See report by the Assistant Director Policy and Corporate.
115
Nick Chilvers addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(3). He was concerned about the anticipated location of jobs for people who would be living in the new developments planned for Middlewick Ranges and Mersea Island and he was concerned that the number and density of houses identified for these sites in the Plan were likely to increase. He explained that the better paid jobs in the town tended to be located to the north of the town centre, away from these particular locations. He understood that a number of London based Housing Associations were buying housing stock in Colchester in order to house tenants, he was concerned about the lack of employment opportunities, particularly those which were local and better paid and was fearful of higher rates of unemployment, social problems and potential increased crime.
The Chairman confirmed that the formulation of a planning brief for Middlewick Ranges would assist in establishing the requirements to be delivered from the site. This would also define the numbers and densities which would deliver the best outcome for the site. He understood enquiries had been made of Housing Associations in London and refuted the assertion that housing in Colchester was being acquired to house tenants from London.
William Sunnocks addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(3). He referred to the garden community proposals and stated that it was vital for sufficient job opportunities to be developed. He understood there was a stated target of one job per dwelling. He didn’t consider there to be a sound foundation to the report as it was based on aspirational scenario 3. His view was that the conclusion within that scenario was over ambitious and highly unlikely and he felt very strongly that the report needed to be based on scenario 2. He considered that the infrastructure proposals were out of balance and asked the Committee members to consider commissioning a review of the proposals.
Karen Syrett, Place Strategy Manager, responded to the points made. She explained that the information in the report had been available before the last meeting of the Committee, some having been presented to the Committee previously, and the information had already been taken into account when formulating the contents of the draft Local Plan. She further explained that the purpose of the report was to consolidate the various pieces of evidence already published. The condensing of the evidence was intended to allow the Committee members to look into the information in more detail.
The Committee considered a report by the Assistant Director Policy and Corporate giving details of the key issues for employment land delivery associated with the Local Plan, as requested by members of the Committee at the last meeting. Reference was also made to the Addendum Sheet which gave details of amended wording to paragraph 4.18 of the report.
Laura Chase, Planning Policy Manager, presented the report and, together with Ian Vipond, Strategic Director, Paul Wilkinson, Transportation Manager and Jim Leask, Enterprise Officer, responded to members questions. It was explained that the overall process of developing Local Plan employment policy and allocations was guided by the methodology laid out by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The Local Plan would need to demonstrate, through the examination process, that the authority has ‘set out a clear economic vision and strategy for their area’ which was accompanied by criteria or strategic sites ‘for local and inward investment to match the strategy and to meet anticipated needs over the plan period’.
Employment data was available from a range of sources and had been used to develop evidence base material to ensure that identified needs for employment floor space were matched with deliverable allocations. Specific study work consistent with Government requirements on methodology had been undertaken to inform the Local Plan and the Garden Communities including reports on:
• Employment Land Needs Assessment (ELNA) (NLP)
• North Essex Garden Communities Employment and Demographic Study (SQW and Cambridge Econometrics)
• Employment Land and Floorspace aligned with the November 2016 Objectively Assessed Need Report (Peter Brett Associates)
• Employment Land Trajectory and Report (Lichfields, formerly NLP)
The former Regional Spatial Strategy set a target of 14,200 employee jobs for Colchester between 2001-2021 which was considered to be the appropriate level to align with the Borough’s housing target. The full Employment Paper, which was contained in an appendix to the report, illustrated that the Council was on track to meet this target whilst also identifying the increasingly important role played by self-employment which accounted for around 13% of all people in employment. The majority of forecast job growth would not be within the B Use Class activities of office, industrial and warehouse accommodation but in other Use Classes. Industrial jobs in particular were showing a decrease, while office and non-B use jobs were providing the source of employment growth.
The calculation of how much land would be needed to meet employment growth was developed through the use of forecasts and models which translated population and employment figures into floor space requirements. The Council’s consultants, Peter Brett, had advised that the EEFM figure of 928 jobs a year was the most appropriate modelling figure to use. Recent work on the employment trajectory had identified that the Council would need to identify further employment land over the plan period of between 22 and 55.8 ha to allow for market choice, churn and expansion.
The Employment Land Trajectory prepared by Lichfields involved the detailed consideration of the sites that might meet the identified demand for future employment land and provides the information on suitability and deliverability to back up the allocation of 44.2 hectares of employment land shown in the Local Plan. A total of 25 sites were considered initially of which 15 sites were examined in detail and each was allocated to a five-year period: short-term, 2017-22; medium-term, 2022-27; and long-term, 2027-2033.
The emerging proposals for the two Garden Communities were examined in a report commissioned to assess the deliverability of employment aspirations as stated in the Garden Community objectives listed in Policy SP7 of the Local Plan - ‘Provide and promote opportunities for employment within each new community and within sustainable commuting distance of it.’ The report had concluded that the job growth aspirations were realistic assuming continuing political commitment and proactive delivery on the part of local authorities to ensure that the new communities followed through on their innovative and comprehensive approach to sustainable growth. The Colchester Braintree Borders Garden Community was anticipated to generate 1.17 jobs and Tendring/Colchester Borders Garden Community 1.55 jobs per dwelling. 18.75% of jobs were anticipated to be homeworking, 15% would be ‘local service’ and the remainder principally office based. For the plan period to 2033, an additional 4.5 hectares of employment floor space providing 18,134 m2 of office space for the Borough employment land was allocated in the two garden communities. Both garden communities were anticipated to appeal to younger working age adults and young families for whom the incidence of home working was considered to be relatively high, continuing national and local trends. In addition, Colchester was anticipated to attract more, higher order, professional and service functions and to develop further as a hub for leisure and tourism and as a retail destination, providing jobs both centrally and within the communities themselves for its residents, including increasing health care and other public service opportunities. Colchester/Braintree Borders connections with the A12, A120, the Great Eastern Main Line and the Gainsborough Line along with benefits from the expansion of Stansted Airport were likely to attract professional and service jobs, back offices, and linkage to the logistics supply chain. Whilst Tendring/Colchester Borders location close to the University of Essex and to central Colchester was expected to benefit from and be a major contributor to the growth of both, especially knowledge-based B1 jobs and those that supported them.
The Strategic Economic Areas (SEAs) were the best employment sites in the Borough and were proposed to be retained to meet anticipated needs over the plan period although recent evidence suggested the boundaries of each SEA needed to be reassessed. The Northern Gateway and Severalls SEA responded to the potential to maximise its prime location adjacent to Junctions 28 and 29 of the A12, for the retention and expansion of the Business Park and for opportunities to deliver an enhanced sports and leisure hub. The Knowledge Gateway and University SEA reflected opportunities associated with the growth plans for the University of Essex and the benefits linked to the new garden community to the east of Colchester within which additional land to expand the Knowledge Gateway was expected to be allocated. The third SEA at Stanway continued to be a favoured location for strategic economic opportunities taking advantage of good access to the A12 and A120. The Stanway SEA had been reviewed and reflected planning approvals and the decreasing demand for traditional employment land. The recently allowed planning appeal for significant retail development on the Tollgate site would, if implemented, reduce this SEA by 11.75 hectares.
The draft Local Plan sought to take account of some non-B uses and their floor space requirement through special policies focussing on the class economic uses provided within centres as well as North Station and Hythe special policy areas and the Colchester Zoo. Other sectors which would be important were health and social care, as well as construction.
Colchester’s employment policies and allocations set a strategic long-term direction for investment to deliver B use jobs with a range of interventions planned by the Council and partners to drive delivery of these sites, to add value to them and their occupiers and potentially increase the overall employment level of the Borough and its prosperity beyond what the market would otherwise be likely to provide. The Council would play an important role in adopting a proactive approach to securing inward investment and support for the expansion of local businesses through enhancing digital connectivity and the opening of the Creative Business Centre on Queen Street. In addition funding bids were being developed and submitted and there had been significant success with infrastructure funding from the South East Local Economic Partnership Local Growth Fund and from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Further bids were being made to Highways England, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
The Committee members gave full and detailed consideration to the report and the comments made by the speakers. In particular, the following comments were made:
Councillor Barber:
• He was disappointed that the Committee was not able to make amendments to the draft Local Plan but acknowledged that the Planning Inspectorate would make the final determination of the Plan;
• He agreed that homeworking levels were increasing but was sceptical of the anticipated increased proportion of homeworking;
• He was particularly concerned about the development of the garden communities as well as the importance of the timely delivery of a rapid transport system and sought assurances about the timescales in relation to that.
Councillor Jowers:
• Continued to maintain that the West Tey proposals were premature, given the lack of confirmation about the realignment of the A120 and widening of the A12;
• He considered the proportion of people travelling to London from a development at West Tey would be much higher than officers suggested;
• The impact of a garden community development at West Tey would be felt across the whole southern arc of Colchester, particularly given the lack of transport mediation;
• He was of the view that positive outcomes from the Middlewick Ranges development needed to be carefully planned with local residents being involved in the outcome;
• He was concerned about recent incidences of congestion around Mersea and the Peldon road junction and sought a reduction in the numbers of residential units envisaged for Mersea Island;
• He made reference to the loss of brown field sites which had been used for housing development in the past;
• He was not opposed to the submission of the draft Local Plan in its current form as it would be for the Planning Inspectorate to determine and he did not want the Council to become vulnerable to ad hoc development.
Councillor Chapman:
• He was concerned about the decline of manufacturing industry and the associated fall in wealth creation in the borough;
• He acknowledged the increase in numbers of people who wanted to spend their leisure time visiting tourism destinations and agreed that this was having an impact on areas like Mersea and Dedham;
• He was encouraged that the minutes from the Committee meetings would form part of the evidence base presented to the Planning Inspectorate;
Councillor Ellis:
• He acknowledged the impact of caravan parks and the extension to their periods of occupation for those living around the Mersea Island area;
• He strongly disputed the statement anticipating only 7% of residents from the West Tey garden community travelling to London for work as he considered this was clearly unrealistic;
• He acknowledged the potential for employment growth and better paid employment associated with the East Colchester garden community in the light of its proximity to the Knowledge Gateway, however, he questioned what mechanisms would drive the creation of new job opportunities for the West Tey garden communities;
• He sought clarification on the ability of residents employed in lower paid jobs being in a position to buy houses within the garden community developments which were being built with high design criteria and at a 10% premium;
• He disputed the proportion of people anticipated to be working from home;
• He sought clarification in relation to the timeframe for the delivery of the rapid transport solution.
Councillor Barlow:
• He referred to underlying assumptions in the report and sought clarification in relation to the accommodation of smart cities and the linkage of infrastructure with the cultural and creative industries;
• He also asked about the reasons behind the projected fall in numbers of workers within the education sector.
Councillor Scott-Boutell:
• She referred to the conversion of unused retail units into residential properties as well as the growth in existing businesses looking for improved office space and the need for these trends to be factored into the Local Plan process.
Councillor Warnes:
• He welcomed the paper and acknowledged the complexities of accurate forecasting;
• He agreed with the need to demonstrate more confidence in the ability of Colchester to create jobs and to use the positive interventions to increase job opportunities.
The Chairman was of the view that the inclusion of a site within the draft Local plan document did not necessarily mean that the development would be certain to be implemented. However he was concerned at the potential ability of developers to appeal refusal of planning applications arguing that the Council did not have an adequate five year supply of housing land.
The Transportation Policy Manager gave details of information from recent census data about projected external trips from the garden communities, explaining that 60% were expected to work in Colchester, whilst only 7% would travel to London, with greater proportions travelling to Braintree and Tendring. He also confirmed that the mass rapid transport system was likely to come forward earlier than the indications in the report which would therefore reduce the number of journeys from the garden community’s developments.
The Enterprise Officer explained that the proportion of people homeworking had increased significantly since 2011 and the introduction of 5G technology was likely to have a further impact on these levels, together with the ability of employers to reduce overhead costs by introducing more flexible working arrangements. He explained the use of recognised external companies who provided modelling data to help local authorities align jobs and housing delivery targets. He attributed the fall in workers within the education sector to the increased use of technology. He acknowledged predictions were difficult over a 15 year timeframe and that modelling tended to work best across a national economy rather than at a more local level. He acknowledged the movement of employers from London to places like Chelmsford and confirmed that work was ongoing to identify employers who may be interested in moving further north to Colchester.
The Strategic Director considered that areas of new housing developments were likely to be at the forefront of innovation and so the incidence of improved technology, new jobs and homeworking was likely to be greater in these locations. He further considered that Colchester had a track record of successfully delivering new jobs, whilst the garden communities’ delivery agency would be seeking to concentrate its goals on achieving high levels of employment. He confirmed that further information was likely to continue to be added to the employment evidence base and he anticipated that more detail would be available in the Autumn in relation to the garden communities’ evidence base. He acknowledged the difficulty of predicting where future employment growth would come from but made an analogy to the growth of the Paxman company which had been at the forefront of diesel engine design. He referred to Colchester’s success in generating good jobs over a number of decades and over a variety of sectors. He considered it was likely that growth would come from health and creative industries, aided by direct intervention mechanisms inherent in the garden community concept. There were also changes anticipated in relation to new technology and the delivery body for the garden communities would generate new jobs, particularly in an area already well known for its job creation successes. He further acknowledged the inevitability of residents continuing to commute to London for work but also referred to a more recent trend in employers relocating out of London to take advantage of the extra road and rail capacity for commuters travelling in the opposite direction. He further acknowledged the acceptability of losing some of the older employment building stock on the grounds that it would be preferable to seek renewal of this sector to provide for expansion and growth. It was far more unfortunate in instances where usable employment premises were being vacated in order to accommodate conversions to residential use.
RESOLVED that the contents of the report be noted.