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 due 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.

 

Several members of the public, attended and made oral statements, in relation to report A.1 of the Corporate Director (Planning and Community). Those statements touched upon the following matters:-

 

Bill Marshall

 

·      Well done to Officers and the Committee who had produced an excellent and futuristic Local Plan in trying and challenging times with a target of adoption after modification before Spring 2027;

·      Officers used AI to assist with the data needed to make this Local Plan sound;

·      undoubtedly PINS will feed the Local Plan through its own AI due to the lack of Planning Inspectors;

·      what confidence do Officers have that this double AI process will be successful?;

·      on the Update Sheet, railway stations are mentioned – TDC could promote Fox Street, Ardleigh mainline sidings as a new transport centre and hub that could serve the “Tolchester” Garden Community, Colchester and beyond.

 

Mat Court

 

·      gave thanks for the removal of SAH4;

·      supported the two sites at the Well House site, Chestnut Way and at the BT Exchange, New Street in Brightlingsea;

·      his concern was the three greenfield site allocations at Pannell Place, Vicarage Field, Church Road and land north of Robinson Road, Brightlingsea;

·      TDC’s requirement was 18,173 homes and this Plan identified 18,334 homes to be built;

·      removal of all 75 homes from those three greenfield sites would still leave 86 above the overall requirement;

·      Pannell Place was consulted upon for 10 homes, and it was now proposed for 20 homes despite TDC’s own assessment that identified a nearby wildlife site and a pond described as a likely wildlife habitat;

·      Vicarage Field raised a more fundamental question – in June 2024 a Planning Inspector had dismissed appeals for just two homes there, stating that all the site fell within the coastal protection belt, the proposal was unacceptable in principle, and it was an inappropriate location for a residential development.

·      The Inspector had also found harm to the nearby Grade II Listed property Greythorpe;

·      TDC’s December 2025 assessment had found this site to be unsuitable and had questioned whether 18 homes could be achieved and would likely cause great heritage harm, and the field is still shown as within the coastal protection belt and yet it was now proposed for 30 homes;

·      the new Sustainability Appraisal now described the site as being outside the coastal protection belt – what changed? What new evidence was there to justify this?;

·      MSA35 Robinson Road cannot be considered in isolation – there was an already implemented permission along that corridor for 104 holiday lodges, 36 retirement units and 5 houses – an even larger application was pending determination;

·      don’t know the ‘real world’ impact of this yet – Brightlingsea had a single access, and the cumulative impact would matter;

·      MSA34 and MSA 35 were not in the Regulation 18 consultation – documents being available on the website did not equal meaningful public engagement;

·      so, it was a simple request – please remove those three greenfield sites and move on with the rest of the Local Plan but do not sacrifice more of Brightlingsea’s “green edge” without real justification.  

 

Tom Howard

 

·      at the last Local Plan, made successful applications to the Inquiry Inspector to separate Little Oakley from the Harwich urban settlement area;

·      now asking for Little Oakley to continue as a ‘Smaller Rural Settlement’ as it remains a discrete village;

·      did not oppose the substantial new development between Low Road, Deans Lane and the Essex Way as all of this was within Dovercourt and Ramsey and continued to fall within the proposed Harwich Urban Development Area even with Little Oakley excluded;

·      suggested that the development boundary should instead run along Mayes Lane between the school and Harwich Road – this was both the parish and the Constituency boundary and therefore made a clear and logical boundary;

·      to further separate Harwich and Little Oakley, additionally proposed that the Little Oakley smaller rural settlement should stop on the Harwich Road at either the entrance to the Little Oakley Memorial Club or at Seaview, which was the strategic green gap beside and opposite it and previously accepted as a sensible boundary by both TDC and the Inquiry Inspector for the 2007 Local Plan;

·      Little Oakley closely aligned with the definition of a smaller rural settlement as set out within the Local Plan – it had very limited facilities, limited infrastructure, limited employment and limited transport – nearest railway station was Wrabness and infrequent bus service – with a strong reliance on private cars for both work and recreational use;

·      clear rural character to Little Oakley - surrounded by active farmland, equestrian land and idyllic footpaths that included the Essex Way;

·      retention as a smaller rural settlement would benefit the community – it offered additional protection to amenities such as Ye Olde Cherry Tree Public House as it would be treated as a rural public house rather than an urban public house – would offer protection against change of use development – it had also Asset of Community Value status – also offered rural rate relief for business rates to aid sustainability;

·      his proposed boundary changes would not affect any housing allocations within the Local Plan but would maintain associated rural protection for Little Oakley in terms of planning and other public policies.

 

Parish Councillor Neil Stock OBE (Chairman of Little Bromley Parish Council)

 

·      referred to Policy COM31A in the 2007 Local Plan for sewerage provision and the very large (for Little Bromley) housing allocation;

·      Little Bromley was the smallest parish in the District;

·      original allocation had been for 17 homes which had been deleted by Officers on the grounds of sewerage provision;

·      Rose Builders had addressed the Committee at its last meeting and had argued that the sewerage provision would not be an insurmountable problem;

·      felt that new homes built in the 2020s without access to mains sewerage were not really fit for purpose;

·      Little Bromley had traditionally been regarded as an unsustainable location for development due to its lack of infrastructure – as well as no mains sewerage, there were no pavements/footpaths or mains gas supply or mains water supply to the whole village;

·      in terms of amenities and facilities the village was incredibly backwards;

·      therefore, the proposed housing allocation was too intense and the largest ever for the parish even at only 10 houses;

·      the parish council is working on an emerging neighbourhood plan and urged the Committee to be mindful of all of this in progressing the emerging Local Plan.

 

Will Vote (on behalf of Rose Builders)

 

·      spoke in support of the allocation of an additional site for housing in Weeley;

·      pointed out that the housing provision contingency in the Local Plan had been drastically reduced from 8% to 1% which was full of risk as it was open to challenge;

·      meant that TDC was overly reliant on almost every allocated site being developed without delay;

·      better for the Council to control this risk and manage the process by allocating more sites in sustainable locations as the current approach would likely lead to uncontrolled “wild card” applications dealt with by a Planning Inspector and therefore beyond the Council’s control;

·      contingency was therefore needed to ensure a Plan-led approach;

·      the site in question at Weeley came forward through the “call for sites” process and is sited behind the village pond at Crow Lane opposite the former TDC offices at Weeley;

·      it could deliver 100+ homes and had significant benefits for housing delivery;

·      the site was close to existing services / facilities in Weeley, and a new school was earmarked for land behind the former TDC offices and would be within a five minute walk of the site;

·      in terms of transport, there was a bus service and a train station (with services to Clacton, Colchester and London) in Weeley – in the new NPPF the Government had reconfirmed a focus on building homes near to train stations;

·      therefore, this site ticked all of the boxes in terms of a sustainable, deliverable site – the vision was for high quality housing for local people, including bungalows, family homes and ‘downsizing’ and included affordable homes and plenty of open space – it would be near the centre of the village with easy access to the countryside for amenity walks – the area around the village pond could be enlarged into a village green;

·      therefore, respectfully asked for this site to be included in the Local Plan.

 

Clare Taylor (on behalf of Lawford Tye Action Group)

 

·      the Action Group was extremely grateful for the decision to designate Lawford Tye field as a safeguarded open space;

·      could not overstate what this meant to so many people in Lawford – many residents used the public footpaths for amenity purposes;

·      this designation was a recognition of the value that Lawford Tye field held for the local community;

·      the field was in the zone of influence for the Stour Estuary SPA and RAMSAR sites which had been referred to by an Inspector when they had dismissed a planning appeal in 2018;

·      this designation recognised this landscape for wildlife and heritage and for quiet enjoyment and a green space that promoted well-being, bio-diversity, and the character of Lawford itself;

·      safeguarding this field ensured that future generations could enjoy this land that promoted connection, identity and a sense of belonging;

·      this decision demonstrates a thoughtful balance between growth and preservation – planning could be both forward-looking and protective;

·      Tye Henge, a 4,000 year old Scheduled Ancient Monument on this field was a quiet and powerful reminder of the previous generations that had walked the same grounds – this protection ensured that this valuable piece of history remained unbroken and available to future residents who would be able to stand there and feel that continuity and connection to the past;

·      this field was also a sanctuary for important wildlife including several species of insects and bats whose habitats were threatened – part of a food web and ecosystem that depended upon places like Lawford Tye field to survive – an irreplaceable piece of natural heritage had been protected;

·      the Action Group alongside the Parish Council would be running a petition of support to inform strong and informed public engagement;

·      on behalf of all those who valued Lawford Tye field, was truly grateful for this designation.    

 

Martin Robeson (Town Planning Consultant on behalf of developers)

 

·      referred to the new NPPF which stated that LPAs should only consult statutory consultees if they felt that they needed to;

·      there were lots of worthy projects to support and worthy allocations to support – TDC needed to make the local plan policies work for the developers who wanted to work with TDC – work with them, talk to them and trust them – and avoid ‘last minute’ barriers; have faith in experienced developers and their advisors, those who wanted to work with the Council.

 

Mark Edgerley (Associate Partner – Ceres Property, onbehalf of client, Richborough)

 

·      spoke in support of the development site at land south of Colchester Road, Thorpe-le-Soken;

·      regulation 18 consultation document had included that site under Policy SAH10 for residential development of up to 150 dwellings with associated open space and landscaping and infrastructure;

·      Richborough had responded positively to the consultation and had highlighted the deliverability of the site and had also offered an alternative which had included additional dwellings;

·      In response to the regulation 18 consultation Thorpe-le-Soken Parish Council had expressed its support for that site as a sustainable location;

·      Essex County Council had not supported the proposed allocation of 260 homes in Thorpe-le-Soken across two sites on the grounds it would be too much for the existing facilities and not large enough to deliver a new primary school or additional facilities;

·      current primary school was constrained and not able to expand which limited future growth and development in Thorpe-le-Soken and surrounding villages;

·      Richborough had subsequently updated its plans to accommodate a site for a new primary school and early years setting – would ensure that the Essex Education requirements in terms of design, walking and cycling routes and educational needs could be achieved on a site that was deliverable;

·      the Regulation 19 document had removed this Colchester Road site, but it had confirmed that Thorpe-le-Soken was a sustainable settlement and had identified policy SAH11 for 70 dwellings – that site would take up any existing capacity in the primary school and would result in significant challenges for education in the area;

·      as required by national policy, a local plan needed to be positively prepared, justified and effective and capable of responding over the plan period;

·      by removing the Colchester Road site, the plan was not justified nor effective as it failed to address a known constraint in primary education in the Thorpe area;

·      Richborough had engaged with ECC Education and had confirmed that primary and early years capacity is oversubscribed and that they had no strategy in place to accommodate future demand that might arise;

·      Education infrastructure was dependent on extra land being made available and the current Regulation 19 document was silent on how this essential infrastructure would be provided;

·      therefore, respectfully requested that the land south of Colchester Road, Thorpe-le-Soken was reinstated as an allocation in the Regulation 19 document.

 

The Chairman of the Committee thanked all of the speakers for their presentations and requested Officers to pick up those matters raised during their own presentation as most of the topics that had been mentioned formed very much part of the agenda item that was now to be considered.