This report seeks agreement from the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community (TCBGC) Joint Committee (“the Joint Committee”) to a Scheme of Delegation setting out the type of planning decisions to be delegated to Officers and those that will remain for consideration by the Joint Committee – having regard to standard practice and the Joint Committee’s terms of reference.

The Joint Committee considered a detailed report that sought its agreement to a Scheme of Delegation setting out the type of planning decisions to be delegated to Officers and those that would remain for consideration by the Joint Committee – having regard to standard practice and the Committee’s Terms of Reference.

 

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 that had so far rested with the Joint Committee.  Those 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 DPD 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.

 

It was reported that there were however planning-related functions of an operational and technical nature that required speedy resolution and which, for most other developments within the respective authorities, were typically delegated to Officers through an agreed Scheme of Delegation.  With the DPD having now been adopted in May/June 2025, the Garden Community project had progressed into the Development Management phase of the planning process involving the consideration and determination of planning applications.

 

In the light of the progression of the programme, and as anticipated in the Joint Committee’s Terms of Reference, a comprehensive Scheme of Delegation to Officers had been prepared for the Committee’s consideration and approval.

 

Members were informed that the committee process represented a very significant investment in scarce capacity and resources by each of the partner authorities and it was therefore critical, given the opportunity cost of that time, that this investment was targeted to have the greatest benefit for the communities that the Councils served. This reflected the need to make the most efficient use of Officer and Member time at the Joint Committee by focusing on the most sensitive and complex applications.

 

The Joint Committee was reminded that, 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.  Nationally, decisions on 96% of applications had been made by officers in Quarter 2 2024 with committees focusing on the largest or most controversial applications, figures consistent with local decision making. Furthermore, all three partner authorities (i.e. Tendring District Council (TDC), Colchester City Council (CCC) and Essex County Council (ECC)) already had established Schemes of Delegation in place for planning matters.

 

For the Garden Community development, it was considered 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 suggested for delegation to Officers.  This would allow the smooth running of Council functions; timely determinations and an efficient turnaround of planning matters aligned with the Government’s statutory targets.

 

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

 

(1)     Introduction and purpose of the report;

(2)     Background;

(3)     Schedule A – matters to be decided by the Joint Committee;

(4)     Schedule B – matters to be delegated to Officers;

(5)     The emerging national scheme of delegation under the auspices of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025;

(6)     Conclusions;

(7)     The Joint Committee’s role in considering planning applications and particularly the related Section 106 legal agreements; and

(8)     The report’s 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.

 

Sir Bob Russell

 

·      point out that there has been no public consultation on this proposed scheme of delegation;

·      public will be consulted on certain planning matters but it won’t then be Members making the decision it will be Officers;

·      Garden Community was sold on the basis of the link road between the A133 and the A120 but that is still wishful thinking in many respects;

·      the RTS is a glorified bus lane;

·      proposals have changed along the western boundary of this development as viewed across Salary Brook valley from Greenstead and Longridge Park – has changed from being nothing visible to at least two alternatives, one being a school and the other being housing;

·      under proposed scheme nothing to stop Officers from approving, for example, five hectares of commercial buildings or houses on top of that hill;

·      would suggest therefore that any proposals affecting the western boundary must come to the Joint Committee for determination;

·      has no confidence or trust.

 

Amy Lester, the Garden Community Planning Manager, responded to Sir Bob Russell’s statement as follows:-

 

·      future GC planning applications will be subject to same standards regarding public consultation as apply to Colchester City Council and Tendring District Council planning applications;

·      if it falls below the threshold for Joint Committee consideration there is the exception tests and Member call-in requirements;

·      with regard to the impact on the views across Salary Brook from Greenstead and Longridge Park that was well considered during the development of the DPD and discussed at length during the examination of the DPD as well;

·      don’t yet have a planning application submitted so don’t know what is being proposed – but have worked closely with the developer in the pre-application process;

·      the DPD was subject to detailed assessments as to the landscape impacts on the views across Salary Brook and that was built into the strategic framework master plan and the overall consideration of the DPD and there are specific policies which look to protect the slopes of Salary Brook;

·      the outline planning permission would be subject to parameter plans and they would include height, massing and scale of the built form across the GC area – would be subject to a very detailed assessment of views both from Greenstead and Longridge across Salary Brook taking into account the existing vegetation which is all protected as part of the DPD;

·      so, there would be control within that initial outline planning application of both the views and the height of buildings across the GC including within the area of concern raised here;

·      any subsequent Reserved Matters application would be governed by that overarching outline permission and its parameter plans and there would be detailed design codes which would also deal with the various neighbourhoods within the GC which would also be approved at the outline planning application stage so the Joint Committee will have a high level of control.

 

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

 

·      the CLG supports this scheme of delegation as it would seem to offer a less bureaucratic and timelier route to achieving the same ends;

·      the planning officers are recognised as experts in their fields and fully committed to the aspirational goals of the garden community.

 

Councillor William Sunnucks (Colchester City Council)

 

·      what assurances can be given that there will be proper democratic oversight of the key decisions relating to infrastructure funding;

·      can see why the scheme of delegation would make sense for planning matters but there are many other matters such as the planning obligations statement;

·      there needs to be a framework for democratic accountability;

·      do the references to the development plan include the Infrastructure Delivery Phasing and Funding Plan (IDPFP);

·      the IDPFP shows extremely large numbers – around £547million in total infrastructure costs including about £300million in cash contributions to off-site infrastructure – but at present not clear who will fund what or how delivery will be secured;

·      will it be the master developer or the plot developers;

·      there is no community infrastructure levy envisaged or a developer’s guide indicating the contributions expected – so not much structure around it yet;

·      hoping to hear that the policy framework around the Section 106 Agreement will be strengthened in conjunction with Latimer and the Joint Committee;

·      any departures from the IDPFP should be subject to the Joint Committee’s approval;

·      not suggesting however that Members get involved in commercial negotiations, merely that a clear framework is put in place which can be subject to proper democratic oversight.

 

Amy Lester, the Garden Community Planning Manager, responded to Councillor Sunnuck’s statement as follows:-

 

·      with regard to the policy framework, the development plan for the GC is the DPD that was adopted in 2025 and the Section 1 Local Plan;

·      the IDPFD was part of the supporting evidence behind the DPD and it is referenced within the DPD that future planning applications must have regard to this documents as well – but it does not form part of the DPD and that is entirely appropriate;

·      the IDPFD is a ‘live’ changing document which needs to respond to development that comes forward at the point that the planning application is submitted;

·      the DPD contains a robust policy framework for future planning obligations to come forward – it identifies the required contributions needed to support the development and mitigate any impact of the development;

·      when the planning application is before us it will be at that time that the development impacts will be assessed and the mitigation that is required;

·      it may be different from what has been previously assessed in the IDP and that is why do not wish to rely on a document such as the IDP that can become outdated over time;

·      at present time the pre-application discussions indicate that all of the IDPFD requirements will be met;

·      when the planning application is submitted that will be robustly evidenced throughout the application documents and assessed by planning officers and presented to the Joint Committee for consideration as a material consideration in the determination of the planning application;

·      may be that at that time some elements of the IDPFD will no longer be required and other elements may now need to be included due to changing circumstances;

·      will expect detailed heads of terms of the Section 106 Agreement to come forward as part of the planning application which will need to be weighed up by the Joint Committee as part of its determination of the application.

 

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

 

Councillor David King (Colchester City Council)

 

·      the proposition here for the Scheme of Delegation feels right as long as call-in is always available and on the understanding that there is a real clarity and awareness and letting Members know what’s in process at any one time – there will be hugely complex discussions and understanding required around the original planning application followed by changes and alterations and follow up applications to consider.

 

Amy Lester, the Garden Community Planning Manager (TDC), responded to Councillor King as follows:-

 

·      agree that the consideration of the planning application will be incredibly complex – it will be the biggest planning application in Essex when it is submitted;

·      will take an immense amount of organisation by both Officers and Joint Committee members to understand the proposal and to reach a balanced and appropriate decision;

·      Officers will provide Members with information throughout that process and guide Members to ensure that Members are fully aware of everything pertinent when they come to determine the application;

·      Officers will follow the agreed Planning Probity Protocol in taking Members through the process.

 

Councillor Andrea Luxford-Vaughan (Colchester City Council)

 

·      residents will have to rely on their Ward Councillor to call-in an application – problematic with issues of political balance, the individual abilities of Members et cetera;

·      Members will need to justify their call-in and therefore Officers can rule it out – will it need all three Council’s Planning Officer to accept the call-in or only one;

·      how will conditions on development be controlled;

·      will there be separate Section 106 legal agreements for each planning application;

·      how will arguments on the viability of individual plots be dealt with – they will take time and cost of sourcing independent viability assessments;

·      would prefer that for every plot a figure is pre-determined in the original Section 106 Agreement and if that can’t be met then development does not take place.

 

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

 

·      there will be an overarching Section 106 with the first hybrid outline planning application which would cover everything and would be with Latimer, the applicant and master developer;

·      it would cover the entire development process – will avoid need for multiple legal agreements individually negotiated on each individual plot which would be unmanageable over time;

·      due to the long development period for the GC there will be review mechanisms built into the Section 106 which will be incredibly complex but will need to be able to respond over time;

·      would not preclude other developments from “slotting in” which may need other Section 106 Agreements;

·      the Joint Committee will be able to impose a whole range of conditions on the development at outline application stage if they were reasonable and appropriate;

·      there would also be the Reserved Matters applications when again reasonable and appropriate conditions could be imposed;

·      the Member Referral Scheme picks up the differing practices of the three Councils – will allow any members of those three Councils to make a referral and call-in an application;

·      requests in the first instance would be submitted to the relevant Officer at that Member’s own Authority;

·      the requirement to give reasons for the call-in request is a standard approach and is reasonable;

·      given the strategic impact of this development its effects will be far-reaching beyond the immediate neighbourhoods of the GC area so allowing any Member across the three authorities to call in is appropriate.

 

Lisa Hastings, Corporate Director (Law and Governance) (TDC) also responded to Councillor Luxford-Vaughan as follows:-

 

·      in asking for reasons the Scheme seeks information as to the potential direct impact on a particular Ward;

·      the Scheme also seeks to protect the relationship between Ward Councillors;

·      will expect a degree of collaboration, co-operation, consensus and practicality of the three Council’s planning officers in making a judgement on the validity of a call-in;

·      whilst not explicit stated in the Scheme all three Councils’ Constitutions will contains sections on Officers exercising delegated powers will do so on certain principles including political awareness, consulting with Members where necessary and recording reasons for their decisions.

 

Councillor Julie Young (Colchester City Council)

 

·      can I have a clarification on Sir Bob Russell’s comments on the western boundary and changes to the views across Salary Brook et cetera.

 

Amy Lester, the Garden Community Planning Manager (TDC), responded to Councillor Young as follows:-

 

·      there has been no encroachment of the developable area onto the Salary Brook slopes – the country park allocation remains as it was set at the adoption of the DPD – a clear line for the protection of those slopes.

 

Councillor Lesley Wagland (Essex County Council)

 

·      refers within the Members’ Referral Scheme to “significantly contrary” which feel is hard to define legally – therefore would advocate relying instead on the tried and tested “materially contrary” – it’s an issue of relevance as well as scale;

·      not clear as to how the impact on Ward test would apply to Essex County Councillors – perhaps change wording to impact on matters pertaining to the relevant authority.

 

Amy Lester, the Garden Community Planning Manager (TDC), responded to Councillor Wagland as follows:-

 

·      in Schedule B this would pick up on those relatively minor applications that would be considered contrary to the adopted policies but are recommended by Officers for approval;

·      no reason why “materially” could not be substituted for “significantly”.

 

Lisa Hastings, Corporate Director (Law and Governance) (TDC) also responded to Councillor Wagland’s points as follows:-

 

·      could consider changing the wording so that ECC Portfolio Holders could call-in rather than Essex County Councillors per se;

·      all policies and procedures and schemes et cetera of the three Councils and this Joint Committee will need to be reviewed when Devolution comes into effect.

 

Councillor Andy Baker (Tendring District Council)

 

·      if the national scheme of planning delegation is brought in and that impacts on this proposed Scheme of Delegation before then presume that this Joint Committee will have to revisit this Scheme;

·      if the Joint Committee wishes to consider itself any specific Reserved Matters application (rather than it falling to Officers) will they need to specifically request that as part of its decision making on the Outline Planning Application.

 

Amy Lester, the Garden Community Planning Manager (TDC), responded to Councillor Baker as follows:-

 

·      yes, the Joint Committee could request that specific elements are referred to the JC for its consideration and determination;

·      a national scheme of delegation would take precedence over the Joint Committee’s scheme of delegation;

·      the scheme before Members tonight has been drafted to be consistent with the direction of travel which the Government has indicated for a national scheme of delegation;

·      some recognition from Government so far that developments of a strategic nature (e.g. new towns, garden communities) could follow a slightly different course than set out within the national scheme.

 

Councillor Andrea Luxford-Vaughan (Colchester City Council)

 

·      how do we ensure that the Section 106 legal agreement is robust enough but also flexible enough to respond to changing circumstances;

·      would advocate that only one Head of Planning (i.e. from Member’s own authority) is necessary to accept / determine validity of a call-in and could not support it remaining as all three.

 

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

 

·      will be challenging to ensure that the Section 106 Agreement is flexible enough to cope with changing circumstances over the 30 – 40 year build out of the GC – will be mechanisms built in to allow that flexibility and robustness to occur as needed such as review mechanisms after certain periods of time; monitor and manage approach for transport obligations which is embedded in the DPD; variations of the Legal Agreement could be made by the Joint Committee as other applications “slot in” or “slot out”.

 

Councillor Carlo Guglielmi (Tendring District Council)

 

·      can you confirm that a Householder planning application will be able to be called in by a Member (as that is not the case at TDC);

·      raise the future existence of this Joint Committee as once the Unitary Authority is set up the number of planning committees will need to be looked at – will also need to consider any Government Guidance issued on this aspect of LGR (e.g. Area Committees)

 

Amy Lester, the Garden Community Planning Manager (TDC), responded to Councillor Guglielmi as follows:-

 

·      under this proposed Scheme any application (including a householder application) could be called in by a Member – this is a result of combining together the three Council’s separate Member Referral Schemes.

 

Lisa Hastings, Corporate Director (Law and Governance) (TDC) also responded to Councillor Guglielmi’s points as follows:-

 

·      agree that Area Committees could be on the horizon again – in previous LGRs some Unitary Authorities have ended up with Area Committees that have covered whole Council area(s) or specific parts of the Council area or for specific developments;

·      so, there are a range of options available;

·      central Government has been impressed with the way that this Joint Committee has worked (reflected in the funding that this area has received) – would be a shame therefore to lose this Joint Committee especially given the long build out of the GC;

·      the Joint Committee is a model that other parts of Essex have started to look at for LGR purposes and Area Committees;

·      Officers will put forward options for the Councils to consider.

 

It was thereupon moved by Councillor Lee Scott, seconded by Councillor Carlo Guglielmi and:-

 

RESOLVED that –

 

(a)     the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee 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 delegates authority to the Corporate Director (Planning and Community) of Tendring District Council, the Head of Planning of Colchester City Council and the Head of Planning and Sustainable Development of Essex County Council for joint agreement those matters as outlined within the appended ‘Scheme of Delegation to Officers’ January 2026 (Appendix 1 to report A.3);

 

(b)     the aforementioned ‘Scheme of Delegation to Officers’ be subject to the amendments put forward by Members at the meeting in relation to the ‘Member Referral Scheme’; and

 

(c)     the Corporate Director (Planning & Community) of Tendring District Council, the Head of Planning of Colchester City Council and the Head of Planning and Sustainable Development of Essex County Council, in consultation with those Council’s Monitoring Officers and the Chairman of the Joint Committee, be authorised to amend the ‘Scheme of Delegation to Officers’ but only in response to national planning policy changes and Local Government Reorganisation.

 

NOTE: Councillor Andrea Luxford-Vaughan required that her vote be recorded in the minutes as having been cast against approval of Councillor Lee Scott’s motion.