To seek the Joint Committee’s recommendation that the TCBGC Development Plan Document, with specific modifications, is formally adopted by Tendring District Council and Colchester City Council, following receipt of the Planning Inspector’s final examination report.

The Joint Committee considered a detailed report (A.1) that sought the Joint Committee’s recommendation that the Tendring / Colchester Borders Garden Community (TCBGC) Development Plan Document (DPD), with specific modifications, be formally adopted by Tendring District Council and Colchester City Council (“the Councils”). This followed receipt of the Planning Inspector’s final examination report.

 

It was reported that, following examination hearings in May 2024, and consultation on the recommended Modifications in September/October 2024, the Planning Inspector had issued his Final Report (Appendix 1) on the soundness and legal compliance of the DPD.  With the incorporation of the Inspector’s final set of Main Modifications (Appendix 2), the DPD had been found to be sound and legally compliant.  This conclusion to the examination now gave the Councils the ability and authority to proceed to formally adopt the Plan.

 

It was believed that the adoption of the DPD would provide an up to date, robust and sustainable basis for guiding future growth and development within the Garden Community – with future planning applications being considered and determined, by the Joint Committee, against the policies and proposals within the DPD in decision-making.

 

The Joint Committee was advised that the modifications required by the Inspector did not depart substantially from those that had been reported to the Joint Committee on 5th September 2024 and subsequently published for consultation. The Inspector had however highlighted four Main Modifications as being of particular significance within the summary of his report, those being:-

 

•    Amending GC Policy 1 to clarify that should the provision of the Park and Choose facility be located south of the A133 it should not prejudice the full and comprehensive expansion needs of the University of Essex (UoE) (MM11);

•    Amending GC Policy 2 to ensure that the minimum requirement of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) was met across the masterplan area as required by current legislation (MM90);

•    Amending GC Policy 7 to ensure that the DPD carried forward the requirements of the North Essex Authorities’ Shared Strategic Section 1 Plan 2021 (NEASSS1P) to secure funding and delivery of the Rapid Transit System (MM60); and

•    Removing reference to a potential future Community Infrastructure Levy (‘CIL’) charging schedule, which would be subject to a separate independent examination (MM91).

 

In addition, it was reported that four proposed Modifications that had been the subject of consultation, had been removed by the Inspector from his final Main Modifications namely MM14 to MM17 which related to amendments to the DPD Policies Map.  Those had been removed as the Policies Map was not defined in statute as a Development Plan Document and therefore the Inspector did not have the power to recommend Main Modifications to it.  Notwithstanding this, those changes were required to correct typographical errors and ensure that the relevant policies were effective, and the Inspector had noted the need to implement those changes.  The Policies Map would therefore still be updated accordingly to reflect the changes that had been published for consultation.

 

Members were informed that except for the above noted removal of MM14 - MM17 from the recommended Modifications relating to the Policies Map, all other Main Modifications recommended by the Inspector had remained consistent with those published for consultation. The Main Modifications ensured that the plan was positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.  The DPD had therefore been modified to reflect the Inspector’s Main Modifications, and the Joint Committee was asked to recommend to Full Council at Tendring District Council and Colchester City Council its formal adoption.

 

The report was introduced by way of a presentation given by Amy Lester, the Garden Community Planning Manager. That presentation covered the following:-

 

(1)     Introduction and purpose of the report;

(2)     Inspector’s Main Modifications;

(3)     The four principal highlighted modifications;

(4)     Importance of Adoption;

(5)     Risks of delay or non-adoption;

(6)     Key milestones and next steps; and

(7)     The Officers’ 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)

 

·      Was speaking in favour of the DPD and urged Members to support the recommendation before them.

·      Latimer was supportive of the DPD and agreed that it provided sound and robust policies for this nationally important project.

·      Latimer’s masterplan follows the principles of the DPD and the spatial framework outlined.

·      Latimer was currently engaged in the final pre-submission round of public engagement which was intended to demonstrate how the proposals had responded to previous rounds of engagement whilst starting to give more details on the first homes, employment spaces, community buildings and early open space.

·      This was a key milestone. Latimer expected to submit the hybrid planning application in the summer and once the DPD was adopted they would continue to work with Officers and Members in a constructive and engaged manner to ensure that the application was in accordance with the DPD and the public’s expectations of such a critical project.

 

Rik Andrew

 

·      Wanted to raise two key issues which arose from the Inspector’s report that needed to be addressed.

·      Firstly, the Link Road which was an essential prerequisite of this development. Its main purpose was to relieve westbound congestion on the A133 as most GC commuters would travel west. The GC commuters had to be able to exit westbound on the A120 in the critical morning peak. The afternoon peak was not so critical.

·      Secondly, the University as noted by the Inspector did have ample space for expansion within the existing site which could be seen by anyone who took a upper deck bus ride through the campus. The sports centre and any other required buildings could be accommodated on the large, mainly empty surface level car parks especially in the area of the Knowledge Gateway.

·      However, the Inspector had failed to note that university expansion within the UK was a thing of the past. Universities all over the UK had closed courses and reduced staff as a result of UK students being unable to afford and a decline in overseas students due to difficulties in being able to bring their families with them.

·      Some UK Universities were therefore being innovative and flexible and looking to provide new facilities in places such as India.

·      Therefore, all references to university expansion should be deleted and this development plan should be solely concerned with this garden community.

·      The point was that 2019 assumptions no longer applied in 2025.

·      ECC Highways had proven to be inflexible when told that it could not have £100million to build a mile long road. They had not been prepared to consider flexible, less costly alternatives but had stuck rigidly to their original proposal.

·      Believed that there was an alternative, cheaper option proposed by the CLG. It would allow westbound traffic to exit via the A120 in phase one in the critical morning peak simply by opening two of the slip roads. No flyover or expensive earthworks. This would relieve the chronic congestion on the A133 in the morning peak rather than exacerbating it.

·      A responsible project manager would welcome that someone had come up with a reasonable, cost-effective affordable alternative to the original very expensive plan.

·      Further CLG’s plan would be compatible with the long-term design. It would implement only those components that are actually needed in the short term.

·      The next step is to conclude a transport assessment which should seriously consider this alternative proposal. The assessment should be carried out by truly independent experts in this field and not by ECC Highways or Ringway Jacobs.

 

Manda O’Connell (Chair, TCBGC Community Liaison Group

 

·      Supported the adoption of the DPD but must have the full link road in place to meet all of the benefits and aspirational goals of the GC as was envisaged by the award of the original Housing Infrastructure grant by Homes England.

·      Fully support the aspirational goals of active travel and employment targets within the GC but without a road link to the north eastern corner adjacent to the A120 which is designated for a business park and employment then this target is already defeated.

·      Additionally, building only part of the link road would create a cul-de-sac which would adversely affect selling the GC houses when the A133 into Colchester is and is likely to remain severely congested and could deteriorate further despite the planned RTS. No westbound exit onto the A120 would mean GC commuters would not be able to travel easily to Ipswich, Colchester North Station, London, Stansted Airport and the logistics hub at Harwich.

·      Welcomed the efforts of Sir Bernard Jenkin MP and Pam Cox MP to engage with Homes England and the debate secured with Housing Ministers to secure the funding shortfall for the full link road.

·      Was aware that ECC had been invited to put in a funding application but was unaware of its progress.

·      The full link road had to be in place prior to first building of houses.

·      This would enable the full benefits of the GC to come into play from the start. Otherwise, this would spoil an opportunity to create a flagship development.

 

Councillor William Sunnucks (Colchester City Council)

 

·      Was basically supportive of the GC but had some concerns around the DPD.

·      Concerned that Latimer was of the assumption that they would not be expected to fund the link road until year 15 rather than from year one which had been a staple of all the appraisal e.g. the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. This needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

·      The link road appraisals needed to be realistically re-examined with a view to implementation on a phased basis and this needed to happen sooner rather than later.

 

Jonathan Schifferes, Head of Housing Growth and Garden Communities (Essex County Council) responded to the public statements as follows:-

 

·      In the DPD there is a safeguard around the way in which the planning application will be determined. Policy GC7 – before any planning permission is granted for any element of the GC the full delivery of the A120 – A133 link road must have both secured planning consent and a commitment to full funding must be demonstrated at the point of determining the GC planning application. That policy was altered and strengthened during the examination process and policy development over the last twelve months.

·      We do have the benefit of a link road scheme that has full planning permission granted in 2021. There is also approval to deliver that link road scheme in phases.

·      On the A133 the junction for the link road scheme and two other junctions for future phases of the GC are under construction under contract between the County Council and Octavious funded from the secured HIF monies. The HIF monies will also fund the RTS in three sections across Colchester.

·      The planning permission also provides for an “all directions” ‘dumbbell style’ junction at the north end of the A1331 (the link road) with the A120. Officers remain of the strong view that this was the best infrastructure for the long-term in that area especially in the light of Section 1 of the Local Plan requirements to bring forward a development in the form of a garden community.

·      Remain open and interested in third party ideas and concepts and investment in time and technical effort in any A120 junction that would avoid unnecessary or overblown specification or costs. The councils, Homes England and Latimer would be interested in any cost-efficient scheme.

·      Must be noted that the A120 itself is part of the national strategic road network and therefore is a National Highways asset and not an ECC Highways asset. National Highways are protective and have high standards regarding any alteration of their network especially around safety and congestion that would factor into the proposed ‘dumbbell’ junction.

·      Nothing to preclude any party from seeking planning permission for a smaller, cheaper scheme. However, Officers remain of the view that the “dumbbell” connection would be the best option for the long-term interests of the GC development.

·      ECC has been asked by Government to provide an information pack around what Phase 2 needs and what would it do for the Government and locality? How much would it cost? How quickly would it be delivered? That work remains ongoing to make it as robust and with technical analysis in support as possible in order to make the best possible pitch to the Government for the further funding to support the delivery of the full link road as soon as possible.

 

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

 

Councillor Andrea Luxford-Vaughan (CCC)

 

·      The provision of a full link road and the RTS before any house building was a pre-condition of a sustainable GC development not an aspiration and Section 1 of the Local Plan stipulated that.

·      The DPD had been improved in its level of detail and the policy in general through the post-consultation process.

·      Personally, had 18 points of concern around the DPD which included:-

·      MM37 – contradicted Section 1 of the Local Plan and the principle of soundness in that there would be a socio-economic benefit for the community and the local area in that it promised 30 acres of employment land. Clear from the consultations that Latimer had carried out that this provision would not be part of Latimer’s hybrid planning application which covered the entire site and therefore there would be no such socio-economic benefit forthcoming.

·      MM51 and MM64 offered a “get out” clause in relation to the provision of a full link road by the provision of a further traffic assessment. This was alarming.

·      Shared others’ concerns that Latimer believed it could wait for 4,000 homes and 15 years before it needed to fund the link road. That could be 2043.

·      The A133 was already at gridlock now.

·      The Infrastructure and Funding Plan required the link road to be provided in full in phase one. So why would a condition be put in that could change that? This was the public’s expectation i.e. the link road in place before the housing was built.

·      Left in a dilemma – wants to support the DPD if it enabled this joint committee to get on with its job at hand but feels that too much is being “kicked down the road”.

·      No guarantee that Government would provide the extra funding.

·      Noted Latimer’s admission that it would cost three times what was in their viability assessment which meant it was unviable for them to do it.

·      Concerned too if construction traffic was not required to come off the A120.

 

Amy Lester, the Garden Community Planning Manager (TDC), responded to Councillor Luxford-Vaughan’s statement as follows:-

 

·      MM64 is a direct carry across from Section 1 of the Local Plan i.e. Policy SP6. The link road must be fully funded but it does not say that it had to have been constructed.

·      The MoU and the IDP assumes funding coming forward within the first phase which is a period of seven years. It is subject to further evidence and further viability work.

·      The MoU with Latimer states that phase two will be provided “as soon as practically and financially viable to do so”. This will also be subject to further viability work as to precise timescales and trigger points which will be covered by the Heads of Terms of the Section 106 Agreement and that detail will come forward as part of the planning application.

 

Councillor Carlo Guglielmi (Tendring District Council)

 

·      Concerned that Members were still challenging and arguing with the Inspector’s decision even after the due process of the Inquiry. All of the arguments put forward tonight were gone through at the Inquiry. This was not the purpose of this meeting.

·      Congratulated Officers for their sterling work in getting the DPD finally to the point where it had the blessing of a Planning Inspector. It had been a 14-year process to get to this point.

·      The four main modifications to the plan would ensure that the document was positively prepared, justified and effective and consistent with national planning policies especially when housing growth was one of the main priorities of the current Government

·      Despite others’ doubts and disagreements over the Inspector’s decision, this was a momentous occasion – the Joint Committee could now look forward to getting into the details of the actual housing and landscaping and solar panels on roofs et cetera once the planning application was submitted.

·      We have a sound plan to work with and excellent Officers to guide us through the process and Latimer, the development arm of the Clarion Group, the largest and most experienced provider of affordable housing in the UK we can progress to the next stage of the project.

·      There would be time for such arguments when the planning application was considered for example around the link road.

·      There would be challenges ahead e.g. around the provision of health facilities.

·      If the Government was serious about housing provision, then it would have to fund the link road shortfall.

·      The application would be accompanied by a health strategy which was being worked on.

 

The Chairman (Councillor King) responded to the debate so far as follows:-

 

·      Have to accept that the challenge and debate won’t stop even though we have reached a really good place. We could all look back at previous Inspector’s decisions and the reality is that we are on a long and bumpy road and that we are not yet where we would have to get to. Our collective signals had to indicate both to the Government and to Latimer that for this project to be successful the viability has to be restored i.e. the link road has to be delivered. So does not want to go around again what has been said but it had to be said.

 

Councillor Andy Baker (Tendring District Council)

 

·      Believed that Members have strayed away from what they needed to be deciding at this meeting. Understood the concerns raised about the link road and certain of the modifications but it had to be realised that the Inspector has examined this and had stated that these were the modifications that were required. They went out to consultation they went back to the Inspector, and he has stated that the DPD is sound and can be adopted.

·      That was a milestone. Echoed the comments about the Officers who had worked very hard to get the project to this point and there was much more still to come.

 

Councillor Julie Young (Colchester City Council)

 

·      Thanked Members and Officers for their hard work over a long period of time to get the GC to this point in the process.

·      Thanked Manda O’Connell and the CLG for their practical approach to this project as had similarly the Ward Members for Greenstead.

·      Recognised the need for extra housing given the current levels of homelessness in Colchester.

·      Had borne in mind local government reorganisation and the “call for sites” in Colchester for the revised Local Plan process.

·      Had been lobbied about Bromley Road which factored into the argument around the link road. So, if were to have 2,000 houses in the St. John’s area that would heavily affect Bromley Road which would become critical bearing in mind the existing Gladman development that Tendring District Council had refused and had been won on appeal.

·      So, as well as looking at this GC project we also had to have an eye on developments with the revised Local Plan process for both Colchester and Tendring.

·      Felt that this was a fantastic document notwithstanding that the link road was still not finalised.

·      Absolutely demonstrates how planning should be carried out i.e. not piecemeal but large scale and with the infrastructure provided.

·      Believed that Latimer would work in partnership with the Councils to create a best possible development.

·      The Councils had a framework to judge the planning applications as they came forward.

·      Happy to support the DPD which had been improved as the process went along and the critical voices had helped to shape the final project.

·      This was an accelerator site so if the Government was ambitious about growth and development then it should enable this development to come forward so hoped that negotiations with the Government were successful as the link road had to be completed and was pleased that there had been some strengthening of the wording in the DPD as a result of the modifications put forward by the Inspector.

 

Councillor Lee Scott (Essex County Council)

 

·      The protections for the planning stage were in place but was not the focus of tonight’s decision.

·      Believed that the Government Spending Review in June would see the decision made on the funding shortfall for the link road.

·      There would be many trails and tribulations ahead but tonight was about adopting the DPD which had been found to be sound.

 

Councillor David King (Colchester City Council)

 

·      This DPD was a result of fantastic and difficult work and set a standard that all could take pride in.

·      The strengthening of the DPD was the result of the reality of working with the Inspector and not letting him carry out his work in isolation.

·      There was a long way to go but real progress had now been made.

 

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

 

RESOLVED that the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee –

 

a)       notes the outcome of the examination of the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD), as set out within the Inspector’s final report (attached as Appendix 1), and the final schedule of Main Modifications (attached as Appendix 2) and notes to the conclusion that the DPD, with the Main Modifications, is legally compliant, meets the Government’s tests of soundness and can proceed to formal adoption; and

 

b)       formally recommends to both Tendring District Council’s and Colchester City Council’s respective Full Councils that the modified version of the Development Plan Document (DPD) and the accompanying Policies Map, as attached at Appendix 3 and Appendix 4 to this report (A.1), be formally adopted.