Agenda item

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 matters relating to enforcement action, advertisement consent and Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs).

 

Generally, it was considered best practice by the Planning Advisory Service (the Government’s appointed experts in planning matters) that approximately 95% of planning applications were determined by Officers – however for the Garden Community development, it was appropriate for important decisions to be taken by the Joint Committee and therefore only selected types of decisions of a more minor, technical and time constrained nature were likely to be suggested for delegation to Officers in the future.

A comprehensive Scheme of Delegation to Officers would therefore be brought to a future meeting of the Joint Committee for consideration and agreement.  This would allow the smooth running of planning functions and timely determinations and an efficient turnaround of certain planning matters aligned with the Government’s statutory targets.

 

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

 

Councillor Andrea Luxford-Vaughan

 

·      Did not accept that EIA scoping requests were too technical for Members. If Officers were of a contrary view then additional training and support should be provided and should already have been in place in time for this and should be in place in time for when the full planning application comes forward;

·      Scope should cover noise, vibration and air quality in addition to the list put forward by Manda O’Connell;

·      The scope will turn into an environmental statement which will form one very small element of the evidence supporting the planning application. If timescales are an issue for the scoping requests then dealing with the planning application itself within the available timescale will be a very great difficulty;

·      Members would need to ‘block out’ a significant period of time in their diaries to be able to consider all of the evidence et cetera;

·      The three Councils have already delegated powers to the Joint Committee. Did not believe that the Joint Committee had the remit to release control of powers that the three Councils had invested in it. Would be undemocratic to do so;

·      Believed that it was vital that there should be a call-in procedure to enable Joint Committee members to refer a matter that would otherwise be dealt with by an Officer to the Joint Committee for its determination. Otherwise Members had no recourse at all;

·      At the moment, completely in the dark as to how Officers will deal with these scoping requests so completely against any delegation of powers.

 

Councillor William Sunnucks (CCC)

 

·      Prepared to support the delegation subject to two changes relating to the link road and health care;

·      Upset that Members have not seen any proposals of how this delegation would be carried out by Officers i.e. no scheme of delegation;

·      Transport story (link road): goes round and round as to costs et cetera. Needs an independent transport report from a consultant instructed by the Joint Committee to get to the bottom of this issue and get the full story on the link road. Government believes that this project is stalled which effectively it is until the link road issue is sorted;

·      Mention of Primary Health Care in the scoping but no mention of Hospitals. A large garden community development will put local hospital facilities under added pressure/strain. Therefore, need a Health Care Impact Assessment as well.

·      Supported a “call-in” right for Joint Committee members.

 

Councillor Andy Baker (TDC)

 

·      Not against delegated powers which are used all the time at TDC. Leaves the Planning Committee to deal with the important stuff;

·      Tight timescale for these scoping requests laid down by legislation though the applicants had agreed an extension until the end of September;

·      Document is complex and long;

·      Supports the delegation. Such matters take time and expertise which the Officers have. Members are not planners.

·      This project is not stalled as Deputy Prime Minister has now accepted. On track but currently it is in the hands of the Inspector reviewing the DPD;

·      The Environmental Statement, once submitted, can be debated at the Joint Committee if Members are not happy with its contents. If necessary, Members can vote to refuse the application. Therefore, the power still lies in the hands of Members.

 

Councillor Lesley Wagland (ECC)

 

·      Supported vigorously Councillor Baker’s comments;

·      What goes into the scoping document must be based on planning expertise which the Officers have and not Members. If that scope is faulty then there could be legal consequences and possibly awards of costs against the three Councils;

·      Members could do this but for reasons Councillor Baker explained it would not be sensible approach to take.

 

Councillor Lee Scott (ECC)

 

·      Does not believe that Officers ever meant in any way to imply that Members were not capable of considering scoping requests;

·      Is the general practise among many authorities to give this delegated power;

·      Does not share some of the concerns expressed but understand where they are coming from and appreciates that;

·      Content to vote for the delegated powers.

 

Councillor David King (CCC)

 

·      Given timetables and pressures of the process, was minded to support;

·      Every decision that matters will still come before the Joint Committee;

·      Normal practice to have delegations.

 

Amy Lester, the Garden Community Planning Manager (TDC), responded to Members’ statements as follows:-

 

·      In relation to hospitals and healthcare, as part of this consultation Officers have consulted with NHS colleagues and various health bodies. They had been in communication on this and were engaging. Will be feeding back their response on this and that response will be provided to the Applicant as part of the Scoping Opinion that Officers will issue;

·      In relation to the Health Impact Assessment, the DPD does require a HIA to be provided with the planning application(s);

·      All of the consultation responses that come in from the statutory bodies at this early stage will be considered and feedback as part of the Officers’ scoping opinion and also passed onto the Applicant for their information;

·      In relation to the requirement for an independent Transport report, the transport elements within the submitted scoping report are being robustly reviewed by transport colleagues at ECC and also by National Highways, as a statutory consultee. They will also feed into the scoping opinion issued and those responses provided to the Applicant;

·      Will set the basis on what needs to come forward within the Environmental Statement as well.

 

Councillor David King (CCC)

 

·      From his perspective, those who have a statutory responsibility e.g. health and transport (nationally and locally), their inputs set the framework for what will be required from the Applicant which will then be considered by the Joint Committee.

 

Amy Lester confirmed that point was correct.

 

Councillor William Sunnucks (CCC)

 

·      Concern was that Health Impact Assessment focused on impact on residents and not on impact on hospital capacity and on what the Applicant will do to mitigate that harm. Needs to be included within the HIA;

·      Transport – Essex Highways have big incentive to ‘kick the can down the road’. No public trust in infrastructure first. Therefore, a clear need for an independent transport assessment.

 

Amy Lester responded that those matters would be covered within the Environmental Impact Assessment, the Environmental Statement and the Health Impact Assessment that would accompany the application in due course.

 

In response to a question from Councillor King, Amy Lester confirmed that members of the Joint Committee and Ward Councillors could submit their own representation on the scoping opinion. Parish Councils and Colchester and Tendring Ward Councillors had been consulted. All responses received would be taken into account in finalising the scoping opinion and would be provided to the Applicant. The formal 28 day consultation period had passed. The statutory five week time period to determine these applications had elapsed. However, an extension of time had been agreed with the Applicant until 30 September 2024. Officers had granted their own extension of time to some statutory bodies to enable them to submit their consultation response. Officers could do the same for other consultees such as Members. The consultation was still open on the Councils’ websites for representations to be submitted.

 

Councillor Lesley Wagland (ECC)

 

·      Important to get this scoping opinion under a delegated scheme that Officers make the decision,

·      Not concerned with what goes into that as long as it is consistent with what Councils are entitled to take into account legally;

·      Members cannot micromanage this scoping agreement but should spend more time on the Environment Statement itself.

 

Councillor Andrea Luxford-Vaughan (CCC)

 

·      Pressed again for clarification as to whether there would be a call-in procedure for delegated powers. Would it follow the same system as at Colchester City Council.

 

Andrew Weavers (Head of Governance & Monitoring Officer) (CCC) responded that there would be no scope for a call-in procedure for this delegated decision.

 

Councillor William Sunnucks (CCC)

·      Pressed for an answer as to whether there would be an independent transport study carried out either by the three Councils or by the Applicant.

 

Councillor Lesley Wagland (ECC)

 

·      Responded to Councillor Sunnucks by stating that the assessments are being made by the Highway Authority. That is ECC’s responsibility. Will, where appropriate, get independent assessments of different elements as par for the course;

·      Has personally seen no evidence that would support a suggestion that ECC would put inflated or otherwise inappropriate statements into documents;

·      No reason to revisit with a separate independent assessment unless any party involved wished to do that in their own right e.g. individual members of the public or Parish Councils

 

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

 

RESOLVED that the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee –

 

(a)   exercises its powers of delegation in accordance with its Terms of Reference and in accordance with Section 101(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 and agrees to delegate authority to the Director of Planning for Tendring District Council, the Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director of Colchester City Council and the Director for Sustainable Growth of Essex County Council to determine, through joint agreement and in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee, the scope of the environmental issues to be covered in an Environmental Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 (as amended); and

 

(b)   agrees that should joint agreement not be reached by the Officers of the three authorities, acting under their delegated authority, then the response to the request for a scoping opinion will be brought to the Joint Committee for its determination.

 

Note: The motion was carried 5 votes in favour to 2 votes against (Councillors Luxford-Vaughan and Sunnucks voted against).