1128
The Committee considered an outline application with all matters reserved except access, for the erection of up to 7 no. dwellings with parking and access.
This application was referred to the Planning Committee because it was considered in the public interest to allow the Committee to consider the settlement policy issues raised in relation to the Local Plan and West Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan having regard to wider considerations about housing delivery.
The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out and additional information in the Amendment Sheet.
Chris Harden, Senior Planning Officer, presented the application to the Committee and assisted them in their deliberations. The Committee were shown the layout of the site, which was outside, but adjoining, the settlement limits. The context of the site was illustrated with plan, photographs and aerial photographs. Whilst the original scheme called for seven properties, there had been some concern about having to remove trees to fit them on to the site, and so the illustrative plan showed six properties – although there could be up to seven if, for example, semi-detached properties were introduced.
Several objections had been received, on the basis that the site was outside the local planning area, there were environmental wildlife factors that had not been considered, there was an impact on the tree preservation order trees, and residents had not been consulted by the developer.
The Senior Planning Officer outlined the planning considerations, starting with the issue of whether the Scheme should be accepted in terms of settlement policy principles, with several factors in favour of the site. It was adjacent to the settlement limits and the local plan policy did allow development adjacent to settlement limits if it respected the character of the surroundings. In that respect, it was judged against policy OV2. So, if it was accepted in terms of character surroundings, there was not a policy objection in terms of the Local Plan. The site was also in a sustainable location where there was a presumption in favour of development in the Local Plan and also in the NPPF and this site was a sustainable site. On the other hand, there were also two areas identified in the settlement boundary for a further 120 dwellings. Therefore, the City Council deemed there was some conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan and would normally adopt a plan-led approach to these settlement boundaries.
If the City Council did not have regard to the neighbourhood plan settlement boundaries, that would render them rather meaningless. However, submissions have been received from the Agent regarding appeal decisions that indicated that the neighbourhood plan did not rule out development in other areas. It was therefore important for the Committee to consider the outcome of previous appeals, in which the Inspector indicated that the neighbourhood plan did not rule out development outside of boundaries.
The Senior Planning Officer summarised that the neighbourhood boundary was significant and that there would be some conflict with the neighbourhood plan if development were permitted outside settlement boundaries. However, another important issue that needed to be considered was the potential shortfall in the 5-year housing supply that could occur by February 2026. This was something that carried significant weight in terms of the determination of this application and reduced the weight applied to the neighbourhood plan. This in effect tilted the balance in favour of approving this scheme in principle and the proposal should therefore be judged on its planning merits.
The Senior Planning Officer detailed the planning merits. There would be some impact on the surrounding area, through the loss of soft frontage vegetation to produce hard surface access and buildings. Nevertheless, this impact would be limited because of the surrounding vegetation and would not justify rejecting the application. The current plan was illustrative, and the design, scale and form of development would be considered at the reserved matters stage. The only aspect that would be approved under this application would be the access. In terms of residential amenity, it was considered that there was potential for compliance with the policy DM15 in terms of avoiding overbearing, loss of lights or overlooking, but again the details would be considered at the reserved matters stage. Highways Authority had raised no objections and access visibility would be achievable.
In terms of ecology, a survey indicated that the site had medium value in in terms of ecological species and that there would need to be mitigation put forward, but there were no major issues in terms of impact on wildlife. With regard to trees, seven properties had been deemed too many and could potentially put pressure on trees. However, six properties as per the illustrative plan was considered to be potentially acceptable retaining the important and significant vegetation, although this would have to be demonstrated at the reserved matters stage. The final planning issue was waste water and there was a condition in the report that capacity at the treatment plant would need to be provided.
The Senior Planning Officer concluded that the recommendation was for authority to approve with approval being granted subject to completion of the unilateral undertaking for contributions.
Councillor Naylor attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee explaining that while the development was quite small, it could set a precedent for other villages and other neighbourhood plans. Whilst acknowledging the housing need across Colchester, she asked the Committee to consider the residents who already lived in the village who value the distinct identity of rural communities such as West Bergholt, and the need to ensure that the right homes were developed in the right places with the right infrastructure. West Bergholt Parish Council had involved all of the community in developing a robust Neighbourhood Plan, which had been adopted. This Application did not meet the test as it conflicted with the Neighbourhood Plan. Furthermore, Policy PP9 clearly identified where the housing should go and this site lay outside of the settlement boundary and was part of the countryside that gave the village its character. Councillor Naylor had been notified that in a recent appeal decision, the Inspector had given a great deal of consideration to a site being outside the settlement boundary. Furthermore, there were risks linked to the site at Valley Crescent, as it was a cul-de-sac where children played and walked to school, and an additional seven dwellings would significantly increase the traffic.
Whilst the report set out that the tilted balance applied, paragraph 12 of the NPPF made it clear that unless material considerations indicated otherwise, applications should be decided in accordance with the plan. Moreover, there was no hard and fast legal direction as to how tilted balance should be applied. In summary, Councillor Naylor encouraged Members to support the neighbourhood plan in spirit as well as letter and to consider whether it was ethical or necessary to disregard it, given the risk it presented and the precedent it set.
Daniel Allen, a resident of West Bergholt, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the Application. Whilst appreciating that housing development was important, the Parish Council and its volunteers had invested a lot of time and effort to establish the settlement boundary, and the proposed site was outside that boundary. He understood that the Council was looking at the situation in terms of housing supply, however statistics on the Portal from 2023 showed a five-year strategy with adequate housing and a buffer. Mr Allen was particularly concerned that Anglian Water had stated that there would be a breach of environmental legislation if applications such as this one continued, and that there was no funding for a waste recycling centre up to 2030. He therefore believed that it would be wrong to approve an application, knowing that it would lead to a breach in legislation. The speaker also questioned when the photographs that had been included in the report had been taken, as they did not show the area at its best.
Robert Pomrey addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 on behalf of the applicant. He outlined that Policy SP3 stated that development would be accommodated within or adjoining settlements. As the site under discussion adjoined the settlement of West Bergholt, it complied with policy SP3. Policy PP9 in the West Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan allocated a minimum of 120 dwellings in two locations and set criteria as to the type of development that should take place in those locations, and whilst it set out where development could go, it did not exclude development elsewhere in the village. If it did, it would conflict with policy SP3 in the local plan, which permitted development adjoining settlements. National policy did not rule out development out of settlements but looked for development in the most sustainable locations. Since the neighbourhood plan was adopted, there had been three appeals in the village for housing outside but adjoining the settlement where the inspectors had applied PP9. In these cases, the inspectors had not found that these housing proposals conflicted with the policy. In addition, they had not found a conflict with the neighbourhood plan SP3.
While the report suggested that there might be a conflict with the aims of the policy, it was not clear where the aims of the policy were compromised. In Mr Pomery’s view, this proposal did not conflict with PP9 and if Members were to conclude that the proposal was not policy compliant, then they should regard the Council's housing supply position and the tilted balance.
The Chair invited Chris Harden, Senior Planning Officer, and Karen Syrett, Joint Head of Planning, to comment on the points raised and to address the concept of “tilted balance”.
The Senior Planning Officer responded to concerns raised by the Have Your Say! speakers. He confirmed that the neighbourhood plan had been carefully considered and, as indicated in the report, the Council would normally take the plan-led approach and deem that if development was outside the neighbourhood plan settlement boundary, then there was a potential conflict. However, this was contested by the applicant and there were Inspector decisions to support both points of view. The main issue with the current Application was the pressure on the housing land supply which was deemed to be an important material consideration which tilted the balance towards supporting the proposal rather than refusing it.
It was his view that the impact on surroundings would be limited because the site was well screened on the boundaries, and the impact on trees would be reduced by limiting the number of properties (currently up to seven, although the Council considered that six would be the maximum). Regarding the point about the sewage facilities, whilst there was a concern about provision there was a condition in place, which had already been applied in similar circumstances.
Whilst concerns that the site was outside the settlement boundary were acknowledged, and the potential for a precedent being set, each site had to be judged on its merits and this site was adjacent to the settlement. As a result, tilted balance became a material consideration, which swung the balance from the Application not being acceptable to a recommendation of approval because of the benefits to the housing supply.
The Joint Head of Planning then explained the concept of tilted balance to the Committee. In planning terms, this meant that benefits were on one side of the scales and harm on the other, with material planning considerations sitting on either side of those scales. Negatives could include harm to environmental or heritage assets, with benefits including the delivery of housing, the creation of jobs, delivery of infrastructure, that sat on the benefits side. So at different times and with different applications those scales would weigh more on one side than the other. Tilted balance came into play automatically when a Local Plan was out of date or the strategic policies within it were out of date, such as those covering housing numbers and delivery.
Colchester City Council’s Local Plan would be five years old in February 2026, and whilst this did not automatically render it out of date, it would have to be reviewed. The most fundamental change had been in the way housing targets were set and that increased the Council’s annual target from 920 dwellings to around 1,300, which was a significant uplift. At the same time, the Council was required to continually demonstrate a rolling 5-year supply of deliverable sites. So, by April when the next monitoring year begins, it was very unlikely that it would be possible to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. This was something that had to be acknowledged, because applications being determined now, would be considered on appeal at that time.
Whilst this was a small-scale application, such applications did make a meaningful contribution to housing land supply, with an average of 260 dwellings from windfall sites every year. In conclusion, given the situation with housing supply, in terms of tilted balance any harm would need to be considerable to outweigh the benefits.
Members then discussed various aspects of the Application, including access to medical provision, the cost of maintaining trees, precedent and the impact of approval on other Neighbourhood Plans, biodiversity, the handling of speculative developments, settlement boundaries, wastewater and public health, housing shortfall, school safety.
Lucy Mondon, Planning Manager, clarified that Anglian Water had a duty for connection and the waste water issue was a national one. However, in the case of this Application there was a condition that stated that no development above slab level should be implemented until the developer had acquired and provided to the local planning authority written confirmation from the Environment Agency. Therefore, if Members were to refuse because of wastewater capacity, it would leave the Council open to a claim of costs because it was a matter that could be dealt with by condition. She also explained that although the neighbourhood plan allocated sites for development, it did not explicitly preclude development elsewhere. This was a key point to consider as part of the decision-making for this application. Furthermore, the Local Plan did not stipulate that development would not be acceptable outside of the settlement boundary.
The Senior Planning Officer emphasised that Neighbourhood Plans, including the one in West Bergholt, had been used effectively. However, these went out of date in the same way that Local Plans did. Ideally, development should be planned, which was why the Council was looking to progress the Local Plan. There were already four large applications in the pipeline, as well as several preliminary enquiries or pre-apps currently in the system. However, there was no doubt about the severity of the five-year supply situation and it was essential for Members to consider this when making the decision.
He then addressed other concerns that had been raised by Members. The illustrative layout demonstrated that six dwellings could potentially be accommodated on the site without there being too much pressure on the trees, however the reserved matters application would need to show that in detail. The 10% biodiversity net gain would probably be done by the purchase of credits. No information was available on GP numbers, although no objection had been raised regarding this and the local surgery was taking new patients. There would be a footpath in front of the site, although it would not be considered a reasonable condition to require a footpath to the school.
Following further discussion by Members, a Motion to refuse planning permission was proposed, on the grounds of concerns raised by Councillors regarding settlement boundaries, biodiversity and water supply. As this Motion was contrary to the officer recommendation the Chair invoked the Deferral and Recommendation Overturn Procedure (DROP) to defer the item in order to seek a report from Officers on the risks associated with the proposal from the Committee to refuse the application.
RESOLVED: that the ‘Deferral and Recommendation Overturn’ Procedure be engaged, deferring the item and that a more detailed report on the risks associated with overturning the officer’s recommendation be produced and brought before a future meeting of the Planning Committee.