To approve the Pathway to Stewardship report as forming part of the planning guidance for determining planning applications at Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community in respect of stewardship matters.

The Joint Committee considered a report (A.2) which sought its approval of the Pathway to Stewardship as forming part of the planning guidance for determining planning applications at Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community in respect of stewardship matters.

 

Members were reminded that, as part of the partner Councils’ commitment to comprehensively plan for the delivery of the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community (TCBGC), specialist consultants (Community Stewardship Solutions (CSS)) had been commissioned, following a competitive tendering exercise, to prepare guidance on future stewardship requirements at the Garden Community.

 

The Joint Committee recalled that the aim of that commission had been to enable the Councils to be better informed and more prepared for the consideration of stewardship proposals as they came forward through the planning process. Stewardship was an integral part of the planning requirements for the TCBGC, as set out in the adopted Section 1 Local Plan and the Development Plan Document.

 

It was reported that throughout 2024, CSS had undertaken a series of meetings and interviews with local stakeholders and interested parties to gather views on potential community governance solutions at TCBGC. CSS had also been able to draw upon its considerable experience of planning stewardship arrangements at strategic developments and apply it to the TCBGC.

 

Members were advised that the commission had culminated in the Pathway to Stewardship and Placemaking document which was attached to the report (A.2). The document included commentary and bespoke recommendations related to a number of areas that CSS considered to be intrinsic to progressive and effective stewardship arrangements, including accountable governance, financial sustainability and community enablement.

 

The Joint Committee was made aware that the Pathway to Stewardship and Placemaking document, if approved by the Joint Committee, would form part of the partner authorities’ planning guidance that would be applied in the determination of relevant planning applications at TCBGC, particularly in relation to the future Stewardship Strategy to be submitted with the planning application.

 

In respect of the reference to the characteristics of TCBGC in that the development sat across both the Parishes of Ardleigh and Elmstead, as well as an area of unparished land, it was noted that the Pathway document had been finalised prior to Essex being included within the Government’s Priority Programme for Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).  Therefore, any decision to commence a Community Governance Review to explore a change to the existing boundaries of the two Parishes within the Tendring District, would be undertaken at the appropriate time.  The second recommendation of the report (A.2) requested Tendring District Council to give consideration to this in the light of LGR.

 

The Joint Committee had had circulated to it prior to the commencement of the meeting a copy of page 36 of the CSS document “Pathway to Stewardship and Placemaking at Tendring / Colchester Borders Garden Community” which had been inadvertently omitted from the originally published version of that document.

 

The report was introduced by way of a presentation by Christopher Downes, Essex County Council’s Garden Communities Manager. That presentation covered the following:-

 

(1)     Summary of the TCBGC Stewardship work to date;

(2)     The Pathway to Stewardship guidance; and

(3)     Pathway to Stewardship recommendations.

 

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 accordingly invited the following public speakers to come to the table in turn to speak. Their comments are in precis.

 

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

 

·      Latimer actively sought proactive engagement on the estates management and stewardship strategy drafting process to provide useful challenge and support throughout the process so far;

·      Latimer supported the CSS pathway to stewardship and placemaking report and looked forward to progressing the principles established into a comprehensive strategy as part of the planning application documentation.

·      Latimer had appointed the same consultant CSS to assist Latimer thereby ensuring continuity and consistency with the work already commissioned by the Councils.

·      Clarion Housing Group was the largest housing association in the UK and now 125 years old.

·      They would retain all of the affordable housing in the community in perpetuity.

·      Therefore, Latimer supported the recommendation to approve the CSS report.

 

Rachel Fletcher (Clerk to Ardleigh Parish Council)

 

·      Noted and supported the aspirational wish of Crockleford Heath residents to remain part of the Parish of Ardleigh.

·      Hoped that Parish Councils would be valued and consulted in a collaborative and innovative fashion within the mix of local organisations and not merely “talked at”.

·      Would support a full CGR process.

·      Would advocate the retention of the GC residents within the Parish Council’s area as is but perhaps Warded. This would enable new residents of the GC to have their say. Parish Councils worked to enable and build community cohesion and be a voice for their residents. Feared that Clarion might go down a Residents’ Association route for the GC.

·      Did not feel that the Parish Council had been adequately engaged so far in this process.

·      The Parish Council had an opportunity to grow as a result of the GC and to develop and support additional services to its existing residents as well as the new residents arising from the GC. Local Government Reorganisation offered an opportunity to pass down more service provision to parish councils and get economies of scale

·      Parish Councils were democratically elected bodies and therefore should be treated as partners who were engaged and involved rather than treated as consultees.

·      Pointed out that significant Community Funds could come to Ardleigh as a result of the several national infrastructure projects affecting the parish.

 

At the behest of the Chairman, Mr. Hall, a member of the Crockleford Heath and Elmstead Action Group (CEAG) read out the following written statement that had been prepared by Professor Anthony Vickers, the spokesperson for CEAG:-

 

“The spokesperson for the Crockleford Heath and Elmstead Action Group (CEAG) cannot attend this meeting as no notification was sent directly to CEAG, even though they are the only residents group within the GC broad area. We are saddened by this lack of consideration for residents. We have the following statement in relation to this meeting. 

 

1.   Regarding the approval by the Inspector we are aghast that this was granted given the 'cul-de-sac' nature of the A1331. We do not use the word 'link' to great purpose.

 

2. In relation to advice given to this Committee from professional consultants the residents of the Crockleford Heath community reject any notion of their governance being removed from Ardleigh Parish Council. The residents of Crockleford Heath wish to remain part of a 'rural' parish council and do not wish to be included in any new governance body representing the garden community as a whole. if necessary residents will envoke a community governance review, separate from any plans to do so by TDC.”

 

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

 

·      CLG commends the stewardship and placemaking report and the work of the consultant in working with a wide range of organisations and stakeholders, including faith groups, to produce it.

·      Recognised that the report outlines principles under a framework rather than how specific implementation will take place and welcomed the opportunity that this would provide for the involvement of interested community groups from non TCBGC settlements such as those consulted by the Consultant to bring this about by contributing their time and energies volunteering to strengthen community ties.

·      This would enrich and support the fledgling community in its placemaking needs and help them achieve their full potential as a community and as a great place to live.

·      Restated CLG’s continued willingness to support and participate in any stewardship body until such time as it can be fully populated by GC residents.

 

Lisa Hastings, Tendring District Council’s Corporate Director (Law and Governance) & Monitoring Officer, addressed the Joint Committee as follows:-

 

·      The only way forward for a CGR was for a recommendation to be put forward to Tendring District Council (TDC) which was the principal authority for the area to give its consideration as to whether a CGR should commence and if so when and how.

·      There were a number of factors to be taken into account e.g. local government reorganisation (LGR).

·      The recommendation in the report is an administrative requirement to get the recommendation from this Joint Committee to TDC as the principal authority to make a decision on it.

·      Wanted to reassure the Parish Council and CEAG that TDC is due to commence a planned CGR in relation to the unparished areas within the District. This has not been rushed into. Following a decision by Full Council, Officers went away to produce terms of reference of what that CGR could cover. Powers had also been given to one of TDC’s overview and scrutiny committees to oversee the process.

·      Reason for pointing out the above was to point out that there was plenty of scope for engagement in what the terms of reference for any CGR could cover including opposing views.

·      There would be a consultation process and the national guidance on CGRs was to follow the outcome of consultation.

·      There were arguments to say that the CGR should be done pre-LGR and there were also arguments to say that it should be done post LGR by the Shadow Unitary Authority. That would need to be taken into account as well.

 

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

 

Councillor Carlo Guglielmi (Tendring District Council)

 

·      Supported the comments from Ardleigh Parish Council that its area had been the focus of several national strategic infrastructure projects and had their work cut out and therefore needed more of a focus.

·      Recognised that Latimer were champions of stewardships and had seen excellent examples of what they had done elsewhere. Had noted that they were not here for the short-term but for the long ride. Was sure that Latimer would be keen to ensure that whatever strategies came forward with their planning application(s) that they were sound and had been properly consulted upon with Ardleigh Parish Council and with Elmstead Parish Council as well. More engagement and more consultation with those two parish councils would be required going forward.

·      The CSS report was very good and sound and had captured everything that needed to be captured.

·      In relation to the membership figures for a TCBGC Trust Board and the TCB Community Forum he felt that they were too high especially for the beginning of the GC. It would be good to understand the timeframe for this which could perhaps be demonstrated by a flowchart.

·      Also requested Officers to set out in due course a very clear understanding of the charging regime as he did want a scenario of residents moving into the GC and finding out that there were “hidden costs” to their residencies.

 

Councillor Andy Baker (Tendring District Council)

 

·      Queried whether recommendation (a) would need to be amended to take into account the omitted page 36 of the CSS document.

·      Queried also whether recommendation (b) would need to be amended to take into account any successor authority to Tendring District Council (TDC).

 

Lisa Hastings, Tendring District Council’s Corporate Director (Law and Governance) & Monitoring Officer, responded to Councillor Baker as follows:-

 

·      If the Joint Committee approved recommendation (b) then it would be TDC’s responsibility to have that recommendation before its Full Council as soon as possible for that Council to make a decision as to the timing of the CGR having considered the arguments for doing it pre-LGR or post-LGR.

 

Councillor Andrea Luxford-Vaughan (Colchester City Council)

 

·      It’s an impressive document and well overdue.

·      Delighted and reassured that Latimer had now taken on CSS as their consultants on this work moving forward.

·      Regarding CGR her understanding of that was that the existing residents were consulted and whatever their desired outcome was nobody else could contradict that. Grateful that that point had been restated.

·      Pointed out that this report focused entirely on Tendring and not on Colchester. Though aware there were discussions within Colchester as a result of LGR. Many factors to be considered as to whether to proceed with a CGR. Meanwhile, the Parish of Wivenhoe would be left in a “no man’s land” in that though there were no houses in the GC area there was a significant part of the Parish of Wivenhoe that overlapped the Knowledge Gateway. Even though that the University of Essex were putting businesses in that location they were of the view that they did not need to make any Section 106 contributions which she felt needed to be questioned. There had been a big sacrifice to give land to the University therefore there should be a payback to the local communities.

·      Would make that point that if you are building the Knowledge Gateway within the Parish of Wivenhoe then Wivenhoe should see some planning gain from it.

·      Reminded the Joint Committee that there was a statement of common ground between the two councils that the affordable housing would be split between Colchester and Tendring on a 50 – 50 basis and that this must be maintained even after LGR goes ahead.

 

Lisa Hastings, Tendring District Council’s Corporate Director (Law and Governance) & Monitoring Officer, responded to Councillor Luxford-Vaughan as follows:-

 

·      Reminded Members that when this document was produced LGR was not on the table. There was a border between the two Councils and the majority of the land was within the District of Tendring and you could see why the consultants focused on Tendring within their report and recommendations. Also, that part within Colchester’s area is unparished. If LGR does go ahead and both Colchester and Tendring end up within the same Unitary Council, then the Shadow Authority will have the legal ability to initiate a CGR for the whole area and not just focus on Tendring’s part. That would be an advantage of waiting for LGR to take place and the border had disappeared.

 

Councillor Mark Cossens (Tendring District Council)

 

·      Pointed out inconsistencies in how Crockleford Heath was referred to. In the DPD it was described as Crockleford North and South and in the stewardship report it is described as Crockleford Central and South.

·      Referred to his experience as Mayor of Frinton and Walton Town Council. This parish covered the two towns of Frinton and Walton and three villages and trying to lead that parish in its entirety was difficult due to the differing viewpoints on the Town Council.

·      Believed that it would be better to look at a single parish council for the GC area because if we were going to place shape then we would need someone who was going to drive the project forward as otherwise there could be a lot of people doing a lot of talking but who would force the thing forwards.

·      The stewardship document was good but maybe did not take into account human nature and that therefore this could be a time-consuming challenge going forward.

 

Councillor Julie Young (Colchester City Council)

 

·      Naturally we are spending a lot of time puzzling over how the jigsaw of LGR would eventually fit together. Timing would be everything. Indeed, it might be wise to wait until the Shadow Authority was in place. But, regarding Colchester it was parished to the west but to the east e.g. St. Anne’s and St. Johns’ and Greenstead it was not parished even though there was a lot in the stewardship document that related to Salary Brook and the ‘Friends of Salary Brook’.

·      So, how all of that would fit together would be very important.

·      Great that the CLG want to be involved until the GC residents could take on the mantle themselves. But we really have to think about the timing of this and the synergy between any CGR reviews by Tendring and Colchester.

 

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

 

RESOLVED that the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee –

 

(a)   approves the Pathway to Stewardship report (including, for the avoidance of any doubt, the omitted page 36) as planning guidance for future decision making in relation to stewardship and related matters at Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community; and

 

(b)   recommends to Tendring District Council that a Community Governance Review be undertaken, at the appropriate time, to look at the current parish boundaries within the area for the Garden Community and to consider whether there is potential to create a new parish for the Garden Community or un-parish the existing area in readiness for the development of the Garden Community and Local Government Reorganisation.