324
The Chair explained that the Committee was being asked to reconsider the decision taken by the Committee at its meeting on 17 February 2025. This was following a request he had made in accordance with the provisions set out in Meetings General Procedure Rule 3 of the Constitution and the reasons for his request were set out at paragraph 1.1 of the Committee report but were reiterated. A briefing had been held on 31 March 2025 at the request of the Committee Group Spokespersons to look at the ramifications of the decision taken on 17 February 2025. Following that meeting he had received requests, expressions of support and encouragement from members of all political groups that the decision taken on 17 February 2025 should be reconsidered. It was important that the debate was not about one site but took account of the whole of the city.
Have Your Say!
Councillor Graham Barney, Copford with Easthorpe Parish Council, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1). Whilst there was broad agreement about the need to build homes to support the increasing population, the draft Local Plan did not address the key issues. Communities needed to be at the heart of the Plan and infrastructure was needed to support the increased housing numbers. On both counts the draft Plan failed Copford and Easthorpe and others. The imposition of 300 homes east of School Road and up to 500 homes on the Marks Tey/Copford border would not enhance the community of semi-rural villages, and if approved population and housing numbers would double. This was contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan which set out the need for proportionate development. It also failed to provide the necessary infrastructure such as improvements to roads, education and medical facilities. Some of the land allocated for the School Road site was not owned by the developer. At the last meeting the Committee had voted to defer approval of the draft plan until there was a fully costed infrastructure plan. As this has not been provided, the Committee should further defer approval until this was in place and published.
Annette Butterworth, Welshwood Park Residents Association, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) in respect of the land designated in the draft Plan as ID10606 and ID10256. The answers received at the meeting on 17 February 2025 were unsatisfactory and there was no assurance that green spaces in this area were being given enough consideration in the proposed development The proposed green spaces were a face-saving exercise which would not benefit wildlife or residents. Welshwood would become a sterile wood and the nearest green space for the area would be Highwoods Country Park. The government’s stated aim of protecting food security by not building on farmland was being ignored. If it went ahead it would merge with the Garden Community and put pressure on local services. Instead, the Garden Community could be extended with a higher density with smaller, more affordable homes provided. Nothing had changed in the two months since the previous meeting and the reasons given for seeking approval again were short sighted. The Council seemed to have swapped the development of Middlewick for the development of Welshwood and Bullock Wood, but they should all be protected from development. Colchester was full and the Council needed to push back at central government.
Paul Armstrong, Langham Parish Council, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1). The need to progress the Local Plan quickly was understood but it should not be at the expense of preparing a sound document. The Parish Council had been encouraged by the decision of the Committee to put the Regulation 18 consultation back to November and the Regulation 19 submission back to February 2026. This timetable should be adhered to. An unrealistic Local Development Scheme would not help anyone. Bringing the timetable forward would force the Parish Council to use its limited resources to fight the 900 home strategic allocation, when it would rather spend time working collaboratively with the Council to identify more suitable and sustainable solutions. There was no point in putting an unsound and controversial plan out to consultation. The proposed timetable had no room for slippage and did not allow sufficient time to consider and prepare a sound Regulation 19 plan, which led to concerns that this was a fait accompli. The Committee should revert back to the March 2025 Local Development Scheme. At the Committee meeting in December, officers had stated that a water cycle study would be published before the Local Plan went out to consultation, but there was no mention of the study in the Committee report.
Sandra Scott, Place Strategy Manager, explained that the study had been commissioned and that if the Plan had gone to consultation following the meeting in February 2025, the study would have been issued in the form that it had been received. However, the study was awaiting final review by Anglian Water and in view of the delay in the consultation, it had been decided to publish it once that review had been completed.
David Cooper addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure 5(1). At the last meeting, officers had explained that the apparent contradiction between the low increase in the population of Mersea and the increase in the number of dwellings was due to an increased number of older people living on their own. However this was more likely explained by the number of second homes. Whilst climate change and flooding were addressed in the evidence base, it did not address sea level rise and the impact this would have on Mersea or the suitability of the Colne barrier to protect Colchester in future. The increasing rate of sea level rise left Mersea increasingly vulnerable. The NHS did not have any plans to increase the number of doctors on Mersea even if there were an increase in population. Anglian Water optimism in reducing water consumption would be hard to achieve. The waste management plant was under pressure with storm overflows significantly increasing. Bathing water quality had dropped from Excellent to Good and discharges form water treatment works had significantly increased. Water quality was of paramount importance for the oyster and tourist industries on Mersea. Sewage discharge also threatened the seven protected conservation areas in or adjacent to Mersea.
Caroline White addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure 5(1) to thank the planning officers for their recommendation to remove Middlewick from the revised Local Plan and also those Councillors who had supported this decision and the campaign by Friends of Middlewick. The ecological significance of Middlewick had now been acknowledged. Had the Strategic Biodiversity Assessment been available prior to the allocation of sites, Middlewick would never have been included in the Local Plan. The policy was clear that local wildlife sites such as Middlewick had substantive conservation value and there was a presumption they would be protected by the planning system. The ecological significance of the acid grassland at Middlewick had also been independently assessed by the Council’s commissioned botanist, who had concluded that the extent of the acid grassland automatically made the site eligible for a consideration as a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Experts had also noted the significance of the site for invertebrates and for grassland fungi. Survey data also suggested that it was one of the top two breeding sites for nightingales in the United Kingdom. As a consequence, Natural England had always advised against the inclusion of Middlewick with the emerging Local Plan. Friends of Middlewick were grateful for these independent reports and the assessment by Natural England. Could planning officers confirm if they had consulted with Natural England on SSSI status for Middlewick and that local wildlife sites would be in future be protected through the planning system?
Sandra Scott, Place Strategy Manager, responded to explain that there had been dialogue between the Portfolio Holder and Natural England in the previous month on the SSSI issue. Natural England’s focus was on working with landowners and stakeholders to develop an appropriate management plan. The position would be kept under review.
Visiting Councillor representations
Councillor Sunnucks attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee. A clear decision by the Committee on 17 February 2025 should not be reconsidered when nothing had changed. The suggestion that the decision made by the Committee was not properly thought through was incorrect. The conservative members on the Committee and the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Sustainability had been pushing for proper infrastructure planning for over three years. Full Council has passed a motion supporting Infrastructure First in December 2024. The three work streams to collect the additional information should be run in parallel rather than sequentially and consultant resource was unlikely to be lacking. The Council was ahead neighbouring authorities in the process, who were working to the same deadline. Residents should be consulted on a whole plan which showed how infrastructure would be funded. The approach should follow four strands:-
• Well researched lobbying for road and hospital funding from central government.
• Collaborative planning with utility companies.
• Strengthened section 106 collection for site specific issues.
• Introducing a Community Infrastructure Levy for non-site specific items.
A new timetable of no more than three months for infrastructure planning should be agreed, with a Regulation 18 public consultation before the summer break.
Karen Syrett, Joint Head of Planning, was invited to respond and explained that the timing was based on evidence provided by consultants, and that three months was an unrealistic timescale.
Councillor Scordis attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee and emphasised that the Committee were not being asked to make the final decision on the Plan but were being invited to put a draft plan out to consultation, and it was hoped that the Panel would agree to do this. It was important that the Panel did act in a populist way. The decision was not about a single site although he was pleased to note that the draft plan did not include Middlewick. The Panel should take note of those authorities in Essex which did not have a Local Plan and were at risk of speculative development and had their powers to control planning in their areas removed by central government. Speculative applications were already being made within Colchester.
Councillor Dundas attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee. He highlighted that contrary to what had been said earlier, Tendring did have a Local Plan, which had been developed alongside Colchester’s Local Plan. The crux of the debate was that those members who voted to proceed to consultation at the previous meeting had been looking to allocate the housing and then try to make it work, whilst those who voted to defer wanted to gather the evidence and then work out which sites were viable. Much information in respect of infrastructure remained missing: there was no answer on the widening of the A12 or improvements to the A131, there was no evening bus transport in rural areas to support modal shift, no explanation had been given as to why Langham had an allocation of 900 homes when the transport assessment had been for 450 and issues remained about water supply. It needed to be borne in mind that when assessing appeals an inspector would discount sites that were not deliverable. When the Council had previously approached a plan too quickly, it had been found to be unsound and submitting a plan that failed would delay the Plan much more than the deferral agreed in February. There was agreement on the need to remove Middlewick from the Plan, but this would only happen with the final adoption of a sound, viable Local Plan. The previous plan had taken nearly six years from the consultation on the draft plan to final adoption and therefore proceeding with an unrealistic plan at this stage could put Middlewick at greater risk in the long run. The adoption of a new Local Plan was the last big decision the Council would take and therefore it needed to get it right.
The Chair invited the Joint Head of Planning to clarify the position on Middlewick. She explained that Middlewick was currently in the adopted Local Plan as a housing allocation based on the evidence that was available at the time. More updated evidence had since become available and that would be used should any planning application come forward for the site. There was also a detailed and robust policy that any proposal would need to comply with. However, that might not prevent an application being submitted under the current Plan. The Council could not remove Middlewick from the current Plan. It was only when the Plan was replaced by a new Plan without Middlewick that it would stop being an allocated site.
Report
Karen Syrett, Joint Head of Planning, introduced the report to the Committee and provided an update on actions undertaken since the Committee meeting on 17 February 2025. The value in having an up-to-date Local Plan was recognised. A Local Plan was underpinned by a large body of evidence, and much of the evidence in respect of the draft plan had been published over the previous few months. Some of the evidence was produced iteratively in response to the emerging content, and that content could change as a result of consultation. This was why some of the evidence, particularly in relation to infrastructure and viability, had not been finalised.
At is meeting on 17 February 2025 the Committee had decided that further work should be undertaken and further evidence produced before consultation was undertaken. Officers had started to implement that decision immediately and had made contact with the relevant consultants. However, not all the evidence could be produced concurrently, as one stream of evidence would inform another. It was therefore apparent that the timescale for the adoption of the Local Plan was longer than previously anticipated. Section 1 of the existing Plan, which set out the strategic polices, would have been adopted for 5 years by February 2026. At that stage, it might be argued that the Plan was out of date, especially as the housing targets within it were lower than the new standard methodology, which would have implications for local decision making. Accordingly the report before the Committee set out an alternative timescale which would allow the Plan to advance through to adoption more quickly. Whilst consultation would be in advance of some of the work required by the Committee, work would be ongoing and a number of topic papers would be produced to support the consultation. The preferred options Plan would set out a set of proposed policies and allocations which would meet the recommended housing and employment targets.
Some councils had avoided producing a Local Plan but there were significant implications to delaying or not producing a Plan. The Council was currently in control of decision making, both in terms of Plan making and determining planning applications, but that would not be the case if no adopted Plan was in place, with an increased risk or speculative development and planning by appeal. In addition the National Planning Policy Framework had been updated with a focus on delivering 1.5 million new homes, and mandatory housing targets had been introduced. The Council also had to demonstrate a rolling five year supply of housing sites. Some of the sites allocated in the last Plan would begin to run out, which would make the Council vulnerable. There was evidence from the Planning Inspectorate that more appeals were now being granted than at any time since 2018. A number of speculative applications had been received, including at Great Horkesley and Rowhedge, or were anticipated, and whilst the Council was currently able to refuse such applications, appeals took decision making out of the Council’s hands. The government’s intervention criteria had also been strengthened so there was a greater opportunity for the Secretary of State to intervene in plan making and decision making.
The recommendation before the Committee was to approve the draft Plan for consultation. This was only one step in the process and changes could be made as a result of the consultation and as the evidence base developed.
The Place Strategy Manager addressed some of the overarching issues that had been raised during Have Your Say! and visiting councillor submissions. The process that had been followed in respect of site allocations was set out and the next step was to consult on the draft Plan and to continue with further evidence. Any revisions that were considered appropriate would then be made to prepare a submission draft Plan, which would be required to be considered as sound. At this stage the draft Plan was not required to be sound. The consultation was part of the process to gather evidence to achieve a sound plan The evidence base needed to be proportionate to the stage of the plan and officers considered that there was sufficient evidence to support the draft plan for consultation. Alongside the consultation there would be collaborative working with stakeholders as part of the iterative process that plan-making needed to follow.
The Place Strategy Manager also responded to some the detailed queries raised in Have Your Say! In respect of West Mersea, the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment did take account of all sources of flooding and took into account climate change. It was based on data from the Environment Agency and recognised sea level rise. In terms of the Water Cycle Study, the technical note provided clear guidance on the capacity challenges and that information had helped inform the proposals in the draft Plan. When the final study was received, it was expected that this would add detail to the findings that were already reflected in the draft Plan.
The Chair thanked the Joint Head of Planning and the Place Strategy Manager for their comments and paid tribute to their knowledge and skills.
Committee debate
In the course of the debate, concerns were raised about the principle of the Committee being asked to reconsider the decision taken on 17 February 2025. The Chair explained that such matters were beyond the scope of the Committee’s discussion but stressed that reconsideration of the decision had been requested or supported by members of all groups. The Conservative Group indicated that it had no record of any member entering into such discussions. The Chair explained that the comment was made during and after the Local Plan Workshop by the Conservative group spokesperson. The Conservative group indicated that he had stated that this was not the case.
In discussion, members of the Committee raised, debated the following issues, and made the following comments:-
• If the consultation were to be delayed further, was there a possibility that work would need to be duplicated leading to more expense and delay? The Joint Head of Planning explained that was a possibility as evidence did become out of date and need updating, and this was partly why the previous Local Plan had taken so long to reach adoption.
• In terms of Middlewick, whether or not the Committee approved the Plan for consultation at this point, Middlewick would remain in the Local Plan for now. The Joint Head of Planning confirmed that Middlewick would not be removed from the Plan at his stage, whatever decision was taken. However, prematurity was a relevant planning consideration, and the more advanced the draft Plan was, the greater the wight that would be attached to it.
• Further clarity was required on the position on the Water Cycle Study. The Place Strategy Manager explained that there was an interim technical note on the water cycle that had been published for some time. This identified where there were capacity challenges and the extent to which it could support the level of growth proposed and the extent to which phasing may be required before development could take place. The full report on the Water Cycle Study was well advanced and would be available to support consultation. The consultants were awaiting final review from Anglian Water and others before the report could be finalised. As the consultation had been delayed it been agreed with the consultants that the final work should be completed before it was released.
• The draft Plan appeared to be fundamentally flawed and there was no prospect that it could be found to be sound. For example, in respect of Langham, the transport assessment had been undertaken for 450 vehicles, but this was already out of date. Therefore it would better to progress with a Plan for which there was evidence to support decision making. The flaws in the Plan were a consequence of the extraordinary housing targets imposed on the Council by central government. In response to the issues raised on soundness the Place Strategy Manager reiterated that it was not a requirement at the regulation 18 consultation stage. The level of detail the draft Plan had been prepared to far exceeded the minimum requirement set out in the regulations. Consulting on a draft Plan would generate the evidence and input needed to move towards a sound plan that could be subject to examination.
• The site in Great Horkesley it was alleged was at risk of speculative development, was a site allocated for development in the draft Local Plan. The Joint Head of Planning explained that the site was not an allocation in the current Local Plan so was speculative at this stage. It was allocated in the draft Plan but for a significantly bigger parcel of land and would need to be determined as submitted rather than as part of a wider scheme of development for which a planned approach to planning gain could be taken. The Local Plan allowed for a comprehensive rather than piecemeal approach to development.
• Nothing had changed substantively from when the decision was taken in February.
• Consideration needed to be given to factors such as the fall in the population, deglobalisation and the need for greater national self-sufficiency, which meant that agricultural land should be protected. The Place Strategy Manager emphasised that Colchester was rich in good quality agricultural land. Brownfield sites had been looked at first, and where possible the best quality agricultural land was avoided but it was not possible to avoid all agricultural land completely given the scale of the housing targets. The assessment of housing need was based on a methodology and data that was prescribed.
• The need for information in the Plan to be produced in an easily understood format, with more of the helpful summary documents that officers had produced, and a condensed version of the Plan to help residents engage with it. The Joint Head of Planning explained that wherever possible they would look to produce summary topic papers, but the Plan had to be produced with a high level of detail to order to pass inspection.
Following a short break the Chair invited officers to address the Committee on housing numbers and the scope for pushing back on these to central government. The Joint Head of Planning explained that she did not think it was realistic to do so. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contained an assumption in favour of sustainable development with an emphasis on allowing development, especially where it accorded with an up to date Local Plan. Where up to date Plan was not in place the titled balance came into play and the five year housing supply became very important. Exemptions to housing numbers were only envisaged in wholly exceptional circumstances. If a Plan was submitted with lower housing numbers it would be found to be unsound. If a Plan was not submitted at all it would lead to planning by appeal and speculative development, the dangers of which had already been explained. There were also now broader criteria for government intervention in both plan making and decision making.
In further discussion the following issues were raised and debated and comments made :-
• The extent of housing need in Colchester, with 449 families in temporary accommodation. However, if the draft Local Plan contained sites that were undeliverable, this would only delay the provision of the housing they needed.
• Officers were right to highlight the risks of delaying consultation on the draft Plan. However, it was the role of councillors to take the necessary difficult decision and the report before the Committee still did not address the concerns that led to the decision in the meeting in February to seek further critical information. Did the risk of an out of date Local Plan outweigh the risk of publishing an incomplete Local Plan with undeliverable allocations? The Deputy Chief Executive clarified that officers had presented the risks to members at a briefing, at the request of members of the Local Plan Committee.
• Residents would support development where it was supported by the necessary infrastructure and the current draft of Local Plan did not secure that.
• Publishing the draft Plan for consultation would allow residents to have their say and shape the Local Plan. To delay would leave Colchester vulnerable to losing control of the Local Plan.
• The need to address issues around water supply. The Water Supply Study included as part of the evidence base stated that the Essex South Water Resource Zone “is predicted to go into supply deficit by 2025 if no water resource interventions are implemented. This was predominantly due to a growth in demand coupled with a fall in water supply available.” This meant this year there was insufficient supply to meet the existing needs of the Colchester City Council area. This could mean water rationing with significant public health implications including excess mortality, especially during heat waves, which were occurring with increased frequency. Anglian Water had published their strategy for addressing this, which was a new water reuse plant at a site in urban Colchester. This needed to be built before new housing was added. Water supply was critical infrastructure and the draft Plan envisaged development in locations where there was no infrastructure to support it. The Place Strategy Manager highlighted the caveat in the Study “if no water resource interventions are implemented” and that the Study went on to describe the plans that were in place to address the deficit. In addition greater weight was put on proposed development in terms of water planning as it progressed through the planning system and there would be an opportunity for the funding plans and priorities to be reviewed.
In the course of the debate on this issue, Councillor Parsons submitted the following motion to the Committee pursuant to Meetings General Procedure Rule 8(4):
The Committee notes
1. The findings of the water cycle study that Colchester and the surrounding rural area is predicted to go into water supply deficit THIS YEAR i.e. be unable to supply the needs of the existing population.
2. The need for urgent upgrades to sewage treatment capacity and the building of the new water reuse plant in Colchester if more houses are to be built.
3. That the failure to address these issues before new houses are built will create serious risks to public health which may lead to excess deaths.
4. The committee additionally notes the recent comments of the Environment Secretary, Steven Reed, that the UK as a whole faces running out of clean water and the introduction of water rationing within 10 years unless there is major investment in infrastructure.
5. In this context, the committee notes that Essex is the most water stressed part of the UK.
The Committee therefore resolves
That the council should seek an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government asking the government to ensure that the necessary water and sewage infrastructure is provided so that Colchester can safely deliver the government house building target.”
After advice from the Deputy Chief Executive the Chair ruled that he would not accept the motion and advised Councillor Parsons that it would be more appropriate for it to be submitted to a future meeting of Full Council.
Members of the Committee continued to debate the report, the following issues were raised and debated, and comments made;-
• Recognition of the thought and consideration public speakers had put into their submissions to the Committee and the need for the Committee to reflect their concerns in its decision making.
• The impact on the City if the plans contained in the draft Plan were approved on partners and services such as health. For example the leadership of the local hospital had stated that they would need 140 additional new beds to deal with emergency or unplanned care and were working on a business case for 90 new acute beds. However, no government funding had been allocated to support this. The Place Strategy Manager explained that challenges in respect of the health system needed to be addressed through the whole system approach of which the Local Plan was one element. It was the role of the Local Plan to ensure adequate contributions were made to mitigate the impact of development and help address capacity challenges. The evidence base did include some assessment of the impact on health services, including primary care, and that this would be developed further as the plan progressed. It was also anticipated that the initiatives in the NHS 10 Year Plan would have a beneficial impact and free up bed space.
• Announcements on promised infrastructure improvements, such as the enhancements to the A12, had been delayed.
• The proposals in the draft Plan were contrary to the motion on Infrastructure First approved by Full Council in December 2024 and any consultation on proposed allocations that did not have the infrastructure in place to support them was essentially meaningless. These issues would have been avoided if the infrastructure audit had been completed. Once the Regulation 18 consultation was complete, there was only one more period of public consultation which was more technical in nature. The Joint Head of Planning explained that stages 1 and 2 of the infrastructure audit had been completed in December, stage 3 was completed in February and initial viability and transport modelling had also been completed and included in the evidence base. The draft plan was supported by considerable evidence. The further evidence requested by Committee in February had to be produced sequentially.
• The importance of residents’ associations and the need for parity in how parished and non-parished areas were treated in terms of consultation on the Local Plan. The Place Strategy Manager explained that the consultation would include the Resident’s Panel, and residents’ associations were included within the Local Plan database and would be included within the consultation process.
• The need to ensure that residents had all the necessary information to enable them to understand the issues and make informed responses to the consultation on the draft Plan, particularly if they were being asked to accept housing allocations in their communities.
• The need to learn from the previous Local Plan where Middlewick was included as an allocated site on the basis of incomplete evidence.
• Delaying consultation would result in piecemeal development which would mean the Council could not control or give any direction to development or of securing the necessary infrastructure in advance. The choice was effectively between an imperfect plan which could be modified in future or no plan with no control. The Joint Head of Planning stressed that all Plans were subject to modification as they went through the process of approval and adoption. Once the Plan was adopted it could not be modified unless through a formal review.
• The extent of speculative development that could be expected between the expiration of the current plan and the implementation of any new plan. Did houses built through speculative development count towards housing targets. The Joint Head of Planning responded that it was not possible to accurately quantify this. However, nationally developers were watching for opportunities to submit plans as Local Plans were reviewed. Houses built through speculative development did count in terms of delivery and, when approved, would count towards the five-year housing supply Depending on timing it might not count towards overall plan numbers.
• The overwhelming impact on small rural communities of large housing allocations in their areas.
• The housing targets for neighbouring authorities and how these might be dealt with in a large unitary authority following Local Government Reorganisation. The Joint Head of Planning explained that these figures could be provided. They had increased significantly. It was anticipated that demand for development in other areas of a wider authority, such as the coast, would remain strong.
• The impact of National Grid’s pylon proposals on the deliverability of the Local Plan.
Conclusion and Voting
The Chair thanked members of the public, visiting Councillors and members of the Committee for their contributions. He highlighted that the Plan was at an initial stage and could change through consultation and the risks of delay through vulnerability to speculative development.
The Chair moved that the recommended decisions in the report by the Place Strategy Manager be approved. He also called for a named vote pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 9(2), supported by Councillor Smalls and Councillor Smithson.
The motion was lost (Four voted For, Seven voted Against).
The voting was as follows:-
FOR: Councillors Alake Akinyemi, Kirkby-Taylor, Smalls, T. Young
AGAINST: Councillors Barber, Kelly, Naylor, Parsons, Smith, Smithson, M. Spindler