Agenda and minutes

To elect the Chairman of the Joint Committee for the remainder of the 2023/2024 Municipal Year.

It was moved by Councillor Guglielmi, seconded by Councillor Cunningham and:-

RESOLVED that Councillor David King be elected the Chairman of the Joint Committee for the remainder of the 2023/2024 Municipal Year.

To elect the Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee for the remainder of the 2023/2024 Municipal Year.

It was moved by Councillor King, seconded by Councillor Guglielmi and:-

RESOLVED that Councillor Mike Bush be elected the Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee for the remainder of the 2023/2024 Municipal Year.

The Joint Committee is asked to note any apologies for absence and substitutions received from Members.

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor Julie Young (CCC). CCC’s Designated Substitute Member (Councillor William Sunnucks) attended in her stead.

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the Minutes of the previous meeting of the Joint Committee, held on Monday 27 February 2023.

It was moved by Councillor Cunningham, seconded by Councillor Bush and:-

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Joint Committee held on Monday 27 February 2023 be approved as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.

Members of the Joint Committee are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Other Registerable Interests or Non-Registerable Interests and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the Agenda.

There were no Declarations of Interest made by Members of the Joint Committee on this occasion.

The Public Speaking Scheme for the Joint Committee gave the opportunity for members of the public and other interested parties/stakeholders to speak to the Joint Committee on any specific agenda item to be considered at this meeting.

The Chairman invited the following public speakers to come to the table in turn to speak. Their comments are in precis.

Russ Edwards (Project Director for TCBGC – Latimer by Clarion Housing Group)

·      congratulated the Officers on the submission of the DPD to the Secretary of State which was a major milestone;

·      Latimer was supportive of the DPD overall but had submitted constructive representations in order to achieve flexibility and increase the DPD’s robustness in the interests of all parties and to ensure that Latimer was invited to take part in the Examination-in-Public process;

·      Objective was that the DPD would be found sound and deliverable and Latimer would be asking the Planning Inspector to put forward modifications to the DPD that would make it so;

·      Latimer remained committed to delivering an ambitious and progressive Garden Community consistent with the principles and vision outlined in the DPD;

·      Latimer was progressing the planning applications through the pre-application process with Officers;

·      Latimer had held their own public consultation events on their emerging proposals which had generated a very positive public response tempered by a number of concerns which Latimer intended to address through its application;

·      In response to concerns raised, clarified and confirmed that no development was proposed for the slopes of Salary Brook Country Park;

·      Latimer’s proposals were in line with the agreed policies and Latimer would undertake visual impact assessments of its proposals as part of its planning applications;

·      Latimer would now consider all of the feedback received from its public consultations and would work with its consultants to ensure that its proposals responded appropriately; and

·      In regards to stewardship and estates management of the Garden Community and in response to requests made by Councillors, Latimer had accelerated the process of producing its stewardship strategy and expected to put forward more information on this to Officers and Councillors by the end of the year.

Rik Andrew

·      Spoke not as a Town Councillor for Wivenhoe but in his personal capacity as Chair of the Wivenhoe Travel and Transport Working Group;

·      Felt it was premature to be issuing road building tenders and contracts for the link road before the DPD had undergone its Examination-in-Public (EiP) and it had been found to be sound or not;

·      DPD was full of caveats warning that the highly aspirational modal shift targets  for active travel and the use of the RTS might well not be met;

·      Planning Inspector was likely to determine that the aspects of the movement strategy would require further thought for example in regards to locating all of the sports pitches south of the A133 which was not likely to encourage active travel and should instead be in the middle of the ‘new town’;

·      Essex County Council had belatedly admitted that the link road would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To report to the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee, some of the notable issues raised in the representations received from the public and other interested parties to the consultation on the Submission Version of the Development Plan Document (DPD) i.e. ‘the Plan’ for the Garden Community under Regulation 19 of the statutory plan making process. These representations will be considered by a government-appointed Planning Inspector as part of the examination process.

To also seek the Joint Committee’s agreement that a formal request is made to the Planning Inspector inviting them to recommend any specific modifications that might be required to make the DPD sound.

The Joint Committee considered a detailed report (A.1) which set out some of the notable issues raised in the representations received from the public and other interested parties to the consultation on the Submission Version of the Development Plan Document (DPD) i.e. ‘the Plan’ for the Garden Community under Regulation 19 of the statutory plan making process. Those representations would be considered by a Government-appointed Planning Inspector as part of the examination process. The report did not seek to provide an account of each and every comment raised through the consultation.

The report also sought the Joint Committee’s agreement that a formal request be made to the Planning Inspector to invite them to recommend any specific modifications that might be required to make the Plan sound. 

Members recalled that public consultation on the Submission Version of the Plan for the Garden Community had commenced on 15th May 2023 and had closed on 25th June 2023, during which Officers had held nine face-to-face engagement events, which had been attended by 214 visitors.

The report was introduced by way of a presentation given by Amy Lester, the Garden Community Planning Manager.

It was reported that, in all, 276 representations from a total of 88 respondents had been received on different elements of the Submission Version Plan.  All of those representations had been published on the Consultation Portal website for public view which allowed interested parties to see what others had said.  Officers had registered and reviewed each of the representations received, all of which had been submitted in full to the Secretary of State in order to begin the process of independent examination by a Government-appointed Planning Inspector.

The Joint Committee was informed that, approximately 80% of the representations received had been in objection to the Submission Version Plan and 20% in support. The purpose of the Regulation 19 consultation stage had been to allow consultees the opportunity to make representations specifically on the ‘soundness’ and legal compliance of the DPD. 

Members were advised that the largest number of representations had been submitted in response to GC Policy 1 – Land Uses and Spatial Approach.   A number of respondents had continued to challenge the need for the Garden Community altogether; arguing that the development should not go ahead at all. However, the majority of comments had been constructive, with people keen to ensure the development was successful and genuinely met Garden Community principles.

The Joint Committee was told that, on the whole, the representations had presented a broad and diverse spectrum of views with less emphasis on the particular key issues which had emerged through the previous regulation 18 consultation.  There was significant support for the Country Park, protection of the Salary Brook Slopes, quantum of green infrastructure and the Strategic Green Gaps.

Members were made aware that transport, traffic and implications for the existing road network, along with concerns about active travel and modal shift targets had generated a notable body of representations against GC Policy 7 – Movement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.