The Committee will be provided with a verbal update by the Planning and Housing Manager on the current situation regarding the Local Plan.
157
Ian Vipond, Executive Director, responded to the representations made by speakers under the have Your Say! Arrangements and provided a verbal update on the current situation in relation to the Local Plan. He referred to the January update on the Local Plan process, the issues the Inspector had asked the Council to look into and evidence gathering which had been circulated to members of the Committee and was publicly available on the Local Plan website hosted by Braintree District Council.
He referred to the sustainability work being undertaken by LUC and the challenge by the Inspector to ensure a robust and independent piece of work was delivered, although in the context that it was being done on behalf of a Local Authority. He confirmed that LUC had proposed their methodology following the scope contained in the letter from the Inspector. The consultation exercise had enabled questions to be asked about the methodology and it would be for LUC to decide if they wished to change it and it was not for the Council to get involved in that process.
He referred to the Spatial Options which was the next stage of the process, including proportionate growth, and it would be for LUC to narrow down the number of options needed to be considered. He referred to comments about bias and pre-determination and confirmed that LUC, who were professionals in the Sustainability field, were undertaking an independent exercise which was ongoing. He confirmed he had no knowledge of what the outcome of that process would be.
He referred to comments made about legal opinions and confirmed that legal advice was received on an ongoing basis and the opinion obtained by CAUSE had been looked at a but a specific legal opinion would be sought at the stage when it was clear that all representations had been submitted and could be tested at one time. He reassured the Committee that nothing contained in the CAUSE legal opinion were matters which had not been raised before.
He explained that the consultation in relation to the Sustainability Appraisal was a technical piece of work to assess the sustainable impact of development and was over and above what would usually occur because it was considered important for the LUC methodology to be subject to a specific consultation exercise. The next stage of work would be in relation to Spatial Options which would be subject to a separate consultation exercise whilst it was likely there would also be further consultation on the Local Plan generally and which was an example of what the £450,000 funding was intended for. He confirmed that the funding budget for NEGC Ltd was held by Colchester, he was unable to confirm what funding had been received from the other Authorities, but he was aware that funding decisions by each of the Districts and the County had been agreed at relevant District Cabinet meetings.
He confirmed that a Locally Led New Town Development Corporation was one model by which Garden Communities could be proceeded with and legislative Regulations were now in place for that model. He explained the history of Development Corporations and the involvement of District Councils within them and chaired by an Independent person. Whilst Locally Led examples included an oversight body in the form of the relevant Local Authority. He explained that any Council project would generally include the establishment of a Board, involving Councillors and one or more Working Groups involving council officers. He confirmed that the Managing Director of NEGC Ltd had been appointed Chairman of the Garden Communities Steering Group and that this scenario was not uncommon.
He confirmed that a series of draft workings were expected to be brought to the Committee for consideration in June/July 2019, with potential for a series of informal briefings at this time.
Councillor Ellis was of the view that the consultation exercise undertaken by LUC with stakeholders had been requested by the Inspector and he did not consider 30 minutes was a sufficient allocation of time for this. He explained that he was expecting the detail of the draft methodology and the results of the consultation exercise to be submitted to the Committee for consideration. He also referred to the suggestion made by the Inspector for the commissioning of a specific legal opinion on the wider Sustainability Appraisal and asked why this had not yet been done. He asked about the sites to be taken forward and the involvement of the Local Authorities in this process. He was in agreement with the need to know what funds had been made available to NEGC Ltd. He referred to the need for the process to be transparent and was of the view that consideration should be given to holding briefings in an open format. He commented that the Scrutiny Panel had been informed that £350,000 had been made available for NEGC Ltd with a further £100,000 to support the Local Plan process and further consultation generally. He referred to the detail and timing of the further consultation and asked when this would be submitted to the Committee for consideration. He considered it vital that the support of local communities for the process had been secured before this was concluded.
The Executive Director responded by confirming that the responses to the methodology would be made public and brought back to the Committee for consideration. He confirmed that the process had been made as robust and independent as possible and it would be for LUC to determine whether the methodology needed to be reviewed in the light of the responses received. In terms of the options for the next stage, due to the Local Plan being part way through an examination, LUC had been given information from the Inspector as to which sites needed to be included and alternatives which needed to be assessed and, in this context, there would be input from the Local Authorities in relation to the scale but there would be later opportunities to challenge from a strategy perspective. Ultimately, LUC would be required to stand by their methodology and their conclusions.
Councillor Ellis sought further clarification in relation to the independence of the process and he questioned the reasoning behind LUC’s decision not to initially include proportionate growth in the methodology and the scope that LUC had applied to their definition of proportionate growth. He asked whether the responses to the next round of consultation would be referred to the Committee for consideration and for details of information as it was received by officers to be circulated to the Committee members for information. He also sought clarification on the reason why the Inspector’s specific request for a legal opinion to be sought before any further work had been undertaken had not been implemented.
The Executive Director confirmed that matters of evidence would be submitted to the Committee for consideration prior to submission to the Inspector. Nevertheless, whilst acknowledging the need for transparency, he did not consider it appropriate to bring draft documents to the Committee. In this context, he referred to the informal briefings for Committee members which had taken place in the past and which were intended to continue for the elements of the evidence. He also acknowledged the need for a legal opinion to be sought and confirmed that strong advice had been received that a Barrister’s written opinion should be undertaken at the point when all the anticipated opinions from others had been received. He agreed to seek further confirmation on that point.
Councillor Barber was also of the view that the Council should seek to address the legal issues raised at the earliest opportunity and asked for internal legal advice on this matter to be shared with the Committee members. He did not support the allocation of any further funding to NEGC Ltd; he was of the view that consultation should be undertaken by the Council in its own right; he questioned the objectivity of NEGC Ltd given its stated brief to deliver three Garden Communities; he advocated the sharing of draft documents with Committee members, in confidence and welcomed the opportunity to see the contents of all Local Plan associated information so that he would be in a position to check on progress. He also sought clarification on the date for a check and challenge workshop.
Councillor T. Young, Portfolio Holder for Business and Culture attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. He explained that a wider Group including the actual Board of NEGC Ltd had been set up and confirmed that he was a Board member, along with a representative from the University of Essex and other agencies. The Group members attend Board meetings and receive help and advice from various sources in order to deliver the best solutions possible. He confirmed, as Portfolio Holder, that he was happy for information to be shared with Committee members on a confidential basis. He also confirmed that Richard Bayley, Managing Director of NEGC Ltd, was also a member of the wider Group so that information and advice could be shared jointly.
Councillor Arnold referred to the setting up of the Docklands Development Corporation and the transfer of planning powers from the Local Authorities to enable that to happen. He expressed concern that the establishment of a Development Corporation may mean that the decision making powers of the Local Plan and Planning Committees might be subject to a similar transfer and he explained that he did not wish to see any democratic deficit or any compromises in order to fit in with Braintree and Tendring. He sought assurances in relation to a Development Corporation potentially exercising planning powers.
The Executive Director was of the view that the three Authorities would not be investigating potential models which involved the imposition of a Development Corporation in this form. He confirmed that legislation had been passed in relation to Locally Led Development Corporations which included putting the oversight in the hands of Local Authorities and provided for the retention of planning powers if wanted. The Development Corporation provided a mechanism to control the implementation of infrastructure, although there were variations such as for the delivery of regeneration. He also confirmed that Development Plan Documents for the potential Garden Communities would continue to be determined by this Committee.
Councillor Cope sought clarification regarding the definition of proportionate growth and whether it was compatible with the contents of the draft Local Plan.
The Executive Director confirmed that the majority of housing development in the Local Plan was through proportional growth and was what the Council had been doing for the last 50 years. He explained that this was by adding housing development to the edges of settlements with the bulk of the growth going to the bigger settlement, such that Colchester town had taken the bulk of the growth by extending its urban area. He further explained that the proposed Local Plan continued with this proportionate approach, in terms of housing numbers, whilst the three Garden Communities would grow through the Local Plan process and it would be in the following version of the Local Plan that they would come to fruition and housing development in the Borough would then be concentrated in the Garden Communities. This process would therefore change the way development was traditionally delivered in the Borough, although it would still be necessary to provide some development by proportional growth.
Councillor Willetts referred to the matter of pre-determination and remained unconvinced regarding the explanation provided in relation to the separation of decision making and implementation, as such he speculated whether the speaker who had raised the issue was satisfied with the responses given.
Tom Foster, the Chairman of CAUSE, was further invited to address the Committee and explained that, in his view, officers had not listened to the opinions expressed by CAUSE and had declined invitations to attend meetings and conferences organised by CAUSE. He considered this to strongly suggest that the Garden Communities issue had been pre-determined.
RESOLVED that the current situation in relation to the Local Plan be noted and arrangements be made for clarification on the funds received from the other Local Authorities to be made available to Committee members following this meeting.