Agenda item

To report to the Joint Committee, some of the notable issues raised in the representations received from the public and other interested parties to the consultation on the first draft Development Plan Document i.e. ‘the Plan’ for the Garden Community under Regulation 18 of the statutory plan making process.

To highlight, for information, particular issues raised in the representations that may require the Councils to consider changes to the Plan, undertake or commission further work or analysis to inform possible changes for the Joint Committee’s consideration.

The Joint Committee had before it a comprehensive report (A.1) which reported some of the notable issues raised in the representations received from the public and other interested parties to the consultation on the first draft Development Plan Document (DPD) (‘the Plan’) for the Garden Community under Regulation 18 of the statutory plan making process.

The report also highlighted, for Members’ information, particular issues raised in the representations that might require changes to the Plan to be considered, or the undertaking or commissioning further work or analysis to inform possible changes for the Committee’s consideration.

The report was introduced by Mr Gary Guiver, Acting Director (Planning), Tendring District Council.

It was reported that public consultation on the first draft of a Plan for the Garden Community had commenced on 14 March 2022 and had closed on 25 April 2022 during which Officers had held a number of face-to-face engagement events, which had been attended by around 180 visitors.

The Councils had received responses from 193 individuals or organisations, raising approximately 620 comments on different elements of the Draft Plan. All of those representations had been published on the Garden Community engagement website in June 2022 for public view thereby allowing interested parties to see what others had said in full.

Members were aware that, as part of the statutory plan-making process, the Councils were required to take the representations received at the Regulation 18 stage into account when preparing the final version of the Plan for the Regulation 19 stage, when the Plan would be published for a further round of consultation and thence submitted to the Secretary of State in order to begin the independent examination process. 

The Joint Committee was informed that the issue of the ‘green’ buffers between the proposed new development as part of the Garden Community and the neighbouring settlements had been raised as a concern. Almost half of all the responses received, mostly from local residents from the Wivenhoe area, had written in objection to the prospect of development taking place on land south of the A133 as indicated for the expansion of the University of Essex in ‘Approach B’ in the Draft Plan. However, the representations from both the lead developer, Latimer, and the University had argued that neither Approach A nor Approach B was appropriate and that more land was going to be needed for development, potentially south of the A133. The Community Liaison Group had put forward an alternative approach, and other community related organisations, such as Town and Parish Councils, had also expressed strong views. Officers would review and consider the planning issues involved and were not in a position at this stage to recommend any specific changes to the Plan, but would undertake and commission further work in order to ensure that any future decision on this matter was informed by supporting evidence.

Members were also made aware that a notable number of respondents had also objected to Approach B in respect of a potential Knowledge Gateway expansion north of the A133 extending onto the sensitive slopes around Salary Brook. There was, however, a general acceptance from most parties, including the University, the developers and Officers, that the slopes of Salary Brook should be protected from development in any Plan going forward.

It was further reported that a number of residents had called for more protection for Crockleford Heath and the land around Bromley Road. Some had suggested that a ‘buffer’ zone was required between existing properties and any new development, whilst others had indicated that the boundary of the designated ‘Area of Special Character’ did not properly reflect the extent of the community that required protection, or that the policy was unclear as to how the area would be protected. Some property and land owners in the Crockleford Heath area had however indicated that they would rather be part of the development than be surrounded by it. Essex Place Services had been commissioned to undertake a character appraisal of Crockleford Heath which would help inform any formal decisions going forward.

The Joint Committee was advised that the proposed Rapid Transit System (RTS) had attracted a fair amount of interest with people keen to understand more detail around how it would operate, what route(s) it would take and how the ‘modal shift’ would be achieved. The separate report A.3 considered later on in the meeting provided an update to the Joint Committee on progress with the RTS and further work would be needed to fully understand the integration of this important piece of infrastructure into the final proposals. 

Members heard that some respondents had argued that the Draft Plan should have been accompanied by an updated Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), viability assessment and other evidence for the consultation to have been meaningful. This evidence-base would continue to be developed to inform decisions going forward as set out in the separate report A.2 considered later on in the meeting.

The Joint Committee was told that other respondents had raised concern about the level of detail contained within the Draft Plan, either that it was too aspirational and lacked key detail; or that it was too detailed and complex for the public to understand. Some had also criticised the general approach to the consultation and, in particular, the quality and limited number of maps and diagrams that had been included. Officers were now considering alternative ways to present and enable effective consultation on the material at the next stage in the process.

There remained a number of respondents who challenged the need for the Garden Community altogether and who argued that the development should not go ahead at all though the majority of comments had been constructive, with people keen to ensure the development was successful and genuinely met Garden Community principles. 

It was reported that people were particularly keen that the development was infrastructure led and did not result in existing infrastructure, services and facilities being overwhelmed; that it achieved a high level of energy efficiency; that it delivered high quality architectural and urban design; and that it protected existing historic and natural assets and incorporated high quality open spaces.

Officers were working on responses to each of the representations, to be published as part of the evidence base when the Joint Committee was presented with a new version of the Plan for its approval prior to a final round of consultation and submission to the Secretary of State to begin the process of independent examination.  

At this stage, the Joint Committee was requested to note the matters raised through the consultation exercise and to acknowledge that, given the nature of the comments, difficult decisions were likely to be required when it came time to agreeing a final version of the Plan for consultation and submission to the Secretary of State.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Public Speaking Scheme for the Joint Committee, the following persons addressed the Joint Committee on the subject matter of this item:-

Russ Edwards (Latimer by Clarion Housing Group);

Bill Marshall;

Sir Bob Russell;

Professor Anthony Vickers (Crockleford & Elmstead Action Group);

Chris Oldham (University of Essex);

Manda O’Connell (Chair of the Community Liaison Group);

Parish Councillor Adam Gladwin (Elmstead Parish Council);

Councillor Gary Scott (Tendring District Council); and

Councillor Mark Cory (Essex County Council).

Gary Guiver, the Acting Director (Planning) (Tendring District Council) responded to the points made by the speakers.

The Joint Committee also took into account a written representation, as circulated to Members prior to the meeting, and which had been submitted by Councillor William Sunnucks, Colchester Borough Council’s Designated Substitute Member for the Joint Committee. For the benefit of the public present at the meeting and those watching the live stream the Chairman (Councillor Turner) read out Councillor Sunnucks’ statement.

Councillor Andrea Luxford-Vaughan requested that her comments on this report be recorded within the Minutes of this meeting. Those comments were summarised as follows:-

(i)      Delighted to hear that a decision has been made not to build in Salary Brook but for the same reasons wondered why similar decisions can not be made now for Crockleford Heath and for buffer zones for Elmstead and Wivenhoe. Those could be justified on garden community principles e.g. the avoidance of coalescence;

(ii)     The Community Liaison Group’s ‘approach C’ would not be, despite any claims to the contrary, an acceptable approach for the residents of Wivenhoe. Their ‘red line’ remains no development south of the A133;

(iii)   Puzzled at the sudden, huge increase in the amount of land being requested by the University of Essex and would like to see the evidence within the University’s business model as to how the University would finance the necessary land purchases;

(iv)   Felt that Latimer Homes’ suggestion that University expansion should be south of the A133 would not necessarily work for the University as there would be no real connection to the campus or the Knowledge Gateway;

(v)    Felt that there was no justification for increasing employment land;

(vi)   Felt that Latimer Homes’ concerns about potential high housing density would be ameliorated by the fact that extra student accommodation would be high rise though the location of this would be an issue to be resolved; and

(vii)  Drew attention to Highways’ bodies concerns that there would be tailbacks created on the A120 due to the proposed new junction, impinging on the safety of road users and also leading to a deterioration in air quality. She felt that the strategic evidence to support the new road junction should be revisited.

Following a discussion and debate on matters pertaining to the DPD and questions by Members that were answered, as appropriate by the Acting Director (Planning) (Gary Guiver) and the County Council’s Spatial Planning Manager (Matthew Jericho):-

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

RESOLVED that the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee notes -

(a)    the contents of this report (A.1);

(b)    the issues raised in response to the Regulation 18 consultation on the Draft Plan; and

(c)    the various matters that Officers will be seeking to address in working towards a revised version of the Plan for consideration by the Joint Committee at future meetings.

The Chairman adjourned the meeting at this point for ten minutes in order to allow those persons present to have a comfort break and take refreshment. Following that adjournment the meeting resumed as follows:-