231
The Committee considered a report providing an update on the latest position on the suggested modifications to Section 2 of the draft Local Plan.
Nick Chilvers addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1). He invited the Committee to complement those members of the public who had submitted well-reasoned arguments against development on Middlewick in response to the consultation, and welcomed those members who responded, sometimes against party lines. In view of the likely impact on traffic in the area did the Committee still consider there would be a modal shift towards sustainable transport? He did not believe that the Council would be able to implement the necessary changes to make sustainable transport a reality. The Panel should use its local knowledge to challenge the conclusions of the expert reports. In the light of the responses, did the Panel members still believe that the benefits outweighed the harm?
John Akker addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) in a personal capacity to support the recommendation in the report and to stress the dangers of delay in adopting the Local Plan to Mersea, other villages and rural Colchester. It was vital to help officers defend against speculative development. There were lessons to be learnt from the process of developing the Plan but the Council needed to recognise the professionalism and commitment of its officers and adopt the plan soon.
Richard Kilshaw addressed the Committee pursuant the provisions of Remote Meetings Procedure Rule 5(1). Middlewick provided the same benefits for recreation and physical and mental health as other valuable sites such as the Castle Park but with added ecological value. The cost of restarting the Plan could not be compared with the ecological value put at risk. In the light of the acceptance that climate change needed to be addressed, biodiversity collapse, the Environment Act and the legally binding target to end natural decline and a coroner’s landmark ruling that air pollution was a cause of death for a young girl, the proposal should not still be under consideration Given the large number of objections and the expertise contained within them, Middlewick should be removed from the Plan.
Lisa Cross, representing Friends of Middlewick, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) and highlighted the significant legal risks associated with the Middlewick allocation. These risks arose from the deficiencies in the ecological assessment, errors in the Stantec report and failure to give reasons for changes proposed in the modifications that departed from the existing approach to biodiversity. The Committee should be discussing these risks. It was the view of Friends of Middlewick that development on this rare acid grassland could never be made lawful and it should be removed. This would only lead to a shortfall of 48 houses per annum. Over the past three years the Council had over-delivered by 192 homes each year, and therefore the shortfall could be taken up through windfall allocations. A pragmatic approach needed to be taken. The Council should write to the Inspector withdrawing the site from the Plan.
A statement from Andrew Wilkinson was read to the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Remote Meetings Procedure Rule 5(1). A number of Councillors had changed their opinion on the inclusion of Middlewick in the Local Plan, as they had not been unaware initially of the ecological importance of the site. Councillors should have been made aware of this from the outset. There was a surplus of around 1000 homes in the Local Plan. If it remained in the Local Plan this would lead to a planning review with the possibility of large costs awarded against the Council. In view of the sensitivities of the site and the fact that many Councillors had changed their view, the Committee should write to the Inspector giving their opinion that the site should be withdrawn and advising that the site was not necessary to fulfil the Council’s housing allocations.
A statement from Grace Darke was read to the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Remote Meetings Procedure Rule 5(1). When Middlewick had been put forward for the Local Plan the site plans were submitted with out of date reports and inaccurate ecological surveys. Independent surveys completed since then had shown the true diversity of the site. Natural England and a number of other credible organisations were supportive of the sites ecological value and the withdrawal of the site from the Local Plan. The Inspector had been presented with out of date and poor evidence leading to unsound and inaccurate decisions. The Council should have the courage to change its mind.
Rob Smith, Butterfly Conservation, Cambridgeshire and Essex Branch, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1). This year’s invertebrate study showed that Middlewick was of much higher ecological value than previously acknowledged by the Council. This weakened the mitigation strategy. The inclusion of Middlewick in the Local Plan seemed to run counter to policy ENV1 as t would cause significant harm to protected species. Policy SC2 also undermined policy ENV1 and would set a dangerous precedent and put other Local Wildlife Sites at risk of housing development. This year’s survey data from Middlewick gave the Council a robust defence against any development of the site, enabling it to preserve its ecology and its amenity value for local residents with a number of sites in favourable SSSI condition. Policy SC2 should therefore be removed from the Local Plan.
A statement from Peter Harvey, Essex Field Club, was read to the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Remote Meetings Procedure Rule 5(1). The whole Middlewick site was of SSSI quality and no Masterplan could be developed which would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. The site’s allocation for housing would not allow the Council to safeguard the borough’s biodiversity, geology, history and archaeology and which help define the borough’s landscape character. Therefore there should be no housing allocation or development masterplan for Middlewick. The report before the Committee did not alert the Committee to many of the fundamental issues with the allocation or the legal issues raised by many respondents. The inclusion of Middlewick would very likely be subject to legal challenge.
William Joliffe addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to stress that no one locally wanted to see Middlewick developed. The beauty and value of the area to local residents was stressed. The Council should stand firm against the development. The area already suffered from congestion and heavy traffic and further development would be contrary to work to tackle climate change. Many Councils were now looking to rewild sites rather than develop.
The Chair stressed that the Committee were grateful to all those who had engaged with the consultation process. However, the information before the Committee at this meeting was simply to note and no decision on the inclusion of Middlewick in the Local Plan would be taken at this meeting. The Inspector was currently considering the responses to the consultation and he would submit a final report to the Council in due course.
In discussion, members of the Committee sought clarification on the following points:-
• Whether all submissions had been sent to the Inspector or just those in the summary report?
• What would be the process if the Local Plan was found unsound by the Inspector?
• Could the Council legally challenge the inclusion of the Middlewick site should the Inspector find it sound without triggering a Local Plan review?
• What were the legal risks to the Council if the Plan was found sound with the inclusion of Middlewick in Section 2 of the Plan?
• Was it possible to trigger an immediate review in relation to the Middlewick site only following the adoption of section 2?
Sandra Scott, Place Strategy Manager, and Karen Syrett, Lead Officer for Planning, Housing and Economic Growth, introduced the report and responded to the queries from Councillors and members of the public. The Inspector had before it evidence submitted by the Council and other parties to consider. Many of the issues had been raised before and were considered by the Inspector at the hearing stage. Given that the report was to note and the Inspector was currently considering the responses to the consultation, it would not be appropriate to give detailed responses to all the points raised. It was his role to consider these issues at this stage of the process. In terms of legal challenge, decisions around the Local Plan were subject to judicial review, like most decisions of the Council.
The Lead Officer for Planning, Housing and Economic Growth addressed the questions raised by the Committee. It was confirmed that all responses had been sent to the Inspector, in the form of a summary report with links through to the actual responses. If the Plan was found unsound then the process would start again under the updated National Planning Policy Framework and guidance. The Council could challenge a decision, although it would need to consider the reasons around any decision it was seeking to challenge carefully. In terms of a challenge to the Council, planning decisions were always subject to some risk. The potential risk of challenge needed to be balanced against the risks of not proceeding with the Plan. A review would start soon after adoption given the timescales involved in agreeing a Local Plan. If the Local Plan was found unsound the borough would be at risk of speculative development and development by appeal. Without up to date policies or a 5 year housing supply the borough would be very vulnerable. Middlewick and other sites could still come forward for development, without policies in place to control the development.
The Committee thanked the contributors and acknowledged the concerns of residents but also recognised the risks facing the Council should a Plan not be agreed. Some concerns were expressed about the inadequacy and inflexibility of the planning system and how difficult it was for the Committee to change its mind as and when circumstances changed. It was also recognised that the inclusion of limited development on the site with the Local Plan could prevent speculative applications for much larger development on the site and that had been a primary factor in the inclusion of the site with the draft Local Plan.
RESOLVED that:-
(a) The information in the Assistant Director’s report summarising the response to consultation on the main modifications Appendix A of the Assistant Director’s report) be noted.
(b) The information in the Assistant Director’s report summarising responses to the consultation on the updates to the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) incorporating a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the Modified Section 2 Local Plan (Appendix B of the Assistant Director’s report) be noted.
(c) The information in the Assistant Director’s report summarising the response to consultation on the additional modifications and Policies Maps (Appendix C of the Assistant Director’s report) be noted.