195
The Committee considered a report from the Assistant Director, Place and Client Services, setting out the conclusions of the Planning Inspector on the shared Section 1 of the Braintree, Colchester and Tendring Local Plans. Ian Vipond, Strategic Director, Policy and Place, attended to present the report and assist the Committee.
The Strategic Director explained that the Planning Inspector had shown a fair degree of support to a number of key issues. The Plan had been deemed to have been legally compliant, the Sustainability Appraisal, subject to some issues on deliverability, had been accepted and he had concluded that the Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) had been assessed correctly. The Inspector had also reconfirmed his original position on housing numbers with a requirement of 920 houses per annum, although this would need to reviewed in the light of the 2018 household projections. The Inspector had also been content with the range of delivery mechanisms and had been content with road links and other infrastructure issues and with employment contributions. However there were significant issues on which he had not been convinced. He had not been satisfied that routes three and four of the Rapid Transit System were deliverable and he had expressed concern about the proposed annual rate of housebuilding. He had not accepted some of work done by the Councils on land values which had implications for his view on the viability of garden communities at Colchester Braintree Borders and West of Braintree. He had therefore concluded that neither of these garden communities were likely to be delivered However, he had concluded that the Section 1 Plan could be sound if those garden communities were removed and the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community only was included. The proposals he had presented were that either the Council and its partners accepted his modifications to Section 1 of the Plan, or the Plan was withdrawn and a fresh start was made.
If the Committee resolved to accept the recommendation to proceed with proposed modifications, the Inspector would then undertake a period of pubic consultation on the modifications. This was likely to run from August to October. . The consultation would include updates on Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment work covering the proposed modifications. It was important to recognise that the modifications had been put forward by the Inspector He was not seeking the Councils’ views on them at this stage, although views could be submitted during the public consultation. It would be for the Inspector, not the Council, to consider the representations made in the consultation, and he could reopen hearings again, if necessary.
In response to a question from Councillor Barlow, it was confirmed that Tendring and Braintree would have considered the Inspector’s letter by the end of July 2020. Assuming all three districts agreed to proceed with the modifications, work on the re-evaluation of the Sustainability Appraisal would need to be completed. It was then anticipated that the consultation on the modification would take place for six weeks from mid-August, and with the final letter from the Inspector being received in autumn 2020.
Councillor Ellis expressed his concern that the views of the Conservative members of the Committee had not been heeded. They had repeatedly indicated that the wrong approach was being taken. The Inspector had had confirmed their views. Their attempts to agree on a consensus had been frustrated and their red lines ignored. Lessons needed to be learnt. It needed to be accepted that officers were fallible and members needed to work harder so they were better equipped to challenge. There was no appetite to start the Local Plan process again, and the Committee had to accept the view of the Inspector on the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community. If not, higher housing targets would have to be accepted. However concern was expressed that the proposed modifications did not sufficiently hardwire garden community principles into policy. The amendments suggested by the Leader of the Council were sensible and there would be benefit in putting these to the Inspector now. The Inspector could then be incorporate them, or advise that they be submitted as part of the consultation. However it was vital that if the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community was to go forward, that garden community principles were incorporated into policy.
Concern was also expressed that the Inspector had not called for a definitive map. Over the years the Committee had made a number of pledges around green buffers and again these needed to be hardwired into policy. He would support the recommendations if the Leader’s amendments were put to the Inspector at this stage to see if he would rather accept them or would prefer them to be put forward as part of the consultation.
Councillor Scordis explained that he did not consider that the views of the Conservative Group had been ignored. There had been different views, as was normal in political debate. He called for a change in tone in the debate. The Inspector’s modifications were not open for debate and the imperative was to get Section 1 of the Plan agreed, so the Council could move on to Sections 2. Until a new Local Plan was agreed there was an increased risk of speculative development. If the recommendations were not agreed or amended this may lead to further delay on the consultation and may put the Housing Investment Fund funding at risk.
Councillor G. Oxford was of the view that the proposed modifications put forward by the Inspector did not meet garden community principles. It was vital that the necessary infrastructure was delivered first. Highwoods had suffered from a failure to deliver this in previous developments. The emphasis on trigger points did not give confidence that infrastructure would be delivered first. The Rapid Transit System would not work. He was leaning towards supporting restarting the Local Plan process.
In response, the Strategic Director explained that he believed that the Inspector had received numerous representations in respect of hardwiring the garden community principles into the Plan and would have considered those representations and the issues raised in the amendments suggested by the Leader when putting forward the modifications. In doing so he recognised that the wider policy framework would be provided by the Local Plan and the details of issues such as buffer zones and location of facilities would be settled through the DPD. The Inspector was not looking for comments on the modifications. He had included reference to the Garden Communities Charter within Section One of the Plan, which do go some way to meeting some of the concerns expressed by members. He was looking for an indication that the Council was content to proceed with the modifications as drafted.
The Lead Officer: Planning, Housing and Economic Growth stressed that the Council was seeking to deliver infrastructure in a timely manner. Its policies such as SP8 showed that it was still committed to that type of development and it would not accept a weakened or watered down version.
Councillor Barber paid tribute to the work of a range of community groups and parish councils, whose views had been vindicated. The views of communities in the east of the borough who were concerned that the Tendring Colchester proposal was still going forward needed to be recognised. The concerns they had raised were valid. The Local Plan process had reached this point because the majority of the Committee had not listened to those who knew their communities best. The Plan could not be considered successful given that NEGC Ltd were collapsing and that 80% of the housing had been removed from the Plan. Conservative members had raised these concerns repeatedly. An opportunity to compromise and change course when the Inspector’s letter had been received had not been taken Considerable funding had been wasted and the risk of speculative development increased. Neither of the options before the Committee were ideal and he would not support either option. There needed to be an acceptance of the mistakes that had led to this point and an apology to those whose views had been ignored.
Councillor Bourne accepted that the Council had some healing to do in respect of the Local Plan. However, the Local Plan was not just garden communities. There was much other good work, such as Neighbourhood Plans, that was being overlooked by the focus on garden communities. The administration had to take responsibility for garden communities, and also be responsible in responding to the Inspector’s letter. This set a clear choice before the Committee and there was clear advice from officers. The Committee needed to take a decision that would facilitate the development of a Local Plan for the borough. The Committee could agree on the need to provide housing that was fit for purpose, sustainable and of the appropriate tenure. There had not been time to consider the Leader’s suggested amendments fully and it would be more appropriate for comments on the modifications to be submitted through the consultation process, and the people of Colchester would also have an opportunity to put these points forward in the consultation. In order to move forward and for the consultation to begin, the recommendations in the report needed to be agreed.
Councillor Coleman queried whether the Committee could comment on the modifications and indicated he would support the recommendations in the report.
Councillor Hayter indicated he would not favour starting the Local Plan process
again.
Councillor Moore indicated that she had always considered that the garden communities proposals lacked sufficient foundation. She congratulated the Inspector as he had injected plain language into the Plan through his modifications. The Committee needed to be clear that the Plan would be based on the boundaries it had initially intended.
Councillor Barlow noted that the process was now in the Inspector’s hands. He generally supported the amendments to the modifications: the issue was how they could be most effectively put forward. The next meeting of the Committee was scheduled for 3 August 2020. If this was moved back this would give an opportunity to consider a possible response to the public consultation on the modifications and to discuss the approach with Tendring and Braintree.
The Strategic Director advised that if the Inspector was asked how comments should be submitted, he believed he would invite them through the consultation, and the next meeting of the Committee could be timed to facilitate this. In response to Councillor Moore’s point on the map included within the Plan, the Strategic Director indicated that the map showed the area of search. This included the buffer zones, otherwise they would be outside of the DPD. He advised that the map should remain as it was otherwise the buffer zones might fall outside the scope of the DPD policies.
RESOLVED (FIVE voted FOR, THREE voted AGAINST and ONE ABSTAINED from voting) that the Planning Inspector be asked whether he would wish to incorporate the amendments proposed by the Leader of the Council to the modifications at this stage so they could form part of the public consultation on the modifications, or whether he would wish them to be submitted as a formal response to the consultation.
RESOLVED (SEVEN voted FOR, ONE voted AGAINST and ONE ABSTAINED from voting) that:-
(a)The findings of the Planning Inspector’s letter dated 15 May 2020 attached as Appendix 1 to Assistant Director’s report) and his recommended modifications (attached as Appendix 2 to the Assitant Director’s report) be noted;
(b)The Inspectors suggested main modifications be accepted, including the removal of both the Colchester Braintree Garden Community and the West of Braintree Garden Community from the Section 1 Local Plan for the purposes of soundness.
(c)Subject to the views of the other North Essex Authorities and following the agreement of the Portfolio Holder for Culture and Performance, a formal request be made to the Inspector to recommend main modifications for the purposes of soundness to allow the continuation of the present Local Plan process in accordance with timescales for the consultation exercise and subsequent stages agreed with the Inspector;
(d)It be noted that public consultation will be undertaken on all the main modifications recommended by the Planning Inspector to make the Local Plan sound;
(e)It be noted that an update to the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the Modified Section 1 Local Plan will need to be produced and published for consultation alongside the Inspector’s main modifications and that consultants LUC are already instructed to undertake this work;