332
The Chair informed the Committee that the meeting would commence with Have Your Say! speakers being taken en bloc, with each speaker being given up to four minutes and Officer responses being provided once all speakers had finished.
Have Your Say! (HYS!)
Richard Martin addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), stating that whilst the Friends of Middlewick, Colchester Natural History Society and Essex Wildlife Trust appreciated the progress that had been made over the past year, they remained concerned about ongoing habitat degradation. He explained that in a recent letter to Pam Cox, Defence Minister Luke Pollard had stated that the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) would continue to engage with the local authority on environmental and sustainability matters. Yet, in the same letter, the DIO reaffirmed its intention to sell the site. Mr Martin asked whether the land would be maintained if it was viewed only as a saleable asset.
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, which surrounded Welshwood, a designated nature reserve. The area benefitted people who used the footpaths for exercise and to further their mental well-being and in the speaker’s opinion the proposed plan would ruin the area and lead to coalescence with the Garden Village development and an increase in fly tipping in the wood. There should therefore be a green corridor created, right through from the Garden Village to Bullock Wood.
Councillor Mike Lambert of Aldham Parish Council addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) and set out the concerns of the residents of Aldham, both in the short term and for the longer-term wellbeing and prosperity of the community. Whilst understanding the risks, their preference was for the Local Plan process to be paused and the Preferred Options redrafted to incorporate the delivery plan for infrastructure. However, if the decision was to proceed to consultation with the Preferred Options unaltered, they asked for a commitment to consult, engage, listen and respond to what the community said, and an undertaking that the Plan would not proceed to a Regulation19 Draft on the basis of the current housing numbers unless it incorporated the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, with clear evidence of how this would be funded and development phased.
Sarah Kench of St John’s Residents Association addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), stating that in their view the evidence was not yet ready, and that including East Colchester would be premature. They believed that the proposal conflicted directly with the Council’s own policies, particularly ST7 and PP9. In addition, there were infrastructure and environmental concerns, including shortages in school capacity, GP provision, and utilities. There were also constraints in water supply, wastewater treatment, and flood risk, and potential harm to biodiversity, landscape character, and air quality. In summary, they asked that the East Colchester allocation be omitted or deferred until transport modelling was complete, infrastructure funding and phasing were secured, and environmental and flood-risk safeguards were in place.
Councillor Paul Armstrong, Chair of Langham Parish Council, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) and urged Officers to reconsider the allocation of 900 homes in their village. He believed that this would be completely out of place and scale and noted that the lack of infrastructure would probably render such a scheme undeliverable. Their recent local housing needs study identified a need for around 50 to 100 dwellings over 15 years, most of which could be addressed by unbuilt allocations from the current Local Plan, which were currently stalled due to lack of sewage capacity, meaning that Local Policy SS9 could not be complied with. Their request was that the consultation be deferred until there was a more suitable distribution of strategic sites and a clearer view of infrastructure funding sources.
Councillor Allistair Hunter, Langham Parish Council, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), and highlighted that the main change from February appeared to be the addition of some new dedicated cycleways, with the updated spreadsheet showing a funding gap of over £800m across the projects needed to underpin the draft Local Plan. He noted that 20,000 new homes by 2041 represented a population growth of about 24%, compared with about 9% nationally based on central ONS projections, and expressed concern at the lack of strategic investment to support healthy expansion. In addition, there was no evidence to demonstrate it would be possible to reduce new household water usage from 130l/p/d to 85l/p/d. He concluded that this was not a realistic plan for Colchester’s future.
Councillor Graham Barney, Copford with Easthorpe Parish Council, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), expressing concern that increased housing targets would place pressure on existing villages. Whilst accepting that the overall housing numbers would need to be met, the infrastructure was already over-stretched and underdeveloped. Despite these concerns, a recent speculative development proposal within their Parish made it important to take the draft Local Plan forward. If the necessary level of infrastructure could be put in place, ideally prior to building new homes, the new Local Plan had some chance of success. Otherwise, it would be neither viable nor achievable.
Councillor John Akker, West Mersea Town Council, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), providing some interim comments on behalf of the Council, which was gravely concerned about the potential allocation of a further 300 dwellings on the Island. They believed that insufficient consideration had been given to the fact that it was an island settlement. This included the effect of high tides on vehicle movements, the lack of GP access, and an aging population. He urged consideration to strengthen consultation by including drop-in events and extending consultation because of the Christmas and New Year period.
Visiting Councillor representations
Councillor Naylor attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee, informing them that the HYS! speakers had changed her mind about what she was going to say. As Councillor for Lexden and Braiswick Ward, which included Aldham, she urged the Committee to take notice of the points made by Councillor Lambert, Chairman of Aldham Parish Council, as well as the excellent points made by the residents present at the meeting, whom Colchester City Councillors were elected to represent. The previous speakers had urged the Committee to pause the draft local plan and engage effectively. Unfortunately, it was impossible to deliver the required quantity of housing in a managed way in the time that the Council had been given, particularly when no further funding would be available from Government for policing and health.
Councillor Smith attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee, stating that, like Cllr Naylor, he had been impressed with the quality of the speeches and drew attention to contributions from Welsh Park, St. John's and Middlewick residents. Whilst the speakers raised serious problems with what was being proposed in their area, he noted that they wanted to engage, and none were saying that nothing could be done. He understood that the Committee had a very difficult decision and the issues and problems were not of their making. He also highlighted the impact of the Government’s withdrawal of funds to widen the A12. He believed it would be impossible to deliver what residents wanted and what the Government wanted without infrastructure and investment. Finally, he asked the Committee to consider the timing of the consultation.
The Chair thanked the speakers for their contributions and invited the Place Strategy Manager to respond to the issues raised:
- Middlewick: It would be more appropriate to follow up outside the meeting; however, she offered assurances that Officers continued to engage with Natural England.
- North-East Colchester: growth would come even without a Local Plan, and not having a plan did not mean Colchester would not be subject to growth. On the contrary, having a plan in place would give the Council the best chance of dealing with the constraints, challenges and issues pointed out by HYS! speakers.
- Evidence and policy gave the opportunity to safeguard and enhance special areas such as Salary Brook, Welshwood, Bullock Wood, and also to prevent coalescence.
- Distribution of growth: she understood concerns about impact on communities, but the Council needed to produce the plan overall on mandated numbers. The proposal was based on a spatial strategy. All larger settlements, and some smaller ones, needed to take on growth to deliver the growth required.
- Final infrastructure delivery plan: following national guidance the infrastructure delivery plan (IDP) was an iterative piece of evidence critical to delivering soundness and included taking feedback from all parties. The Council could give assurances that there would be a further iteration of an IDP to support Regulation19. The evidence was an iterative process and would be updated regularly.
- Flood risks: The Council had had a strategic flood risk assessment done and none of the sites were allocated in areas that would be entirely contrary to the guidance. Any potential risks would be mitigated accordingly.
- Water issues: The evidence recognised that the current capacity at Langham was not adequate. The wording in the policy was strong and clear that a solution would need to be found to support development going forward in Langham and other similar areas.
The Chair thanked the Place Strategy Manager for answering the questions raised by HYS! speakers and invited the Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager to present the report.
The Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager clarified that the Committee was being asked to publish the draft Local Plan for consultation. This decision had previously been deferred to allow further work to be done, and this work had been completed. If agreed, the consultation will be the first of four opportunities to influence the plan before adoption. A further delay would mean that the plan would be submitted under a new system. Whilst the details of the new system were not clear at this stage, it would probably be much quicker with less opportunity to engage.
Regulation 18 outlined what consultation should take place, who with and for how long, but did not specify what evidence was required at that point. The Council was not required to plan for detailed solutions until Regulation 19 and as such had already published a great deal of evidence. The Council was acting in accordance with best practice guidance. Having taken forward the evidence from February, viability evidence showed that the plan was deliverable and there was nothing that suggested that it should not proceed to consultation.
Although additional work had taken place on Transport, Viability and Infrastructure, this would be revised further once more site-specific evidence was available. In the meantime, a settlement hierarchy had been established with growth and opportunity areas, and this had been used to undertake the settlement distribution. Whilst infrastructure evidence showed 230 projects with a significant budget and funding gap, there were several ways to plug that gap, including S106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and other funding streams, although it was impossible to know what would be available between now and 2041. Regarding acute care, a recent legal case confirmed this should be government funded, but it was possible to seek funding for other aspects of health care.
The Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager recognised that there was never an ideal time to undertake consultation and confirmed that the Council was planning to extend the consultation beyond 6 weeks and would be incorporating other methods of engagement beyond an online survey. She reminded the Committee that a further delay would entail risks, as the Local Plan would fall under a new system with unknown requirements, and invited them to deliberate.
The Chair thanked the Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager for her excellent presentation. He then informed the Committee that he had received a motion from Cllr Parsons to amend the proposal that the Committee were due to debate.
Councillor Parsons moved a motion pursuant to Meetings General Procedure Rule 8(4) that the recommended decision in the report from the Place Strategy Manager be amended as follows:
The deletion of the existing paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 and their replacement with the following text.
2.1 To agree to the publication of the Colchester Preferred Options Local Plan (Regulation 18) as appended to this report as Appendix A and accompanying correction sheet at Appendix B [alongside the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix C)] for consultation for a minimum period of 7 weeks to commence as soon as reasonably practical following the Committee.
Renumbering paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 to 2.2 and 2.3 accordingly.
With the agreement of the Chair, Councillor Parsons then spoke to the motion. Several speakers had recognised that the Committee was in an unenviable position. This had been imposed on the Council through a mandatory increase in growth of 40%. A lack of local plan would leave the Council open to speculative development. He asked why the plan was to build outwards instead of upwards, when the greatest need was for urban housing. In his view, the Council should also have an island policy. However, despite his concerns, the risk of not having a Local Plan was thousands of houses in villages about which nothing could be done.
The aim of the motion was to make it more likely that the Committee would agree to allow the public to have their say in a Regulation 18 public consultation, by removing the requirement in the recommended decision for Members to state their agreement with the plan in order to vote for it to go out for public consultation.
Cllr Smithson seconded the motion, and the Chair invited the Committee to debate the motion.
In discussion members of the Committee debated the following issues, with input from Officers, and made the following comments:-
• Since work on the Local Plan had started, the situation had changed significantly as the Government had the increased the number of houses required and evidence confirmed the scale of the challenge. A Regulation 18 draft plan could be very high level and the Council’s draft plan contained a lot more evidence than other draft Local Plans. However, a detailed plan at Regulation 18 stage made it easier to engage effectively with communities and the outcome was likely to be better when moving to Regulation 19.
• The Committee recognised the need to build housing, but the Local Plan needed to ensure that this could be done in a sustainable way, in the right place, without huge detrimental effect on residents, business and environment. This could also involve looking at empty properties.
• The updated information showed that £811m was needed to deliver the Plan. Some of this was currently unfunded, although some would potentially be funded along the way through S106 and other funding streams. As greater clarity was needed around the figures, the Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager agreed to provide Cllr Dundas with more detail.
• There was some uncertainty that developers would supply the infrastructure needed.
• Once sites had been included in a development, they would still need planning permission. However, the point at which the weight of the Local Plan would increase would be when it reached the submission draft stage. At Regulation 18 stage, the weight was still limited as there was scope for significant stage. In the previous Local Plan, Middlewick was added after the Regulation 18 stage and others removed. There was a stronger case to answer at Regulation 19 stage and thereafter, but more chance of success stopping speculative development with a Local Plan in place.
• In terms of Transport strategy, the Council needed a package of mitigation measures, and there was evidence on how to support the shift, which included modelling in Colchester and further afield. However, some Members had concerns that cancelling of A12 widening would have huge implications on traffic and did not have confidence in the mitigation measures. The need to improve public transport, was noted, especially in rural areas.
• With regard to infrastructure, dental and medical services were already overstretched. If people were to work more locally, more commercial land would be required.
• Taking away car parking at the railway station would be counterproductive, but there was no reason why a new multi storey could not be built.
• Although CIL was an option, the Council needed to have the Local Plan and demonstrate the funding gap to be able to adopt it. There would likely be a Mayoral CIL once the election of an Essex Mayor had taken place on 7 May 2026. The Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager informed the Committee that she would share a list of Mayoral powers with them.
• Consideration needed to be given to people on housing lists (currently over 400, many with children), in temporary housing, and young people living in parents’ houses which, coupled with demographic change and changes in housing formation, generated housing need.
• Consideration was given to the potential impact of immigration on housing.
• Officers provided advice to the Committee on the meaning of speculative development. This involved proposals that were not in accordance with a local plan. If the Council did not have a plan or adequate housing supply, applications would come in from developers which, if turned down, could be appealed. There had been some speculative applications in Tiptree, two of which were allowed on appeal for this very reason. In this way, developers could get away with not contributing to infrastructure, because it was not possible to look at the cumulative impact if there was no plan.
• Whilst there were several risks involved, perhaps the biggest risk was to deny the public the opportunity to comment, and Members should encourage everyone to get involved if the consultation went ahead.
• There was some discussion of the situation with Stockport Council, where the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities had taken over the power to determine certain planning appeals, due to the Council’s failure to put in place a Local Plan. However, although that remained a minor risk, in Stockport’s case they did not progress to Regulation 18 stage.
• There were already many approved applications across the UK that had not been started, however there were very few in Colchester.
• Greater consideration needed to be given to supermarkets, electric charging, care homes and where these could be built be built. Officers confirmed that there were plans to enable people who did not have parking by their home to access electric charging.
• It was noted that more development could potentially take place in Castle Ward, echoing Cllr Parsons’ concern that the plan involved building in rural areas, whilst there was a greater need for housing in urban areas,
• Sites were included in the plan because, in response to a call for sites, landowners had confirmed that they wanted to develop their land, which had been followed by a series of suitability assessments.
• The maps that had been supplied were extremely helpful and should be made readily available, which Officers confirmed would be the case. The decision that the Committee was required to take was whether to publish the document, which officers considered contained sufficient information for people to make a reasonable judgement.
• Effective engagement was key, and it was important to achieve a level of engagement that would give confidence that people had had an opportunity to see what is proposed. Ideally, the Committee would like to see engagement statistics on a Ward basis, both at meetings and in-between. The Deputy Chief Executive confirmed that there was a shared desire to get as high engagement as possible on the plan, and that levels of engagement would be tracked. However, whilst it was hard to achieve high levels of engagement, it would be possible to see what others had achieved and aim for a similar level.
• Whilst there was a risk of failing to reach the required number of new dwellings due to inadequate infrastructure (ST7), Officers confirmed that the proposed plan came with more viability evidence than previous plans, and site promoters had been engaged. Site promoters would have to provide assurance that sites were viable, and they would also need to convince inspectors. If promoters commented at Regulation 18 that they could not deliver infrastructure, or if there were good reasons for removal, such as inadequate sewage, they would be taken out of the Plan. When councils did not deliver the number of houses mandated, speculative applications more were likely to succeed and go through without the necessary infrastructure being provided.
Following the debate, Councillor Parsons stressed that without a Local Plan the Council would be less likely to get infrastructure and would be more likely to see housing move from urban to rural. In addition, the delay would lead to the Council working under different legislation and could lead to the Council having its planning powers removed by the Secretary of State. So, despite the risks, he was asking the Committee to vote for his amended motion and give residents a say.
The Chair confirmed issues around ensuring effective consultation, could be picked up by the Committee at a later date.
Conclusion and Voting
On being put to the vote, Councillor Parsons’ motion was approved (TEN voted FOR and One ABSTAINED from voting) and the recommended decision to the Committee was amended accordingly. The revised recommendation to the Committee was therefore as follows:
2.1 To agree to the publication of the Colchester Preferred Options Local Plan (Regulation 18) as appended to this report as Appendix A and accompanying correction sheet at Appendix B [alongside the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix C)] for consultation for a minimum period of 7 weeks to commence as soon as reasonably practical following the Committee.
2.2 To note the publication of the evidence documents and Topic Papers referred to in this report.
2.3 For the Committee to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, the Chair of Local Plan Committee and Group Spokespersons, to make minor revisions to the Colchester Preferred Options Local Plan, including the policies maps, prior to publication.
On being put to the vote this was carried (SEVEN voted FOR and FOUR voted AGAINST).