To provide the Planning Policy and Local Plan Committee with a broad overview of the level and nature of responses received from residents and other stakeholders to the public consultation on the Local Plan: Regulation 18 Preferred Options Draft, carried out in February and March 2026.

 

As well as providing commentary on the notable issues raised through formal representations on the Draft Local Plan, this report also reflects some of the general feedback from various engagement events held or attended by Officers, as well as notable messages and themes picked up from comments circulating on social media and the local press.

 

The report then provides an initial indication of what Officers consider to be the main matters that are likely to require particular attention, additional work or potential changes in moving forward in the preparation of the next version of the Plan – the Regulation 19 Submission Version.

The Chairman (Councillor Guglielmi) commended Officers for how they engaged with the public during the 6 week consultation, with 5 drop-in sessions throughout the District and with a wealth of Officers on-hand who were there to answer questions and clarifying points from the hundreds of attendees and for the way Officers engaged with Parish and Town Councils across the District.

 

The Committee considered a comprehensive report of the Corporate Director (Planning & Community) (A.1) which provided it with a broad overview of the level and nature of responses received from residents and other stakeholders to the public consultation on the Local Plan: Regulation 18 Preferred Options Draft, carried out in February and March 2026.

 

As well as providing commentary on the notable issues raised through formal representations on the Draft Local Plan, that report also reflected some of the general feedback from various engagement events held or attended by Officers, as well as notable messages and themes picked up from comments circulating on social media and the local press.

 

The report then provided an initial indication of what Officers considered to be the main matters that were likely to require particular attention, additional work or potential changes in moving forward in the preparation of the next version of the Plan – the Regulation 19 Submission Version.

 

Members recalled that the Tendring District Local Plan: Preferred Options Draft had been published for six weeks consultation starting Monday 9 February and ending Monday 23 March 2026. During that consultation period, the Council had invited residents and other stakeholders to make formal representations on the policies and proposals in the Draft Local Plan knowing that there would likely be a significant level of objection, particularly from residents, to the considerable amount of additional housing development now having to be planned for across different parts of the District to comply with the Government’s challenging new mandatory housebuilding targets which had resulted in a near doubling of previous requirements.

 

As part of the consultation, Officers had held five public drop-in exhibitions across the District and had attended several public meetings organised by Town and Parish Councils or Ward Councillors as well as attending meetings with Town and Parish Councillors, both in public and private. Through those events and meetings, it was estimated that Officers had met and spoken to around seven hundred people; and whilst not everyone that attended an event or meeting would have necessarily submitted a written representation, Officers had noted key themes of discussion and had also been able to follow some of the comments that had circulated on social media platforms to gain a rounded view of the key issues of public interest and concern.

 

Members were aware that, under the planning regulations, Councils were required to take responses to the consultation into account in drawing up the final Submission Draft version of the Local Plan; and Officers had currently estimated that the Council had received duly-made representations from just over 620 individuals or organisations raising a variety of concerns, objections or suggestions across the range of policies and proposals in Draft Local Plan.

 

It was reported that the representations were currently still in the process of being thoroughly read, processed, grouped and summarised with responses already starting to be considered and drafted by Officers. But even from initial analysis, there were obvious notable themes that warranted early reporting to the Committee as they revealed what were likely to be the main matters for consideration as the Council progressed work on the next version of the Plan over the coming weeks.

 

Response from residents and communities

 

General concerns about growth

 

As anticipated, most comments and objections from residents and communities had related to the Draft Local Plan’s proposals for housing and mixed-use development. They had raised a variety of serious concerns about the impact of additional development – both generally across the District and in respect of certain site or location-specific proposals. Many of the concerns had been already acknowledged and shared by Councillors and Officers and reflected a number of reasons why this Council had consistently objected to the Government’s approach of imposing seemingly unrealistic top-down mandatory housebuilding targets on locations like Tendring without taking into account the sensitivity, fragility and limitations of local geography, economics, infrastructure and the natural environment. 

 

The Committee was informed that most objections to the housing growth proposed in the Draft Local Plan fell broadly into one or more of the following themes that applied in respect of most, if not all, of the Plan’s proposals for housing development in all parts of the District:

 

• Inadequacy of transport and utilities infrastructure: Concerns about deficiencies in transport and utilities infrastructure (particularly water and sewerage) to cope with the scale of proposed housing growth and the potential for increases in traffic, blocked sewers and surface water flooding – with serious scepticism expressed by many at the realistic likelihood of achieving ‘modal-shift’ (i.e. more people in the future walking, cycling and using public transport as an alternative to private cars).

 

• Inadequacy of community infrastructure: Concerns about the impacts of additional housing development and population growth on health, education and other community infrastructure – particularly given current challenges faced by the NHS, GP surgeries and dentists in meeting the demands of an ageing population; and the significant variation in the capacity of schools in different parts of the District.

 

• Environmental impact: Significant worries about the impact of the additional development on rural landscapes, sensitive wildlife habitats, the character and feel of the District and the setting of historic buildings and structures - particularly given that the overwhelming majority of homes would need to be built on agricultural greenfield land.

 

• Need: Questions over the actual need for the additional housing or employment land growth and suggestions that the District was already accommodating more than enough development through the circa 10,700 homes that were already in the pipeline for the next 17 years from proposals in the Council’s existing Local Plan and developments already under construction or with planning permission.

 

• Realistic deliverability: Questions over whether the assumptions around delivery were over-ambitious and if the level of development proposed was realistically achievable particularly for the larger Garden Village proposals, given the various complex factors that influenced housing delivery such as the general stability of the national economy, the state of the housing market and the availability of materials and labour.

 

• Matching housing and jobs growth: Some concern about a potential mismatch between the growth in housing and growth in jobs, acknowledging that whilst housing and employment growth do go hand in hand, Tendring had long-standing challenges around unemployment and deprivation in some locations.

 

• Migration and affordability: Questions over whether new homes would primarily attract in-migration to the District from other parts of the country rather than meeting the specific needs of local families and their children for more affordable accommodation, acknowledging that much of the demand for housing in Tendring had historically been driven by migration, often from London and elsewhere in Essex. 

 

• Loss of agricultural greenfield land: Concern over the significant loss of greenfield agricultural land to development that would result from the scale of development proposed and its impact on future food production given that there was a very limited supply of previously developed brownfield land in Tendring and so the overwhelming majority of new development was proposed for greenfield sites – many of which were classified as best and most versatile (higher grade) agricultural land.

 

• Impact on local character: Concern that the number and scale of developments would erode the special character of the District and its unique appeal, especially in the rural areas affected by Garden Village proposals, but also for those communities accommodating a number of medium-scale developments on the edges of their towns and villages.

 

• Criticism of recent developments: Criticisms over the impacts of recent development in terms of quality, lack of infrastructure at the right time and increases in traffic – and a fear that such issues would only continue or worsen with the additional developments now required.

 

• Distribution and proportions of development: Arguments over whether certain developments were disproportionate in housing numbers and land coverage to the existing towns, villages or hamlets to which they related along with varying suggestions from residents as to how the development could be distributed differently to be lesser, or further away from the areas in which they lived.

 

Officers felt that those were all reasonable and understandable areas of concern, but because there was no longer any mechanism under current Government planning policy to argue for a lower housebuilding target, the Council would need to respond as best as it could knowing that there would be a limit to how far the Council could realistically amend the Local Plan whilst still ensuring the Plan was sound and compliant with national policy.

 

Unsurprisingly, a number of residents both in written representations and comments made at exhibitions and public meetings had suggested that the Council should ignore the Government’s requirements to plan for additional housing and stick with the policies and proposals in the Council’s existing adopted Local Plan – potentially in anticipation of a possible future change in Government (and policy) at the next General Election.

 

However, Councillors were aware of the Council’s statutory duties in respect of planning and Local Plan preparation and recalled, from previous experience, the serious implications of having an out-of-date Local Plan, being unable to maintain a five-year housing supply and having decisions on planning applications for major housing developments overturned by Planning Inspectors on appeal in a piecemeal and uncoordinated manner. It was noted that the Council was already in receipt of a growing number of major planning applications for housing, some of which were contrary to both the adopted and emerging Local Plan, and which had clearly been submitted in response to the change in Government policy and the Council’s vulnerability in respect of its five-year housing supply position.

 

Site/location-specific objections

 

Many representations of objection from residents and communities had been aimed at specific site or location-specific proposals in the Draft Local Plan affecting their neighbourhood or area. Although it was the content and the validity of any material planning considerations raised in representations that could bring the soundness of a Local Plan into question, as opposed to the number, volume or tone of responses, there were some notable proposals and policies that had attracted a particularly notable level of objection. The following highlighted the main proposals and policies that had received the highest number of objections, representing around 70% of the total number of respondents:

 

1)    New Policy SAH4: Development at Land East of Church Road, Brightlingsea – an estimated (at this time) 190 individual representations of objection (including objections from Brightlingsea Town Council) and a petition signed by 20 residents against the proposed development of 300 homes north of the town.

 

2)    New Policy SAH2: Development north of Thorpe Road, Kirby Cross – Approximately 50 representations of objection. A petition signed by 511 residents had been received, objecting to the cumulative growth in Frinton, Walton, Kirby Cross and Kirby-le-Soken.

 

3)    New Policy SAH3: Development of Land off Arthur Ransome Way, Walton – In the region of 35 representations of objection and a petition signed by 382 residents against the 200 home allocation.  

 

4)    New Policy SAMU8: Hare Green Garden Village – around 35 representations of objection (including objections from surrounding Parish Councils) to the proposed broad location for a potential long-term new settlement of around 4,500 homes. 

 

5)    New Policy SAMU9: Horsley Cross Garden Village – 31 representations of objection (including objections from surrounding Parish Councils) to the proposed broad location for a further potential long-term settlement of up to 6,000 homes.

 

6)    Allocation MSA8: Land adjacent Village Hall, Harwich Road, Beaumont – 24 objections to the proposal for 20 homes within this rural village.

 

7)    Allocation MSA24: Land east of Bentley Road, Weeley Heath – 23 objections to the proposal for 60 homes within this settlement.

 

8)    Allocation MSA28: Land north of Rectory Road, Wrabness – 19 objections to the proposal for 30 homes within this settlement.

 

Response from Town and Parish Councils

 

With most parts of the District affected by one or more proposals in the Draft Local Plan, all Town and Parish Councils had been actively engaged in the plan-making process and Officers had sought to keep them updated throughout the different stages of the project in inviting their views both in the run up to, and following, key decisions. With this potentially being the last Local Plan ever produced by Tendring District Council, Officers had been keen to take on board constructive suggestions from the Town and Parish Councils wherever practical and possible – drawing upon their extensive local knowledge. 

 

In total, 17 of Tendring’s 27 Town and Parish Councils had made formal representations in response to the Preferred Options consultation.

 

Understandably, many of the Town and Parish Councils in representing the views of residents in their communities, had highlighted a range of concerns about growth in Tendring overall and the impact of development on specific sites in their areas – but with a general understanding of the difficult task faced by this Tendring District Council in preparing a Local Plan and having to address the Government’s mandatory housebuilding requirements.

 

Some of the Councils had been very proactive in publicising the consultation and encouraging residents to respond and a number had put forward practical suggestions for how the Plan could be improved to take into account local issues and concerns. The responses from Brightlingsea Town Council and Bradfield Parish Council had been notably constructive in that whilst putting forward well-reasoned objections to the developments proposed for in their areas, they had offered alternative options for consideration. Councillors also recalled the constructive input of Great Bentley Parish Council and Thorpe le Soken Parish Council in requesting changes to the Local Plan at previous meetings of the Committee.

 

Response from technical stakeholders

 

Whilst it had been always anticipated that most representations and objections would be submitted by residents and communities, it was often the comments from technical stakeholders such as Government departments, utility providers and partner authorities that revealed potential weaknesses in the technical soundness of Local Plans. As a general principle, it was therefore good practice to follow the advice of those bodies in either carrying out additional work or making revisions to the Local Plan, unless there was good reason not to do so.

 

Given the range of issues raised by residents, communities and Town and Parish Councils around transport, health, the environment and infrastructure in general, the responses submitted by the technical stakeholders would be of particular public interest. With that in mind, Officers had specifically attached full copies of the technical stakeholders’ representations as appendices to the report (A.1). 

 

In summary, none of the responses from technical stakeholders had suggested that the Council had produced an unsound Local Plan and most were generally supportive of the approach the Council had taken albeit offering a variety of practical suggestions for strengthening certain policies. Some had recommended that additional evidence-base work be undertaken to inform final decisions on the Local Plan and some had offered information and advice on a number of site proposals in the Plan. 

 

Of particular note, Essex County Council (ECC) and National Highways were working closely with Officers of the Council on the transport modelling work for the Local Plan; and whilst supportive of the Council’s approach in principle, had reserved their judgement on the practical feasibility and deliverability of the large Garden Villages at Hare Green and Horsley Cross until the next phase of technical transport modelling was completed. Whilst very supportive of the Local Plan overall, offering a number of constructive suggestions for how the wording of policies could be improved, ECC had objected to the amount of development proposed at Thorpe le Soken on education capacity grounds – which might therefore require revisions to the proposed allocations in the Plan.

 

Natural England and the Essex Wildlife Trust had provided positive advice on the environmental policies in the Local Plan and the next phase of work that needed to be carried out on the Habitat Regulations Assessment. They had advised on ‘Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace’ (SANGS) requirements for some of the larger developments in the Plan and had raised the ecological importance of ‘functionally linked land’ as a matter to be addressed more strongly in the Plan; i.e. areas of undeveloped land that, whilst not part of a designated wildlife site, were located nearby and were crucial for the ecological or behavioural needs of the species for which those sites were designated.  

 

Natural England had supported the Garden Village approach in directing longer-term development away from the District’s more ecologically sensitive coastal areas. The Wildlife Trust had suggested that the Local Plan could be strengthened in its approach to supporting the delivery of the Essex Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS). The Wildlife Trust had, however, formally objected to the proposed development of 200 homes on land in Walton-on-the-Naze (Site SAH2) over ecological concerns about functionally linked land – which had brought into question the soundness of that particular allocation.

 

Historic England had been generally supportive of the policies in the Local Plan, including the new policy on development at Thorpe Maltings, but had requested that the Council carried out a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) to assess the potential impacts of a number of main development proposals, ideally before the submission draft stage of the process.

 

NHS and health partners had been generally supportive of the Draft Local Plan, recognising the significant amount of additional housing development the Council was required to plan for to comply with Government policy. As well as providing constructive suggestions for the wording of policies, health partners had asked that the Local Plan was not overly specific at this stage about the type or location of new or improved health facilities that might be needed to serve the growing population; because the strategy and model for healthcare provision would change. Therefore, the Local Plan needed to be flexible in requiring larger developments to either incorporate and deliver new health facilities or contribute financially towards new or improved facilities in the wider area. 

 

Essex Police and Essex Fire & Rescue Services had requested that the larger new developments in the Local Plan contribute financially towards the infrastructure likely to be required to serve the growing population and had provided figures to be worked into the Local Plan’s viability assessment.

 

The Environment Agency, Anglian Water and Affinity Water had all responded to the consultation and had been generally supportive of the Local Plan and its policies. The Environment Agency had offered constructive advice in respect of the approach to flood risk and climate change and had considered and commented on the Council’s Water Cycle Study (WCS). Anglian Water’s advice had been also constructive and supportive of the WCS evidence; albeit highlighting the challenges around capacity in the foul drainage and sewage treatment infrastructure which would have a bearing, in particular, on the timing and infrastructure cost of the larger Garden Village proposals.  

 

Overall, Officers considered the representations from technical stakeholders to be supportive, positive and constructive with nothing to suggest the approach taken to growth in the Local Plan was fundamentally unsound; with none of the issues raised being irresolvable.

 

It was not surprising to Officers that the feasibility and deliverability of the Garden Villages at Hare Green and Horsley Cross had been raised by ECC and National Highways and this was an area that required more evidence in respect of transport modelling and the understanding of infrastructure requirements. This additional work was being carried out in collaboration with ECC, National Highways and other partners which would inform future decisions.

 

Representations from Landowners, Developers, Businesses and Agents

 

The focus of representations from landowners, developers, businesses and land/planning agents had tended to be on either to supporting or challenging decisions made in relation to spatial strategy and site allocations, and the viability or practicability of planning policies containing expectations for new development. Promoters of land or sites that had been omitted from the Local Plan as development allocations would tend to put forward a strong challenge through their representations, seeking to argue that the Plan failed either the tests of legal compliance or soundness without the inclusion of their site(s).

 

For promoters of sites that had been included in the Local Plan for development, representations had tended to be supportive in principle but with suggestions for how the policies in the Plan should be amended to improve the viability or practical deliverability of their sites and could assist the Council’s position at examination by producing additional evidence in support of their site allocations.

  

With a strong financial interest in the outcome of the Local Plan review, it was often site promoters that would invest most heavily in professional consultants, technical studies and legal representation to articulate their objections to the Local Plan and who would likely take their representations all the way through to the examination stage to put evidence in front of the Planning Inspector. It was important therefore that the Council either provided a clear justification for the decisions it took in respect of the Local Plan in order to rebut certain objections or gave serious consideration to whether changes to the Plan were required to address any soundness concerns.

 

Some landowners/developers as well as making representations on the Local Plan, had also either submitted early planning applications for development on their sites, or were likely intending to in the coming months. There was a possibility therefore that some of their Local Plan objections would be rehearsed in the determination of those planning applications or through a planning appeal before the Local Plan reached examination stage.

 

Some of the notable issues raised by landowners, developers, businesses and agents in response to the Draft Local Plan included:

 

• arguments that the Local Plan currently did not include enough headroom/contingency over and above the Government housebuilding requirement and therefore additional sites for housing should be included;

 

• suggestions that the Council was placing too much reliance on the proposed Garden Villages to deliver the housing requirement in the long term, for which deliverability was uncertain – and therefore other additional smaller sites around towns and villages, more likely to deliver housing more quickly should be included in the Local Plan for development;

 

• objections either to the Strategic Green Gap policy overall, or the inclusion of certain areas of land in those green gaps – with the suggestion that the approach was not justified or in alignment with Government policy and was preventing sites in more sustainable locations than the Garden Villages from coming forward for housing development;

 

• objections to the choice of sites selected for development in particular areas in support of alternative site proposals;

 

• objections to the protections being given to Elmstead Market and Ardleigh on the basis that those villages could offer sustainable locations for additional development, akin to other villages where development was being proposed; and

 

• objections to the policies for 20% Biodiversity Net Gain, energy efficiency/net zero and water efficiency as being economically unviable. 

 

Reassuringly, there appeared to be relatively few representations strongly challenging the overall spatial strategy for growth set out in the Local Plan which, given the sheer amount of housing required to comply with Government policy was not surprising – as there were very few permutations that would realistically deliver the numbers. There had not, for example, been any alternative Garden Village proposals put forward for consideration. The notable challenges to the soundness of the Local Plan were aimed at the deliverability of the Garden Villages and the justification for protecting Strategic Green Gaps and sites around Elmstead Market and Ardleigh from development that might otherwise be considered sustainable. 

 

Main matters raised through the consultation 

 

The Committee was reminded that, when a Local Plan was examined by a Government-appointed Planning Inspector, they would identify the main matters for consideration as part of the examination, based on the requirements for legal compliance and the key tests of soundness set out in the NPPF, but informed by the comments received in response to consultation on the final submission version of the Local Plan. In doing so, Inspectors often invited Councils to identify what they considered to be the main matters ahead of the examination hearings.

 

Whilst the Council had not yet reached the submission and examination stages of the Local Plan review process, it was still required under the regulations to produce a statement identifying the main matters raised through the Regulation 18 Preferred Options consultation and how they had been taken into account in producing the final Submission Draft of the Plan. Thinking ahead to the preparation of that statement, Officers had started to identify what appeared to be the main matters raised through representations on the Preferred Options Draft. From the Officers’ initial analysis of the representations, those main matters appeared to include the following:

 

1)    The realistic deliverability and soundness of the Garden Villages proposed for Hare Green and Horsley Cross in light of the comments made by Essex County Council, National Highways, certain developer/landowners and residents and whether they could realistically contribute towards meeting the Government-imposed housing in the plan period up to 2042/43 – for which the updates to the transport modelling and infrastructure delivery plan evidence would be material considerations.

 

2)    The realistic deliverability of the overall housebuilding requirement up to 2042/43 and whether the Local Plan identified sufficient deliverable land, with a suitable level of headroom/contingency, to meet the overall Government-imposed housebuilding requirement – despite the number of issues raised about how challenging and unrealistic those targets were.

 

3)    The soundness of the Brightlingsea allocation of 300 homes (site SAH4) in light of issues raised in the large number of public objections and by the Town Council and whether an alternative approach of distributing Brightlingsea’s growth across a number of smaller sites would be justified and more appropriate.

 

4)    The soundness of the Kirby Cross and Walton allocations of 420 and 200 homes respectively (sites SAH2 and SAH3) in light of issues raised in the large number of public objections and the specific objection from the Essex Wildlife Trust to the Walton site.

 

5)    The amount of development proposed at Thorpe le Soken and whether, in light of Essex County Council’s concerns about the limited and potentially irresolvable capacity issues at the local school, one or both of the housing allocations at Thorpe should be removed from the Plan or reduced in size.

 

6)    The sustainability of housing developments in smaller rural villages in light of objections from residents and concerns raised by Anglian Water about limited sewage capacity, the remoteness from jobs, shops, services and facilities and local impacts on village character – particularly Little Bromley, Little Bentley, Tendring Heath, Beaumont-cum-Moze and the choice and size of sites in Wrabness and Bradfield. 

 

7)    The justification and soundness of the District’s Strategic Green Gaps in light of objections from certain landowners and developers stating that the designation did not align with Government policy and was preventing otherwise sustainable locations for housing development (for example around Clacton) being included in the Local Plan. 

 

8)    The protection given to Ardleigh and Elmstead over other similarly sized villages due to their up-to-date Neighbourhood Plans and proximity to the Tendring / Colchester Borders Garden Community; and whether, in light of objections from developers/landowners and current planning applications, the protection was justified.

 

9)    The viability of zero carbon, water efficiency and BNG policies in light of the concerns raised by landowners, developers and agents in their representations when considered alongside affordable housing requirements and financial contributions sought for education, health provision, police, fire and other infrastructure.

 

10) The robustness of the evidence base in light of Natural England and the Essex Wildlife Trust’s advice on the work required on Habitat Regulations Assessment, Essex County Council and National Highways’ advice in respect of transport modelling; Historic England’s request for a Heritage Impact Assessment; the Environment Agency’s request to update the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and the general need to ensure the Local Plan was supported by a proportionate range of appropriate and robust evidence. 

 

In the separate Committee report (A.2), as considered later on in the meeting, Officers had commented further on those matters with emerging thoughts and recommendations as to how they could be addressed going forward.

 

Next steps

 

Officers would continue to analyse the representations in detail to prepare a fuller statement on the responses received to the Preferred Options consultation and how those responses had been taken into account in the preparation of the Local Plan. This statement was intended to be included within the evidence base in support of the Submission Version of the Local Plan.

 

At the meeting, the Corporate Director (Planning and Community), assisted by the Planning Policy Team Leader, introduced the report.

 

Officers then responded to the following questions/concerns/queries et cetera from Committee Members:-

 

·     Clarity around coming to this position in the Local Plan, did something need to change after Parish/Town Council meetings?;

·     Were there any extra challenges with the fact that the political control of Essex County Council has changed, are there to be any problems as a result of that?;

·     Report was indicating that the inspection of Sladbury’s Lane would not be until the end of 2026, how long after that inspection would it take for a plan to be adopted?;

·     How does the shortfall of the 5-year housing supply effect the policies and how does the Council stand with the weighting?; and

·     How regular was the shortfall being reviewed and how was this being reviewed during the transitional process?

 

After the short adjournment, Mrs Hastings the Council's Monitoring Officer confirmed that following the declaration of interest on Report A2, that the land shown coloured blue as referred to in the Update Sheet, was owned by her son, that fell within the definition of a Non-Registerable Interest.  As the matter affected a financial interest or well-being of a relative, therefore in accordance with the Code of Conduct, Councillor Chapman would have to withdraw for item A2.

 

Councillor Chapman BEM thanked the Officers for their excellent report and for the amount of time they had spent with herself and Councillor Steady going over the sites in Brightlingsea – they had gone beyond the call of duty.

 

The Chairman (Councillor Guglielmi) mentioned that himself and Councillor Baker, who was in attendance as the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing, were current/former members of the Lawford Tye Action Group and were involved in the appeal process for the Lawford Tye Field.

 

Having duly taken all the above information into account and having discussed the matter, it was moved by Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Chapman BEMand unanimously:-

 

RESOLVED that the Planning Policy and Local Plan Committee –

 

a)      noted the contents of this report (A.1) which provided a broad overview, based on initial analysis, of some of the main matters and issues raised by residents and other stakeholders in response to public consultation on the Regulation 18 Tendring District Local Plan: Preferred Options Draft and associated evidence base;

 

b)      acknowledged, in particular, the significant level of public objection to proposals and policies relating to additional housing and mixed-use developments that had needed to be included in the Draft Local Plan to meet the Government’s new mandatory housebuilding targets;

 

c)       noted that Officers were in the process of considering all the representations in detail with the intention of producing a report containing responses to all the comments that would form part of the evidence-base published alongside the revised version of the Regulation 19 Submission Version of the Draft Local Plan; and

 

d)      noted that the next, separate report (A.2) would set out the Officers’ emerging thoughts on potential next steps for the Local Plan – including provisional recommendations for changes to the Draft Plan and additional work to strengthen the technical evidence base.