Agenda item

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 to increase congestion any more than was avoidable. Second phase of the link road had to be delivered as soon as practicable but accepted the debate around that. Would have to be based on solid evidence and modelling. Past modelling was not accepted as the way forward.

 

Jonathan Schifferes, Head of Housing Growth and Garden Communities (Essex County Council) also responded to Town Councillor Andrew’s statement as follows:-

 

·      When planning application for the GC comes forward to the Joint Committee it would need to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment and a Transport Assessment that fully modelled the applicant’s proposals and the work that they had done with the Highways Authority and the planning authority to as accurately as possible the impact on various travel modes. That work had not yet been carried out. Several pieces of work had been commissioned for various purposes (including for the DPD) that had modelled the progression of the GC to its full 7,500 homes provision.

·      Echoed the sentiment of the Chairman’s remarks that Section 1 of the joint Local Plan (TDC and CCC) stated that full link road delivery is secured by funding and planning permission before GC is approved. That is reinforced within the DPD. Would the basis on which the Joint Committee would need to determine the planning application.

·      Modal share aspirations for the GC are ambitious. Highways England do not have a formal objection to the DPD or the full link road which has planning permission.

·      Interventions that support the modal shift include package of interventions that existed and were funded by Homes England and Homes Infrastructure Fund. Park and Choose facility on the A133 was a formal requirement of the DPD and would come forward alongside the planning application. That was the main intervention to support the modal shift for existing commuters.

·      Wider aspiration to deliver the link road as soon as possible. Number of traffic modelling exercises that had taken place and would need to take place. There are a number of future modelling years for which a Colchester traffic model exists. One of those years is 2041. Tests would be run against that model with scenarios that showed the full phase two of the link road being built or not built at various points in the future – 2031, 2036 and 2041 – the existing modelling parameters that can be used. Would expect that to be tested but was not a target date. Normal statutory requirements would apply for how the Joint Committee determined the application e.g. the NPPF had a severe impact test on the existing network. That would be a threshold that the Joint Committee would have to be satisfied with the evidence before it and could ask for modelling for various years to determine that had been met or not met.

 

Professor Anthony Vickers (Crockleford & Elmstead Action Group (CEAG) spokesperson)

 

·      Referred to statement within the documentation that “none of the modifications suggested by the Council… were significant in that they did not seek to change the substance or intent of the DPD policies.” During the Hearings in May, he had pointed out that the change in the wording to an aspiration of 50% green space from an implication that 50% would be green space is significant and if the Joint Committee did not think so then residents would have no faith in the Joint Committee’s commitment. It would no longer be a garden community project but instead a massive housing development.

·      Referred to Modification MM7 – “Depending on the outcomes of local junction modelling along Bromley Road into Colchester, some parcels of development within the Crockleford Neighbourhood may need to access to the Link Road instead of Bromley Road. Suggested wording to reflect this flexibility.” For Crockleford Heath residents this was a worrying development as it suggested that parts of Crockleford Heath would no longer be within Crockleford Heath. You could not be connected to the link and not be part of the link road. If some parts of Crockleford Heath are then to be connected then they would not be part of Crockleford Heath. Pointed out that within the Government documentation it stated that existing settlements had to be respected. This therefore was a complete disrespect of the residents of Crockleford Heath.

·      Referred to MM8 – “Acknowledging existing, enhanced and other public transport can support homes as well as the RTS removes pre-judging of phasing at Crockleford.” Was this to be interpreted as giving a ‘green light’ to developers to carve away at parts of Crockleford Heath and bring forward Crockleford Heath to Phase One from Phase Three. Crockleford Heath was in Phase Three originally. Concerned that Crockleford Heath was being moved to the beginning because the developer could get access to Bromley Road and the link road is a cul-de-sac.

·      Referred to MM36 –“Creation of the Rapid Transit System to enable a fast rapid commute for residents to and from all neighbourhoods within the Garden Community…” Noted the change of wording to ‘fast’, which was no more defined than ‘rapid’. Believed ‘fast’ was a demotion from ‘rapid’. What did this mean for the ‘Rapid’ Transit System?

 

Amy Lester, the Garden Community Planning Manager (Tendring District Council) responded to the points made by Professor Vickers along the following lines:-

 

·      In regard to the Modifications, everyone would have the opportunity to comment on any or all of them through the imminent formal public consultation. Those comments would be considered by the Planning Inspector before he issued his recommendation to the Councils on the soundness of the DPD.

·      In regard to MM7 – clarified that it was to allow a greater degree of flexibility to allow access to future particular parcels from either the link road or Bromley Road. It did not allow a ‘watering down’ of the principles of ‘filtered permeability’ meaning that you could drive to the link road from Bromley Road. That restriction would always remain. Would remain subject to future modelling and master planning and design work that would be put forward as part of the planning application.

·      In regard to MM8 – clarified that this would not remove any requirement for a phasing plan to be submitted at the point of the planning application. Phasing within the DPD was based on the strategic master plan work that the Councils had produced which had been ‘indicative only’. A phasing plan would still need to come forward and be considered as part of a future planning application.

·      In regard to MM36 – clarified that this change had been put forward to ensure consistency with the wording within the DPD (GC Policy 1).

 

The Chairman of the Joint Committee (Councillor King) also responded to Professor Vickers’ statement as follows:-

 

·      Quite a lot had been published on the RTS and its hopes and aspirations as a lot of that had yet to be tied down and that had been shared. It was important that the principle was recognised that the RTS funding had to be spent well and the outcome had to be public transport that was a ‘cut above’ the existing provision in accessibility, comfort, reliability and pace.

 

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

 

·      Congratulated Members and Officers following the Examination-in-Public of the DPD earlier this year which was another major milestone for the project.

·      Encouraged to see that the Schedule of Modifications that the Inspector had asked to be the subject of public consultation were, for the most part, based on the Statements of Common Ground prepared by Officers and stakeholders.

·      Latimer remained extremely supportive of the DPD and the suggested modifications. Its consultant team continued to work on the master plan proposals that would form part of an outline planning application that would be compliant with the policy.

·      Working to a revised planning submission target of the second quarter in 2025 and continued to engage pro-actively with Officers through pre-application engagement.

·      Further public consultation was planned to support the application at the end of this year and early part of next year.

·      Estates Management and Stewardship Strategy – The Councils had commissioned a ‘Pathway to Stewardship Strategy’ since the last meeting of the Joint Committee. Latimer was extremely supportive of that work and had engaged collaboratively with the Councils and their consultant CSS. Looked forward to building on that work was completed as part of the application documents to be submitted next year.

·      Fantastic to see the project mentioned positively in both local and national press with coverage of ECC entering into a contract for phase one of the A120-A133 link road and the new community being identified as a project the new Government is interested in accelerating through the New Homes Accelerator Programme.

·      Looked forward to discussions with all parties including MHCLG and Homes England over the coming months to work out how best to support the project moving forward.

·      Lastly, hoped that Members had had the chance to visit the Beth Chatto led ‘Meanwhile Garden’ project established next to FirstSite in Colchester where Latimer’s Essex young designers had both designed and helped to make the benches and seating.

 

The Chairman of the Joint Committee (Councillor King) responded to Russ Edwards; statement as follows:-

 

·      Welcomed the positive comments and the continued positive and collaborative approach to working between Latimer and the Officers.

·      Knew that Latimer would be listening carefully to all of the comments made at this meeting and that they were fully aware of the vital importance attached to securing the link road.

 

Manda O’Connell (Chair, TCBGC Community Liaison Group)

 

·      CLG supported report A.2 which was the delegation to Officers in respect of EIA scoping requests. The reasons were:-

Øit would be quicker and more direct which was useful in particular for the Colchester / Tendring Borders Garden Community development which was subject to strict time constraints due to the nature of the funding;

Øit allowed for direct engagement of local stakeholders and expert bodies with planners in response to the scoping consultation for example the CLG (local people with local knowledge including some experts in their field including groundwork and transport who had scoping out objections to the following:

(i)     Materials and waste which was currently scoped out with potential damage to aquifers and natural drainage areas – removed materials are replaced with backfill construction materials – as has been seen elsewhere within the county with damaging results and created numerous problems.

(ii)    Flood risk and drainage should be scoped in given this year had seen standing water in the Crockleford area more than before and this would be worsened by the development unless specifically mitigated against by being coped in the EIA.

(iii)   Sewerage and waste water should be most definitely scoped in as the current sewerage works for Colchester East could not cope with demand and use with considerable effluent released into the tidal River Colne when use topped capacity.

Those grounds it was hoped would provide grounds to the planners, based on local knowledge to require those additional matters to be scoped in rather than out.

ØThe proposed delegation would not disallow the Joint Committee’s authority and decision making as it would have the final say on the suitability and acceptability of the scope of the final EIA submitted by the developers.

 

The Chairman of the Joint Committee (Councillor King) responded to Manda O’Connell’s statement as follows:-

 

·      thanked the CLG for its work and commitment and welcomed and supported the comments made especially in regard to making practical use of local knowledge.

 

Parish Councillor Adam Gladwin (Chairman of Elmstead Parish Council)

 

·      reiterated comments made at previous meetings about the need to give this development a proper name. Considered it a place making failure. Residents calling it the ‘New Town’ which risked confusion with Colchester New Town.

·      noted that last Joint Committee meeting was eleven months ago and expressed concern that his Parish Council now had only five minutes to engage.

·      Queried how democratic and transparent that was. Felt that a lot of decisions in the meantime had been made in private and therefore had lacked proper public scrutiny. Had been on the receiving end of residents’ concerns. Was getting harder to defend this planning approach. Needed more transparency not less.

·      Concerned that proposed delegations to Officers in report A.2 would only move further decision making behind closed doors. Appreciated that in the grand scheme of things those decisions might seem inconsequential but by delegating them to Officers it would prevent the residents would be most affected such as those represented by CEAG coming before the Joint Committee and saying their piece with their local knowledge when detailed planning matters were being decided.

·      Elmstead PC had met last month with the appointed GC place making consultant. He had been surprised by the strength of negative feeling surrounding the project.

·      Worried about disconnect between CLG and EPC on public feedback.

·      Not helped by disappointing start to the summer when the first material works to the project, supposedly focused on sustainability, cut down hundreds of hedgerow trees in bird nesting season only for no more work to have happened in the months since. Was correct wildlife assessment done beforehand? Why undertaken then and not now?

·      Elmstead residents were starting to feel the impact of the development as work started. Disruption caused by RTS works and soon the link road works was just the beginning. Residents already complaining about delays and traffic problems. Local back roads already seeing more traffic. Did not believe that Traffic Assessment correctly considered the impact of Clingoe Hill works especially when combined with other RTS and link road works. New ‘rat runs’ being formed. Dangerous driving on country lanes. Residents now looking at travelling to Ipswich and Clacton rather than Colchester.

·      Referred to misinformation about the link road – needed confirmation on who was building phase two of the link road. What was the cost?

 

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

 

·      Was aware of the issues at Clingoe Hill and that the works there were making life more difficult for many. Had to trust that there would be a benefit once finished. Disruption an inevitability but it needed to be minimised.

·      ECC Officers were taking on board all of the feedback that they were receiving from many sources.

 

Jonathan Schifferes, Head of Housing Growth and Garden Communities (Essex County Council) also responded to Parish Councillor Gladwin’s statement as follows:-

 

·      Enabling works for Section C of the RTS were on-site now between Greenstead Roundabout and the Knowledge Gateway junction were undertaken properly. Link Road Phase One enabling works had taken place on the A133 as well. Timing of those works was done to avoid the peak bird nesting season. Where the clearance of vegetation did have to take place an Ecologist was on-site at that time to ensure that those works did not disrupt nesting birds.

·      Octavius was the contractor undertaking the construction of Phase One of the link road.

·      Works at both sites would need sequencing and phasing and collaboration with the National Highways works on the A120 as well. Conversations were ongoing to avoid, wherever possible, conflicts between those works and to minimise the overall impact.

·      Concerned if any of the diversions and traffic management arrangements (TMA) were causing issues of safety. That was the number one consideration at all times. Changes could be made if needed to the TMAs.

·      In answer to the question: Who is building the second phase of the link road? – the obligation was on the developer (Latimer) to fund the delivery of the link road as defined in the MoU between the Councils and Latimer which was part of the evidence base underpinning the DPD. Assumption also within the Infrastructure Phasing Plan and the Viability Assessment that that was a cost that fell to Latimer. The cost of that was also part of that same conversation. DPD evidence was the best place to look for the best estimates that the Councils had. Figure there was £21.5million for phase two of the link road. However, it was not assumed that by the time that the link road was constructed following the agreed plan for the build out of the GC that that would be the actual price that Latimer would have to meet.

·      There were ongoing conversations with Government that sought further central funding to help provide a high quality GC. Not producing a continuous stream of updated cost estimates for phase two of the link road. The obligation was on Latimer or any other applicant to build the GC to demonstrate that they had the commitment and the funding at the point of the application to provide the link road in its entirety. How that was contracted out was open to discussion and agreement at a later date.

 

At that point in the proceedings and at the behest of the Chairman, Andrew Weavers (Head of Governance & Monitoring Officer) (Colchester City Council),read out the following written statement that had been submitted by the Mayor of Wivenhoe (Town Councillor Denise Burke):-

 

“As Mayor of Wivenhoe, I would like to share my concerns regarding the proposed Tendring Garden Community (TGC).

 

Firstly, there needs to be a reality check as work begins on what has been dubbed “the road to nowhere”.

The work began on the link for the proposed TGC this week, the start of the new school term, which will see over 7,500 homes built. Little notice was given for the works, diversion signs are totally inadequate and overnight closures are ad hoc, not adhering to the closure and opening times advertised. The alternative routes are congested and already heavy with lorries on these narrow roads.

 

In the Trigger Point Analysis of November 2023 it identified a trigger point when a full link road is needed. It shows that ‘journey time and queuing impacts on the A133 will worsen as development increases, with ‘a step change at 4,000 homes.’

 

It also concedes that ‘the network is already heavily congested’. However, this summary is highly deceptive, because the modelling for the 4,000 homes trigger, reflects eastbound queues only. The westbound queue commences earlier, at 1,000 homes, so, we may get a link road in 20 years’ time assuming their quite extreme predictions on model shift will work.

 

What is interesting and frustrating is ECC has and remains very reluctant to share the document to a wider audience.”

 

They add in the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report produced by the developer for the new town ‘it is assumed that Phase 2 of the Link Road is constructed at the back end of the emerging Local Plan Review period’ therefore, the ‘assessment year is 2041.

 

We are supposedly reassured that in 2041, the RTS and Park and Choose will be operational, although details of service routing, frequency and fleet are yet to be developed.

 

However, they warned the plan remains fundamentally flawed with the timetable for the vital infrastructure required for a development of this scale still no agreed or announced. It leaves leaving scheme in real danger of creating a huge need for healthcare, schooling and other amenities which at present there is no compulsion on the developer or local authorities to deliver.

 

There are lots of unresolved problems with the plan that can no longer be passed off as having garden community principles. In addition, the employment area can’t come forward because Latimer doesn't own the land and the link road doesn’t link to it, the timescale for delivery of schools and early year provision has been watered down and so the infrastructure will be constantly trying to catch up with house delivery as opposed to the infrastructure first principle we were promised. There is currently no health centre planned for the site. As someone who works in the early years & childcare and elder care industry I have to ask why the proposed plan does not reflect ‘cradle to grave’ solutions that will be needed early on as neighbouring towns and parishes have insufficient facilities, indeed in Wivenhoe demand already exceeds supply.

 

The heritage impact assessment was done after the master planning, so heritage elements have just been ignored. The promised green buffers which are so vital to ensure environmental requirements can be met can be filled by car parks, solar farms, cemeteries, and allotments. The total number of homes has gone up from 7,500 total with an additional 2,700 student beds on site. There is still no stewardship model, so we don’t know if there will be a boundary change and Latimer wants a land or service charge, which are very unpopular with residents.

 

In summary, although of course the most unacceptable element is the lack of a link road or credible rapid transport system. We know next to nothing about the RTS, but the link road delivery is hampered by significant obstacles such as the fact ECC still don’t own the land to build phase two.

 

People should be told National Highways have outstanding and unresolved issues with traffic modelling and design. The announcement of work might be seen as a positive, but the fact remains as it stands there is no money left to build phase 2, and there is no legally binding way to get the developer to contribute.

 

At present all we are seeing is the start of construction for a road to nowhere. Those charged with delivery still have no idea how or when the multitude of issues which currently make this scheme an expensive and embarrassing white elephant will be addressed and workable and practicable solutions found.”

 

Jonathan Schifferes, Head of Housing Growth and Garden Communities (Essex County Council) responded to the Mayor of Wivenhoe’s written statement as follows:-

 

·      Reiterated that a response to that statement from the three Councils had been issued by way of a press release. That response was as follows (editors notes excluded):-

 

“There are a number of inaccuracies and misunderstandings identified in the press release by Wivenhoe Town Council including the position of National Highways and inaccurate assertions that statutory processes for technical work and approvals have not been followed as well as the information not accurately reflecting the technical work that has been done to date.

 

The three partner Councils are committed to ensuring that agreed infrastructure is delivered as early as feasibly possible at the Tendring / Colchester Borders Garden Community and will be requiring such commitments from developers when determining future planning applications.

 

A Joint Committee of the three Councils has been established early in the development process to ensure comprehensive public oversight of the planning process. The Councils were successful in attracting almost £100million of Government funding for early delivery of new transport infrastructure to support much needed new housing at the Garden Community and this is in the form of the new A1331 and the new Colchester Rapid Transit system.

 

Adopted planning policy clearly requires that the funding for the full A1331 linking the A133 and the A120 is in place before planning approval is granted for the Garden Community. The Development Plan Document also sets out a requirement for the Garden Community to demonstrate a full funding commitment to complete the A1331.

 

The Councils are totally committed to securing the full funding for the delivery of the A1331 which is fundamental to planned housing growth in Colchester and Tendring. The Councils are therefore working with the new Government to explore funding opportunities to complete the A1331. We appreciate that while there are understandable concerns for the impact of new housing on Wivenhoe and other surrounding areas the planning and highways authorities have put in place strong safeguards to ensure the growth is well managed, sustainable and enhances the local community.

 

We are keen to work with the local parish councils as the schemes continue to progress through the planning system.”

 

The Chairman of the Joint Committee (Councillor King) also responded to the Mayor of Wivenhoe’s statement as follows:-

 

·      Addressed concerns about promises not being delivered. Was understandable and acknowledged it was the Joint Committee’s collective responsibility to hold the three Councils and Latimer to account. Need to make the promises demonstrable.

·      Any ‘misreading’ was responsibility of the Joint Committee. Needed to work constantly to be really clear in demonstrating what was factual, what was a legitimate question, what was myth or merely rumour.

 

Councillor Wagland then responded as follows:-

 

·      On the subject of openness, stated that firstly a number if not the majority of the points made by speakers were addressed in several respects in the Minutes of our previous meeting. Urged the public to read them.

·      Secondly, also urged the public to read the Editors Notes in the Councils’ statement which provided further comments in relation to many of the individual points raised.

 

Councillor Luxford-Vaughan raised the point that National Highways had, in fact, objected to the DPD otherwise they would not have been a participant at the Examination-in-Public. Though there was a statement of common ground with National Highways there were unresolved issues. The Councils’ statement was therefore in error on that point.

 

Amy Lester, the Garden Community Planning Manager (Tendring District Council) responded to Councillor Luxford-Vaughan. The three Councils had engaged with National Highways throughout every stage of the process. The statement of common ground for the DPD Examination-in-Public had at the end of it a number of outstanding issues. However, they related to the future planning application and the modelling work that would be required to come forward as part of that. There was quite an understandable areas of concern that had been recorded as still needing to be resolved. However, the principle of the GC and the DPD and the policies contained within it had not been objected to by National Highways (Highways England).

 

Jonathan Schifferes, Head of Housing Growth and Garden Communities (Essex County Council) further responded by stating that National Highways had lodged a ‘holding’ objection in order to participate in the Inquiry. He then quoted from the published statement of common ground between National Highways and the Councils (Section 3):-

 

“In summary, the Councils and National Highways agree that the DPD transport evidence base which uses the Colchester Transport Model developed by Essex County Council provides a sound, strategic transport baseline for future development of the Garden Community. They agree that outstanding matters raised in the National Highways technical notes (7, 8 and 9) and the responses by the Councils are deemed to be acceptable at this stage of the DPD. They acknowledged the need to continue to work collaboratively and with the site developers to deliver the full range of suitable highway transportation solutions for the Garden Community.”

 

In conclusion under “Unresolved Issues” the statement said: “Within this statement of common ground there are no unresolved issues or area of uncommon ground for the purposes of the DPD. There are several notable issues that need to be resolved prior to the planning application stage.”

 

Councillor Mark Cory (Essex County Council and Colchester City Council)

 

·      Supported the comments made by Parish Councillor Gladwin and Town Councillor Burke about the traffic situation. As the Division Member most affected he was dealing with County Highways on the lack of diversion signs at the commencement of the works, the number of accidents that had already resulted and the map which had been produced which was inadequate.

·      Referred to recent traffic modelling by ECC which showed that eastbound congestion at Clingoe Hill would become a significant problem after 1,000 new homes. Those homes were going to come from Tendring itself and the GC. Queried how given that point, and the initial phasing evidence that we were now talking about 2041 as earliest start to complete the link road with completion by 2051.

·      GC principles demand a full link road but facts now demand it in full from the start.

·      Asked whether it was the case that nothing from the leftover HIF funding could be spent towards the construction costs post 2026.

·      Asked what were the phase two cost? Without updated phase two costs how would that affect the Councils own viability evidence? How could Councils state it would ‘stack up’ for the planning application minus the associated costs?

·      Asked what capital resources were set aside by Latimer for building phase two. How could the Councils be sure that it was being prepared for and would be done and delivery ensured.

·      Given that traffic modelling showed traffic increasing, the pains of the project so far and the bad ‘press’ and the speed of the supposedly ‘rapid’ transit system being ‘watered down’ to fast how do the Councils expect the modal shift targets to be met. It looked less than likely that they would be achieved. What was there in policy terms to ensure that the modal shift happened and if it did not happen was there a mechanism to halt building of further homes.

·      In respect of item A.2, very much supported the comments made by Parish Councillor Gladwin about a vacuum of decisions that the public saw made by this Joint Committee. Delegation of further responsibility would be a ‘misstep’ at this point in time. The Joint Committee was a delegated committee from the three Councils with powers delegated to the small number of Members appointed to it. Delegating further decisions away would be less than helpful in ensuring openness and transparency.

 

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

 

·      Would follow ‘good practice’ in the proposed delegation to Officers. Same practice was followed at Colchester City Council.

·      No vacuum in decision making. Had been a long period when the ‘ball’ had sat with the DPD Inspector. Momentum of the GC project currently in the hands of others.

·      Acknowledged the challenge of transparency.

·      All of his five questions had been touched upon and answered earlier on in this meeting. Impracticable to ask Latimer about their capital resources at this meeting.

 

Jonathan Schifferes, Head of Housing Growth and Garden Communities (Essex County Council) also responded to Councillor Cory’s statement as follows:-

 

·      Not the case that the Councils had a report that said 2041 was the earliest date that phase two of the link road would be delivered. There were modelling studies that demonstrated different scenarios which had been commissioned to inform other public decision making processes namely the CPO and the SRO. That was not the basis on which the Joint Committee would determine an application nor determine what acceptable impacts of that application would be in environmental terms or in highways terms and in accordance with statutory planning processes.

·      Confirmed that, under the contract, HIF could not be used beyond March 2026.

·      Viability of the Phase Two costs would be scrutinised by the Joint Committee at the point of the submission of the planning application and that viability assessment would need to include the major infrastructure costs.

·      Not appropriate to ask the applicant when determining an application whether they had the money to build it.

·      Change of ‘rapid’ to ‘fast’ merely a case of semantics on the Inspector’s behalf.

·      Joint Committee could introduce ‘development caps’ if it felt that controls were required on the ‘build out’ or level of traffic generated as part of dealing with modal shift.