Agenda and draft minutes

To elect the Chairman of the Joint Committee for the remainder of the 2024/2025 Municipal Year.

Councillor Andy Baker referred to the fact that two of Tendring District Council’s standing members of this Joint Committee had been unable to attend this meeting.

It was thereupon moved by Councillor Baker, seconded by Councillor Cossens and:-

RESOLVED that Councillor David King be re-elected the Chairman of the Joint Committee until a future meeting of the Joint Committee.

To elect the Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee for the remainder of the 2024/2025 Municipal Year.

It was moved by Councillor Baker, seconded by Councillor Cossens and:-

RESOLVED that Councillor Lee Scott be elected the Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee until a future meeting of the Joint Committee.

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.

An apology for absence was also submitted on behalf of Councillor Carlo Guglielmi (TDC). TDC’s Designated Substitute Member (Councillor Andy Baker) attended in his stead.

In addition, it was reported that Councillor Mike Bush (TDC) was not in attendance at the meeting.

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the Minutes of the previous meeting of the Joint Committee, held on Monday 9 October 2023.

It was moved by Councillor Baker, seconded by Councillor Luxford-Vaughan and:-

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Joint Committee held on Monday 9th October 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 gives 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 will invite public speakers to speak following the Officer’s introduction to the report on the item. The Chairman will ask public speakers to come to the table in turn at the beginning of the discussion of the report of the relevant item.

Members of the public, who want to speak about an item, which is to be considered at this meeting of the Joint Committee can do so if they have notified the Officer listed below by Noon on Wednesday 4 September 2024.

Contact: Ian Ford. Email: democraticservices@tendringdc.gov.uk or Telephone: (01255) 686 584 or 686 587 or 686 585.

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.

Town Councillor Rik Andrew (Chair of the Wivenhoe Travel and Transport Sub-Committee)

·      Referred to the recent press release from the Joint Committee which claimed that the new link road would “improve access and help traffic congestion on local roads”.

·      He understood that construction traffic was supposed to use the A120 and not the A133. Asked how could a £60million road that ended in a cul-de-sac in a farmer’s field could possibly alleviate congestion.

·      Essex Highways previous forecast was that traffic flows on the link road would be 50-50 i.e. the A120 would take 50% of the traffic. However, now all of the traffic would have to use the ‘chronically’ congested A133 for the foreseeable future.

·      Highways England’s ‘Statement of Common Ground’ called for the Modal Shift Forecast to be re-assessed based (a) on what has actually been achieved elsewhere and not on unrealistic Active Travel aspirations; and (b) that phase two of the link road is unlikely to happen before 2041. He believed that this had not happened.

·      By 2041, the Garden Community would have 3,750 homes, about 9,000 population, which would be bigger than Wivenhoe and most of whom would have to commute to work or college et cetera beyond the GC. The ‘trigger point’ analysis concluded that phase two of the link road was not needed until 4,000 homes had been built. That assumes that the DPD’s aspiration modal shift target had been met which Highways England stated was highly unlikely to occur.

·      Section 5 of that trigger point analysis admitted that at 2,000 homes the impact on traffic queues was likely to be quite severe. Surely therefore that should be the trigger point for phase two.

·      To accommodate that extra traffic without creating extra congestion would require a significant proportion of existing Tendring commuters to switch to other modes of transport. But the RTS would not benefit the residents of Brightlingsea, Clacton, et cetera. No proposals for more trains or a new train station such as Cambridge North or Ebbsfleet. No other proposals exist to stimulate modal shift.

·      Wivenhoe is the same distance from Colchester as the GC but nobody runs or walks to Colchester and back for work every day. Active Travel effectively relies therefore on a massive increase in cycling rates from current 2% modal share. This is unrealistic. Plenty of Buses available but they run 80% empty so again unrealistic assumptions for modal shift to RTS.

·      Personally not against GC but wanted honest assessment of traffic impact and much more effort to mitigate.

The Chairman of the Joint Committee (Councillor King) responded to Town Councillor Andrew’s statement as follows:-

·      Shared concern. Did not want  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To advise the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community (TCBGC) Joint Committee of the modifications to the Development Plan Document (DPD) for the Garden Community that the Planning Inspector now requires the Councils to publish for consultation as part of the process of independent examination.

The Joint Committee considered a detailed report (A.1) which advised it of the modifications to the Development Plan Document (DPD) for the Garden Community that the Planning Inspector now required the Councils to publish for consultation as part of the process of independent examination.

It was reported that, following the public hearings held in May 2024, the Planning Inspector (Mr. Graham Wyatt) had subsequently issued his own ‘Schedule of Modifications’, as appended to the report (Appendix 1), and had instructed the Councils to proceed to consultation. They did not vary significantly from the Councils’ Suggested Modifications that had been discussed at the hearings.

The Inspector had made four (4) changes to the Councils’ ‘Schedule of Suggested Modifications – Post Hearing Update’.  Those were to GC Policy 2 ‘Nature’, GC Policy 8 ‘Sustainable Infrastructure’ and GC Policy 9 ‘Infrastructure Delivery, Impact Mitigation and Monitoring’.  Those changes were as follows:-

GC Policy 2 – Nature

• MM90 - Part D (to become Part E) ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’

Inspector’s Modification:

Remove reference to ambition to achieve BNG of 15%, as such remove last sentence of first point of Part D on page 40 of the DPD as follows:

As such an ambition is to achieve BNG of 15% on average across the whole masterplan.

Inspector’s Reason:

The minimum requirement of 10% will be met across the masterplan as required by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021).

GC Policy 8 - Sustainable Infrastructure

• MM71 - Part A ‘Net Zero Carbon’

Inspector’s Modification:

The Inspector has changed the timeframe for an agreed strategy to achieve net zero in acceptable circumstances from ‘within a reasonable timeframe’ to ‘within five years of occupation’.  As such Part A on page 117 of the DPD be amended as follows:

All buildings must shall be net zero in operation at occupation or, in exceptional circumstances, have an agreed strategy to achieve net zero within five years of occupation, and achieve net zero operational energy balance onsite across the Garden Community.

Inspector’s Reason:

At the request of Latimer and as discussed on Day 1 of the hearing sessions under Main Matter 8. 

• MM72 - Part A ‘Net Zero Carbon’

Modification not agreed by the Inspector:

The Councils had, through the ‘Schedule of Suggested Modifications’ and their hearing statement for Main Matter 8, put forward for consideration that the space heating, energy consumption and renewable energy generation standards under Part A of GC Policy 8 be updated to reflect the findings of the most up-to-date technical evidence base and ensure alignment with the Essex Design Guide.  The suggested modification was discussed on Day 1 of the hearing sessions under Main Matter 8.

Inspector’s Reason:

The Inspector has not agreed the Councils suggested modification as the Essex Design Guide is not part of the Development Plan. Therefore, the suggested modification is not considered reasonable and would be likely to create issues in relation to deliverability.  This modification will therefore not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To seek the agreement of the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee (“the Joint Committee”) to delegate specific decision making powers to Officers related to determining the scope of environmental issues needing to be covered in an Environmental Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 (as amended) that, in due course, will accompany the future planning application for the Garden Community.

The Joint Committee considered a detailed report (A.1) which sought its agreement to delegate specific decision making powers to Officers related to determining the scope of environmental issues needing to be covered in an Environmental Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 (as amended) that, in due course, would accompany the future planning application for the Garden Community.

Members were reminded that the terms of reference for the Joint Committee at paragraph 4.6 permitted the powers of delegation contained in section 101(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, to be exercised. To date a Scheme of Delegation had not been proposed due to the nature of the decision-making responsibilities so far resting with the Joint Committee – which had been mainly focussed on the plan-making process in respect of the Development Plan Document (DPD). The strategic and policy setting decisions for the Garden Community, including endorsement of the Development Plan Document and the granting of relevant planning permissions, were decisions for the elected Members of the Joint Committee rather than Officers, given the significance of the development and its cross-border nature.

There were however planning-related functions of an operational and technical nature that required speedy resolution and which, for most other developments, were typically delegated to Officers through an agreed Scheme of Delegation. With the DPD heading into the final stages of the plan-making process, the Garden Community project would soon progress into the Development Management phase within the planning process and the consideration and determination of planning applications.  In light of advanced preparatory work, a formal request for a ‘Scoping Opinion’ to determine the scope of the environmental issues to be covered in an Environmental Statement, to be submitted in support of a future principal planning application for the Garden Community, had been submitted by the lead developers for the Councils’ consideration. This was in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 (as amended), and the regulations created a statutory basis for the Councils to provide a timely response.

It was considered that responding to an EIA scoping request was a technical matter that was normally delegated to Officers for which there were also statutory timescales. The recommendation of this report sought the Joint Committee’s agreement to exercise the powers of delegation to enable the timely determination of the Scoping Opinion request to be taken at Officer level.  Members noted that where an Authority (or, in this case, the Joint Committee) had adopted a scoping opinion following the request of an applicant, additional information could be requested at a later date.

Members were informed that, as anticipated in the Joint Committee’s Terms of Reference, a comprehensive Scheme of Delegation to Officers would be prepared for the Joint Committee’s consideration and approval as the Garden Community project progressed from the policy plan making phase to the Development Management phase.  This was likely to include, amongst other things, applications for minor or non-material amendments (NMA) to already approved developments and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.