requirements per person per day and the constraints of sea level rise on some of the areas within Colchester City Councils administrative area and how there was concern that planning permissions were being sought and approved in areas that would be subject to possible flooding. There were also concerns regarding GP and healthcare provision being adequate in places such as Mersea where they had stopped taking new patients.

At the request of the Chair the Place Strategy Manager responded that the there would be a strategic flood risk assessment which would be taken into account when gathering evidence and that the availability of healthcare and associated facilities would be provided and drilled down in the infrastructure delivery plan. 

The Committee continued to discuss the report on issues including: when the meetings with Parish Council’s would take to discuss sites and whether any data would be provided regarding the change and trends in demographics in wards and parishes.

The Place Strategy Manager responded that meetings were being organised with parishes and that some of these would take place prior to the publication of the preferred options document and that the information on demographic trends would be included in the Housing Needs Assessment. 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) That the Local Plan Committee noted the progress made on the evidence base to support the Colchester Local Plan Review.