167
Councillors Bentley (in respect of his membership of Essex County Council), Jowers, Lissimore (in respect of their membership of Essex County Council Development Regulation Committee) and Goss (as Vice Chairman of Myland Community Council) declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 9(5).
Rosie Pearson of CAUSE addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 7(5). CAUSE accepted the need for more housing, but this needed to be of the right type and in the right place. The proposed garden community at West Tey was opposed as CAUSE did not believe that the necessary infrastructure would be upgraded to support the new population. The Council needed to look at the financial modelling and risks very carefully and ensure that these were understood. It should also look elsewhere at alternative delivery methods. Garden settlements were not the only way to solve the housing crisis. This was a risky vanity project, and she called on Council to support the main amendment.
William Sunnocks of CAUSE addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 7(5). CAUSE was not opposed to housing and had suggested alternative ways of delivering housing. The structure of the Local Delivery Vehicles was very important and there was concern about the lack of local representation on them. There was no provision to provide a legacy for local communities. There was a wall of secrecy around the project, which was justified by claims of commercial confidentiality. The West Tey settlement should be removed from the structure. The Council should take its time and get the project right.
Mark Goacher addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 7(5). Whilst the need to build more housing to meet the needs of the homeless was accepted, garden communities would not address this. The solution was to build more Council housing but central government prevented this, and to make the private rented sector more affordable. Garden communities were essentially new towns. The details about the provision of health services were sketchy, and existing resources were already stretched. The proposed communities would create huge urban sprawl on greenfield sites whilst there were still brownfield sites that had not been developed.
It was proposed by Councillor Smith that the recommendations contained in minute 117 of the Cabinet meeting on 30 November 2016 be approved and adopted.
A main amendment was proposed by Councillor Willetts as follows:-
“That the motion on the Establishment of the North Essex Garden Communities Local Delivery Vehicles and Funding Requirements be approved and adopted subject to the following amendments:-
•
to add after the words “Motion that recommendations” the following words: “(n), (o), (p) and (r). “
•
Add after the word “adopted” “but that in regard to recommendation (q) Council informs Cabinet that the emerging local plan for 2017-2033 can be delivered without recourse to a garden community on the Colchester/Braintree borders, for which the economic case is unproven. Therefore Council considers that it would be strategically inopportune to proceed with the formation of Colchester Braintree Borders Ltd.”
Councillor Smith indicated that the main amendment was not accepted. On being put to the vote the main amendment was lost (eighteen voted for, twenty nine voted against and one abstained from voting).
A named vote having been request pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 15(2) the voting was as follows:-
Those who voted for were:-
Councillors Arnold, Barber, Bentley, Buston, Chapman, Chillingworth, Davies, Elliott, A. Ellis, Hazell, Jarvis, Jowers, Lissimore, Loveland, J. Maclean, Moore, Willetts and Wood
Those who voted against were:-
Councillors Barlow, Barton, Bourne, Chaplin, Chuah, Coleman, Cope, Cory, Feltham, Fox, Goss, Graham, Harris, Higgins, Hogg, Liddy, Lilley, B. Oxford, P. Oxford, Pearson, Scordis, Scott, J. Scott-Boutell, L. Scott-Boutell, Smith, Warnes, T. Young, the Deputy Mayor (G. Oxford) and the Mayor (J. Young).
Those who abstained from voting were:-
Councillor Laws
The motion was then put to the vote and was approved and adopted (twenty nine voted for, eighteen voted against and one abstained from voting).
A named vote having been request pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 15(2) the voting was as follows:-
Those who voted for were:-
Councillors Barlow, Barton, Bourne, Chaplin, Chuah, Coleman, Cope, Cory, Feltham, Fox, Goss, Graham, Harris, Higgins, Hogg, Liddy, Lilley, B. Oxford, P. Oxford, Pearson, Scordis, Scott, J. Scott-Boutell, L. Scott-Boutell, Smith, Warnes, T. Young, the Deputy Mayor (G. Oxford) and the Mayor (J. Young).
Those who voted against were:-
Councillors Arnold, Barber, Bentley, Buston, Chapman, Chillingworth, Davies, Elliott, A. Ellis, Hazell, Jarvis, Jowers, Lissimore, Loveland, J. Maclean, Moore, Willetts and Wood
Those who abstained from voting were:-
Councillor Laws