1163
The Committee considered an outline application for Outline application for the erection of up to 250 residential dwellings, public open space and associated works. Approval was sought for the principal means of vehicular access arrangements from Halstead Road. Internal access and all other matters are reserved.
The application was referred to the Committee because the proposed development represented a departure from the Local Plan. In addition, Councillor Naylor had requested that the application be referred to Planning Committee in the event of a recommendation of approval.
The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out.
The Committee made a site visit in order to assess the impact of the proposals upon the locality and the suitability of the proposals for the site.
Lucy Mondon, Development Manager, presented the report and explained that the outline application was seeking approval for the principal means of vehicular access arrangements from Halstead Road, with internal access and all other matters reserved. She shared maps showing the position of the proposed development in context, along with photographs and videos of the site to demonstrate the boundaries, viewpoints from public rights of way and the way in which the site was relatively flat and sloped down at the northern end. The Land Use and Access Plan showed the woodland buffer, which would include a stipulation of no pathways. She confirmed that the Highways Authority had recommended a condition to widen footways on Halstead Road and add two new bus stops in the vicinity. Indicative rendering showed how the development might look. The Committee was referred to the Amendment Sheet which included further consideration and clarification with regards to impact on heritage. The Officer recommendation was to approve subject to planning conditions and legal agreement to secure mitigation measures.
The Development Manager explained that the planning balance and the tilted balance were important considerations. The Council was unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and the Section 1 of the adopted Local Plan was therefore out of date (over 5 years old) with regards to housing policy. However, whilst the housing policies were out of date, other policies in the Local Plan did remain relevant. Furthermore, the ongoing Local Plan review carried minimal weight at that stage and so planning decisions needed to be undertaken in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) policies and the adopted Local Plan, where relevant. She further explained that, in terms of the tilted balance, the NPPF was clear that where the policies which were the most important to determining an application are out of date, local planning authorities should grant permission unless there were matters relating to NPPF protected areas or assets of particular importance that provided a strong reason for refusing the development or any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against NPPF policies taken as a whole, particularly with regards to sustainable locations, effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes individually or in combination. The tilted balance was engaged and the conflict with the spatial strategy had limited weight given the housing land supply position. As set out in the report, the areas of harm were not considered to significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme either individually or in combination such that the application should be approved in accordance with the NPPF under paragraph 11(d). In their conclusions, the Development Manager set out the level of weight to be applied to the identified benefits and harms of the scheme as part of the planning balance.
Cllr Mike Lambert addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) on behalf of Aldham and Eight Ash Green Parish Councils. He informed the Committee that both Parish Councils strongly opposed the application, as while they supported appropriate development, this proposal was harmful, unsustainable, and premature, risking long term damage to the character of Eight Ash Green, Aldham, and surrounding villages. In their view, the scheme would create an isolated, car-dependent development with inadequate services, would worsen traffic, damage valued landscape and ancient woodland, and result in the loss of good agricultural land. He argued that the officers’ report downplayed concerns from statutory consultees and failed to assess the cumulative harm, which they believed “significantly and demonstrably” outweighed the benefits under NPPF 11(d)(ii). In addition, approval would set a damaging precedent before the new Local Plan was in place and ignored wider infrastructure pressures from up to 700 additional homes along the A1124. He therefore urged the Committee to refuse the application.
Owen Weaver addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) on behalf of the applicant and reiterated that the proposal, which sought outline permission for up to 250 homes at Eight Ash Green, including 30% affordable housing, was supported by the emerging Local Plan. Because Colchester could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, the tilted balance applied, meaning permission should be granted unless harm identified clearly outweighed benefits. The scheme offered several benefits, including affordable housing, a mix of home types, improvements to public rights of way, biodiversity gains, construction related economic benefits, and substantial financial contributions to healthcare, education, and community facilities. Landscape buffers, Ancient Woodland protection, and sustainable access measures had been incorporated, and no consultees had raised objections on highways or safety grounds. In conclusion, no impacts significantly or demonstrably outweighed the benefits.
Councillor Naylor attended as a Visiting Councillor and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee. She explained that the map showing the wider area within which the development was proposed was misleading. Whilst the Report set out that the development was 900m from the centre of Aldham Village, it was in fact next to it. The Committee had always held Neighbourhood Plans as sacrosanct, and the development would go against the neighbourhood plan, leading to coalescence, when the overarching desire of the Eight Ash Green Parish was to remain a small village in a rural setting. The A1124 was already at a virtual standstill each day and the Report did not to show the cumulative effect on the community. Councillor Naylor supported Cllrs Lambert and Sunnucks and urged the Committee to refuse the application based on NPPF 11d (1).
Madeline Roelofsma, Democratic Services Officer, read a statement from Councillor Sunnucks, which argued that the proposed 250-home development at Foxes Corner should be refused because the necessary infrastructure mitigation has not been secured through Section 106. An infrastructure audit showed that around £40,000 per dwelling was needed, while viability evidence indicated large developments could afford £25,000 per dwelling. However, Officers had only identified around £14,300 per dwelling in contributions, giving Members no certainty about final sums or payment terms. Councillor Sunnucks’ statement further warned that continuing to accept such low contributions would create infrastructure shortfalls, meaning harm outweighed the benefits. It concluded that the application should be deferred until draft S106 heads of terms had been provided at £25,000 per dwelling or until viability evidence had been submitted, urging the Committee to take a firmer approach to Section 106 on speculative applications.
The Chair thanked the speakers and invited the Committee to ask questions. They raised concerns about the impact of tilted balance and the subjective nature of the words “significantly and demonstrably” when weighing harm against benefits. Members were also concerned about the size of the development, the way it would change the nature of the area and the impact on the local habitat. Questions were also asked about maintenance of common areas, particularly if farm equipment used the track through the site, the loss of grade 2 agricultural land, and whether the church at Fordham would be affected. It was noted that there was a difference between the natural centre of village and where villagers thought of as the centre. Members were keen to understand whether significant objections were grounds enough for refusal, and why it had taken so long for the application to be brought to the Committee for consideration, as the planning landscape had changed considerably since the previous June when the plan was originally submitted.
The Chair invited Lucy Mondon, Development Manager, to comment on the points raised by the speakers. She explained that strategic infrastructure requirements and infrastructure delivery plan were currently being developed, however these currently carried no weight. In terms of S106, there were three tests. They needed to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, to be directly related to the development and to be fairly and reasonably related in scale. Therefore, requests based on a presumption that a developer may be able to afford more would not meet those tests. Draft heads of terms were included in the Committee Report, with evidence that they meet those tests. She accepted that villages extended further than shown on the map referred to by Councillor Naylor. Nevertheless, there was no objection on the grounds of coalescence and when considering harm versus benefit for tilted balance, everything carried different weights. She emphasized that statutory consultees had not objected because of ancient woodland and confirmed that the proposed buffer and mitigation measures would help.
The Development Manager further clarified that the amount of agricultural land involved was below the size for consultation with Natural England, and that as the application was outline at that point, issues of farm vehicles and off-road parking would have to be covered at reserved matters. In terms of density of planting at the buffers, Forestry Commission had suggested denser tree planting for 15m and scrub for 15m, with no pathways or public access. Place Services had not raised any issues around coalescence, and accepting this application would not set a precedent as each application was considered on its own merits. Although “significantly and demonstrably outweigh” was subjective, it was a very high threshold test, and no objections had been received from statutory consultees regarding significant harm. She also clarified that, although the application came in June, there had been some technical issues that had to be resolved. Even if the application had been considered by the Committee earlier, Local Plan would still have been out of date by the time it came to Appeal.
The Chair invited Simon Cairns, Head of Planning, Sustainability and Climate Change, to provide additional clarification on the current situation. He informed the Committee that from 26 March 2026, if a Council refused an application for 150+ dwellings, the refusal would be referred to the Secretary of State, so the ultimate decision could lay with them and not the Council. He also addressed the issue of coalescence, drawing the Committee’s attention to the common dictionary definition. Thus, the settlements in question would remain discernibly separate and the new development would not give rise to coalescence.
A proposal to accept the officer recommendation, on the basis that there were no defendable grounds for refusal, was seconded.
RESOLVED that (FIVE voted FOR, FIVE voted AGAINST, ONE ABSTAINED from voting. As the vote was tied the Chair exercised his second and casting vote FOR, as per the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 9(6)):-
Authority be delegated to the Head of Service to approve the outline planning permission subject to the signing of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, within 6 months from the date of the Committee meeting. In the event that the legal agreement is not signed within 6 months, to delegate authority to the Head of Service to refuse the application, or otherwise to be authorised to complete the agreement.
Authority be delegated to the Head of Service to make non-material amendments to the planning conditions as necessary.
The Planning Permission to be subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report before the Committee.