Agenda item

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 go forward for consultation and the standards under Part A of GC Policy 8 will remain in the DPD as outlined within the Submission Version Plan.

 

GC Policy 9 ‘Infrastructure Delivery, Impact Mitigation and Monitoring’. 

 

• MM91 - Part A ‘Infrastructure Delivery Mechanism’

 

Inspector’s Modification:

 

Remove all references to Community Infrastructure Levy.

 

Inspector’s Reason:

 

The CIL charging schedule will be considered separately from the DPD.

 

In addition to the above modifications, the Inspector had agreed that all other modifications within the ‘Schedule of Suggested Modifications - Post Hearing Update’ should proceed to consultation.  No other modifications had been made by the Inspector.

 

The Joint Committee was therefore asked to note the content of the Inspector’s ‘Schedule of Modifications’, prior to their publication for consultation for a period of six weeks in September/October 2024 in accordance national requirements.  The Councils would publish the modifications alongside an updated Sustainability Appraisal (SA), and an updated Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) to take account of them.

 

Following conclusion of the consultation the Inspector would consider the SA, HRA and all representations made in response to the modifications.  At the end of the Examination the Inspector would send a report to the Councils recommending whether or not the DPD was legally compliant and sound (with or without some or all of the proposed modifications) and thus whether they could proceed to formally adopt the plan.

 

The Joint Committee then proceeded to discuss and debate matters pertaining to the Officer’s report as follows:-

 

Councillor Andrea Luxford-Vaughan (CCC)

·      Reiterated that though these were the Inspector’s Modifications they had come from the Statements of Common Ground with statutory consultees and the developer. For the record she pointed out that they had not been agreed by the Joint Committee;

·      Believed that some of the Modifications were creating significant changes to the DPD e.g. going from a link road to a non-link road. This was significant and stopped it from being a sustainable site which should have been picked up in the Sustainability Appraisal (SA);

·      SA flawed from the beginning in that it did not consider congestion as one of its measurements.

 

Councillor William Sunnucks (CCC)

 

·      Took some comfort from the fact that the Inspector had made it clear in MM75 that the Infrastructure Phasing and Delivery Plan was a requirement and that any variation to it would have to be explained and evidenced by the developer.

 

Councillor Andy Baker (TDC)

 

·      Consultation summary plan in the report made no mention of the affected Parish/Town Councils – wanted to make sure that they were included within the consultation;

·      Encouraged any and all residents who may have a concern to make a representation.

 

It was thereupon moved by Councillor Baker and:-

 

RESOLVED that the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee –

 

1.  notes the content of the report and the Inspector’s Schedule of Modifications (attached at Appendix 1); and

 

2.  notes the next stage of the examination process, which is to publish the Schedule of Modifications for public consultation.