The Council’s Public Speaking Scheme for the Planning Policy & Local Plan Committee gives the opportunity for members of the public and other interested parties/stakeholders to speak to the Council’s elected members on that Committee on any specific Officer report to be considered at that public meeting.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Council’s public speaking scheme for the Planning Policy & Local Plan Committee, no member of the public had registered to ask at this meeting a question on the Officer report (A.1).

A resident of Great Bentley, Chris Morris, attended and made an oral statement in relation to report A.1 of the Corporate Director for Planning and Community, and specifically future housing in Great Bentley. His statement touched upon the following matters:-

·      main concern was the impact of the traffic and parking in the centre of the village, near the railway line and primary school;

·      in recent years, in the region of 500 new dwellings had been constructed on various sites around the village, and it was evident that vehicle movement and parking, particularly in the centre and along Plough Road to the north had subsequently increased. 

·      situation around the school was particularly dangerous as the school, Tesco Express, garage, bakery/cafe all had no areas for parking.  In addition, there were two junctions, New Cut and Station Road, which increased the problem;

·      several of the areas being considered were further from the village centre - in particular, the proposed extension to the Taylor Wimpey site and the proposed Hills residential site north of Weeley Road.  Even though those two sites would have to provide footpaths, many residents would, inevitably, drive to the school, shops, station, etc. due to the distance.   The sites south of the village would, however, result in less traffic as they were within comfortable walking distance of those facilities;

·      understood that the Parish Council had suggested the proposed sites on the northern side of the village were the preferred option, but this was based on the opinion of a handful of people who had attended the recent Parish Council meeting and was not, he felt, representative of the village; and

·      had recently lodged an objection to planning application 25/01066/OUT for up to 80 houses on the south of Weeley Road and, as part of that, had submitted a petition from local residents who all had concerns about the potential hazard with the excessive traffic problem that already existed.

Prior to the commencement of the meeting a resident of Brightlingsea, Mat Court, had submitted the following written statement, which had been circulated by the Democratic Services Manager to the members of the Committee:-

“My name is Mat Court. I am a Brightlingsea resident and former town councillor. I am submitting this statement to ensure my comments are formally recorded at this stage of the Local Plan process.

I appreciate that this meeting is not about confirming or removing site allocations, but about progressing the draft plan towards consultation. However, I believe it is important that concerns about specific sites are clearly placed on the record now, particularly where the Council’s own evidence identifies significant constraints.

I want to focus on site SAH4 in Brightlingsea, the proposed allocation of approximately 300 homes on land at the northern end of Samsons Road, to the east of the road.

Having read the agenda papers and supporting reports, my concern is that SAH4 is one of the most constrained sites in the draft plan, and that this is acknowledged repeatedly in the Council’s own documentation. It would also be one of the most controversial allocations and is likely to cause significant upset in the town affected.

The report notes, in summary, that:

• It already takes around 30 minutes to exit Brightlingsea at peak times, and this would inevitably worsen
• Parts of the site fall within Flood Risk Zone 3, where development is discouraged unless robust mitigation is provided
• The site is 1.3 to 1.4 km from the school, and further from the town centre and GP services, meaning residents would be reliant on car travel, therefore increasing in town traffic and already stretch parking
• The site is distant from services despite being proposed at scale
• Biodiversity Net Gain may be difficult to achieve given the proposed dwelling yield
• Development would need to be undertaken “sensitively” due to the physical and environmental context of this part of the town

Taken together, this does not describe a straightforward or low risk allocation.

In parallel, information released through Environmental Information requests I have done shows:

• Regular storm overflow activity within the Brightlingsea wastewater network
• Confirmed sewage pollution incidents in recent years linked to infrastructure capacity or failure

I am not presenting myself as a technical expert, and I am not suggesting the system is currently failing. However, this evidence does suggest limited headroom, and it raises a legitimate question about whether an additional 300 dwellings can be accommodated without major infrastructure upgrades.

Crucially, the inclusion of SAH4 is not required for the Local Plan to meet its housing numbers.

Based on the figures presented by the Council:

• Removing SAH4 would still leave Tendring exceeding its minimum housing requirement
• The Plan would still remain considerably above the required 5 percent buffer
• The overall soundness of the Plan would not be undermined in numerical terms

Given this, it is reasonable to ask why one of the most constrained and controversial sites remains included when it is not necessary to achieve compliance.

I am not opposed to growth or new homes in principle. However, growth needs to be deliverable, infrastructure led, and appropriate to the location. In my view, SAH4 does not currently meet that test.

I would therefore ask that, as the Plan progresses to consultation, the Council gives serious consideration to whether SAH4 should remain in the draft at all, or whether its removal would result in a stronger and more defensible Local Plan overall.

Thank you for placing this statement on the record.”

The Chairman requested Officers to treat Mr. Court’s written statement as a response to the forthcoming public consultation.