Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed).

Please note: Should this report not be agreed, the following item of business (Agenda Item 15 – Update on the Local Development Scheme) will need to be deferred because the timetable of the Local Development Plan will have to be reassessed.

The Council considered the report of the Director of Service Delivery seeking Members’ consideration of which Growth Options should proceed to be subject to further evidence testing and evaluation, in respect of the Council’s review of the Local Development Plan (LDP).

The paper distributed to all Members and presented at an All-Member workshop was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.  Members were reminded of the seven high level options for growth in the District (detailed in the report) which had been set out by the Council as part of the Issues and Options Consultation.

Prior to any debate the Council received a detailed presentation from the Head of Service - Planning, Policy and Implementation.

A lengthy debate ensued, during which a number of Members raised questions and in response, the following information was provided:

·                  The majority of work relating to matters such as railways, highways, education etc. would be carried out following confirmation by the Council of its three options.  It was explained that statutory providers would not engage with the Council currently because there were too many options to review.

·                  Members would be involved in discussions regarding smaller settlements as part of the work of the review.  It was noted that site in smaller settlements did not have to be part of the strategic allocations.

·                  It was noted that Heybridge was a village and not a suburb of Maldon town.

·                  In response to comments regarding the prematurity of the work being carried out ahead of national changes to the planning system, the Officer reported that the planning system was changing and how if the Council could not submit its updated LDP to the Planning Inspectorate by 25 June 2025 it would move into the new system.  Further guidance would be made available prior to this deadline, but the advice of the Planning Advice Service and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to Officers was for the Council to continue with its plan making and that there could be assistance with moving into the new system without having to go back to the beginning of the process.

·                  The Council was modelling its plan based on the top line, for example it had been advised by ECC that a secondary school was needed so this had to be modelled even if other constraints, costs etc. might stop this.

·                  Having signed up to the PAN Essex agreement, the Council needed to try and accommodate its growth and infrastructure.  Only when the work had been done could the Council ask neighbouring authorities if they could accommodate some of the District’s growth.  There was no current transport modelling for the District and the modelling (once completed) would assist the Council to determine what level of growth could be accommodated.

·                  Work on the maps etc. and assessments relating to the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) had been carried out.  The HELAA (referred to as a policy off assessment at this stage) looked at the information the Council had at the time of assessment to determine if a site could go forward to the next stage of analysis and whether it was acceptable for that purpose.  There were cautions in interpreting it for planning applications and Members were advised at this stage until further assessment had been done it should hold little or no weight.  Members were assured that the three growth options, if supported, were not far enough into the planning process to carry weight in decision making for planning applications.

The Chairperson referred to the recommendations set out in the report and Councillor A S Fluker requested that when the vote was taken, he would like his vote recorded. 

The Chairperson then put recommendation (i) as set out in the report to the Council.  Upon a vote being taken this was duly agreed.  Councillors V J Bell, D O Bown and A S Fluker requested that their vote against the recommendation be recorded.

The Chairperson then put recommendation (ii) as set out in the report to the Council.  This was duly agreed.  Councillors V J Bell, A S Fluker, K Jennings, U G C Siddall-Norman and W Stamp requested that their vote against the recommendation be recorded.

The Chairperson then put recommendation (iii) as set out in the report to the Council.  Upon a vote being taken this was duly agreed.  Councillors M G Bassenger, V J Bell, A Fittock, A S Fluker, U G C Siddall-Norman and W Stamp requested that their vote against the recommendation be recorded.

The Chairperson then put recommendation (iv) as set out in the report to the Council.  Upon a vote being taken this was duly agreed.  Councillors V J Bell, D O Bown, A S Fluker, W J Laybourn and W Stamp requested that their vote against the recommendation be recorded.

The Chairperson then put recommendation (v) as set out in the report to the Council.  Upon a vote being taken this was duly agreed.  Councillors V J Bell, D O Bown, A S Fluker, L J Heywood, W J Laybourn, M G Neall, U G C Siddall-Norman and W Stamp requested that their vote against the recommendation be recorded.

The Chairperson advised the Council that he had abstained from voting on all of the recommendations.

RESOLVED

(i)                That further testing for Option 3 – Growth generally focused on the towns Maldon and Heybridge and Burnham-on-Crouch and all the large villages of the Settlement Pattern be pursued;

(ii)              That further testing for Option 5 – A large urban extension bolted onto the existing settlements in the District and adjacent to the District boundary in combination with Option 3 - Growth generally focused on the towns Maldon and Heybridge and Burnham-on-Crouch and all the large villages of the Settlement Pattern be pursued;

(iii)             That further testing for Option 7 - Focus growth along the rail line to Althorne, Burnham-on-Crouch, North Fambridge and Southminster in combination with Option 1 - Retain the option in the LDP approved in 2017 – focus growth in Maldon and Heybridge. (Burnham-on-Crouch is part of Option 7) be pursued;

(iv)             That Option 4 – Pepper pot growth throughout the Settlement Pattern (Spread the growth across all the sustainable settlements in the District) not be pursued;

(v)              that Option 6 – Focus growth in the north of the District to link into the services and facilities available in Tiptree, Witham and Maldon and Heybridge not be pursued.

Councillor N G F Shaughnessy joined the meeting during this item of business.

Councillor S White left the meeting during this item of business and did not return.