Meeting Details

Councillor Young in respect of her membership of the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee and Councillor Smith, in respect of being a Trustee of St Anne’s Community Hall Association declared an other registerable interest pursuant tote provisions Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5).

Councillor Smith addressed the Committee with the agreement of the Chair, regarding the Local Plan Consultation process. Some constituents had raised issues about locating the Consultation documentation on the Council Website, and he was also concerned about the difficulty and expense of constituents reaching the venues where in-person drop-ins were being held.

The Chair invited Karen Syrett, Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager, to respond.  She explained that the Local Plan Committee had had full details of the Consultation at the previous meeting and comments from Members of the Committee had been taken on board. Officers were endeavouring to make events as accessible as possible. When events were held in the Town Hall, they also had a stall in town centre to enable Officers to speak to people and direct them to the Town Hall. The online exhibition was going well, with 200 online viewings in the first few days. The first Parish Council meeting had been held and attended by 50 people, with positive feedback. Another session for Parish Councillors was due to be held the following day, and some Parish Councils were holding their own meetings. In addition, three youth events had been held with the first session attended by 40 students from the Institute, which was positive given previous challenges to engage young people. 

With regards to the banner on the website, it was not possible to have the link to the Consultation permanently displayed on the front page, but two-week slots had been agreed, one in December and one in January, where the Local Plan Consultation would be a headline item.

Lucy Massey, Planning Policy Officer, presented the report to the Committee detailing that the purpose of the Monitoring Statement was to provide key information on planning activity and progress on the development plan documents for the monitoring period from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025, with the report including some updates outside this period.

Key highlights of the Statement were:

• The Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan had been adopted.
• The new Local Plan had progressed through its iterative issues and options engagement during 2024 and in February 2025 the Local Plan Committee had requested further evidence before Regulation 18 consultation could progress. The revised local development scheme was agreed in March 2025 with adoption scheduled for summer 2027.
• With regards to neighbourhood plans, the Great Tey neighbourhood plan had been adopted in October 2024, and West Bergholt had a minor review which was approved in November 2024.
• 1,330 planning applications were received during the monitoring period, slightly down from the previous year.
• Decision performance remained strong with 95% of minor applications being decided within eight weeks and all major applications within the agreed time frames.
• In terms of housing delivery, 659 new dwellings were completed, which was below the annual target of 920 and below the previous year's delivery of 1,098, but overall historic delivery remained strong with an average of 927 homes per annum.
• 128 affordable homes were delivered which included 97 new build units: 72 affordable rent, seven social rent, and 18 shared ownership.

The Committee were asked to approve the 2025 Monitoring Update Report for Publication on the Council’s website.

Members debated the report noting the content, with a focus on the decrease in housing delivery and its impact on the five-year housing supply, as well as the number and nature of social houses delivered. The Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager agreed to provide Committee Members with additional information about the Housing Delivery Test and windfall numbers.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the 2025 Monitoring Update Report be approved for publication on the Council’s website.

Councillor Sunnucks attended as a Visiting Councillor and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee. expressing his concern that the Local Plan Committee had not got to the bottom of the infrastructure funding gap of £800 million at its previous meeting.  For example, the Council was raising £2,900 per house, plus £7,300 on behalf of Essex County Council, whereas the Local Plan assumed £40,000.  This was something that the Committee needed to deal with, perhaps through more prescriptive S106 and a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). He also had issues regarding the Newmark appraisals, which contained obvious errors which needed to be addressed before the inspection.

The Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager confirmed that it was the intention of the Council to have more prescriptive policies in the Plan. The Council had spoken to Braintree and Tendring about progressing CIL, but there they had not been interested, so she could go back to Cabinet. She would also respond to Councillor Sunnucks separately about his concerns regarding Newmark viability appraisals.

Councillor Sunnucks reiterated that Cabinet would need to answer how the infrastructure funding gap would be filled, otherwise the Council would not pass the inspection.

At the Chair’s request, the Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager, Karen Syrett, presented the Infrastructure Funding Statement Report to the Committee, explaining that the Council was required to publish the Statement every year to make information about section 106 agreements available to the public. She detailed that between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025, the Council had secured just under £6 million, with £1.9 million received from agreements signed in previous years where the trigger point had been reached.  Just under £1 million had been spent, with about £9 million pounds waiting to be spent. 69 affordable houses had been delivered, which was less than in previous years, but agreements had been signed to deliver a further 322. The Report included examples of schemes which had S106 agreements attached to them. However, it only covered matters for which the Council had responsibility and therefore did not include highways or education. No decision was required from the Committee as the report was for information only and needed to be published prior to 31 December 2025.

Members debated the report and enquired why there was no wish list of things the Council would like to spend money on, although acknowledging that there was a list of future infrastructure needs through the Infrastructure Audit. Members raised the issue of how the Council negotiated with multiple developers, to ensure that they all contributed to infrastructure, and discussed the possibility of introducing CIL. The benefits of collaborating with Parish Councils on the development of S106 were also discussed, as was the possibility of increasing the amount raised through S106 to cover archaeological costs. Further information was requested about the percentage of shared ownership properties at Brierley Paddocks.

At the request of the Chair, the Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager responded, stating that she would like to include more future needs in planning policies, however it was essential to retain flexibility.  Lessons had been learned from previous projects, and the Council now ensured that there was a cascade approach to developer contributions. Her new role would include the strategic overview of infrastructure so that bigger ticket items would be identified.  

She explained that when the decision had been taken not to introduce CIL, affordable housing was the priority. If CIL had been implemented at that time the Council would have lost out on affordable housing completely if viability was an issue, as CIL is paid before S106. She also noted that S106 does not fund infrastructure first, furthermore it was not always right to deliver infrastructure first. The Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager clarified that although S106 could be used to restrict aspects of a development, such as the way in which Granny Annexes could be used, it would not be possible to raise an additional amount for archaeology through S106, as this would fail to meet statutory tests. With regard to Brierley Paddocks, she confirmed that the Parish Council had agreed to an additional 15 units of affordable housing, which was considered acceptable.

RESOLVED that

(a) The report be noted.

(b) Prior to publication, the Infrastructure Funding Statement should be amended to reflect that funding provided “Towards St Johns & Highwoods Community Centre” included St Anne’s Community Hall (subject to checking by Strategic Growth & Infrastructure Manager) and to correct the location of the Brierley paddocks site.

(c) Further information about CIL and section 106 be provided to members either through a report to the Committee or an all-member briefing.