Meeting Details

The Chair informed the Committee that he and the Group Spokespersons had agreed to take an urgent item, with respect to a request that the Council agree to be added as a signatory to a Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) letter. The item could not be taken at the next Local Plan Committee meeting as a response was required by 18 February 2026 and would be taken as the last item in the meeting. 

Cllr Barber declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Deputy Cabinet member at Essex County Council and stated that he would recuse himself for the urgent item (Item 10) pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5).

The minutes of the meetings held on 10 November, and 8 December 2025 were confirmed as a correct record. 

The Chair confirmed that there were six Have Your Say speakers, each of whom would speak for up to three minutes. An Officer would respond at the end of each representation and the speaker would then have a further minute to speak. 

Councillor Rik Andrew of Wivenhoe Parish Council addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to raise concerns regarding inadequate transport mitigation for growth of around 21,000 residents. Cllr Andrew expressed the view that there were insufficient rail investment and a need for more frequent trains, new stations, and a modern bus fleet. He also drew the Committee’s attention to the limited cycling infrastructure and highlighted that reliance on mobility hubs was unlikely to impact high car dependency.

Sandra Scott, Place Strategy Manager, responded that the council would note the comments. She emphasised that the evidence was vision-led and did not presume that level of growth and confirmed that more work would be undertaken as the Local Plan progressed towards Regulation 19. Whilst there was no commitment to new stations, there would be a focus on accessibility improvements. Cllr Andrew responded that the mitigations will not be adequate. The Chair thanked him for his contribution and reiterated that all comments would be considered. 

Sarah Kench of St John’s Residents Association addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to argue that they had examined the evidence around PP9 and believed that the allocation was unsound due to the impacts on Bullock Wood SSSI, hydrology, landscape, amenity, and traffic/air quality. They believed that a buffer of 30–50m was inadequate and that the NPPF “exceptional justification” test had not been met. 

The Place Strategy Manager responded that every matter referred to was covered in evidence and in the consultation. She clarified that Appendix A was a high-level summary and did not attempt at this stage to provide mitigation. All matters raised would be considered to help inform what changes were made to the Plan as Regulation 18 would be followed by Regulation 19 and then development management. Mrs Kench reiterated that the council had a statutory duty to prove that there was exceptional justification to warrant development around somewhere like Bullock Wood. 

Annette Butterworth of Welshwood Park Residents Association addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to highlight errors in the Local Plan evidence (e.g., Welshwood LNR status was incorrectly described as non-statutory). She also drew the Committee’s attention to the presence of ancient trees, landscape and flood risk concerns, valued agricultural land, and noted that there were brownfield alternatives.

The Place Strategy Manager acknowledged the LNR designation error and confirmed that it would be corrected. She also confirmed that evidence would be reviewed and brownfield sites checked. The Speaker reiterated that she was frustrated that discussion about infrastructure had been postponed considering the cancellation of the A12-widening. The Chair responded that funding had never been available to widen the A12, and reassured the Speaker that all Committee Members, whatever their party, would read all the evidence. 

Cllr Mike Lambert addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) on behalf of Aldham Parish Council (also representing Chappel, Copford with Easthorpe, Eight Ash Green, Gt Tey, Marks Tey and Wakes Colne Parish Councils) to raise the cumulative impacts of 3,500+ homes across theses linked rural parishes. He also drew the Committee’s attention to traffic pressures on A120/A12, risks from Braintree growth, the need for holistic parish engagement and concerns over speculative development. He also suggested an interim policy to manage 5-year supply.

Sandra Scott, Place Strategy Manager, responded that the collaborative approach was extremely positive. However, an interim policy was difficult outside plan making and the priority was to progress the Local Plan quickly. Cllr Lambert urged the Council to work with Parish Councils in progressing the Local Plan, as he was concerned about the short-term risk whilst there was no Plan in place. The Chair thanked him for his proactive attitude.

Lucy White of Essex Bridleways Association addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to explain the economic and social importance of equestrianism in Essex. She highlighted the low bridleway provision and safety issue and urged explicit consideration of equestrians in active travel and design standards. 

The Place Strategy Manager confirmed that representations had been received from the Speakers’ organisation and that further dialogue was possible. The Chair thanked the Speaker for her contribution and asked the Officer to check that representations were included in the consultation summary.

Councillor Allistair Hunter of Langham Parish Council addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to highlighted severe sewage flooding issues in Langham, lack of investment and repeated permit breaches by Anglia Water. He also outlined concerns over a promoter proposal for an on-site wastewater plant and queried the marketability of homes adjacent to a treatment plant.

The Place Strategy Manager acknowledged capacity issues, explaining that development could not proceed without a satisfactory solution from Anglia Water and emphasizing that the promoter masterplan carried no policy weight. The Speaker thanked the Officers for their hard work and reiterated that the sewage issue was a serious one. 

Lucy Massey, Planning Policy Officer, presented the report to the Committee detailing that  the Dedham Vale National Landscape Management Plan  set a vision of the area in 2041 and fulfilled the Council’s duty required under Section 89 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to prepare, publish and review a management plan of the National Landscape every five years. She explained that Areas of Natural Beauty (AONB) had been rebranded as National Landscape in 2023. The plan covered five themes: Place; People; Nature; Climate; Drivers of Change. She asked the Committee to endorse the plan to meets its statutory responsibility and strengthen commitment to climate resilience, nature recovery, community wellbeing and sustainable development.

The Chair thanked the Officer and invited members of the Committee to ask questions or comment. They asked for greater clarity on the impact of a proposed development of 900 houses just outside the AONB, and for the relationship between this plan and the Local Plan. Members also asked how this Management Plan differed from the previous one, and how the monitoring process would work.

Officers responded that the presence of the National Landscape would be reflected when a planning application came forward, and decisions would be a matter of planning balance. In terms of the difference between this Plan and the previous one, there had been an increase in community involvement and inclusivity as well as a change in the statutory duty which now aims to ‘seek to further’ the purpose of the designation and this greater duty is reflected in the new Plan. The Plan had been produced by the Partnership, which had set some targets and would be responsible for monitoring. It was agreed that the Committee should receive occasional updates. 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the Dedham Vale National Landscape and Stour. Valley Management Plan 2026–2031 be noted, endorsed, and recognised as a strategic and material consideration in relevant Council functions and decision making.

Councillor Naylor attended as a Visiting Councillor and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee. She thanked Parish Councils for their contribution and stated that she shared concerns about infrastructure expressed by earlier Speakers, with additional concerns about hospital capacity, and supported the idea of exploring interim policy to manage 5-year Supply. Karen Syrett, Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager, explained that it would not be possible to implement an interim policy, although she was open to innovative ideas. 

Councillor Rowe attended as a Visiting Councillor and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee regarding specific issues faced in Langham. In particular, he highlighted the broader perspective of MoD, who were seeking to protect their interests, A12 access to Langham, and the impact on education of 900 new homes. Karen Syrett, Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager responded that the views expressed by the MoD were understandable, and noted the concerns expressed by the Councillor.

Councillor Sunnucks attended as a Visiting Councillor and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee, noting that there had been successful engagement for the consultation process, although the comments received had highlighted significant areas of concern. He highlighted the importance of having a proper infrastructure budget in the Regulation 19 consultation and expressed the view that the Council needed a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as S106 too complicated. The Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager responded that she would produce a paper on CIL for the Committee and agreed that some of the larger infrastructure should not fall to a single Local Authority to fund.

The Chair thanked the Visiting Councillors for their contributions and invited Sandra Scott, Place Strategy Manager, to present the report. She emphasized that the report was for information only and was not seeking comments or views on the issues raised, as there would be opportunities for this at future meetings. In summary, 3,300 representations had been received from over 1,200 respondents (two-thirds urban and one-third rural, with 78% via online portal and 20% via email). Key themes raised were deliverability, infrastructure, viability, active travel, flood risk, biodiversity net gain (BNG), net zero, and proportionality of growth. Comments were being analysed and site submissions would be assessed. Over the next few months, evidence would be reviewed and potential changes made to the Draft Local Plan, prior to a detailed report in the summer, followed by further consultation. 

The Chair congratulated Officers on an excellent consultation, and thanked Councillors for their contributions. 

With the agreement of the Chair, Councillor Sommers read a statement from Councillor Smith, expressing concerns that a mistake made in the previous Local Plan of including a site that could not be delivered (Middlewick) might be repeated by including St John’s. A 50m buffer zone was not adequate, and it was important not to rush ahead with a site that is fundamentally flawed. The Place Strategy Manager confirmed that Officers would consider all representations made in the consultation. 

The Committee discussed the report, with widespread concern about infrastructure and the funding gap. Members expressed an interest in seeing more detail on responses and sought clarity on increased density on some sites (which was confirmed by Officers). They asked about the possibility of repeating Regulation 18 consultation, the potential impact of Local Government reorganisation and the relationship between the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). There was also discussion about using an innovative interim measure, such as a land drainage byelaw to control water locally. 

The Place Strategy Manager confirmed that all representations and attachments were on the system and were being read by Officers, and that further detail about responses would be provided to Members. There was a process to go through because of GDPR, and there had been representations where further work was required. Given the volume, they had erred on the side of caution to ensure effective redaction and would usually exclude private properties from allocations. 

Karen Syrett, Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager, informed the Committee that if the Council was unable to move to Regulation 19 in the Summer, it would have to move onto the new system. Uttlesford had already adopted a Local Plan and Tendring and Braintree were aiming to have one under the current system. The Council would reflect on NPPF’s impact on the Local Plan and would also look at how to fill the funding gap. She also agreed to discuss the idea of an interim Byelaw with the Council’s Monitoring Officer. 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) to note the summary of the responses to the consultation and the key issues raised.