Pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 12, Council will consider a motion, notice of which has been given by Councillor Bray.

The provisions of Council Procedure Rule 12.5, (Professional Advice of the Council’s Statutory Officers on the Motion) require the Council’s three statutory officers (i.e. Monitoring Officer, Section 151 Officer and Head of Paid Service), once the Motion has been accepted as being valid, to produce a formal Advisory Note detailing any necessary initial professional advice in relation to the implications for the Council of that Motion. That Advisory Note will focus on implications for the Council relating to budgetary, constitutional or legislative requirements or staffing matters.

In this instance, the Council’s Statutory Officers have not yet indicated whether they need to provide any such professional advice and whether therefore an Advisory Note(s) does need to be produced on this occasion.

Council had before it the following motion, notice of which had been given by Councillor Bray pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 12:-

“This Council notes and believes that:-

(i)         the Government is currently undertaking a rewrite of the National Planning Policy Framework;

(ii)        clear indications are that Tendring will be burdened with a new housing supply target of 1043 houses per year, a massive increase from our current requirement of 550 per year. We will be expected to build at the new rate for the full term of the local plan some 15 years. Given that, in the entire history of Tendring District Council, we have never achieved a figure this high in any single year, it is beyond reasonable thinking to believe that we could do so for 15 consecutive years. The target set is quite simply unachievable;

(iii)      in addition, under the new proposed rules, we will be required to maintain a five year housing supply throughout. This will again be almost double our current proved and agreed need.  The Government haschosen to take no account whatever of our local need or requirement when calculating the numbers etc. Many councils will like us not be able to reach their respective targets, meaning that a presumption in favour of development will be forced upon us, rendering our local plan all but useless. In turn this will likely lead to unwanted and unsuitable development across our District, as developers seek to gain planning permission in places we would not normally consider to be in the interests of our current and future residents of our District, whilst we will have no effective means of defence against such applications.

Therefore this Council resolves:-

1.    That the Leader of the Council, Councillor Mark Stephenson, in consultation with the Director (Planning and Communities) and on behalf of this Council and the residents it represents, writes to Angela Rayner M.P. asking that further consideration be given to the current review of the National Policy Planning Framework in light of this Council’s replies to the Government consultation on the same.

2.    That this Council offers its thanks and full support to our planning officers regarding the responses given by them to the recent Government consultation.

3.    That whilst we seek to gain a more favourable outcome for our District, our Officers will continue to do whatever they are able to in trying to reach the position currently expected, in anticipation that our request is ignored or unsuccessful.”

Prior to the commencement of the meeting the Council’s Monitoring Officer had confirmed to Members that the statutory officers did not need to provide any professional advice in relation to this motion and that therefore an Advisory Note pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 12.5 had not needed to be produced.

Councillor Bray formally moved the motion and Councillor Harris formally seconded the motion.

In accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 12.6 Councillor Bray then explained the purpose of the Motion and Council proceeded to debate it.

In addition to Councillor Bray, Councillors Baker, Guglielmi, P B Honeywood, White, M Cossens, Calver, Everett, Scott, Harris, Thompson and M E Stephensonspoke during the debate on this matter.

Councillor Bray’s motion on being put to the vote was declared LOST.