Meeting Details

The Committee considered an application for an Outline Application with all matters reserved except Access for the Erection of up to 25no. Bungalows and a Care Home (C2 use) of up to 60no. Beds.

The application was referred to the Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Cory. 

The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out together with further information in the Amendment Sheet.

John Miles, Principal Planning Officer, presented the report and confirmed that the site under discussion was allocated for development within the Wivenhoe Neighbourhood Plan. In addition to the development, land would be gifted for allotments and a car park, and there were proposals to make improvements to pathways. An initial cause for concern relating to an earlier iteration of the proposals was that the boundary extended beyond the allocation boundary in the Neighbourhood Plan. However, the proposals had been amended post validation and the application site area was now considered compliant. The plan was illustrative, but it gave an idea of how the proposed development could fit and proceed without risk of flooding. 

The main material planning considerations included: the provision of sustainable housing and specialist accommodation; wider social benefits including community allotments and car park; that future occupiers would not be exposed to undue risk; how the development would alter the character of the site; that details could be considered at the reserved matters stage.  On this basis, the planning balance was tipped in favour of approval. 

Meg Martin, a resident of Wivenhoe, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. Her main objections were excess water and flooding; contamination; the size of the care home and its location; lack of affordable housing; and risk of cricket ball strikes
Robert Pomery, speaking on behalf of the Applicant, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application and reminded the Committee that decisions should be plan-led. The site was allocated within the Neighbourhood Plan and the proposal was policy compliant. Lack of affordable housing should not be considered an issue, as the development could not support it. The cost of delivering the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) made it impossible to deliver affordable housing. 

Cllr Cory attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee, informing them that whilst he understood the points being put forward by Officers, there were many objections from residents, and he felt that the application should be deferred or rejected. Perhaps the site could be made more viable if there were, for example, some semi-detached bungalows and this could enable affordable housing. The Neighbourhood Plan allowed for a 30-bed care home, and a 60-bed care home would increase traffic. Moreover, the plan did not show how accessible public open space would be accommodated. Contamination was a particular concern, and extra conditions were needed to monitor this closely. He was not against the development; however, he did object to too many compromises being made by the Council.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the points raised by the speakers. He acknowledged that there was an area that was susceptible to surface water flooding. However, modelling has taken place, and there were now no objections. Whilst there was some contamination in the local area, surveys had been undertaken that demonstrated that the development would not make it worse or create risks for future occupiers, and there was a raft of conditions proposed that would address the issues. Officers did not consider the size of the care home to be counter to the Neighbourhood Plan, as this did not specify numbers and no ceiling was set. Viability and affordable housing were something that Officers had considered carefully. There had been a high level of scrutiny, and the numbers had been independently assessed. The proposed Section 106 agreement included a detailed review mechanism that could allow for future contributions to affordable housing. A ball strike assessment had been submitted and assessed by Sports England who had no objections. Design, layout and massing were reserved issues, and smaller properties might affect viability further. 

Members considered the issues raised, asking for clarity over the position of the site, the boundary of the neighbourhood plan, and what had been originally proposed. The main concern of many was the lack of affordable housing and the difficulty of being asked to approve applications that instantly cut out affordable housing, given the likelihood of the viability rules preventing the delivery of any affordable housing in such areas. Members questioned the process for ongoing viability testing and whether the possibility of an offsite contribution been considered, especially as there seemed to be a wide variance between the initial stated deficit of £2.5m and the subsequent figure of -£137k. The size of the care home was less of an issue, as it fitted within the Wivenhoe Neighbourhood Plan, and it was noted that cricket balls were the responsibility of the Club, not the developer or local community.

The Principal Planning Officer responded that the viability mechanism would allow the Council to review actual sales values achieved on site, which could lead to an offsite sum contribution. Officers considered it possible that viability could improve to the extent that there could be some money available for affordable housing, and there were conditions included that might result in savings in BNG credits. He clarified that the site allocation boundary initially exceeded the allocation boundary, but following changes made to the proposal, they were now aligned. There could be some conditions to mitigate ball strike potential. 

The Joint Head of Planning emphasised that the viability appraisal was a robust process with experts involved. The crucial variable was the end value of the units, and an increase in value could lead to some claw back to fund affordable housing, although the housing market was not particularly buoyant at this time. 

RESOLVED (9 IN FAVOUR, 1 AGAINST): that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and Amendment Sheet and a section106 as detailed in the report.

The Committee considered an application for an Outline Application with all Matters Reserved except Access for the Erection of up to 7 no. Dwellings with Parking and Access.         

The application was being reported under the Deferral and Recommendation Overturn Procedure (DROP).

The Committee had before it a further report in which all information was set out. 

The Chair reminded the Committee that they were resuming consideration of this item under the DROP Procedure, and there would be no Have Your Say or visiting councillor submissions. 

Chris Harden, Senior Planning Officer, presented the Risk Report. The site in question was just outside the settlement, adjacent to the boundary. The outline application was for up to seven dwellings; however, the illustrative layout showed six houses and Officers believed it unlikely that seven dwellings would be feasible on the site. In addition to photos of the site and surroundings that had been taken in the Spring, he showed images taken in August which showed summer foliage. He drew Members’ attention risks set out at paragraph 7.3, alternatives at paragraph 8.0, and alternative reasons for refusal at paragraph 10.

Simon Cairns, Joint Head of Planning, then ran through some of the fundamental policies that should underpin Members’ decisions. Whilst recognising that Members and Officers were all supportive of Neighbourhood Plans, the starting point for the decision had to be SP3 in the Local Plan, which stated that development would be permitted within and adjoining settlements. OV2, development in the countryside, required the identification of material harm for a rejection to be safe. It had been suggested that policy PP9 in the West Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan WBNP precluded development outside the boundary, but that policy did not state that development would not be permitted outside the boundary. It referred to the settlement boundary and allocated sites specifically. At PP12 WBNP stated that development would not be supported if individually or cumulatively it would increase the coalescence between West Berghold and Braiswick, which was not the case with this proposal. 

The Joint Head of Planning added that legal advice was that any planning decision had to be made in the wider context of Colchester no longer having a 5-year land supply in February 2026. As a result, it was important to counsel Members against refusing this application unless it could be demonstrated that harm would outweigh public benefits. 
Members considered the issues raised by Officers. It was noted that Council policies were at odds with the West Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan, so perhaps there could be additional consultation with Parish Councils in future so that plans would align and wording deliver what Parish Councils were aiming for. There was further discussion around the number of houses that would be viable within the site, and the definition of a small-scale development within the context of affordable housing. Members also asked for an explanation of the 5-year housing supply situation. It was noted that CCC could currently demonstrate a 5YHLS and that the ‘tilted balance’ was consequently not engaged.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to issues raised by Members and clarified that the application was for up to seven properties, which did not mean that six was acceptable either, although this was probably feasible without too much harm to trees. The number of properties that could fit would have to be demonstrated at the reserve matters stage. 

The Joint Head of Planning added that reserved matters could be brought back to the Planning Committee to ensure that no trees were harmed. In terms of affordable housing, there was a list of parishes awaiting approval where the Council would be able to ask for a contribution for developments of under 10 houses, however West Bergholt was too big to be included on the list. The wording of PP9 aligned with national policy. In 2012 the Government simplified planning policies and protection of countryside disappeared. At present, if no harm was demonstrated, development could take place in the countryside. Had the Neighbourhood Plan stated “there will be no development outside the settlement boundary” it would not have conformed with the Local Plan. Some more recent neighbourhood plans are more specific and demonstrated that greater alignment was possible. 

Finally, the Joint Head of Planning explained that from 1 February 2026, new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) methodology would come in, increasing the five-year requirement from 920 to 1,300. The Council needed to plan for that eventuality with a new Local Plan, which would enable greater protection against speculative development.

The Chair reminded the Committee that there was a proposal to refuse the application on the table, from the meeting on 24 July 2025, and asked Cllr Goacher whether he wished to proceed or withdraw his proposal. Cllr Goacher confirmed that he wished to withdraw it.

The Chair asked whether there were any alternative proposals, and it was proposed and seconded that the Committee should accept the Officer’s original recommendation, with the addendum that reserved matters would be brought back to the Planning Committee. 

RESOLVED (8 IN FAVOUR, 1 AGAINST, 1 ABSTENTION): that the application be approved, subject to the conditions in the report and the completion of Unilateral Undertaking to secure contributions and RAMS plus Reserved Matters application(s) to return to Planning Committee for determination.