Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Director: Planning and Implementation, (copy enclosed).

The Council considered the report of the Assistant Director: Planning and Implementation seeking Members’ approval of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (LDP) Review Options for Growth 2025 to enable further testing and modelling to be undertaken by the Council and its partners.

The report provided background information regarding the LDP Review, the seven options identified following consideration of the Issues and Options consultation feedback and related Member briefing. Members were reminded of the three options approved by the Council in September 2023 (as set out in the report) and Appendix A detailed the national policy changes that had occurred since that approval. The most fundamental change was an update to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which had resulted in a reduction of the District’s Five-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) and the Council needing to consider a higher housing target for the LDP Review.

Appendix A provided further details in respect of the three options approved. It was noted that for a number of reasons (as detailed in the Appendix) to move the LDP Review forward, there was only one option Officers were bringing forward to test further, this was:

·                Option 3 – Growth generally focused on the towns Maldon and Heybridge and Burnham-on-Crouch and all the large villages of the Settlement Pattern.

It was clarified that the ‘large villages’ would be Southminster, Great Totham south, Tollesbury, Latchingdon, Tillinghamm, Tolleshunt D’Arcy, Wickham Bishops and Mayland.

The Chairperson drew Members’ attention to an addendum that was circulated prior to the meeting detailing proposed amendments to the recommendation.

In her introduction of the report, the Head of Planning Policy and Implementation gave a short presentation which detailed the stage the Council had reached in the LDP Review timetable, how the chosen option would be used to model and test with statutory partners and there would be work carried out around a Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulation Assessment. All the work would go forward towards the formation of an up-to-date Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Members were reminded that they were not being asked to agree a preferred option for growth or agree any housing numbers.

Members were advised that options 3 and 5 were very similar except option 5 included large sites adjacent to the boundary of the District, or in other settlements (Althorne and South Woodham Ferrers (SWF)). The proposed change to the recommendation would mean that in addition to option 3 the site adjacent to SWF would be included for testing and modelling.

The Chairperson moved the revised recommendation, as set out on the addendum. This was duly seconded.

During the lengthy debate that ensued Members raised a number of comments and concerns, to which the Officers responded and provided further information including:

·                the importance of Members’ oversight in terms of infrastructure was highlighted and it was noted that there were a number of elements of the LDP which were set by the Government and therefore the Council didn’t have any control over.

·                If the site adjacent to SWF were included in the Housing Target table within the report approximately 1,500 – 1,800 houses would emerge from this.

·                Officers were due to meet with Essex County Council Highways (Highways) following this meeting as the highways modelling was likely to take the longest to complete. Highways had advised that they wished to start work in September 2025 and would normally avoid major roadworks. In response to a comment regarding the current diversion at Langford Road, Officers advised that they would raise this with Highways.

·       In respect of the timetable, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) wanted the Council to submit its Plan before December 2026. It was hoped that the Council would have a Plan by 1 April 2028. In response to a question regarding the possibility that the Council may not exist after May 2027, the Deputy Chief Executive advised that the Local Government Reorganisation proposal was for a shadow authority for 2027 and not changing until 2028. The Leader commented that the MHCLG expected local Councils to still Plan make, and these Plans were important as they would be used to shape the District over the next 15 years.

·                Reference to the villages of Mayland and Maylandsea was queried, and it was clarified that the Appendix should refer to Maylandsea as this was where the shops were located. It was requested that in addition to making this amendment, the Council review its current definition of Maylandsea as a ‘larger village’. This request was noted.

·                Officers would discuss with Anglian Water regarding waste recycling centres and when existing centres would be improved.

·                In response to questions and comments regarding Option 5 (as set out in the report), Members were advised that this could be included. However, the main difference between Option 3 (being proposed by Officers) and Option 5 was that Option 5 included sites at Althorne and adjacent to SWF.

·                The Planning Policy Working Group could look at how the Council could influence any modelling done.

The Leader of the Council reported that he had recently written to the Minister of Health to raise the Council’s concerns regarding the health situation in the district and the need for district valuers to be using current information to ensure that developers were able to obtain a marketable rent.

At this point, Councillor Spenceley withdrew her earlier proposition and there was some discussion about including Option 5 and whether reference to SWF should be changed to Stow Maries.

Councillor Spenceley then proposed that the recommendation set out in the report be amended and the Maldon District local Development Plan Review Option for Growth (Appendix A) be approved to enable modelling and further testing on Option 3 and Option 5. This proposal was duly seconded.

In accordance with Procedure Rule No. 13 (3) Councillor M G Bassenger requested a recorded vote. This was duly seconded and the voting was as follows:

For the recommendation:

Councillors J R Burrell-Cook, S J Burwood, S Dodsley, J Driver, M F L Durham, A Fittock, A S Fluker, K M H Lagan, A M Lay, W J Laybourn, S J N Morgan, C P Morley, R G Pratt, R H Siddall, N D Spenceley, P L Spenceley, E L Stephens, M E Thompson and L L Wiffen.

Against the recommendation:

Councillors M G Bassenger, L J Haywood, U G C Siddall-Norman and W Stamp.

Abstention: There were none.

The Chairperson advised that this was therefore agreed and became the substantive motion which now required voting on.

In accordance with Procedure Rule No. 13 (3) Councillor W Stamp requested a recorded vote. This was duly seconded. The Chairperson put the substantive motion to the vote and the voting was as follows:

For the recommendation:

Councillors J R Burrell-Cook, S J Burwood, S Dodsley, J Driver, M F L Durham, A Fittock, A S Fluker, K M H Lagan, A M Lay, W J Laybourn, S J N Morgan, C P Morley, R G Pratt, R H Siddall, N D Spenceley, P L Spenceley, E L Stephens, M E Thompson and L L Wiffen.

Against the recommendation:

Councillors M G Bassenger, L J Haywood, U G C Siddall-Norman and W Stamp.

Abstention: There were none.

The Chairperson advised that this was therefore agreed with the comments raised regarding Mayland and Maylandsea villages to be noted.

RESOLVED that the Maldon District Council Local Development Plan Review Option for Growth (as set out in Appendix A to the report) be approved to enable modelling and further testing on Option 3 and Option 5.