A report by the Assistant Director Policy and Corporate providing an annual summary of key statistics that allow the Council to monitor the effectiveness of its Local Plan.
154
David Cooper addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(3). He referred to that part of the AMR relating to visitor numbers and his concern that these statistics included residents’ visits to car parks and, as such, the total 6.1 million visitors to Colchester gave a wrong impression. By way of contrast, he referred to the 7.6 million total visitors to Cambridge which he considered to be a much more popular destination than Colchester. He also referred to a planning appeal hearing regarding a caravan park extension at East Mersea and the Inspector’s acceptance of the appellant’s economic impact assessment figures as not unreasonable. He was concerned about the projected impact of the additional caravan spaces in terms of visitor spend and employment and advocated the production of more accurate figures for the impact of tourism on the Borough as a whole. He welcomed the Inspector’s dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of its significantly detrimental effect on the landscape character and appearance of the coastline in the surrounding area, thus upholding the Council’s Coastal Protection Belt Designation for Mersea. He further requested an update on the Council’s Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) in the light of completed housing numbers having increased to 1048, beyond the 920 target, and the associated impact on Mersea. He commented that recent survey of the use of the Strood over the last four years had revealed an increase of 2.75% per annum.
The Planning and Housing Manager confirmed that she would look at the visitor data and see whether this could be updated for the next AMR. She confirmed the RAMS policy was an Essex wide strategy which would be submitted to the Committee for consideration with a view to its adoption as Supplementary Planning Document as soon as possible and legal advice had been sought to ascertain how it could be implemented pending formal approval by the Committee. She commented that the housing number over-delivery had allowed the Council to effectively make up its deficit from previous years. She estimated there was therefore a shortfall of around 30 to deliver over the next five years and this had been useful in terms of future appeals.
Councillor T. Young, Portfolio Holder for Business and Culture attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. He commented on the tourism figures, confirming that the widely respected Cambridge statistical model had been used by the Council for a number of years. The 2017 figures had recently been published and were available on the Council’s website. He was aware that tourism was increasing which was welcome for the local economy and that Mersea was a very popular destination.
The Committee considered a report by the Assistant Director Policy and Corporate on the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR), providing an annual summary of key statistics that allow the Council to monitor the effectiveness of its Local Plan.
Bethany Jones, Planning Policy Officer, presented the report and, together with Karen Syrett, the Planning and Housing Manager, responded to members questions. The Planning Policy Officer explained that the AMR provided key information that helped the Council and its partners to evaluate planning policies in the context of current trends and delivery levels. The full report covering the period April 2017 to March 2018 was attached as Appendix to the report and would be made available on the Council’s website.
Key statistics for the monitoring period 1April 2017 to 31March 2018 included:
• 1,674 planning applications received;
• 1,048 homes completed;
• 132 new build affordable units delivered;
• 62% of new or converted dwellings built on previously developed land (brownfield);
• Potential net loss of -14,172 square metres of commercial floorspace, and potential net gain of +13,345 square metres of commercial floorspace resulting in a net balance of -827sqm;
• Completion of Fixing the Link Phase 1 in November 2017 to encourage walking from the Rail Station to the Town Centre;
• Successful bid to the Clean Bus Technology Fund to enable a minimum of 18 buses that would be operating in Colchester town centre area to be retrofitted with SCRT technology.
Councillor Barber commented on the reference in the report to a low emissions strategy and suggested this would be an appropriate example of issues which the Committee could be given the opportunity to consider in more detail. He asked for clarification about the loss of employment land to residential use.
The Planning and Housing Manager confirmed that the loss of employment land was a concern, especially in the context of a recently published Government consultation on more permitted development to residential use. She had welcomed the policy where it had related to office accommodation above shops. However, she explained that there was limited control of this type of redevelopment and some conversions wouldn’t be considered optimum for residential use. She acknowledged the impact of home and flexible working which had impacted on the demand for office space. She speculated how far the policy could go, given residential values would always outweigh older office stock. She highlighted the need to retain sufficient land and the ability for people to move as she hoped this would not mean businesses were looking elsewhere.
Councillor Warnes asked about the potential to breakdown the affordable housing category so that it was possible to identify the proportions of different housing tenures, with a view to being able to monitor the amount of social housing being delivered. He referred to the Government guidance which provided for registered providers being permitted to charge up to 80% of the market rate. He was aware that a proportion of registered providers were also charitable organisations and this may provide a mechanism to test how charitable such organisations were. He also asked about the percentage of buses which were ‘clean buses’ and how much the bus companies were contributing towards clean technology. He welcomed the fact that Council’s build rate had increased, having noted the Local Examination Inspector’s concern about viability and whether the proposed build rate would be achievable. He also commented on the Council’s track record of using brownfield sites but that fewer of these types of sites were being identified for development.
The Planning and Housing Manager confirmed that it would be possible for future years to breakdown the affordable housing category into different tenures. She would need to clarify the situation on affordable rent of less than 80% of the market rate and how the Council would influence that. She confirmed that funding had been obtained to convert a specified number of buses to clean technology but she would need to investigate further in respect of exact percentages. She confirmed that the Local Plan examination Inspector had been advised of the sites where there had been significant build out rates and, by way of example, she was aware that the Bloor Homes’ site at Severalls was one of the best sites in the Region in terms of sales. In relation to brownfield sites, she confirmed that a limited number of brownfield sites remained in Colchester and those that hadn’t come forward were due to the high cost of decontamination work. She was aware of a brownfield site at the Hythe that had recently been sold so this may mean it would come forward in the future. She suggested it may be worthwhile to report back to the Committee formally on the brownfield land register to raise the public profile of this issue again.
Councillor Ellis acknowledged the Council’s previous track record on brownfield site development. He asked for clarification on whether there was a size limit on potential site and whether rural small holdings were included in the brownfield site definition. He supported comments in relation to the need for affordable and social housing in the Borough and he considered it to be a matter for consideration by the whole Council. He acknowledged the latest affordable housing provision had increased to 12.5% and asked for clarification on this performance given the current target of 20% for affordable housing provision and whether it would be beneficial to increase the target. He referred to the 2014 statistics quoted for rural and urban jobs and whether these could be updated. He also referred to Statements of Common Ground, asking for a link to be circulated from which he could access the documents and he sought clarification as to whether it was possible to undertake Neighbourhood Planning in areas which weren’t parished.
The Planning and Housing Manager confirmed that the Statement of Common Ground documents were available on the Local Plan website hosted by Braintree District Council and that she would arrange to circulate a link. She explained that there was a threshold for brownfield sites but this was to make them meaningful and no proposal would be rejected. She confirmed that agricultural holdings did not fall within the brownfield site definition. She acknowledged the suggestion for a wider discussion on affordable housing and agreed to refer this on, as appropriate. She confirmed the affordable housing target was 20% for applications for more than 10 dwellings, as such, affordable housing could only be delivered on the larger sites. She also explained that there was a lag between a permission being granted and it being built out as well as some developments securing permissions with lower than 20% affordable housing but with viability review being built in. She confirmed that the emerging Local Plan included a higher affordable housing target of 30% which would be the subject of challenge during the examination. She referred to the restrictions within the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) whereby affordable housing provision could only be negotiated after CIL payments had been taken into account. Existing Neighbourhood Planning initiatives were being supported by the planning policy team and, whilst not proactively encouraging requests on the basis that the work was required to be community led, she confirmed that no enquiries had been received from community groups in urban areas.
Councillor Ellis suggested that for the future it would be more helpful to provide affordable housing delivery figures as a proportion of the sites which fell within the policy.
Councillor Arnold referred to the need for the Council’s five-year supply of housing needed to be guaranteed and voiced his concern that over-provision above the 920 target would lead to a loss of control in relation to supply for future years. He asked for reasons behind the over-supply and the impact on the Council’s ability to maintain supply. He also asked how much control the Council was able to exercise over scheduling / phasing of planning permissions for housing development.
The Planning and Housing Manager confirmed that the Council had exceeded the housing target number last year, with 1048 houses being delivered and the last time this level had been achieved was in 2011/12. The Council had been considered to have a deficit in supply of 167 at the end of 2016/17, with planning inspectors expecting this to be made up within a period of five years. The provision of 1048 last year had therefore resulted in the deficit being reduced to 39. She was aware that many other authorities had deficits considerably greater than this. She confirmed that the Bakers Lane appeal had been useful in being able to successfully demonstrate that there wasn’t persistent under delivery. She considered housing supply was still being controlled, with her team regularly monitoring housing supply against differing housing targets. She explained that it was increasingly difficult to exercise control over the phasing of housing development, particularly given the principles contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, it was more likely that the market dictated the timing of developments.
Councillor Fox referred to the reduction in the development of brownfield sites and explained this was part of the reason why support had been given to the principle of Garden Communities which provided a solution for housing provision and job growth. He also referred to the transport evidence in the report, in relation to statistics on car use which appeared to suggest this had not increased over the last 10 years. He considered this did not correlate with people’s own experiences of the town. He asked whether any clarification could be sought from the highway authority to explain this.
The Planning and Housing Manager acknowledged the comments in relation to traffic use. She confirmed that Councillor Goss, in his capacity as Portfolio Holder for Waste Environment and Transportation, was involved in a number of initiatives including Transport for Colchester and Transport Colchester which she considered would draw out some of these observations. One was a strategy being formulated by Essex County Council which would include workshops, whilst the other was being led by Councillor Goss and had involved an initial meeting with bus and train operators and cycling groups. She was also aware of a Councillor training session on Cycling which had recently been organised.
Councillor Fox welcomed these initiatives and acknowledged that the current road scheme at Ipswich Road roundabout had been initiated because of increased traffic problems as well as planned further increases in traffic journeys.
Councillor Arnold observed that comments were being made in relation to traffic congestion whereas the statistics were related to traffic flow which was the thing which hadn’t changed over time. He referred to motorists’ determination to make a journey no matter how bad the congestion and he attributed conventional wisdom as being more people not choosing to make more journeys because the town centre was saturated. He was of the view that the Ipswich Road work had first been considered many years ago when Essex County Council had been pressured to look at Cowdray Avenue /St Andrew’s Avenue to increase the capacity of the bypass, in the same way that Colne Bank Avenue had recently been increased to four lanes. He considered many people would prefer to see no traffic permitted in the High Street rather than the current 5,000 vehicle movements per day and in order to achieve a change then the traffic needed somewhere to go, which explained the work on the bypass.
Councillor Chapman asked for clarification as to what constituted a rural area and the implications of the Buildings at Risk Register not being updated recently. He was concerned that some buildings may suffer from deterioration in the absence of active monitoring. He also sought clarification on development on contaminated land and whether any grants were available to assist.
The Planning and Housing Manager explained that the Council was reliant on information being provided in order to reduce the risks and more attention was placed on the Buildings which were already in the Register. She confirmed that a Historic Buildings Adviser had now been recruited which would enable the team to be more proactive and it also proved possible to revisit the register entries for Colchester in the absence of Essex County Council doing so. She explained that investigations had been made in the past in relation to grant funding of contaminated land development and she confirmed that sites had been looked at and work was undertaken to bring such sites forward.
Councillor Cope sought clarification whether the stated 55% reduction in carbon emissions since 2018 was accurate and, if so, how it had been achieved.
The Planning and Housing Manager explained that this was accurate and the reduction had been achieved by means of a series of projects with a range of elements to account for the 55% reduction.
Councillor Warnes referred to Fixing the Link and working more closely with the train operators and specifically mentioned the lack of integration between the timetables for trains coming into Colchester North Station and then going to the Town Station. He considered there was latent aspiration to use the Town Station but a wait of 10 to 20 minutes to get a connection at the end of a working day was a significant deterrent, and it would be economically beneficial for more commuters to use the car parking facilities at the Town Station and catch a train to Colchester North Station. He asked whether there was any opportunity to seek greater timetable integration. He also referred to Neighbourhood Planning and expressed his concern regarding the abandonment of the work in Stanway given the benefit of only needing to demonstrate a three-year housing supply in areas where a Neighbourhood Plan had been adopted. He also referred to the monitoring of scheduled ancient monuments, specifically those which were pre-Roman and whether any monitoring could be introduced for examples of this era. He cited Berechurch Dyke as an example and the increased use of Ramparts Lane, following the closure of the car park at Friday Woods, and whether pressure could be alleviated in some way.
The Planning and Housing Manager considered it could be argued that there was little left to plan in Stanway, given recent commercial appeals and existing and proposed allocations. She explained that the Neighbourhood Plan group found it difficult to understand what they could influence in Stanway, also given the time, effort and resource it took to develop a Neighbourhood Plan, she therefore understood why work in Stanway had come to a halt. She confirmed that she would contact Councillor Warnes separately about the Berechurch Dyke / Ramparts Lane issue.
The Chairman referred to the stated 1693 empty properties in the current year, which equated to almost two years housing supply, and whether any encouragement could be given to bring any of these back into use. He also considered this may be a mechanism to offset the need to use temporary accommodation for residents in housing need. He also referred to Highwoods Country Park and whether it was designated as Ancient Woodland.
The Planning and Housing Manager considered there were very few properties which were empty for long periods of time but it would be possible in the future to provide more detailed information on empty properties such as those which had been empty for longer than six months. She confirmed that she would contact the Chairman separately about Highwoods Country Park and its designation as a woodland.
RESOLVED that the 2017-18 Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) be approved for publication on the Council’s website.