Braintree District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document
Statement of Consultation Publication of a DPD (Regulation 27)
Addendum
Containing;
Appendix 7 – Additional committee reports setting out responses to the Submission Draft Core Strategy
Appendix 8 - Committee reports setting out responses to the Focused Changes
Appendix 9 – Minutes of the Meetings contained in the main body of the report
Appendix 10 – Agendas and Minutes of Cabinet and Full Council Meetings relating to the progress of the Core Strategy Core Strategy Pre Submission Consultation
The Core Strategy Submission Draft was published on 10th May 2010. The original period for submission of representations was until 24th June. Following the announcement of the proposed abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies, the Council invited comments, from all persons on the LDF mailing list, on the implications of the abolition on the Core Strategy. The period for representations was extended until 8th July to allow time for these comments to be submitted. 1128 reps were submitted from 347 people. A report containing a summary of the main issues raised was reported to the Local Development Framework Panel meeting on the 4th August and a more detailed report including all the responses and a list of proposed focused and minor changes was reported to the Local Development Framework Panel on the 22nd September. These reports are contained in Appendix 7.
Core Strategy Addendum of Focused and Minor Changes
In response to the representations on the submission draft documents and the changes in national government policy, a list of Focused Changes to the Submission Core Strategy was published for comment on the 8th October 2010 for a period of 6weeks until the 19th November. A list of minor changes was also included in this document for information. A total of 45 responses were received from 21 people. A report containing a summary of the responses was reported to the Local Development Framework on the 1st December. This report is contained in Appendix 8.
Appendix 7
Local Development Framework Panel Report from 4th August 2010 summarising main issues raised in the Submission Draft Core Strategy consultation and Local Development Framework Panel Report from 22nd September 2010 summarising responses to the Submission Draft Core Strategy consultation.
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PANEL - 4TH AUGUST 2010 Summary of Representations Received on the Core Strategy Submission Draft Agenda Item 6
Portfolio Area: Cllr Harley Cabinet Member for Enterprise and Culture Report Presented Eleanor Dash Planning Policy Manager by: Background Papers: Core Strategy Submission Draft published May 2010 Representations on Core Strategy Submission Draft (available in full on website via Planning Policy Consultation Portal) Corporate Please refer to table at end of report. Implications: Options: To note the summary. (There will be a report on the representations at the next LDF Panel Meeting.) Risks: That the Core Strategy could be found unsound.
Executive Summary The Council has received 1,129 representations on the Core Strategy Submission Draft. The issue with the largest number of objections was the proposed Forest Road growth location.
Decision To note the summary of the representations on the growth locations and regeneration areas and the procedure for making changes to the Core Strategy.
1. Background
1.1 The Core Strategy Submission Draft was published on 10th May 2010. The original period for submission of representations was until 24th June. Following the announcement of the proposed abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies, the Council invited comments, from all persons on the LDF mailing list, on the implications of the abolition on the Core Strategy. The period for representations was extended until 8th July to allow time for these comments to be submitted.
1.2 The Council has received 1,129 representations on the Core Strategy from 345 people. A large number of these are objections to the proposed growth location off Forest Road. The representations also include comments upon the spatial strategy, the other growth locations, regeneration sites, the settlement hierarchy, core policies and infrastructure issues. This report sets out a brief summary of the representations relating to the four growth locations
1 and the proposed regeneration sites at Sible Hedingham and Silver End. All the representations will be considered at the Panel meeting on the 22nd September.
2. Representations concerning the Forest Road Growth Location (CS1 and Map 4)
242 individual comments were made against this part of the Core Strategy. This included letters which were submitted to the Council in February. The responses are from Rivenhall Parish Council, Witham Town Council, local residents of both Rivenhall and Witham and the developers of the site and made the following points:
• The RSS housing figures could still be met elsewhere and the Core Strategy should not aim to overshoot the target. • The Core Strategy is premature until new policies are more clearly set out including the impact of local planning. • The decision to include this site does not respect the wishes of the local population who opposed the allocation in the draft plan and the decisions made by Rivenhall Parish Council, Witham Town Council, Witham Local Committee and the LDF Panel. • Proposal not in line with National Policy PPS1 because it is does not protect the countryside, or existing communities or provide sustainable development. • Does not take into account the Rivenhall Parish Plan and Village Design Statement and the Witham Town Plan. • Proposal fails to comply with the Core Strategy policy CS5 by not restricting new development in the countryside. • Will lead to coalescence with Rivenhall and Witham, which will have an adverse impact on the character of both local communities. • Is in Rivenhall Parish not Witham and is likely to double the population of this rural parish. • Harm to countryside views, impact on local wildlife and adverse impact on the John Ray Walk. • Traffic impacts on Forest Road, Rectory Lane, Rickstones Road and the Rivenhall End A12 junction. • Proposal is reliant on the Motts Road foot/cycle bridge, the timing and funding of which is confused. • Public transport and in particular train services are already full. • Commuter car parking is already a problem in Forest Road. • Witham in general lacks facilities to deal with increase in population such as shops, leisure, jobs and youth services. • There is no GP Surgery to extend on the eastern side of Witham, or in Rivenhall and health services are already extremely stretched. • Impacts of the closure of Forest Road community centre. • Already problems with sewage and land drainage, which could lead to flooding. • There are no insets for the Proposals Map and the growth location is not marked.
2 • The Conrad Road site is better because it is closer to schools, closer to town centre and railway station, has more defendable boundaries, is within Witham Town and is a more natural extension. • The Council and developer don’t agree on the phasing of development. • More than 300 dwellings will be built on the site. • The Maltings Lane development has already expanded Witham considerably and is not yet completed and has not delivered the promised infrastructure. • The Statement of Consultation is missing evidence and the Environmental Report underscores Conrad Road. • The developers state that they are supportive of the inclusion of the growth location, which has been approved on 3 separate occasions by full Council at BDC. However they wish the site to be phased to come forward from 2014 and not 2021 as currently stated in the trajectory.
3. Representations concerning the Lodge Farm Growth Location (CS1 and Map 3)
12 individual comments were made against this part of the Core Strategy. The responses are mainly from residents in the vicinity of Lodge Farm and the site developers and covered the following issues:
• Lodge Farm is not shown on the proposals map and is therefore not legally compliant. • Development of Lodge Farm would lead to a loss of farmland between existing Witham Lodge development and the A12. • Concern about coalescence with Hatfield Peverel. The Witham Town Plan argues that the green wedge between Hatfield Peverel and Witham should be protected and maintained • Lodge Farm is too far from the High Street. This will result in a substantial increase in motor traffic along Hatfield Road and put further pressure on the limited car parking facilities in town centre. • Local residents near to Lodge Farm were unaware of previous consultation which has taken place. • Concern about the lack of amenities in Witham; there is a need for a GP surgery. No new schools have been built. • The Core Strategy should be withdrawn pending further government guidance. • Concern regarding traffic implications particularly on Hatfield Road and on the junctions with the A12. • The proposal is not consistent with PPS 1, because by allocating the proposed Lodge Farm development the Core Strategy fails to protect the countryside. • Dwellings sandwiched between the A12 and the main railway line to London does not seem a sensible option, or a healthy environment for families. • There are more sustainable alternatives to Lodge Farm. • Woodend Farm adjacent to Lodge Farm should be identified in the Core Strategy.
3 • The Lodge Farm development will make provision for 3.77 ha of employment generating space. This development could make a significant contribution to job generation for Witham. • SHLAA has demonstrated site is developable during timeframe of Core Strategy. • Lodge Farm is located in close proximity to key services and facilities within the town. • Lodge Farm will provide a third of identified housing land supply for town as well as employment generating uses and required community facilities including a primary school, new healthcare facilities, public open space, allotments, public transport improvements, highways improvements and neighbourhood centre. • The plan overestimates the amount of housing that will be delivered on sites within Braintree and Witham. • Development of the site would not extend the settlement beyond the established western boundary of the town nor result in any actual or perceived coalescence of Witham with Hatfield Peverel. • The developer, without prejudice to their support for the Lodge Farm proposal, objects to the phasing identified in CS1.
4. Representations concerning the Panfield Lane Growth Location (CS1 and Map 2) 14 individual comments were made against this part of the Core Strategy.
• The Panfield Lane Growth Location should be replaced with The Flitchway, which is in a more sustainable location. • 1500 homes at Flitchway would provide more Council tax than 500 homes at Panfield Lane • Alternative growth locations have not been fully considered. • Braintree should have more than one growth location and land at Broad Road should be considered. • Urban extensions are less sustainable in transport terms than new settlements. • Should concentrate on improving rather than expanding Braintree • Support Panfield Lane as a growth location, however object to exclusion of Towerlands. • Objection as it is not previously developed land. • The site is not suitable as it is high value agricultural land. • Transport to and from the site would have to be from Panfield Lane, there is no obvious or easy route that will allow access to the A120. • Would lead to higher congestion in the area. • The housing delivery figure for Panfield Lane should be referred to as a minimum. • Maps are not labelled as proposals map insets. • Insufficient level of detail has been provided to warrant a strategic allocation and should be allocated through the Allocations DPD. • Early delivery of Panfield Lane would bring benefits including a new link road, expansion of Tabor, Braintree FC club, community facilities.
4 • Need for early delivery of employment land, to facilitate the growth of employment alongside the provision of new homes. • Phasing restrictions should be removed as there is no rationale for delaying the delivery of the site.
5. Representations concerning the Great Notley Employment Growth Location (Map 5 and CS4)
5 comments were made about the Great Notley growth location throughout the Core Strategy.
• The need for a new business park now that “demand generated from Airport expansion” will not happen as the previously proposed Stansted expansion has been stopped • Evidence exists to justify B8 use on this site and this use should not be excluded, • A SPD for the site might delay its development whereas a Master Plan agreed with the Council would be a more appropriate way to proceed • Further Water Cycle study work should be completed as it is unclear if water and waste water provision is sufficient to enable the development to take place, • There is sufficient water/sewage provision to allow some development to take place prior to water study
6. Representations concerning the Sible Hedingham Regeneration Area (6.14, CS4 and Appendix 4)
Four comments were made in respect of the Premdor/Rockways regeneration area:
• The sites at Premdor and Silver End should be referred to as Employment sites rather than Factory Sites. • Specific reference to employment use should deleted there is no evidence that indicates that it can be achieved as part of the regeneration proposals. • Delete reference to neighbourhood centre as no demand has been identified for other retail or commercial uses on the site. • Delete reference to Sible Hedingham regeneration site as this should be dealt with through the Allocation Development Plan Document.
7. Representations concerning the Silver End Regeneration Area
The majority of comments relating to the Silver End regeneration area are from the landowner, developer, English Heritage and the Primary Care Trust. These are summarised below:
• A more conventional planning reference to ‘employment sites’ rather than ‘factory sites’ would be better.
5 • There is support for the hierarchy of places which identifies Silver End as a key service village. • Silver End is somewhat removed from the A12 Transport Corridor, other villages in the District such as Earls Colne and Coggeshall are better served by ‘A’ class roads and main railway line services. • The regeneration of redundant factory sites that are not fit for purpose including those at Sible Hedingham and Silver End is founded on a robust evidence base and complies with Government Guidance to support the use of previously developed land. • Landowner objects to statement ‘uses to include employment, housing, the re use of historic buildings, including the reuse of the powerhouse as a museum’. This is overly prescriptive. • Landowner objects to ‘include employment’ as the Employment Land Review 2007 states Crittall Site is not a suitable employment site. • Support that a master plan is to be approved by the Council as a Supplementary Planning Document. • Developer raises concern relating to Table 2 (Infrastructure) and specific reference to Silver End and the requirements for early years provision, education, GP surgery, allotments and contribution for a neighbourhood centre as there appears to be no reference to the financial viability of a proposed development. • Developer objects to the Silver End regeneration area predicted to come forward in 2020 to 2021 as they argue the Crittall site is available for development now. • Primary Care Trust have stated that the wording in Table 2 (infrastructure) is not appropriate to describe the key infrastructure and facilities required to support development, as it omits any reference to Mid Essex Primary Care Trust as the delivery body in relation to the Silver End regeneration area. • English Heritage has commented that Silver End can be considered as a historic ‘factory village’ in context of paragraph 8.14 of Core Strategy.
8. Procedure for Making Changes to the Core Strategy
8.1 There will be a report on the representations to the next LDF Panel on 22nd September, when Members will be requested to approve any changes they wish to make to the Core Strategy. The Council will then be requested to approve the amended Core Strategy on 27th September.
8.2 The procedure for making changes to the Core Strategy depends upon whether these are focused changes, extensive changes or minor post- publication changes (editing).
8.3 The Planning Advisory Services advises that the 2008 Regulations enable the Council to undertake mitigating action, if faced with issues of soundness raised during representations.
6 Focused Changes
8.4 These are changes that affect either a specific part of the Core Strategy, such as a chapter or topic like affordable housing, or a limited area such as an urban extension. If the Council wishes to make a focused change it would need to ; • Prepare an addendum to the published plan setting out the proposed change • Review the sustainability appraisal and implications of the proposed changes • Consult people and organisations on the addendum and publish the changes to allow representation to be made on the amended draft plan.
8.5 At the close of this consultation the local authority would submit the original development plan document, the first representations, the addendum and the responses to the addendum to the Secretary of State.
Extensive Changes
8.6 An extensive change is where the local authority proposes changes that run right through the development plan document’s content and/or the plan area. In this situation, the changes to the development plan document are very significant as the nature and scale of the issues go to the heart of the plan. It is therefore difficult to see how these issues could be addressed by changing limited parts of it. In this case it would be advisable to withdraw this version of the plan and undertake further work and evidence gathering as required. Although the plan is not required to go through another Regulation 25 consultation, it would be necessary to consult the specific consultation bodies previously notified. However, targeted consultation with other relevant stakeholders may be necessary to ensure their input as well as their buy-in. The new material contained within the plan would be subject to a sustainability appraisal and this would form part of the submission material. Once the local authority is satisfied with the altered development plan document (incorporating the changes) it would then resolve to publish (and submit) the altered plan under new Regulation 27 for formal representations.
8.7 At the time that the local authority publishes the new development plan document, it would explain to those who have already made representations what the changes are (the differences between the first version and the second version). In light of these changes, the local authority would ask people to either:
• confirm their representation still stands • indicate any changes • withdraw their representation.
8.8 They would not need to re-submit their original representations in order for them to be considered by the inspector.
7 8.9 The development plan document would then be submitted together with the original representations and any later representations as well as the sustainability appraisal which encompasses the changes made, along with any other material originally submitted.
Minor post-publication changes (editing)
8.10 In some cases, development plan documents may require minor changes. For example, to improve legibility or ensure it is up to date. These are the kind of changes which could be made to a development plan document without consultation. It is envisaged that these minor changes could simply be listed as an attached schedule to accompany the development plan document when it is submitted to the Secretary of State.
Corporate Implications
Financial: n/a Legal: n/a Equalities & Diversity: As set out in Core Strategy Customer Impact: As set out in Core Strategy Environment & Climate As set out in Core Strategy Change: Consultation/Community Submission Core Partners 3 Engagement: Strategy has been published for consultation Public 3 Staff Key Decision: No Public/Private Report: Public Officer Contact: Eleanor Dash (Report written by Planning Policy Team) Designation: Planning Policy Manager Ext No: 2563 Email: [email protected]
8
Local Development Framework Panel 22 nd September 2010
To recommend changes to the Core Strategy Agenda No: 5 Submission Draft, in response to the representations received.
Corporate Priority: Housing and transport meet local needs. Business is encouraged and the local economy prospers. Report presented by: Eleanor Dash Report prepared by: Eleanor Dash, Emma Boaler, Alan Massow, Juliet Strathern
Background Papers: Public Report Core Strategy Submission Draft published May 2010 YES Representations on Core Strategy Submission Draft (available in full on website via Planning Policy Consultation Portal) Options: Key Decision: To approve changes to the Core Strategy set out in this report. YES To approve changes to the Core Strategy other than those set out in this report. To make no further changes to the Core Strategy. (Note- Changes already agreed to Gypsy and Traveller policy on 4.8.10)
Executive Summary:
This report sets out a summary of representations made in response to the Core Strategy Submission Draft. It proposes that the Council should retain the housing provision set out in the Core Strategy despite the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategy; as this figure is based upon sound evidence of housing need, the RSS figure for this District was supported by this Council and is already low compared to previous levels of house-building in the District. The report recommends focused and minor changes to the Core Strategy, which are set out in Appendix1. It will be necessary to publish these proposed changes for 6 weeks consultation. The report does not recommend the removal of any of the proposed growth locations. It notes that the number of additional dwellings completed over the last year is as anticipated and does not affect the overall housing requirement.
1
Decision: To recommend to Council 1. To retain the proposed housing provision, set out in Core Strategy policy CS1, of a minimum of 4637 dwellings in Braintree District between 2009 and 2026. 2. To approve the changes to the Core Strategy set out in Appendix 1, which will then be submitted to the Council on 27th September for their approval and will then be published for consultation, as set out in Appendix 1. 3. To amend the Statement of Community Involvement to refer to the LDF Panel rather than the District Development Committee. 4. To amend the Sustainable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) report, which forms part of the evidence base, to advocate Natural England’s request for 8 ha of SANG per 1000 people, to offset new development and conclude that this is achievable. 5. To ensure that the Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Strategy is reviewed to take account of the focused changes.
Purpose of Decision: To enable changes to be made to the Core Strategy and evidence base where necessary to take account of representations received.
Corporate implications Financial: The Core Strategy will be examined by a Planning Inspector, with associated costs for the Inspector, Programme Officer, and premises. Plus document printing costs. Legal: The Core Strategy is a statutory document setting out planning policy for the District up to 2026.
Equalities/Diversity An Equalities Impact Assessment has been undertaken, which forms part of the Evidence base of the Core Strategy.
Customer Impact: As set out in the Core Strategy
Environment and As set out in the Core Strategy Climate Change: Consultation/Community Public consultation on Submission Draft 10.5.10 -8.7.10 Engagement: Risks: That the Core Strategy will not be found sound at the examination by a Planning Inspector, which would give rise to additional work on the Strategy / or Evidence Base.
Officer Contact: Eleanor Dash Designation: Planning Policy Manager Ext. No. 2563 E-mail: [email protected]
2
1. Background
1.1 The Core Strategy Submission Draft was published on 10th May. The period for submission of representations was extended until 8th July, to allow time for comments to be made in the light of the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies. The Council received 1128 representations from 347 people.
1.2 This report sets out a summary of the representations in Appendix 2, together with an officer response and recommendation in respect of each comment.
1.3 Due to the number of points made in the representations, it is essential that Members read the representations and officer responses in Appendix 2 prior to the meeting of the LDF Panel, as it will not be possible for officers to report upon these individually at the meeting.
1.4 All of the recommendations which propose changes to the Core Strategy are set out separately in Appendix 1. These have been separated into categories as required by the Planning Inspectorate of ‘focused changes’ (ie changes affecting a specific part of the document) and ‘minor changes’.
1.5 If the Council wishes to make the recommended focused changes, it is necessary to publish these changes for consultation, as set out in the introduction to Appendix 1 of this report.
2 Monitoring Housing Supply and Completions
2.1 The Core Strategy contains 2009 Housing Trajectory information (in the Core Strategy Appendix 2) including a schedule of sites in the 15 year supply. This report does not recommend updating the schedule, as the 2010 Housing Trajectory and schedule of sites will be made available separately as part of the evidence base and will also be included within the 2010 Annual Monitoring Report. Although it is now known that some housing sites listed in the 15 year supply will not come forward, such as the Braintree College site, (as the College is no longer proposing to relocate) the estimated capacity of other sites, including Premdor and the Riverside Centre, has increased, resulting in approximately the same overall housing supply during the Plan period.
2.2 There were 428 net additional dwellings provided in the District between 1.4.09 to 31.3.10. This is very close to the figure of 412 net additional dwellings predicted in the Housing Trajectory for that period. As a result, there is no change to the overall number of dwellings required in the Core Strategy over the period to 2026.
3
3 Abolition of the East of England Plan –the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)
3.1 The report to the LDF Panel on 4th August set out government guidance on the abolition of the RSS and the implications of this for the Core Strategy. Members resolved at that meeting to continue with the preparation of the Core Strategy and rejected the option of increasing the housing requirement for this District.
3.2 Members now need to decide whether to continue with the proposed Core Strategy housing provision, set out in the Spatial Strategy and Policy CS1, that was based upon the RSS housing requirement, or whether to decrease the housing provision.
3.3 This report sets out representations in Appendix 2, which include comments in respect of the implications of abolishing the RSS as well as comments concerning growth locations and alternative sites.
3.4 The Council supported the RSS housing figure for this District. When the East of England Plan was approved, it set out a housing provision of 7,700 dwellings for Braintree District over the period 2001 to 2021 expressed as a minimum requirement of 385 dwellings per year. The number of net additional dwellings provided over the period from 2001 to 2008 exceeded this requirement.
Year 2001/2 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 Net 647 659 854 693 507 658 628 342 Addit ional Dws
3.5 Because of the number of dwellings already completed since 2001, the remaining housing requirement of 4,637 dwellings that is proposed in the Submission Draft Core Strategy between 2009 and 2026 would be an annual average of 272 dwellings. This is a low annual figure compared to past levels of growth in this District.
3.6 It is necessary for the housing requirement to be based on robust and credible evidence, in order for the Core Strategy to be found sound.
3.7 Although the RSS has been abolished, the evidence base of population growth and housing need which supported the RSS housing requirement is still relevant. ( A major housebuilder has made a legal
4 challenge to the abolition of RSS’s, the outcome of which has not yet been determined.)
3.8 Evidence supporting the Core Strategy demonstrates a need for new housing which is higher than the annual housing figure proposed in the Core Strategy. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2008 indicated an annual supply of 673 new affordable homes in the District was needed to meet the identified housing need, including households that at the time of the study were overcrowded, homeless as well as expected new forming households. Of the calculated housing need, 29% of households were identified as being able to afford intermediate housing. However the housing needs of the remaining 71% could only be met by affordable rented homes. The Core Strategy has sought to provide growth locations which will provide 30% affordable housing to contribute towards meeting that need. The overall annual level of housing growth proposed in the Core Strategy is a lower level of housing than identified in the SHMA, as the Council are seeking to achieve a better balance between local jobs and housing without increasing commuting- out of the District. However, a reduction in this already low level of housing could lead to the Council failing to provide for future housing needs in this District.
3.9 Housebuilding also supports the local economy and the regeneration of previously developed land and a reduction in the housing provision proposed in the Core Strategy would have an adverse effect upon the local economy.
3.10 Many representations have put forward alternative sites for development around the main towns including the Flitchway Settlement between Braintree and Rayne and two new settlements partly within this District and in addition many sites in the rural areas. The Planning Inspector will consider these representations at the Examination of the Core Strategy: A reduction in the Core Strategy housing provision might strengthen their cases to provide for future housing need.
3.11 It is therefore proposed that the housing provision, set out in Core Strategy policy CS1, of a minimum of 4637 dwellings in Braintree District between 2009 and 2026 should be retained.
Appendix 1 Addendum to the Braintree District Core Strategy Submission Draft. Introduction This document recommends a schedule of focused changes to the Regulation 27 Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD) as part of Braintree District Council’s Local Development Framework. This schedule has been prepared to address issues raised in representations at the Regulation 27 Core Strategy DPD stage which was published in May 2010.
5 This document shows the focused changes that are proposed to the Regulation 27 Core Strategy DPD. The changes are shown in the following ways:
• Where deletions of the existing text have been made, the text has been crossed out, for example This text has been deleted, and • Where text has been inserted it is highlighted, for example This text has been added.
In addition a schedule of minor post publication changes or editing changes are included in Appendix A. These changes are to improve legibility, or to ensure the document is up to date and would not normally require public consultation.
There will be need to be a consultation period for comments on the changes to the Core Strategy listed in this addendum. Comments previously made on the Core Strategy should not be repeated.
Subject to approval by the LDF Panel and the Council on 27th September, the changes will be published for consultation from 8th October until 19th November. and comments can be made:-
Directly via the Council’s online consultation website http://braintree- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal
Via a representation form which can be downloaded from the website and returned via email to [email protected]
Or to Planning Policy Braintree District Council Causeway House Braintree CM7 9HB
Focused Changes Proposed for Executive Summary Section Proposed Amendment Reason Spatial Strategy In order to meet the evidence of In response to abolition local housing need, which of the Regional Spatial supported the previous East of Strategy England Plan housing requirements Spatial Strategy and college campus In response to -land to nw of proposed change to Braintree Policy CS4 Housing- last Further sites will be needed in the In response to abolition sentence District in line with policy H3 of the of the Regional Spatial referring to east of England Plan the 2009 Strategy gypsy and Essex Gypsy and Traveller travellers and accommodation Assessment and travelling criteria for site selection are showpeople. included within this policy.
6
Focused Changes Proposed for Chapter 3 Section Proposed Amendment Reason The Key To maintain and develop vibrant To ensure a consistent Objective for and prosperous main towns of approach to the Town Centres Braintree, Witham and Halstead, by wording. paragraphs 3.4 encouraging new development and and 6.27 regeneration schemes that support their function as major service centres, with a range of good quality employment, shops and services and cultural provision The Key To protect, restore and enhance As suggested by Objective for natural habitats, biodiversity and Natural England. Environment landscape character, amenity and paragraph 3.4 environmental quality of the and 8.1 countryside and the open spaces and green corridors within towns and villages and improve ecological connectivity across the District.
Focused Changes Proposed for Chapter 4 Section Proposed Amendment Reason Paragraph 4.8, Braintree, Bocking and Great To clarify the position first bullet point Notley of Bocking and Great Notley in the Spatial Hierarchy Paragraph 4.28 Replace the existing paragraph To clarify the with: The growth locations are relationship between shown on the LDF Proposals Map the maps in the Core Inset Plans within the Core Strategy and the Local Strategy. The Proposals Map is Plan Review enclosed at the end of the Core Strategy. This supersedes the Local Plan Review Proposals Map. The LDF Proposals Map defines Inset Areas. The Inset Plans are set out in the Braintree District Local Plan Review plus Insets 1a, Ib,2a and 2b which are set out in the LDF Core Strategy. The Core Strategy Inset Plans replace those areas of Inset 1 and 2 in the Local Plan Review which they cover. Map 1 Key Remove the notation for Great To clarify the position Diagram Notley as an ‘Other Village’ (revised of Great Notley in the map following schedule) Spatial Hierarchy. Maps 2, 3 and Local Plan Review map To ensure maps can 4 designations added to maps and replace Local Plan key added. (revised maps following Review Maps.
7 schedule)Amend titles from Map2,3 and 4 to Inset 1a, 2b and 2a. Amend order of 2a and 2b to alphabetical order.
Focused Changes Proposed for Chapter 5 Housing Section Proposed Amendment Reason Paragraph 5.17 The East of England Plan policy h2 To delete reference to states that development plan the Regional Spatial documents should set appropriate Strategy targets for affordable housing at District level, taking into account local assessments of housing need. It suggests a regional target of 35% Paragraph In determining the actual level of To recognise economic 5.26, first line affordable housing provided on a viability as a factor for particular site economic viability will affordable housing be a material consideration. “A contributions. toolkit” setting out economic assumptions will be used by the Council to inform viability appraisals of specific sites, which will form the basis for affordable housing negotiations/ Paragraphs 5.27 There is a need for additional To delete references to 5.27 to 5.31 sites to meet the needs of gypsies the Regional Spatial and travellers in the District and in Strategy the East of England at present. 5.28 A revsion to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England, entitled ‘Accommodation for Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople in the East of England’ was published in July 2009. 5.29 This set out policies requiring local authorities to make provision for additional residential and transit pitches for gypsies and travellers and plots for travelling showpeople. (A pitch normally accommodates two caravans.) 5.30 Policy H3 set out a requirement for a minimum of 50 gypsy and traveller pitches for Braintree District by 2011. As 5.27 There were already 27 authorised gypsy and traveller pitches within Braintree District in 2008. This meant that there was a requirement to provide an additional 23 authorised pitches by
8 2011. The Regional Strategy also required a minimum of 67 pitches for Braintree District by 2021. 5.31 As 5.28 An assessment of need in Essex was published in 2009 (Essex Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment ), which identified a very similar requirement (for 66 residential pitches) for 59 authorised residential pitchesin Braintree District between 2008 and 2021. Policy CS3, 1st Provision will be made for a line minimum of 50 59 authorised residential pitches for gypsies and travellers caravans by 2011 and a minimum of 67 authorised residential pitches by 2021. This will require an additional provision of 23 32 authorised pitches by 2011 and a further 17 authorised pitches by 2021
Focused Changes Proposed for Chapter 6 Economy Section Proposed Amendment Reason Paragraph 6.7 6.7 The East of England Plan sets To delete reference to and 6.8 out the following main economio Regional Spatial requirements:- Strategy An indicative target of 56,000 net growth in jobs(ie additional jobs minus jobs lost) for the period 2001-2021 to be delivered in the ‘Rest of Essex’ which is defined as Braintree, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Epping Forest, Harlow, Maldon and Uttlesford. Local Development Documents should ensure an adequate range of sites and premises is allocated to achieve indicative job growth targets and needs of the local economy, revealed by employment land reviews. These should be at locations which minimise commuting and promote sustainable communities, achieve a closer relationship between jobs and homes, maximise the use of public transport and provide for skills training and education. Preference should often be given to
9 the re-use of previously developed land and intensification of existing sites over the release of greenfield land. Local Development Documents should identify a network of town centres,district centres, neighbourhood centres and village centres. 6.8 The local authorities in the ‘Rest of Essex’ (Braintree, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Epping Forest, Harlow, Maldon, Uttlesford) have a net growth in jobs target of 56,000 and a net growth in dwellings target of 57,100 over the period 2001-2021 which is a ratio of just under 1 job per dwelling. This ratio of one job per dwelling, would provide an indicative target of 7,700 net job growth in Braintree District between 2001 to 2021 and a further 1,925 net job growth from 2021 to 2026, giving an overall target of 9,625 net job growth between 2001-2026. Paragraph Consideration should be given to Update for the current 6.10, 3rd bullet the designation of a new business situation. point park close to the A120, in the vicinity of Braintree, to provide for new demand generated by airport related expansion at the proximity to Stansted and by the recently dualled A120 between the M11 and Braintree. Table 1, page Replace Table 1 with 2010 table Update for 2010 56 (below). Table 1 title replace ‘2009’ with ‘2010’. Paragraph Uses to include employment, To allow for flexibility 6.14, final line housing and the reuse of historic factory buildings, including the re- use of the powerhouse as a museum. Policy CS4, Site for housing, football stadium, A reference to housing Table, row 2, college campus, educational and health care column 2. provision, health care provision, provision recognises services and community uses. the mix of uses proposed on the site. Since the publication of the document the College at Braintree have confirmed they have no money to fund
10 relocation. Map 5 Local Plan Review map To ensure map will designations added to map and replace existing Local key. (please see Appendix 2) Plan Review map. Map 5 Inset 1b Paragraph There are existing additional 6.30, last 2 commitments for a discount sentences. foodstore at Rayne Road and for extensions to the stores at Great Notley and Kings Park Village. It is considered that no further provision should be made for convenience retailing in locations outside of the town centres until these additional commitments are open for trading and their impact on the town centre has been assessed. Any proposals for new and/or extended convenience goods floorspace will be assessed on their merits against the sequential test set out in PPS4 and impact assessment threshold set out in policy CS6, taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments. Paragraph There is also planning permission So as not to prejudge 6.31, final for a neighbourhood convenience the needs of the sentence store as part of the local centre Hatfield Road growth within the Maltings Lane location which will be development, which will also serve assessed through the adjoining Hatfield Road growth masterplanning. location. Paragraph For Halstead only limited capacity To more accurately 6.32, first 2 has been identified for additional reflect the findings of sentences. convenience and comparison the Retail Study update retailing. The main issue for 2010. Halstead is to strengthen the town centre, through retail facilities, particularly food store provision, and to draw back trade currently lost to the town. Paragraph Local centres are also planned as So as not to prejudge 6.36, 2nd part of the new growth location at the needs of the sentence. Panfield Lane and at the Maltings Hatfield Road growth Lane new neighbourhood, Witham, location which will be which would also serve the assessed through adjoining new growth location at masterplanning. Hatfield Road. Policy CS6, 9th District Centres – Great Notley To reflect its current
11 paragraph Neighbourhood Centre and Marks designation as a Farm Neighbourhood Centre. neighbourhood centre. Policy CS6, Impact assessments will be To clarify boundary final 2 required for any retail proposal not names. paragraphs within a primary shopping area, Town or District Centre which exceeds 200 square metres additional gross floorspace. Town Centre and District Centre Boundaries and Primary Shopping Areas will be defined in the Site Allocations Development Plan Document
Table 1 Allocated and Vacant Employment Land in Braintree District 2010
Allocated Vacant Floorspace Employment Total Settlement sqm Land ha Area ha Braintree and Great Notley 53629 5.39 10.75 Witham 63016 0.69 6.99 Halstead 11787 0.4 1.58 Sturmer (Adjacent to Haverhill) 8860 00.89 Other Areas 10799 1.09 2.17 Total 148091 7.57 22.38
Vacant Employment Allocated Floorspace Sqm Land Gross Net Est. Total Total Outstanding Losses Outstanding Floorspace Area Area Sqm Sqm Sqm sqm sqm ha Braintree, Bocking, Gt Notley & Braintree West 47552 16977 30575 22680 53255 5.33 Witham 58270 11623 46647 2760 49407 4.94 Halstead 11873 962 10911 0 10911 1.09 Sturmer 9796 0 9796 0 9796 0.98 Rural Areas 13545 3462 10083 1236 11319 1.13 Total 141036 33024 108012 26676 134688 13.47
12
Focused Changes Proposed for Chapter 8 Environment
Section Proposed Amendment Reason Policy CS8, 6th Creating and enhancing the To ensure that new bullet point biodiversity value of wildlife wildlife corridors can corridors. be created. Policy CS8, 5th The Council will minimise the Clarification as paragraph, 1st exposure of people and property suggested by the line to the risks of flooding by Environment Agency following the national guidance Footnote for laid out in PPS25, .In particular explanation to text added to 1st line of 5th the sequential test will be paragraph. applied to avoid new development being located in areas of flood risk. Where a site lies partially in the flood zone the Sequential Approach will also be rigorously applied and only water compatible or essential infrastructure uses [footnote] will be permitted in areas demonstrated to be at risk.
Add: Footnote: as defined in table D.2. of Planning Policy Statement 25 Policy CS8, 5th Sustainable Drainage Systems Clarification as paragraph, 2nd (SUDS) will be encouraged used suggested by the line wherever possible to reduce flood Environment Agency. risk, promote groundwater recharge, enhance biodiversity and provide amenity benefit, unless following adequate assessment, soil conditions and/or engineering feasibility dictate otherwise. Policy CS9, 1st Respect and respond to the local To comply with bullet point. context, especially in the District’s guidance in PPS5. historic villages where development affects the setting of historic or important buildings, conservation areas and areas of highest archaeological and landscape sensitivity. Policy CS9, Add new bullet point which states: To show consideration after 1st bullet Promote and encourage the for the contribution that point. contribution that historical assets historical assets can can make towards driving make. regeneration, economic development, tourism and leisure
13 provision in the District. Policy CS9, Renewable energy proposals will To allow for final sentence be supported where impacts on consideration of amenity, wildlife, heritage assets historical assets not and landscape are acceptable. previously mentioned. Policy CS10, 3rd Recreation facilities can best be For clarity to prevent criterion under retained and enhanced through the unnecessary loss 1st bullet point. development of part of the site; or open space, sport there is an identified surplus in an and recreational open space, or sports or facilities. recreational facility, in which case development of part of the site may be allowed to secure the re-use of the remainder, to meet an identified deficit in another type of open space, or sport or recreational facility.
Focused Changes to Chapter 9 Delivering the Strategy Section Proposed Amendment Reason Paragraph 9.6, Financial contributions or direct To recognise that 2nd sentence provision will be sought from health contributions developers for facilities including may be required affordable housing, open space, transport and education and health care. Paragraph 9.6, In determining the level of To clarify that after 2nd infrastructure provided, economic economic viability will sentence viability will be a material be taken into account consideration. when agreeing S106. Paragraph 9.6, In addition development in the Previous S106 after 2nd Haverhill Fringe will be required to agreements for sentence and have regard to the potential impact development on the new sentence it may have on the infrastructure edge of Haverhill have above. requirements of Haverhill as been paid towards identified by St Edmundsbury Haverhill infrastructure. Borough Council Paragraph 9.6, Detailed infrastructure requirements Is in accordance with addition to end for the proposed growth areas will intentions for growth of paragraph. be assessed again at the time of locations. the preparation of the relevant SPD and/or at the determination of the relevant planning application. Table 2, Add a new row: To recognise that Supports all Project Details: Contributions to health contributions growth in the health care facilities, Funding: may be required District Developer Contributions, Mid Essex Primary Care Trust, Delivery Body: Mid Essex Primary Care Trust Table 2, Add a new row: To remain consistent Supporting all Project Details: Freeport foot/cycle with the projects
14 growth in bridge, Funding: Developer identified in policy CS7. Braintree, Contributions, Essex County Council, Growth Area Funding, Delivery Body: Essex County Council Table 2, Remove row: Informed by The Panfield Lane Project Details: New location for College at Braintree Growth Braintree College (dependent upon since publishing that it Location decision by Braintree College) is unlikely that money Funding: Braintree College, will be found for a government funding. Delivery Body: move. Braintree College Table 2, Remove row: Whilst a site for Panfield Lane Project Details: New site for Braintree Town Growth Braintree Town Football Club Football Club will still Location (dependent upon decision by be included in the Football Club). Funding: Braintree masterplan for the Town Football Club, Delivery Body: growth location, it is Braintree Town Football Club not considered that this is essential infrastructure. Table 2, Sible Remove row: Masterplan discussions Hedingham Project Details: Neighbourhood have established this Regeneration Centre (may include community will not be required. Area religious, retail and leisure facilities). Funding: Developer Contributions. Delivery Body: Private Developer. Table 2, Silver Remove row: To avoid being too End Project Details: Museum in prescriptive Regeneration Powerhouse. Funding: Developer Area Contributions. Delivery Body: Private Developer
Focused Changes to Chapter 10 Monitoring Framework Section Proposed Amendment Reason Table 3, Performance Measures: Number of To add clarity to the Sustainable buildings in District on English performance measure Locations of Heritage’s and Essex County Housing Land Council’s buildings at risk registers Collected by: English Heritage ECC
Focused Changes to Appendix 3 Settlement Hierarchy Section Proposed Amendment Reason Main Town, Braintree, Bocking and Great To clarify the position Notley of Great Notley in the spatial hierarchy
Focused Changes to Appendix 4 Infrastructure Trajectory Section Proposed Amendment Reason Supports all Add: Contributions for health care To recognise that
15 Growth in the facilities, 2011 - 2026 health contributions District may be required Supports Add: Freeport Bridge foot/cycleway, To reflect consistency Growth in 2011 throughout the Braintree document. Supports Remove: New location for Braintree Informed by The Growth in College, 2024 - 2026 College at Braintree Braintree since publishing that it is unlikely that money will be found for a move. Supports Remove: Neighbourhood Centre, Masterplan discussions Growth in Sible 2015 - 2017 have established this Hedingham will not be required. Supports Remove: Local Museum in To avoid being over Growth in Silver Powerhouse, 2020 - 2021 prescriptive End
Appendix A. Schedule of minor changes Section Proposed Change Reason for change Paragraph Remove ‘the East of England Plan.’ To remove RSS 1.18 reference Paragraph Replace ‘is’ with ‘was’. Add ‘This set To refer to RSS in 1.23 out to’ at the end of the paragraph past tense Paragraph Remove The majority of the policies in To remove RSS 1.24 the East of England Plan are relevant reference to the spatial planning of the Braintree District. However, there are specific policies and targets and. Renumber paragraphs in the remainder of Chapter 1. Paragraph Add before ‘East’ ‘targets that were To refer to RSS in the 1.25 set out in the’ past tense Paragraph Replace ‘are’ with ‘were’ To refer to RSS in the 1.25 past tense Paragraph Add at end of paragraph ‘Although the To update position 1.25 RSS has now been revoked, the relating to RSS. evidence base that underpinned it which established the housing need for this District is still relevant’ Paragraph Amend ‘sets’ to ‘set’ To refer to RSS in the 4.2, 1st line past tense Paragraph Amend ‘aim’ to ‘aimed’ To refer to RSS in the 4.6, 5th line past tense Paragraph Remove text ‘(which are called To remove RSS 4.8, lines in ‘Market Towns’ in the East of England reference brackets after Plan)’
16 ‘Main Towns’ Paragraph Remove text ‘(which are called ‘Key To remove RSS 4.8, lines in Service Centres’ in the East of reference brackets after England Plan)’ ‘Key Service Villages’ Paragraph After ‘growth’ add ‘already identified’ To clarify the growth 4.20, 1st proposals sentence Paragraph After ‘450 dwellings’ add; ‘including To clarify where 4.20, 1st over 300 at regeneration sites at Sible growth is sentence Hedingham and Silver End’ Paragraph Add after ‘450 dwellings’ ‘including To clarify where these 4.20, 1st bullet over 300 on regeneration sites at dwellings will be point Sible Hedingham and Silver End.” located. Paragraph Amend ‘205’ to ‘250’ To correct drafting 4.21, 2nd line error. Paragraph Remove ‘existing’ To afford confusion 4.21, 2nd line as development boundaries will be reviewed subsequent to this document. Paragraph Amend ‘will’ to ‘may’ Clarity 4.22 Paragraph After ‘reasons’ add ‘set out in the To provide a 4.27, 1st ‘Assessment of Peripheral Growth reference to the sentence Locations in the Draft Core Strategy evidence base. Technical Supplement’. Paragraph Amend ‘are’ to ‘include’ Clarity 4.27, 2nd sentence Paragraphs Amend 5.31 to 5.28, 5.32 to 5.29, Renumber due to 5.31 to 5.35 5.33 to 5.30, 5.34 to 5.31, 5.35 to deletion of earlier 5.32. paragraphs Map 2, page Amend ‘Map 2’ to ‘Inset 1a’ To correct a drafting 38 error Map 3, page Amend ‘Map 3’ to ‘Inset 2b’ To correct a drafting 39 error Map 4, page Amend ‘Map 4’ to ‘Inset 2a’ To correct a drafting 40 error Paragraph Delete ‘which meets its requirement in To remove RSS 5.2, 2nd line the east of England Plan.’ reference Paragraph Replace ‘set out in the East of To remove RSS 5.10, 1st bullet England Plan’ with ‘of the District’ reference point Policy CS1, Add after ‘sites’, ‘at Clarity of the location 2nd bullet point Premdor/Rockways’ of the site Policy CS1, Add after ‘and’, ‘at the Crittalls site in’ For clarity of the 2nd bullet point location of the site Policy CS1, Add ‘Insets’ after ‘Map’ at the end of Clarity 3rd bullet point the last sentence
17 Paragraph Delete this paragraph. Renumber all To remove RSS 5.17 existing paragraphs in this chapter reference Map 5, page Amend ‘Map 5’ to ‘Inset 1b’ To correct a drafting 61 error. Policy CS5 After ‘biodiversity’ add ‘and amenity’ Clarity Paragraph Renumber 6.7 onwards. In response to numbers after deletion of 6.6 paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8. Paragraph After ‘200 square metres’ add, Clarity. 6.37, final line. ‘additional gross floorspace’. Policy CS6, 1st Replace ‘entertainment uses’ with To ensure a line. ‘cultural provision’ in the District. consistent approach to the wording Policy CS6, Amend ‘Town Centre Regeneration Clarity –ie policy title and Retailing’ to ‘Retailing and Town relates to all retailing Centre Regeneration’ Policy CS6, Remove ‘additional’ Clarity paragraph 6 Paragraph Replace ‘Regional transport policies in To remove RSS 7.4, 1st line the East of England Plan include reference policy T4 which requires local development documents’ with ‘The Council intends’ Paragraph Delete ‘Contributions will be required To reflect current 7.14, last from the developers of the Forest funding position. sentence Road growth location towards the construction of the Motts Lane foot/cycle bridge’. Paragraph Remove ‘and the East of England To remove RSS 8.2, 2nd line Plan’ reference Paragraph Remove ‘and in the East of England To remove RSS 8.7, 1st line Plan’. After ‘and’ add ‘in’. reference Paragraph Replace ‘The East of England Plan To remove RSS 8.8, 1st line sets out requirements relating to the reference environment, stating’ with ‘The Council proposes’ Paragraph Remove ‘The East of England Plan To remove RSS 8.9, 1st line also requires that’ reference Paragraph Remove ‘and Tendering District To correct a drafting 8.13, 1st Council’ error sentence Paragraph Replace ‘The East of England Plan To remove RSS 8.14, 1st line also requires local authorities to:’ with reference ‘The Council intends to’ Sub heading, Add ‘and Historic’ after ‘Built’ To correct drafting top page 79 error Paragraph Replace ‘The East of England Plan To remove RSS 9.4, 1st line requires local authorities’ with ‘The reference. Council intends’ Paragraph After ‘development’ add ‘is supported Clarification of point.
18 9.5, 1st bullet by the required infrastructure’ point Paragraph Remove ‘East of England Plan’ To remove RSS 9.10, 1st reference sentence Paragraph Replace ‘Table 6’ with ‘Figure 4’ To correct drafting 9.10, 3rd error. sentence Table 2 title, Add ‘Requirements’ after Editing change page 89 ‘Infrastructure’ Table 2, Amend ‘Lodge Farm’ to ‘Hatfield To correct drafting Lodge Farm Road’ error. Growth Location subheading Table 2, Should end after Cemetery To correct drafting Supporting Expansion. River Channel restoration error. growth in on feeding channel to River Colne Halstead should be in Sible Hedingham Regeneration Area. Table 2, Silver In extension to existing GP surgery To correct drafting End replace both ‘Essex County Council’ error Regeneration with ‘Mid Essex Primary Care Trust’ Area Policy CS11, Replace ‘the arts’ with ‘leisure and To ensure a 1st paragraph cultural provision’. consistent wording approach. Glossary Replace ‘highest level’ with ‘former’ To remove RSS Table, East of Delete ‘The Council’s planning reference England Plan policies must be in accordance with It’. Glossary Add new row ‘Local Centre’ To provide a Table Meaning – Local Centres include a definition. range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre. Appendix 2 Add headings to each page of For clarity schedule of 15 year site supply and reformat totals Appendix 5, Add ‘(Revoked in 2010)’ at the end of To remove RSS top document the bold text. reference of first page Appendix 5, Delete ‘which must be in general To remove RSS 2nd paragraph conformity with the RSS.’ reference
19 Appendix 5, Add to the end ‘Revoked 2010’ To remove RSS 2nd page, 6th reference paragraph Appendix 5, Amend ‘forms’ to ‘formed’ To remove RSS 2nd page, 7th reference paragraph Appendix 5, Amend ‘July 2010’ to ‘October 2010’ To update position 4th page, 6th paragraph
20 Maps amended by Focused and Minor Changes
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 Appendix 2 Core Strategy Submission Draft to 2026 Comments Summary
GROWTH LOCATIONS and REGENERATION AREAS Panfield Lane, Braintree The Flitchway Consortium, The Unex Group, Miss Sylvia Ely, Mr Stephen Lloyd, Highways Agency, The Environment Agency, Higgins Homes, Crest Strategic Projects Ltd, Mersey Homes and Hill Group, ASDA, Tesco Ltd, Mr Stephen Archer, Essex County Council, Anglian Water Services Ltd. Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Sound Officer Response Recommendation • Support the allocation of Panfield Lane as a growth Noted No change location.
• Areas for Strategic Growth have been identified and Noted No change allocated in accordance with the hierarchy. • Retail facilities should form part of the mixed-use • Policy CS6 states that Local Centres such as that required by the No change development of the Growth Locations. Panfield Lane growth location would provide small-scale shops, services and community facilities for local residents. • Support the identification of Braintree as a Main Town Noted No change in the hierarchy. • The criteria for the assessment of Growth Locations is Noted No change soundly based and conclusion that Growth Locations should be only in the towns of Braintree and Witham is supported. Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Unsound Officer Response Recommendation • Disagree with growth locations being at Braintree and • The selection of Panfield Lane was based on criteria outlined in No change Witham including a new mixed use neighbourhood to paragraph 4.26 and the evidence base listed in Appendix 5 of the Core the north-west of Braintree. Strategy. • Do not consider that the Council’s approach to the assessment of sites is sound. • Policy CS1: consider policy is unsound as it refers to the Growth Location at Panfield Lane this should be the
28 Flitchway Settlement Site instead. • Object Growth Location land to the north-west of • There is a need for sustainable urban extensions on Greenfield land to No change Braintree and map 2- off Panfield Lane as it is not meet the housing supply requirements. Brownfield. • Extent of the growth location has been identified to give certainty to • Object to the boundary as shown in Map 2. It should residents and developers in terms of the scale of development show a broad area for growth. proposed. • 43 hectare Towerlands site, immediately to the north of • Inclusion of additional land at Tower lands would increase the the Panfield Lane growth area, should be included in the development potential of the area beyond that required by the Core growth location. Strategy. • Paragraph 4.27 and Map 2 should be changed to include a broad location for growth in the Panfield Lane area that includes the Towerlands site. • Deem it necessary to build 500 new homes and also • Once this allocation has taken place further proposals for development No change the potential location for Braintree College and on agricultural land would not be necessary over the plan period Braintree Town Football Club on land north west of therefore protecting remaining agricultural land. Panfield Lane. • The Pods Brook site was assessed through the Core Strategy • The proposed plan clearly shows that this development process. It was however concluded that Panfield Lane was the most is on agricultural land when you say agricultural land appropriate growth location. will be protected. • Further details will be made available through the production of a • The development site at Pods Brook Road is a much Master Plan for the area. better site and would deliver more housing and council tax. • A link road is needed but one which can handle all vehicles to Towerlands and to access town with out going down Atheric Road. • Environment Agency - appear that the constraints of • A Stage 2 Water Cycle Study is being carried out, which will identify if No change wastewater infrastructure have not been considered any further infrastructure or phasing needs to be considered. when choosing the locations for new growth in Braintree and Witham. • Paragraph 4.27 sets out reasons why potential areas • The basis for allocating growth locations is outlined in the Core No change around Braintree have been rejected as growth location Strategy at paragraph 4.26 and is supported by the evidence base is unsound. Specifically, one of the reasons for outlined in Appendix 5. rejecting areas to the north and north east of Braintree
29 is that there are large areas of sensitive landscape. • Paragraph 4.27 is unsound as land to the north-west The proposed alternative site is not of a sufficient scale to warrant No change of Braintree at Panfield Lane is unlikely to provide an inclusion in the Core Strategy as a growth location as it consists of effective and efficient means of delivering housing “up to 40” dwellings. growth to the town of Braintree. • There is a shortfall of between 330 and 510 dwellings • The housing trajectory information in Appendix 2 of the Core Strategy No change in terms of meeting RSS and local housing demonstrates that sufficient land has been identified to meet the requirements. This means that one or more additional housing requirements for this District, without the need to identify a growth locations will have to be identified in the Core further growth location. Strategy. Additional growth location should be provided at Braintree, land east of Broad Road is more suitable in terms of visual sensitivity, accessibility and coalescence. • Paragraph 4.27 implies that the 3 bullet points that • The basis for allocating growth locations is outlined in the Core Minor Change. follow represent the entirety of the reasons why other Strategy at paragraph 4.26 and 4.27 and is supported by the evidence • Change growth locations were rejected. We believe they are base outlined in Appendix 5. paragraph 4.27 to some of the reasons, not all of them. read “These included” rather than “These are;” • None of Maps 2, 3, 4 and 5 are labelled as being • Agree with the comments regarding the inset map names. Minor Change. Proposals Map Insets, it is unclear both as to the status • In terms of the comment regarding paragraph 4.28 a suitable • Re-name the of Maps 2-5, and the status of previously adopted Local form of words will be added to the Core Strategy to explain the maps on Plan Insets, particularly where the latter overlap with relationship between the maps in the Core Strategy and the other pages 37 to 40 the former. Inset maps. and the • The Proposals Map additional map included at page 140 does include spaces for Inset maps correlating to on page 61 so the growth locations, numbered 1a, 1b and 2a and 2b. they corresponded with the inset map numbers. • Include the totality of designations
30 affecting the area covered on the inset maps. • Amend paragraph 4.28 Each of the growth areas allocated in this Core Strategy in accordance with Policies CS1 and CS4 are defined on the maps on the following pages. The defined growth areas supersede the existing Proposals Map Insets for the land within the defined boundary, but outside the growth area boundary the existing Proposals Map Insets will
31 continue to apply until such time as their provisions are superseded in the Site Allocations DPD • The Core Strategy should undertake a review of the • The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment will be reviewed No change. SHLAA in the light of new Government guidance and on an annual basis. apply more reasonable assumptions concerning the percentage implementation rate of sites in each category. • Bringing Panfield Lane forward for development early in • Phasing is intended to provide a continuous supply of housing and to Focused Change the plan period would deliver the required homes enable appropriate infrastructure to be delivered. The Council is still Remove references (including affordable housing) and also to deliver much awaiting the conclusions of the Water Cycle Study Phase 2. to Braintree College needed employment land, alongside investment in local • There is no phasing relating to the delivery of employment land at the from; highway infrastructure. proposed Panfield Lane growth location. • Page 8 – Spatial • In the absence of any rationale to hold back the Strategy Bullet Panfield Lane growth area (or the other growth areas), point 2 but with good reason for the Panfield Lane growth area • Page 59 – CS4 to come forward earlier in the Plan period, paragraph remove Row 1 4.7 should be deleted. column 2 of Table CS4 which refers to Braintree College relocation. • Page 91 – Table 2 Delete Column 5 sub column 1 • Page 127 – Appendix 4
32 Infrastructure trajectory Remove column 13. • No new houses required in Braintree without the voters • The Councils Strategic Housing Market Assessment indicates that a No change consent. Braintree is big enough. local demand for both market housing and affordable housing is present in Braintree District. We support the inclusion of employment land as part of the Agree that this will be amended. Focused Change Panfield Lane mixed use growth area. Replace Table 1 with 2010 table. Table 1 Table 1 should however be alter as below. title replace ‘2009’ with ‘2010’.
• Object to paragraph 6.20 which states that an • Evidence base limiting the size of growth in that location. No change employment site will be located as part of the 44 hectare growth location north-west of Braintree. • Paragraph 9.16 - In recognition of difficulties in • Phasing for this site will be determined through a Master Plan which No change delivering new employment, the Council should take a will be adopted as Supplementary Planning guidance. pro-active role to the early delivery of the North-West Braintree mixed-use area, which makes provision for the expansion of the Springwood Drive Industrial area. • Water Cycle Study outline report identifies capacity • This would be addressed through Master Plans and suitable phasing No change issues in some Wastewater Treatment Works where for the Panfield Lane growth location. development is proposed. Further Water Cycle Study work is being progressed by the Council to establish the extent of the capacity
33 issues in these locations. This work should be used to update table 2 to ensure the necessary infrastructure upgrades are correctly identified. • ECC would not seek to be committed to funding all or • Adult education would be funded through developer contributions as No change part of any such educational college and the Core stated in table 2 infrastructure, the most logical body to deliver such Strategy document makes this clear in Chapter 9, provision would still however be Essex County Council as it is the Table 2 Infrastructure, Page 91 education authority. Essex County Council has also previously stated • For consistency, throughout the Core Strategy, ECC that it would support provision within the District. would recommend the `Key Transport Projects' • Freeport Braintree Bridge not need to be included in table 2 as being identified in Table CS7, Page 71 should all be included delivered independently of the Local Development Framework. in Chapter 9, Table 2, Infrastructure, Page 89 (omits Freeport, Braintree Cycle/Footbridge) and Appendix 4 - Infrastructure Trajectory. • If land to the east of Broad Road, Braintree is allocated • Braintree District Council does not require an additional growth No change as an additional Growth Location in CS1, Table 2 will location. need to be updated to deal with the infrastructure requirements associated with this site. • The following should be delete the following items from • The provision of the Football Ground is a fundamental element of the Focused Change Table 2 in the section on "Panfield Lane Growth Panfield Lane growth location. The evidence base for the Core • To remove Location" as they are not essential infrastructure, Strategy takes into account these elements when determining potential however reference to them should remain elsewhere: whether this site was suitable for development. It is essential to relocation of include in Core Strategy to ensure they are deliverable elements of College and 1st item (Braintree College) the site. The football ground would be an important leisure facility for football club from the District. Table 2. 4th item (Braintree Football Club) • Infrastructure requirements can be reviewed as part of the Masterplan Focused Change preparation. • Remove Column 17 which refers to • Delete the "Public Realm Improvements" item from all a new location for growth locations in Table 2. Braintree College and Column 19 which refers to the football club from Table 2.
34 • Braintree Town Football Club is grateful for the support • Master Plan for the Panfield growth location which would be able to No change of Braintree District Council for the relocation of the provide further information on the potential phasing of the Panfield Football Club as part of its Core Strategy. Lane site. • The Football Club is concerned about the proposed phasing of delivery of a new stadium in the infrastructure trajectory in Appendix 4. This states that a new stadium is to be delivered during the period 2024-2026. • The Council should review the proposed dates for the provision of a new stadium to see if earlier delivery dates could be introduced. Anglian Water Services Limited (Anglian Water) is Noted. No change appointed as the water and sewerage undertaker for the Anglian region.
Section 37 of that Act places a duty upon a water A stage 2 water cycle is being carried out. undertaker to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area.
• Until firm proposals (in terms of development volumes, locations and timings) are presented it is not possible to provide full details of our strategic water and wastewater infrastructure that is required or impacted. Nevertheless, we co-ordinate the development of new or enhanced infrastructure with other organisations, such as the EA, to ensure that adequate and co-ordinated water resource planning, drainage and pollution control is on place. • A detailed water cycle study needs to be undertaken to set out requirements and test the ability to sustainably accommodate the growth allocations within areas of constraint. • Development plans should also consider issues
35 such as odour and noise nuisance, which manifest themselves as a compliant from aggrieved property owners and it is the sewerage undertaker who has then becomes the focus of finding a resolution to the issue at hand. Such issues can be costly to resolve. • Anglian Water requests that any identification of development land is considered against the implication of having to move a complex asset and the impact on the final property owner. • Anglian Water asks that the same issues are duly noted when considering development of land adjoining an existing sewerage treatment works. It is particularly important on the sewerage side to ensure that the use of land within 400m of the boundary of the works is carefully controlled and that inappropriate developments not allowed to proceed within this cordon sanitaire. Anglian Water would seek appropriate policies within the proposed plans to ensure full consultation and a presumption against inappropriate developments. • Where a new wastewater treatment works is proposed, Anglian Water shall request that a cordon sanitaire is put in place 400m from the boundary of the site and that the following statement is included into the relevant plan: SuDS are about incorporating water and spatial planning at the LDF level through water cycle strategies so that surface water management is planned at the right scale and design. Through the working partnerships, adoption and long term maintenance needs to be agreed to but we see that this will be dictated by local circumstance rather than nature pf
36 schemes.
Lodge Farm, Witham 26 persons/organisations have submitted comments relating to the proposed growth location at Lodge Farm, Witham. These included Trustees of JSG Pelly, Mr Vellacott, Gooding and Ashby Witten, Redrow, ECC, and the Highways Agency. Comments stating that the Core Strategy is sound Officer Response Recommendation • Lodge Farm development should not be granted • Wood End Farm site to be considered as part of the Allocations No change. permission unless layout provides for access and Document. services to be extended into Wood End Farm site in • The master plan for the Lodge Farm site will be subject to public future. consultation, there will be an opportunity to comment on detail at this stage. • There is easy access to the A12 this will save on traffic • Although situated close to the A12 it is also within walking/cycling No change. through Witham town centre. distance of the town centre. • Services and facilities at Maltings Lane could be shared • There are also proposals for a church, community centre and school No change. with Lodge Farm. (granted planning permission) at Maltings Lane. • For Lodge Farm growth location there is proposed provision of a new primary school, extension of GP surgery, allotment provision, and neighbourhood centre (may include community, religious retail and leisure facilities). • It is anticipated that the community uses of both developments could compliment each other. • Lodge Farm would support provision of local services in • The Lodge Farm growth location would support and inevitably benefit No change. the area including a business park. from close proximity to employment uses, including that allocated at Maltings Lane. • Retail store to be provided at Maltings Lane should be • S106 legal agreement for the Maltings Lane development restricts the No change. able to serve growth at Lodge Farm. size of the retail store and states that it should not exceed 1115 m2. • Lodge Farm would benefit from a neighbourhood retail store in close proximity. • Welcome the inclusion of the key junction • The junction improvements were identified as part of the final Highways No change. improvements. Study and are required to deliver the growth location at Lodge Farm. Comments stating that the Core Strategy is unsound Officer Response Recommendation • Loss of countryside between Hatfield Peverel and • Lodge Farm growth location on the edge of Witham would reduce the No change.
37 Witham. Witham Plan argues for a green wedge gap between the settlements of Witham and Hatfield Peverel, the open between Hatfield Peverel and Witham to be protected countryside between the proposed growth location and Hatfield Peverel and maintained. would remain undeveloped, retaining the separation between the two settlements. The village of Hatfield Peverel is situated some 1.5 kilometres to south west of the site, beyond the A12. • Potential traffic hazard and consequential hold ups – • The final Highways study based junction assessments on worst case No change. leaving/entering Witham at peak times. scenarios to ensure that all possible problems were identified. • Final study concluded that the level of congestion in Witham town centre set out in the draft study would be unlikely to take place, if effective travel planning was carried out for new developments. • Final study also concluded that the queue lengths were considered unrealistically long as drivers would not choose to sit in these queues, but would instead find alternative routes, travel earlier or later, or use an alternative form of transport. • The final study did suggest improvements to the main junctions near the entrance to the Lodge Farm growth location. • The final study concluded that no further work had been carried out in relation to the junctions on the A12, as the report had concluded that the LDF traffic would not add significantly to these junctions and that the slip roads could only be improved if major expansion works to the A12 carriageways were undertaken. • The final study comments were supported by the Highways Agency. • 600 dwellings sandwiched between A12 and main • Growth location is not situated next to the A12. No change. railway line does not seem a sensible option or healthy • Master plan will provide a buffer or landscaping/ screening of the environment for families. railway line if required. • Open space will be required which will promote and encourage a healthy environment for families. • Not enough jobs for people who might want to buy • Concerns about the capacity of the A12 junction and specifically the No change. houses. fact that HGV’s wishing to access the site from Colchester direction would need to travel through Witham. However it is opposite the proposed Maltings Lane business park. • Lodge Farm too far away from railway station and town • Situated just beyond a 1 mile radius of the town centre and railway No change. centre. station.
38 • Table 2 illustrates the infrastructure requirements and suggests contributions will be sought for footpath and cycleway linkages and public transport improvements to improve connections to the town centre. • Proposed infrastructure is inadequate and delivery is • Table 2 (infrastructure requirements) includes proposed provision of a No change. uncertain. new primary school, extension of GP surgery, allotment provision, neighbourhood centre (may include community, religious retail and • There is specific reference to neighbourhood centre at leisure facilities) at Lodge Farm. Lodge Farm. This is not justified or effective as it does • Lodge Farm Growth Location is not scheduled to commence until 2017 not propose comprehensive solution for the area and and therefore should not prejudice the Maltings Lane offering. could prejudice the Maltings Lane offering. • It is anticipated that the community uses of both Maltings Lane and Lodge Farm developments could compliment each other. • Maltings Lane development has a number of new • Primary school at Maltings Lane is anticipated will be constructed by houses but no new shops, schools, doctors, community the end of 2011. centre. • PCT have stated that the proposed surgery at Maltings Lane, together with an extension to an existing surgery will be sufficient to meet the needs of additional residents from the new developments. • In order to provide for the future housing needs of the District it is necessary to provide sustainable urban extensions which require the development of agricultural land. • The countryside is in agricultural use. • Agricultural land in the Braintree District is classified as Grades 2 and 3 No change. with 66% of agricultural land classified as Grade 2 and 33% as Grade 3. Lodge Farm is situated on land classified as Grade 2. • There are alternative more sustainable locations which • Housing Trajectory, covering the period from 2001 – 2026 No change. should be put forward. demonstrates that the Council has identified sufficient capacity, and • Phasing should be flexible as delivery of additional has a schedule of specific deliverable housing sites demonstrating a 15 housing early on in the process could lead to support for year housing supply, which includes the phased provision of growth community facilities. locations. This is to ensure that Brownfield sites are developed prior to • Lodge Farm cannot be effective for many years – Greenfield sites and that there is a continuous supply of housing land. already surplus land allocation for housing and • Core Strategy states that, ‘flexibility can be provided if the need for this numerous new properties to be built is identified through annual monitoring, by varying the phasing if necessary, to ensure that the required housing land supply requirements are met.’
39 • Community facilities are intended to support the residents of the growth location and their provision is not a justification for early delivery of these houses. • Housing numbers should be amended from 600 to 300. • The abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategy targets and the need for a local housing target affects the housing supply requirement in the Core Strategy, which is dealt with separately in this report. • The Core Strategy is not legally compliant because the • Map 3 contained on page 39 of the Submission Draft Core Strategy Minor change. Proposals Map does not show the proposed Lodge shows the outline of the growth location off Lodge Farm. This is the Map 3 should be Farm Growth Location. Inset map numbered 2b on the proposals map. It is recognised that the renamed Proposals document does not make this clear and should be amended. Map Inset 2b to reflect its designation on the Proposals Map. Forest Road, Witham These comments mainly relate to Map 1 the Key Diagram, Map 4 Land to the North-East of Witham off Forest Road and policy CS1 on Housing Provision and Delivery. Due to the volume and similarity of comments which have been received, the same comments from multiple respondents have been grouped together. The comments are listed in the approximate order of the number of times mentioned by respondents and grouped to give an idea of approximately how many times each comment was received. The letter which was sent to local residents by Witham Town Council with BDC’s summary leaflet is attached in Appendix 5. Comments which state that the Core Strategy is sound are from the developer, Bellway Homes and The Raven Group and the Highways Agency. Comments which state that the Core Strategy is unsound are from local residents of Witham and Rivenhall, Witham Town Council, Rivenhall Parish Council, the developer Bellway Homes and The Raven Group and Hermes (Freeport) Limited Partnership. Of the local residents' objections comments, approximately 169 or 77% come from the Forest Road estate, 11 or 5% come from other parts of Witham, 37 or 18% come from Rivenhall and Rivenhall End and 4 or 2% come from outside the District (figures rounded). This includes some people who have commented twice in response to the letter from Witham Town Council Environment Committee and during the public consultation between May and July. There were no specific comments on the north-east of Witham growth location from statutory stakeholders including Essex County Council, The Environment Agency, Natural England and English Heritage.
40 Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Sound Officer Response Recommendation • Support the inclusion of land off Forest Road, north east • Officers would not wish to encourage pedestrian/cycle access to No change Witham, as a growth location. It is a shorter distance employment areas via the existing Motts Lane railway level crossing from a mainline railway station (Witham -1 km) than any because of concerns about safety. other alternative growth location and is accessible by existing foot/cycle paths. It is also closer to the town's main employment area (100 metres). • Existing foot/cycle paths provide access to the employment area via the Motts Lane railway crossing - which is identified in the Core Strategy for a new foot/cycle bridge. • The town centre is located 1.3km to the south, accessible by the no. 38 bus. • The primary and secondary schools are situated 600 metres to the north-west. • Directing growth to north east Witham provides an Noted No change opportunity to fund improvements at the Cypress Road/Braintree Road double mini-roundabout. • An appropriate level of transport infrastructure appears Noted No change to have been identified supported by the Transport Assessment by Mouchel. • The HA support the capacity improvements identified at a number of local junctions within Witham and Braintree. • The HA support the provision of new pedestrian/cycle bridges proposed. • Evidence from the Mouchel study has confirmed that there should be no 'show stoppers' in terms of the Trunk Road with the scale and location of growth proposed • The A12 and A120 in the District are under pressure at peak hours and conditions will continue to get worse as traffic grows. The A12 improvement between Witham 41 and Hatfield Peverel addresses the most pressing problem and gives more confidence that the strategic growth sites in Witham can be accommodated. Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Unsound Officer Response Recommendation Comments received from 90 – 110 respondents • The Core Strategy is not legally compliant because the This point is dealt with in the responses to Map 2-5 and to paragraph 4.28. Proposals Map does not show the proposed Rivenhall Growth Location. Comments received from 70 - 89 respondents • The allocation of 300 houses at the proposed Rivenhall • The abolition of the RSS housing requirement target is a wider issue Growth Location is premature in the light of the new and affects the entire Core Strategy. This is dealt with separately in this Government's policies LDF Panel Report. Comments received from 30 – 49 respondents • It is not consistent with national policy PPS1 as it fails to • Rivenhall and Rivenhall End are classed as ‘other villages’ in the No change. protect the countryside, fails to protect the existing hierarchy. These are defined by their village envelopes (in the Local communities and fails to promote sustainable Plan Review) and are completely separate from this proposed growth development. It could result in the population of the rural location. parish of Rivenhall doubling. • However, whilst the north-east Witham growth location is in the administrative Parish of Rivenhall, it is geographically on the periphery of Witham. Residents of the development would look to Witham to meet their service and employment needs. It is a sustainable extension to Witham. (There is a process for requesting changes to administrative boundaries if this had local support.) • The Core Strategy seeks to protect the countryside by providing the majority of new dwellings within existing town boundaries. However, there is still a need to allocate 1400 dwellings on growth locations as sustainable urban extensions in the countryside. • It relies upon an "extension of GP surgery" for the • The PCT have been fully consulted on the proposals for growth in the No change proposed Rivenhall Growth Location. There is no GP District. In Witham, they have stated that the proposed surgery at surgery either in Rivenhall or the eastern half of Witham. Maltings Lane, together with an extension to an existing surgery will be sufficient to meet the needs of additional residents from the new developments. • We also understand from a letter dated August 4th 2010 from David Barron, chair of the Mid Essex PCT to Cllr Butland, that in addition to the extension at Douglas Grove which will increase GP numbers from 2
42 to 4 as registrations increase, there is also a willingness to expand the Dr Mohanty practice. Mr Barron also notes that Witham residents are able to access other clinics in Witham operated by the various surgeries including minor injuries, ultra sound, general surgery, manual therapies and phlebotomy. • The views of the local community have been ignored in • At all stages in the development of the Core Strategy, the results of the No change previous rounds of consultation. 72% of responses public consultation have been reported in some detail to the LDF Panel opposed Rivenhall Growth Location and both Witham and have been available to view in full to all councillors and members Local Committee and the LDF Panel voted to delete the of the public via the Councils ‘limehouse’ online consultation system. proposed allocation. • The agenda of the Council meeting on the 22nd June 2009 would have • All 3 tiers of this consultation were overturned by the been available on the BDC website at least 5 days before the meeting Council on 22nd June 2009 at a meeting which and the minutes of the LDF Panels of both May and June 2009 respondents were not notified of. included references to the June Council meeting. The meeting was public and interested parties would have been able to attend. • The Core Strategy is not consistent with national policy • The Rivenhall VDS was published in July 2005 and was based on work No change because the Council failed to consider the adopted carried out from 2002 which also resulted in the production of a Parish Rivenhall Parish Plan and Village Design Statement Plan. The VDS has been approved by the Council as material planning when it first allocated the proposed growth location. guidance. The Parish Plan has no formal planning status. This means that the opinions expressed in the VDS will be taken into account when making planning decisions but it is not a statutory planning document. • On the issues of growth the VDS guidelines on page 17 state; ‘The countryside between Rivenhall main village envelope and Witham town development boundary should be protected from development to retain the rural character of this area’. However it also recognises that; ‘… all such envelopes are subject to periodic review and cannot be assumed to be permanently set at the current limits’ (page 5). Comments received from 10 -29 respondents • Forest Road cannot cope with all the increased traffic • The masterplan and subsequent planning applications will include No change which has been proposed. It is a residential road. We detailed Transport Assessments which will include access points and cannot cope with cars parking for commuter travellers junction treatments. This will have to be to the satisfaction of both BDC as well as residents now. and ECC. • If commuter car parking is an issue on Forest Road, BDC and/or WTC could ask ECC to investigate waiting restrictions as has already been
43 done in roads closer to the railway station. • The Council has failed to properly assess the impact of • BDC, ECC and the HA jointly commissioned independent consultants No change extra traffic from the proposed growth location on Forest Mouchel to carry out a Transport Study on the impacts of proposed Road; which is the only proposed access. Forest Road growth in Braintree and Witham. The report, which forms part of the is a quiet residential road, not a through road. evidence base for the Core Strategy and is available on the BDC • The Council has failed to explain how the Braintree website, shows that the main impact of growth at Forest Road will be at Road/Cypress Road roundabout would cope with the Braintree Road/Cypress Road/Cressing Road mini roundabouts. increased traffic. The study suggests a method for resolving the congestion at this • The main alternative site at Conrad Road has direct junction and shows that mitigation of the traffic generated by the Forest access to the B1018, produces less traffic and does not Road growth location is possible. This report has been approved by impact on Forest Road. ECC, HA and BDC. • The Masterplan and subsequent planning applications on the site will need to include detailed Transport Assessments including treatment of Braintree Rd/Cypress Rd/Cressing Rd junction. • Some objectors have suggested that land between Conrad Road, Elm Hall Cottages, Cressing Road and Southview School should provide a location for housing, instead of the Forest Road growth location. This 5.2 ha site is included in the SHLAA and could provide 150 dwellings. It is not large enough for a growth location and has not been subject to public consultation, or a transport assessment. (A complaint from residents of Elm Hall Cottages to Witham Town Council, stating that they were not informed that this land was being suggested as an alternative by the Town Council was copied to the LDF Panel.) • The Council could increase the housing provision in policy CS1 in Witham excluding growth locations from 900 to a higher number to accommodate additional dwellings on greenfield sites in the SHLAA on the edge of Witham. This would not specify where this growth would be located and would therefore be less definite than a growth location. • The evidence used by the Council to support the • An assessment of alternative sites was carried out in The Technical No change proposed Rivenhall Growth Location and reject Supplement of the One District – One Vision document 2008 alternatives is flawed. The main alternative site at Conrad Road is actually more sustainable than the Rivenhall site. It is closer to local schools, shops,
44 railway station. Also closer to town centre along the most used routes. • The Core Strategy is not justified because evidence is • The Statement of Consultation contains copies of the reports which Minor change missing from the Statement of Consultation. There are were considered at meetings. The report considered at Full Council on Required to amend no minutes of meetings and no record at all of the the 22nd June 2009 was broadly the same as that taken to previous Statement of Council meeting of 22nd June 2009 which overturned LDF Panels but with additional information on LDF Panel Consultation. the consultation responses. recommendations. • Its omission from the Statement of Consultation was a mistake and it will be added to the document to be sent to the inspectorate. • The proposed phasing of the Rivenhall Growth Location • The Forest Road growth location is phased between 2021 and 2026 as No change is uncertain. The developers want to build 'as early as set out in Appendix 2. possible' and not between 2021-2026 as stated by the Council. • The proposed Rivenhall Growth Location is in the • The strategic allocation will include the site within the development No change countryside and this is in serious conflict with policy CS5 boundary of Witham. Therefore policy CS5 on protection of land that says that development outside villages and in the outside of development boundaries does not apply. countryside will be strictly controlled. • The proposed infrastructure is inadequate and delivery • Network Rail are currently undertaking a study into the options for a Focused Change uncertain. The Core Strategy is over-reliant and bridge over the railway line at this point and have set aside £1.5million • The last line of confused about delivery dates for the proposed Motts from their safety budget for such works in control period 4, which ends paragraph 7.14 Lane foot/cycle bridge. It is confused as to who will pay in 2013. Councillors agreed in principle at the LDF Panel on the 4th should be for the bridge and shows no evidence that the key August 2010 that GAF funding could also be used to support this removed which partner (Network Rail) is signed up to the project. project to the region of £500,000. The findings of the study are likely to stated be available at the end of September 2010. 'Contributions will be • Paragraph 7.14 of the Core Strategy stated that developer contributions required from the were likely to be required for this project. However, due to the time developers of the restrictions on the funding available from National Rail, developer Forest Road growth contributions are unlikely to be available. location towards the construction of the Motts lane foot/cycle bridge.' • No other rural parish in Braintree District faces such a • The north-east Witham growth location is intended as an urban No change. level of proposed growth. The proposed Rivenhall extension to Witham, rather than rural growth.
45 Growth Location is also on land formerly defined as • BDC has worked with the developer of the site and the boundary Green Wedge land, with a specific policy commitment proposed for development has significantly altered from the original from the Council to protect the land from development developer submission and from what was contained in the previous because of the need to maintain a strategic gap draft of the Core Strategy, to reflect the concerns of local residents in between Rivenhall and Witham. both Witham and Rivenhall. The site area has now shifted to the east and preserves a strategic gap of countryside and golf course between Witham and the village envelopes of Rivenhall and Rivenhall End. The growth location is also separate from the ribbon of houses along Rickstones Road, which are situated in the gap between Witham and the village of Rivenhall. There are also several dwellings located in the countryside off Rectory Lane, including The Old Rectory and Glebe Farm. The growth location is not as close to them as are the existing dwellings in Witham, off Forest Road. • In addition the Masterplan will provide further detailing of landscaping which will be used to screen the site. • The Core Strategy is not justified because the • The SA/SEA was produced by ECC who were commissioned to No change Environmental Report fails to identify the risk of independently assess the Core Strategy. It should be noted that coalescence between Witham and Rivenhall. The objective 15 relates to a number of indicators including coalescence as proposed Rivenhall Growth Location would reduce the detailed in Appendix C of the document. strategic gap between Witham and Rivenhall End by 45%. • The development would be close to the historic Rectory • Agree that Rectory Lane is unsuitable for site access and increased No change. Lane which is totally unsuitable for increased traffic. levels of traffic. The proposed site boundary contained in the submission draft Core Strategy has been amended from previous submissions to ensure that the development is moved away from Rectory Lane and no vehicle access point is planned on this road. • The Masterplan and transport assessment will both need to show how traffic will be prevented from using the road. • As suggested by a respondent BDC have asked ECC to look into the possibilities of making Rectory Lane a ‘dead end’ to ensure that vehicles will not use the road apart from access. • Both north and south bound junctions on the A12 at • BDC, ECC and the HA jointly commissioned independent consultants No change. Rivenhall End are acknowledged as being sub standard Mouchel to carry out a Transport Study on the impacts of proposed
46 and cannot meet current specifications for trunk road growth in Braintree and Witham. The report, which forms part of the junctions due to lack of space. This would result in traffic evidence base for the Core Strategy and is available on the BDC emanating from the proposed Rivenhall Growth Location website, shows that increased flow on the A12 from all growth in site having to come into Witham in order to access the Witham (as set out in the submission draft Core Strategy) is no more A12 trunk road thus compounding traffic congestion than 2% between Oak Road and junction 21. Traffic increases on the around the station area and in the north of the town. A12 generally mean all junctions would require improvements but are prevented from doing so by the number of lanes on the A12. Only 1 junction, junction 21, would require upgrading as a result of local traffic increases in the south of Witham but this is not possible due to the width of the A12. Comments received from less than 10 respondents • It fails to take account of the impact on John Ray Walk • Existing public footpaths in the vicinity of the site including the John No change. which passes directly through the proposed Rivenhall Ray Walk will be preserved, protected and enhanced. The masterplan Growth Location and therefore does not "broaden public for the site which will be approved and adopted by BDC will ensure this access" for residents of Witham and Rivenhall. and future planning applications on the site must reflect this. • The Maltings Lane development has not been provided • The Maltings Lane infrastructure will be provided. No change. with the original promised infrastructure, presumably • Service providers including ECC and PCT have been consulted on their because there was no money to be made in providing requirements for infrastructure to support the development and the list it. What guarantee is there that further developments of the proposed infrastructure with estimated delivery dates is included would be provided with an appropriate infrastructure? in Appendix 4. • Any planning approval would include a legal agreement between the Council and developers to ensure these facilities are delivered in a timely fashion. • The Environmental Report over-scores the Rivenhall • The SA/SEA was produced by ECC who were commissioned to No change. Growth Location and underscores the main alternative independently assess the Core Strategy and the alternative growth site at Conrad Road. The Conrad Road site should locations. have been scored green on the correct assessment of • Comments received on the SA/SEA will be passed to ECC. the Council's own criteria. • The agents for the landowners have clearly indicated • The Forest Road growth location is allocated for 300 dwellings. The No change. that they want to build more than 300 houses. masterplan which will be approved and adopted by BDC will also confirm this. Planning applications must reflect this or will be refused. Adjacent land will remain in the countryside and is not allocated for development.
47 • The submission from the agents Andrew Martin Associates on behalf of Bellway Homes and The Raven Group received in June 2010 as part of this public consultation does not state any aspirations to develop further land and clearly state that 16ha of land are being put forward to accommodate a sustainable urban extension to Witham. This is the site area which is included in Map 4 of the Submission Draft Core Strategy. • In the SCI, Chapter 3 sets out how consultation will be • The LDF Panel and the Planning Committee were created by the carried out by the Council. At paragraphs 3.12 and 3.13, Council at their AGM in 2007 and replaced the single District • SCI requires it is stated that the District Development Committee will Development Committee which had incorporated the responsibilities of amendment to consider representations and that all respondents will be the Local Plan Panel in 2005. remove ‘District informed of when this would be. However, this has not • The terms of reference for this group were agreed at its first meeting in Development been done. July 2007 and include that the Panel should be autonomous subject to Committee’ and • Firstly, the primary committee dealing with the Core any policy decisions or changes affecting the policy framework being replace with ‘LDF Strategy has been the LDF Panel, not the District recommended to Council for a decision following consultation with Panel’. Development Committee. Furthermore, LDF Panel Cabinet and the Local Committees. Therefore LDF Panel decisions decisions have been referred to Full Council which has fundamentally affecting the Core Strategy have been referred to made the final decisions. Council. • The SCI update produced in April 2010 should have amended the name of the panel and has mistakenly not done so. • To be sustainable there needs to be an inclusion for • The provision of the Motts Lane foot/cycle bridge will make it easier to No change local employment missing in the plan. access local employment opportunities. • Concerned that the mixed-use ‘growth locations' • No large scale retail and leisure floorspace will be permitted in the No change. identified could become subject to applications for growth locations as this would be contrary to Core Strategy policy CS6 significant retail floorspace. on Town Centre Regeneration and Retailing. • Artificially holding sites back in the phasing programme • Appendix 2 provides a housing trajectory. This ensures that there is a No change. will only limit flexibility and reduce the ability of the Core constant supply of housing land available in the District and that sites in Strategy to handle changing circumstances, such as the most sustainable locations are developed first. under delivery on previously developed sites. • Rather than justifying phasing, the provision of infrastructure is a reason to remove the phasing requirements. In addition to the comments received in this round of public consultation, the BDC received 81 letters from residents and Witham Town Council in February. These comments were prompted by a letter from the Chair of Witham Town Council Environment Committee to some Witham residents
48 about the Submission Draft Core Strategy being discussed at Council with the decision to be made to recommend the submission draft for public consultation. Comment Officer Response Recommendation Comments received from 50 – 70 respondents • There are not enough shopping facilities, doctors, • Service providers including ECC and PCT have been consulted on their No change school and nursery places etc and indeed the nearest requirements for infrastructure to support the development and the list community centre to these proposed houses is in the of the proposed infrastructure with estimated delivery dates is included process of being closed down by Braintree District in Appendix 4. Council. • Any planning approval would include a legal agreement between the Council and developers to ensure these facilities are delivered in a timely fashion. Comments received from 30 – 49 residents • In the afternoon during the "school run" up to at least • BDC, ECC and the HA jointly commissioned independent consultants No change 6pm in the evening, there is heavy traffic coming into Mouchel to carry out a Transport Study on the impacts of proposed and across Witham. This can only be added to with any growth in Braintree and Witham. The report, which forms part of the new vehicles from the 300 homes that join the traffic evidence base for the Core Strategy is available on the BDC website. jams with me. The study shows that traffic growth in Witham, from both background increases and growth proposed in the Core Strategy can be accommodated in Witham, subject to some junction amendments. • A detailed Transport Assessment will need to be submitted with masterplan/application to show how the traffic from this site will be managed. • The doctors and healthcare services in this area will not • The PCT have been fully consulted on the proposals for growth in the No change be able to cope with 300 new homes as surgeries are District. In Witham, they have stated that the proposed surgery at under great pressure to take new patients now. Maltings Lane, together with an extension to existing surgery will be sufficient to meet the needs of additional residents from the new developments. • We also understand from a letter dated August 4th 2010 from David Barron, chair of the Mid Essex PCT to Cllr Butland that in addition to the extension at Douglas Grove which will increase GP numbers from 2 to 4 as registrations increase, there is also a willingness to expand the Dr Mohanty practice. He also notes that there are other services on offer across the Witham surgeries including minor injuries, ultra sound,
49 general surgery, manual therapies and phlebotomy. Comments received from 10 -29 respondents • Forest Road is already double parked on both sides of • The masterplan and subsequent planning applications on the site will No change the road which restricts traffic both ways so any need to include detailed Transport Assessments which will provide increase in traffic could only contribute to further detail of access points and junction treatments. This will have to be to accidents/damage/delays. the satisfaction of both BDC and ECC. • If commuter car parking is an issue on Forest Road, BDC and/or WTC could ask ECC to investigate waiting restrictions as has already been done in roads closer to the railway station. • Destruction of the countryside - it is essential that we • The Core Strategy, following on from work on the SHLAA, identifies No change preserve wildlife and green areas. approximately ¾ of the housing proposed in the Core Strategy within existing built up areas. The remaining development has been proposed on areas on the edge of the main towns of Braintree and Witham to minimise their impact on the open countryside. • Object to building on green land that divides Witham • The north-east Witham growth location is intended as an urban No change from Rivenhall, not only would this be aesthetically extension to Witham, rather than rural growth. unpleasing it would also mean that both Witham and • BDC has worked with the developer of the Forest Road site and the Rivenhall would lose their individual identities. boundary proposed for development in the submission draft Core Strategy has significantly altered from the original developer submission and from what was contained in the previous draft of the Core Strategy, to reflect the concerns of local residents in both Witham and Rivenhall. The site area has now shifted to the east and preserves countryside and the golf course between Witham and housing in Rivenhall Parish including that on Rickstones Road. • Masterplan will provide further detailing of landscaping which will be used to screen the site. • Witham has already lost a significant part of its • Design and appearance of the new development will be carefully No change character as a small market town. Any further increase considered to add to the character and appearance of Witham. in housing will compound and accelerate the loss. Comments received from 5 -10 respondents • Facilities at Maltings Lane have not been built and are • Infrastructure for the site has been included in Appendix 4, together No change unlikely to be so until that development is completed. with a proposed delivery date. • Conditions will be attached to future planning applications to ensure the
50 timely delivery of infrastructure. • Rickstones Road is already jam packed at peak times • BDC, ECC and the HA jointly commissioned independent consultants No change and the mini roundabout at the junction with Braintree Mouchel to carry out a Transport Study on the impacts of proposed Road would mean this area would be more of a gridlock growth in Braintree and Witham. The report, which forms part of the than it already is. evidence base for the Core Strategy and is available on the BDC website, shows that the main impact of growth at Forest Road will be at the Braintree Road/Cypress Road/Cressing Road mini roundabouts. The study suggests a method for resolving the congestion at this junction and shows that mitigation of the traffic generated by the Forest Road growth location is possible. This report has been approved by ECC, HA and BDC. • The Masterplan and subsequent planning applications on the site will need to include detailed Transport Assessments including treatment of Braintree Rd/Cypress Rd/Cressing Rd junction. • Rivenhall will lose its characteristic village status and will • The north-east Witham growth location is intended as an urban No change be too closely linked to Witham if the houses were to be extension to Witham. The extent of which has been altered significantly built. to retain open space between Witham and housing in Rivenhall Parish including that on Rickstones Road. • In addition the Masterplan will provide further detailing of landscaping which will be used to screen the site. • The site has 2 public footpaths one is called the John • Existing public footpaths in the vicinity of the site including the John No change. Ray Walk and is used frequently by walkers. It will lose Ray Walk will be preserved, protected and enhanced. its appeal to walkers if it means walking through a • The masterplan for the site which will be approved and adopted by housing estate. BDC will ensure this and future planning applications must reflect this. • The proposal is INITIALLY 300 homes. That gives no • The Forest Road growth location is allocated for 300 dwellings. The No change indication of what the final number might be. With the masterplan which will be approved and adopted by BDC will also current guidelines for smaller, more affordable units that confirm this. Planning applications must reflect this or will be refused. number could be doubled. • Adjacent land will remain in the countryside and is not allocated for development. Comments received from less than 5 respondents • The Rivenhall End/A12 junction is another potential • BDC, ECC and the HA jointly commissioned independent consultants No change accident black spot, the slip roads being far too short to Mouchel to carry out a Transport Study on the impacts of proposed handle any increase in traffic. The A12 itself is already growth in Braintree and Witham. The report, which forms part of the
51 at capacity and will only become worse. evidence base for the Core Strategy and is available on the BDC website, shows that increased flow on the A12 from all growth in Witham (as set out in the submission draft Core Strategy) is no more than 2% between Oak Road and junction 21. Traffic increases on the A12 generally mean all junctions would require improvements but are prevented from doing so by the number of lanes on the A12. Only 1 junction would require upgrading as a result of local traffic and this is at junction 21 caused mainly by traffic created from development in the south of Witham. • The disruption caused during the building process both • Some degree of disruption is likely for local residents on all building No change. noise and excess traffic. projects. However conditions will be placed on the planning permission to minimise this, by, for example, restricting working hours on site. • The drainage in Forest Road will not be able to cope • The site is not in an area at risk of flooding. The future masterplan and No change with the rain running off the site with 300 new homes. planning applications for the site will need to include details of a This land soaks up a lot of water after heavy rain. If it is Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) which will ensure there is built on, a lot more water will run off into Forest Road, no risk of flooding to new or existing properties. making it liable to flooding. • Conrad Road is slightly closer to Witham Town Centre • An assessment of alternative growth locations was included in the No change and the railway station as measured along the routes Technical Supplement of One District – One Vision 2008. most likely to be used by the majority of new residents living at the locations. Conrad Road is also right on the doorstep of an existing primary school and secondary school and sixth form, so that all able bodied pupils would be able to easily walk to school from the site. It is on a bus route and would have access to a much more suitable road for car traffic (the B1018) than Forest Road. • In addition a petition with 132 signatures was submitted: • The points raised in the petition have been previously addressed No change • With regard to the proposal for 300 homes to be built in above. the above mentioned area, I would like to say that I personally and the people, whose signatures are below, object to the plans for this area on the following grounds:
52 • The traffic congestion getting from Cyprus Road onto Braintree Road during peak times is already bad and we believe this development would make the situation even worse. • This is a Green Belt Area, enjoyed by walkers and includes the John Ray Walk, which is used by ramblers and the public in general. • This area does not have sufficient facilities i.e. Doctors, dentists, shops etc, to support an influx of 600 plus people. • We would be grateful therefore if you would consider our objections, as we do not feel that this is a practical proposal. Sible Hedingham Regeneration Area Comments stating that the Strategy is sound from Premdor and Rockways. Comments which stated the Core Strategy was Sound Officer Response Recommendations • Support the identification of Sible Hedingham as a Noted No change KSV • Support the role of KSV’s in providing future growth in Noted No change the District Comments which state that the Core Strategy is Officer Response Recommendations Unsound • The reference to 450 dwellings should not be taken as • The reference to 450 dwellings in the KSV is an approximate figure No change a ceiling on development and not intended as a cap on development. • Regeneration area at Sible Hedingham should be specifically mentioned in the Core Strategy • This is unnecessary and would go into too much detail for the Core Strategy No change • We support the 30% figure for affordable housing in • All developments will be considered on a site by site basis and where No change Sible Hedingham however Premdor site may not be sites are not able to provide the target level of affordable housing, an able to deliver that much. open book approach will be needed • The suggested uses listed for Rockways and Premdor • The final make up of uses on the site would be determined by a No change site are too prescriptive and may affect delivery of the Master Plan.
53 site. • Suggest removal of the neighbourhood centre from the Premdor regeneration site. Silver End Regeneration Area 14 consultees/agents have submitted comments relating to the proposed regeneration area at the former Crittalls site in Silver End. This included, HDPL, DLA Town Planning, CEMEX, Premdor agent, Parham Holdings (land owner of former Crittalls site), Crown Estate, Unex Group, Primary Care Trust, Mersea Homes, Forwarding Investment Properties, Essex County Council, DJ Hosford, Richard Long and English Heritage. Comments stating that the Core Strategy is sound Officer Responses Recommendations • Silver End is one of largest Key Service villages and • Silver End is one of the larger villages in the District with a population of No change supports rural communities. Additional growth in this at least 3,000. location would be sustainable. • Core Strategy proposes regeneration of the former Crittall factory within • Identification of regeneration area bolsters ability of Silver End, but does not propose additional growth in the form of a Silver End to act as a sustainable location for growth location for this village. appropriately scaled new development. • Regeneration of former Crittall factory site will bring • Will provide opportunity for improvements to local services and facilities No change social, economic and social benefits and will support and the built environment both of which would be indirect benefit to the addition to services and infrastructure. village centres. • Silver End is a sustainable and accessible location with • There is a regular Bus service which runs from Braintree via Freeport No change good public transport links. and Silver End to Witham. • Support text below 6.4 which states regeneration of • The Braintree District Economic Assessment supports preparation of No change buildings that are not fit for purpose – including at Silver development briefs for ‘old’ employment sites and recommends End, this is supported as is founded on robust and investigating alternative employment uses, including mixed use on the credible evidence base. former Crittall site at Silver End. • Employment Land Review recommends that the site should be redeveloped for a mixed use employment/residential development as its size probably exceeds demand for employment space in this location. It also notes site is remote from trunk road network for B8 uses. • Silver End can be considered as a historic ‘factory site’ • The old power buildings have been retained at request of ECC Historic Minor Change in context of policy ENV 6 of RSS. Direct references to Buildings and English Heritage and would need to form part of • Remove direct the East of England Plan may need to be deleted from regeneration and development proposals on the site. references to the Core Strategy however background statements could East of England usefully remain the text. Plan from the
54 Core Strategy, however, retain useful background statements. Comments that state the Core Strategy is unsound Officer Responses Recommendations • Reference to ‘employment sites’ rather than ‘factory • Other employment sites which are put forward by developers and No change. sites’ improve internal consistency with regeneration landowners for regeneration of mixed use schemes will need to be and sustainability objectives and allow for consideration considered as part of the Allocations Document. of all potential regeneration opportunities during preparation of Allocations Document. • Silver End is removed from A12 transport corridor. In • Silver End is approximately 20 minutes by car to the A12 and A120. No change. terms of accessibility and public transport Coggeshall, • Silver End is situated between Witham and Braintree. There is a Hatfield Peverel and Kelvedon are most strategically regular bus service between Witham and Braintree. located key service villages. • Although Silver End is not located on a railway line it is situated within close proximity to Cressing Station. • 4.20 – specific reference should be made to Silver End • There is reference to Silver End and Sible Hedingham regeneration Minor Change regeneration areas within this part of Core Strategy. areas in the Core Strategy with specific reference in policy CS1 and • Amend paragraph CS4 which refers to ‘mixed use regeneration sites in Sible Hedingham 4.20 to read, ‘ • Reference to housing development with regeneration and Silver End’. appropriate areas is confined solely to tables attached to Core • It is noted that there doesn’t appear to be any specific reference in development in Strategy – there needs to be cross reference to main paragraph 4.20. these villages will text. be supported and promoted, including the regeneration of the former Crittalls site, Silver End and Premdor site, Sible Hedingham and other partnership initiatives, to help
55 secure their continued sustainability, make sure that jobs and services are kept and if possible improved and their historic character enhanced.’ • Former Crittall site is available to be developed in first • Housing Trajectory demonstrates the Council has identified sufficient No change. phase of Core Strategy. capacity, and has a schedule of specific deliverable housing sites demonstrating a 15 year housing supply, which includes the phased provision of growth locations. This is to ensure that Brownfield sites are developed prior to Greenfield sites. • The former Crittall site is shown as coming forward in 2018/2021. • It is stated in the Core Strategy that, ‘flexibility can be provided if the need for this is identified through annual monitoring, by varying the phasing if necessary, to ensure that the required housing land supply requirements are met.’ • Settlement hierarchy should be amended Kelvedon and • Paragraph 4.8 of the Core Strategy refers to ‘Hierarchy of Place’ and No change. Feering should be above Silver End in importance. lists the, ‘Key Service Villages – in no order of importance’ • Although Feering adjoins Kelvedon it is a smaller village which does not provide as many services, it has therefore not been identified as a Key Service village. • Object to sentence ‘uses to include employment, • The factory buildings and powerhouse are important historic buildings Focused Change housing, re use of factory buildings, including re use of of the former Crittalls factory site. . To remove specific powerhouse as a museum’. Over prescriptive in reference to ‘reuse of requiring a powerhouse/factory building as a museum. • Following previous public consultation and discussions with the Parish powerhouse as a Should be amended to say ‘mixed use’. Council, there appeared to be an aspiration for a museum on the site to museum’ and amend reflect the historical importance of the former Crittall factory site in to say ‘mixed use’. Silver End. • Concern relating to Table 2 and requirements. There is • A master plan will be created for the former Crittall factory site which No change.
56 no reference to financial viability of proposed will be subject to a financial viability assessment. development. • Table 2 omits any reference to Mid Essex Primary Care • Table 2 of the Core Strategy summarises a list of key facilities and Minor Change Trust as a delivery body in relation to Silver End infrastructure that will be required to support development up to 2026, Amend table 2 to regeneration area. and details how the infrastructure will be funded and who it will be refer to Mid Essex delivered by. Primary Care Trust as delivery body ‘extension of existing GP surgery’ • CS1 - concern that master plans will be approved as • The master plan prepared for the former Crittalls site, Silver End will be Minor Change SPDs and those sites are not actually referred to by approved as a Supplementary Planning Document and will be subject • Amend CS1 to name or identified on a plan. to a separate public consultation. state, ‘on mixed use regeneration • Potential confusion on fourth bullet point ‘on previously • It is noted that the regeneration sites in Sible Hedingham and Silver sites at Premdor, developed land, infill sites in Key Service Villages and End are not actually referred to by name in policy CS1. Sible other villages’. Whilst it is anticipated that Crittall site Hedingham and would be viewed as a mixed use regeneration site, it • The sentence ‘on previously developed land and infill sites in the Key the former could also fall within last category. Service Villages and other villages’ in CS1 refers to delivering dwellings Crittalls site, on previously developed land, infill sites and other villages in addition to Silver End, the regeneration areas of Sible Hedingham and Silver End. where boundaries will be defined on Master Plans to be approved as Supplementary Planning Documents’ Minor Change • Amend sentence of CS1 to read, ’on previously developed land and infill sites in
57 the Key Service Villages and other villages in addition to the regeneration areas of Crittalls site, Silver End and Premdor site, Sible Hedingham.’ • Refer to CS1 – Wording should be amended to include • Master plans for the regeneration areas in Silver End and Sible Focused Change production of a master plan by either LPA or developer, Hedingham will be prepared by the developer working closely with the Amend wording in or working jointly to avoid delay and potential frustrated Local Planning Authority. Public consultation will also take place. CS1 to state, ‘The development. development of the mixed use growth locations will be in accordance with Master Plans to be approved as supplementary planning documents by the Council. Master plans are to be prepared by either the Local Planning Authority, developer or working jointly’. • CS1 – term master plan is not precise and maybe • Master plans will be prepared for the growth locations and regeneration No change. interpreted by different people in very different ways. areas in Silver End and Sible Hedingham. The master plans will SPD may well contain a number of different tools to demonstrate deliverability of the sites. guide development it’s perhaps not preferable to have • The master plans will be approved as Supplementary Planning specific reference to master plans at all. Documents.
58 • There should be indicative dates for delivery of • The Regional Spatial Strategy set an ‘indicative target of 56,000 net No change. employment land. growth jobs for the period 2001 – 2021 to be delivered in the rest of Essex’, which was defined as Braintree, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Epping Forest, Harlow, Maldon and Uttlesford. • The Cambridge Econometrics Study suggests job target for the District should be up to 14,000 new jobs between 2001 and 2026. Policy CS4 seeks to ensure the delivery of this higher job target. • The provision of 3 hectares of employment land per year (minimum recommended in the Employment Land Review) from 2009 to 2026 would require 51 hectares of employment land to be allocated of which 22 hectares has already been identified. The remaining balance of 29 hectares of additional employment land is to be provided at the proposed Business Park at Great Notley (size 18.5 hectare – due to be delivered after 2016) and 15 hectares of employment land associated with Panfield Lane growth location (due to be delivered in 2020/2021). • CS4 should be amended to include, ‘on mixed use • Other existing employment sites put forward by landowners and No change. regeneration sites in Sible Hedingham, Silver End and developers for mixed use schemes such as in Coggeshall and mixed use sites in Coggeshall and Kelvedon’. Kelvedon will need to be considered as part of the Allocations Document of the Core Strategy. • Opportunities exist on a variety of Greenfield sites • The Council will plan, monitor and manage the delivery of a minimum of No change. identified in the SHLAA to deliver mixed use schemes 4,637 dwellings between 2009 and 2026, through phased development which include both housing and employment to ensure a continuous supply of housing land is met and to ensure that development. These sites in our view can in many the most sustainable locations are developed earlier on in the life of instances be considered more sustainable locations Core Strategy. The Council will seek to develop Brownfield sites within then the strategic sites at Sible Hedingham and Silver existing development boundaries and on previously developed land End. before the Greenfield sites are developed. It should be noted that many letters commented on the lack of time between the letter received from Witham Town Council Environment Committee and the date of the BDC Council meeting. The agenda and reports for the Council meeting in February were published on the website in advance as usual. The formal consultation period which opened in May 2010 was widely published and we are confident that all those who wished to make their views known have had the opportunity. Chapter 2 - A Spatial Portrait of Braintree District Comments were received from Sturmer Parish Council, The Theatres Trust, Hermes (Freeport) Ltd Partnership, English Heritage, local residents. Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Sound Officer Response Recommendations
59 • This should include support for a rail link from Haverhill • The spatial portrait is a description of the existing position not a No change to Cambridge statement of policy. • Bus services between Sturmer, Haverhill and Braintree Noted No change very limited • The development of tourism is hardly mentioned and is • One of the key objectives for the strategy is to enable the provision of No change not included in any policy. accessible and varied opportunities for leisure and recreational activities.
Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Unsound Officer Response Recommendations • A greater level of statistical evidence could be included • The spatial portrait is intended to give a flavour of the District as context No change to provide a clearer picture of the current levels of to the policies contained within the document. It is not intended to provision against national standards and statistics. provide an exhaustive measure of quality of life. • English Heritage recommends that an additional • Two of the Core Strategy’s key objectives relate to Built Environment No change paragraph is included: ‘The Core Strategy recognises and Environment. the fundamental importance of the historic environment • BDC does not intend to carry out a study of the heritage to the distinctiveness of the District and the role that it characterisation of the District can play in place-making. A positive strategy will be developed based on characterisation of the District's heritage assets, including information from the Conservation Area Appraisals currently in preparation.' Chapter 3 – Vision, Aims and Objectives Comments received from Natural England, Sturmer Parish Council, Environment Agency, Andrewsfield New Settlements, Redrow Homes, Asda, Unex, Senior Planner Martin, Robeson Planning Practise, HDPL, Flitchway Settlement, Feering Parish Council, Brett Aggregates, DLA Town Planning, Natural England, Ashen Parish Council, Crest Strategic Projects, Mrs P Hennessey, Mersea Homes. • Comments stating that the Core Strategy is Sound Officer Response Recommendations • Including the line ‘natural environment will have been Noted No change protected and enhanced’ ensures that the vision now contains a clear environmental message. • Support the Councils vision. In particular recognising the Noted No change need to adapt to climate change. • Support principle of 3.1 which states growth will include Noted No change a new mixed use neighbourhood to north west of
60 Braintree. • Supports principles of access to retail facilities and that Noted No change the existing and future needs of District are suitably provided for. • Council vision for District is unobjectionable, important Noted No change to aspire towards achieving a sustainable area where local people have opportunity to live in a green clean environment work locally and enjoy a safe and healthy lifestyle. • Support identification of Braintree/Witham as main Noted No change towns where majority of growth will be located, designation reflects the role and function of both settlements. • Support idea of historic towns, villages and attractive Noted No change countryside to be maintained, improved and protected but find this at odds with increased traffic pollution, noise, vibration and deteriorating air quality. • Considers Rivenhall Country Park to be one of the most • Proposed Rivenhall Country Park will be considered as part of the No change attractive and enjoyable family venues in the Blackwater Essex County Council Minerals and Waste Plan. Valley. • Supports Councils vision to maintain and develop key Noted No change service villages such as Silver End. • Welcome 12 objectives – particularly on climate change Noted No change and those carbon emissions. • Objective on sustainability promotes use of previously Noted No change developed land to limit the extent of Greenfield land required. • Compatibility between the proposals for development at Noted No change south west Witham growth area and the relevant key objectives identified for Core Strategy in the submission draft document. • Providing housing to meet needs of all sections of Noted No change
61 community particularly for a range of high quality accommodation for those with special needs is strongly supported. Comments stating that the Core Strategy is Unsound. Officer Responses Recommendations • Preservation/enhancement of historic built environment • This will be reinforced with the Development Management Policies. No change should be a feature which is emphasised within this document and carried forward as a ‘given’ in planning and development decisions. Emphasis should also be placed on protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment. • Weight should be given to application of sustainable • To be considered when determining planning applications will be No change principles when dealing with all types of development detailed in Development Management Policies. across the District. • Where new rings of development are proposed to be • By placing homes, jobs, services and facilities in the main towns and No change grafted into existing urban areas, then patterns of travel larger villages where most people live, will help to reduce travel can be less sustainable than would be case for a distances to work. completely new settlement. • A ‘new settlement’ would have an adverse impact on the environment without sufficient scale to provide all the services needed by its new residents. It would also limit the development of services in existing centres. This would also be likely to increase car travel. • Panfield Lane Growth Location should be removed and • Panfield Lane growth location has been identified following various No change replaced with reference to Flitch Way Settlement. assessments and evidence base to demonstrate deliverability and viability. • Paragraph for environment should include, ‘amenity Noted Focused Change and environmental quality of countryside to be • Amend protected, restored and enhanced’. Environment objective to read, ‘to protect, restore and enhance the natural habitats, biodiversity and landscape character, amenity
62 and environmental quality of the countryside. • Sustainability Objective does not properly represent • It is not considered that concentrating new growth outside urban areas No change content of Core Strategy as regards balance between is sustainable. Greenfield development and urban regeneration/use of previously developed land.
Suggest wording… • ‘To ensure that all development is sustainable and to minimise use of scarce natural resources and address causes and potential impacts of climate change, encourage renewable energy (delete ‘and promotes the development of previously developed land’) urban regeneration to limit the extent of greenfield land required, and concentrates new growth outside urban areas at the most sustainable locations.’ • Consider following amendment would render objective • Policy CS 11 Infrastructure Services and Facilities, ‘states that Council No change sound: ‘to ensure that new development makes will work with partners, service delivery organisations and development necessary provision for infrastructure and industry to ensure that the infrastructure services and facilities required community facilities (delete to meet existing and future to provide for the future needs of the community…are delivered in a needs of District) that arise from it and work with timely, efficient and effective manner.’ partners to meet the existing and future infrastructure needs of the District. • Housing objective is imprecise and is open to • Too specific for an objective, the housing requirement is set out in the No change misinterpretation as a result of reference to providing an Spatial Strategy. ‘adequate amount’ of new housing and provide housing for ‘all sections’ of community but then goes on to suggest that housing for specific groups should be regarded as more important that housing for other sections of the community, Suggest wording…
63 • ‘To meet local housing needs of all sections of the community by providing a minimum of 4,367 dwellings between 2009-2026 via a (delete ‘adequate amount’) range of high quality accommodation (delete ‘in particular’) including ‘affordable housing’ and that required for special needs.’ • To be effective objective needs to support the early and • Delivery of new employment must take account of viability and it is No change timely delivery of employment land. unrealistic to expect an early and timely provision in adverse economic Suggest wording… conditions. • ‘To make timely provision for new employment (delete ‘provide’) and retain employment in sustainable locations to support the ‘Districts’ economy (delete in sustainable locations and to provide local employment) opportunities to seek to reduce travelling outside the District to work and to improve skills attainment. Chapter 4 Spatial Strategy Paragraphs 4.1 – 4.15 Comments stating that the Core Strategy is Sound were received from Ashen Parish Council, Redrow Homes (Eastern) Ltd, DLA Town Planning, Maldon District Council, owner of land to the north east of Braintree - Harold Good Farm Trust, owner of the Silver End regeneration site – Parham Holdings, developer of the north-west Witham growth location- Bellway Homes and The Raven Group, The Environment Agency, owner of Towerlands – The Unex Group, Promoters of land to the north-east of Braintree - Crest Strategic Projects, Essex County Council Property Services and various local residents and businesses. Comments stating that the Core Strategy is Unsound were received from Feering Parish Council, Sturmer Parish Council, various local residents and businesses, the Environment Agency, Asda Stores Ltd, Higgins Home Ltd, Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution and Martin Robeson Planning Practice. Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Sound Officer Response Recommendations • The objective of sustainability should include "to • Noted. The environment key objective covers this point. No change preserve and enhance the quality of the environment'' • Support paragraph 4.1 where it states that the Noted No change development of previously developed land will be encouraged as will the concentration of growth in the most sustainable locations. • Irrespective of the presence or otherwise of the RSS, Noted No change
64 the spatial strategy accords with the central tenants of national planning policy. • Para 4.14 Add "and be sustainable". • The strategy aims for all development to be sustainable; therefore the No change addition of the word here is not necessary. • Consideration should also be given to allocating sites on • Consideration will be given to minor amendments of the town and No change the edge of settlements to accommodate growth in the village envelopes in the Allocations Document. longer term. • Braintree District Council should work with neighbouring Noted No change local authorities to mitigate any negative cross-boundary impacts arising from new development. Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Unsound Officer Response Recommendations • Infrastructure must be improved and developed • A list of infrastructure to support the growth in the Core Strategy is set No change out in Table 2. • Measures should be in place to prevent the gradual • All village envelopes will be reviewed as part of the Allocations No change takeover of Sturmer by nearby Haverhill. Document. Development outside of these boundaries will be strictly controlled. • Constraints of wastewater infrastructure have not been • Noted. The stage 2 detailed Water Cycle Study is underway. No change considered when choosing the growth locations • Water Cycle Study work currently being undertaken will determine the measures needed to make the plan sound. • Environment Agency intend to provide an updated position statement before the Examination in Public • Landowners and agents refer to sites that they are • Minor amendments to village envelopes will be considered as part of No change promoting as being available and in sustainable the Allocations Document. locations. • The Plan does not include the policies and strategies for • Growth outside the existing development boundary is restricted due to No change the aims for Halstead to be achieved. the high quality landscape but development within the town will be • The second bullet point in paragraph 4.15 should be supported. amended as follows; "…. at new Growth Locations at Braintree, Witham and Halstead and in the Key Service Villages"
65 Development and Growth in the District in more detail Paragraphs 4.16 – 4.25 Comments stating that the Core Strategy is Sound have been received from The Environment Agency, owner of Towerlands – The Unex group, promoter of north-east Braintree – Crest Strategic Projects, various local businesses and residents, owner of the Sible Hedingham regeneration site – Premdor Crosby Ltd, HDPL, Terling and Fairsted Parish Council and Ashen Parish Council Comments stating that the Core Strategy is Unsound have been received from Higgins Homes Ltd, various local residents and businesses, Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution, Martin Robeson Planning, owner of the Silver End Regeneration site – Parham Holdings, Ultings Overseas Trust, Chelmsford Diocese Board of Finance and Franciscan Sisters Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Sound Officer Response Recommendations • EA support the third bullet point which sets out the Noted. No change development will proceed with regard to waste water • The Environment Agency asked us to produce a supplement to the disposal. SHLAA which explains that no areas within the highest risk flood zones • Paragraph 4.17 currently implies that development is are expected to be built upon. subject to flood risk issues being resolved. As advised in the Councils Sequential Test evidence paper, it is not intended that any sites in areas of flood risk will be developed. • Support the future role of Key Service Villages but the • Agreed to include the regeneration sites within paragraph 4.20 to Minor Change reference to 450 dwellings should not be taken as a recognise their significant contribution to the housing numbers in the • Paragraph 4.20 1st ceiling. Key Service Villages. line after 450 • Specific reference to Sible Hedingham and Silver End dwellings add; Regeneration Areas should be included in this part of “including over the Core Strategy. 300 on regeneration sites at Sible Hedingham and Silver End.” • Terling and Fairstead PC supports the exception site Noted. No change policies in the present BDC plan for housing provision. • For remoter settlements, we support the policy not to permit infilling between the present housing stock. • Paragraph 4.22 delete "will" and insert "may". • Agree that this would clarify the sentence. Minor Change Paragraph 4.22 delete "will" and
66 insert "may". • Terling and Fairstead PC support policies on the Noted No change continuation of local shops and services and especially the wider use of pubs as community facilities Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Unsound Officer Response Recommendations • Identification of land to the north-west of Braintree • The Growth Locations identified in the Core Strategy are strategic No change places unrealistic and unreasonable expectations on a locations on greenfield land. single site and removes scope for flexibility. • The allocation of a site such as the one suggested would be a matter for the Allocations Document. • Information needs to be made available to show that the • Documents in the evidence base show that the Panfield Lane site can No change Panfield Lane development is robust. be delivered. • Regard should be had for land at Church Street, and its • The SHLAA is only a guide on what land is available in the District. No change ability to deliver 1,500 or so dwellings. • The second sentence of paragraph 4.19 (relating to • Reference is made to this issue in the retail section of the plan. No change Halstead) should be replaced with - "The expansion of existing employment locations, community services and town centre uses, particularly foodstore provision, will be supported" • The following should be added before the final sentence • Minor amendments to town development boundaries will be considered No change of paragraph 4.19: "Provision is also made for a limited as part of the Allocations Document. extension of the town to the North West, to meet a need for 'live work' units, providing a wider range of local employment formats" • The future distribution of new housing should reflect a • The Spatial Strategy concentrates development in the Main Towns as No change capacity of 1000 units being provided in the KSVs the most sustainable locations for growth. • The positive role that Transport Corridors can play in • Minor amendments to town development boundaries will be considered No change achieving a sustainable spatial strategy is insufficiently as part of the Allocations Document. recognised in the Council's Preferred Strategy. • Coggeshall, Hatfield Peverel and Kelvedon are the most strategically located KSVs and best placed to promote future modal transfer from private to public transport. • The figure of 450 dwellings within all the villages • The figure of 450 dwellings for the Key Service Village is not a ceiling. No change
67 appears to impose an upper limit which is unnecessary Minor amendments to the village envelopes will be considered as part and could prevent the effective use of previously of the Allocations Document developed land. • A more appropriate wording would establish a • The figure of 450 dwellings for the KSV is not a ceiling but the amount Focused Change preference for previously developed land however this of dwellings already identified. Paragraph 4.20 would then be followed by the consideration of • Minor amendments to the village envelopes will be considered as part • 'The Key Service greenfield sites. of the Allocations Document. Villages will be • Remove the wording ‘within the existing development • The phrase 'Already identified 'can be added to paragraph 4.20. allowed to develop boundaries' from Paragraph 4.20. with growth already identified within existing development boundaries of around 450 dwellings...' • Reference to growth ‘within existing development • Minor amendments to the village envelopes will be carried out as part No change boundaries' would potentially rule out the opportunity to of the Allocations Document. regenerate sites. • Paragraph 4.21 should be altered to read “Development • Amend 4.21 to delete 'existing' Minor change within the Other Villages will be of a scale and type to Paragraph 4.21 cater for purely local needs of around (an increased 'Development within number) dwellings within existing development the Other Villages will boundaries and immediately adjacent to development be of a scale and boundaries” type to cater for purely local needs of around 205 dwellings within development boundaries over the plan period to 2026.' • The proportion of house numbers should be increased • The figure of 450 dwellings for the Key Service Village is not a ceiling. Focused Change across the Key Villages and Other Villages to reflect the • Minor amendments to the village envelopes will be considered as part Paragraph 4.20 number of residents in areas other than the urban areas. of the Allocations Document. 'The Key Service • The phrase 'Already identified 'can be added to paragraph 4.20. Villages will be
68 allowed to develop with growth already identified within existing development boundaries of around 450 dwellings...' • The Urban Capacity Study 2007 includes a significant • Although garden land is now classed as Greenfield, where permission No change proportion of sites that would now be considered has already been granted for development, this will remain within land partially as greenfield land. available for development. • Too much importance has been placed on towns. It is • The 15 year housing trajectory and SHLAA do not include a significant difficult to see how the delivery of new services and proportion of sites on garden land. facilities to the villages will be implemented. • There should be a greater degree of flexibility to enable • This can be considered in the context of the Site Allocations DPD. No change modest development, within or on the edge of ‘other villages' within the District. • To only allocate 205 dwellings across the ‘other villages’ during a 16 year period is inadequate in terms of meeting local needs. Selection of Strategic Growth Location Sites in Braintree and Witham - 4.26 – 4.33 and Map 1 The Key Diagram Comments which stated that the Core Strategy was sound were received from The Highways Agency, The Environment Agency, Crest Strategic Projects Ltd, Redrow Homes (Eastern) Ltd, local residents, Sturmer Parish Council, developers of the north-west Witham site – Bellway Homes and The Raven Group, Asda Stores Ltd and owner of Silver End regeneration site – Parham Holdings. Comments which stated that the Core Strategy was unsound were received from owners of Towerlands – The Unex group, Flitchway Settlement, owners of land at north-east Braintree - Harold Good Farm Trust, Higgins Homes Ltd, Crest Strategic Projects Ltd, developers of Panfield Lane – Mersea Homes and Hills Group, local residents and Hermes (Freeport) Limited Partnership. Comments which state that the Core Strategy is Sound Officer Response Recommendations • Agree with sites identified for strategic growth Noted No change • The six criteria for selection of growth locations Noted No change represent a sound basis for a sustainable strategy. • East of London Road could be a development • Alternative growth locations were considered in the Technical No change opportunity. Supplement of the Draft Strategy for People and Places 2008. • Concentrating housing growth around the towns should Noted No change not compromise the sustainability of public transport.
69 • Support the inclusion of land off Forest Road, north east Noted No change Witham. • Adequate retail facilities should form part of mixed-use Noted. No change developments. Comments which state that the Core Strategy is Officer Response Recommendations Unsound • Object to paragraph 4.26 because it does not reflect the • Paragraphs 4.7and 4.9 explain that the objective is to locate the No change emphasis in policy for the development of previously majority of growth on previously developed land. developed land. • The re-use of previously developed land should be added to 4.26. • Disagree with paragraph 4.26 and 4.27. We do not • The assessment of alternative sites was published in the Technical No change consider that the Council's approach to the assessment Supplement of the Draft Strategy for People and Places 2008. of sites is sound. • Deletion the second bullet point of paragraph 4.27 • The evidence of the sensitive nature of landscape around north and No change north-east Braintree is taken from the Landscape Character Settlement Fringe Study of Braintree 2007. • The proposed identification of land to the north-west of • The evidence of the sensitive nature of landscape around north and No change Braintree at Panfield Lane is unlikely to provide an north-east Braintree is taken from the Landscape Character Settlement effective and efficient means of delivering housing Fringe Study of Braintree 2007. growth to the town of Braintree. • It is not accepted that all potential development areas to the north of Braintree town fall within a sensitive landscape. • Object to the identification of the land to the north-west • Around two thirds of the growth proposed for the District will take place No change of Braintree as it is not brownfield. within existing town and village boundaries. However additional • Object to the boundary as shown in Map 2. This should greenfield land was required to meet housing need in the District. be revised and the plan should show a broad area for • The identification of the strategic site boundaries gives certainty on the growth at this stage to be defined through the Site scope and size of the development proposed. Allocations DPD. • Shortfall of between 330 and 510 dwellings in terms of • The Housing Trajectory identifies a supply of 4772 dwellings which No change meeting RSS and local housing requirements. exceeds the RSS and local housing requirements.
70 • More greenfield dwellings should be proposed for • Alternative growth locations are considered in the Technical Braintree because it has the greatest range of services Supplement of the Draft Strategy for People and Places 2008. and facilities. • Broad Road, could provide an additional Growth Location. • The lack of clarity regarding the position of Great • Agree that the position of Great Notley needs more clarity in the Focused Change Notley in the settlement hierarchy must be resolved by document. Whilst it is a separate parish, with its own Parish Council, Add to appendix 3 removing the Garden Village from the description of Great Notley functions as a part of Braintree Town. main town, Braintree 'Other Villages' as currently shown on the Key Bocking and Great Diagram. Notley. Focused Change Paragraph 4.8 add to Braintree , Bocking and Great Notley Map 1 Remove the other village notation from Great Notley. • Paragraph 4.27 implies that the 3 bullet points represent • Agree that this would provide clarification. It would also be useful to Minor Change the entirety of the reasons why other growth locations refer to the assessment in the Technical Supplement. • Paragraph 4.27 were rejected. We suggest the text be amended as Amend opening follows: part to: "Potential areas around Braintree and Witham have been ‘Potential areas rejected as Growth Locations for a number of reasons. around Braintree and These include:" Witham have been rejected as Growth Locations for a number of reasons set out in the Assessment of Peripheral Growth Locations in the Draft Core Strategy Technical
71 Supplement. These include: • All references to the Panfield Lane Growth Location • Assessment of alternative sites is in the Technical Supplement of the No change should be removed and replaced with reference to the Draft Strategy for People and Places 2008. Flitchway Settlement. • Paragraph 4.28 should explain the status and purpose • The growth locations are shown on the LDF Proposals Map Inset Plans Focused Change of the plans shown on the following pages. within the Core Strategy. It supersedes the Local Plan Review Paragraph 4.28 • It is unclear both as to the status of Maps 2-5, and the Proposals Map. should read "The status of previously adopted Local Plan Insets, • The Inset Plans are set out in the Braintree District Local Plan Review growth locations are particularly where the latter overlap with the former. plus Insets 1a, Ib, 2a and 2b which are set out in the LDF Core shown on the LDF • We suggest that paragraph 4.28 be amended as Strategy. Proposals Map Inset follows: "Each of the growth areas allocated in this Core • The Core Strategy Inset Plans replace those areas of Inset 1 and 2 in Plans within the Core Strategy in accordance with Policies CS1 and CS4 are the Local Plan Review which they cover Strategy, The defined on the maps on the following pages. The Proposals Map is defined growth areas supersede the existing Proposals enclosed at the end Map Insets for the land within the defined boundary, but of the Core Strategy. outside the growth area boundary the existing Proposals This supersedes the Map Insets will continue to apply until such time as their Local Plan Review provisions are superseded in the relevant Site Proposals Map. The Allocations DPD. As set out in Policy CS1, the LDF Proposals Map development of the growth areas will be in accordance defines Inset Areas. with masterplans to be approved as part of The Inset Plans are supplementary planning documents to be approved by set out in Braintree the Council. " District Local Plan Review plus Insets 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b which are set out in the LDF Core Strategy. The Core Strategy Inset Plans replace those areas of Inset 1 and 2 in the Local Plan Review
72 which they cover’.
• The Core Strategy does not represent the most • The proposed growth is not strategic and would not be included in the No change appropriate strategy for Halstead. The following bullet Core Strategy. point should be added before paragraph 4.28: "Limited • Minor amendments to the town development boundaries would be growth to the north-west of Halstead off Sloe Hill" included in the Allocations Document. • It is considered that the Colne Valley Railway should be • Proposed development at Colne Valley Railway is not strategic and No change identified as a Growth Location for mixed use would therefore be considered as part of the Allocations Document. development. • Mixed-use ‘growth locations' could become subject to • Neighbourhood retail uses only will be permitted within growth No change applications for significant retail floor space. locations. • New retail locations will be in accordance with the tests laid out in PPS4. Chapter 5 Housing – Policy CS1 Housing Provision and Delivery There were 334 comments received against CS1 including from the Highways Agency, Braintree Constituency Liberal Democrats, Witham Town Council, Witham and Countryside Agency, Environment Agency, Rivenhall Parish Council, Essex County Council, Langford and Ulting Parish Council. Comments relating to the growth locations can be viewed in the summary sections relating to Maps 2/3/4. Comments relating to abolishing the Regional Spatial Strategy were reported to the LDF Panel on 4.8.10. Comments that state the Core Strategy is Sound Officer Responses Recommendations • The strategy of using infill sites within the main towns Noted No change is endorsed. The Council urged to work closely with landowners/developers to ensure viable development, and that the development potential of sites - particularly those identified in the Urban Capacity Study and the SHLAA - is maximised. Comments that state the Core Strategy is Unsound Officer Responses Recommendations • Great Notley and Kings Park represent a Noted No change disproportionate degree of population expansion for a town the size of Braintree and unbalanced the relationship of people to facilities.
73 • Over reliance on dwellings coming forward in • The number of dwellings coming forward in Braintree is based upon the No change Braintree within the settlement boundary. It is likely identified sites in the Housing Trajectory in Appendix 2. that such sites would have come forward already and it is difficult to see how there will be a continuous supply of housing land in Braintree in the earlier stages of the Core Strategy time scale.
• The Council assessed a number of possible broad locations around the towns which could be considered suitable for growth and considered the following factors: Landscape capacity, flood risk, transport and access, conservation, community and social needs, coalescence with nearby villages. • Dorewards Hall could provide a strategic allocation of 500 dwellings. • Potential growth location sites were rejected due to isolation or distant from the main urban areas, not sustainable, large sensitive areas, highways and transportation issues.
• The SHLAA is deficient. There is a dwelling shortfall of • Comments relating to the SHLAA will be considered separately when the between 330 and 510 units to meet the RSS SHLAA is revised. requirement and local needs (para 4.4). To remedy this, the allocation of land to the east of Broad Road, Braintree as an additional Growth Location. • Greenfield land should also be considered for the delivery of housing growth at the key service villages. • Insufficient Brownfield sites located within the key • Village envelope boundaries can be revised during the preparation of the service villages including Earls Colne. Doubt that the Site Allocations document. Brownfield sites identified in the SHLAA can be delivered during the LDF Plan period.
• Housing trajectory in appendix 2 significant number of
sites are either shown as not available, such as
74 Braintree Football Club and tennis club sites, or without any answer at all in some of the ‘available; achievable; deliverable' columns. SHLAA should be discounted accordingly. • The housing trajectory has been updated and is set out as an Appendix • Unrealistic assumption all growth locations and to this report. Housing coming forward from the football club and tennis SHLAA sites will come forward, some of which club has not been included within the 15 year supply. according to para 4.4 of the consultation are not within areas normally considered acceptable for new housing. • Spatial distribution of growth not addressed key areas of the district without access to higher order settlements, such as Finchingfield, Great Bardfield and Wethersfield which are located in close proximity • Potential for development at these settlements will be considered as part to each other in the western portion of the District and of the preparation of the Site Allocations DPD. have good public transport links. • CS1 is considered not justified as not all reasonable • The Colne Valley Railway site would need to be considered as part of the No change alternatives have been considered i.e. the Site Allocations DPD. development of Brownfield sites outside Halstead and within the countryside. • Colne Valley Railway near Castle Hedingham is being promoted for a major leisure, recreational and tourist facility. To be viable it also includes residential. • The Council's Water Cycle Study Outline Report • A stage 2 Water Cycle Study has been commissioned which will look at No change indicated that development served by Wastewater capacity, quality and impact in more detail. Further infrastructure works Treatment Works (WwTWs) at Braintree, Bocking, may be identified pending the outcomes of the stage 2 Water Cycle Study White Notley, Coggeshall, Earls Colne and Sible which should be available in the autumn. Hedingham could be compromised by the water quality requirements of the Water Framework • The Sustainability Appraisal ‘Environmental Report Non Technical Study’ Directive. states, ‘Water resources within Braintree and Essex as a whole are • Further Water Cycle Study work is currently being stretched. As a County the water resource availability does not meet prepared by the Council to confirm whether the demand, and Essex is a net importer of water from outside of the County. proposed growth in these locations can be Any additional demand for water through development will compound the accommodated within the existing consent for these existing issues relating to water supply within Braintree.’
75 WwTWs and without detriment to water quality in the receiving watercourse and the Essex Estuaries SPA • It was noted in the Sustainability Appraisal that ‘without site specific further downstream. information impacts such as water quality are uncertain’. • Until this information is received it is unclear if the deliverability of development in Braintree, Coggeshall, • However, when the SA is revised following changes to the submission Earls Colne and Sible Hedingham will be affected. draft of Core Strategy it is anticipated that the stage 2 Water Cycle Study • Although the Councils outline Water Cycle Study was can be taken into consideration when assessing site specific information published in November 2008, neither the impacts. Sustainability Appraisal (SA) or Appropriate Assessment (AA) has considered this issue. The SA determines an uncertain effect on Sustainability Objective 12 (water quality) however the indicators do not consider the Water Framework Directive or issues of foul sewerage capacity. The AA has not considered water quality at all as it was considered to be covered in the Water Cycle Study. As the Water Cycle Study was not progressed beyond the Outline stage these assessments have not been made. • It is considered that figures are too low to deal with the • The SHMA is updated annually. No change current changing demands of the District population. • It is necessary to review the Braintree SHMA (April 2008) prepared by Fordham Research. • Land at Row Green benefits from its proximity to • This site would need to be considered as part of the Allocations DPD. No change Braintree. Accordingly, its identification for development through the Core Strategy would accord with the plan's strategy. • Not evaluated alternative housing delivery scenarios • The Council has not evaluated alternative housing provision levels as the No change based upon the evidence of current and future levels plan was based upon the Regional Spatial Strategy requirement. of need and demand via an interrogation of future Although that has now been abolished, the evidence base which demographic trends and the Government's latest supported the Regional Spatial Strategy was found sound during the published household projections. examination of that plan and still forms the basis of the housing • Not identified a sufficient quantity of housing taking requirement in the Core Strategy. into account need and demand and seeking to
76 improve choice. • Recent completions rates would support a provision of some 11,000 dwellings between 2009 and 2026. • When all the relevant components of the evidence base are taken fully into consideration, we would propose that Policy CS1 be amended to state that the Core Strategy will provide a framework to secure the delivery of a minimum of 10,600 dwellings between 2009 and 2026. • Support growth in the Main Towns but with lower • The bulk of housing proposed will be in the main towns of Braintree and No change additional provision in Halstead which is less Witham as these are the most sustainable locations for growth with the strategically located. most employment, retail provision and community facilities and are the • The Council’s preferred spatial strategy envisages just most accessible locations for growth with trunk road connections and rail over 85% of future housing to be accommodated in access. Lesser amounts of growth are proposed at Halstead and in the the three Main Towns, just under 10% in the six KSV's Key Service Villages. and just over 5% in all the OV. • By allocating housing provision in KSV’s can enable mixed use developments which can help retain or improve the provision of local services. • Allocations in rural areas will enable new facilities to be provided under the Community Infrastructure Levy and affordable housing. • Future distribution of new housing should reflect a capacity of 1000 new dwellings being provided in the KSVs. We seek a reduction of the minimum housing provision in the Main Towns by 550 units and the transfer of this capacity to the KSV's. • Amended Table CS1 Braintree District Housing Provision • Braintree excluding growth locations 1300 (-200) Braintree north west growth location west of Panfield Lane 400 (-100) Witham excluding growth locations 800 (-100) Witham south west growth location north of
77 Hatfield Road 550 (-50) Witham north east growth location off Forest Road 250 (-50) Halstead 250 (-50) KSVs 1000 (+550) OV 250 • Total 4800
• It is recommended that the policy also refers to the • Minor amendments to development boundaries will be considered as part No change opportunity to consider appropriate minor urban of the Allocations DPD. extensions of the main urban areas of Braintree, Witham and Halstead. • Central Park site, Colchester Road, Halstead would • This site will be considered during the preparation of the Allocations DPD. No change contribute towards meeting the objectives of PPS1. • No mechanism in the Core Strategy to reduce the scale of development on Greenfield sites, even in the unlikely event that the scale of development from the • Reduction in employment land provision would be detrimental to the No change urban locations were greater than anticipated. In achievement of the jobs target set out in the Core Strategy. recognition that potentially not all SHLAA sites will come forward, the flexibility that does exist in the Core • There is a requirement for the Council to provide a 5 year land supply. No change Strategy allows for the scale of development to
78 increase, if needed. • Only way Core Strategy could decrease the extent of greenfield development proposed to accord with the stated objective would be to reduce the extent of surplus employment land being provided. • If supply in early years of the Plan period exceeds the 5 year requirement, so the 5 year requirement decreases by the extent of over-provision, there is no logic in holding back land supply simply to maintain a 5 year land supply. • Phasing provisions need to be deleted in their entirety. • If the phasing provisions are retained, then the sequence of release needs to more accurately reflect the settlement hierarchy, North-West Braintree 2014- • The phasing is based upon providing a 5 year land supply. 2022; South-West Witham 2017-2026; North-East No change Witham 2021-2026. • Policy gives no certainty as to which growth locations would come forward earlier in the event of a shortfall, since they are all phased for roughly the same period at the moment. • Needs to be clarity in the Core Strategy as to what does and what does not constitute part of the current Proposals Map. • The term ‘Master plan' is not precise. Since the SPD Noted may well contain a number of different tools to guide future development, it is perhaps preferable not to No change have a specific reference to master plans at all. • The reference to SPD could therefore be more succinctly stated as follows: • " ... in accordance with supplementary planning documents to be approved by the Council."
79 • Anglia Cargo Terminal (ACT) would provide part of an • This site will be considered as part of the Allocations DPD. No change opportunity to provide additional housing on a previously developed site. • The sites without planning permission listed in the 15 • The Sloe Hill site will be considered during the preparation of the No change year supply are not expected to start delivering Allocations DPD. housing until at least the period 2016/17 which, given the current house building trends, could lead to a gap in housing provision. It is, therefore, more likely that additional greenfield sites will need to be released. Sloe Hill site demonstrates that this would be an appropriate location for such an extension given its connections to Halstead town centre and other nearby settlements.
• West Tey Consortium has within its ownership • The Council assessed a number of possible broad locations around the No change substantial areas of land to the west of Marks Tey and towns which could be considered suitable for growth and considered the at Temple Border to the south east of Braintree. following factors: Landscape capacity, flood risk, transport and access, • Core Strategy recognises that the Braintree to Marks conservation, community and social needs, coalescence with nearby Tey section of the A120 remains congested and villages. unimproved particularly in the vicinity of Galleys • Potential areas around Braintree and Witham were rejected as growth Corner Roundabout, is a significant constraint. Whilst locations for a number of reasons including such as they are isolated or delivery of the Core Strategy is not dependent on distant from the main urban areas, not sustainable in terms of access to improvements to the infrastructure issues identified, it service and facilities for new residents, due to large sensitive areas, is recognised that they may constrain future growth if highways and transportation issues. action is not taken. This is not a positive attitude and does not reflect the council's clear priorities set out in ‘Going for Growth'. • To address the issues of the A120 the proposals for development at West Tey and Temple Border should therefore be investigated further to understand the potential contribution of private funding. Chapter 5 Housing Paragraphs 5.17 – 5.26 and Policy CS2 Affordable Housing
80 Comments stating that the Strategy is sound were received from Homes and Community Agency, Bovis Homes South East, Maldon District Council, Stumer Parish Council, Redrow Homes (Eastern Ltd), various local businesses and residents, Terling and Fairstead Parish Council, the developers of the north-east Witham growth location – Bellway Homes and The Raven Group and owners of the Sible Hedingham Regeneration site – Premdor Crosby Ltd. Comments stating that the Strategy is unsound were received from Andrewsfield New Settlement Consortium (ANSC), the developers of north-west Braintree – Mersea Homes and Hills Group, owners of land East of Broad Road, Braintree – Harold Good Farm Trust, local residents, owner of Towerlands – The Unex group, Crest Strategic Projects and The Crown Estate. Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Sound Officer Response Recommendations • The HCA state that evidence on site supply in the • Noted. The Core Strategy proposes a 5 dwelling threshold in rural No change Viability Study indicates that in the urban parts of the areas as recommended by the Affordable Housing Viability Study. District, the national indicative minimum threshold of 15 dwellings is appropriate. • The profile of site supply in rural areas, coupled with high levels of need, indicates that adopting a low threshold in the rural areas is justified. • This assessment should be subject to viability testing on a site by site basis as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and that should be made explicit within the DPD. • Units will be required to meet the space, sustainability Noted No change and adaptability standards required by the HCA for rented homes. • The tenure mix for affordable housing should be justified through the SHMA and should be balanced against the greatest amount of need. A mix of 70% rent and 30% intermediate should be a starting point for negotiations. • There is no justification for excluding the intermediate tenures from HCA standards if that is the approach the LA wishes to take in implementing standards outside of the funding framework. • Bovis Homes South East welcomes the implicit flexibility Noted No change in this policy through the use of the word 'target' rather than requirement.
81 • Maldon District Council supports the targets and Noted No change thresholds for affordable housing provision with the Braintree District. • There is some concern about the financing and Noted. Site viability will be considered for each application No change provision of affordable housing in rural locations. Small scale developments could provide community gains • Understand the word "target" to mean the minimum • Noted. An affordable housing exception sites policy for sites adjacent to No change level of affordable housing provision having regard to but outside village envelopes will be provided in the Development the level of need and not to an imported level of Management Document and will help to provide rural affordable provision. housing. • We have concerns, however, with regard to the ability to • Large regeneration sites in Sible Hedingham and Silver End will deliver sufficient numbers of affordable homes enabled provide a substantial amount of rural affordable homes. by in-envelope private development. • A substantial uplift in the number of rural affordable homes is only likely if new provision is made for market housing in the KSVs. • We support the policy of 40% affordable housing for Noted No change both sale and rent of five or more dwellings within the rural settlements. • Affordable housing thresholds need to reference sound • All developments will be considered on a site by site basis. Where sites No change economic viability as a material factor in determining are not able to provide the target level of affordable housing, an open thresholds on a site by site basis. book approach will be needed between the Council and the developer. The Council has purchased a Three Dragons Affordable Housing Viability Toolkit which will be used to assess sites.
Comments stating that the Core Strategy is Unsound Officer Response Recommendations • ANSC agrees with the regional assessment of • The allocation of a new settlement is not supported by the Spatial No change affordable housing need Strategy of the Core Strategy as outlined in chapter 4. Whilst the level • ANSC has offered a minimum affordable housing of affordable housing would be of benefit, this would not outweigh other provision of 50% of all new housing proposed for factors such as sustainability, Andrewsfield New Settlement.
82 • The proposed split of 70% rented and 30% intermediate • In paragraph 5.23 the “all units” refers to all affordable units. It seems No change is not supported by the SHMA. sensible to ask that all affordable housing units are delivered to the • The standards set out by the HCA are only intended to same standard, regardless of whether or not they have been in receipt be applied to properties which require public subsidy. of public subsidy. There does not appear to be any local justification for • The 70/30 split of social rented and intermediate has been assessed by the approach being proposed. the ‘CLG Needs Assessment’ model. The results show that amongst • Paragraph 5.23 effectively an unjustified policy, it is a other things, the proportion of intermediate housing required is 28.8%. policy that could be subject to change without any local This is shown in table 13.2 on page 118 of the SHMA. consideration or local justification. • The design standards for affordable housing will be dealt with in more • The Council has Affordable Housing SPD, and it is more detail by the Development Management Document and the update to appropriate that guidance on tenure, accessibility, and the Affordable Housing SPD. design should form part of that SPD • Criterion 5 of CS2 is unsound on the basis that it is • The wording of this policy reflects that in most cases, onsite provision No change unclear as to what broadly equivalent value means and of affordable housing will be required and that only in exceptional the fact that it only may be accepted. There are no circumstances will an off site contribution be acceptable. Details of the circumstances set out as to how a broadly equivalent level of this contribution will be agreed on a site by site basis. value will be defined or when it may be accepted. • Further detail will be provided in the updated Affordable Housing SPD. • Provide specific greenfield areas on the peripheries of • Affordable housing in KSVs will be provided as part of the growth in No change key villages to ensure a balance of affordable housing is these villages. achieved across the District. • In ‘other villages’ affordable housing will mainly be delivered through affordable housing exception sites which are sites adjacent to existing village envelopes for affordable housing only. • Policy CS2 should state more clearly that affordable • The wording of affordable housing provision in Policy CS2 as a target is No change housing targets will be "where viable". recognition that this is flexible. • All developments will be considered on a site by site basis and where sites are not able to provide the target level of affordable housing, an open book approach will be needed. • The Council has purchased a Three Dragons Affordable Housing Viability Toolkit which will be used to assess sites • In policy CS2 there is no recognition that economic • It would be appropriate to add this sentence to paragraph 5.26. Focused Change viability will be a valid material consideration. Add “In determining • The following sentence should be added to point 5 "In the actual level of affordable housing
83 determining the actual level of affordable housing provided on a provided on a particular site economic viability will be a particular site material consideration". economic viability will be a material consideration". to the beginning of 5.26. • Policy CS2 should be amended to reflect that affordable • More detail on the delivery of affordable housing schemes will be No change housing targets should be based on an assessment of contained within the updated Affordable Housing SPD and the deliverability as well as viability. Development Management Document. • The requirement for Lifetime Homes should be tested in terms of deliverability and viability. • Policy CS2 must be applied in a flexible manner. On the • The wording of affordable housing provision in Policy CS2 as a target is No change regeneration sites there is likely to be additional costs recognition that this is flexible. for delivering development which affect the viability of a • All developments will be considered on a site by site basis. Where sites proposal. The target of affordable housing must be are not able to provide the target level of affordable housing, an open considered on a site by site basis having regard to the book approach will be needed. financial viability of a development proposal. • The Council has purchased a Three Dragons Affordable Housing • Paragraph 5.26 does not state what this is or when it will Viability Toolkit which will be used to assess sites. be available and whether it will be subject to public scrutiny to test its robustness. • The policy should make specific reference to the viability • This can be covered in a SPD. No change of proposals as a material consideration on affordable housing provision. • In that regard we would propose the following additional item: "6. where a development is proposed that does not meet the targets identified above, evidence in the form of a viability appraisal will need to be submitted. The methodology to be adopted by the appraisal will be agreed with the LP". • The allocated sites in Halstead listed in the 15 year • There are also existing rented affordable housing re-lets. No change supply that meet the threshold for affordable housing provision will only provide for approximately 20 units over the Plan period.
84 • Additional greenfield sites may need to be released in Halstead to allow for greater flexibility in the provision of affordable housing. Chapter 6 - Economy Paragraphs 6.1 – 6.10 The comments stating that the Strategy is sound are from Colne Valley Railways and the owner of the Silver End Regeneration site – Parham Holdings. The comments stating that the Core Strategy is unsound are from Feering Parish Council, local businesses and the owner of the Towerlands site – The Unex Group. Comments which stated the Core Strategy was sound Officer Response Recommendations • Development at Colne Valley Railways could provide for Noted No change a number of local employment opportunities. • Paragraph 6,2 relating to the economy is fully supported Noted No change • Support policy statement 6.4 which is founded on a Noted No change robust and credible evidence base • Support the job growth targets Noted No change • Support the preference for the re-use of previously developed land Comments which stated the Core Strategy was Officer Response Recommendations Unsound • Second runway at Stansted Airport has now been • Stansted Airport has existing permissions to increase passenger Focused Change scrapped - therefore there will be no "demand generated numbers which have not yet been reached. The proximity of the District Paragraph 6.10 3rd from airport expansion" to the airport is still an important pull for businesses. bullet point replace • Is there still a need to build a new business park in ‘new demand Braintree? generated by airport related expansion at’ with ‘demand generated by the proximity to Stansted’ • Quite a lot said about developing a "prosperous local • All policies contained within chapter 6 are aimed to provide a No change economy" but no mention of how to go about it. prosperous local economy. • Reference to ‘sustainable locations' requires further • Recognised that employment in rural areas makes a valuable No change explanation. Some existing rural employment centres contribution to the District’s economy.
85 are also ‘sustainable' in that they provide employment • Detailed policies to guide suitable rural employment expansion will be opportunities for local rural residents. included in the Development Management LDD. • Paragraph 6.2 should be amended. “…and to provide • The wording as suggested here is too general and could lead to local employment opportunities, including on appropriate development on unsustainable rural sites. rural employment sites, to seek to…." • We object to paragraph 6.4 because it should include in • Growth here was considered and rejected by the Technical Supplement No change the third bullet point reference to the Towerlands centre. of the Draft Strategy for People and Places 2008. • It would be more appropriate to refer to ‘employment • The Core Strategy specifically identifies the Premdor/Rockways site as No change sites' rather than ‘factory sites’ so the Core Strategy a regeneration area. Smaller sites will be discussed as part of the does not acts as a bar regeneration of other significant Allocations Document. areas of redundant premises in KSV’s. • Support job targets but should extend to include targets • Improving skills attainment is part of the key objectives for the Core No change to increase skill levels across the District. Strategy. • The Council should identify through monitoring where there are deficiencies in skill levels. Chapter 6 – Economy Paragraphs 6.11 – 6.23, Policy CS4, Map 5. Comments stating that the plan was sound were received from owners of the Sible Hedingham Regeneration site – Premdor Crosby Ltd, Sturmer Parish Council, Essex County Council, various local businesses and residents, developers of the Great Notley Business Park – Countryside Properties and Asda Stores Ltd. Comments stating that the plan was unsound were received from developer of the north-west Braintree growth location – Mersea Homes and Hills Group, owners of Haverhill Business Park, owners of the Silver End regeneration site – Parham holdings, various local businesses, owners of Towerlands – The Unex Group, Essex County Council, The Environment Agency, Barratt Eastern Counties and Mid Essex PCT. Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Officer Response Recommendations Sound • Support identification of Premdor and • The provision of employment on both regeneration sites is seen as essential to No change Rockways for regeneration. create sustainable growth. Further detail will be provided in the masterplan. • Uses listed within paragraph 6.14 are too • Details of the regeneration sites are contained in Policy CS1. prescriptive and may prejudice a subsequent planning application. • Specific reference to employment should be deleted as there is no evidence that this can be achieved. • A study of potential employment needs Noted No change
86 should be made to assess the types of buildings that are required. • Agree there should not be a strategic Noted No change employment site at Witham due to area not developed at Maltings Lane and the proportion of employment land to population size. • Colne Valley Railway should be allocated for • The Core Strategy only allocates strategic sites for growth. No change employment purposes, as part of overall • Smaller sites will be considered through the Allocations Document. proposals for redevelopment. • ACT Coggeshall could be suitable as a • The consideration of smaller non-strategic sites for both housing and employment No change mixed use development site. will be considered as part of the Allocations Document. • Add to Policy CS4; ''Vacant and redundant sites will be considered for mixed use redevelopment, incorporating employment uses where appropriate to ensure efficient use of brownfield land." • Paragraph 6.23 should form part of the • As stated in paragraph 6.23 all existing employment sites will be assessed as part No change policy wording for Policy CS4. of the Allocations document. It is inappropriate to include this level of detail within • Policy CS4 should be amended as follows: policy CS4. “Employment sites (apart from the strategic sites, which are set out in the Core Strategy on the Proposals Map Insets) will be defined on the Site Allocations DPD Proposals Map Insets. The growth and improvement of existing employment sites such as Earls Colne Airfield should be encouraged, ensuring that such growth is consistent with the policies contained within the Core Strategy. Uses that are complementary to the employment uses in the locations suggested above will also be encouraged to ensure that employment locations remain
87 attractive places to work and do business. " • Map 5 on page 61 should be correctly • Map 5 is in the employment chapter as it is purely an employment site. However, No change placed following Maps 1-4. as recommended elsewhere the map will be renamed Inset Map1b, to reflect its designation on the Proposals Map. Comments stating that the Core Strategy is Officer Response Recommendations unsound • Support the proposed provision of 33.5 ha in • Table 1 has been updated for 2010 and sets out a more accurate floor space Policy CS4. However this exceeds the figure, rather than a conversion from floor space to hectares. quantum of land needed to meet the Council's stated minimum employment land objectives • Object to Policy CS4 as it does not correctly reflect the underlying Evidence base and make clear that the level of provision proposed is in excess of that required. • Policy CS4 also refers to services and community uses • Object to the reference to B1-B8 uses in Policy CS4 for Panfield Lane and consider that a wider range of uses should be permissible. • Object to the absence of any positive mechanism in Policy CS4 to bring forward and maintain a continuous supply of employment land • The figure in Table 1 for Haverhill Business • Agreed. Table 1 has been updated to set out the 2010 figures which corrects this Focused Change Park only relates to an indicative built error. Replace Table 1 with footprint and not to the remaining total size • This will be monitored annually and will note changes. 2010 figures set out of the site area, which equals 22,440 m2 or in the non-residential 2.244ha. land availability • It is more appropriate to refer to the full survey. available site area • Object to the sentence in paragraph 6.14 • The factory buildings and powerhouse are important historic buildings of the former Focused Change which states "Uses to include employment, Crittalls factory site. It is agreed that to retain flexibility that the words 'as a 'the re-use of historic housing, the re-use of historic factory museum' should be deleted. factory buildings,
88 buildings, including the re-use of the including the re-use powerhouse as a museum." This is overly of the powerhouse as prescriptive. a museum.” • Strongly object to Policy Statements 6.16 - • Gosfield Airfield was considered for an employment policy area at the last Local No change 6.20 in regard to allocation of new strategic Plan Review Hearing but was dismissed. employment site. • It is not considered that Gosfield Airfield is a strategic employment site and • The emphasis of growth for Braintree is therefore it will be considered as part of the Allocations Document. detrimental to the viability and vitality of Halstead and the surrounding village communities. • Old Gosfield Airfield should be allocated as a strategic employment site. • Concerned that the requirement of an SPD • It is not considered that the production of a masterplan SPD for the site will slow No change for Great Notley Business Park will delay down the delivery of the employment site. development on the site. • Object to paragraph 6.20 which states that • The extent of the growth location has been identified to give certainty to residents No change an employment site will be located as part of and developers in terms of the scale of development proposed. the 44 hectare growth location north-west of • PPS12 enables local authorities to identify allocated sites for particular land use Braintree. and development proposals on its proposals map. • The boundary and size of this Growth • The inclusion of additional land at Tower lands within the proposed growth location Location should be flexible. The Towerlands would cause significant difficulties as it would greatly increase the development site immediately to the north of the Panfield potential of the area far beyond that required by the Core Strategy. Lane growth location should be included. • Not including an employment allocation for • As stated in paragraph 4.9, the growth potential of Halstead is severely limited by No change Halstead is considered to be an sensitive landscape, lack of public transport and relative isolation in the north of the inappropriate strategy to maintain and District. improve the viability of Halstead. • The development off Sloe Hill, Halstead, is not considered a strategic allocation • Paragraph 6.22 should be omitted and and as such will be considered by the Allocations Document. replaced with; "Provision is made for a limited development of 'live-work' units in an area off Sloe Hill, at North West Halstead, to provide for a wider range of local employment formats and help reduce out
89 commuting" • WwTWs at Braintree, Bocking, White Notley, • Stage 2 detailed Water Cycle Study currently underway. No change Coggeshall, Earls Colne and Sible Hedingham could be compromised by the water quality requirements of the Water Framework Directive. • Further Water Cycle Study work is currently being undertaken and until this information is received it is unclear if the deliverability of employment development identified in Policy CS4 at Braintree, Earls Colne and Sible Hedingham will be affected. • The EA intends to provide an updated position statement before the Examination in Public. • Lack of guidance in the Plan regarding how • The Council does not consider the phasing of employment land to be in the best No change employment land is to be phased. interests of the District and in the current economic climate jobs should be • ECC consider that the Plan should be encouraged. amended to provide greater clarity about • Waste water issues may lead to phasing being required, particularly at Great when specific employment allocations will be Notley. developed, and in turn coordinated with transport and infrastructure improvements. • Object to CS4. The employment figures • The employment figure of 14,000 net additional jobs in the District is a minimum as No change should be a minimum. stated clearly in CS4. In order to be flexible the strategy has overprovided the • It is difficult to be precise on the amount of amount of employment land that the Employment Land Review recommended. employment land required to deliver jobs targets as the amount of floor space required per employee varies greatly. • The employment floor space figures should be flexible and should be expressed as minimum figures. • Countryside Properties (Special Projects) • The LDF Panel considered this issue at their meeting on the 14th April and decided No change Ltd support the identification of land to the to exclude B8 uses on this site. The Great Notley growth location is intended to be
90 west of the A131 at Great Notley as a an innovation and enterprise park and B8 uses do not accord with this. strategic employment site, including the area of land identified. • Exclusion of B8 is a hindrance to the effective/efficient delivery of the site. There is an adequate evidence base to justify an element of B8 use on the site and the Council's report to their LDF Panel confirms officer's support for this view. • Object to Policy CS 4 as it is considered • Gosfield Airfield was considered for an employment policy area at the last Local No change unsustainable to only facilitate the provision Plan Review Hearing but was dismissed. of employment in urban locations without • It is not considered that Gosfield Airfield is a strategic employment site and meeting the demand of individual village therefore it will be considered as part of the Allocations Document. communities. • The CS4 is amended as follows: • “… Earls Colne & Gosfield Airfields and ….” • The Core Strategy should make reference to • The regeneration sites have been allocated in the Core Strategy as they are large No change the delivery of appropriately located mixed sites which are very important for the development of the KSVs and will deliver the use developments within or adjacent to villages new community facilities. settlements. • The selection of appropriate employment sites should be reserved until the site allocations consultation and each site should be subject to an SA. • Other sites including those in the SHLAA will be considered as part of the • Remove reference to individual employment Allocations Document. sites which should be considered through the Site Allocations Consultation. • Policy CS4 is insufficiently flexible to • As stated in paragraph 4.9, growth outside the development boundary in Halstead No change respond to sites currently in employment use is severely limited by its relatively isolated location and high quality landscape becoming vacant or unviable. setting. Therefore opportunities for development in the town are quite limited. • The Central Park site was excluded from the • Sites such as the Central Park site will be considered by the Site Allocations sites identified as in employment use or Document. vacant and available for employment • A planning application on this site for a residential led mixed use development has
91 development in the ELR. An employment re- recently been refused at appeal. use or redevelopment would no longer be appropriate for planning or environmental reasons. • In CS4 there is no definition or explanation • Policy CS4 aims to retain existing employment sites wherever possible. More detail No change of what constitutes "sustainable locations" on criteria for sites suitable for retention will be contained in the Development • The first bullet point of Policy CS4 refers Management document. only to existing employment sites within the • Individual sites, including new and existing sites in Key Service Villages will be development boundaries of the 6 KSVs. Our considered as part of the Allocations Document. client’s sites in Coggeshall and Kelvedon may be suitable. • The most appropriate wording in column 2 • A reference to housing would make it clear that this is a mixed use growth location. Focused Change (type of use) is considered to be; “site for • The College at Braintree have informed the Council that they do not have funding Policy CS4 under housing, football stadium, college campus, for the proposed move to this growth location. type of use for land education provision, health care provision, NW of Braintree- services and community use”'. • Site for housing, football stadium, college campus educational provision, • health care provision, services and community uses.' • Witham accounts for 35% of the total • As stated in paragraph 6.21 a new employment site is not proposed at Witham No change employment floorspace in the District but because of the 9ha of vacant employment land waiting to be developed at Maltings only 17% of the population. These figures Lane and that Witham already has a larger existing amount and proportion of demonstrate the suitability of Witham for employment land than Braintree compared to its population. It is considered that further employment uses. both towns attract workers from surrounding villages and rural areas to work in the • The interpretation of the figures does not town. take into account workforce drawn from surroundings areas. • The District Council has had discussions with the sites proposed in the Core • The Core Strategy proposes that 38% of Strategy and is satisfied that both sites are achievable and deliverable, subject to
92 new homes to be provided will be within the infrastructure laid out in Table 2 and Appendix 4. Witham, with no additional employment provision. • The proposed employment sites would require significant work before any development could commence. • The land at Eastways should be included as an employment use, either in addition to the proposed employment allocations, or in combination with them. Chapter 6 - Rural Area Paragraphs 6.24 – 6.26, Policy CS5 The comments stating that the Core Strategy is Sound are from Ashen Parish Council, Sturmer Parish Council and The Environment Agency. The comments stating that the Core Strategy is Unsound are from various local residents and businesses. Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Officer Response Recommendations Sound • Policy CS5 should be strengthened to • Policy CS5 gives protection to all areas of countryside outside development No change protect villages from the effects of creeping boundaries. These will be reviewed as part of the Allocations Document. urbanisation. • Detailed policies for the re-use of redundant farm buildings will be included in the • Alternative uses for redundant farm buildings Development Management Document. should be sought wherever possible. • add "and amenity" after biodiversity of the • Agreed that this would be beneficial Minor Change countryside. Add “and amenity” after biodiversity in Policy CS5. • Pleased this policy acknowledges the need Noted No change to protect and enhance biodiversity of the countryside. Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Officer Response Recommendations Unsound • Expansion of leisure and recreational • The allocation of sites, including those leisure and recreational facilities will be No change facilities at Colne Valley Railway would carried out in the Allocations Document. represent an appropriate use within the countryside.
93 • "uses appropriate to the countryside" is • As stated in Policy CS4 land for employment purposes will mostly be located in a No change vague. Clearly it is reasonable to make number of sites including Earls Colne Airfield. A review of the industrial provision for employment in rural development boundary will take place as part of the Allocations Document. communities but it is equally true that • Policies relating to rural employment will be set out in the Development provision can also be made in the open Management Document. countryside in line with guidance contained within PPS4. • The wording of policy CS5 should be reconsidered if the intention is to combine the twin countryside objectives of maintaining and supporting community services (including employment) and safeguarding the countryside. Paragraphs 6.27 to 6.37 and Policy CS6 Goodign and Ashby, Vellacott, Trustees of JSG Pelley, Essex County Council Property Services, Mersea Homes and Hills Group, Hermes (Freeport) Limited Partnership, The Unex Group, Martin Robeson Planning Practice, Wicks Construction Ltd, Systemafter Ltd, ASDA Stores Ltd, Tesco Stores Ltd, Mr John Camp, Environment Agency, Braintree Leisure Ltd, Sturmer PC, The Theatres Trust and Mr and Mrs A and B Polson. Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Officer Responses Recommendations Sound • Our clients support the general approach to Noted. No change town centre regeneration and retailing and acknowledge the evidence base referred to in paragraph 6.29. • We support the Noted No change classification/hierarchy within the policy - including the definition of the KSVs as Local Centres. • Areas of flood risk exist within the Noted. No change settlements identified in this policy. However, the Councils Sequential Test evidence base document confirms that land in the flood zone will not be developed.
94 Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Officer Responses Recommendations Unsound • An assessment of the retail needs of the Hatfield Road growth location will Focused Change Paragraph 6.31 be carried out as part of the Master Plan. In paragraph 6.31 • There is no definition of a • Detailed retail policies will be set out in the Development Management delete 'which will also neighbourhood convenience store Document. serve the adjoining There is no detailed assessment of Hatfield Road growth whether Maltings Lane store should location” and in increase to accommodate paragraph 6.36 additional dwellings. The Core delete 'which would Strategy is not considered justified also serve the due limitations imposed, the lack of adjoining new growth clarity and the needs of the existing location at Hatfield residents. Delete the last sentence Road' of paragraph 6.31 and replace with 'an appropriate size retail store should be provided within the Maltings Lane Development to serve the current development and the new development proposed at the adjoining Hatfield Road growth location'. • Clarity should also be provided on when impact assessments would be required. • Paragraph 6.30 should refer to the • Paragraph 6.36 refers to the proposed local centre as part of the growth Focused Change proposed provision of retailing as location at north-west Braintree Delete in paragraph part of that neighbourhood centre. 6.30 'for a discount foodstore at Rayne Road'.
95 • Agreed except using impact assessment threshold set in policy CS6 Focused Change • Proposals for retail floorspace The final sentence of should be assessed on their own paragraph 6.30 merits in accordance with PPS4. should be revised to • Paragraph 6.30 also ignores the state : "Any proposals positive benefits that new ‘entrants' for new and/or to Braintree's convenience goods extended retail market. convenience goods floorspace will be • The final sentence of paragraph assessed on their 6.30 should be revised to state : merits against the "Any proposals for new and/or sequential tests set extended convenience goods out in PPS4 and floorspace will be assessed on their impact assessment merits against the sequential and threshold set out in impact tests set out in PPS4, taking policy CS6, taking account of the likely cumulative account of the likely effect of recent permissions, cumulative effect of developments under construction recent permissions, and completed developments" . developments under construction and completed developments" • Paragraph 6.30 proposed amendment above. As above. • Paragraph 6.30 does not provide sufficient flexibility for retail development to come forward in growth locations and is unsound. • Paragraph 6.30 should make an exception for convenience retailing to come forward in Growth Locations with no retail assessment.
96 • Agreed • Paragraph 6.32 does not accurately Focused Change reflect the recommendations of the Retail Paragraph 6.32 Study Update 2010 and is justified. Delete 'For • The first sentence of paragraph 6.32 read Halstead only - "The main objective for Halstead is to limited capacity has strengthen the town centre, through retail been identified for facilities particularly food store provision, additional to draw back trade currently lost from the convenience and town." comparison retailing.'
Focused Change Amend second sentence to "The main objective for Halstead is to strengthen the town centre, through retail facilities particularly food store provision, to draw back trade currently lost from the town." • The setting for the 200 sqm threshold is justified in the Retail Study Update Minor Change Paragraph 6.37 As currently • April 2010. The setting of such a threshold is supported by PPS4 (EC3.1d). Add “gross additional drafted, the paragraph sets out • To improve clarity it would however be beneficial to make it clear that the floorspace” at the end excessive requirements for retail 200 sqm is gross floorspace. of paragraph 6.37 impact assessment. • Agreed that the policy should clarify that impact assessments will be and to policy CS6 so • There is no justification for the required for retail proposals not within a town or district centre, which it reads; 200 sq m figure. exceeds 200 sq m. “Impact Assessments • Town Centre boundaries are already defined in the Local Plan Review and will be required for • The paragraph could require retail may be revised if necessary in the Site Allocations DPD. any retail proposal
97 impact assessment for stores not within a Town or within town, district and local District Centre, which centres. exceeds 200 sqm additional gross • Policy CS6 only exempts retail floorspace. Town proposals within "Primary Centre and District Shopping Areas" from retail Centre Boundaries impact assessment. will be defined in the • "Primary Shopping Areas" are not Site Allocations defined in the Core Strategy and it Development Plan is not clear how this paragraph Document” will be applied. • Policy CS6 states that Site Allocations DPDs will define both Primary Shopping Areas and Town Centres, suggesting they are not the same. • The paragraph suggests that small proposals within Town Centres, District Centres and Local Centres would require retail impact assessment. • The threshold of 200 sq m is considerably less than the 2,500 sq m threshold in PPS4 Policy EC5.4/EC14.4. • Policy CS6 does not reflect the guidance contained in PPS4. • The second last sentence of Policy CS6 should read - "Impact
98 assessments will be required for any retail proposal not within a primary shopping area and not in accordance with an up to date development plan, which exceeds 200 square meters". • It is agreed that a definition of a local centre should be added to the glossary. Minor Change • A ‘local centre' does not appear to be • Policy CS6 should be renamed Retailing and Town Centre Regeneration as it Add definition of a defined. covers retailing in general. local centre in the • The reference to Maltings Lane as a ‘local glossary. centre' should be deleted and the retail • Amend title of offering should be considered from a CS6 to 'Retailing comprehensive assessment of need for and Town Centre Maltings Lane and Lodge Farm. Regeneration.' • Maltings Lane should be referred to separately or classified as a District Centre along with Great Notley • Braintree Town Centre should be • All of the main towns should have their town centres protected from out of Minor Change defined as the ‘Main Town' in the centre retailing to maintain their viability, Agree. Remove word settlement hierarchy, with Witham • Inappropriate to allocate Freeport, it could enable retailing beyond what “additional” and Halstead defined as ‘Minor Freeport’s original concept as a discount outlet requires. Towns'. • Freeport Braintree should be identified and allocated by the Core Strategy as an important specialist retail and leisure destination in the District's shopping hierarchy • Policy CS 6 states that: "Any additional proposals for retailing and town centre uses will be based on the sequential approach in accordance with PPS4". We do not
99 consider that this is "sound" and the word "additional" should be deleted from the sentence • It is unsure how Local Centres are to • Agreed this will be considered at the Site Allocations DPD stage or part of No changes be "protected and enhanced to Development Management Policies. provide small-scale shops, services and community facilities for local residents". • Local Centres refer to settlements rather than areas or zones within settlements. • The same will also apply to the safeguarding of existing local shops and services. • Marks Farm should be included as a District Centre in policy CS6, as it is in the Focused Change ASDA object to the omission of • Local Plan Review. Amend Policy CS6 Marks Farm as an identified District • The designation as a District Centre is not based upon potential for additional retail 'District Centres- centre. provision. Any proposed expansion would be subject to the PPS4 sequential test Great Notley • Vacant land to the east of the store and impact assessment. Neighbourhood building provides the potential for Centre and Marks additional retail and community uses. Farm Neighbourhood • The allocation of the District centre is Centre.' therefore necessary to enable the introduction of appropriate uses and remain sustainable in the longer term.
100 • It is not proposed that the north-west Braintree growth location should No change • Policy CS6 should not specifically provide any retail provision larger than a local centre. refer to a local centre at Panfield
Lane in Braintree as it reduces the
flexibility necessary to deliver the
growth location.
• The Core Strategy should not restrict the level of retail development as the growth area at Panfield Lane is phased later in the plan period. • Policy CS6 should be changed so that it states that retail provision will be made at the Panfield Lane growth location and its size should be decided later. • Policy CS6 refers to the regeneration of the town centre in this location for No change There is no justification for the • additional retailing and other town centre uses. development of Braintree Town
Centre east of Town Hall Centre.
• Provision of more retail outlets seems unreasonable in view of current vacancies in town. • Object to the loss of the existing community hall on the site. • Not value for money. • Delete of proposal for development east of town hall centre • Paragraph 6.33 refers to Braintree Freeport and Braintree retail park. There No change Braintree Retail Park. is no specific policy relating to them.
101 • Object to the omission of any • Chelmsford and Colchester are higher order retail centres rather than reference to the Freeport and competing centres of the same order and size as Braintree Braintree Retail Park. • This would create an additional level of the hierarchy and would require a definition of principal town centre. It is not necessary. • Freeport and Braintree Retail Park • Reference is made to this in paragraph 6.33. role as a destination should be • Policy CS6 refers to the sequential approach. recognised in the Core Strategy. • The need for new floorspace is set out in the evidence base. • The Core Strategy does not set out the ‘need' for new retail or town centre uses over the plan period. • There is no specific assessment of bulky goods in the Retail Study Update to be able to reach the conclusion of no further need for bulky goods. • Need for a minimum of 13,638 sq m of new floorspace should be identified within the Core Strategy. • Evidence of leakage to competing centres set out in the evidence base must be acknowledged in the Core Strategy. • There should be a distinction between the three centres identified in CS6 and their capacity for new development. With Braintree as the primary centre. • Braintree Retail Park should be
102 identified for retail warehousing and large format leisure provision within CS6. • Braintree Freeport and Braintree Retail Park should be identified as a retail and leisure destination within the Core Strategy. • The strategy needs to be more flexible in order to ensure that retail floorspace can be delivered. • The need for new floorspace should be set out in the Core Strategy. • An assessment of the distribution of shopping, leisure and local services should be set out in the policy. • New business should benefit from • Business rates can not be dealt with in the Core Strategy. No change generous start-up reductions in business rates.
• The document has hardly any Noted No change. cultural content. Chapter 7 - paragraph 7.1 to 7.14 and policy CS 7 Comments received from Acting Head at Maldon DC, Highways Agency, Chairman – Sturmer, Spatial Planning Team, Witham and Braintree Rail Users, John Camp, Unex Group, Crown Estate, DJ Hosford, Systemsafter Ltd, Wicks Construction, Bellway Homes and Raven Group, Feering Parish Council and Natural England. Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Officer Responses Recommendation Sound • Policy CS 7 and improvements to Noted. No change accessibility are supported.
103 • BDC to work with Maldon District Council • Not proposing any major growth locations on the boundaries of the District. No change and other neighbouring local authorities to address accessibility, congestion, • Agreed that BDC should work in conjunction with Essex County Council and sustainable transport. adjoining authorities where possible.
• Key transport projects should reflect scale of growth proposed – considering cross boundary infrastructure issues. • Welcome the establishment of link road Noted. No change between Springwood Drive and Panfield Lane to ease pressure on the trunk road. • Agree with proposals to support sustainable Noted. No change travel such as Motts Lane bridge, Freeport bridge and Witham Station footbridge. • Welcome the inclusion of key junction Noted. No change improvements within policy CS7, table key transport projects provisions. • Support CS7 which seeks to ensure future • The main towns of Braintree and Witham are more sustainable locations. No change development is located in the most accessible locations. Feering/Kelvedon is in a highly sustainable location. • North east Witham is the most sustainable Noted. No change and accessible growth location in the District. • CS7 provides clarity and certainty on the Noted. No change District's main transport priorities and is in conjunction with Table 2 which meets the expectations of PPS12. • Why not look at car sharing in the area and • Policy CS 7 refers to the, ‘promotion of community based initiatives such as car No change look at what other Councils have done in pools, car sharing and voluntary mini bus services will be encouraged’. Eastbourne, Leeds. • Highways Agency will work closely with the Noted No change
104 Council to ensure identified growth locations come forward with as minimum impact on trunk road.
• Consideration to be given to widen sections of A12 from Hatfield Peverel – Witham, Witham – Kelvedon, Kelvedon – Witham, however, need appears to be mainly attributed to the general background growth and not as a direct result of the LDF. • Natural England agrees that safe and • Future cycle/pedestrian routes will be identified in the Allocations Document. No change effective walking and cycling routes are needed, along with regular bus services to the rural areas. Comments Stating that the Core Strategy is Officer Responses Recommendations Unsound • Consideration should be given to a • It is agreed that a pedestrian/cycle route linking Great Notley and the proposed No change pedestrian/cycle route across the A131 dual employment site would be required. Table 2 supports this proposal towards carriageway between Great Notley and ‘footpath and cycleway provision, both on site and links to the existing network’. proposed employment area to west, to avoid being severed from residential catchment. • Promotion of cycle routes for rural areas • Future cycle/pedestrian routes will be identified in the Allocations Document. No change between close knit village communities would be of great benefit for accessibility and promotion of health and fitness. • Add platform extension to 12 carriages at • No funding available to deliver these schemes. No change Braintree Freeport and Cressing, extend rail line from Braintree to Stansted airport, • Hourly Sunday service on the train from Braintree to Witham. Discussion would construction of new rail line between need to take place with ECC Passenger Transport –regarding the demand for a Witham and Maldon, provision of Sunday Sunday bus service to Witham Station. bus service to Witham Station.
105
• Construction of a footbridge between • Funding has been secured from various s106 contributions from developers in the No change Freeport and Mill Park Drive estate is not vicinity and growth area funding. cost effective in this time of expected financial restraint nationally/locally. • Construction of a footbridge from Witham • The proposals are being led by Essex County Council and Network Rail. No change Station car park to station is not cost effective. • Construction due to commence early 2011.
• Will improve accessibility to the station platform and provide better car parking and cycle parking facilities. • Object to lack of flexibility in policy CS7 • The Towerlands site is not proposed as part of the NW Braintree growth location. No change which refers to a new spine road between Springwood Drive and Panfield Lane. It should be flexible enough to allow it to serve the Towerlands site. • There are no bus related items in table CS7. • Policy CS7 states, ‘sustainable transport links will be improved… including No change Policy should be more explicit in terms of its provision of and contributions to quality bus partnership’. objectives for sustainable travel. • Table 2, identifies contributions for ‘quality bus partnership and public transport improvements’. Chapter 8 – Environment (Paragraph 8.1 to 8.7, 8.8 – 8.16 (Natural Environment), 8.17 to 8.20 (Biodiversity) Policy CS 8, paragraph 8.21 (Built Environment), Policy CS9) 8.1 to 8.20 – Natural Environment / Biodiversity Comments have been received from Natural England, Brett Aggregates, Terling and Fairstead Parish Council, Colchester Borough Council and Environment Agency. Comments that state the Core Strategy is Officer Responses Recommendations Sound • Refer to SANGs - Natural England now • Based on an estimated population increase of 11,832 and Natural England’s • To amend the advocates 8 ha per 1000 people to offset requirement for 8 ha of SANG per 1000 people, approximately 94 ha of SANGs SANG report to new development and would encourage an would be required. advocate Natural increase in green space provision where England’s possible. • The SANG report identifies a total of 103.84 ha of SANGs on 8 open spaces. requirement for 8 Therefore, sufficient provision exists to meet Natural England’s requirement. ha of SANG per
106 • SANG report shows a strong commitment to 1000 people to providing green space for recreation whilst offset new protecting the natural environment. development and conclude that this is achievable. • Rivenhall Country Park would be a very • The proposed Rivenhall Country Park will be considered by the Essex County No changes suitable SANG to contribute to open space Council Minerals Development Plan which is currently in progress. requirements of proposed growth location to north east of Witham. River Ter Walk and Land to rear of Noted • Investigate Rayleigh Arms/Terling Inn should potential and be included as suitable SANGs. suitably of including the River Ter Walk and Land to rear of Rayleigh Arms/Terling Inn in the SANGs report. • Suggest minor change to paragraph 8.13 Noted. Minor change Colchester Borough Council will undertake Paragraph 8.13 to work not Tendring District Council. state ‘to be undertaken by Colchester Borough Council’.
Policy CS 8 – Natural Environment and Biodiversity Comments have been received from Brett Aggregates Ltd, Environment Agency, John Camp, Anglian Water Services Ltd, Mersea Homes and Hills Group, Natural England, Sturmer Parish Council. Comments that state the Core Strategy is Officer Responses Recommendations unsound. • Rivenhall Country Park would contribute to • The proposed Rivenhall Country Park will be considered by the Essex County No changes various elements of policy. Council Minerals Development Plan which is currently in progress.
107 • Bullet point on wildlife corridors could be • Agree that this is suitable wording. Focused Change improved by including creation of wildlife Bullet point 6 of corridors as well as enhancements. policy CS8 to read, ‘creating and enhancing biodiversity value of wildlife corridors’. • All directives mentioned in policy CS8 Noted. No changes should be strictly adhered to whatever developments are being considered. • Provisions of PPS 25 must be observed Noted. No changes especially when cross border planning applications are being decided.
• Section stating Council will seek to promote Noted. No changes. the use of water efficiency measures. However, Braintree District is located in one of the driest parts of the UK we feel this part of the policy could have been strengthened.
• Important to ensure best agricultural land • Agricultural land in the Braintree District is classified as Grades 2 and 3 with 66% of No changes. remains in use and new developments near agricultural land classified as Grade 2 and 33% as Grade 3. Land classified as river is carefully controlled so not to Grades 1, 2, 3 falls into the ‘best and most versatile’ category in PPS 7 Sustainable adversely impact on natural environment. Development in Rural Areas.
• The potential of flood risk has been taken into consideration when assessing the suitability of growth locations. Comments that state the Core Strategy is Officer Responses Recommendations unsound. • Policy currently states that SuDS will be • Agree Focused Change encouraged. This wording needs to be To amend wording of
108 strengthened to ensure that SuDS are used Policy CS8 to wherever viable. ‘Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUD’s) will be used wherever possible to reduce flood risk.’ • DPD does not include either Code for • It is Intended to refer to Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM targets in the No changes. Sustainable Homes or BREEAM targets for Development Management Policies. new development. • Minor amendments to CS8: Focused Change • ‘The Council will minimise exposure of • See proposed changes to CS8 above. people and property to the risks of flooding Amend policy CS 8 to by following the national guidance laid out in read, ‘‘The Council PPS25. In particular the Sequential Test will will minimise be applied to avoid new development being exposure of people located in areas of flood risk. Where a site and property to the lies partially in the flood zone the Sequential risks of flooding by Approach will also be rigorously applied and following the national only water compatible or essential guidance laid out in infrastructure uses [footnote] will be PPS25. In particular permitted in areas demonstrated to be at the Sequential Test risk. will be applied to avoid new
109 • Policy CS8 does not currently add value to development being the existing national policy on flood risk and located in areas of therefore does not meet the third soundness flood risk. Where a test we it needs to give further guidance on site lies partially in how the Council would consider the flood zone the development in areas at risk of flooding. Sequential Approach will also be rigorously applied and only water compatible or essential infrastructure uses [footnote] will be permitted in areas demonstrated to be at risk. Footnote: as defined in table D.2. of Planning Policy Statement 25
• Policy CS8 is unclear in terms of its • Policy CS8 does not propose to set a different framework for waste management. • No change proposed provisions to "protect" development from pollution, excessive use of water and resources and the generation of waste. Not clear if CS8 is seeking to set a different framework for waste management, or how it intends to protect development from the generation of waste. 8.21 (Built Environment) and CS 9 (Built and Historic Environment) Comments received from Sturmer Parish Council, Spatial Planning at ECC, English Heritage, Parham Holdings, Environment Agency, Mersea Homes and Hills.
110 Comments that state that the Core Strategy Officer Responses Recommendations is Sound. • Historic built environment is important to Noted. No changes rural community. Preservation in context of new build, conversions, alterations is vital in preserving the local identity. • Council is promoting the highest possible Noted. No changes standards of design that secure the maximum viable use of renewable energy; recycled and/or energy efficient building materials and design; waste recycling facilities; and biodiversity by design materials. • Promote sympathetic re use of buildings Noted. No changes where they make a positive contribution to the special character of the local environment and can contribute to the delivery of sustainable development and regeneration. Comments that state that the Core Strategy Officer Responses Recommendations is unsound. • Braintree District contains historic assets of • Is agreed that Policy CS 9 could be amended to take into consideration the Focused Changes national and regional significance. These contribution the District’s historical assets make towards regeneration, economic Amend wording of make a contribution to the character of its development, tourism, and leisure provision. CS 9 to include environment and the area's sense of place additional bullet point, and key driver for regeneration, economic • ‘Promote and development, tourism activities, and leisure encourage the provision. The submitted DPD should do contribution that more to respond to this context. historical assets can make towards driving regeneration, economic
111 development, tourism and leisure provision in the District’. • Reference to the `historic environment' does • Page 28 – The ‘Key Objectives’ includes reference to the built environment and to Minor Change not appear to have been translated Add words 'and `consistently' throughout the Plan. For • ‘preserve and enhance the historic character and locally distinctive identity of the Historic ' to heading example, key Objectives (Page 26) - no District’. above paragraph mention is made to the `historic 8.21 to read 'Built and environment’ and in paragraph 8.21 - no • Paragraph 8.21 refers to listed buildings and conservation areas which are part of Historic Environment' reference is made to the `historic the historic environment. environment' in the supporting text to Policy CS9. • It is noted that there is no reference to the process whereby the protection and • Discussions have taken place to secure enhancement of the historic environment will be implemented this will be detailed funding to undertake a `Historic will be in the Development Management Polices. Environment Characterisation Project' for the district, although sufficient funding • Discussions have taken place with Essex County Council regarding the ‘Historic streams have yet to be secured. Characterisation Project’. Unfortunately, Braintree District Council does not have • ECC would like paragraph to support Policy the resources available to implement this project. CS9, which outlines the process whereby the protection and enhancement of the historic environment will be implemented. • Following recommendations to comply with Focused Change PPS 5: CS9 • Amend policy CS9 • Bullet Point 1 should be amended at the • Agreed bullet 1 to state, end to read ‘...and areas of highest ‘respect and archaeological and landscape sensitivity'. respond to the • Bullet 6 is expanded as follows ‘...delivery of local context, sustainable development and regeneration. especially in the A positive strategy will particularly be taken District’s historic to secure re-use of heritage assets • This will be addressed in the Development Management policies. villages where identified as at risk' development • The expanded bullet 6 is moved to follow • This is not necessary. affects the setting
112 the first bullet to which it is closely related. of historic or • In the final sentence, ‘heritage assets' important should be added after ‘wildlife' • Agreed buildings, conservation • Amend the annual monitoring to include • Agreed areas and areas both the English Heritage at risk register of highest and the Essex County Council register. archaeological and landscape sensitivity.’ Focused Change • Policy CS9 should be amended to read, ‘renewable energy proposals will be supported where impacts on amenity, wildlife, heritage assets and landscape are acceptable’. Focused Change • Amend Monitoring Framework to add Objective- to Protect the Historic Environment, Target- to reduce the number of historic buildings at risk, Performance Measure-English
113 Heritage and ECC buildings at risk registers, collected by English Heritage and ECC. • Any departure from national building • The Core Strategy proposes to support national planning guidance relating to No changes. standards needs to be justified by clear energy efficiency, which seeks to achieve zero carbon homes by 2016. evidence of local circumstances, which • The policy seeks to ‘secure the maximum viable use of: does not appear to exist. In addition, the renewable energy policy as currently drafted appears to recycled and or energy efficient building materials and design require all development proposals to waste recycling facilities maximise energy efficiency up to the point biodiversity by design materials’ of un-viability, which is neither a practical • Further detail regarding energy efficiency will be detailed in the Development nor justifiable approach. Management Policies. Paragraph 8.22, 8.23 and CS10 Comments received from Brett Aggregates Ltd, Sport England, Environment Agency, Unex Group, J Hosford, Systemafter Ltd, Wick Construction, Bellway Homes and The Raven Group, Mersea Homes and Hill Group. Comments that state the Core Strategy is Officer Responses Recommendations sound. • Rivenhall Country Park could contribute to • The proposed Rivenhall Country Park will be considered in the context of the Essex No changes. high quality and accessible green space Minerals Plan. which can contribute to biodiversity of District. • Welcome policy in particular to protect Noted No changes. existing sports facilities, require development to make appropriate new/enhanced provision of green space and seek to investigate potential for addressing identified deficiencies. • Support policy to maintain/improve and Noted No changes. expand the network of green corridors; this is important for urban
114 intensification/expansion when ecological connectivity is often lost. • Support aims, especially role of Noted No changes. supplementing existing provision through new development. • CS 10 sets out the District’s open space Noted No changes. needs and is in conjunction with table 2, accords with PPS 12. Comments that state the Core Strategy is Officer Responses Recommendations unsound. • Objection to third criterion of CS10 with • Paragraphs 10 and 12 of PPG17 indicate the process for assessing whether an Focused Change regard to circumstances in which existing open space, sports or recreational facility should be developed. Permitting It is recommended sports facilities, green spaces etc would not development on part of an open space to facilitate retention or enhancements to the that the third criterion be retained. remainder of the site is acceptable under paragraph 12 in the context of addressing under bullet point 1 is • Third criterion sets out an exception to surpluses and deficiencies. deleted and replaced general policy of protection would be made • However, the objector’s concern that wording of CS10 could encourage the by “there is an where recreation facilities can best be unnecessary loss of open space, sports and recreation facilities is noted, and the identified surplus in retained and enhanced through wording could be amended to bring it in to line with PPG17 guidance. an open space, or development of part of the site. In practise sports or recreational this relates to enabling development where facility, development would be permitted on part of an open space to facilitate retention/ development of part enhancements to remainder of the site. This of the site may be approach does not accord with paragraph allowed to secure the 10-15 of PPG 17 on maintaining an re-use of the adequate supply of open space and remainder, to meet sports/recreational facilities. an identified deficit in • Permitting principle of enabling another type of open development on open space/sports facilities space, or sport or would be undesirable as may encourage recreational facility.” unnecessary loss of open space, sports facilities in demonstrating that a development is essential to facilitate.
115 • Open space retention/ enhancements are subjective matter and are complex to accurately assess. • CS10 needs to provide sufficient flexibility • The first criterion under the first bullet point of Policy CS10 is an exceptions rule No changes for redevelopment of Towerlands site. which allows a sports facility to be lost if it is no longer required to meet identified needs in the long term. The Braintree Green Spaces Strategy does not include any reference to equestrian sports; consequently no long term needs have been identified. • The current use does not fall into any of the categories of open space and recreation which have been considered in the Green Spaces Strategy, and therefore the issue of whether or not the equestrian centre should be retained is not dependent on Policy CS10.
• Delete new standard in its entirety and • The proposed new standards were set out with reasoned justification in the No changes amend second bullet point as follows, Braintree Green Spaces Strategy adopted by the Council in September 2008. The ‘requiring new development to make standards were supported by the findings of the Open Space Audit 2006 and appropriate provision for publicly accessible associated household and user surveys. The audit was undertaken in accordance green space or improvement of existing with the principles of PPG17. accessible green space (delete ‘in • (2) The Open Space SPD supports policies set out in the Braintree District Local accordance’ with following standards) taking Plan Review 2005 and reflects the standards set out therein. Those standards are into account Councils adopted Open Space being replaced by the standards in the Core Strategy, and the SPD will be replaced SPD’. by a new SPD reflecting the new standards. • Evidence base does not support policy CS • No justification is given to support this comment. However, the primary evidence No changes 10. base supporting Policy CS 10 comprises the Braintree Green Spaces Strategy and Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for open space, sport and recreation.
Chapter 9 - Delivering the Strategy, including CS11 and Appendix 4 Infrastructure Trajectory Comments stating that the Strategy was sound were received from Essex County Council, the developer of the Great Notley Business Park – Countryside Properties, Anglian Water, Highways Agency, owner of the Sible Hedingham Regeneration site – Premdor Crosby Ltd, Asda Stores Ltd and the Environment Agency. Comments stating that the Strategy was unsound were received from Essex County Council, Braintree Town FC, The Environment Agency, the developer of Great Notley Business Park Countryside Properties, Mid Essex PCT, the developers of North-west Braintree – Mersea Homes and Hills Group, Anglian Water, Bovis Homes South East, Highways Agency, The Theatres Trust, Sturmer Parish Council, Sport England, owner of the Silver
116 End regeneration site Parham Holdings, Terling and Fairstead Parish Council, Unex Group, Crest Strategic Projects, Feering Parish Council, St Edmundsbury Borough Council and various local businesses and residents Comments which state that the Core Officer Response Recommendation Strategy is Sound • ECC strongly supports the inclusion of the Noted No change Education requirements in the Plan. • Countryside Properties have had initial Noted No change discussions with Anglian Water with regard to ways of dealing with sewage generated by development at Great Notley Business Park. • Some development can take place prior to any improvements to treatment works/capacity. We are happy to contribute towards any improvement works. • Table 2 remove 'developer contributions' • The Water Cycle stage 2 study is currently underway. No change from Upgrade of Rayne Waste Water • Anglian Water have stated it was error to request the removal of developer Treatment Plant, it is funded by Anglian contributions as it is an employment site. Water. • Anglian Water give all sites a red rating because of concerns over drainage and in some case foul sewage. • Policy CS6 interprets arts and culture as • Agree that a consistent approach should be taken to the wording throughout the Minor Change ‘leisure and entertainment' while the document. Amend policy CS6 1st supporting Objective for town centres lumps sentence, replace these essential items as ‘and services'. ‘and entertainment’ Policy CS11 includes ‘the arts' but doesn't with ‘and cultural use the term ‘leisure and entertainment' or provision’ Amend indeed town centre ‘services'. These Objective on Town descriptions are not consistent and for Centres after clarity we suggest they are all amended to • This is considered to be too detailed. ‘services’ add ‘and leisure and cultural provision. cultural provision’ • Suggest Policy CS11 could include the Minor Change
117 protection and promotion of community and Amend CS11 1st village halls for arts and cultural uses. paragraph, replace ‘the arts’ with ‘leisure and cultural provision’ • The future expansion of operations outside Noted No change the District and the impact upon the road network of Braintree District has not been recognised within the policy. • Recommend the provision of sewerage • Details of individual projects are contained within Table 2. No change network and Wastewater Treatment Work • The Stage 2 Water Cycle Study is currently underway. upgrades are specifically referenced. • It may be necessary to phase development at some locations to prevent any impacts to the environment. • Request BDC focuses resources on • Broadband is included in Table 2 Infrastructure. No change improving telecoms and Broadband speeds to empower and include the remoter parishes. • Support for co-location of further education • References to the relocation of the College are recommended for deletion due to No change and Adult Community Learning, since there lack of Government funding. is an identified lack of such facilities in Braintree. • ECC would not seek to be committed to funding all or part of any such project. • No demand has been identified for other • Agree. Discussions on the masterplan of the Sible Hedingham Regeneration site Focused Change retail or commercial uses on the Sible have already been identified and agreed by the parish council and do not include a • Remove Hedingham regeneration site which would neighbourhood centre. neighbourhood form a neighbourhood centre. centre from Sible • Reference to the Neighbourhood Centre for Hedingham Sible Hedingham be deleted from the table. Regeneration Area in Table 2 and Appendix 4. • The Highways Agency may need to assess Noted No change
118 improvements along certain sections of the A12 to ensure that further future growth is not hindered. Comments which state the Core Strategy is Officer Response Recommendation Unsound • The football club is very concerned about • The phasing of the football club is tied to the phasing of the growth location. No change the proposed phasing of delivery of a new • The Masterplan for the site will provide more detail and may provide for other stadium in the infrastructure trajectory in development to come forward ahead of the residential elements. Appendix 4. • If a new stadium could be delivered by 2016, it may be possible to complete a series of short-term improvements to the Football Club’s current ground to ensure that its progress ‘on the pitch’ is not denied by a lack of development ‘off the pitch’. • For consistency, throughout the Core • Freeport Braintree cycle footbridge was omitted from table 2 and the infrastructure Focused Change Strategy, ECC would recommend the ‘Key trajectory because it is programmed in to be constructed before the Core Strategy • Table 2 add to Transport Projects’ identified in Table CS7, has been adopted. However to remain consistent reference to the bridge should be supports all Page 71 should all be included in Chapter 9, made in table 2 and appendix 4. growth in Table 2, Infrastructure, Page 89 (omits Braintree Freeport Braintree Cycle/Footbridge) and ‘Freeport Appendix 4. cycle/footbridge, funded by developer contributions, ECC and growth Area funding. Delivery body Essex County Council’ Focused Change • Appendix 4 Infrastructure
119 Trajectory add ‘Freeport Cycle/Footbridge 2011’ • The infrastructure trajectory should also • The Water Cycle stage 2 study is currently underway. No change include sewerage network upgrades and works to the Wastewater Treatment Works. • We would suggest you check the wording in the footnote with Anglian Water. • The wording in Appendix 4 omits any • Specific proposals in relation to health facilities have been included where Focused Changes reference to the provision of health care necessary for all growth locations and regeneration sites but it is recognised that Add to Table 2 facilities and funding. other developments may be required to provide contributions to health care Infrastructure • It is considered a new entry to deal with facilities. supports all growth in health care facilities should be added to the the District, table as follows: Project Details – ‘Contributions to Contributions to health care facilities and health care facilities, funding. Period 2011 - 2028 developer contributions, Mid Essex Primary Care Trust, Mid Essex Primary Care Trust’ Focused Changes Add to appendix 4, Infrastructure Trajectory, ‘Contributions to health care facilities, 2011 – 2026’. • Either remove any phasing restriction which • Appendix 2 provides a housing trajectory. This ensures that there is a constant No change would bring the first infrastructure element supply of land available and that sites in the most sustainable locations are capacity improvements at Pods Brook developed first. Road/Rayne Roundabout forward to • The masterplan will provide more detail on timings of other aspects of the 2012/2013, or otherwise phase North-West development, like the employment, which is not phased.
120 Braintree from 2014. • Concern that there is no reference in CS11 • Reference to viability can be added to paragraph 9.6. Viability will be considered on Focused Change to facilities being in accordance with a site by site basis. Paragraph 9.6 Add Circular 05/05, or the viability of before last sentence development. 'In determining the level of infrastructure provided, economic viability will be a material consideration.' • ECC propose an amendment to Policy • This policy does not only refer to the growth locations. The Master Plans and legal No change CS11:`…. or planning obligations, and will agreements will set out the trigger points. This additional wording is unnecessary. be directly linked to relevant `trigger points' for development of the Growth Locations.' • Over concentration of growth in limited • The Spatial Strategy of the document is to concentrate the majority of new No change service centres may secure significant development and services in the Main Towns and Key Service Villages. These are benefits for large parts of the District the most sustainable locations for growth. population but it is important to recognise that some 50% of the District population lies outside the 3 Main Towns. • The policy does not allow for the financial • This reference has been added to paragraph 9.6. No change viability of a site to be considered. An additional sentence should be included which refers to the viability. • We object to the identification at this stage • Flexibility is provided in the Core Strategy by the possibility to add further dwellings No change of the LDF of a strategic site boundary at to the identified growth locations at north-west Braintree and south-west Witham Panfield Lane. The Panfield Lane Growth and by the likely addition of windfall sites and sites not yet identified in the Housing Area should include the Towerlands site. Supply Trajectory which might come forward as part of the Allocations document • The Council seeks to argue that the yield • Flexibility is provided in the Core Strategy by the possibility to add further dwellings No change from windfalls will provide the necessary to the identified growth locations at north-west Braintree and south-west Witham flexibility which is expressly prohibited by and by sites not yet identified in the Housing Supply Trajectory which might come PPS3. forward as part of the Allocations document. • The Council should identify reserve sites
121 which could be brought forward if any of the expected components of the land supply fail or are delayed. Land east of Broad Road, Braintree could be identified as a reserve site. • The approval of masterplans is supported • The term ‘employment-generating development’ is deliberately structured to give No change provided it does not frustrate the delivery of flexibility to masterplanning discussions whilst emphasising the importance of the a site for development. provision of local jobs on the regeneration sites. • It is unclear as to what is meant by ‘employment generating uses’. There should be recognition that community uses could be considered as employment generating. • The wording should be varied or a definition of 'employment generating' provided. • No mention of collaboration with • Infrastructure included in the Core Strategy is to support growth in this District. No change neighbouring boroughs and the effects of • Growth outside the District which requires infrastructure in the District should be the their growth. subject of consultation with the District and Parish Councils. • The Councils Water Cycle Study outline • The Water Cycle stage 2 study is currently underway No change report identifies capacity issues in some Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTWs) where development is proposed. • The Council are currently undertaking further Water Cycle Study work to determine the exact situation. Whilst this has been acknowledged in table 2 for the Great Notley development, it has not been for the other development areas which will be served by these works. • The words, " will be required' are of a • Reference to viability is suggested in paragraph 9.6. Delete reference to use of Focused change concern as there appears to be no Powerhouse as a Museum. To remove specific reference to the financial viability of a • This site was placed towards the later end of the plan period to reflect what the reference to ‘reuse of proposed development. Council believed to be issues involving the lease. However the Council wishes to powerhouse as a
122 • The reference to the powerhouse is encourage regeneration and would support earlier redevelopment. museum’ considered to be over prescriptive and would preclude other uses being considered in the future. • The Silver End growth area is predicted for 2020 to 2021, but the site is available now and is likely to form the majority of the regeneration area within the centre of the village and the site is within single ownership. • The wording in Table 2 omits any reference • Specific proposals in relation to health facilities have been included where • Change already to health care facilities being required to necessary for growth locations and regeneration sites but it is recognised that other suggested support all growth in the District and sub developments may be required to provide contributions to health care facilities. elsewhere. region. • It is not considered that the proposed wording would contribute to the policy. • The most appropriate wording for CS11; • “Provision will be made and funded by: • - Allocated sites and floor space within development areas and development contributions …..” • The wording in Table 2 omits any reference • Agree, the inclusion of Essex County Council as the delivery body for extension of Minor change to Mid Essex Primary Care Trust as the existing GP surgery in Silver End was an error. • In Table 2 delivery body in relation to the Silver End Infrastructure, Regeneration Area. Silver End Regeneration Area, Extension of existing GP surgery, replace both mentions of ‘Essex County Council’ with ‘Mid Essex Primary Care Trust’. • It is not considered to be justified or • The provision of a neighbourhood centre has been listed for all growth locations No change
123 effective to include a Neighbourhood Centre and regeneration sites to reflect any community and commercial facilities which at the Lodge Farm growth location as it may be required from the development. The masterplan will discuss these does not propose a comprehensive solution requirements in detail. for the area and could prejudice the provision of the Maltings Lane offering. In addition the timescales for phasing should be flexible as the delivery of additional housing early on in the process could lead to support for the community facilities to be provided earlier on in the process. • The Infrastructure requirements section • Agreed that S106 contributions have previously been made from development in Focused Change does not acknowledge that there may be a this District adjoining Haverhill to fund Haverhill infrastructure needs. Insert at the end of need for development in the Haverhill paragraph 9.6 the Fringe to contribute to infrastructure in that following sentence part of Haverhill that is in Suffolk. • “In addition • Insert at the end of paragraph 9.6: In development in addition development in the Haverhill Fringe the Haverhill will be required to have regard to the Fringe will be potential impact it may have on the required to have infrastructure requirements of Haverhill as regard to the identified by St Edmundsbury Borough potential impact it Council. may have on the infrastructure requirements of Haverhill as identified by St Edmundsbury Borough Council”. • The most appropriate wording for the first • Agree that the proposed wording would add clarification to the point. Minor Change bullet point in paragraph 9.5 is; 9.5 1st bullet point • '… additional development is supported by add after additional the required infrastructure and does not development ‘is place a strain upon existing infrastructure supported by the
124 and service provision'. required infrastructure and’ • If the land east of Broad Road, Braintree is • It is not proposed that Broad Road, Braintree is allocated for development. No change allocated as an additional Growth Location in CS1, Table 2 will need to be updated to deal with the infrastructure requirements. • PCT request that reference to health care • Agree to the request of the PCT that health care should be added to this paragraph Focused Change be added to paragraph 9.6 Add ‘health care’ after transport in paragraph 9.6. • Change the title of Table 2 to "Indicative • Title of Table 2 should be amended to Infrastructure Requirements Minor change. Infrastructure Requirements" • Agreed the sentence can be added to end of 9.6 as it is in accordance with Add Requirements to • Amend paragraph 9.6 as follows: "A list of intentions for growth locations. title of Table 2. key facilities and infrastructure potentially • Agree that the football stadium is not an infrastructure requirement which is Minor Change required to support development up ….An required in order to deliver the development. It is therefore appropriate to exclude Add to end of infrastructure trajectory is included in the reference to the football club site from Table 2. (The Council's continued paragraph 9.6 Appendix 4. Detailed infrastructure support for the proposed move to the growth location is still demonstrated by Policy 'Detailed requirements for the proposed growth areas CS4.) infrastructure will be assessed again at the time of the • Public Realm improvements are a requirement of the development of the growth requirements for the preparation of the relevant SPD and/or at locations. proposed growth the determination of the relevant planning areas will be application” assessed again at • Delete the following items from Table 2 in the time of the the section on "Panfield Lane Growth preparation of the Location": 1st item (Braintree College) and relevant SPD and/or 4th item (Braintree Football Club) at the determination • Delete the "Public Realm Improvements" of the relevant item from all growth locations in Table 2. planning application. Focused Change • Delete New site for Braintree Town Football Club and funding and
125 delivery body Braintree Town Football Club from Table 2. Chapter 10 – Monitoring Framework Comments stating that the Strategy is sound are from the Environment Agency, Asda Stores Ltd Comments stating that the Strategy is unsound are from English Heritage and the developer of the north-west Braintree growth location – Mersea Homes and Hills Group. Comments which state the Core Strategy Officer Response Recommendation was Sound • It is usual for Councils to include a • Planning permissions granted contrary to EA advice are recorded in Core indicator No change measure to ensure no permissions granted E1. A zero target has been set to reflect the importance BDC places on not contrary to Environment Agency advice developing in areas at risk of flooding. This target was met for the last monitoring with regards to flood risk. period to March 2009 • Council will need to consider how to monitor the remaining capacity in the • BDC does not have the expertise to monitor water quality or waste water capacity. Wastewater Treatment Works and sewerage networks where capacity has • The overall recycling rate of the District is already measured and a target is been highlighted as an issue. included in the Climate Change Action Plan to achieve an annual increase in the • Other additional targets that could be recycling rate. included are the number of permission using SuDS and the amount of waste being recycled. • Flexibility in policies on the supply and use Noted No change of land to accommodate all forms of economic development would allow for a quicker response to changes in economic circumstances in the District. Comments which state that the Core Officer Response Recommendation Strategy is Unsound Paragraph 10.1 needs to explain that • Paragraphs 9.1 and 10.1 already refer to the connection between Monitoring and No change monitoring is part of the process of delivery, Delivery. and link back to the measures outlined in
126 Chapter 9. Amend paragraph 10.1 by adding the following text: "Where monitoring shows either that targets have been missed, or are likely to be missed if remedial measures are not taken, the Council will need to take appropriate action. Chapter 9 sets out how the Council intends to deliver the plan, and includes possible actions that the Council could take in the event of a lack of delivery in key sectors (principally in relation to housing and employment provision). In the first instance, the Council will review the measures and actions set out in Chapter 9, but may need to instigate other actions to ensure targets are met. • The Monitoring framework should include • The table already contains the performance measure ‘Non residential land No change ensuring a continuous supply of land for available per year by use class’ which adequately covers this point. employment purposes. • "Target: Maintenance of a 5 year supply of employment land, equivalent to 15 ha; Performance Measure: Hectarage of available land (including permitted floorspace equivalent)"; Collected by: BDC." • English Heritage recommends that • Agree that the performance measure is not clear and for clarity changes should be Focused Change reference is made to all Heritage at Risk made. • Add to Table 3 assets included on English Heritage's after ‘Number of register as well as to the Essex County buildings in Council Register (which includes grade II District on’ listed buildings). ‘English Heritage's and Essex County Council's ’ buildings at risk
127 registers. Focused Change • Add English Heritage under 'Collected By' heading.
128 Appendix 3 – Letter from Witham Town Council to some Witham residents.
129
130
131
132
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PANEL
WEDNESDAY 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010
REVISED RECOMMENDATION
(APPENDIX 2, Pages 90-91)
COUNTRYSIDE PROPERTIES, LAND WEST OF A131 GREAT NOTLEY STRATEGIC EMPLOYMENT SITE
FOCUSSED CHANGE:
• Restrict overall quantum of B8 use to no more than 40% of the total floor area and restrict the largest unit size to 7,500 sqm
Appendix 8
Report to Braintree District Council Local Development Framework Panel on the 1st December 2010 summarising responses to the Focused Changes consultation.
Local Development Framework Panel 1 st December 2010
Report on comments received to the Addendum of Agenda No: 8 Focused and Minor Changes Core Strategy Submission Draft October 2010.
Corporate Priority: Business is encouraged and the local economy prospers Housing and transport meet local needs Report presented by: Alan Massow Senior Policy Planner Report prepared by: Alan Massow Senior Policy Planner
Background Papers: Public Report Core Strategy Submission Draft published May 2010 Yes
Addendum of Focused and Minor Changes to the Core Strategy Submission Draft October 2010.
Options: Key Decision: To note representations to the Consultation. NO To recommend to Council that officers are authorised to submit the Submission Draft Core Strategy and Focused Changes to the Secretary of State.
To not recommend that Council authorise officers to submit the Submission Draft Core Strategy and Focused Changes to the Secretary of State.
Executive Summary:
This report sets out a summary of representations made in response to the Addendum of Focused and Minor Changes to the Core Strategy Submission Draft.
The table at Appendix One outlines the representations received.
No further changes are proposed to the Core Strategy Submission Draft in response to the representations.
Decision:
To NOTE the comments received during the consultation on the Addendum of Focused and Minor Changes to the Core Strategy Submission Draft.
To RECOMMEND that the Council resolves that planning officers are authorised to submit the Core Strategy Submission Draft plus the Focused Changes to the Secretary of State.
27
Purpose of Decision:
To note the representations received and allow officers to submit the Submission Draft Core Strategy and Addendum of Focused and Minor Changes to the Secretary of State.
Any Corporate implications in relation to the following should be explained in detail
Financial: The Core Strategy will be examined by a Planning Inspector, with associated costs for the Inspector, Programme Officer and premises.
Document printing costs Legal: The Core Strategy is a statutory document setting out planning policy for the District up to 2026.
Equalities/Diversity An Equalities Impact Assessment has been undertaken which forms part of the Evidence base of the Core Strategy.
Customer Impact: As set out in the Core Strategy and addendum of Focused and Minor Changes
Environment and As set out in the Core Strategy and addendum of Focused Climate Change: and Minor Changes
Consultation/Community Public Consultation on Addendum of Focused Changes Engagement: between 7th October 2010 and the 19th November 2010.
Risks: That the Core Strategy will not be found sound at the examination by a Planning Inspector, which would give rise to additional work on the Strategy and Evidence Base.
Officer Contact: Alan Massow Designation: Senior Policy Planner Ext. No. 2577 E-mail: [email protected]
28
1 Background
1.1 The Core Strategy Submission Draft was published on the 10th May 2010. The Council received a number of representations to this document. Following the consideration of changes in response to these representations, the LDF Panel recommended changes to the Core Strategy Submission Draft, which were approved by the Council on the 27th September.
1.2 As some of the changes were substantive and would result in what are known as Focused Changes, it was necessary to hold an additional period of consultation. In addition to the Focused Changes a number of minor changes were also published. However, these were for information rather than comment.
1.3 The Addendum of Focused and Minor Changes to the Core Strategy Submission Draft was published on the 7th October 2010 for a six week consultation period, which finished on the 19th November 2010.
1.4 In total 45 representations were received from 21 individuals or organisations. These representations are set out in Appendix One together with officer responses.
2 Future Steps
2.1 It is recommended that no further changes are made in response to the representations received. All of these representations have been added to those already made concerning the Submission Draft Core Strategy and will be passed to the Planning Inspector, who will examine the soundness of the Core Strategy.
2.2 Members are requested to recommend to the Council that they should authorise planning officers to submit the Core Strategy Submission Draft plus the Focused Changes to the Secretary of State. It is proposed that submission will take place in the first week of January 2011.
3 Petition from Friends of Braintree
3.1 The Friends of Braintree have submitted a petition signed by 101 persons objecting to the proposed Panfield Lane growth location, setting out reasons for their objections. It does not relate to the focused changes. They have asked that this is placed before the Planning Inspector who will consider the soundness of the Core Strategy. This petition will be added to the other objections submitted by the Friends of Braintree, which will be considered by the Inspector, following the submission of the Plan for examination in 2011.
29 Appendix One – Table of Representations Received Concerning Core Strategy Focused Changes Name of Agent Subject of Comment Officer Response Respondent Representation Francesca Whole document Sound We consider that the Core Strategy is still legally compliant Noted Shapland, Natural and sound, we have no problem with the addendum England changes. Rachel Bust, The Whole document Sound Having reviewed your document, I confirm that we have no Noted Coal Authority specific comments to make on this document at this stage. Redrow Homes Boyer Whole document Sound We agree with the District Council that the revocation of Noted (Eastern) Ltd Planning the East of England Plan does not alter the evidence base that identified a housing requirement of a minimum of 4637 additional dwellings to be provided between 2009 - 2026. It remains the case that the Core Strategy must be consistent with the housing objectives in PPS3. To this end the intentions through the Focused Changes and Minor Changes to recast the statues of the East of England Plan, whilst maintaining the level of housing based upon its evidence base - rather than any reduction- is the correct approach. Mr Porth. Sturmer Whole document Sound Whilst our Parish Council is generally satisfied with the Noted Parish Council changes, we believe that in the light of the government spending review and its impact upon Local Authorities some objectives of the Core Strategy may not be achievable which in turn may result in legal non- compliance and non-soundness. These outcomes may require a further modification of the strategies. Mr R. Ford, The Whole document Unsound The Cala Homes High Court decision, made on the 10th The Council has agreed Brett Group November 2010, ruling that the Secretary of State's to continue with the level revocation of Regional Strategies (RSs) in July was of growth proposed in the unlawful, effectively reinstates the RSS's and their housing RSS as it was considered targets. Braintree DC should now give material appropriate for the consideration to the East of England Plan when assessing District. housing targets.
30 Name of Agent Subject of Comment Officer Response Respondent Representation EEDA Whole document Unsound We note that the plan has been amended to reference the Noted. It is not proposed revocation of the East of England Plan. The decision to to add back all references revoke Regional Strategies has now been quashed by the to the East of England High Court although the Secretary of State has reiterated Plan as this would require his intention to abolish the regional tier. In the light of this the publication of further High Court decision and the recent White Paper on Local focused changes, leading Growth we would stress greater importance on relevant, to delay and would only appropriate and sound evidence to support policies and be temporary as the the approach to its delivery and implementation in the plan. Government intend to We would be pleased to see the reinstatement on abolish the Regional Plan references to the East of England Plan and the Regional in the Localism Bill. Economic Strategy. Steve Price, Whole document Sound We find the following changes sound and legally Noted Countryside compliant: Support addition of “B8” in the final bullet point Properties of the “Spatial Strategy”, Changes to paragraph 6.18, which adds B8 use to the list of uses for the strategic employment site at Great Notley, and states that B8 use will be restricted to 40% of the total floor area and the largest unit size restricted to 7,500 sq m. The addition of B8 in Policy CS4, Table, row 3, column 2 (and replacement of C2 with C1 use class). These changes reflect and respond to the changes we sought in regard to paragraph 6.18 and Policy CS 4 in our previous representations to the consultation regarding the Draft Core Strategy, submitted to you on the 8 July 2010, i.e. the need to include an element of B8 use within this growth location. S. Walsh, Unex Whole Document Unsound The "Cala Homes" successful challenge to the Secretary of Noted- the RSS housing State's attempt to set aside the Regional Spatial Strategy requirement for the means that the RSS is still in place and therefore District remains Braintree's Core Strategy should be in compliance with it. unchanged.
31 Name of Agent Subject of Comment Officer Response Respondent Representation Rivenhall PC Executive Unsound Executive Summary BDC have added words . "In order to The recent High Court summary meet the evidence of local housing need which supported decision means that the the previous East of England Plan requirements." This is RSS has not been not legally compliant as Braintree District Council has abolished. The Council relied, as stated in this Focused Change, on exactly the considers the level of same housing numbers as they derived from the RSS growth proposed in the formulation despite the Government's announcement that RSS to be suitable for the the RSS is to be abolished. The Core Strategy is not District. legally compliant as the RSS is to be abolished and is no longer a material consideration. Mr R. Ford, The Para 2.1 Unsound Brett Group
Mersea Homes JB Planning Para 4.8/Key Unsound The Addendum to the Core Strategy at paragraph 4.8, on It is appropriate to and Hills Group Diagram/ the Key Diagram and at Appendix 3 now seeks to alter the consider Braintree and Appendix 3 Settlement Hierarchy to include Great Notley as part of the Great Notley together. urban area of Braintree. We similarly object to these Great Notley does not changes on the basis they fail to recognise Great Notley as meet the definition of a a separate settlement to Braintree. The inclusion of Great KSV because it does not Notley as part of the settlement of Braintree is not Justified serve a wider area of on the above grounds. Proposed Changes other villages, but rather Include Great Notley as a ‘Key Service Village' within the is more reliant on settlement hierarchy (or revert to its inclusion as an ‘other Braintree itself. village' as per the original Submission Draft). Rivenhall PC 4.28/Inset 2a Unsound 4.28/Inset 2A. This focused change is not legally compliant The Council has as it seeks to link the proposals map with the inset plans of corrected an error which the growth locations (including the Rivenhall GL) and the had been made in the relationship with the Local Plan Review Proposals Map. title of the growth location This is a retrospective change. So the Council is now Inset maps in response to attempting a retrospective change to make the Core objections. Strategy legally compliant but is stating that objections in Objections can only be principle to the Growth Locations and Inset maps will not made to the Focused be accepted at this stage. Changes as part of this consultation. Previous
32 Name of Agent Subject of Comment Officer Response Respondent Representation objections will be considered by the Planning Inspector. Redrow Homes Boyer 5.26 Sound We note the intention to include additional text within para Noted (eastern) Ltd Planning 5.26 concerning economic viability being a material consideration, in determining the actual level of affordable housing. We drew attention to this in our representation to the Core Strategy Submission Draft and we welcome the inclusion of this text, as a means of ensuring a balanced approach to development economics in bringing schemes forward for development. K. Fraser, Essex Para. 6.10 3rd Unsound It is acknowledged that the situation regarding Stansted The proposed growth County Council bullet point Airport has changed from the previous Core Strategy location will not just be consultation document. However, there remains a planning limited to economic permission (Generation 1) to increase the capacity at growth associated with Stansted to 35 million passengers per annum and 264,000 the airport but with the air transport movements. This expansion will still have a whole district. significant impact on Braintree and its future economic development prospects.
At present the Core Strategy appears to validate the No objection to the allocation purely on its physical location to Stansted and suggested changes, but improved strategic road connections. officers advise that publication of further ECC considers reference should be made to how the focused changes would designation relates to delivering the aims and objectives of cause delay. Officers the District Economic Strategy `Going for Growth, Investing could raise no objection in your future, 2009', and other objectives of the proposed to suggest changes at the Core Strategy. The Economic Strategy acknowledges the hearing. need to provide higher end jobs and higher job densities to help meet the District target for 14,000 additional jobs. This is considered essential given the historic imbalance between the provision of jobs and homes in the district.
33 Name of Agent Subject of Comment Officer Response Respondent Representation Mersea Homes JB Planning Table 1 Unsound Table 1 Summary. In our original representations to the The Core Strategy has to and Hills Group Submission Draft, we raised a number of concerns provide housing for a 15 regarding the data in Table 1, and the way the findings year period from the date related to the subsequent assessment of the quantum of of adoption, as it would employment land proposed in the Core Strategy. The be adopted in 2011 then proposed amendments to Table 1 do not overcome the end date would therefore concerns raised in our previous representations, and be 2026 not 2027. Also indeed raise certain additional concerns. early delivery of the site The consequences of moving to 2010 base data also could compromise however need to be applied consistently, and the housing delivery later in provisions for both employment and housing should be the Plan Period. Similarly extended to a 2027 end date. with the employment land supply the period for provision is until 2026.
Silver End PC 6.14/Appendix 4 Unsound The proposed focus change at paragraph 6.14 is not The detailed uses of the and Chapter 9 sound because it is not justified. Core Strategy support for site would be determined Table 2 a museum in the powerhouse as part of the Silver End through a Master Plan. Regeneration Area of the former Crittalls factory site, has This level of detail is not been deleted. We dispute BDC's claim that is over necessarily appropriate prescriptive to include the museum as surely a village for a Core Strategy. The museum housed in one building is a very modest proposal Masterplan proposals on what is a sizeable regeneration area. The Core Strategy and community gain will can be made sound in respect of this issue by re-instating also need to be subject to the deleted wording. a viability assessment. Rio de Souza, Para 6.18 Sound The Highways Agency do not regard the proposed change Noted Highways Agency as likely to be of any significance in terms of the impact of this site on the Trunk Road. However, as always, the Highways Agency should be consulted at such time as a Planning Application for this site comes forward, with a view to demonstrating that the impact of the proposed development is acceptable
34 Name of Agent Subject of Comment Officer Response Respondent Representation K. Fraser, Essex Para 6.18 Unsound Essex County Council objects to the addition of B8 uses at The Great Notley Growth County Council the Great Notley growth location due to potential impact on Location will be subject to the Country Park. Essex County Council would like to see a Master Plan which will the reinstatement of a paragraph which seeks to protect adopted as SPD. The the setting and enjoyment of the Country Park and which Council will seek to requires the undertaking of necessary mitigation or ensure that the compensatory measures to minimise the potential impact development will have of development. minimal impact on the park through this process. Mersea Homes JB Planning Para 6.30 Unsound Paragraph 6.30, Summary. In our original representations The size and type of and Hills Group we objected to paragraph 6.30 on the basis that it failed to retailing would be recognise that additional convenience retailing would be determined through the provided as part of the Panfield Lane growth area Master Plan process for neighbourhood centre. The proposed amendment to this growth location. paragraph 6.30 similarly fails to recognise the exception of Panfield Lane, and we therefore object to the amendments on the same basis. Proposed Changes - We consider that the proposed Amendment to the Core Strategy should be rejected, and the change to paragraph 6.30 in our original submissions be adopted. Redrow Homes Boyer 6.31 Sound Para 6.31 - We note the intention to delete reference to the Noted (Eastern) Ltd Planning local centre at Maltings Lane as serving the adjoining Hatfield Road growth locations. As promoters of the Hatfield Road growth locations Redrow Homes do not object to this. The adjustment to the wording proposed to para 6.31 provides a degree of flexibility for the masterplan. Agree that community infrastructure be determined through the masterplan process.
35 Name of Agent Subject of Comment Officer Response Respondent Representation Consortium of AMA Para.6.31 and Unsound The Core Strategy Focused Changes do not take on board This is not an objection to Landowners 6.36 previous representations, made by AMA. There is no a focused change. evidence to demonstrate that sufficient demand exists to It is not appropriate to support two neighbourhood/local centres in close replace this wording. The proximity. AMA considers that these parts of the Core first dwelling completions Strategy Focused Changes are not justified or effective on the Hatfield Road and therefore fail the soundness test. The final sentence of development will not be paragraph 6.31 should be deleted and replaced with; "An constructed until 2017. appropriate size of food store should be provided within the Maltings Lane neighbourhood centre to serve both the Maltings Lane development and the adjoining Hatfield Road (Lodge Farm) growth location."
In addition, the second sentence of paragraph 6.36 should be deleted and replaced with: "Local/neighbourhood centres are also planned as part of the Panfield Lane growth location, Braintree, and at the Maltings Lane development, Witham - the latter also serving the adjoining Hatfield Road (Lodge Farm) growth location." Sainsbury Indigo CS6 Unsound Policy - CS6 Comment on behalf of Sainsbury. The Noted. Planning addendum to the Core Strategy shows that the Council propose to make changes to policy CS6 on Town Centre Regeneration and Retailing, most notably now with the inclusion of the "Marks Farm Neighbourhood Centre" as a designated District Centre. We have concerns with the proposed amendment to Policy CS6 as The Marks Farm site consists of a stand alone out-of-centre Tesco Store with surface level parking which would not meet the definition of a neighbourhood centre in PPS4 and is not supported by evidence. As such, we object to this proposal within the addendum to the Core Strategy, and reserve our right to give evidence at Examination in Public. Jo Hardwick, The CS8 Sound We support the focused changes which address our Noted Environment unsound representation on Policy CS8 regarding PPS 25 Agency and the use of SuDS. We can confirm that we now withdraw these unsound representations and support Policy CS8.
36 Name of Agent Subject of Comment Officer Response Respondent Representation
K. Fraser, Essex Chapter 8 CS9 Sound The change is supported, as it provides a suitable link on Noted County Council which suitable development management policies can be developed, which consider the implications and development of the District's rich and varied historic assets of local, regional and national significance. ECC also supports the amendment to bullet point 1 with reference to `archaeological' sensitivity and the final sentence in relation to `heritage assets'. D. Greetham, Sport CS10 Sound In response to the consultation, I would like to respond to Noted England the following part of the document: POLICY CS10: PROVISION FOR OPEN SPACE, SPORT AND RECREATION. Support – Policy considered to be sound. Sport England are supportive of the amendments which have been made to the third criterion within Policy CS10: Provision for open space, sport and recreation, as the policy only allows development of part of an open space where there is an identified surplus. Adrian Chapter 9 Unsound Neither the original strategy nor update seem to clarify the The transport evidence Dunningham Delivering the plans for a sensible transport infrastructure to serve the base indicates that the Strategy Panfield Lane site. It will be the people who live off Panfield Lane growth Panfield Lane, or nearby that will have to put up with the location is suitable for the problems. proposed level of growth
Redrow Homes Boyer Chapter 9 Sound We note the intention to include an additional sentence to Noted (Eastern) Ltd Planning Delivering the require the infrastructure requirements for the growth areas Strategy to be assessed again, at the time of the preparation of the relevant SPD and/or at the determination of the relevant planning application. This approach allows for up to date consideration of infrastructure availability and potential mitigation measures and reflects a practical approach to the determination of major development proposals in any event.
37 Name of Agent Subject of Comment Officer Response Respondent Representation Cllr J. Abbott Chapter 6 , Unsound The proposed focus change at paragraph 6.14 is not The detailed uses of the Chapter 9 , sound because it is not justified. Core Strategy support for site would be determined Appendix 4 a museum in the powerhouse as part of the Silver End through a Master Plan. Regeneration Area of the former Crittalls factory site, has This level of detail is not been deleted. We dispute BDC's claim that is is over necessarily appropriate prescriptive to include the museum as surely a village for a Core Strategy. It will museum housed in one building is a very modest proposal, be necessary to consider on what is a sizeable regeneration area. The Core Strategy site viability before can be made sound in respect of this issue by re-instating agreeing S106 the deleted wording. requirements and also consider future management issues of community uses. Mersea Homes JB Planning CS4 Unsound Proposed Amendments The Core Strategy has to and Hills Group The amended text relating to the North-West Braintree provide housing for a 15 growth area in policy CS4 is simply a description of the year period from the date broad range of uses to be provided within the growth area of adoption, as it would as a whole and does not relate to the substance of policy be adopted in 2011 then CS4. The inclusion of the text in the form proposed creates end date would therefore a lack of clarity in the Plan’s provision which in turn may be 2026. Also early impact upon its effective delivery. As such it should be delivery of the site could amended as follows; compromise housing delivery later in the Plan • Amend end date to 2027. Period. • Amend description of "Growth Location" in column 1 as follows: "Braintree North West Suggested new end date - Mixed-use residential led scheme" and new name for growth • Amend text in relation to "Type of Use" to "General location are new employment (including site for Braintree football club)" objections rather than • Amend text in relation to the description of the Proposed objections to the focused Growth Locations on page 36 as follows: change. " - Land to the north-west of Braintree - off Panfield Lane - A mixed use development including residential, Noted. employment with a site for Braintree Football club, community uses, education uses, health care and neighbourhood centre - Land to the west of the A131 at Great Notley - A strategic
38 Name of Agent Subject of Comment Officer Response Respondent Representation employment site, alongside structural landscaping/wildlife corridor - Land to the south-west of Witham - off Hatfield Road - Residential development including education uses and neighbourhood centre - Land to the north-east of Witham - off Forest Road - Residential development, including a neighbourhood centre"
English Heritage CS9 Unsound Policy CS9 We note there have been minor amendments Noted. The outstanding to policy CS9 to reflect some of the points we raised in points can be resolved response to the draft submission document concerning through the Public advice in PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment. Hearing. While we support these changes we would like the outstanding points in English Heritage's representations on this policy to be carried forward. Mersea Homes JB Planning Para 9.6 Unsound Para 9.6, Summary. In order to give greater emphasis to Noted. and Hills Group flexibility in timing for the growth locations (and to reflect the fact that once adopted the growth locations will no longer be "proposed") minor amendments are suggested to the text at the end of paragraph 9.6. The text to the final sentence of paragraph 9.6 be amended as follows: "Detailed infrastructure requirements and timing/phasing for the proposed growth areas will be assessed again at the time of the preparation of the relevant SPD and/or at the determination of the relevant planning application."
39 Name of Agent Subject of Comment Officer Response Respondent Representation Mersea Homes JB Planning Table 2 Unsound Table 2 Representations Noted, If appropriate, the and Hills Group Whilst supporting the amendments to Table 2 in respect of Council could raise no the deleted reference to Braintree College, this would objection to this proposed appear to leave an anomaly in respect of the references to change concerning the "education hub" and adult learning in the ‘all Braintree' reference to the section, which we had understood were linked to education hub at the the relocated College. If so, though references would need Hearing. to be deleted for the sake of consistency. Whilst supporting the amendments to Table 2 in respect of the deleted reference to Braintree College, this would appear to leave an anomaly in respect of the references to the "education hub" and adult learning in the ‘all Braintree' section, which we had understood were linked to the relocated College. If so, though references would need to be deleted for the sake of consistency. Mersea Homes JB Planning Appendix 3 Unsound The inclusion of Great Notley as part of the settlement of Great Notley is and Hills Group Braintree is not Justified. Proposed Changes significantly different from the Key Service Villages, Include Great Notley as a 'Key Service Village' within the as it is closely related to settlement hierarchy (or revert to its inclusion as an 'other Braintree and does not village' as per the original Submission Draft) provide services for a surrounding hinterland in the way that other Key Service Villages do.
40 Name of Agent Subject of Comment Officer Response Respondent Representation Mersea Homes JB Planning Appendix 4 Unsound We note that the Council has removed Braintree football Noted. The previous and Hills Group club from the Table 2 schedule of key infrastructure, as per objection on this subject our previous objections to Table 2, which we support had not referred to (although we should note that this should in no way be Appendix 4. Reference to taken as indicating a lack of commitment to the provision of this in Appendix 4 is not a new site for the club).However, the changes to Table 2 an objection to the are not reflected in the changes to Appendix 4, and the focused changes. If football club is still shown as being provided between appropriate, the Council 2024-2026. Not only is Appendix 4 now inconsistent with could raise no objection Table 2, but the proposed phasing for the football club to this change to does not reflect our understanding of the common Appendix 4 at the objective to make provision for the football club earlier Hearing. within the Plan period. Therefore the deletion of the reference to the football club in Appendix 4 would not only render the Plan internally consistent, but would also remove a potential barrier to earlier delivery of the a site for relocating the club. Delete reference to Braintree football club from Appendix 4 Rio de Souza, Inset Map 1b Sound The Highways Agency do not regard the proposed change Noted Highways Agency as likely to be of any significance in terms of the impact of this site on the Trunk Road. However, as always, the Highways Agency should be consulted at such time as a Planning Application for this site comes forward, with a view to demonstrating that the impact of the proposed development is acceptable Mersea Homes JB Planning Inset Maps Unsound Inset Map 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b. Summary: Growth area This is a new objection and Hills Group boundaries need to be amended to be contiguous with the rather than an objection existing urban areas. Proposed Change - Correct growth to a focused change. areas boundaries to be contiguous with the existing urban edge.
41 Name of Agent Subject of Comment Officer Response Respondent Representation Steve Price, Additional SEA/SA Comment We consider that, with proposed controls on the size and Noted . The County Countryiside location of commercial units on this site, there should be Council (who manage the Properties no negative impact on the Country Park with an element of Country Park) will be a B8 use. The “Additional Appraisal” also states that consultee on the depending upon the level of B8 use on the site, there may proposed Masterplan for be negative impacts on both the recreational and the proposed biodiversity value of the Country Park, and on the three employment growth listed buildings at the southern edge of the growth location. location west of Great We will ensure that through site design and master Notley. planning, by the setting of development parameters, informed by detailed ecological surveys and assessment of visual impact, we will mitigate against detrimental impacts where it is agreed with the Council that mitigation measures are required.
42 Appendix 9
Minutes of the District Development Committee of the 25th January 2007 and Local Development Framework Panel Meetings on the 25th July 2007, 5th February 2009, 15th April 2009, 20th May 2009, 17th June 2009 and the 29th July 2009 the reports for which are contained within the main body of the Statement of Consultation. Minutes
District Development
Committee
25th January 2007
Councillors Present Councillors Present P R Barlow Yes T J W Foster Yes S J Bolter Yes D Mann Yes R J Bolton Apologies Lady Newton Apologies N D C Edey Yes J W Pilgrim Apologies W P Edwards Yes Mrs W D Scattergood Apologies A V E Everard Yes Mrs K E Tearle Apologies J H G Finbow Yes T S Wilkinson Apologies Ms L B Flint Yes
41 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
INFORMATION: Councillor D Mann declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5 - Application No. 06/01612/OUT – Proposed residential development, land adjacent to 63 Duggers Lane, Braintree, as some of the objectors were known to him.
42 MINUTES
DECISION: The minutes of the meeting of the District Development Committee held on 30th November 2006 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
43 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
INFORMATION: There were four statements made, a summary of which is appended to these minutes.
Any amendments to the Officers’ recommendations after having taken into account the issues raised by members of the public would be dealt with by conditions, a summary of which is contained within the appropriate minute. Full details of the decision notice are contained in the Register of Planning Applications.
44 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AREA COMMITTEES
Braintree Area Committee – 12th December 2006
INFORMATION: Members considered the following planning application which had been referred to the District Development Committee following a decision by Braintree Area Committee at its meeting on 12th December 2006. At the meeting it had been moved and seconded that the application be approved subject to the applicant entering 32 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Democratic Services, on (01376) 552525 Ext. 2614 or email [email protected]
into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This motion was in accordance with the recommendation of the Development Director. However, on being put to the vote the motion had been declared LOST. It had then been moved and seconded that the application be refused, but on being put to the vote this motion was also declared LOST. As the Committee had reached an impasse it had subsequently been moved and seconded that the application be referred to the District Development Committee for determination and this had been CARRIED.
DECISION:
(1) That, subject to the applicant either entering into a suitable planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or, if considered appropriate by the Development Director, the imposition of a suitably worded condition to cover the provision of £4895 towards general highway improvements in the area in order to promote accessibility and safety for pedestrians, cyclists, disabled people and buggy/wheelchair users, the Development Director be authorised to approve the following planning application in accordance with the conditions as set out in the report, and as amended below, details of which are contained in the Register of Planning Applications.
(2) That, in the event that a suitable planning obligation, where necessary, has not been provided by the target date for determining the application, the Development Director be authorised to refuse the grant of planning permission.
Plan No. Location Applicants Proposed Development
*06/01612/OUT Braintree Mr & Mrs G Proposed residential (APPROVED) Lindsell development, land adjacent to 63 Duggers Lane.
The Committee approved this application, subject to Conditions 1 and 19 being amended to read as follows:-
1. Approval of the details of - (a) the layout, scale and appearance of the building(s); (b) the means of access thereto; and (c) the landscaping of the site (hereinafter referred to as the ‘reserved matters’) shall be obtained from the local planning authority. These details shall include cross and longitudinal sections of the site showing the proposed development. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision notice. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within two years from the date of the final approval of the last of the reserved matters.
19. A reptile survey shall be undertaken at the site in accordance with a detailed specification which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The findings of the reptile survey, and details of any necessary measures to protect reptile habitats and appropriate mitigation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to
33 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Democratic Services, on (01376) 552525 Ext. 2614 or email [email protected]
the commencement of the development and the necessary measures shall be put in place in accordance with the approved details.
45 EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN – PROPOSED CHANGES BY SECRETARY OF STATE
INFORMATION: The Committee received a report setting out the main changes proposed by the Secretary of State to the East of England Plan. This followed the Secretary of State’s consideration of the report prepared by the Panel which had conducted the Examination in Public of the Plan. The Committee report identified a number of areas of concern for the Council which would form the basis of the Council’s response to be submitted by 9th March 2007.
In discussing this item, Members received a copy of a report on the Plan which was to be considered by the Cabinet on 5th February 2007. This report reiterated the comments already identified and, in addition, it commented on the minimum requirements for the provision of affordable housing and possible extensions to the Green Belt to the north of Chelmsford.
In discussing this item and supporting the suggested response to the Secretary of State’s changes, Members requested that an additional comment be made about the need for jobs to be created near to new homes. It was noted that the comments set out in the report were preliminary at this stage and that they would be subject to further discussion within the Council and with the Council’s partners. In the circumstances, it was proposed that the Cabinet Member for Planning and Rural Affairs should be authorised to submit the Council’s final response.
DECISION: That the comments set out in paragraphs 13 to 19 of the report, as amended above, be used as the basis of the Council’s representations on the Secretary of State’s proposed changes to the East of England Plan and that the Cabinet Member for Planning and Rural Affairs be authorised to submit the final representations following further discussion within the Council and with the Council’s partners.
46 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – PUBLIC CONSULTATION
INFORMATION: The Committee received a report summarising the outcome of public consultation carried out between June and November 2006 amongst key stakeholders, local residents and businesses on the Council’s Community Strategy and the Core Strategy of the local development framework. This work would assist with the preparation of the local development framework and, in particular, the development of an Issues and Options document.
Members were reminded that the Community Strategy was a statement of overall objectives, priorities and actions for the District, whereas the Core Strategy set out a long term ‘spatial vision’ for the District with objectives and policies that would assist in delivering the vision.
DECISION: That the findings of the public consultation exercise be used to inform the preparation of the next stages of the local development framework and the review of the Community Strategy.
34 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Democratic Services, on (01376) 552525 Ext. 2614 or email [email protected]
47 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – GENERAL PROGRESS
INFORMATION: The Committee received a progress report on the preparation of the local development framework (LDF) and, in particular, an update on the review of the local development scheme (LDS).
Members were reminded that the LDS set out the programme for the preparation of the documents making up the LDF. Changes to the Council’s LDS, which had been agreed by the Committee in September 2006, had been subject to discussion with the Government Office and as a result a number of further changes had been suggested. It was proposed that a separate Development Control Policies Development Plan Document should be prepared concurrently with the Core Strategy; that the proposed supplementary planning documents on the ‘validation of planning applications’ and the ‘design and layout of business parks’ should be deleted; and that the proposed dates for the submission of the Allocations Development Plan Document should be brought forward by three months. A revised timetable for the preparation of local development framework documents was attached to the report.
It was noted that the Annual Monitoring Report for 2005/6 had been submitted to the Government Office as required and it had been published on the Council’s website. A summary of the key findings was set out as an Appendix to the Agenda report.
It was anticipated that as work on the local development framework progressed there would be a need for more Member involvement. This would include detailed work on the urban capacity study and the consideration of representations submitted with respect to consultation documents. To assist with this process, it was proposed that a Local Development Framework Panel should be established. It was proposed that the Panel should have decision-making powers and, as such, it would have to be constituted in accordance with the Widdecombe rules regarding political balance.
In discussing this item and the reference to gypsy and traveller accommodation needs, a Member expressed concern that Essex County Council had not informed her as the Ward Member, nor the District Council, about their negotiations to purchase land and property at Sandiacres, Cressing. Instead, Councillors and District Council Officers had read about the proposal in the local Press. This was not considered to be a good example of the two authorities ‘working together’.
DECISION: That the action taken and the proposals for the local development framework be approved.
Recommended to Cabinet and Council:- That the establishment of a Local Development Framework Panel be agreed in principle and the Council requested to agree the constitution and membership of the Panel.
(Where applications are marked with an * this denotes that representations were received and considered by the Committee).
The meeting closed at 8.42pm
P R BARLOW (Vice-Chairman in the Chair)
35 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Democratic Services, on (01376) 552525 Ext. 2614 or email [email protected]
APPENDIX
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
25th January 2007
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Summary of Questions Asked/Statements Made During Public Question Time
Statements Relating to Agenda Item No. 5 - Application No. 06/01612/OUT, Land adjacent to 63 Duggers Lane, Braintree
(a) Statement by Mrs Ann Cockerton, 24 Rye Grass Way, Braintree
Mrs Cockerton stated that she had attended the two previous meetings at which this application had been debated and she considered that the Officers had given insufficient weight to the concerns of residents. Mrs Cockerton expressed concern that the Environment Agency did not consider that there was a significant flood risk at the site and she referred to photographs of the site which clearly showed that it was subject to flooding. She considered that additional building would increase the risk of flooding. Mrs Cockerton indicated that the Council had decided to remove a nearby site, which had been considered suitable for development, from the Local Plan Review. Mrs Cockerton stated that access to the site was very narrow and that it was used regularly by school children. She said that the nearby river walk was one of the only local recreational areas and she expressed concern that if the application was approved this could lead to Braintree disappearing under concrete.
(b) Statement by Mr Jonathan Chaplin, Strutt and Parker, Coval Hall, Rainsford Road, Chelmsford
Mr Chaplin expressed disappointment that the application had been referred to this meeting having already been reported to two previous meetings. He indicated that the three main issues were flooding, highway matters and ecology.
With respect to flooding, Mr Chaplin indicated that the report concluded that there was not a flooding problem at the site and the Environment Agency had confirmed that they had no objection to the development. Mr Chaplin stated that Essex County Council had been consulted twice by the District Council and had indicated that they had no objection to five dwellings being built on the site and that there was sufficient capacity on local roads to cope with a small scheme. Mr Chaplin reported that an ecology survey had been carried out which had revealed that the site was species poor. A specific survey of reptiles had not been carried out, but this could be done.
Mr Chaplin referred to a comment which had been made about the site having been cleared prior to the submission of the outline planning application. However, Mr Chaplin explained that the site had originally been cleared at the Council’s request and that it had not been done at the time of the application. Mr Chaplin asked the Committee to approve the outline application.
i For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Democratic Services, on (01376) 552525 Ext. 2614 or email [email protected]
(c) Statement by Mr Michael Morgan, 59 Duggers Lane, Braintree
Mr Morgan stated that he had lived in Duggers Lane, Braintree for 20 years and that the area had been subject to flooding during that time, most recently in November 2006 and January 2007. He indicated that the Environment Agency had admitted to using old maps in carrying out their assessment. Mr Morgan reported that the footpath adjacent to the site was used by children and he expressed concern about their safety. He indicated that Essex County Council had been contacted about this point, but that they had not shown any interest.
(d) Statement by Mr Anthony Balogun, 61 Duggers Lane, Braintree
Mr Balogun expressed his concerns about the highway aspects of the proposal. Whilst the Highways Authority had indicated that it would be appropriate for Duggers Lane to be extended to take the extra traffic generated by the development, Mr Balogun indicated that in order to make the road wide enough it would touch the walls of adjoining properties and, in particular, it could affect the foundations of No 26 Duggers Lane which was on a slope. Mr Balogun considered that the only people to gain from the proposal would be the developers.
Mr Balogun stated that Duggers Lane was a two lane road with 26 existing properties, but that 13-15 vehicles were regularly parked along it as many of the properties did not have off-road parking facilities. Mr Balogun stated that the Highways Authority had not offered a solution to this problem. However, Mr Balogon considered that the issue should be looked at as a whole.
Mr Balogun referred to a photograph of a slow worm which had been seen at the site last Summer and he questioned where the protected species present on the site would go if it was developed.
ii For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Democratic Services, on (01376) 552525 Ext. 2614 or email [email protected]
Minutes
Local Development
Framework Panel
25th July 2007
Councillors Present Miss L Barlow Yes G Butland Yes (from 6.30pm) N R H O Harley Yes (from 6.30pm) M C M Lager Apologies N G McCrea (Chairman) Yes H J Messenger Yes Lady Newton Yes Mrs W D Scattergood Yes Miss M Thorogood Yes R G Walters Yes (from 6.20pm)
In welcoming everyone to the meeting, the Chairman was pleased to introduce Mr D Cookson who was currently working as a consultant for the Council in the preparation of the Local Development Framework.
3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
DECISION: There were no interests declared.
4 TERMS OF REFERENCE AND WORKING ARRANGEMENTS
Consideration was given to the Local Development Framework Panel’s amended Terms of Reference which has been discussed by the Local Government Reform Cabinet Sub Group at a meeting on 10th July 2007. The Terms of Reference had been recommended for approval by Council on 30th July 2007.
The main change to the Terms of Reference proposed that the Panel should be autonomous, subject to any policy decisions or changes affecting the policy framework being recommended to Council for a decision following consultation with Cabinet and the Local Committees.
DECISION: That the amended Terms of Reference be noted.
5 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – GENERAL PROGRESS REPORT
INFORMATION: Consideration was given to a general progress report on the preparation of the District’s Local Development Framework and the status of the various documents and studies which formed part of this.
2 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Democratic Services, on (01376) 552525 Ext. 2614 or email [email protected]
DECISION: That the action taken and the proposals for the Local Development Framework be approved.
6 CORE STRATEGY – PREFERRED OPTIONS DOCUMENT
INFORMATION: Members discussed a report on the proposed scope, structure and content of the Braintree District Core Strategy Preferred Options document. The report assessed present good practice nationally and it recommended how this could be used to produce a sound document.
Members were reminded that the Core Strategy was a very important document which would set out the Council’s overarching planning strategies for the next 15 years and beyond. The initial round of public consultation for the Core Strategy had been completed and this had sought wide-ranging views on the long term planning issues facing the District and possible options for tackling them. Consultation on an Issues and Options Document had taken place during April 2007 and a number of responses had been submitted. These had been summarised and were the subject of a separate item on the Agenda.
The Local Development Framework system required planning authorities to prepare and to consult widely on a series of Preferred Options. It was important that such options should be well founded and based on evidence, consultation and sound planning judgement. A brief outline of the recommended approach to be taken in the production of the Preferred Options document and its content had been prepared and his was attached as an Appendix to the report. The main objective of the process was to provide a clear, concise document setting out the main options which the Council considered should be pursued to Submission Document stage. The themes of the proposed document had been chosen to give a broad overview of the future development needs of the District whilst keeping the number of policy areas to a minimum. The Local Development Framework Panel would be required to discuss the Core Strategy in detail, to consider the responses received following consultation, and to review reports on the studies making up the evidence base, subject to any proposed changes to policy being reported to Cabinet and recommended to Council for approval. The proposed timetable for the process was set out in the report and this anticipated that the final Preferred Options Document should be published for consultation in December 2007.
DECISION:
(1) That the proposed scope, structure and content of the Braintree District Core Strategy Preferred Options Local Development Plan document, as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved.
(2) That the process and timetable for the preparation of the Preferred Options document, as set out in the report, be approved.
7 CORE STRATEGY – ISSUES AND OPTIONS DOCUMENT – RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION
INFORMATION: Consideration was given to a report on the main points made following consultation on the Core Strategy Issues and Options document. A summary of the responses submitted was attached to the report. 3 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Democratic Services, on (01376) 552525 Ext. 2614 or email [email protected]
In discussing this item, Mr P Crofts Corporate Director, was pleased to report that the Council had recently been awarded a planning delivery grant of £362,000. This was the highest grant awarded in Essex and one of the highest awarded throughout the Country and it was due to the hard work of staff in the Planning Service. Members of the Panel congratulated the Service on this excellent achievement.
DECISION: That the responses received following consultation on the Core Strategy Issues and Options document be noted and taken into account in the preparation of the Preferred Options document.
The meeting commenced at 6.00pm and closed at 7.55pm
N G McCREA (Chairman)
4 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Democratic Services, on (01376) 552525 Ext. 2614 or email [email protected]
Minutes
Local Development
Framework Panel
5th February 2009
Councillors Present Councillors Present Miss L Barlow Apologies H J Messenger Yes G Butland Yes Lady Newton Yes N R H O Harley Yes Mrs W D Scattergood Apologies M C M Lager Yes Miss M Thorogood Yes N G McCrea (Chairman) Yes R G Walters Apologies
Others in attendance: Eleanor Dash, Planning Policy Manager, Braintree District Council Paul Munson, Deputy Director of District Development, Braintree District Council Melanie Ward, Locality Support Officer (Minute Clerk), Braintree District Council Councillor David Mann, Ward Member for Bocking North Councillor Liz Edey, Ward Member for Bocking Blackwater Mr Lee Harding, Chairman, Braintree Town Football Club 8 Members of Public
48. Apologies Councillors Miss Barlow, Mrs Scattergood, Walters
49. Declarations Of Interest Councillor Butland declared a personal interest in Public Question Time as he has attended Braintree Town Football Club as an FA Assessor and knew the Chairman.
50. Minutes The minutes of the Local Development Framework Panel meeting held on 23rd October 2008 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
51. Question Time Lee Harding, Chairman of Braintree Town Football Club (BTFC) wished to thank Braintree District Council (BDC) for their assistance in including a potential football club relocation site as part of the proposed growth area west of Panfield Lane. He updated the Panel on the Football Club’s proposals at land west of Pods Brook Road/A120 Braintree by-pass and stated that the proposed growth area west of Pods Brook Lane was deliverable and had the support of landowners. A green buffer would be included between the proposed development site and Rayne. Written representations had been submitted via the consultation process and details of the proposal west of Pods Brook Road had been submitted to Planners.
52. Overview of Representations on the Draft Core Strategy. Representations received during public consultation were still being logged. Officers would start analysis by the end of next week and publish findings on the web site 17
For information regarding these minutes, please contact Melanie Ward, Law & Governance, (01376) 552525 Ext 2616 or email [email protected] once completed. A total of around 4,500 comments had been received, 440 relating to growth areas. Panfield Lane received the highest response, which were mainly objections to open space use and traffic issues. A full report of representations would be issued at a subsequent meeting. The costing, delivery and timing of the infrastructure required further work along with phasing of sites in the plan.
Members wanted to know how the Review of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) was going to be progressed. An ARUP Consultants Study had shown a potential way of accommodating very large-scale development in the East of England. This would involve Chelmsford as one of the key centres for major growth development in the 2021-2031 period; a lower level of growth would include Colchester; and new settlements in 6 locations could include Braintree as an option. Paul Munson stated that the new LDF system was intended to be more flexible and quicker to change. The Strategy for the period to 2025 should be capable of adaptation to respond to changing circumstances.
Members were concerned that the Review of the Regional Plan might involve major growth areas adjoining the District boundary over which the Council would have little influence. At the moment EERA were looking to County Councils and Unitary Authorities to advise them on future growth strategies and it was for ECC to involve the District Councils in this process. If at the end of this process there would be major growth in and around the Braintree District, them the LDF would need to look at a joint Core Strategy with Chelmsford and Colchester to have more say in the surrounding infrastructure. Current proposed schemes such as BTFC were welcomed as it would link in with existing infrastructure and create local jobs. There was not enough funding to support rail links, A12 and Health services in the volume of development proposed. Eleanor Dash stated that discussions with key providers were underway to identify which services needed to be improved, including the sewage disposal requirements for new developments to the West of Braintree and to consider costs and requirements to apply to development proposals.
A report on the Review of the Regional Plan and the ARUP Consultants Study would be brought to the next meeting.
Decision: Members agreed 1. To note the overview received. 2. For an update of representations to be brought to the next meeting. 3. That a report on the Review of the Regional Plan be brought to the next meeting of the Panel to be held after the public meeting.
53. Decision Making Process for Changes to the Core Strategy by Members of the Panel and Local Committees. A process was required to consider representations. The Panel were requested to consider what types of reports were to be given to the Local Committees and be discussed by the LDF Panel, and whether a seminar would need to be arranged to discuss issues raised in representations.
Members agreed that reports on area specific representations would be taken to Local Committees. Decisions on whether to amend the Core Strategy in response to representations be considered at the LDF Panel meeting on 15th April.
18
For information regarding these minutes, please contact Melanie Ward, Law & Governance, (01376) 552525 Ext 2616 or email [email protected] It was decided that a public meeting be held in place of the next LDF Panel meeting to commence at 6:00pm. This would be open to all Council Members and the Public and be web-cast.
Decision: Members agreed 1. That representations on area specific issues be taken to the Local Committees who would make representations to the LDF Panel. 2. That general strategy issues be taken to LDF Panel. 3. That the next LDF Panel meeting be a public meeting to discuss representations, which would be web-cast. 4. That decisions on whether to amend the Core Strategy in response to representations be taken at the LDF Panel meeting on 15th April.
54. East of England Regional Spatial Strategy Review of Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation. The report of the Panel on the single-issue Review of the East of England Plan on Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation was now available. This included requirements for each District for the period post 2011. It will be for each District to make site- specific allocations. 41 pitches in total are required for the District, 17 of which would be required post 2011. Consultants would need to be employed to assess potential site locations for sites required after 2011.
Members were against employing consultants solely for Braintree District but agreed that a joint study with other Essex Authorities could be beneficial.
Decision: Members agreed 1. To note proposed changes to the Gypsy and Traveller policy requirements. 2. That consultant’s be appointed to carry out a joint study of post 2011 site provision for the district with other Essex Authorities.
55. Urgent Business. No items for inclusion.
56. Any Other Business No items for inclusion.
57. Private Session No items for inclusion.
58. Date Of Next Meeting It was agreed that the next Local Development Framework Panel meeting be publicised as a Public District Meeting.
Action: a. Event to be publicised for public attendance. b. Progress report to be brought to the next LDFP meeting.
The meeting commenced at 6:00pm and closed at 7:04 pm
N G McCrea (Chairman)
19
For information regarding these minutes, please contact Melanie Ward, Law & Governance, (01376) 552525 Ext 2616 or email [email protected] Minutes
Local Development Framework Panel
th 15 April 2009
Present:
Councillors Present Councillors Present Miss L Barlow Apologies H J Messenger Yes G Butland Apologies Lady Newton Yes N R H O Harley Yes Mrs W D Scattergood Yes M C M Lager Yes Miss M Thorogood Yes (until 6.50pm) N G McCrea Yes R G Walters Yes (until 7.35pm)
59 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
INFORMATION: There were no interests declared.
60 MINUTES
DECISION: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Local Development Framework Panel held on 5th February 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
61 QUESTION TIME
DECISION: There were four statements made, a summary of which is contained in the Appendix to these Minutes.
62 CORE STRATEGY
INFORMATION: Consideration was given to a report summarising the representations of objection and support in respect of the One District - One Vision Core Strategy which had been submitted during the period of public consultation in November and December 2008. The report covered Parts 1 to 4 Alt 7 of the Core Strategy, excluding the proposed growth locations, and included the Officers’ recommended changes to the Core Strategy.
DECISION: That the following amendments be made to the relevant sections of the Core Strategy:-
Title and Commitment to the Strategy
(1) That technical studies, including the Sustainability Assessment and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, be presented to the Local
20
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 552525 Ext 2614 or e-mail [email protected] Development Framework Panel and changes made to the Core Strategy where necessary and as recommended by these studies.
(2) That the on-line consultation response form be amended to include a ‘comment’ option in addition to the agree/disagree options.
Part 1 – Introduction and Background
(1) That a list of all the evidence base studies be included in the final submission document and the documents made available for public viewing.
(2) That a comprehensive monitoring and review framework be included in the final submission document.
(3) That data on ethnicity and disability rates be included in the Portrait of the District section and more emphasis given to the problem of out- commuting.
(4) That the submission document should be the Core Strategy and not a joint Core Strategy and Sustainable Community Strategy.
Part 2 – A Portrait of Braintree District
(1) That influences on the District from service centres, growth locations and major employment centres in the areas of neighbouring authorities be included in Part 2.
(2) That data on ethnicity and disability rates and age profiles be included in the Portrait of the District Section.
(3) That reference be made to the fact that the East of England Plan housing provision figures are a minimum requirement.
(4) That reference be made to the nature of the District being one of rural isolation.
Part 3 – A Vision for the Braintree District, Aims and Objectives
Box 1 - The Vision
That the Core Strategy Vision be made more place specific setting out the vision for specific parts of the District, including the main towns and rural areas, in more detail. This should be based upon the concentration of services and development in the main towns and the need to provide rural sustainability and to protect the environment.
Content of the Vision
That revised wording for the Vision for the Braintree District be prepared (to be discussed with GO- East) along the following lines:-
21
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 552525 Ext 2614 or e-mail [email protected] ‘By 2026 a more sustainable future will have been secured for all the people and places in the Braintree District. The development, growth and regeneration of Braintree, Halstead and Witham will have delivered most of the housing, jobs and services needed for the District, including shopping, health, education and leisure. Our villages and rural areas will have been made more sustainable by delivering regeneration where needed and acting on local needs by supporting the provision of local housing, jobs and services. All development across the District will have been built to the highest design and energy efficiency standards, it will have enhanced our historic towns, villages, buildings and countryside and minimised our impact on the local and global environment.’
Aims
That the issue of addressing climate change be included as an additional aim.
Key Objectives
(1) That the aims, key objectives and guiding principles be rationalised and, where possible, combined, made more locally specific to the Braintree District and more measurable.
(2) That the aims, key objectives and guiding principles remain compatible with those in the Sustainable Community Strategy.
(3) That the detailed points raised in the consultation responses be included in the Strategy where possible, with the exception of those relating to the proposed new settlement at Boxted Wood, subject to editing as referred to in the report.
The Three Guiding Principles
Policy GP1 – Promoting and Delivering a Sustainable Future
(1) That the word ‘policy’ be removed and that it be asserted that this is a principle that underlines later policies.
(2) That more specific information relating to the Braintree District be included to avoid repeating national/regional Government guidance.
Policy GP2 – The Protection and Enhancement of the Environment in the District
The no changes be made to the Core Strategy.
Policy GP3 – Delivering the Development We Need
(1) That the period covered by the Plan be extended to 2026 to allow for a 15 year Plan period from the date of adoption of the document.
(2) That clarification be sought as to whether the jobs target is up to 14,000, as set out in the Cambridge Econometrics report, or if it should be
22
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 552525 Ext 2614 or e-mail [email protected] expressed as contributing towards the 54,000 jobs in the rest of Essex, as set in the East of England Plan.
(3) That the basis for the proportion of growth allocated in Braintree and Witham be set out.
(4) That reference to the provision of infrastructure being a pre-condition to growth in housing be included.
Part 4 - Planning for the Future Growth of Braintree District
Paragraph 4.5 – Key Service Villages
That a reference to the Allocations Development Plan document and its potential to review development boundaries in Key Service Villages, be included. That no green-field development be proposed around the edges of Key Service Villages.
Paragraph 4.5 – Other Villages
That no change be made to the list of Key Service Villages set out in the Core Strategy.
Paragraph 4.12 – Where should growth be located?
That no change be made to the Core Strategy.
Box 2 – The Preferred ’Spatial Policy Statement’ for the Braintree District
That clearer reference be made to previously developed land in the last bullet point of Guiding Principle 1.
Paragraphs 4.24/4.25 – The Other Villages
That no change be made to the Core Strategy.
Paragraphs 4.26/4.28 – The Countryside
That no change be made to the Core Strategy.
ALT7 – New Settlements
That no change be made to the Core Strategy.
63 BRAINTREE TOWN CENTRE STRATEGY – PRELMINARY DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
INFORMATION: Members of the Panel were advised that as part of the preparation of the evidence base for the Local Development Framework, Cushman and Wakefield had been commissioned to advise on the scope for providing additional shopping floorspace in Braintree town centre. Representatives of Cushman and Wakefield attended the meeting to present their report and its findings.
23
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 552525 Ext 2614 or e-mail [email protected] The report indicated that based on the retail study carried out by GVA Grimley in 2006, there was capacity for an additional 8,136 square metres of comparison goods floorspace in Braintree town centre for the period to 2021. The potential of the following eight sites had been examined in particular – Somerfield and adjoining car parks, Rayne Road/ Pierrefitte Way; Sainsbury’s store and adjoining car park; Bus Park, Manor Street car park and adjoining land; Tesco Store and adjoining car park; Causeway House and adjoining land; Telephone exchange and warehouse, Silks Way; allotments off Bunyan Road and land at Rayne Road/Panfield Lane; and the former Government offices, Panfield Lane. The report concluded that the main opportunity for development was at the Somerfield site and car park together with the George Yard car park, which had the capacity to deliver up to 5,300 square metres net increase in comparison retail floorspace by 2021. Three different development options had been put forward for this site.
DECISION:
(1) That the Braintree Town Centre Preliminary Development Analysis be endorsed as part of the evidence base for the Local Development Framework and consultation carried out with key stakeholders.
(2) That further detailed work is carried out on the Somerfield and adjoining car parks site at Rayne Road as follows:
• A full architectural site option analysis and viability appraisal to understand fully the potential quantum of development which can be accommodated on the site and its viability • The preparation of a car parking strategy for the town centre to assess the overall quantum of car parking required both now and in conjunction with the potential redevelopment proposal • A full financial appraisal • Detailed discussions with the site owners
64 EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN
INFORMATION: The Head of District Development presented a verbal report on the review of the East of England Regional Plan.
It was reported that the East of England Regional Assembly was currently undertaking various studies and that the Regional Planning Panel would be considering an options report in June 2009 when it would determine whether consultation could commence. If so, the Regional Assembly would consider the matter in July 2009, prior to public consultation in September 2009. This would enable the Council to comment on the level of growth proposed for the District for the period up to 2031.
It was reported that a meeting between Essex County Council and Braintree District Council Members and Officers would take place following the Essex County Council Election in June 2009, in order to discuss the approach to be taken with respect to the Plan and its implications for the Braintree District.
DECISION: That the report be noted.
24
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 552525 Ext 2614 or e-mail [email protected]
The meeting commenced at 6.00pm and closed at 8.00pm.
N G McCrea
(Chairman)
25
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 552525 Ext 2614 or e-mail [email protected]
APPENDIX
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PANEL
15TH APRIL 2009
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Summary of Questions Asked/Statements Made During Public Question Time
1. Statements Relating to Agenda Item 5 - Core Strategy
(i) Statement by Councillor J E Abbott, Chairman of Rivenhall Parish Council, 1 Waterfall Cottages, Park Road, Rivenhall
Councillor Abbott spoke against the proposed growth locations in the Parish of Rivenhall and he referred to the considerable local opposition to these sites. Councillor Abbott stressed the importance of protecting the countryside from development.
(ii) Statement by Councillor S Brailey, Rivenhall Parish Council
Councillor Brailey spoke against the proposed growth locations in the Parish of Rivenhall and he requested that the views of the Parishioners of Rivenhall, who were against the proposals, be taken into account.
(iii) Statement by Councillor R Wright, Rivenhall Parish Council, 303 Rickstones Road, Rivenhalll
Councillor Wright stated that as part of the preparation of the village plan and a public consultation process, the majority of people living in the Parish of Rivenhall had indicated that they did not want large scale development in the Parish. However, Councillor Wright felt that this was being ignored by the District Council.
2. Statement by Ms L Croft, Indigo Planning, Swan Court, Worple Road, London SW19 4JS Agenda Item 6 - Braintree Town Centre Strategy – Preliminary Development Analysis
Ms Croft indicated that she represented Sainsbury and she referred to the discussions which had taken place with Officers of the District Council regarding the improvement of the Sainsbury store in Braintree. Ms Croft stated that Sainsbury wished to be involved with the process of planning for future retail growth in the town and she requested that, at this stage, Cushman and Wakefield’s report should be endorsed for consultation purposes only and not yet formally adopted as part of the Local Development Framework.
26
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 552525 Ext 2614 or e-mail [email protected] Minutes
Local Development Framework Panel
th 20 May 2009
Present:
Councillors Present Councillors Present G Butland Apologies H J Messenger Yes A V E Everard Yes Lady Newton Apologies N R H O Harley Yes Mrs W D Scattergood Apologies M C M Lager Yes Miss M Thorogood Yes N G McCrea Yes R G Walters Apologies
3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
INFORMATION: The following declarations of interest were made:
Councillor M C M Lager declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5 – Core Strategy as he was a Member of Wiham Town Council which had submitted representations.
Councillor Miss M Thorogood declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5 – Core Strategy with respect to Sporting 77.
4 MINUTES
DECISION: It was noted that the Minutes of the meeting of the Local Development Framework Panel held on 15th April 2009 were not available and it was agreed to defer them for consideration at the next meeting.
5 QUESTION TIME
INFORMATION: There were nine statements made, a summary of which is contained in the Appendix to these Minutes.
6 CORE STRATEGY
INFORMATION: Consideration was given to a report summarising the representations of objection and support in respect of the One District - One Vision Core Strategy which had been submitted during the period of public consultation in November and December 2008. The report covered the representations relating to the proposed growth locations and, specifically Paragraph 4.30 to CS5 ALT3 (excluding CS1-4) of the Core Strategy. Members were requested to approve changes to the wording of the Core
2
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Strategy and to make recommendations to Council concerning the growth locations.
DECISION: That the following amendments be made to the relevant sections of the Core Strategy:-
Part 4 – Planning for the Future Growth of Braintree District (continued)
Statement 1 Proposed Growth Locations
(Land to the north-west of Braintree off Panfield Lane. Land to the west of the A131 at Great Notley. Land to the south-west of Witham off Hatfield Road. Land to the north-east of Witham off Forest Road in the Parish of Rivenhall. Land to the north-east of Witham (adjacent to Eastways Waterside Park)).
DECISION:
(1) That Statement 1 be included within the growth location policy.
(2) That the factors used to examine the growth locations be expanded upon and the reasons for rejecting sites set out.
(3) That planning issues relating to the growth of Haverhill and other adjoining large towns be taken into account.
Land to the north-west of Braintree - off Panfield Lane
DECISION: That it be Recommended to Council:-
(1) That a proposed growth location at land to the north-west of Braintree - west of Panfield Lane – be included in the Core Strategy.
(2) That land east of Panfield Lane be excluded from the proposed growth location, in order to retain open space and sporting facilities to serve this part of Bocking.
(3) That a Master Plan be prepared for the proposed growth location to be approved as a Supplementary Planning Document.
Land to the west of A131, Great Notley
DECISION: That it be Recommended to Council:-
(1) That the proposed employment growth location at land to the west of the A131 at Great Notley be retained, but warehousing type development discouraged
(2) That a significant landscape buffer be provided between the Country Park and the employment area.
(3) That advice be sought from Essex County Highways on the size of the site that could be developed based upon the junction capacity. 3
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
(4) That the Core Strategy be amended to include tourism and hotel use on the site.
Land to the south-west of Witham off Hatfield Road
DECISION: That it be Recommended to Council:-
(1) That the proposed growth location of 600 dwellings at land to the south-west of Witham off Hatfield Road be retained.
(2) That the suitability of the proposed growth location at land to the south west of Witham for employment development be examined in terms of highway access.
Land to the north east of Witham – off Forest Road in the Parish of Rivenhall
DECISION: That it be Recommended to Council:-
That the proposed growth location of 300 dwellings at land to the north-east of Witham off Forest Road is not retained in the Core Strategy.
Land to the north-east of Witham (adjacent to Eastways/Waterside Park) in the Parish of Rivenhall
DECISION: That it be Recommended to Council:-
That the proposed growth location (for 6.0 hectares of general employment) at land to the north-east of Witham (adjacent to Eastways/Waterside Park) be removed from the Core Strategy.
Paragraphs 4.35 – 4.46
DECISION:
(1) That a full list of factors considered in relation to potential growth areas, as listed on page 50 of the technical study, be included in paragraph 4.31 of the Draft Strategy for People and Places in the Braintree District to 2025.
(2) That a further paragraph explaining why the growth locations have been chosen be included in paragraph 4.33.
(3) That the wording be amended relating to the Highways Agency.
(4) That details of proposed growth locations be included (eg. as set out in paragraph 4.42 and Statement 1).
Paragraphs 5.13 to 5.23
DECISION: That paragraph 5.18 of the Draft Strategy for People and Places in the Braintree District to 2025 be amended to read – ‘Provision of a
4
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] minimum of 3 hectares of employment land per annum throughout the plan period.’
Policy CS5 – Distribution of Employment
DECISION:
(1) That further reference be made in the preamble to the Employment Land Review in order to provide robust justification for Policy CS5.
(2) That ‘phasing’ be defined as part of the wording in Policy CS5.
(3) That reference be made to the provision of jobs.
7 GYPSIES, TRAVELLERS AND TRAVELLING SHOW-PEOPLE – CHANGES TO REGIONAL POLICY ON ACCOMMODATION
INFORMATION: Consideration was given to a report on the Secretary of State’s proposed changes to the East of England policy on accommodation for gypsies, travellers and travelling show-people. The proposed changes were currently subject to public consultation and the submission of comments was required by 22nd May 2009.
It was reported that key elements of the proposed changes included increasing the number of additional pitches to be provided in the East of England by 2011 to 1,237 and treating this as a minimum; the provision of 160 transit site pitches by 2011; the provision of 184 pitches for travelling show-people by 2011; and lowering the number of pitches required in the Basildon and Epping Forest Districts in view of the particular delivery challenges affecting them. The proposed changes would also increase the pitch provision for the Braintree District by 9 to 25.
Whilst the Secretary of State had referred to constraints to delivery in Basildon, the demand for pitches there had not been acknowledged. Members were advised that, in contrast, an independent assessment had indicated that there was a low demand for gypsy and traveller sites in the Braintree District and this was reflected in the low number of authorised and unauthorised sites. There was no evidence of additional need within the Braintree District and it was considered that allocating sites outside those areas of Essex which traditionally had been preferred by gypsies and travellers was not the appropriate response to meeting their needs, or to the problems being experienced at Basildon.
The proximity of Braintree to Basildon was also questioned as the two Districts were not adjacent and the Secretary of State had given no explanation as to why the authorities which were closer to Basildon were considered to be unsuitable for accommodating higher provision.
DECISION: That an objection be submitted in the strongest terms to the Secretary of State’s proposed changes to the East of England policy on accommodation for gypsies, travellers and travelling show-people, including the proposed increase by five in the allocation of pitches for the Braintree District, for the reasons set out in the report attached to the Agenda. 5
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
The meeting commenced at 6.00pm and closed at 7.46pm.
N G McCrea
(Chairman)
6
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
APPENDIX
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PANEL
20TH MAY 2009
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Summary of Questions Asked / Statements Made During Public Question Time
1. Statements Relating to Agenda Item 5 – Core Strategy
(i) Statement by Councillor Bob Wright, Rivenhall Parish Council, 303 Rickstones Road, Rivenhall
Councillor Wright made reference to the distance between Witham town centre and the possible development sites at Conrad Road and Forest Road. Councillor Wright indicated that the Conrad Road site was nearer to the town and that it would be closer to schools including the proposed new Academy and existing local shopping facilities
(ii) Statement by Mr Jack Prime, Chairman of Rivenhall Parish Plan Steering Group, 475 Rickstones Road, Rivenhall
Mr Prime expressed concern about the effect which the proposed development of land at Forest Road would have on Rectory Lane which was a protected lane. Mr Prime indicated that this lane was popular with walkers. Mr Prime stated that arable farmland was located on one side of Rectory Lane and he considered that the proposed development would change the character of the area and make it less safe. Mr Prime indicated that the proposal went against the Parish Appraisal and Village Design Statement.
(iii) Statement by Mr George Harris, Glebe Farm Cottage, Rectory Lane, Rivenhall
Mr Harris stated that he was a resident of Rectory Lane, Rivenhall and that he objected to the development proposals for land at Forest Road. Mr Harris considered that the development would encroach on green areas which had attracted him to the area and he felt that the Council had not given due diligence to other sites.
(iv) Statement by Mr John McLarty, Bidwells, Number One, Legg Street, Chelmsford
Mr McLarty stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Flitch Way Settlement. Mr McLarty referred to a public exhibition which had been held to highlight the proposal and he referred to some of the concerns which local people had expressed. These had included concerns about traffic and the release of greenfield land. Mr McLarty indicated that the proposal now included additional land to the east of i
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Pods Brook to incorporate the provision of a new football stadium. Mr McLarty considered that the proposal would provide improved sporting facilities for the town and that the site provided a sustainable urban extension to the town which had easy access to the town centre.
(v) Statement by Mr Trevor Dodkin, Strutt and Parker, Coval Hall, Chelmsford
Mr Dodkins stated that he represented landowners at Eastways Industrial Estate, Witham. Mr Dodkins queried the information set out on page 28 of the Agenda. Mr Dodkins stated that a large area of employment land did not necessarily mean a high employment level and he considered that, despite the slow down in the economy, there should be diversification and a mix of development opportunities. In the circumstances, Mr Dodkins requested that the employment provision for Witham should be retained.
(vi) Statement by Councillor James Abbott, 1 Waterfall Cottages, Park Road, Rivenhall
In his opening comments, Councillor Abbott declared a personal interest in his capacity as Chairman of Rivenhall Parish Council which had submitted representations on the Core Strategy.
With regard to employment provision, Councillor Abbott supported the recommendation to remove the proposed employment growth location on land adjacent to Eastways, Witham from the Core Strategy as he considered that there was a large area of vacant employment land in Witham plus facilities at the new Maltings Lane site.
With regard to housing provision, Councillor Abbott stated that he was disappointed that the proposed growth location to the north east of Witham off Forest Road was still being recommended for approval. Councillor Abbott considered that the edge of town site was not a suitable, or sustainable location for development.
(vii) Statement by Mr John Getty, The Old Rectory, Rivenhall
Mr Getty stated that he lived at The Old Rectory, Rivenhall which was a very old building which had an architectural heritage and was held in high regard. Mr Getty sated that no account had been taken of the effect of the proposed development on the setting of The Old Rectory. Mr Getty considered also that the development would lead to further erosion of the boundaries between Rivenhall and Witham. Mr Getty expressed concern also about the capacity of Rectory Lane to take additional traffic which would travel along the lane if the development went ahead, and also about the number of houses which would be built.
ii
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
(viii) Statement by Mr Mark Jackson
Mr Jackson stated that he was representing an owner of land in Halstead who was concerned that there were no plans for the expansion of Halstead. Mr Jackson’s client considered that in the long-term this could thwart investment in the town in terms of employment, leisure and health provision. It was felt that the Council should consider some flexibility for development on the fringe of the town.
(ix) Statement by Councillor John Gyford, Blanfred, Chalks Road, Witham
Councillor Gyford supported the views which had been made regarding the development of land to the north-east of Forest Road, Witham, particularly with regard to the extra traffic which would be generated and the effect of this traffic on Witham town centre.
iii
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Minutes
Local Development Framework Panel
th 17 June 2009
Present:
Councillors Present Councillors Present G Butland Yes H J Messenger Yes A V E Everard Yes Lady Newton Yes N R H O Harley Apologies Mrs W D Scattergood Yes M C M Lager Yes Miss M Thorogood Yes N G McCrea Yes R G Walters Yes
Councillor D Mann was also in attendance.
8 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
INFORMATION: There were no interests declared.
9 MINUTES
DECISION: The Minutes of the meetings of the Local Development Framework Panel held on 14th and 20th April 2009 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
10 QUESTION TIME
INFORMATION: There were no questions asked, or statements made.
11 CORE STRATEGY
INFORMATION: Consideration was given to a report summarising the representations of objection and support in respect of the One District - One Vision Core Strategy which had been submitted during the period of public consultation in November and December 2008. The report covered the representations relating to Parts 5 and 6 of the Core Strategy which had not already been considered by the Panel. Members were requested to approve changes to the wording of the Core Strategy.
DECISION: That the following amendments be made to the relevant sections of the Core Strategy:-
Part 5 –The Four Priority Themes for the Braintree District
Paragraphs 5.1 - 5.3 7
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Policy CS1 – Promoting Accessibility for All
Paragraphs 5.4-5.5 and Option CS1 ALT 1- 5
DECISION:
That the four priority themes in Paragraph 5.1 should be bullet points rather than numbered to show that there is no hierarchy within the priority themes. That Policy CS1 be approved, subject to the following amendments and to be in line with the comments of GO-East, with the emphasis being on projects to be carried out, rather than statements of intent. That references to demand management and travel plans be included within Policy CS1. That Policy CS1 includes recognition that whilst the Council wishes to maximise the use of non-car travel modes, this may not be practical/possible in more isolated rural locations.
Policy CS2 – Natural Environment
DECISION:
That the following additional information be included in Policy CS2:- - Specific reference to flood risk and the sequential test - To encourage improvements to green infrastructure - Details of how the natural environment will be protected/enhanced - Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity. - The Council will promote wildlife enhancements which will contribute to the habitat and species restoration targets set out in the Essex Biodiversity Strategy.
Policy CS3 – The Built Environment
Paragraphs 5.7-5.8 and CS3 ALT1 and ALT2
DECISION:
That a reference to the protection of the setting of historic or important buildings be included. That a reference to creating good quality built environments in commercial and business districts and public realms, as well as residential areas, be included.
In discussing this matter, it was agreed also that reports should be submitted to Members on suggested definitions for the word ‘setting’, plus information on the BREEAM definitions.
1. Developing the Economy
Paragraph 5. 9 - Future development of the economy of the District
8
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Paragraph 5.10 – What are key economic issues and challenges for the District?
Paragraph 5.11 - Need to plan for 14,000 new jobs, regeneration of sites, safeguarding existing employment sites, business/innovation park
DECISION:
- That an ‘Employment and Centre Hierarchy’ policy be included within the Core Strategy. - That an updated reference to the Economic Development Strategy be included. - That bullet point 3 be amended to ‘secure mixed-use regeneration of major sites in main town centres and in the Key Service Villages of Silver End and Sible Hedingham’. - That reference to the wider strategic opportunities for Braintree District, including its proximity to Stansted and improvements to the A120, be included. - That further reference to promoting ‘home working’ be included. - That Paragraph 5.10 be amended to read, ‘provide approximately 14,000 new jobs’. - That the most up to date statistics be used to reflect the current economic profile of the Braintree District taking into account migration.
In discussing this matter, it was agreed also that the ‘wider strategic opportunities for Braintree’ referred to under the fourth bullet point should be expanded.
POLICY CS4 – The Proposed Core Planning Policy in relation to the Development of the Economy of the Braintree District
DECISION:
- That further reference to the ‘Three Towns, One Vision’ regeneration proposals be included. - That links be established in the preamble to the policy relating to the proposed employment land allocation/distribution and how this will reduce out-commuting and broaden the skills of the workforce. - That the wording ‘support for existing businesses to expand’ be included.
Policy CS4 ALT1
No changes
Policy CS4 ALT2
No changes
2. Distribution of Employment
9
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Paragraphs 5.13 to 5.23 and Policy CS5 were discussed at the Local Development Framework Panel meeting on 20th May 2009.
3. The Rural Economy
Paragraph 5.26
Policy CS6 – Proposed Core Planning Policy in relation to the Rural Economy of the Braintree District
DECISION:
- That reference to the ‘Infrastructure Study’ which will demonstrate delivery of the employment growth sites be included. - That reference to the promotion of ‘home working’ be included in CS6. - That bullet point 1 be amended to include ‘and would meet identified local need’. - That bullet point 2 be amended to include ‘support appropriate diversification of rural business other than agricultural holdings’. - That bullet point 2 be amended to include ‘outdoor recreation’ - That bullet point 3 be amended to read ‘encourage and facilitate development which would provide sustainable forms of transport, minimising impact on the local environment and road network’. - That reference be made to the ‘Essex Rural Commission’ findings to support the evidence base. - That the possibility of having a target for the use of previously developed land be investigated. - That ‘will be supported by encouraging and facilitating’ be removed to provide text as wholly ‘criteria based’ and positive forms of expression.
Policy CS6 ALT1
No changes.
Policy CS6 ALT2
No changes.
Paragraph 5.29 – Priorities for Town Centres and Regeneration
No changes.
Paragraphs 5.30 - 5.31
No changes.
Paragraph 5.32 - Regeneration Initiatives
No changes.
Policy CS7 – Relation to Town Centres and Regeneration
Policy CS7 ALT2 10
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
DECISION:
- That bullet point 6 be amended to include ‘promotion of mixed use development incorporating services and community facilities provision’. - That bullet point 4 (the designation and development of new employment locations) be removed as such proposals are confined to existing sites and growth locations. - That a separate ‘retail hierarchy’ policy be produced for the Core Strategy to meet policy E5 of the East of England Plan requirement that the Core Strategy should include a proposed hierarchy of retail centres in the District. - That the wording be amended to include ‘SPDs may also be produced to set out requirements for some sites in more detail and to emphasise the importance of place making and quality development’. - That Paragraph 5.32, which defines the ‘broad location information’ be included as part of the policy. - That the revised section on ‘town centres and regeneration’ be reported back to the Local Development Framework Panel at a future date for approval.
Policy CS8 – Housing Provision and Delivery (Includes paragraphs 5.69, 5.72 to 5.76)
DECISION:
That a reference to the development boundary review be added to the preamble. That the reference to the East of England Plan be removed from the policy.
That the policy be split into parts covering each subject. The Spatial Policy part of the policy to be merged with Statement 1 and the table at Paragraph 4.42 to form an all encompassing spatial policy. A separate policy to be drafted for affordable housing and Gypsies and Travellers.
That the final part of the policy on design issues be included as a Development Control Policy.
That further work be undertaken to assess the viability of the Lifetime homes standards and the percentage of new build dwellings which should meet this standard.
Policy CS8 – (Affordable Housing) and paragraphs 5.40, 5.43, 5.44 – 5.45, 5.48 and 5.50
DECISION:
That wording be added to the preamble of the policy to reflect the use of viability modelling when determining suitable affordable housing contributions for sites. That reference to affordable housing provision to meet identified local need be added.
To note that a supplementary document will accompany the Core Strategy to outline the number of housing units to be produced by growth locations 11
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites. This document will also outline the phasing of proposed development for these areas and sites.
That the Housing Trajectory up to 2026 be included within the Core Strategy.
Policy CS8 - (Gypsy and Travellers and Travelling Show-people) includes comments on paragraph 5.62-5.66
DECISION:
That a new policy for Gypsy and Traveller Provision, including a selection criteria for the allocation of sites to be used in the Allocations DPD and for determining any subsequent planning applications, be created. This should include travelling show persons’ need. Further consideration will be needed to determine what criteria should be included within this policy.
That reference be made in the preamble to the delivery of Gypsy and Traveller sites through Section 106 Agreement contributions.
In discussing this matter, it was considered important to recognise the needs of such people who do not travel, but remain in one place, and it was agreed that details of the proposed criteria should be reported to a future meeting.
Alternative Policy Approaches
Option CS8 ALT1
No changes.
Option CS8 ALT2
No changes
Option CS8 ALT3
No changes
CS9 - The Proposed Core Planning Policy in relation to Services and Facilities (Paragraphs 5.79 to 5.95)
DECISION:
That the definition of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) be added to CS8. That details of how Braintree District Council will work with partners and what priorities it has for infrastructure development be added. That reference to the phasing of development to allow sufficient infrastructure to be provided be added.
To note that a definition of the types of infrastructure to be provided by the CIL will be drawn up following further discussion with service providers and presented to the Local Development Framework Panel at a later date. 12
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
That a reference to village community halls be added to bullet point 2 of Paragraph 5.79
Part 6 – Delivering the Strategy Paragraphs 6.1 – 6.58
DECISION:
- That Paragraphs 6.49 – 6.53 and 6.54 - 6.58 be merged to avoid repeating information. - That a list of identified infrastructure required to support the growth plans laid out in the document be included. - That a strategic housing trajectory be included in the document. - That more detailed information on the Council’s position on the Community Infrastructure Levy be included in the document. - That the delivery plan includes details of dependencies and contingencies where appropriate.
During the consideration of this item, the Planning Policy Manager made reference to a communication which had been received from the Agent for land at Central Park, Halstead. This site was currently allocated for employment purposes, but it was noted that a planning application for mixed housing and employment use was due to be submitted.
12 SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL AND STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INFORMATION: Consideration was given to a report summarising the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Draft Core Strategy One District – One Vision.
It was reported that the SA/SEA had been produced by the Spatial Planning Group of Essex County Council acting as a consultant to Braintree District Council. The combined SA/SEA had been undertaken to assess and predict the economic, social and environmental effects that were likely to arise from the implementation of the Core Strategy and to inform the preparation of future stages of the Strategy.
DECISION: That the Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Draft Core Strategy One District – One Vision be noted and the following action undertaken in response to the Appraisal and Assessment:-
1. Ensure that policies of the Core Strategy are ‘locally distinctive’ to the Braintree District and recognise the local policy needs of Braintree. 2. Undertake an ‘Infrastructure’ Assessment to identify how development will be supported, including timing and funding. 3. Establish the proposed phasing of development in the Core Strategy. 4. Include a policy that identifies a hierarchy of town and retail centres in the District. 5. Include clearer guidance on flood risk in the District and a commitment to sustainable drainage systems, energy efficiency and sustainable construction methods. 13
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] 6. Identify targets and indicators for the delivery of policies within the Core Strategy and clarify the proposed monitoring framework.
13 OPTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE GROWTH LOCATIONS
INFORMATION: Members considered a report on the options which the Panel would need to consider at its next meeting if the Council resolved to delete the proposed growth location north-east of Witham off Forest Road in the Parish of Rivenhall from the draft Core Strategy. Members were reminded that the Panel had recommended the deletion of this growth location and that this matter would be determined by the Council on 22nd June 2009. If implemented, the growth location would provide approximately 300 dwellings.
The Officers had re-examined the dwelling capacity of sites identified in the urban capacity study, the residential land availability study and as part of the draft Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, but it was considered that these could not make up a shortfall of 300 dwellings due to the adopted Core Strategy period being extended to 2026 and sites being developed at lower densities than predicted. Consequently, the District’s housing requirement, as set out in the East of England Plan, would not be met.
Members were advised that if the Council resolved to delete the Forest Road growth location, the Panel would have to consider increasing the amount of housing provided at the remaining growth locations at land west of Panfield Lane, Braintree and/or at land at Lodge Farm, Witham, or to consider alternative growth locations identified in the One District - One Vision Technical Supplement as amber sites. These comprised land north of Conrad Road, Witham; land east of Broad Road, Braintree; land west of Pods Brook Road and east of Pods Brook Road, Braintree (the Flitch Way Settlement); and land west of Springwood Drive, Braintree.
DECISION: The report was noted.
14 PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 4 – PLANNING FOR PROSPEROUS COMMUNITIES
INFORMATION: The Panel considered a report on draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 4 - Planning for Prosperous Communities which was currently subject to consultation.
The main purpose of the document was to bring together all planning policies affecting the economy, in particular PPS4 - Sustainable Economic Development and PPS6 - Planning for Town Centres, to set out the Government’s comprehensive policy framework for sustainable development in urban and rural areas, including town centres. The policies set out in the new PPS would need to be taken into account by local planning authorities in the preparation of local development documents and in considering planning applications. The Cabinet Member for Enterprise and Culture would respond to the consultation following consideration by the Panel, the Leadership Group and the Economic Development and Transportation Partnership Board.
14
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] In terms of general economic development, the Statement confirmed and updated previous guidance requiring authorities to plan positively for economic growth and to take a positive and constructive approach to applications for economic development.
Regarding town centre and retail development, the revised Statement removed the needs test whereby proposals for retail development had to demonstrate a quantitative or qualitative need. Instead, a more sophisticated impact test would be required to measure the wider, positive and negative effects of retail and other town centre related development. This would require more factors to be examined in assessing proposals, including retail diversity, impact on town centre investment, scope for regeneration, job creation, impact on climate change and design. It was proposed that references to town centres should apply to all types of centre, including local service centres identified in development plans.
In discussing paragraph 4.7 of the Agenda report (local planning approach to rural areas), Members of the Panel agreed that the re-use of agricultural buildings for alternative business uses should be supported, and with regard to paragraph 4.8 (car parking for non-residential development) it was considered that setting maximum car parking standards was unreasonable as in some cases people had no alternative means of transport.
DECISION: That the comments set out in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the report be endorsed for inclusion in the Council’s response to draft Planning Policy Statement 4 - Planning for Prosperous Communities, subject to the inclusion of the comments relating to paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 of the Agenda report, as set out above.
The meeting commenced at 6.00pm and closed at 7.35pm.
N G McCrea
(Chairman)
15
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Minutes
Local Development Framework Panel
th 29 July 2009
Present:
Councillors Present Councillors Present G Butland Yes H J Messenger Yes A V E Everard Yes Lady Newton Yes N R H O Harley Yes Mrs W D Scattergood Yes M C M Lager Yes (from 6.40pm) Miss M Thorogood Yes N G McCrea Yes R G Walters Yes
Councillors P J Hughes (from 6.00pm until 6.50pm) and D Mann were also in attendance.
15 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
INFORMATION: The following declarations of interest were made:
Councillor G Butland declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 5 - Alternative Growth Locations (2. - The Flitchway Settlement West of Braintree – WG Developments) as he had expressed opposition to the proposed development in his Essex County Council Election address. Councillor Butland left the meeting whilst this matter was discussed and determined.
Councillor G Butland declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5 - Alternative Growth Locations (12. – West Tey New Settlement – The West Tey Consortium) as his daughter lived at Marks Tey.
Councillor Lady Newton declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5 - Alternative Growth Locations (4. – Land North of Conrad Road, Witham – CWO Parker Grandchildren’s Settlement) as she knew the Parker family. Councillor Lady Newton declared a personal interest also in Agenda Item 5 - Alternative Growth Locations (12. – West Tey New Settlement – The West Tey Consortium) as she knew a landowner at Feering.
In accordance with the Code of Conduct Councillors remained in the meeting, unless stated otherwise, and took part in the discussion when the respective items were considered.
16
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
16 MINUTES
DECISION: The Minutes of the meetings of the Local Development Framework Panel held on 20th May 2009 and 17th June 2009 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
17 QUESTION TIME
INFORMATION: There were five statements made, a summary of which is contained in the Appendix to these Minutes.
18 ALTERNATIVE GROWTH LOCATIONS
INFORMATION: Councillor P J Hughes, Ward Member for Bradwell, Silver End and Rivenhall, joined the meeting during the consideration of this item and he spoke on the proposed growth location at land North of Conrad Road, Witham. Councillor Hughes indicated his support for the inclusion of this site as a potential growth location as, in his view, it was preferable to the site off Rectory Lane, Witham (in the Parish of Rivenhall) which had already been selected as a growth location. Councillor Hughes stated that, whilst he was against the development of greenfield sites, he considered that the Conrad Road site was constrained by existing development at Elm Hall Cottages and that it would provide a safer route than other sites for children to walk to nearby schools.
Consideration was given to a report setting out the details of 14 large sites which had been submitted by landowners and agents as potential development sites, but which had not been included in the draft Core Strategy as preferred greenfield growth locations. These sites included land on the edge of both Braintree and Witham and new settlements in the countryside. The locations included those which had been identified by the Council as ‘amber’ sites in the Core Strategy Technical Supplement, together with other sites put forward by developers.
Members were advised that the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) was currently being prepared to determine the amount of land allocated for residential development within existing settlement boundaries, and whether this, together with the growth locations already approved by the Council and potential sites that could come forward through the Allocations Document, would be sufficient to meet the East of England Plan requirements for the District. If the SHLAA established that insufficient land with housing potential had been identified, it would be necessary to consider the merits of one, or more additional sites. The inclusion of any sites as possible growth locations would be subject to public consultation.
The 14 sites considered by the Panel were as follows:-
The Flitchway Settlement, West of Braintree – WG Developments (Two ‘amber’ sites - Land West of Pods Brook Road, Braintree and Land East of Pods Brook Road, Braintree)
17
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Land between Broad Road and the A131, North of Braintree – Crest Strategic Projects (‘Amber’ site – Land East of Broad Road, Braintree)
Land North of Conrad Road, Witham - CWO Parker Grandchildren’s Settlement (‘Amber’ site – Land North of Conrad Road, Witham)
Land at Rayne Lodge Farm, Rayne Road, Braintree – Capel House Property Trust Ltd (‘Amber’ site – Land West of Springwood Industrial Estate, Braintree)
Dorewards Hall, Braintree – Harold Good Farm Trust (Land to the North-East of Broad Road, Braintree and to the South of Bocking Church Street, Braintree)
Towerlands and Land to the South, Braintree – UNEX Towerlands (Land to the North-West of Braintree, South of Deanery Hill and West of Panfield Lane)
Hayeswood Farm, Great Notley – Bloor Homes (Land East of the existing Great Notley residential area and South of the A120)
Land between Rayne, Great Notley and Braintree – Mr Hayes, Mrs Cass and family (Land to the North-West of Great Notley and to the South of Rayne)
Land Between Hatfield Peverel and Witham, South of the A12 – Ultings Overseas Trust (Land East of Hatfield Peverel)
The former IFF industrial complex – Redding Park Developments (Land West of Long Melford (Land to the South of the River Stour in the Braintree District and Parish of Liston/Land to the North of the River Stour in the Babergh District))
West Tey New Settlement – The West Tey Consortium (Land to the West of Marks Tey between the A12 and A120 (partly in the Braintree District and Parish of Feering and partly within Colchester Borough))
Boxted Wood New Eco-Settlement – Galliard Homes (Land to the North of the B1256 (the old A120) bordered by Stebbing Green to the West and Blake End to the East (partly within Uttllesford and Braintree Districts))
Andrewsfield New Settlement – Andrewsfield New Settlement Consortium (Land to the South of Great Saling, to the West of Panfield and Rayne and to the East of Stebbing)
18
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
DECISION:
(1) That the following sites be retained for further consideration as potential growth locations if the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment identifies a shortfall of sites with housing potential:-
The Flitchway Settlement, land West of Braintree Land between Broad Road and the A131, North of Braintree Land North of Conrad Road, Witham
(2) That the following sites be rejected as potential growth locations for housing:-
Land at Rayne Lodge Farm, Rayne Road, Braintree (due to its proximity to an existing employment area). Land at Dorewards Hall, Braintree Land at Towerlands and land to the South, Braintree Land at Hayeswood Farm, Great Notley Land between Rayne, Great Notley and Braintree Land between Hatfield Peverel and Witham, South of the A12 The former IFF site, West of Long Melford The West Tey new settlement, land to the West of Marks Tey The Boxted Wood new eco-settlement, land to the West of Blake End The Andrewsfield new Settlement, land to the South of Great Saling and to the West of Panfield and Rayne
19 OPEN SPACE – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT
INFORMATION: The Chairman reported that this item had been withdrawn from the Agenda and that it would be discussed at a future meeting of the Panel.
20 EMPLOYMENT ALLOCATION – LAND TO THE SOUTH-WEST OF THE A131, GREAT NOTLEY
INFORMATION: Members of the Panel were advised that following its decision to remove the proposed employment growth location at land to the North-East off Eastways, Witham (within Rivenhall Parish) the Council was required to identify 6.0 hectares (ha) of land elsewhere to meet its employment land requirement. It had been suggested that this could be achieved by increasing the size of the proposed employment growth location at land to the South-West of the A131 at Great Notley, which had been included in the draft Core Strategy as a 12.5 ha business park for B1 and B2 uses.
It was noted that the Great Notley growth area had a number of advantages, including its proximity to existing employment uses and easy access to the A120 and Stansted Airport. However, the use of the area for general industry had been discounted and any additional employment land would be restricted to B1 and B2 uses within a business park setting. Originally, as a result of transport advice, the area had been restricted to 12.5 ha. However, further work by transport consultants had demonstrated that a larger site 19
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] area could be accommodated and this had been accepted by Essex County Council. It had been suggested therefore that the proposed growth location at Great Notley should be increased from 12.5ha to 18.5ha. Development of the growth area would have to be undertaken in phases to enable water infrastructure works to be completed.
In discussing this item, Members wished to ensure that there would be a clear gap between the proposed employment area and Great Notley Country Park and that, ideally, access to the site should be from the A131 rather than the ‘Tesco’ roundabout where traffic flows were already heavy and likely to increase following the approved expansion of the Tesco store. In the circumstances, it was agreed that this matter would need further consideration and that a decision should be deferred.
DECISION: That this item be deferred to the next meeting of the Panel.
21 DATE OF NEXT MEETING
INFORMATION: Members were advised that it would be necessary to hold an additional meeting of the Panel.
DECISION: That an additional meeting of the Local Development Framework Panel be held on Tuesday, 2nd September 2009 at 6.00pm.
The meeting commenced at 6.00pm and closed at 7.25pm.
N G McCrea
(Chairman)
20
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
APPENDIX
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PANEL
29TH JULY 2009
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Summary of Questions Asked / Statements Made During Public Question Time
1. Statements Relating to Agenda Item 5 – Alternative Growth Locations
(i) Statement by Mr R Wright, 303 Rickstones Road, Rivenhall
Mr Wright referred to the proposed growth location sites at Forest Road and Conrad Road, Wtham. Mr Wright indicated that although the Council had supported the Forest Road growth location, he considered that the Conrad Road site was better, particularly as it was closer to the railway station, it provided a better access route out of Witham, it was closer to local schools and it provided a safer route for people accessing the schools. In concluding his statement, Mr Wright handed to the Council letters of representation from local people containing 40 signatures.
(ii) Statement by Mr Jack Prime, Chairman of Rivenhall Parish Plan Steering Group, 475 Rickstones Road, Rivenhall
Mr Prime made reference to the published Rivenhall Parish Appraisal and Village Design Statement. Mr Prime indicated that it had taken a long time to prepare these documents and it had been believed that they would help to prevent large scale development opposed by local people. However, Mr Prime considered that the views of local people had been overridden by Braintree District Council and he felt that the Council should clarify the status of such documents.
(iii) Statement by Mr George Harris, Glebe Farm Cottage, Rectory Lane, Rivenhall
Mr Harris referred to the decision of the Local Development Framework Panel on 20th May 2009 not to support the Forest Road, Witham proposed growth location and to the contrary decision of the Council on 22nd June 2009 to approve the site and he expressed concern about the process.
(iv) Statement by Mr John McLarty, Bidwells, Number One, Legg Street, Chelmsford
(Councillor Butland declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and he left the meeting whilst the following statement was made).
i
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Mr McLarty referred to the extensive consultation process which had taken place regarding the Flitchway Settlement proposal and to the well-attended public exhibition which had been held. Mr McLarty stated that the views expressed had been noted and a revised statement and concept had been lodged with Braintree District Council. A copy of this would be sent to the Members of the Panel. Mr McLarty explained that the proposed site would provide approximately 11 hectares of leisure and employment land and 20 hectares of residential land.
(v) Statement by Mr John Getty, The Old Rectory, Rivenhall
Mr Getty expressed concern about the protection of The Old Rectory from future development proposals and he questioned the reasoning behind the choice of the preferred growth locations in and around Witham.
In response to the matters raised during Question Time, the Chairman of the Panel and the Head of District Development explained briefly the Local Development Framework process and, in particular, the opportunity which people would have to make their views known to the independent Inspector who would be appointed to determine the matter. It was reported that the anticipated date for the Examination of the Core Strategy was Spring 2010.
ii
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Law & Governance on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Appendix 10
Minutes of the Braintree District Council Full Council meetings on 20th October 2008, 15th December 2008, 22nd June 2009, 15th February 2010, 27th September 2010 and 6th December 2010 and the Cabinet Meetings on 26th March 2007, 9th October 2008 and 8th June 2009 which made decisions relating to the progress of the Core Strategy. Minutes Council Meeting
20th October 2008
Present:
Councillors Present Councillors Present J E Abbott Yes E R Lynch Yes M J Banthorpe Yes M Lynch Yes Miss L Barlow Yes D Mann Yes J Baugh Yes T McArdle Yes Mrs J C Beavis Yes N G McCrea Yes D L Bebb Yes J McKee Yes E Bishop Apologies H J Messenger Yes (from 7.20pm) R J Bolton Apologies A M Meyer Apologies G Butland Yes R G S Mitchell Yes G Cohen Yes Mrs J M Money Yes J C Collar Yes Lady Newton (Chairman) Yes M Dunn Yes J P O’Reilly-Cicconi Apologies Mrs E Edey Yes Mrs J A Pell Yes J G J Elliott Yes R Ramage Apologies R Elliston Yes D M Reid Apologies Dr R L Evans Yes D E A Rice Yes (until 9.37pm) A V E Everard Yes Mrs C Sandbrook Yes J H G Finbow Apologies Mrs W D Scattergood Apologies Ms L B Flint Yes Mrs J W Schmitt Yes T J W Foster Yes A F Shelton Yes Mrs B A Gage Yes Mrs L Shepherd Yes M G Gage Yes Mrs J A Smith Yes Mrs M E Galione (Vice-Chairman) Yes Mrs G A Spray Yes (from 7.20pm) J E B Gyford Yes F Swallow Yes N R H O Harley Yes Miss M Thorogood Apologies Mrs S A Howell Yes S M Walsh Apologies P J Hughes Yes R G Walters Yes D L Hume Yes R N Wilkins Yes (until 9.38pm) M C M Lager Yes T S Wilkinson Yes S J Lambourne No Vacancy
The Chairman welcomed all Councillors and members of the public and press to the meeting, and drew attention to the evacuation procedure in case of an emergency, for mobile phones to be switched off and for Members to collect their mail.
Members were pleased to welcome Councillor Geoffrey Cohen, the newly elected member for Witham West ward, to the meeting. 31 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
42 QUALITY PARISH STATUS AWARD PRESENTATIONS
The Chairman introduced Joy Sheppard, Chief Executive Officer for the Essex Association of Local Councils, who explained that the Award of Quality Parish Status is highly prestigious with only 643 Quality Councils nationally. Nine Quality Awards have been received in the Braintree District, and 48 in Essex. Awards are to be made to Finchingfield Parish Council and Witham Town Council. With regard to Finchingfield they have consistently worked hard supporting the community and delivering services, refurbished the pond, embarked on a new parking area for the pavilion, and undertaken a public consultation exercise on the Parish Plan. In Witham the Town Council serves the Witham community to a high standard and provides many services, including the Puppet Festival in September, and has been recognised and commended by the Essex Local Association of Councils local democracy and citizenship competition. Alison East, Quality Council Champion for Essex continued to advise of recent changes to Quality Parish Status criteria, including a council meeting test, website issues, public access to a Council email address, and options on a newsletter. Furthermore, there are tests for the Code of Conduct, terms and conditions, and for training.
Councillor Lady Newton congratulated both Councils on their success and presented Certificate Awards to Councillor Graham Tobbell, Chairman of Finchingfield Parish Council, with Mrs Kate Fox, the Parish Clerk; and Councillor Mrs Janet Money, Mayor of Witham.
43 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman referred to the following issues:-
(1) On 9th October 2008 a Civic Reception was held at the Town Hall, Braintree to commemorate the 80th Anniversary of the building being donated by the Courtauld family to the District, and on its’ use in Local Democracy. Past Chairmen of the Council were invited to the event that also coincided with the launch of Local Democracy Week, and was followed by the Cabinet meeting.
(2) The lists of engagements carried out by herself and the Vice-Chairman since the last meeting on 15th September 2008.
44 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following interests were declared:-
• Councillors M C M Lager and R G Walters both declared a personal interest as Essex County Councillors in Agenda Item 8(ii) the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Essex, as they attend the Waste Management Project Board. • Councillor J E Abbott declared a personal interest as a member of Rivenhall Parish Council as they had made representations on Agenda Item 8(i) Draft Braintree District Sustainable Community and Local Development Framework Core Strategy, and Agenda Item 8(ii) the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Essex 32 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
• Councillor E R Lynch declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 8(i) Draft Braintree District Sustainable Community and Local Development Framework Core Strategy as he is connected to Braintree District Scouts who own the freehold of the land at the ’77 site’ referred to in the discussion • Councillor T J W Foster declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 8(ii) the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Essex as he is a Member of Colchester Friends of the Earth and their representative, Paula Whitney, had spoken during Question Time. Unless stated otherwise, all Councillors remained in the meeting.
45 MINUTES DECISION: That the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 15th September 2008 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
46 QUESTION TIME
INFORMATION: There was three questions/statements made, the details of which are appended to these minutes.
47 NOTICE OF MOTION INFORMATION: The Chairman referred to the motion and invited the proposer, Councillor Mrs Schmitt, to address the meeting. Councillor Mrs Schmitt moved the motion, referred to the visit by Chief Superintendent Graeme Bull, for Central Division of Essex Police, to the last Council meeting and his report on actions being taken by the Police to combat crime. The motion is to support the Chief Constable of Essex, and his approach of Officers attending every crime being the public expectation of the Police Service. Councillor Collar seconded the motion and stated that in rural areas the presence of the Police provides a degree of assurance to the community. Councillor Lager stated that the Police deserve our support for a ‘visible’ Police force that delivers reassurance to the public, drives down anti social behaviour, increase response times and for the introduction of 145 Ward-based teams across Essex bringing the ‘bobby back on the beat’. Over a three-year period 429 Community Support Officers had been appointed, and with 561 Special Constables, all contribute to a decrease in crime and an increase in crime detection rates. Each victim of crime should receive a visit from the Police and a statement taken. Councillor Dr Evans stated that the Labour Group has a good record of supporting Essex Police wherever and whenever it can, including Neighbour Action Panels and Community Police public meetings. However, the Group had not seen the comments made by the Chief Constable, any supporting reasons or the report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). Information is available on the HMIC itself, where Inspectors are independent of both the Home Office and the Police Service. The views, arguments and conclusions of the HMIC should not be omitted, and this motion is seeking to support the Chief Constable against the comments of the HMIC, and as the Labour Group have not had an opportunity to examine the material it will be unable to support the motion and will abstain.
DECISION: That the Notice of Motion as set out on Page (ii) of the agenda be endorsed. 33 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
48 POLLING PLACES REVIEW – HALSTEAD ST ANDREWS SOUTH WARD The Leader presented the report and moved the adoption of Option 1 – for 210 electors using the Beridge Road Polling Station to use a new Pollling Station at Attwoods, Halstead; for those 860 residents living in the Beridge Road area to be able to vote at the Beridge Road Polling Station, and the remaining 2,040 constituents to continue at St Andrews Church Hall, as at present. This is supported by Halstead Town Council.
DECISION: That Option 1 as outlined in the report be approved.
49 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFERENCES (PUBLIC SESSION)
(i) Cabinet 9th October 2008 – Draft Braintree District Sustainable Community and Local Development Framework Core Strategy
Councillor McCrea, Chairman of the Local Development Framework Panel, introduced the combined document entitled ‘One District – One Vision’ – A Strategy for People and Places in the Braintree District to 2025, that proposes growth locations producing 4,600 new dwellings and 14,000 new jobs in northwest Braintree, southwest Witham and northeast Witham (with Rivenhall), and mixed use regeneration sites at Sible Hedingham and Silver End. New policy will also deliver an increase in affordable housing. It was noted that the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) would consider in October 2008 endorsing the Sustainable Community Strategy elements for public consultation, with the Council to consider the Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy for public consultation. The comments made at the Cabinet meeting on 9th October 2008 had resulted with one combined ‘Vision Statement’ for the strategies, and for Objective 12 being amended. The Technical Supplement to the document will be considered at the next LDF Panel, and Councillor McCrea moved the recommendation and requested delegated authority to the LDF Panel to approve the Technical Supplement and for Officers with the Chairman of the LDF Panel, to make any final amendments to the Core Strategy.
Councillors commended the LDF Panel on work achieved and during the discussion the following issues were raised:- - Councillor Elliston referred to Rivenhall and Hatfield Peverel, and requested no potential development outside the village envelope without the approval of the relevant Parish Councils - Councillor Baugh spoke on the growth area for northwest Braintree, and doubts to the BMX site as it is under a special landscape area and the whole area is only capable for low-medium level of housing and employment - Councillor Mann stated that Braintree and Bocking urban area has a deficit of amenity space, and as the BMX area is within an area designated as green open space it would be against policy to try for disposal - Councillor Everard also defended the BMX site, and Sporting 77 in northwest Braintree and stressed the importance of people coming to consultations. - Councillor McArdle advised that additional sites for development in Braintree Central Ward only have scope for small scale increase. However, the proposals at Panfield Lane as the site identified for the Football Stadium was welcomed, as the Pods Brook Road area had limited infrastructure. The Council criterion on mentally ill people not being placed in Bed and Breakfast accommodation was also welcomed.
34 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
- Councillor Abbott stated that Witham Local Committee had reservations on allocations around Witham, and that proposals to create 300 more homes northwest of Witham are wholly in Rivenhall, and the land provision between Rivenhall and Witham should be protected so towns do not engulf villages. Access along Forest Road, Witham was a concern and consultants, Mouchel, had already identified traffic problems. The information in Rivenhall’s Parish Plan seems to have been discounted, and the village has proposed sites and requested affordable housing. - Councillor Hughes advised that previously the term ‘green wedge’ was not considered appropriate and sites could be protected by open countryside policies. Sites are now identified in the Core Strategy as open for development, i.e in Silver End, and the Strategy takes away previous protection on linking towns with villages. - Councillor Collar spoke from a rural perspective and the need for affordable housing in villages, and the new policy on housing schemes thresholds. - Councillor E Lynch could not see how the new affordable housing policy would be sustainable, and how the Council can allow flats to be built on designated green areas. - Councillor Butland drew to Members attention that the Council are constrained by the present Regional Spatial Strategy when making these proposals, and there will be various opportunities during the consultation periods to raise issues that are concerns to local residents. - Councillor Elliott raised concern on allowing housing development with little consideration to transport infrastructure, effect on local schools and doctor’s surgeries.
Councillors sought clarification in the consultation process and it was ascertained that there are two further opportunities for debate at Council. The consultation period runs from 31st October to 19th December 2008 and many Councillors considered that this should be extended, as the Strategy reaches to 2025.
Councillors drew attention to the Technical Supplement, the evidence base that supports the Strategy, and that they had no opportunity to comment.
DECISION:
(1) That the draft Braintree District Sustainable Community and LDF Core Strategy (in relation to the Core Strategy and planning elements only) be approved for consultation.
(2) That delegated authority be given to (i) the Local Development Framework Panel to approve the Technical Supplement, and (ii) that officers in consultation with the Chairman of the Panel make any final non-policy amendments to the Core Strategy.
(ii) Cabinet 9th October 2008 – Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Essex
Councillor Walters, Cabinet Member for the Environment and Sustainability, presented the Strategy setting out the objectives and options for the future management of waste in the District and County for 2007-2032. Braintree, with 11 other Councils in Essex are taking the Strategy forward to help offset increased costs, the threat of climate change, legislation on the limits to landfill of untreated waste and on stringent penalties for not meeting landfill allowance targets. The proposed Strategy has been to several rounds of
35 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
public consultation, experienced policy and legislation changes, plus rigorous environmental assessment tests. The final draft Strategy commits the partnership to continue to lobby government on waste reduction and reuse, towards households on reduced packaging and waste minimisation methods, including home initiatives on composting and nappies. The Joint Strategy will seek 40% recycling rates collectively by 2010, 45% by 2015, and 50% by 2020, as challenging, achievable targets. It is proposed that Essex Councils should avoid sending waste to landfill and seek alternative ways of dealing with residual waste, i.e. the use of Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT), and the valuable income stream of Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) and this could be achieved separately under a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract. The joint Strategy fits well with Council Policy, and follows on from the Memorandum of Understanding.
Members raised the following issues during the debate Concerns that a PFI contract would be awarded to a large corporation away from the area and the risks involved, whereas a local company employed by Essex County Council (ECC) would be better. PFI concerns on cost to the taxpayer. The handover of waste management sites to ECC would result with increased HGV movements, on already congested roads (A12 & A120) A waste processing site already potentially identified at Rivenhall DeFRA guidance states that in 2018 there should be 35% renewable waste, and 65% fossil fuel, and the SEA report advised incineration as a final option The Council being committed to a contract for 20-25 years Colchester Borough Council have withdrawn from the Strategy and Chelmsford Borough Council also has reservations Each District should take control and propose small scale anaerobic digestion The Strategy permits the incineration of waste, capable of burning Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) and produces greenhouse gases The Council’s Corporate Strategy has commendable environmental objectives, i.e. cleanliness, clean and green environment, climate change initiatives and reduction in its carbon footprint – all referred to when opposing Stansted expansion and these same reasons refer to the Waste Strategy The consulted public did not vote for incineration, and new recycling schemes are constantly being introduced Significant finance of £171m is available (to Essex) through PFI credits The option to recover energy from residual waste The ‘reduce, reuse, recycle and recover’ scheme The new Council process to have all dry material in one recycling bag will be sorted in a modern factory and result with an increased recycling rate.
The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee stated that some of these aspects could be discussed, i.e. PFI, MBT plants, or may suggest a Task and Finish Group.
The Leader stated that the Strategy is built on partnership and with landfill sites depleting and tax charges increasing, new ways must be found to dispose of waste, and the Council remains committed to higher recycling.
DECISION: That the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Essex be adopted by Braintree District Council.
50 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS (PUBLIC SESSION)
36 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
INFORMATION: No statements were made.
51 QUESTION TIME (PUBLIC SESSION)
(i) Statements by the Leader/Cabinet Members and Deputy Cabinet Members
INFORMATION: The following statements were made: -
Council Investments. The Leader advised that, further to the statement made at Cabinet on 9th October 2008, on assets of Braintree District Council invested with the three Icelandic banks (Minute 75 refers) the Council are continuing to support the Local Government Association (LGA) in their discussions with government. The economic pressure on local residents is a concern and officers have been asked to investigate ways to provide more support through additional resources, benefit enquiries, help to small businesses, Parish Council’s and opportunities to hold surgeries in rural areas, ‘topping up’ the discretionary housing allowance, working with the Citizens’ Advice Bureau/Greenfields Community Housing (GCH) on debt advisors, use of the CHIP Fund with GCH, information being available publicly and through our partners, i.e. Essex County Council and the use of mobile libraries.
Stansted Passenger Increase. Councillor Harley stated that Stansted Airport had been granted permission to increase to 35m passengers per annum (mppa). He reminded members that Braintree District Council whilst opposing any increase had suggested that if permission for expansion was to be granted it should be for a maximum of 30mppa. The Inspector did support Uttlesford District Council’s issue on night flights – but unfortunately government overruled this.
Customers and Communications Update. Councillor Mrs Beavis advised on - the Community Achievement Awards programme had received 78 applications, and Councillor Mrs Beavis, Councillor Lady Newton and Mr George Courtauld are to consider these during November 2008 - Thanks were extended to Members involved in Local Democracy Week (13 -17th October 2008), attended by 250 children from three schools across the area.
Communities and Housing issues. Councillor Mrs Schmitt updated Members on - the success of the Council on achieving Equalities Standards Level 3 - the success of National Older People’s Day on 1st October 2008 that included advice on personal safety, welfare rights, homecare support and healthy living.
Award for Carbon Management Strategy. Councillor Mitchell, Deputy Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability, referred to the Braintree, Colchester and Uttlesford Council’s partnership on the local authority Carbon Management programme and announced that Mark Wilson, the Council’s Climate Change Manager, and himself will soon receive a Carbon Trust award on behalf of the Council, as recognition of efforts to reduce the carbon impact of this Council and its’ residents.
(ii) Oral Questions
37 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
INFORMATION: Members were invited to ask any questions of the Leader on non- operational matters and the following questions were asked: -
Councillor Gyford referred to the Council’s assets in Icelandic banks and queried if the remaining assets are in sound locations, and what criteria is being placed on their safety. The Leader stated that all authorities are revisiting their investment policies and will continue to monitor and scrutinise to tighten investments, and ensure their safety. All Braintree Council investments are in credible banks with good credit ratings but, in current circumstances, he could not guarantee that they were 100% safe.
Councillor Abbott reported that he had received many complaints from residents regarding the Spring Lodge site - partly owned by the Council - and the destruction of trees, hedges and grass. The Leader advised he would provide a written reply.
Councillor Mrs Money queried when investment would commence for the building of two new Academies in Witham. Councillor Butland stated that £45m investment is involved in the academies, and expenditure is expected to commence soon, with a timetable for completion within three years.
Councillor Mrs Sandbrook referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and queried if they should also scrutinise the investment portfolio of the Council. The Leader stated that this has to be determined by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Councillor Everard questioned that, if culture is so important to the Council, why it does not appear in the Council’s Vision statement. Councillor Butland felt that it is included in the healthy living sector, and that cultural need is recognised and may not be there in detail, but should not be taken as lack of intent.
(iii) Chairmen’s Statements
INFORMATION: No statements were made.
(iv) Meetings in Public Session
INFORMATION: Members were invited to raise any matters arising from meetings that had been held in public session as listed on Page 6 of the agenda.
Councillor Dr Evans made reference to Minute 24, Question Time of Witham Local Committee held on 23rd September 2008 and requested an update on a sub committee being set up to discuss a way forward regarding Mr Rao parking his newsvendor’s van outside Witham Railway Station, and whether the Council is continuing to serve parking tickets against Mr Rao? The Leader explained that he understood that a meeting has been arranged for 5th November 2008; and advised that he did not usually comment on operational matters, but he did understand the Council will await the outcome of that group before taking any further action.
Councillor E Lynch sought clarification to Minute 90, the Riverside Development Site, Braintree (held during Private Session but admissible in the public domain) of the Cabinet meeting of 9th October 2008 and his request that the Right of Access between Notley
38 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Road and the Railway Station is, or will be adopted by the Council, and whether it will be implemented in any sale of completion. The Leader confirmed this.
52 BUSINESS OF EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS
INFORMATION: There were no reports received from Council representatives on external organisations.
As there were no items in private session, the Chairman reminded Members to support their local service for Remembrance Sunday on 9th November 2008, and closed the meeting.
The meeting commenced at 7.15pm and closed at 9.51pm.
Lady Newton (Chairman)
39 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
APPENDIX
COUNCIL MEETING
20TH OCTOBER 2008
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Summary of Questions Asked / Statements Made During Public Question Time
1. Questions from David Webb, 54 Peel Crescent, Braintree Local Accountability
Mr Webb stated that during the recent Cabinet meeting it was supported that Council’s should act openly as their actions are by the use of public funds, and this level of honesty was welcomed. However, Council house tenants during the housing transfer process did not know the true valuation until November 2007, and will the Council reconsider an open investigation into this? The Council did state that if they did not transfer housing, they would not have decent First Class houses and with the resultant revenue of £50m, why did the Council invest this in banks around the world when it should have been invested closer to home?
Councillor Butland responded that, as previously stated at Cabinet, the Council’s actions have demonstrated openness, in line with the Deputy Information Commissioner’s statement on accountability. The Leader of the Council advised that he had recently attended the Annual General Meeting of Greenfield’s Community Housing. Well over 100 tenants had attended and he was impressed by their participation. He was more than ever convinced that the Council had made the right decision – to transfer its housing stock.
2. Statement by Paula Whitney, Colchester & NE Essex Friends of the Earth Waste Strategy
Ms Whitney spoke on waste and environmental issues, and how the government had ‘signed up’ for an 80% reduction in climate change gases by 2050. By supporting the Strategy the Council with many other Councils, will make it terrible for our environment, increase gases, destroy resources, increase HGV movements, increase air quality pollution, and be ‘going the wrong way’. In 2002, Braintree District Council had been one of the first Council’s to sign up to the zero Waste Charter, followed by ‘war on waste’ consultation and encouraged Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) that has a polluting process. In 2002, six options were proposed and, following a campaign, an Option 7 was included leading towards sustainable waste management, higher recycling and composting, and reducing waste. The majority of respondents opposed the six options and supported Option 7, aiming for a zero waste target for 2020. Ms Whitney considered that 90% of waste could be recycled or composted and she reiterated that the Council was ‘going the wrong way’ and should join
(ii)
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Colchester Borough Council who had rejected the proposed Waste Strategy.
Ms Whitney was advised that the Waste Strategy would be discussed during the meeting.
3. Question from Bob Wright, Rickstones Road, Rivenhall Rivenhall Airfield Waste Site
Mr Wright advised that, although he was a Parish Councillor for Rivenhall, he was expressing his personal view on asking the Council if they would be opposing the planning application for Rivenhall Airfield that would result in 25-30years with increased HGV traffic and harmful omissions?
Councillor Butland stated that this issue is a planning matter for Essex County Council. The District Council will be consulted and it would be for the Council to determine its response at the appropriate time.
(ii)
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Minutes Council Meeting
15th December 2008
Present:
Councillors Present Councillors Present J E Abbott Yes E R Lynch Yes M J Banthorpe Yes M Lynch Yes Miss L Barlow Apologies D Mann Yes J Baugh Yes T McArdle Apologies Mrs J C Beavis Yes N G McCrea Yes D L Bebb Yes (from 7.44pm) J McKee Yes E Bishop Yes H J Messenger Yes R J Bolton Apologies A M Meyer Yes G Butland Yes R G S Mitchell Yes G Cohen Yes Mrs J M Money Yes J C Collar Yes Lady Newton (Chairman) Yes M Dunn Yes J P O’Reilly-Cicconi Yes Mrs E Edey Yes Mrs J A Pell Yes J G J Elliott Yes R Ramage Yes R Elliston Yes D M Reid No Dr R L Evans Apologies D E A Rice Yes A V E Everard Yes Mrs C Sandbrook Apologies J H G Finbow Yes Mrs W D Scattergood Yes Ms L B Flint Yes (from 7.45pm) Mrs J W Schmitt Apologies T J W Foster Apologies A F Shelton Yes Mrs B A Gage Yes Mrs L Shepherd Apologies M G Gage Yes C Siddall Yes Mrs M E Galione(Vice-Chair) Yes Mrs J A Smith Yes J E B Gyford Yes Mrs G A Spray Yes N R H O Harley Yes F Swallow Yes Mrs S A Howell Yes Miss M Thorogood Yes P J Hughes Yes S M Walsh Apologies D L Hume Yes R G Walters Yes M C M Lager Yes R N Wilkins No S J Lambourne Yes T S Wilkinson Apologies
The Chairman welcomed all Councillors and press to the meeting, and drew attention to the evacuation procedure in case of an emergency, for mobile phones to be switched off and for Members to collect their mail.
Members were pleased to welcome Councillor Chris Siddall, the newly elected member for the Three Colnes ward, to the meeting. 40 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
53 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman referred to the following issues:-
(1) The recent Torchlight Procession through Halstead, and congratulations were extended to Halstead Town Council for another successful event.
(2) The Coffee Morning on 24th November 2008 at the Braintree Town Hall for one of the Chairman’s chosen charities – Homestart, Witham, Braintree and Halstead. The coffee morning was attended by 20 volunteers and employees of the charity.
(3) An Awards Ceremony on 28th November 2008 for Long Service Awards to Braintree District Council staff. Other presentations were made to Council staff nominated across five categories, and congratulations were given to members of staff involved.
(4) The lists of engagements carried out by herself and the Vice-Chairman since the last meeting on 20th October 2008.
54 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following interests were declared:-
• Councillor J E Abbott declared a personal interest as Chairman of Rivenhall Parish Council as items on Rivenhall are to be raised in - Agenda Item 6.2(a) One District: One Vision Strategy - Agenda Item 8 (ii) – Oral Questions under Question Time, and - Agenda Item 8 (iv) – Issues from meetings held in public session. • Councillors Ms L B Flint, Mrs J A Pell and R G Walters all declared a personal interest as members of the Museum Trust, when the item regarding the Braintree District Museum Trust in Private Session of the Cabinet meeting 1st December 2008 was mentioned under Agenda Item 8(iv) – Issues from meetings held in public session. No discussion took place on this item.
In accordance with the Code of Conduct all Members remained in the meeting for these items, unless stated otherwise, and took part in the debate and decision thereon.
55 MINUTES DECISION: That the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 20th October 2008 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
56 QUESTION TIME
INFORMATION: There was no questions asked or statements made.
57 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFERENCES (PUBLIC SESSION)
41 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
(i) Standards Committee 7th October 2008 – Monitoring Officer Protocol
Councillor Finbow introduced the report and moved the recommendation contained in the extract of the minutes from Standards Committee.
Councillor Gyford requested further clarity of a paragraph on Page 6 with regard to Members and Officers reporting any breaches of statutory duty or Council policies, or procedures etc. to the Monitoring Officer as soon as practicable. This was amended as follows:
‘To ensure the effective and efficient discharge of the arrangements set out above, Members and Officers will report any breaches of statutory duty or Council policies or procedures and other vires or constitutional concerns to the Monitoring Officer, as soon as practicable where they could give rise to any illegality or maladministration’.
DECISION: That the protocol as amended by the Standards Committee, and as amended above, be adopted and included in Part 5 of the Constitution.
(ii) Cabinet 1st December 2008
(a) ‘One District: One Vision’ Strategy for People and Places in the Braintree District to 2025
The Leader of the Council presented the ‘One District: One Vision’ document that combines the draft Sustainable Community Strategy with the Core element of the Local Development Framework, and closely aligns to the Council’s Corporate Strategy and the priorities of the Essex Local Area Agreement. The consultation process has been under way during November and December 2008, and 200 responses have been received to date. The draft Strategy will be received at the Local Development Framework Panel, and at the Local Strategic Partnership, with final priorities to be published in March 2009.
During the discussion the following issues were raised: - that Information Technology issues be included in the Strategy, mainly high speed communication for the delivery of broadband, internet, telephone, inter active video, television, and the delivery of TV/internet facilities across the District to benefit home workers, businesses, local residents, and those with limited mobility - the Cabinet minutes of 1st December 2008 stated that engagement with Town and Parish Council’s are made in the Strategy by Town/Parish appraisals and Village Design Statements. It was stated that the Local Development Framework Panel had not taken the representation made by Rivenhall Parish Council into account, and that Rivenhall is now proposed for one of the largest new developments in the District. - That Parish/Town Council’s are proactive partners on consultation and look to various parts of the strategy, i.e. employment, housing growth; and recognise risks to their area, i.e. the closure of Premdor at Sible Hedingham, and EMD in Halstead affecting employment and local business, and to identify future use of empty sites.
42 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
- The Strategy promotes a ‘Safe and Healthy Lifestyle’ but proposes the sporting 77 field in Braintree to be withdrawn and replaced with building flats – a loss of a sporting facility to the local community.
In response to these issues, the Leader advised that - Technology issues for the District will be considered further - that at the next round of Village Design Guides/Parish Plans a feedback paper will be supplied requesting the aspirations of the Town/Parish Council - with regard to the loss of sporting facilities it was accentuated that the Strategy is at consultation stage and that the LDF issues on the sporting 77 site/BMX track will be revisited at a later stage
DECISION: That the draft Community Priorities as set out in the One District: One Vision document be endorsed.
(b) Medium Term Financial Strategy
The Leader referred to the content of the Cabinet minutes of 1st December 2008, and the decisions/recommendations at Pages 44 & 45. Revised proposals are being put forward under the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) as a result of the current economic situation on ways the Council looks at supporting members of the community and small businesses. It was clarified that a proposed amendment to Decision 2 made by Cabinet (will be made at the next meeting) so it reads –‘ That additional funding of £15,000 per annum for each of three years, to the Citizens’ Advice Bureau be approved’. Under the MTFS recommendations to Council, it was also explained that Recommendation 5 should also be amended to make clear that the proposed Council Tax increase of 2.5% also relates to the two following years.
Council were reminded of other proposed measures: - for Direct Debit payers that currently pay over a 10 month period for their Council Tax, to have the opportunity to pay over 12 months - that proposals from the report of the Fees and Charges Task and Finish Group will not result in an increase in charges and fees that are within the Council’s control until April 2010 - free use of Council owned car parks in Braintree and Witham town centres from 20th to 24th December 2008 inclusive.
Councillor Lager, Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources, referred to - the revised credit worthiness criteria and on more frequent reviews of Treasury Management (Appendix B of report) - that Decision 12 of Cabinet on Non-Domestic Discretionary Rate Relief for schools and colleges ceasing from 31st March 2009 only refers to foundation schools, private schools and colleges; and the Local Authority state schools and colleges remain unaffected - under National Non Domestic Rates (NNDR) for small businesses quoted on the Essex County Council website, it was clarified that within the Braintree District Council area there are 81% of eligible business already using the NNDR and claiming rate relief. This results with 190 businesses not utilising the service, and the Council’s
43 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Finance department during December 2008 and January 2009 are contacting them to advise of the claim service.
Council discussed the following issues – • Smaller service on pest control. There are alternatives to pest control measures, and other companies available to provide this service. The Council has to concentrate on its statutory duties. • Reduction in service of garden waste collection during winter months. This proposal will require further explanation to the public, to clearly define the service being provided. • Proposed savings for horticulture/car parks - should seek comment from Local Committees. Sponsorship for roundabouts, and other floral containers in the town centres could generate additional income for Local Committees. • Revenue contribution reduced per member of each Local Committee. The Local Committee regime had encouraged more of a grant giving service, whereas Local Members should develop their own ideas. • No increase in Members Allowances for two years was supported • It was clarified that it is the provision of Concessionary Fare tokens that will be reviewed, whilst ensuring the most vulnerable in the community are not affected • Concern on £426,000 savings across the Council impacting on services • Some support was found in retaining the collection of green waste, including kitchen waste, during the winter months • A query was raised on devising two sets of criteria on the Council’s Credit Worthiness issues – Tier 1 and Tier 2 – and an explanation is to be provided by the Leader of the Council, on the specification of the Tiers, any trigger system and how the current market condition is recognised • It is an appropriate time to join with other Essex Councils and to lobby Government for a refund to businesses on business rates • That the Council restricts the use of consultants on projects. In response, consultants are used when the Council undertakes a specific project, or a certain area of expertise is required.
DECISION:
1. That the Medium Term Financial Strategy for consultation be amended to reflect a proposed Council Tax increase of 2.5% in each of the next three years
2. That any increase in Parish Support Grant for 2009/10 is limited to the proposed 2.5% as set out in Item 7.4 of the report
3. That subject to final agreement with Essex County Council the operational responsibility of the concessionary fares scheme transfers to Essex County Council with effect from 1st April 2009
4. That the revised credit worthiness criteria, as detailed in Appendix B of the report, be agreed.
44 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
(c) Freedom of Information Publication Scheme
The Leader presented the proposed Freedom of Information Scheme for adoption by the Council with effect from 1st January 2009. It was noted that both Town and Parish Councils also have equal responsibility to publish their schemes.
DECISION: That the Freedom of Information Publication scheme be adopted with effect from 1st January 2009.
58 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS (PUBLIC SESSION)
INFORMATION: No statements were made.
59 QUESTION TIME (PUBLIC SESSION)
(i) Statements by the Leader/Cabinet Members and Deputy Cabinet Members
INFORMATION: The following statements were made: -
Appointments to Committees. The Leader advised that, following the resignation of Rosemary O’Shea from the Council, three vacancies exist on various Committees. Appointments were made, with immediate effect, as follows:
• Audit Committee – Councillor G Cohen • Licensing Committee – Councillor Mrs J Smith • Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Councillor C Siddall
Growth Area Funding. The Leader was pleased to announce that under the Growth Area Funding partnership between Braintree District Council and Chelmsford Borough Council, an award of £2.3m capital revenue for 2009/11 had been received. This will result with £800,995 of capital for the Braintree District.
Contribution for the A12. Councillor Harley welcomed the contribution of £60m by way of the Highways Agency, for the A12 trunk road. Essex County Council had instigated an enquiry on the A12 that had encouraged increased discussion on prioritisation initiatives, and it is hoped that as one of the worst sections is within the Braintree District that this can be improved.
Funding for Business Development Services (BDS). Councillor Harley stated that funding from ExDRA had been withdrawn from BDS two years ago. BDS has accessed £90,000 of funding to maintain their service on providing advice to start-up businesses and on surviving the early years and present economic climate.
Payment of Invoices. Councillor Harley advised that it is the policy of Braintree District Council to pay invoices to our suppliers within 15 days of receipt, to assist business in the current financial situation.
Democracy Counts – Member Issues, Support and Training. Councillor Mrs Beavis drew attention to the Law & Governance publication (tabled at the meeting) entitled ‘Democracy Counts’. The publication is designed to inform Members on issues, support 45 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
and training in their role as Councillors. A Member Seminar day is planned for Saturday 24th January 2009 at Towerlands, Braintree and Members are encouraged to attend and participate.
(ii) Oral Questions
INFORMATION: Members were invited to ask any questions of the Leader on non- operational matters and the following questions were asked: -
Councillor Hughes referred to the unanimous decision at Planning Committee to object to Essex County Council proposals for a waste site at Rivenhall Airfield. Did the Leader accept these views, and should members that are also County Councillors abide by this decision in the consultation process? The Leader advised that he always supported decisions taken democratically.
Councillor Elliott made reference to difficulties with other authorities being unable to dispose of recyclable waste, and having to provide storage for the waste at their own expense. It was questioned whether there is any risk to this Council, and are any measures being implemented as a precaution? Councillor Walters advised that this Council currently has no problems with disposal of dry recyclables, and that a contract had been signed recently for a further year with Holmans, the paper pulp material recycling facility (MRF) at Tilbury. However, fewer ships are visiting Tilbury to take the waste to Sweden, and any storage issues are being dealt with. Some Council’s do not hold a contract and are being turned away from the MRF, but the Cabinet Member had visited Holmans recently and the Council should not experience any problems in the near future.
Councillor E Lynch continued from the earlier question on the waste facility at Rivenhall Airfield, and the unanimous decision of the Planning Committee to oppose the proposals. Will it be the intention of Braintree District Council to lobby Essex County Council on the planning application when it is considered at Committee, and will Braintree Members who are also County Councillors take forward our views? The Leader stated that the District Council’s views have been forwarded to the County Council, and it is appropriate for our officers to represent these views at any meeting.
Councillor Abbott questioned what could be done to clear up litter thrown from vehicles, e.g. at Coleman’s Bridge at Rivenhall End, to prevent the cost being passed to Council Tax payers ? The Leader confirmed that litter beside our roads is a problem, and the Highways Agency along the A120 has experienced the problem. In many instances roads need to be closed for our partners or the Council’s Clean Team to respond. If the registration number of the vehicle involved in the litter incident is reported there may be opportunity to take the issue further. Councillor Walters requested that if a bad area is seen, i.e. with litter, dead fox, it should be reported. The Council do rely on litter picking initiatives with partners, and do litter pick as often as possible.
(iii) Chairmen’s Statements
INFORMATION: No statements were made.
46 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
(iv) Meetings in Public Session
INFORMATION: Members were invited to raise any matters arising from meetings that had been held in public session as listed on Page 28 of the agenda.
Councillor Abbott made reference to Bramston Leisure Centre and Maltings Academy (Minute 95); and Town Centre Regeneration (Minute 97) from the Cabinet meeting held on 1st December 2008, and stated that, in both cases, there is no reference to sustainability. The Leader and Cabinet promote sustainability as a core part of project planning and opportunities do exist for a sustainable approach on renewables to minimise energy costs, minimise road traffic on out of town routes and other initiatives on both projects. The Leader considered that it is too early in both projects to incorporate sustainable aspects. With regard to the swimming pool the Council has to work with Maltings Academy and Essex County Council to agree plans; and for the Town Centre Regeneration projects the sustainability aspect will be addressed as the Design Brief stage when plans go into the public sector.
Councillor Butland referred to the Proposal for Joint Parking Service (Minute 103) of the Cabinet meeting of 1st December 2008, and informed Council that Decision 3 – on the appointment of two Members to represent Braintree at Joint Committee meetings with Colchester Borough Council and Uttlesford District Council are to be • Councillor R G Walters, Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability, and • Councillor R G S Mitchell, Deputy Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability
The Chairman of the Council drew attention to the Museum Trust item taken in Private Session at the Cabinet meeting of 1st December 2008, and advised that the minutes are admissible in the public domain.
60 BUSINESS OF EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS
INFORMATION: There were no reports received from Council representatives on external organisations.
As there were no items in private session, the Chairman wished all Members, Officers and members of the press a good, safe Christmas, and closed the meeting.
The meeting commenced at 7.15pm and closed at 8.38pm.
Lady Newton (Chairman)
47 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
(ii)
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Minutes Council Meeting 22nd June 2009
Present:
Councillors Present Councillors Present J E Abbott Yes (until 8.40pm) E R Lynch Yes M J Banthorpe Yes M Lynch Apologies Miss L Barlow Yes D Mann Yes J Baugh Apologies T McArdle Yes Mrs J C Beavis Yes N G McCrea Yes D L Bebb Yes J McKee Yes E Bishop Yes H J Messenger Yes R J Bolton Yes A M Meyer Yes G Butland Yes R G S Mitchell Yes G Cohen Apologies Mrs J M Money Yes J C Collar Yes Lady Newton Apologies M Dunn Yes J P O’Reilly-Cicconi Yes Mrs E Edey Yes Mrs J A Pell Apologies J G J Elliott Yes R Ramage Apologies R Elliston Yes D M Reid Apologies Dr R L Evans Yes D E A Rice Yes A V E Everard Yes Mrs C Sandbrook Yes J H G Finbow Yes Mrs W D Scattergood Yes Ms L B Flint Yes Mrs J W Schmitt Apologies T J W Foster Yes A F Shelton (Vice Chairman) Yes Mrs B A Gage Yes Mrs L Shepherd Yes M G Gage Yes C Siddall Yes Mrs M E Galione ( Chairman) Yes Mrs J A Smith Apologies J E B Gyford Yes Mrs G A Spray Yes N R H O Harley Yes F Swallow Apologies Mrs S A Howell Yes Miss M Thorogood Yes P J Hughes Yes S M Walsh Yes(until 9.00pm) D L Hume Yes R G Walters Yes M C M Lager Yes R N Wilkins Apologies S J Lambourne No T S Wilkinson Yes
The Chairman welcomed all Councillors to the meeting and extended a warm welcome to any public and press either present at the meeting or watching the meeting via the webcast.
At the commencement of the meeting the Chairman, Councillor Mrs M E Galione , announced that her chosen charities for the forthcoming Civic Year would be:-
• Brainwave South East Centre. This charity (based in Witham) helps children between the ages of six months to 12 years, who have brain injury, genetic condition or development delay. • The Alzheimer’s Society – Mid Essex Branch. This provides a range of services for local people with dementia and their families across the Braintree District. 9 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
14 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman referred to the following issues:-
(1) Armed Forces Day. The Council have taken part in the first ever national Armed Forces Day to honour our service men and women. The Chairman attended the Town Hall Centre, Braintree earlier on 22nd June 2009 to raise a specially designed flag. Other attendees included members from the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, Air Cadets and other Councillors.
(2) Land Army and Timber Corps Celebration. The Chairman will be hosting an event for past members of the Corps at The Institute, Braintree on 6th July 2009, when 37 ladies and their guests will be in attendance and Lord Petre, the Lord Lieutenant of Essex will present certificates.
(3) The sad news that Mrs Wilhemina Drake, a Braintree District Councillor between 1974-1995, who had recently passed away. A memorial service is to be held on 4th October 2009 at 2.30pm at St Peter’s Church, Coggeshall and former colleagues are welcome to attend.
15 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
INFORMATION: The following interests were declared:-
• Councillors G Butland, M C M Lager, R G Walters and S M Walsh all declared a personal interest as Essex County Councillors in Agenda Item 7(i) Extract from Cabinet minutes of 11th May 2009 regarding the Rivenhall Airfield Application. • Councillor J P O’Reilly-Cicconi declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 7(ii) Extract from Cabinet minutes of 8th June 2009 regarding the Core Strategy – Growth Locations reference as the landowner of the site to the north west of Panfield Lane, Braintree, is a friend. In accordance with the Code of Conduct, Councillor O’Reilly-Cicconi, withdrew from the meeting whilst this item was discussed and the vote taken. • Councillor J E Abbott declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7(ii) Core Strategy – Growth Locations, as a member of Rivenhall Parish Council and he is known by the speakers from Question Time.
In accordance with the Code of Conduct all Members remained in the meeting for these items, unless stated otherwise, and took part in the debate and decision thereon.
16 MINUTES DECISION: That the minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council held on 20th April 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
17 QUESTION TIME
INFORMATION: There was three statements made, the details of which are appended to these minutes.
18 SCHEME OF DELEGATION 10 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
INFORMATION: The Leader of the Council proposed that the Scheme of Delegation as set out in Part 3 of the Constitution on the Council’s website be confirmed.
DECISION: That the Scheme of Delegation as set out in Part 3 of the Constitution be confirmed. 19 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFERENCES (PUBLIC SESSION)
(i) Cabinet 11th May 2009
(a) Economic Development Strategy 2009-2013
Councillor Harley, Cabinet Member for Enterprise and Culture, presented the Strategy and highlighted areas where the Council are helping businesses, the skills and vulnerability of those residents losing jobs, the support for the merger of Braintree College and Colchester Institute, and on ways to encourage inward investment, help existing businesses and start-ups. The Strategy will look towards partners and stakeholders, involve the industrial land in the south of the district, the cottage industries, and the villages to the north. It will also encompass the development of the town centres and provide strategic links to the Heart of Essex, the Haven Gateway, and the M11 corridor areas.
Council welcomed the support for small businesses, and the rail and bus transport initiatives. However, the significance of the A120 needs to be recognised as a major east/west route and as this project is slipping the Council should look for improvements at Galleys Corner, Braintree and at Bradwell to be delivered earlier than scheduled.
DECISION: That the District’s Economic Development Strategy and Action Plan for 2009-2013 be adopted.
(b) Rivenhall Airfield Application
Councillor Harley, Cabinet Member for Enterprise and Culture, initially advised that the District Council continues to support the countywide Waste Inter Authority Agreement and are not compromised by the planning application for Rivenhall Airfield. The current planning application proposes an additional paper pulping facility, an increased commercial and industrial waste facility, and will become a site for the importing of waste and, therefore, produce significant traffic movements. The process at the Essex County Council (ECC) Planning Committee on 24th April 2009 was considered unsatisfactory in respect of the facilities made available to the public. The application has been ‘called in’ by the Secretary of State, and is to be considered in September or October 2009. The District Council continues to be in consultation with affected parishes.
Councillor E R Lynch, on behalf of the Labour Group, thanked Councillor Harley and Councillor Abbott for their contributions at the ECC Planning Committee in April 2009, and continued to request that the statement in the recommendation ‘This Council continues to support the Waste Strategy of Essex County Council’ be withdrawn to reflect the opposition to the incineration process. If the line cannot be withdrawn it was requested that their concerns be registered. Councillor Abbott agreed that the first sentence of the recommendation is regrettable and should be withdrawn or reworded. The Strategy is a policy
11 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] document – not a planning document; and concerns were expressed to the link of the Waste Strategy and PFI’s and on delivery of larger sites. Councillor Harley noted the above concerns and agreed that the Waste Strategy is Council policy, and agreed on combined efforts from the Councillors involved in the process.
DECISION:
This Council continues to support the Waste Strategy of Essex County Council. However, Braintree District Council reaffirms its’ opposition to the revised application for Rivenhall Airfield submitted by Gent Fairhead, as it differs significantly to previous consent. That the Leader be supported retrospectively to write to the Secretary of State to ‘call-in’ this planning application, on behalf of Braintree District Council.
Furthermore, the Council expresses its concern regarding the process of the ECC Planning Committee on 24th April 2009 in terms of public access and quality of discussion to support this application.
(c) Charges for Property Searches
Councillor Butland referred to the extract from Cabinet 11th May 2009, and the Briefing Note (Appendix E of the Finance reports to Cabinet on 8th June 2009) indicating that the amount involved could exceed that for Cabinet Members to determine under delegated powers.
DECISION: That Local Land Charges be set for 2009/10, after appropriate review.
(ii) Cabinet – 8th June 2009
(a) The Braintree District Sustainable Community Strategy
Council received the Sustainable Community Strategy that has been amended following the consultation process.
DECISION: That the Sustainable Community Strategy be agreed.
(b) Core Strategy – Growth Locations
Councillor McCrea, Chairman of the Local Development Framework Panel, introduced the Local Growth Locations element of the Core Strategy and stated the Panel are ‘evidence based’, and had included the ‘Braintree Futures’ assessment to 2025, character assessment of the sites, urban assessments, flood risk assessment, a highways assessment, rural services survey and the current strategic housing land availability assessment. Councillor McCrea advised that many of the recommendations require further work, and continued to present the following references.
Land to the north-west of Braintree – off Panfield Lane
This comprises of a mixed used development of 500 dwellings, and potential uses for a new football stadium, and a new location for Braintree College. Land to the east of Panfield Lane is recommended for omission from the proposed growth location.
12 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] DECISION:
(1) That a proposed growth location at land to the north-west of Braintree - west of Panfield Lane – be included in the Core Strategy.
(2) That land east of Panfield Lane be excluded from the proposed growth location, in order to retain open space and sporting facilities to serve this part of Bocking.
(3) That a Master Plan be prepared for the proposed growth location to be approved as a Supplementary Planning Document.
Land to the west of A131, Great Notley
This site is for employment growth proposals, with warehousing being discouraged, and tourism and hotel provision included.
DECISION:
(1) That the proposed employment growth location at land to the west of the A131 at Great Notley be retained, but warehousing type development discouraged
(2) That a significant landscape buffer be provided between the Country Park and the employment area.
(3) That advice be sought from Essex County Highways on the size of the site that could be developed based upon the junction capacity.
(4) That the Core Strategy be amended to include tourism and hotel use on the site.
Land to the south-west of Witham off Hatfield Road (Lodge Farm)
A proposal for a mixed use development of 600 dwellings with further examination required on potential employment, and highway access issues. The comments from Witham Town Council were appreciated, and this broad area requires additional work and consultation.
Councillor Dr Evans referred to the Witham Local Committee meeting of March 2009 and the significant support not to accept 600 dwellings, and the proposal to limit this to 300 dwellings – a more realistic proposal that has public support. Other Councillors supported the Local Committee’s proposal, and raised concern to the large scale greenfield development, the traffic impact at the Lynfield Garage junction of the A12 – a bottleneck junction with significant accident history. Reference was made to the infrastructure/traffic problems content in the report, including the ‘Promoting Accessibility for All’ function to work with highway authorities on major infrastructure for the proposal. This location was also considered to be a saturation point regarding schools, road and medical facilities; and it was questioned why, under the Core Strategy proposals, Witham had to spread to the outlying villages. However, the Council has sustainable development initiatives to 2025, and this is for appropriate infrastructure with proposed development, including the use of S106 Agreements.
13 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] The Leader of the Council advised that the local authority has to find growth areas, and any proposal for reducing the dwellings total should be supported by proposals for alternative sites.
DECISION:
(1) That the proposed growth location of 600 dwellings at land to the south-west of Witham off Hatfield Road be retained.
(2) That the suitability of the proposed growth location at land to the south west of Witham for employment development be examined in terms of highway access.
Land to the north east of Witham – off Forest Road in the Parish of Rivenhall
This proposal for 300 dwellings to be provided as an urban extension at this location (in planning terms), although administratively the land lies within the Parish of Rivenhall, is recommended to be excluded from the draft Core Strategy. This recommendation is based on the views of Witham Local Committee, Rivenhall Parish Council and members of the public. It is considered that the proposal extends too far into the Rivenhall Parish, and will impact onto Rectory Lane. However, this does leave an issue of where to find an alternative site for 300 dwellings.
Councillor Abbott welcomed and supported the recommendation from the Local Development Framework Panel (LDF), and continued to state that 80% of the written responses to consultation, and the views of Witham Local Committee also agrees with this. Further reference was made to a developer’s letter stating incorrect facts.
Councillor Lager requested that Council rejects the recommendation. Reference was made to the East of England Plan that dictates provision of growth locations, and legislation from government. The Core Strategy focuses on keeping development around Braintree and Witham, and the red/amber/green method of identifying sites was referred to, and the possible need to look at the villages of Hatfield Peverel, Kelvedon, Feering and Coggeshall. The Forest Road site was quoted as ½ mile from houses in Rivenhall, ¾ mile from Witham railway station and, therefore close to services and accessibility (a factor in the amber settings). The impact to Rectory Lane and the setting of the Parish Boundary was referred to and Members were requested to reject the recommendation.
Many Witham Councillors disagreed with this on grounds of - major traffic problems - commuter parking problems in Witham stretching to on-street parking away from the railway station - the site being protected by Green Wedge legislation - the Rivenhall Village Plan being an adopted, development document - the open countryside - the site being completely unsuitable - the views of Witham Local Committee and local residents - the result of the questionnaire on growth locations, and what is the point of consultation if the Council does not listen - that alternative sites could be found – although this could take months
In response, the Leader of the Council, advised that no other proposal had been put forward for a location for 300 homes and that Councillors had a dual responsibility as
14 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Ward Member and Council Member. When the planning application is submitted all issues can be considered, including highways access.
Councillor Abbott requested that the vote to support the recommendation from the LDF for the proposed growth location of 300 dwellings at Land to the north east of Witham – off Forest Road in the Parish of Rivenhall not being retained in the Core Strategy be recorded. The results of the recorded vote were as follows:-
For the Motion Councillors: Abbott, Ms Barlow, Bishop, Dr Evans, Everard, Foster, Gyford, Hughes, Hume, E Lynch, Mann, McCrea, Messenger, Meyer, O’Reilly-Cicconi, Rice, and Ms Thorogood. (17)
Against the Motion Councillors: Banthorpe, Mrs Beavis, Bebb, Bolton, Butland, Collar, Dunn, Mrs Edey, Elliott, Elliston, Finbow, Ms Flint, M Gage, Mrs Gage, Mrs Galione, Harley, Mrs Howell, Lager, McArdle, McKee, Mitchell, Mrs Money, Mrs Sandbrook, Mrs Scattergood, Shelton, Mrs Shepherd, Siddall, Mrs Spray, Walsh, Walters and Wilkinson. (31)
Abstained No Councillors (0)
Absent Councillors: Baugh, Cohen, Lambourne, M Lynch, Lady Newton, Mrs Pell, Ramage, Reid, Mrs Schmitt, Mrs Smith, Swallow, and Wilkins. (12)
The motion was declared LOST
Councillor Abbott chose to withdraw from the meeting at this point.
Councillor Lager moved the recommendation for 300 houses at Land to the north east of Witham – off Forest Road in the Parish of Rivenhall to be retained in the Core Strategy.
DECISION: That the proposed growth location of 300 dwellings at land to the north-east of Witham off Forest Road is retained in the Core Strategy.
Land to the north-east of Witham (adjacent to Eastways/Waterside Park) in the Parish of Rivenhall
This refers to an urban extension of about 6.0 hectares of general employment land and, in planning terms is an urban extension to Witham, although administratively the land is within the Parish of Rivenhall. The LDF had proposed that this be removed from the Core Strategy, as this land is not required for the foreseeable future.
DECISION: That the proposed growth location (for 6.0 hectares of general employment) at land to the north-east of Witham (adjacent to Eastways/Waterside Park) be removed from the Core Strategy.
(c) Financial Outturn reports for 2008/09 and 2009/10 update
Council gave consideration to the recommendations from Cabinet.
DECISION:
15 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] (1) That a budget provision of £75,000 for repairs to the boundary wall of St Marys Closed Churchyard, Bocking be agreed, subject to the requirement to incur expenditure being agreed by the Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources. (2) That the Budget Carry Forward requests from 2008/09 and New Bids for 2009/10 be endorsed. (3) That the allocation of £110,111 for improving non-decent properties in the private sector occupied by vulnerable people from GO-EAST be added to Housing Grants budget in 2009/10. (4) That the budget bid for temporary accommodation costs at £80,000, as detailed in Appendix B of the report be approved. The release of funds to be subject to submission of a business case and authorisation by the Leader of the Council.
(d) Proposed Disposal of the Riverside Site, Braintree
The Chairman agreed that this item could be taken in Public Session.
DECISION: That £1m be made available from the Capital Programme towards affordable housing, associated with the scheme.
20 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS (PUBLIC SESSION)
INFORMATION: Councillor E R Lynch, referred to two Written Questions he had submitted during May 2009 relating to planning applications and masts being sited on the approach to our towns. Reference was made to two previous applications located at White Courts, Great Notley and at Coggeshall Road, Braintree and an inconsistency on these applications and the use of Policy RLP162. Assurance was requested for officers to look at similar applications and apply a consistent recommendation. Secondly, it was requested that when a planning application is made to Council that relevant Ward members receive written notification by email or post. Councillor Lynch is aware that planning lists are published weekly, and one of the aforementioned planning applications appeared at the end of the list and was overlooked by all six Ward Councillors. A change of notification procedures to Ward Members was therefore requested. In response, Councillor Harley, the Cabinet Member for Enterprise and Culture stated that any inconsistencies in the use of RLP162 would be taken up with Planning Officers; and that notification procedures are looked at, although Ward Members can request to be notified of planning lists and for further information.
21 QUESTION TIME (PUBLIC SESSION)
(i) Statements from the Leader and Cabinet Members
INFORMATION: The Leader of the Council referred to the introduction of written reports from Cabinet Members being included in the agenda papers and requested member feedback. Further updates were provided by the Leader and Cabinet Members.
East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) – Sub National Review. The Leader of the Council reported on the Executive Committee Meeting of EERA on 12th June 2009 and the planned implementation of the Sub National Review in the East of England later in 2009. The regional structure will be redesigned when the Regional Assemblies stop, and EEDA takes over, and this will affect democratic accountability. A Leader’s Board, comprising of 52 members from County, District, and Unitary authorities and the Broads Authority will meet, and there will be significant differences with no
16 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] stakeholders and no non-elected politicians. It will also comprise of 10 Members (to achieve political balance) on a panel to interface with EEDA.
Roll-out of Wheelie-bins. Councillor Walters, Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability, referred to the article in a national newspaper on the roll-out of wheelie-bins, and stated they had been misinformed and ill advised on this item. There is a high level of satisfaction in the Braintree District on roll-out and 50% performance levels of recycling, and October will bring a further roll-out to the remaining parts of the district. This will result with just 1,700 homes on black-sack collection on a bi-weekly basis. The entire district is to be re-routed on waste collection, and people’s problems on waste services will continue to the dealt with sympathetically. Since the signing of the Waste Inter-Authority Agreement with Essex County Council, additional funding has been given that will allow the bi-weekly collection of green waste during winter months to continue; and for the introduction of a bi-weekly food waste collection service.
Council deposits in Icelandic Banks. Councillor Lager, Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources, advised that £4m of the £5m deposited with the Icelandic Banks should be recoverable. The Council’s Statement of Accounts and papers to the Audit Committee later in June will reflect this.
Sustainable Rural Communities seminar. Councillor Mrs Beavis, Cabinet Member for Customers and Communication, advised that this event on 26th June 2009 had been cancelled.
(ii) Oral Questions
INFORMATION: Members were invited to ask any questions of the Leader on non- operational matters and the following questions were asked: -
Councillor E R Lynch, referred to his role as Chairman of the Waste and Recycling Task and Finish Group and welcomed the bi-weekly food collection initiative. With regard to the refurbished play area at Chelmer Road, near Colne Walk, concern was expressed on the gates opening outwards towards the road and near a bend, and the possibility of children running out - especially as the hedgeway is overgrown and limits visibility splays. It was requested that funds be found to rectify this. In response, Councillor Walters noted the concerns and would address them.
Councillor Gyford referred to the composition of the People’s Panel and the need for a cross section of the whole community. In response, Councillor Bebb, Deputy Cabinet Member for Customers and Communication, who is leading on this issue advised that full representation is being sought – both geographically and demographically, with any gaps being identified and addressed. The use of library vans in the north of the county are being utilised, and that representation for elderly persons is adequate, and contact made with local schools to attract young representatives.
Councillor M Gage was pleased that the majority of the investments in the Icelandic Banks would be recovered, and questioned when this would be received. Councillor Lager responded that the Friedlander bank would be October 2012, the Landsbanki bank between 2010 and 2012, and the Glitnir bank in 2010.
Councillor M Gage queried, with the RDA being abolished by an incoming Conservative government, would the Leader be for local policy or Conservative policy.
17 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] In response, the Leader of the Council, stated that the Conservative policy document ‘control shift’ gives a commitment to local authorities in regions on how to deal with transportation, housing, and planning. The Regional Spatial Strategy would be replaced with a local development framework style if the local authority wishes.
Councillor Dr Evans directed queries towards Councillors Walters on the Council’s policy for assisted wheelie-bins, e.g. for those people with disabilities; and on Pest Control Charges (as at 1st April 2009) for the clearance of wasp and ants nests and whether there was a ‘sliding scale’. In response, the Councillor Walters advised that assisted collection can be made, and for those persons with disabilities the Council will collect, and for those persons who cannot manage and have not got family locally to assist them. With respect of the Pest Control Charges – these will be sent to Councillor Dr Evans.
Councillor Dr Evans referred to the proposed Merger of Braintree College and Colchester Institute, and the localism view of Witham Local Committee that the name should stay as Braintree College. Responding to this, Councillor Harley advised that this will be a matter for the Governors to decide and it is hoped that Braintree appears in the title, as it is a facility for the district and town.
Councillor Everard also raised a question regarding the investments with the Icelandic Banks, and whether the prospective interest would be lost. Councillor Lager answered that the Statement of Accounts would provide an explanation and indicate any interest, and to contact him, if required.
(iii) Chairmen’s Statements
INFORMATION: No statements were made.
(iv) Meetings in Public Session
INFORMATION: Members were invited to raise any matters arising from meetings that had been held in public session since the last Council meeting on 6th April 2009.
22 BUSINESS OF EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS
INFORMATION: There were no reports received from Council representatives on external organisations.
As there were no items in private session, the Chairman closed the meeting.
The meeting commenced at 7.15pm and closed at 9.24pm.
Mrs M E Galione (Chairman)
18 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] APPENDIX
COUNCIL MEETING
22ND JUNE 2009
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Summary of Questions Asked / Statements Made During Public Question Time
1. Statement from Bob Wright, 303 Rickstones Road, Rivenhall Agenda Item 7(ii) – Core Strategy and Growth Locations
Mr Wright expressed his thanks to the Local Development Framework (LDF) Panel in supporting residents and recommending that Forest Road, Rivenhall be removed from the Strategic Plan. This area is close to a commercial site and local railway line, although the railway station is inaccessible compared to other possible sites in Witham, and Mr Wright urged the Council to remove Forest Road from the next Plan. With regard to the industrial site from Eastways to the Waterside Park area, in Rivenhall it was noted that 50 units in Witham currently stand empty with 246,000² ft of vacant brownfield land, therefore providing a total of 600,000² ft of land availability in Witham. Mr Wright suggested that the Eastways/Waterside Park site was not required and could also be removed from the Strategy.
2. Statement by George Harris, Glebe Farm Cottage, Rectory Lane, Rivenhall Agenda Item 7(ii) – Core Strategy and Growth Locations
Mr Harris, as a resident of Rectory Lane, also ratified the recommendation from the LDF Panel of 20th May 2009 to remove the Forest Road site at Rivenhall from the Core Strategy. The characteristics of the Forest Road/Rectory Lane area were quoted, including the presence of a Grade II Listed Building.
3. Statement by Jack Prime, Chairman of Rivenhall Parish Plan Steering Group Agenda Item 7(ii) – Core Strategy and Growth Locations
Mr Prime spoke regarding the Forest Road site being removed from the Core Strategy and stated that if the site were to be included in the Growth Locations it would conflict with the Rivenhall Parish Plan, the Village Design Statement (VDS), and the Parish Appraisal; plus the VDS approved by the District Council. It is important to protect boundaries between Witham and Rivenhall and keep areas open, and Rectory Lane has ‘protected lane’ status, is part of the John Ray Walk and, therefore, very popular with walkers; has quiet rural characteristics and has little traffic in the area. There are urban homes along the greater part of the lane, and to develop this further would destroy its’ character. The end of the lane is within 200yards of the Rickstones hamlet and Mr Prime accentuated his support for this site to be removed from the Plan.
(i)
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Minutes Council Meeting 15th February 2010
Present:
Councillors Present Councillors Present J E Abbott Yes E R Lynch Yes M J Banthorpe Yes M Lynch Yes Miss L Barlow Yes D Mann Yes J Baugh Yes T McArdle Yes Mrs J C Beavis Yes N G McCrea Yes D L Bebb Yes J McKee Yes E Bishop Yes H J Messenger Yes R J Bolton Apologies A M Meyer Yes (until 9.50pm) G Butland Yes R G S Mitchell Yes G Cohen Yes Mrs J M Money Yes J C Collar Yes Lady Newton Apologies M Dunn Yes J P O’Reilly-Cicconi Apologies Mrs E Edey Apologies Mrs J A Pell Yes J G J Elliott Yes R Ramage Yes R Elliston Apologies D M Reid Yes Dr R L Evans Apologies D E A Rice Apologies A V E Everard Apologies Mrs C Sandbrook Yes J H G Finbow Yes Mrs W D Scattergood Yes Ms L B Flint Yes Mrs J W Schmitt Yes T J W Foster Apologies A F Shelton (Vice Chairman) Yes Mrs B A Gage Apologies Mrs L Shepherd Yes M G Gage Yes C Siddall Yes Mrs M E Galione (Chairman) Yes Mrs J A Smith Yes J E B Gyford Yes Mrs G A Spray Yes N R H O Harley Yes F Swallow Yes Mrs S A Howell Yes Miss M Thorogood Apologies P J Hughes Yes S M Walsh Yes D L Hume Yes R G Walters Yes M C M Lager Yes R N Wilkins Apologies S J Lambourne Yes T S Wilkinson Yes
The Chairman welcomed all Councillors to the meeting and extended a warm welcome to public and press present at the meeting, and those viewing the meeting on the webcast.
63 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman presented one announcement, regarding the Chairman’s Civic Service at St Peter’s in the Fields church on Sunday 11th April 2010 at 3.00pm, followed by light refreshments at Causeway House. Councillor Mrs Galione welcomed Councillor Bishop to the meeting. Councillor Bishop broke his leg in late December 2009, and had spent Christmas in Broomfield Hospital, 51 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Chelmsford. Councillor Bishop thanked Councillors for their cards and best wishes during this period. On behalf of Full Council, the Chairman sent best wishes for a speedy recovery to Councillor Mrs Edey who had recently been in hospital; and to Lord Newton who had also been unwell. Flowers had been sent to Councillor Mrs Edey, and a thank-you card was read to Council. The engagements attended by herself and the Vice Chairman were also circulated.
64 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
INFORMATION: The following interests were declared:-
• Councillor J E Abbott declared a personal interest as Chairman of Rivenhall Parish Council, who had made representation to Agenda Item 9 – Local Development Framework Core Strategy. • Councillors E Bishop, Ms L B Flint and Mrs J A Pell all declared a personal interest as a Museum Director, in Agenda Item 7 – Council Budget, as the Braintree Museum is referred to in reports. All three Councillors advised they would not speak or vote on this item. • Councillor J E B Gyford declared a personal interest as Treasurer of the Witham Constituency Labour Party who operates a car park in Witham with references in Agenda Item 7 – Council Budget, and Agenda Item 8 – Policy Recommendations and References – Council Budget. • Councillor R G Walters declared a personal interest as a Braintree Museum Trustee, appointed by the Council, in Agenda Item 7 – Council Budget. • Councillor C Siddall declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 7 – Council Budget as his wife works for the Council. In accordance with the Constitution, Councillor Siddall left the meeting whilst this item was discussed by Council, and the vote taken thereon. • Councillor J Baugh declared a personal and prejudicial interest as a planning consultant in Agenda Item 9 – Local Development Framework Core Strategy. In accordance with the Constitution, Councillor Baugh left the meeting whilst this item was discussed by Council, and the vote taken thereon. • Councillor Butland declared a personal interest in the recycling issues raised in the District of Tomorrow debate, as he is connected to a charity that encourages all types of recycling • Councillor E R Lynch declared a personal interest as (i) Vice Chair of the Landscape Committee of Braintree Local Committee, whilst discussing green initiatives in the District of Tomorrow debate (ii) A Governor of Beckers Green School in Agenda Item 11(i) Questions to Cabinet Members, when discussing the gritting of school roads.
In accordance with the Code of Conduct all Members remained in the meeting for these items, unless stated otherwise, and took part in the debate and decision thereon.
65 MINUTES DECISION: That the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 14th December 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
66 QUESTION TIME 52 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
INFORMATION: There were five statements made, a summary of which is contained in the Appendix to these minutes. The Chairman advised that, with regard to the Tourist Information Centre, a petition had also been received, and that the Portfolio Holder would provide a response to the three speakers during Question Time.
67 DISTRICT OF TOMORROW DEBATE
INFORMATION: The Chairman invited the Leader of the Council to open up the District of Tomorrow debate.
Councillor Butland stated that 2010 was an important year, in the advent of the General Election and will produce new challenges. In the recent budget consultation process the issue of a ‘clean and green district’ had featured highly with residents, and Councillor Butland announced a proposed new policy to take forward over the next 2 -3 years to make the Braintree District one of the cleanest in the country. Further details will be provided to Cabinet on 29th March 2010, and the framework of the initiative will comprise of - a ‘see it – report it’ service for incidents of litter, fly tipping and graffiti, with response times published and monitored - the installation of more litter bins and smoking bins, in liaison with Town and Parish Councils. The cost of these bins will be reduced by the District Council utilising their procurement service and bulk buying - to extend cleaning times during the summer period of longer daylight hours, and rearrange the cleaning schedules to allow cleaning earlier in the morning - to initiate a voluntary Code of Practice for supermarkets and fast food outlets to maintain their sites and make litter free - if the voluntary Code of Practice is not taken by supermarkets and fast food outlets there is a proposal to ‘name and shame’ the grubbiest car park area - Councillors are encouraged to monitor these type of premises, and see the manager of the supermarket/fast food outlet to rectify the situation - These initiatives will be linked with the Council introducing extra enforcement resources, including planning enforcement and the use of the Clean Team, together with use of the Council’s mobile CCTV cameras - Councillors will be requested to nominate ‘hot spots’ for the enforcement service to monitor - There will be promotion for the public to take their litter home - The emphasis will also be on ‘green’ issues, including the Halstead in Bloom and Witham in Bloom events, and by working with Town and Parish Councils to expand the ‘living landscapes’ theme - The three Local Committees at Braintree, Halstead and Witham will be involved in the ‘clean and green’ policy, and utilise their funding resources, where appropriate - Ways will be sought to enhance the appearance of the district and local neighbourhoods, and the Council will liaise with the ‘Keep Britain Tidy’ group to work with them and monitor initiatives. The support of the local press would also be beneficial - Discussion will be held with the Highways Authority and Essex County Council to promote the ‘clean and green’ policy in the Braintree District, including the scheduling of litter picking and grass cutting beside the A12 and A120 trunk roads Councillor Butland stated that the public had clearly identified their ‘clean and green’ preference, and the Council policy will address the clearance of litter, graffiti and other anti social activities from communities.
53 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Councillor Walters commended the initiatives and stated that people’s attitude on this issue will need to change. A marketing campaign will be implemented to help the public recognise that throwing litter is an anti social activity. The District Council will need the support of its partners on this initiative to coordinate litter picking of roadside verges, promote mothers and children walking to and from school not to drop litter, and encourage parents to set appropriate standards in their children.
Councillor Eric Lynch fully supported the measures, and endorsed that schools should be included on this, with many Councillors already aware of their local school governors. The use of the Local Committee budget on appropriate schemes, the Beckers Green area of Braintree, will be part of the community cohesion to improve neighbourhoods. Councillor Dr Evans had also requested Councillor Lynch to raise the promotion of landscaping across the district, through tree, shrub and bulb planting; and express appreciation of the Landscape Officer post – that supports many of these schemes – on being reprieved. Councillor Lynch extended thanks to Councillors, on behalf of Councillor Dr Evans, for best wishes received on his current health issue.
Councillor Ms Flint queried if the ‘clean and green’ policy will include dog fouling, and continued to express concern to the untidy condition of the District roundabouts – as ‘gateways’ into the district – and the commitment of sponsors.
Councillor Gyford requested further clarification to the areas covered under the new project and whether it included abandoned vehicles and anti social behaviour. Some of the proposals would have been reported via the Community Wardens activity report, and budget measures had reduced this service.
Councillor Ramage continued on the ‘resources’ theme and queried if there are sufficient enforcement officers to monitor the whole district. Other issues raised were the standard of land privately owned considered under the ‘clean and green’ project, and to advertise the project in the press and other media, with relevant contact points. Councillor Ramage endorsed the earlier comment regarding the poor condition of the District’s roundabouts.
Councillor Mrs Beavis stated that in her District of Tomorrow there is greater investment in people, with more local jobs for local people. Over the next few years many houses are to be built and the District has to retain the safe and clean image, and provide it in a rural setting. When development is considered in the north of the district, prosperity also has to be taken into account as this area has suffered from the depletion of employers through the current recession. The District Council has to invest money in ‘our District’ and seek ways to improve Galleys Corner, and support local youth who will become ‘our future’ and encourage them to stay as the District develops and grows.
Councillor Mitchell spoke on climate change, carbon reduction and the effects humans have had on the environment. In the District of Tomorrow the Council has to support efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and their impact on the environment, and encourage sustainable development of housing, business and renewable energy sources. The Council should continue to enhance the bio diversity of the area and support the living landscape. New initiatives are to be supported and the environmental responsibility recognised.
Councillor Abbott welcomed the ‘clean and green’ initiative and the supply of additional litter bins and dog bins in the District. However, there is the problem of the roadside verges between towns and villages that accrue litter and other rubbish. South of Braintree in the Rivenhall and Silver End areas there is a high proportion of litter from fast
54 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] food outlets, i.e. KFC and McDonald’s, and these establishments should recognise their corporate responsibility and provide funding to clear the litter left by their customers. It is acknowledged that the District needs development and, in rural areas, only specific development and provision of roadside footways, with third sector volunteering. With proposals underway for mineral extraction and waste sites in open countryside, the problem of heavy vehicles and increased traffic on rural roads will be exacerbated.
Councillor Lager advised that Essex County Council has the aim of the ‘Best quality of life in Britain’, and the town of Witham has the identical ambition. Perception of an area is an important factor and to be safe, welcoming, a pleasant area with good jobs and schools links with this aim. In Witham, two new Academies are being built, Chipping Hill school upgraded, the Riverview site replaced, and a facelift for Newland Street is planned and Guithavon Street has been resurfaced. The paths on the Templars estate need repair and funding is being sought. Investment is also required for the Town Park. The parking problem around the railway station area continues, and traffic flows increase, impacting on access and exit to the town. The extension of CCTV provision in Witham, and proposals to extend CCTV on the industrial estates are both ongoing. The need to improve accessibility to health services in the town and surrounding area is required, as there are inadequate G.P surgeries. It would be beneficial to move outpatient facilities to clinics in the town, instead of residents travelling to larger towns. Many of these areas need ‘top down planning’ and for the Council to devolve power and property to the local people will support this.
Councillor Bebb supported the proposals by the Leader and considered that households should be encouraged to keep their houses and gardens tidy to enhance their local area. The District Council should build upon its recycling records and provide further opportunities for the recycling of household goods and encourage shops to dispose of customers old goods. With many items being purchased on the internet, residents store their old item in a garage whereas a ‘reuse’ function should be adopted - through donations to charity shops, using advertisements or by introducing reuse schemes at civic amenity centres. It was proposed that the District Council could facilitate such a provision and become a broker, sponsor or advisor to residents on the reuse of unwanted goods. This would also benefit the Council with fewer items to landfill and fly tipping incidents.
Councillor Elliott endorsed the previous speakers’ comments and focused on development in the district without improvements to the infrastructure. Without investment in roads and pedestrian schemes, traffic will increase and roads/pathways will deteriorate – as seen in the recent cold spell when ice and frost has caused damage. It is important to say to government that development is acceptable, but without improvements to infrastructure it will be ‘out of balance’.
Councillor Michael Gage ‘applauded’ the proposals and looked forward to the results of initiatives. Appreciation was extended to Council officers for the standards achieved by the Halstead street scene team and the partnership working on the Green Flag award at Halstead Public Gardens. Councillor Gage raised issues for a ‘zero tolerance’ to fly posting, and to recognise the importance of Conservation Areas in the District by keeping standards at the same level. There are proposals in Halstead to enhance their Conservation Area by offering each shop limited funding to ensure their premises are kept in good decorative standard, with any funding from the District Council being welcome. It was requested that ambitious targets are set to the proposals to ensure a high standard.
Councillor Siddall endorsed the ‘no housing without jobs’ statement, and encouraged a low tax and ‘light’ touch approach. Residents could be taxed out of their cars without 55 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] appropriate infrastructure, and better train services and systems are needed for people to use. Councillor Siddall quoted that if we stop using coal completely in this country, within a year China will have absorbed that saving, as they are increasing their use year on year. We should be looking at manufactured goods and the importation of goods and how that affects our manufacturers – and do not tax them, and allow them a ‘level playing field’.
The Leader thanked the 13 speakers for their positive contributions and support for the initiative. During the summary it was advised that - the report to Cabinet in March will provide further details, including schools and for resource issues - young people will be included in the proposals - dog fouling will be included in the proposals - the condition of roundabouts in the District will be addressed by Councillor Walters liaising with Essex County Council - the Council will continue to address cases of abandoned vehicles and anti social behaviour - with regard to litter etc on private land contact will be made with railway authorities - the comments regarding rural areas was endorsed, and there will be closer working with Parish Councils - households will be encouraged to keep their gardens tidy, and suitable legislation can be used if required - recycling will continue to be encouraged - it was endorsed that infrastructure is important in any development - fly posting is also an important issue, and ambitious public targets will be set on the initiatives, and - to ensure an appropriate balance of development, and the provision of local jobs.
68 COUNCIL BUDGET, COUNCIL TAX & RENTS 2010/11 – RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFERENCES – CABINET 1ST FEBRUARY 2010
Councillor Lager, Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources, presented proposals for the Council’s budget and Council Tax for 2010/11. Reference was made to the economic challenges for the Council with cuts in government spending and grants being reduced, and the need to find savings of £1.5m in running costs. Every aspect of business had been explored to achieve savings and a range of possible service changes had been proposed, although some had been revisited, i.e. Parish Support Grant, Community Halls and the Community Warden Service. The new style provision of the Tourism Service was detailed in the report, and ways to share services with other authorities, e.g. Uttlesford on parking, or the Museum Service with Colchester and Ipswich. Councillor Lager advised that the Council’s Revenue budget had been balanced for 2010/11. He drew attention to a proposed transfer of £654,000 from earmarked reserves back into General Fund balances as the funds were no longer required for their original purpose. Councillor Lager also advised that the Government had refused the Council’s application to capitalise potential losses on sums invested with the Icelandic banks. The Council’s response is currently being considered and members will be kept informed of any proposed action.
The Cabinet has recommended that the Council remains at Causeway House and that capital provision of £3.8m be made available for refurbishment of the building.
56 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Councillor Lager advised that at a meeting of the Police Authority earlier in the day, it had been agreed to increase their precept and consequently an updated Council Tax Resolution report had been circulated to Council.
Councillor Gyford stated that with the Council withdrawing £6,000 from SEAMS, it will result in the collapse of the mediation service, and queried if an assessment had been made on the costs relating to arbitration in neighbour disputes. With regard to the cessation of the Welfare Rights service from March 2011 it was also queried if alternative arrangements had been made, and whether there is special criteria employed by the Council in identifying acceptable new arrangements. Furthermore, when these arrangements are agreed would a Service Level Agreement be supplied to any providers to ensure the specific detail had been met. Councillor Lager advised that neighbour disputes would be an area for the Citizens’ Advice Bureau to provide guidance and assistance, and that information on any special criteria for the provision of Welfare Rights will be provided in writing to all Councillors.
Councillor E R Lynch questioned the consultation process on community halls and whether all organisations had been contacted, including the Braintree Community Association with regard to use of The Institute. With respect to the introduction of fees and charges for the car park at Causeway House at weekends, it was queried if the rear part of the car park (owned by the Cricket Club) is included. Councillor Lager stated that consultation to the future of community halls is ongoing, with some meetings already organised and full consultation at a later stage. Councillor Walters advised he was not aware of any problems in the introduction of charges at Causeway House car park at weekends.
DECISION:
Revenue (1) The changes to service provision as detailed in Appendix E to the Cabinet report together with a budget of £10,250, funded from the LABGI reserve, for the development of the tourism website be approved.
(2) The budget variations to the current base budget as summarised in Appendix G to the Cabinet report be approved.
(3) The Service Demands detailed in Appendix C of the Cabinet report be approved.
(4) That a provision of £50,000 be set aside in 2010/11 for the Braintree Museum Trust. To be funded from the General Fund balance and payments to be released with agreement of the responsible Cabinet Portfolio Holder.
(5) The increases to existing Fees and Charges for 2010/11 as detailed in Appendix D to the Cabinet report, and as amended at Cabinet regarding Charity Market Stalls and parking at White Horse Lane car park, Witham, be approved.
(6) A single concessionary rate of 25% applicable to fees and charges as appropriate be agreed
(7) Concessions to be available for the following persons: - in receipt of means tested benefit - under 16 years of age, or - in full time education Or to organisations making block or regular bookings.
57 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] (8) The additional Housing Benefit Administration Subsidy for 2010/11, of £315,880, be applied to maintain/improve the service, with an immediate allocation of the funds of £56,000, to extend the contracts by one year of two temporary Benefit Assessor posts.
(9) The provision set aside to meet the cost of redundancies be increased by £500,000 to £1million, by transfer from the General Fund balance, be agreed.
(10) The transfer of £654,000 to the General Fund balance from the Earmarked Reserves, as detailed in Appendix K to the Cabinet report be approved.
Housing Revenue Account (11) No increase is applied to housing rents for 2010/11.
(12) No increase is applied to housing service charges for 2010/11
(13) The proposed Housing Revenue Account budget for 2010/11, as detailed in Appendix I to the Cabinet report, be approved.
Capital (14) The General Fund Capital bids for 2010/11 as listed in Appendix L to the Cabinet report together with an allocation of provision of £800,000 for a community centre in Halstead, be approved.
Treasury Management (15) The revised CIPFA Code of Practice in Treasury Management in the Public Services be adopted.
(16) The Prudential Indicators and limits set out in Appendix N to the Cabinet report be approved.
(17) The Policy on Minimum Revenue Provision as recommended in Appendix N of the Cabinet report be approved.
(18) The Treasury Management Strategy, including annual investment strategy, for 2010/11 be approved.
Council Tax (19) The proposed estimates detailed in Appendix P to the Cabinet report and the Council Tax increase of 2.5% be approved, having taking into consideration - the consultation feedback received, and - the Section 151 Officer’s report on the robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of the balances (Appendix O of the Cabinet report)
Future Efficiencies (20) Given the anticipated budget gap, coupled with the possibilities of the Government Grant reducing and the pension costs increasing by more than that currently provided over the next three years, that an overall strategic approach to efficiency and service delivery options be brought forward to a future meeting.
(21) The Medium Term Financial Strategy is updated to take account of the information detailed in the report and the decisions made.
58 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] 69 COUNCIL TAX RESOLUTION 2010/11
Councillor Lager, Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources, presented the Council Tax Resolution 2010-11 and moved the recommendations.
DECISION:
1. That the Council’s General Fund budget of £18,900,900 and the total Budget Requirement (inclusive of the aggregate amount local precepts) of £20,580,693 for 2010/11 be approved.
2. That the level of Council Tax for 2010/11 is set, in accordance with the following resolution.
1) Under delegated powers the Corporate Director agreed the amount of Council Tax Base for the whole district for 2010/11 as 53,164 Band D equivalents. He also agreed that the amounts calculated and set out in Column 2 of Schedule A, should be the Council Tax Base for dwellings in those parts of the District listed in Column 1 of that schedule.
2) The Council agrees a budget for 2010/11 of £18,900,900, which after taking account of Government Formula Grant and the Council’s share of the estimated Collection Fund balance, results in a charge on council taxpayers of £8,655,627. This equates to a Band D tax rate of £162.81, which is an increase of 2.5% over the current year.
3) The following amounts are calculated by the Council for the year 2010/11, in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:- a) £76,194,753 being the expenditure the Council estimates it will incur in the year in performing its functions and which will be charged to a revenue account. This amount includes contingencies, estimated transfers to financial reserves, and local precepts issued to the Council.
b) £55,614,060, being receipts estimated by the Council which will be credited to a revenue account. This amount includes specific government grants and estimated transfers from financial reserves, but excludes Formula Grant and the Council’s share of the estimated Collection Fund balance.
c) £20,580,693, being the budget requirement for the year calculated as the difference between gross expenditure and income as set out at (a) and (b) above, and includes the total of local precepts received.
d) £10,231,363, being the amount which is payable for Formula Grant into the General Fund in respect of revenue support grant and redistributed business rates.
e) £13,910, being the amount that has been calculated as at 15th January 2010 as the Council’s share of the estimated Collection Fund balance at 31st March 2010, and which will be transferred to the General Fund revenue account in 2010/11.
59 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] f) £10,335,420, being the Council Tax requirement for the Council including the amount to be raised on behalf of town and parish councils.
g) £194.41, being the basic amount of council tax for the year including the average local precept tax rate, calculated by dividing (f) by the district tax base.
h) £1,679,793, being the total of all local precepts received from town and parish councils and taken into account in making the calculation of the budget requirement at (c) above, and shown in Column 3 of Schedule A.
i) £162.81, being the basic amount of council tax for dwellings in those parts of the District where there are no town and parish council precepts, i.e. this is the District Council’s share of the total council tax rate and is charged across property bands as follows:
Property Band as proportion of Band Council Band D Tax Rate A 6/9 108.54 B 7/9 126.63 C 8/9 144.72 D 9/9 162.81 E 11/9 198.99 F 13/9 235.17 G 15/9 271.35 H 18/9 325.62
j) The amounts shown in Column 5 of Schedule A, calculated by adding to the amount at (i) above, the precept amount relating to each parish or town council area, divided by the tax base for that area. This represents the basic amount of council tax for each parish or town council area. The charge for each property band is also shown in Schedule A.
4) That it be noted that the following precepts will be issued to the Council for 2010/11:
• Essex County Council £57,775,977 • Essex Police £ 7,024,028 • Essex Fire & Rescue £ 3,531,153
Expressed as a tax rate for dwellings in the following property bands:
Property Essex County Essex Police Essex Fire & Band Council Rescue A 724.50 88.08 44.28 B 845.25 102.76 51.66 C 966.00 117.44 59.04 D 1086.75 132.12 66.42 E 1328.25 161.48 81.18 F 1569.75 190.84 95.94 G 1811.25 220.20 110.70 H 2173.50 264.24 132.84
60 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] 5) That having calculated the aggregate of the amounts stated under (i), (j), and 4 above for each area within the District, the Council hereby sets the amounts shown in Schedule B as the total amount of Council Tax for each of the property bands.
6) The Council resolves that any expenses incurred by it in performing in part of its area a function that is performed elsewhere in its area by a parish or town council, or a Chairman of a parish meeting, shall not be treated as Special Expenses for the purposes of Section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
70 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFERENCES (PUBLIC SESSION)
Cabinet – 1st February 2010
(i) Accommodation Options Review
Councillor Lager, Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources, referred to the minutes of the Cabinet meeting and moved the recommendations. It was noted that £3.3m capital provision would be required in 2010/11, and that the Sub Group - for the refurbishment project for Causeway House – had already met to reassess the works required.
Councillor E R Lynch referred to the difference in refurbishments costs, and understood that now Greenfields Community Housing had moved from Causeway House there is opportunity for staff to decant to other parts of the building whilst the refurbishment is undertaken. It was considered that only part of the DTZ report had been used in the initial refurbishment costs, and it was suggested that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee may wish to look at these figures.
Councillor Abbott agreed that the right decision had now been made for staff and residents with the Council staying at Causeway House in Braintree; and there is opportunity to strengthen the Council’s area offices in Witham and Halstead by working with partners.
DECISION:
(1) That Braintree District Council retains and continues to occupy Causeway House, Braintree.
(2) That capital provision of £3.8m be made available in the Capital Programme, for the refurbishment of Causeway House.
(3) That specifications of refurbishment works be drawn up prior to going out to tender.
(4) That a Sub Group (for the refurbishment project) be established consisting of Councillors Butland, Dr Evans, M Gage, Lager and Mitchell before going out to tender.
(5) That the footprint required by the Council for office space be reduced, and allows for modern, flexible ways of staff working.
(6) To explore with Essex County Council the opportunity of the County Council purchasing or leasing Mayland House, Witham. 61 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
(7) If (6) above does not prove possible, to sell or rent Mayland House on the open market.
(ii) Housing and Planning Delivery Grant 2009/10
Councillor Harley, Cabinet Member for Enterprise and Culture, referred to the minutes of the Cabinet meeting and moved the recommendation.
DECISION: That the expenditure of Housing and Planning Delivery Grant 2009/10, as set out in the report, be approved.
Local Development Framework Panel – 3rd February 2010
(i) Local Development Framework Core Strategy
Councillor McCrea, Chairman of the Local Development Framework (LDF) Panel, presented the draft Core Strategy and commended the work of the LDF. The Strategy will set the provision of development in the district up to 2026, and was initially driven by the East of England Plan to identify housing allocation and recognise the key service villages of Coggeshall, Earls Colne, Hatfield Peverel, and Kelvedon; and the regeneration areas of Sible Hedingham and Silver End. The Strategy proposes urban extensions to accommodate 1,400 homes with 500 north west of Braintree, 600 at Lodge Farm, Witham and 300 at Forest Road, Rivenhall; and an 18.5 hectare Business Park east of Great Notley. Plans on town centre regeneration will move forward, with key facilities and infrastructure to support all growth in the District as identified in Appendix 4 of the Strategy. The Strategy introduces 14 additional policies including affordable housing and sustainability, and Council were requested to approve the draft Core Strategy, with the final evidence to be agreed by the LDF at their meeting on 14th April 2010. A further period of consultation will commence by July 2010, with submission of the Strategy in August and a Hearing during November/December 2010. A final decision will be announced by May 2011.
Councillor Abbott moved an amendment to the Core Strategy as follows:- ‘In Policy CS1 delete Growth Location north-east of Witham (in Rivenhall) for 300 dwellings and make consequent changes elsewhere in the document, including to the map on page 30. Replace with the identified “amber” site at Conrad Road, Witham as a Growth Location or as an allocations site, with any further rebalancing to ensure the same capacity as already stated in the Core Strategy, to be provided at Lodge Farm, Witham.’
On speaking to the amendment Councillor Abbott stated that the original proposal is entirely within Rivenhall Parish, and the amendment proposes an alternative ‘amber’ site at Conrad Road that is close to schools, bus routes, the railway station, has better accessibility, is closer to the town centre, and is entirely within Witham Parish. Further reference was made to the industrial areas, the Motts Lane crossing, breaches to Policy and other inaccuracies.
Councillor Gyford referred to previous discussions on the proposed Forest Road development, including traffic impact, road junctions, and the narrow, residential roads with on-street parking and commuter parking. 62 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Councillor Hughes provided a brief history of the Forest Road site, referring to ‘Green Wedge’ designation and open countryside policies, and the need to protect the countryside. Councillor Lager stated that various assessments have been made of the Forest Road site, and further assessments would delay the LDF process. The Conrad Road site has space for 150 dwellings and any further re-balancing – by adding to the Lodge Farm allocation – would require further traffic assessment and would impact on Lodge Farm. The LDF policies are there to protect villages, but are not there to protect the Parish boundary Councillor McCrea stated that the Conrad Road site has capacity for 100 houses, and no consultation has been undertaken to extend the development boundary or a sustainability assessment to the suitability of the Conrad Road site. The Forest Road location would ‘round off’ the edge of Witham, has good pedestrian accessibility to Witham town centre, housing already in Rickstones Road, an existing golf course, and a new cycle bridge proposed at Motts Lane. Councillor Butland provided the example of village and Parish, with the Great Notley Garden Village once being part of the village of Great Notley.
Councillor Abbott requested that the vote on the amendment be recorded. The results of the recorded vote were as follows:-
For the Motion Councillors: Abbott, Ms Barlow, Bishop, Gyford, Hughes, E Lynch, M Lynch and Mann (8)
Against the Motion Councillors: Banthorpe, Mrs Beavis, Bebb, Butland, Cohen, Collar, Dunn, Elliott, Finbow, Ms Flint, M Gage, Harley, Mrs Howell, Hume, Lager, Lambourne, McArdle, McCrea, McKee, Messenger, Meyer, Mitchell, Mrs Money, Mrs Pell, Ramage, Reid, Mrs Sandbrook, Mrs Scattergood, Mrs Schmitt, Shelton, Mrs Shepherd, Siddall, Mrs Smith, Mrs Spray, Swallow, Walsh, Walters and Wilkinson (38)
Abstained Councillor Mrs Galione (1)
Absent Councillors: Baugh, Bolton, Mrs Edey, Elliston, Dr Evans, Everard, Foster, Mrs Gage, Lady Newton, O’Reilly-Cicconi, Rice, Ms Thorogood and Wilkins(13)
The amendment motion was declared LOST
Councillor Mrs Pell requested if the Core Strategy has any allowance in protecting the line of a by pass for Halstead, and whether it is secure in the Strategy. Councillor McCrea advised there is no provision in any plan for a Halstead by-pass, and Essex County Council (ECC) is organising consultation during the summer. Councillor M Gage stated that ECC already have a designated line for the Halstead by-pass and wished it clarified that there is nothing in the Local Development Framework to say that line does not exist, or anything in the Core Strategy that will cancel this line. Councillor McCrea confirmed there is nothing in the LDF proposals to encroach on any line.
DECISION: That the Core Strategy Submission Draft be approved for pre- Submission Consultation, subject to final changes by the Local Development Framework Panel on 14th April 2010. 63 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
(ii) Growth Area Funding Priorities for Expenditure
Councillor Harley moved the recommendation from the Local Development Framework Panel.
DECISION:
(1) That the priorities for the expenditure of Growth Area Funding, as set out in paragraph 4 of the report, be approved.
(2) That any remaining Growth Area Funding be used to support the delivery of growth and regeneration areas identified in the Draft Core Strategy and the delivery of affordable housing, and that the following schemes be identified as specific priorities:-
Purchase of property, Braintree Town Centre - £350,000 Freeport foot/cycle bridge, Braintree - £250,000 Braintree branch line rail study - £40,000
71 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS (PUBLIC SESSION)
INFORMATION: No statements were made.
72 QUESTION TIME (PUBLIC SESSION)
(i) Statements from the Leader and Cabinet Members
INFORMATION: A further update was received from Councillor Walters.
Cold Weather Conditions Councillor Walters formally paid tribute to the Council’s Street Scene Teams who were clearing snow and gritting footpaths and roads across the District, and supporting the Highways Authority. The Braintree District was one of the best served in the cold weather with High Streets, stations, some schools and dangerous road junctions receiving treatment. The refuse collection teams are also to be commended for their work during this period.
New Civic Amenity Site at Springwood. Councillor Walters reported that a new Civic Amenity Site will be opening on Springwood Industrial Estate in Braintree, during May 2010. This will provide the public with opportunities to recycle, together with local charity shops and car boot sales. The Council’s current recycling rate (for December 2009) is 53%, and on target for a year to date figure of 50.7%.
Councillor E R Lynch declared an interest as a Governor of Beckers Green School in Braintree, and raised an issue regarding the gritting of roads to schools. It was queried why the Highways Authority did not treat schools as a priority during the recent spell of snow and icy weather, as the Beckers Green School was closed for two days. Councillor Lynch also spoke with regard to people being bitten by dogs. It was questioned how many people have to be attacked by a dog before the dog is destroyed. Councillor Walters advised that gritting to school premises is currently under review with Essex County Council (ECC) liaising with Braintree District Council. The Highways Authority has a priority to keep main roads flowing and there is a limit of what can be gritted, and the District Council did support ECC during the cold weather. 64 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] In respect of dogs biting members of the public, the Council can just present the case and prosecute owners. Councillor Abbott also referred to the gritting of roads and stated that many places were dangerously icy during the recent cold weather, and Rivenhall had acquired additional salt bins so residents can help treat local roads. It was queried if schools/school governors should be approached to acquire salt bins for their local school, before next winter. In response, Councillor Walters advised that any Parish can have additional gritting bins, and ECC will maintain the grit supplies.
(ii) Chairmen’s Reports
INFORMATION: No reports were made.
(iii) Meetings in Public Session
INFORMATION: Members were invited to raise any matters arising from meetings that had been held in public session since the last Council meeting on 14th December 2009. No issues were raised.
73 BUSINESS OF EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS
INFORMATION: There were no reports received from Council representatives on external organisations.
As there were no items in private session, the Chairman closed the meeting.
The meeting commenced at 7.15pm and closed at 10.03pm.
Mrs M E Galione (Chairman)
65 For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] APPENDIX
COUNCIL MEETING
15TH FEBRUARY 2010
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Summary of Questions Asked / Statements Made During Question Time
1. Statement by Alexander Stanford-Eyre Agenda Item 7 – Budget Recommendations – Tourist Information Centre
Mr Stanford-Eyre advised that as a student he frequently used the Tourist Information Centre to purchase bus passes, and for information in and around the Braintree area. It was considered that the proposed cut-backs would impact on tourism in the district, and result in redundancies for current Tourist Office staff. Mr Stanford-Eyre also stated that £10,000 expenditure on a tourism website seemed a phenomenal amount for the Council to spend, and that students are involved in the College’s website that costs a much lesser amount.
2. Statement by Giles Bryant, 5 Pye Corner, Castle Hedingham Agenda Item 7 – Budget Recommendations – Tourist Information Centre
Mr Bryant stated that he runs a business in Castle Hedingham, and is proud to be associated with the Braintree District – an area of rich countryside, heritage, buildings and people. It was considered a great advantage to have a manned tourist centre and personal interaction, and this benefits local business – especially when (like Mr Bryant’s business) people travel into the area from Europe and wish to explore North Essex. The area has many attractions, including the unique round church at Little Maplestead (one of only four in the country) and this area of North Essex has received recognition in the national press. In conclusion, Mr Bryant advised that he attends craft fairs, and use tours to promote his business and for those people making the pictures of local attractions (as displayed at the meeting). The tourist service is very important to the local economy and to promote the numerous attractions in the area.
3. Statement by Fred Sheldrake, 11 Oakley Road, Braintree Agenda Item 7 – Budget Recommendations – Tourist Information Centre
Mr Sheldrake had lived in the area most of his life, and was made aware in November 2009 that the Tourist Information office was under threat. Although the tourism service is not a mandatory function for the Council it does bring benefits to the area. It provides a worthwhile service and should be advertised and improved, not reduced, and made more financially independent. The benefits of the ‘Eye-Site’ service in New Zealand was explained as an information point for activities, accommodation, local events and information, and was highly used. Mr Sheldrake referred to correspondence between the Chief Executive and himself, and the significant amount of public consultation that displayed 68% wanted less
(i)
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
spent on tourism – not for closure. Suggestions were put forward regarding a charge for tourist services, a winter timetable of reduced opening hours, and to review changes on an annual basis.
In response to the above three speakers on the Tourist Information Centre, Councillor Harley, Cabinet Member for Enterprise and Culture, stated that the net cost of the service is £76,000 and the proposals would realise savings of £30,000 in 2010/11. There are proposals to work with the East of England Tourism to enhance the website, with a personal touch provided by the new District Promotions Officer, when appointed. There will be tourist information points at Causeway House, Witham Town Council, Freeport and at George Yard, Braintree. An annual grant is also proposed for Witham and Halstead Town Councils to invest in tourism/visitor promotion in their towns; and the District Council will be working with specialists on the website. Councillor Harley advised that the suggestions put forward by the speakers will be taken on board, and gave reassurance that the promotion of smaller businesses will not diminish.
4. Statement by Bob Wright, 303 Rickstones Road, Rivenhall Agenda Item 9 – Local Development Framework Core Strategy
Mr Wright advised that the Core Strategy continues to include a list of errors, e.g. that Forest Road/Rectory Lane site is closer to the railway station. It was also considered that developers would also not be providing the Motts Lane footbridge on this occasion, and the employment sites have already been removed across the railway line, and the nearest school is located at Conrad Road. There is also speculation that Phase 2 at Rectory Road – an additional 800 homes is proposed. The draft Core Strategy also refers to encroachments at Rickstones Academy, and employment land near the A12/railway line vicinity – both areas of Rivenhall (not Witham). Mr Wright stated that throughout the public consultation process with Rivenhall residents, Parish Council, Witham Town Council, the Local Committee, and the LDF Panel the proposal had been voted against. Therefore, he was sceptical to the next stage of the consultation process.
5. Statement by Jack Prime, Chairman of Rivenhall Parish Plan Steering Group Agenda Item 9 – Local Development Framework Core Strategy
Mr Prime referred to Parish Appraisals – an area considered as a ‘key role’ in setting planning policies. The results in Rivenhall’s Parish Appraisal had shown 88% against development at Forest Road, and 97% against development at Rectory Lane. The Village Design Statement and the decisions of Rivenhall Parish Council and Witham Town Council had also recognised this. An alternative site at Conrad Road for 150-200 homes had been proposed, with the remaining homes spread across village sites. Mr Prime continued to speak on safety issues at Rectory Lane where pedestrians and dog walkers frequent the lane – that has ‘protected status – has a dangerous corner and is not considered suitable for an increase in vehicular traffic. Although the building may be delayed to 2021 -2026 it may be beneficial for the District Council, or for Witham town in the long term, but was considered a bad decision for Rivenhall and goes against the village Statement and Parish Plans.
(i)
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Minutes Council Meeting 27th September 2010
Present:
Councillors Present Councillors Present J E Abbott Yes E R Lynch Yes M J Banthorpe Yes M Lynch Yes Miss L Barlow Yes D Mann Yes J Baugh Yes T McArdle Yes Mrs J C Beavis Yes N G McCrea Yes D L Bebb Yes J McKee Yes E Bishop Yes H J Messenger Yes R J Bolton Yes A M Meyer Apologies G Butland Yes R G S Mitchell Yes G Cohen Yes Mrs J M Money Yes J C Collar Yes Lady Newton Yes M Dunn Apologies Mrs A Olumbori Yes Mrs E Edey Yes J P O’Reilly-Cicconi Yes J G J Elliott Yes Mrs J A Pell Apologies R Elliston Apologies R Ramage Yes Dr R L Evans Yes D M Reid Yes A V E Everard Yes D E A Rice Yes J H G Finbow Yes Mrs C Sandbrook Apologies Ms L B Flint (Vice Chairman) Yes Mrs W D Scattergood Yes T J W Foster Apologies Mrs J W Schmitt Yes Mrs B A Gage Yes A F Shelton (Chairman) Yes M G Gage Yes Mrs L Shepherd Yes Mrs M E Galione Apologies C Siddall Yes J E B Gyford Yes Mrs J A Smith Yes N R H O Harley Yes Mrs G A Spray Yes Mrs S A Howell Yes F Swallow Apologies P J Hughes Yes Miss M Thorogood Yes D L Hume Apologies S M Walsh Yes M C M Lager Yes R G Walters Yes S J Lambourne Yes T S Wilkinson Yes
The Chairman welcomed all Councillors to the meeting and he extended a warm welcome to members of the public and press present at the meeting.
PUBLIC SESSION
21
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
29 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman referred to the following announcements:-
Garden Party
On 14th July 2010 the Chairman had hosted a garden party at Shrubs Farm, Lamarsh which over 80 people had attended. The guests were volunteers from local charity and community organisations whose work had made a great contribution to the residents of the District.
Golf Day
The Chairman’s Charity Golf Day had taken place on 4th August 2010 and it had been very successful in raising £5,452 for the Chairman’s two charities Braintree District Mencap Society and Marie Curie Cancer Care.
Help for Heroes
On 13th September 2010, the Chairman had presented a cheque for £335.76 to the Volunteer County Coordinator for the Help for Heroes charity. This had been the total amount raised from the sale of wristbands from Causeway House Reception. The Chairman thanked everyone who had purchased a wristband and he indicated that a further supply would be made available for sale in the very near future.
Tour of Britain
The Chairman reported that Stage 7 of the Tour of Britain International Cycle Race had passed through the Braintree District on 17 September 2010 and he thanked everyone who had supported this event.
70th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain
The Chairman was pleased to report that he had recently attended a ceremony to mark the 70th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain. The Chairman stated that he had been honoured to meet many decorated airmen, most of whom were now in their nineties, who had flown during World War II.
Engagements of Chairman and Vice-Chairman
The list of events attended by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman since the last meeting of the Council held on 28th June 2010 was noted.
30 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
INFORMATION: The following interests were declared:-
Councillor J E Abbott declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 Core Strategy Submission Draft, Item 8 (iii) Policy Recommendations and References – Committees Public Session (Witham Local Committee, 14th September 2010 – Draft
22
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Core Strategy) and Item 9 – Statements by Members as he was the Chairman of Rivenhall Parish Council which had submitted representations on the Core Strategy.
Councillor Miss L Barlow declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 Core Strategy Submission Draft and Item 8 (iii) Policy Recommendations and References – Committees Public Session (Witham Local Committee, 14th September 2010 – Draft Core Strategy) as she was a Member of Witham Town Council which had commented on the Core Strategy.
Councillor J Baugh declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 6 Silver End Village Hall - Petition as he was Chairman of Braintree District Children’s Centres Partnership who were major tenants of Silver End Village Hall and a Member of the Council’s Fees and Charges Task and Finish Group, and Item 7 Core Strategy Submission Draft as he was an Architectural Consultant with an interest in the Core Strategy.
Councillor P J Hughes declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 6 Silver End Village Hall - Petition and Item 7 Core Strategy Submission Draft as he was a Member of Silver End Parish Council.
Councillor M C M Lager declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 Core Strategy Submission Draft and Item 8 (iii) Policy Recommendations and References – Committees Public Session (Witham Local Committee, 14th September 2010 – Draft Core Strategy) as he was a Member of Witham Town Council which had commented on the Core Strategy.
Councillor Mrs J M Money declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 Core Strategy Submission Draft and Item 8 (iii) Policy Recommendations and References – Committees Public Session (Witham Local Committee, 14th September 2010 – Draft Core Strategy) as she was a Member of Witham Town Council which had commented on the Core Strategy.
Councillor Mrs W D Scattergood declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 8 (ii) Policy Recommendations and References – Committees Public Session (Audit Committee, 9th September 2010 – Treasury Management Mid-Year Report 2010/11) as her son-in-law was a lawyer working on behalf of the Icelandic Banks in legal action versus United Kingdom local authorities. Councillor Mrs Scattergood indicated that her son-in-law had already made submissions to the High Court. Councillor Mrs Scattergood left the meeting whilst this item was considered and she did not take part in the discussion or vote.
Councillor Miss M Thorogood declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 10 (i) Question Time - Statement by Councillor Mrs Schmitt Cabinet Member for Clean, Green and Safe (New Play Area at Tabor Avenue, Braintree) as she was associated with Greenfields Community Housing Association.
In accordance with the Code of Conduct all Members remained in the meeting for these items and took part in the debate and decision thereon, unless stated otherwise.
23
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
31 MINUTES DECISION: That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 28th June 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
32 QUESTION TIME
INFORMATION: There were five statements made, a summary of which is contained in the Appendix to these Minutes.
33 SILVER END VILLAGE HALL - PETITIONS
INFORMATION: Two separate petitions were presented at the meeting: one from Mr White comprising 758 signatures and the other from Councillor Abbott comprising 836 signatures. The petitions reflected the concerns of local residents and community groups about increases in fees and the future management of the facility. The petitions requested that the following action should be taken:-
That the Council should set the letting fees to affordable rates for groups and users;
That the Council should retain the management of the Hall and work with the community to establish a plan for long term improvements.
Members were reminded that on 13th September 2010, the Cabinet had agreed revised charges for those users of the Hall who had the benefit of “double discounts” and they had been advised that their increases would be limited to £2 per hour with a cap to ensure that they did not pay more than the rate set out in the fees and charges policy approved in February 2010. The Cabinet had stated also that the Council would continue to work with communities to transfer local facilities, which would include exploring the potential for establishing a new Community Trust that could embrace the appropriate community facilities currently managed by the Council.
Each petition organiser was then invited to address the Council.
Mr White stated that the two main issues of concern were the increased hire fees and the future management of Silver End Village Hall. Mr White welcomed the Cabinet’s decision to limit the increase in fees for certain users to £2 per hour. However, he considered that it would be difficult to devolve management responsibilities as it was unlikely that there were people living locally with the appropriate expertise. Mr White stated also that Silver End was reported to be the largest Village Hall in the country. Mr White indicated that there were many diverse users of the Hall and that, for this reason, closure of the Hall would not be possible in the medium-term.
Councillor Abbott referred to the overwhelming local opposition to the increased fees and changed management arrangements for the Village Hall. Whilst Councillor Abbott welcomed the Cabinet’s revised decision regarding fees, he stated that some users of the Hall would still be threatened including Seedlings Pre-School Group which had indicated that it might close. Councillor Abbott expressed concern that the Cabinet was unwilling to enter into discussions about the future of the Hall and that the Cabinet Member for Clean, Green and Safe had indicated that closure of the 24
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Hall was an option even though this was not referred to in the Council’s policy. Councillor Abbott stated that the Village Hall was a valuable resource for the people of Silver End and also for those living in surrounding villages. Councillor Abbott requested that a joint meeting between relevant parties should be called in order to discuss the Hall and to secure its long-term future.
In debating this item, Members highlighted the benefits which some communities had experienced through managing their local halls either by Committee, or Charitable Trust, and of the need for the Council to manage its halls in a consistent manner. However, whilst it was considered important to have regard to the views of the community, it was felt that devolving power to local people might not be feasible if they did not have the relevant expertise. Furthermore, it was noted that Silver End Parish Council had discussed the possibility of managing the Hall, but based on the terms put forward by the District Council, the Parish Council would be required to employ a full-time caretaker and to be responsible for maintenance costs which meant that this was not feasible.
In noting and responding to the petitions Councillor Mrs Schmitt, Cabinet Member for Clean Green and Safe, referred to the Cabinet’s decision of 13th September 2010 paragraph (3) of which stated that further discussions would be held with user groups and other interested parties as to the future options regarding Silver End Village Hall. Councillor Mrs Schmitt indicated that these discussions would centre on the possible establishment of a Community Trust. Councillor Mrs Schmitt stated that Community Trusts operated successfully across the country and they were able to access funding which the Council could not.
DECISION: That the petitions relating to increased hire fees and the future management of Silver End Village Hall be noted.
34 CORE STRATEGY SUBMISSION DRAFT
INFORMATION: Consideration was given to a report submitted to the Local Development Framework Panel on 22nd September 2010 on the representations which had been submitted on the Core Strategy Submission Draft following public consultation.
Members were advised that the Core Strategy Submission Draft had been published for public consultation on 10th May 2010. The period for the submission of representations had been extended to 8th July 2010 to enable comments to be made on the proposed abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS).
The Council had agreed previously to continue with the preparation of the Core Strategy and to reject the option of increasing the housing requirement for the District. However, the Council was now required to determine whether to continue with the proposed housing provision contained in Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy which was based on the RSS assessment, or to decrease the housing provision.
The number of dwellings to be provided in the District during the period 2009 to 2026 now amounted to 4,637, representing an average of 272 dwellings per annum. Whilst the RSS had been abolished, the population growth and housing need evidence base was still relevant and, in particular, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2008 indicated that an annual supply of 673 new affordable homes was 25
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
needed in the District. It was proposed that 30% of the growth locations identified in the Core Strategy should contribute to this need.
In debating this item Members spoke for and against the growth locations which had been identified, particularly those at Forest Road, Rivenhall and Lodge Farm, Witham. Reference was made to the significant opposition to these sites and to the need for them. It was also reported that an alternative development site at Conrad Road, Witham had been put forward, but rejected. Reference was also made to the Coalition Government’s Localism Bill which encouraged the consideration of local opinions. However, concern was also expressed that if the proposed development sites were to be abandoned to await the enactment of the Localism Bill indiscriminate development could take place as a consequence of planning permission being granted on appeal.
In considering this item reference was made to Witham Local Committee’s consideration of the Core Strategy on 14th September 2010 (Minute 25) and the Local Committee’s Recommendation to Council. This Recommendation was formally moved by Councillor Dr Evans and seconded by Councillor Gyford as follows:-
‘(1) ‘That following the Government’s statement that it will "rapidly abolish Regional Strategies" (letter from the Secretary of State to the Council 27th May 2010) and in the light of the new commitment from the Government that local communities should be at the heart of planning decision making, that the Council removes the "Growth Location" of 300 houses on land off Forest Road/Rectory Lane in the Parish of Rivenhall as set out in the Draft Core Strategy.”
(2) That proposals for Lodge Farm be re-considered.
(3) That alternative sites be considered as already submitted to the Council through the Local Development Framework process.’
On being put to the vote the amendment was declared LOST.
It was subsequently moved by Councillor McCrea and seconded by Councillor Lager that the Recommendation of the Local Development Framework Panel from 22nd September 2010 be approved and on being put to the vote the motion was declared CARRIED. Councillor Abbott, supported by Councillors Dr Evans and Hughes called for a recorded vote, the results of which were as follows:-
For the Motion Against the Motion Abstentions Councillors Councillors Councillors
Banthorpe Abbott Dr Evans Baugh Miss Barlow Ms Flint Mrs Beavis Bishop Mrs Howell Bebb Gyford Lambourne Bolton Hughes M Lynch Butland E Lynch Mann Cohen Mrs Money Collar (6) Rice 26
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Mrs Edey Elliott (8) Everard Finbow Mrs B Gage M Gage Harley Lager McArdle McCrea McKee Messenger Mitchell Lady Newton Mrs Olumbori O’Reilly-Cicconi Ramage Reid Mrs Scattergood Mrs Schmitt Shelton Mrs Shepherd Siddall Mrs Smith Mrs Spray Miss Thorogood Walsh Walters Wilkinson
(37)
Councillors Dunn, Elliston, Foster, Mrs Galione, Hume, Meyer, Mrs Pell, Mrs Sandbrook and Swallow (9) were absent from the meeting.
DECISION:
(1) That the proposed housing provision of a minimum of 4637 dwellings in the Braintree District between 2009 and 2026, as set out in Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy, be retained.
(2) That the focused changes and minor changes to the Core Strategy as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, be approved and published for the purpose of consultation in accordance with the procedure referred to in Appendix 1, subject to the recommendation relating to the representation submitted by Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd regarding Chapter 6 – Economy, Paragraphs 6.11 – 6.23, Policy CS4, Map 5 and the inclusion of B8 uses on employment land to the west of the A131 Great Notley being amended from ‘No Change’ to ‘restrict the overall quantum of B8 use to no more than 40% of the total floor area and restrict the largest unit size to 7,500 sq m’. The following amendments to the proposed focused changes were also agreed namely, Chapter 5 Housing, Paragraph 5.26 – to include 27
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
a reference to the definition of affordable housing as being that set out in PPS3; Chapter 5 Housing, Paragraph 5.29 – the sentence ‘(A pitch normally accommodates two caravans)’ to be retained; and Chapter 6 Economy Table 1 Employment Land – ‘2010’ to be highlighted and’2009’ to be added with a strike through.
(3) That the Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Strategy be reviewed to take account of the focused changes.
(4) That the progress of the Localism Bill be monitored and representations made, as appropriate, to ensure that local opinion is at the heart of local planning.
35 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFERENCES (PUBLIC SESSION)
INFORMATION: The following Recommendations were considered:-
(i) Local Development Framework Panel – 4th August 2010
Minute 15(1) – Growth Area Funding - Proposal for Expenditure
Councillor M G McCrea, Chairman of the Local Development Framework Panel, presented the Recommendation of the Panel which was set out in paragraph (I) of the Decision.
In discussing this item, Councillor E R Lynch asked when the Freeport foot/cycle bridge, Braintree would be completed. As it was not possible to answer this question at the meeting, it was agreed that a written response would be sent to Councillor Lynch and copied to all Members. Councillor R Ramage asked when the Motts Lane foot/cycle bridge, Witham would be provided and it was stated that work should start on site in January 2011.
DECISION: That the expenditure of Growth Area funding be agreed, in principle, as follows:
- £120,000 additional funding for the Freeport foot/cycle bridge, Braintree
- a contribution to the Motts Lane foot/cycle bridge, Witham
Audit Committee – 9th September 2010
Minute 28 – Treasury Management Mid-Year Report 2010/11
Councillor G Cohen, Chairman of the Audit Committee, presented the Recommendation of the Committee, subject to the word ‘conjunction’ in the third paragraph of the decision being amended to ‘consultation’.
DECISION:
(1) That the Mid-Year Treasury Management Report 2010/11 be noted.
28
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
(2) That the Council’s minimum long-term credit rating criteria applied to banks/ building societies used for investment purposes be revised to at least A+ (from AA-) and that a lowest common denominator approach be applied where ratings are provided by all three leading credit rating agencies (Fitch, Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s).
(3) That the Corporate Director for Finance, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources and, where appropriate, the Council’s Monitoring Officer be authorised to take whatever action is necessary in order to protect and maximise the recovery of the Council’s investments at risk with the Icelandic Banks.
Witham Local Committee – 14th September 2010
Minute 25 – Draft Core Strategy
The Recommendation of Witham Local Committee was dealt with under Item 7 - Core Strategy (Minute 34 refers)
Licensing Committee – 15th September 2010
Minute 18 – Statement of Licensing Policy
Councillor M J Banthorpe, Chairman of the Licensing Committee, presented the Recommendation of the Committee.
In discussing this item, Councillor J McKee referred to an application for a premises licence in respect of The Vault, 2-4 Great Square, Braintree which had been granted following a recent Licensing Hearing, despite objections being submitted by Councillors and local residents. Councillor McKee referred to problems of anti-social behaviour and, as there were a number of late night premises operating in the same area, he questioned whether the Licensing Committee would consider adopting a cumulative impact policy.
In response, Councillor Banthorpe stated that the Licensing Committee had considered this issue and had acknowledged that a concentration of licensed premises in a particular area could result in anti-social behaviour etc and that the amenity of local residents could be placed under severe pressure, but that this may not be attributable to any individual premises. Councillor Banthorpe indicated that having regard to the evidence currently available, the Committee had concluded that there was no particular part of the District which was causing a cumulative impact on any of the licensing objectives. However, residents, businesses, or a responsible authority could require the licensing authority to consider whether any additional licences or substantial variations to existing licences would lead to an unacceptable saturation in an area with the onus being on the objector to provide evidence that a cumulative impact would occur.
DECISION: That the Statement of Licensing Policy, as amended, be adopted.
29
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
36 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS (PUBLIC SESSION)
Statement by Councillor J E Abbott
Councillor Abbott made a statement about how the Council consulted with local communities and how their views were taken into account, particularly with respect to the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and the proposed growth location in Rivenhall Parish, and regarding community halls.
Councillor Abbott stated that when consulting with local communities the Council should consider the responses submitted and not ignore these. Councillor Abbott referred to the numerous objections which had been submitted following consultation on the Local Development Framework regarding the proposed growth locations at Forest Road, Rivenhall and Lodge Farm, Witham and to the results of surveys of local people which illustrated the opposition to these proposals. Councillor Abbott stated that residents were important and he felt that those living in Rivenhall and Witham had been ignored.
Response by Councillor G Butland, Leader of the Council
Councillor Butland stated that the Council had a good consultation process in place and mechanisms by which people could make their views known. In particular, the representations submitted with respect to the Local Development Framework had been made available for Members of the Local Development Framework Panel to read. However, Councillor Butland indicated that it was not always possible to agree with the responses received and that decisions had to be made which would benefit the District as a whole rather than appeasing local areas.
37 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS (PUBLIC SESSION)
(i) Reports from the Leader and Cabinet Members
INFORMATION: Consideration was given to the written reports of the Leader and Cabinet Members.
Councillor Butland, Leader of the Council
The following questions were asked in response to Councillor Butland’s report:-
With regard to the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), Councillor Dr Evans asked what savings had been achieved following the decision to stop funding projects BRA 6 ‘Creative Communities’, BRA 18’ Village Agents’ and BRA 20 ‘Homelessness Prevention’? In response, Councillor Butland stated that decisions had been required about the priority of future funding arrangements due to a reduction in Performance Reward Grant. Councillor Butland indicated that projects BRA 6 and BRA 20 had come to a natural end and that BRA 18 would continue although without support from the Braintree District LSP. Councillor Butland stated that he would provide all Members with details of the savings which had been achieved. 30
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Councillor Gyford referred to the revision to the Council’s Corporate Objectives and Performance Targets 2010/11 and he asked if March 2011 was still the anticipated commencement date for the construction of Witham Leisure Centre? In response, Councillor Butland stated that the date had been revised due to the need to resolve some issues, but that the Council was committed to the scheme and it was hoped that the start date would not be delayed too long.
Regarding the proposed Local Enterprise Partnership between Essex and Kent, Councillor M Gage asked why the Partnership was being created with Kent and where meetings of the Partnership would take place? In reply, Councillor Butland stated that Essex and Kent had much in common and that the proposed Partnership, which was supported by businesses, would have significant power. It was anticipated that there would be a sub-structure within the Partnership to deal with more local issues.
Councillor Lager, Efficiency and Resources
The following question was asked in response to Councillor Lager’s report:-
With reference to Asset Management, Councillor Dr Evans asked what share the potential occupier of Mayland House, Witham had agreed to contribute towards the running costs? In response, Councillor Lager stated that negotiations were currently taking place, but that this was commercially sensitive.
Councillor Lady Newton, Housing and Well-Being
No questions were asked in response to Councillor Lady Newton’s report.
Councillor Mrs Schmitt, Clean, Green and Safe
The following question was asked in response to Councillor Mrs Schmitt’s report:-
Councillor Dr Evans asked if Forest Road Community Hall, Witham had been closed? In response, Councillor Mrs Schmitt indicated that the Hall had not closed yet, but that the only user of the Hall had agreed to use Witham Public Hall instead.
In considering this item, Councillor M Gage was pleased to report that Halstead had been awarded the Gold Award and Best Town in Anglia in Bloom and Silver Gilt in Britain in Bloom.
Councillor Walters, Environment and Sustainability
No questions were asked in response to Councillor Walters’ report.
Councillor Harley, Enterprise and Culture
The following questions were asked in response to Councillor Harley’s report:- 31
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Councillors Abbott and Ms Flint asked why Ward Members had not been advised about the meeting held on 13th September 2010 between the Council and representatives of the Highways Agency and Essex County Council regarding the A120? Councillor Lady Newton asked if any consideration had been given to declassifying the A120 so that it would become Essex County Council’s responsibility? In addition, Councillor E Lynch asked when the proposed slip ways at Galleys Corner would be provided? In response, Councillor Harley apologised for not advising Ward Members about the meeting, but he indicated that he was happy to share information about the matters discussed. Councillor Harley stated that declassification of the A120 had not been raised at the meeting. However, County Councillor Walters would be attending a site meeting and he could be asked to raise this point then. Councillor Harley reported that he did not know the timescale for improvements to Galleys Corner. However, the seriousness of the road’s deficiencies had been stressed and a further meeting would be taking place in six months’ time at which progress would be reviewed.
Councillor Mrs Beavis, Customers and Community Support
The following questions were asked in response to Councillor Mrs Beavis’ report:-
Councillor M Gage asked where the new Halstead Customer Service Point would be? In response, Councillor Mrs Beavis stated that it would be located in Halstead Library. In a supplementary question, Councillor M Gage asked if Halstead Town Council, as the owner of the building, had been consulted? Councillor Mrs Beavis indicated that there had been much consultation, particularly with Essex County Council which was the leaseholder. The new facility would open in November 2010. Councillor Shelton asked if there would be facilities at the new Service Point to enable Councillors to have interviews with people in their Wards. Councillor Mrs Beavis confirmed that there would be. Councillor Ramage asked why the Members’ Evening scheduled for 16th September 2010 had been cancelled particularly in view of the need to keep Councillors informed about a number of current issues. Councillor Mrs Beavis stated that the event had been cancelled due to lack of interest. It was hoped that a new date would be set later in the year.
(ii) Oral Questions Without Notice to the Leader on any Non-Operational Matter
INFORMATION: There were none.
(iii) Chairmen’s Statements
INFORMATION: No statements were made.
(iv) Minutes of Meetings (Public Session)
INFORMATION: Members were invited to raise any matters arising from meetings that had been held in Public Session since the Council meeting held on 28th June 2010. 32
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Cabinet – 13th September 2010
Councillor Abbott referred to Minute 25 – Update on Community Halls Review – Silver End Village Hall and he stated that the figures quoted in the first paragraph were incorrect. Councillor Abbott indicated also that the text of the Minute did not record the Cabinet Member stating that if the management of the Hall was not transferred it could close.
The Chairman stated that these points should be raised at the next Cabinet meeting in considering the accuracy of the Minutes.
Cabinet – 13th September 2010
Councillor E Lynch referred to Minute 31 -Office Accommodation and he asked if the proposed rest areas for Causeway House would be open plan?
Councillor Lynch was advised that this was an operational matter.
38 BUSINESS OF EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS
INFORMATION: There were no reports received from Council representatives on external organisations, or issues raised.
As there were no items in Private Session, the Chairman closed the meeting.
The meeting commenced at 7.15pm and closed at 10.00pm.
Councillor A F Shelton
(Chairman)
33
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
APPENDIX
COUNCIL MEETING
27TH SEPTEMBER 2010
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Summary of Questions Asked / Statements Made During Question Time
(1) Statements Relating to Agenda Item 6 – Silver End Village Hall - Petition
(i) Statement by Mrs D Phillips, Seedlings Pre-School Group, Silver End
Mrs Phillips stated that she was Chairperson of Seedlings Pre-School Group which used facilities at Silver End Village Hall. Whilst Mrs Phillips noted the revised hire fees agreed at the Cabinet meeting on 13th September 2011, she indicated that the cost to the Pre-School Group was still high and that the Group was having to consider its future. Mrs Phillips stated that the Village Hall was used by many people in the community and that it was an important facility.
(ii) Statement by Mrs P Gilligan (speaking on behalf of Silver End Parish Council) 37 Runnacles Street, Silver End
Mrs Gilligan stated that she was speaking on behalf of Silver End Parish Council who were extremely concerned about the future of Silver End Village Hall. Whilst Mrs Gilligan welcomed the recent reduction in the increased hire charges, she stated that this would be a temporary measure and that it would not make the Hall more viable. Mrs Gilligan stated that Braintree District Council’s lack of investment in the Hall made it less attractive and, in view of the running costs, it was unlikely that anyone would want to take on responsibility for the management of this large Hall. Mrs Gilligan stated that the Village Hall had a historical attachment to the village and that it was well used by various groups and organisations and that the community could not afford to lose it. Mrs Gilligan asked the District Council to work with local groups and to ensure that the Hall was let at a rent which was affordable to the local community.
(2) Statements Relating to Agenda Item 7 – Core Strategy Submission Draft
(i) Statement by Councillor R Wright, Rivenhall Parish Council, 303 Rickstones Road, Rivenhall
Councillor Wright stated that he had spoken to Priti Patel MP about the proposed growth location at Forest Road, Rivenhall. Councillor Wright stated that Mr Brice, who was a landowner in the area, was an active member of Witham Conservative Association, but that so far no Councillors had declared an interest in knowing him. Councillor Wright referred to the considerable opposition, illustrated by representations and surveys of local people to the i
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
proposed growth locations at Rivenhall and Witham. This opposition had been supported by Witham Local Committee. Councillor Wright expressed concern that the Local Development Framework Panel had ignored local residents. Councillor Wright referred to the new era and the Coalition Government’s view that local residents should be listened to.
(ii) Statement by Mr J Getty, The Old Rectory, Rectory Lane, Rivenhall
Mr Getty referred to the proposed development off Forest Road and Rectory Lane, Rivenhall. Mr Getty stated that this development would be wholly in the Parish of Rivenhall and that it had been overwhelmingly rejected by residents of Rivenhall and Witham and by Rivenhall Parish Council and Witham Town Council. Mr Getty stated that development within the Rectory Triangle had consistently been rejected as eroding the green wedge between Rivenhall and Witham and that the proposed site formed part of that green wedge. Mr Getty indicated that the site had previously been opposed by the Local Development Framework Panel, but had been re-instated by the Council. Mr Getty rejected accusations of ‘nimbyism’ and that the objections submitted had been carbon copies. Mr Getty stated that affordable homes which would promote the health of the village were required. Mr Getty suggested that, pending new Government legislation, full consultation should take place with local people to ascertain what they wanted.
(iii) Statement by Mr M Austin, 46 Holly Walk, Witham
Mr Austin stated that the points which he had proposed to make had already been covered. Mr Austin expressed concern about trees that would be lost through development.
ii
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Alison Webb, Member Services, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Minutes
Council Meeting 6th December 2010
Present:
Councillors Present Councillors Present J E Abbott Yes M J Banthorpe Yes Miss L Barlow Apologies J Baugh Yes Mrs J C Beavis Yes D L Bebb Yes E Bishop Yes R J Bolton Apologies G Butland Yes G Cohen Yes J C Collar Yes M Dunn Yes Mrs E Edey Yes J G J Elliott Yes (from 8.30pm) R Elliston Yes Dr R L Evans Yes A V E Everard Apologies J H G Finbow Yes Ms L B Flint (Vice Chairman) Yes T J W Foster Yes M G Gage Yes Mrs B A Gage Apologies Mrs M E Galione Yes J E B Gyford Yes N R H O Harley Yes Mrs S A Howell Yes P J Hughes Yes D L Hume Yes M C M Lager Yes S J Lambourne No E R Lynch Yes M Lynch Yes D Mann Yes T McArdle Yes N G McCrea Yes J McKee Yes H Messenger Apologies A M Meyer Apologies R G S Mitchell Yes Mrs J M Money Yes Lady Newton Yes J O'Reilly-Cicconi Yes Mrs A Olumbori No Mrs J A Pell Yes R Ramage Yes D M Reid Yes D E A Rice Yes Mrs C Sandbrook Yes Mrs W D Scattergood Yes Mrs J W Schmitt Yes A F Shelton (Chairman) Yes Mrs L Shepherd Yes C Siddall Yes Mrs J A Smith Yes Mrs G A Spray Apologies F Swallow Yes Miss M Thorogood Yes S M Walsh Apologies R G Walters Yes T S Wilkinson Apologies
The Chairman welcomed all Councillors to the meeting and extended a warm welcome to any public and press present at the meeting, and those viewing on the webcast.
At the commencement of the meeting the Chairman was pleased to make a presentation to Peter Crofts, Corporate Director, who is retiring after 27 years with the Council. Mr Crofts had responsibility for infrastructure and economic growth in the District, led the Charter Mark Award received by Braintree District Council in 1993, and awarded three further times to the Council; and was influential to major development in the District at Freeport and Chapel Hill in Braintree, the Grove Centre in Witham; and on the former Courtaulds site in Halstead.
34
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, People and Democracy, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] Councillor Butland, Group Leader of the Conservative Party paid tribute to Peter and wished him a long and happy retirement. Reference was made to the extensive knowledge and professionalism of Peter, and the ability to seek solutions in difficult situations. Councillor Mann, on behalf of the Labour Group, extended best wishes for a happy retirement, and on the many years he had known Peter, and the challenging periods during the Grove Centre development and for the introduction of wheelie-bins. It was advised that Councillors had appreciated Peter’s knowledge, his sense of humour and wise counsel. Councillor M Gage, Group Leader of the Halstead Residents’ Association stated he had known Peter for many years as a professional officer, who had become a friend. Peter was a former resident of Halstead and he was wished a long and happy retirement. Councillor Abbott, Group Leader of the Green Party, advised he had also known Peter over a long period, especially during matters on planning and the sustainability agenda. Peter was wished well for the future. In response, Peter Crofts, thanked Councillors and colleagues for the presents and comments; and looked forward for spending more time with family and at football.
39. CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman referred to the following issues:-
Essex Summer of Art 2010 – On 27th October 2010 the Chairman attended the unveiling of the Essex Legacy Art Relay Baton, an accumulation of Essex artist’s work representing 14 Art Trails, created on a continuous 20 metre artwork scroll depicting the character of their locality. The Chairman considered the Braintree artist’s best portrayed their parts of the District, and it is hoped the Braintree section will be available to display in the future.
George Yard Community Carols – Members were advised of Community Carols in George Yard, Braintree at 2.00pm on 11th December 2010.
Long Service Awards – On 2nd December 2010, the Chairman was pleased to present Long Service Awards to staff. A total of 69 staff were eligible for an Award, and ranged between 10 years and 50 years service to the Council – that results in 1,270 years worth of skills, knowledge and experience.
Battle of Britain – 70th Anniversary – The Chairman had pleasure in joining members of RAFA on 20th November 2010 to commemorate the 70th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain. The area has active, successful local branches of the Association, especially for their welfare work.
Coggeshall Old People’s Welfare Association – The Chairman reported that he had represented the Council at the Association’s Christmas Lunch earlier on 6th December 2010, with approximately 80 older people in attendance. The strong community spirit of Coggeshall was referred to, and other engagements with Youth Clubs (that attracts 30 volunteers) holding their events in local churches – enabling use of the buildings for worship and activities.
Engagements of Chairman and Vice Chairman – The list of engagements attended by the Chairman and Vice Chairman between 27th September and 6th December 2010 was noted.
40. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
INFORMATION: The following interests were declared:-
35
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, People and Democracy, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
• Councillor Mrs J A Pell declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 – Report of the Task and Finish Group – Public Service Provision for Older People as a Trustee of Halstead Day Centre, who had been consulted on the report. • Councillor Butland declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 6 – Notice of Motion, Maternity Services in Braintree as he is Chairman of the Essex Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. • Councillor Lady Newton declared a personal interest in (i) Agenda Item 6 – Notice of Motion, Maternity Services in Braintree as a non- Executive Director of NHS Mid Essex, and (ii) Agenda Item 8(i) – Reference from Cabinet on Community Halls, Refurbishment of 19/21 Bocking End, Braintree as her husband is President of the Braintree and Bocking Community Association (BBCA) who are involved in the project. • Councillor Walters declared a personal interest as a Member of Essex County Council for the item in Private Session in relation to an urgent decision taken by the Chief Executive. • Councillor Baugh declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 8(i) – Reference from Cabinet on Community Halls, Refurbishment of 19/21 Bocking End, Braintree as he is a Member of the Essex Overview and Scrutiny Committee who had been involved with community halls, and he also has helped in the Youth Club situated on BBCA premises. • Councillor McArdle declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 8(i) – Reference from Cabinet on Community Halls, Refurbishment of 19/21 Bocking End, Braintree as the Council representative on the BBCA, and has been involved with activities at the Association. • Councillor Abbott declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 8(v) – Reference from the Local Development Framework Panel as he is Chairman of Rivenhall Parish Council who had made representations on the LDF. • Councillor Foster declared a personal interest as a customer of Barclays Bank, to which he made reference under Question Time (Agenda Item 10 (ii))
In accordance with the Code of Conduct all Members remained in the meeting for these items, unless stated otherwise, and took part in the debate and decision thereon.
41. MINUTES
DECISION: That the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 27th September 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. However, a Point of Order issue was raised by Councillor E R Lynch in relation to a question he wished to ask under Minutes of Meetings held in Public Session (Minute 37(iv) refers) at that meeting and the Cabinet minutes of 13th September 2010. At the Council meeting on 27th September 2010 his question had been ruled as an operational matter in accordance with the Council’s Constitution and therefore not for discussion. Councillor Lynch, considered that Agenda Item 10(iv) Matters from Public Meetings allows for the type of question he was attempting to ask; and requested that the Chairman makes a definitive ruling. Councillor Shelton, Chairman of the Council stated that only the accuracy of the minutes of Council on 27th September 2010 was currently being considered and that the outcome of this issue will be reported to the next Council meeting on 14th February 2011.
42. QUESTION TIME
36
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, People and Democracy, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
INFORMATION: There were three statements made, a summary of which is contained in the Appendix to these Minutes.
43. NOTICE OF MOTION Councillor E R Lynch moved the motion as stated in the Agenda for the Council to reject the proposal to stop overnight stays for maternity provision as contained in the NHS Mid Essex discussion paper, and this was seconded by Ms M Thorogood.
Councillor Butland moved an amended Motion that had been circulated to all Councillors and this was seconded by Councillor Lager.
Councillor Lynch accepted the amended Motion as it strengthened the case for maintaining maternity services in Braintree. Reference was made to the discussion paper and that consultation had been undertaken through Primary Care Trust (PCT) members – that only one Braintree Councillor could bring influence to. At present at the William Julien Courtauld hospital (WJC) parents are allowed to stay 24 hours following birth of their baby, whereas the new facility will require new mothers to go home within four hours of giving birth. Therefore, if a baby arrives at 10.00pm, mother and new born will be expected to go home at 2.00am, as the full service is only open 8.00am to 8.00pm. Councillor Lynch made reference to the previous shutdown of maternity services in 2004 at the WJC (as quoted by Mrs Walton in Question Time) and that a protest march took place, and residents and the local M.P was involved. The support of the press in 2004, and on this occasion was noted; and Councillor Lynch moved the amended motion again and requested it be submitted to the PCT, the Essex Health Authority and the local M.P’s. Other Councillors supported the motion and the need for 24 hour care, and urged further input by residents and Councillors at any consultation event.
A vote on the amended motion was taken and it was CARRIED; and on putting the substantive motion to the vote this was also CARRIED.
DECISION: That the following Motion be approved –
'This Council, while welcoming the maternity discussion paper rejects the proposal to stop any overnight stays at the new facility on the new site at the Old Day Hospital at this time.
It is delighted that the community midwifery service will be accessible in Braintree 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and those women in Braintree with straightforward pregnancies will be able to have their babies at home or in the Braintree birthing unit at any time, 24 hours a day.
The Council notes however that there is some concern locally about the proposal to instigate early discharge.
The Council accepts that some women will wish to return home at the earliest opportunity but it has concerns that for some new mothers this could be a potentially frightening experience, even after a straightforward birth.
The Council notes that there is no published evidence quoted in support of the proposed early discharge arrangement. It will also need to be convinced, as indeed will the health
37
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, People and Democracy, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] commissioners, that the community maternity services will be able to provide the high quality post-natal care and support that is required.
The Council is therefore unable to support, at this time, the specific proposal to withdraw the facility for overnight stays'.
44. REPORT OF TASK AND FINISH GROUP – PUBLIC SERVICE PROVISION FOR OLDER PEOPLE
Councillor R Ramage, Chairman of the Public Service Provision for Older People Task and Finish Group, presented the report on the Group’s findings. It had been recognised at their initial meeting in February 2010 that the Task and Finish Group had a vast topic area and decided to focus on elements that can make a difference. Meetings with key representatives had identified the community needs of older people and that support was required for them to stay active into old age, and the challenges involved. The over 65 year old category is expected to reach 42,700 by 2030 in the Braintree District. Reference was also made to various accesses to information routes, including that 62% of people over 65 years do not internet access. Further references to Decent Homes Standards, the provision of a handyman service, and for use of community transport were all noted. Councillor Ramage thanked colleagues on the Task and Finish Group and Council Officers for their support and commitment.
Councillor Gyford referred to the Age Concern Essex reference in the report, and specifically the provision of accessible toilet facilities to a good standard and security. This item had been omitted from the recommendations of the Group and an amendment was moved– that would be referred to Cabinet for consideration. Councillor Ramage agreed to this addition, and moved all recommendations. Councillor M G Gage highlighted the need for Councillors to be involved with Task and Finish Group work in the future, and praised the outcome of this Group.
DECISION:
(1) That Recommendation 2) of the Task and Finish Group be amended and referred to Cabinet
‘Ensure the needs of older people are considered into the planning and design of public places, for example ensuring there is adequate seating available in town centres, and equally toilet facilities should be easily accessible, of a good standard and secure’.
(2) That the report of the Public Service Provision for Older People Task and Finish Group be noted, including the amendment above, and be referred to Cabinet on 31st January 2011 for consideration
45. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFERENCES (PUBLIC SESSION)
Cabinet – 22nd November 2010
(i) Community Halls - Refurbishment of 19/21 Bocking End, Braintree Councillor Siddall, Deputy Cabinet Member for Clean, Green and Safe, presented the recommendation regarding refurbishment of the Council-owned property at 19/21 Bocking End, Braintree.
38
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, People and Democracy, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] It was clarified that a large room would be included in the refurbishment to accommodate activities for the BBCA, and that overall provision of space would be equivalent to their existing site. A query was raised as to why the BBCA present premises in Victoria Street, Braintree could not be rebuilt on site as it is accessible to users being adjacent to the bus station and located in the town centre. It was advised that this would compromise the town centre development behind the Town Hall in Braintree and impact on costs, whereas the Bocking End site fits the needs of the BBCA. It was noted that the report contains detail of this. DECISION: That the capital allocation of £450,000 be approved for the refurbishment of 19/21 Bocking End, Braintree in order that the Braintree and Bocking Community Association is relocated under the terms of their current lease.
(ii) Financial Procedure Rules Councillor Lager, Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources, referred to the revised Financial Procedure Rules and moved recommendation for their adoption, and for the Council’s Constitution to be amended. Councillor Gyford queried whether Item 2.3(a) in the report should quote a calendar date for the budget strategy being submitted to Cabinet – instead of ‘prior to the commencement of the annual budget cycle’. In answer, Councillor Lager did not consider this necessary. DECISION: 1. That the revised Financial Procedure Rules be adopted by Council for inclusion in the Council’s Constitution. 2. That the Monitoring Officer be authorised to make the necessary amendments to the Constitution.
(iii) Proposed Changes to the Petitions Scheme Councillor Butland, Leader of the Council, presented the revised process for dealing with petitions. Councillor Abbott raised issues regarding elected Members not being able to present or organise petitions; that any Member should have the ability to move a motion for action on the petition, and whether the changes would retrospectively effect the decision of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of 27th October 2010. Councillor Butland explained that the revised process relates to petitions brought forward by the public, and does not restrict Members in organising a petition or submitting a Notice of Motion, making a statement to the Council or submitting a Written Question. The proposing of a motion at Council by the Portfolio Holder will be voted upon and determined by all Councillors present. With regard to the Appeal Process received at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, this was determined by the rules applicable at that time. DECISION: 1. That the changes proposed by the Local Government Reform Sub-Group be incorporated into the Petitions Scheme. 2. That the Monitoring Officer be authorised to make the necessary amendments to the Constitution and Petitions Scheme.
39
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, People and Democracy, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] (iv) Decision Making Arrangements Councillor Butland referred to Mr Roll’s statement in Question Time, and advised that consultation on the Strong Leader/Elected Mayor model had appeared on the Council website, and in the local press. However, the Council did adhere to Government advice that widespread engagement was not required as there are Government proposals for change in the Localism Bill. Therefore, the Strong Leader model was proposed until the Bill is implemented. Councillor Gyford made an observation on what he saw as an overall weakening of the backbencher’s role and an ability to challenge the strong leadership that would result from proposals to reduce the number of Committees. Councillor Butland agreed accountability was important and believed this would be possible post- election and suggested a cross-party discussion be held to determine a process to hold the Cabinet to account. Two further comments were made by Members, regarding the opportunity for residents and local Councillors to raise concerns through a local forum that will be considered by Cabinet; and for all local press publications to be utilised in consultation processes to ensure full district and cross boundary contact. DECISION: 1. That the Strong Leader model be adopted. 2. That the implementation date is 8th May 2011. 3. For the avoidance of doubt, that the Leader elected under the current arrangements shall be the Leader for the purposes of the Strong Leader model until the Annual General Meeting on 26th May 2011. 4. That the Monitoring Officer be authorised to make the necessary amendments to the Constitution in order to implement the Strong Leader model.
Local Development Framework Panel – 1st December 2010
(v) (a) Planning Legislation - Impact on the Core Strategy Councillor McCrea, Chairman of the Local Development Framework Panel, presented the minute extract regarding the Council’s Core Strategy and compliance with the Regional Strategy in relation for gypsy and traveller accommodation. DECISION: That no changes be made to the Core Strategy Submission Draft despite the recent High Court decision that Regional Spatial Strategies have not been abolished.
(b) Addendum of Focused and Minor Changes to the Braintree District Core Strategy Submission Draft – Consultation October 2010 Councillor McCrea presented the minute extract. Councillor Abbott referred to key consultation processes and on localism, the Big Society and opportunity for views of the public. An example was stated of Silver End residents, local Parish Council and Ward Members who had requested reference for a museum in Silver End to be included in the draft submission, and it had not been re-instated. Councillor McCrea responded to this and further advised that the museum issue would be covered later in the process, in the Master Plan, together with a similar provision in Sible Hedingham.
40
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, People and Democracy, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] DECISION: That the comments submitted following public consultation on the Addendum of Focused and Minor Changes be noted and Officers authorised to submit the Core Strategy Submission Draft, plus the Focused and Minor Changes, to the Secretary of State. 46. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS (PUBLIC SESSION)
INFORMATION: No statements were made.
47 QUESTION TIME (PUBLIC SESSION)
(i) Reports from the Leader and Cabinet Members
INFORMATION: Consideration was given to the written reports of the Leader and Cabinet Members.
Councillor Butland, Leader of the Council
The Leader of the Council provided a detailed statement at the meeting. Reference was made to the Cabinet reports of 7th December 2010 and the Council’s task to find £1.5m savings through greater efficiencies and merged services. The grant settlement from Government had not been received and figures had been produced using current data. The challenges for the Council over the next four years and to grasp all opportunities – whilst making savings and protecting services – are to be explored. Councillor Butland had met with the Leader of Colchester Borough Council, Councillor Turrell with the proposal for a joint Chief Executive, between the two Councils and to explore the benefits and risks for a joint management structure also. It was emphasised there would be no merging of Councils and a report on the management options will be received at Cabinet on 31st January 2011. At Cabinet on 7th December 2010 it will be reported of a project being developed between Braintree District Council, Brentwood Borough Council and Essex County Council for a combined Regulatory Service, including environmental health functions and Trading Standards. This forms part of the Council’s proposals for shared services, changes to structures and promoting more partnerships with the public. The Leader also advised of a proposed Memorandum of Understanding between Braintree District Council, Brentwood Borough Council and Essex County Council for working together to achieve greater efficiencies.
On 11th November 2010 a meeting had been held between Leaders of County and Borough Councils in Essex, with Essex County Council members to promote a strong commitment collectively across the county for the changing and challenging times ahead in local authorities. An update to this will be provided at a Members Evening to take place in January 2011. Other information included an Essex County Council initiative on Healthy People – to be delivered at a local level; the impact of the Localism Bill on how planning issues are dealt with, and the role of Planning Committees, neighbourhoods and planning policy; and on social housing.
There were no questions to the Leader’s report.
Councillor Lady Newton, Housing and Well-Being
Councillor Lady Newton had no further additions to her report.
41
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, People and Democracy, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
With regard to Mill Lane Bowls Club in Witham, Councillor Dr Evans queried if it was only the management being transferred, not including the green. Councillor Lady Newton confirmed it was the entire facility.
Councillor Mrs Schmitt, Clean, Green and Safe
Councillor Mrs Schmitt extended her congratulations to Council staff who had worked hard to ensure the local town centres in the district remained open and accessible in the recent bad weather.
Councillor Dr Evans expressed his congratulations on the success of the Green Heart initiative, and the imposition of fines through Environmental Enforcement. A query was raised regarding the project under Community Development for Witham Public Hall. This was clarified as being for decorating of the hall.
Councillor E R Lynch referred to ‘Speedwatch’ initiatives, and advised that from 1st April 2011 a charge of £200 per year is to be introduced for the groups/residents running their local ‘Speedwatch’. He believed that the Council should oppose this charge. Councillor Mrs Schmitt stated that the Police are to meet every Group in January 2011, and advised waiting until this time.
Councillor Mrs Galione reported that her local Parish had not received their Spring bulbs, and queried if planting would need to be delayed until the Autumn. It was clarified that bulbs can still be planted during January and February.
Councillor Walters, Environment and Sustainability
Councillor Walters also paid tribute to Council staff – refuse staff – who had worked hard during the inclement weather.
Councillor Dr Evans referred to the Solar Energy reference in the report, and a 20 acre solar pv panel array at Big Deere Lodge Field, Church Street, Belchamp St Paul; and continued to question the estimated output of the facility. Councillor Walters advised he would provide a written reply to all Councillors.
Councillor E R Lynch queried the role of the Highways Authority and their policy for gritting of bus routes during cold weather and why Beckers Green Road in Braintree had been omitted. It was agreed that Councillor Lynch would contact Councillor Walters by email, as the issue was an ECC matter.
Councillor Harley, Enterprise and Culture
Councillor Harley had no further additions to his report.
Councillor Mrs Pell made reference to the Three Towns Development and requested that local Ward Members are advised of the new owners of land east of the High Street, Halstead before any announcement is made. Councillor M Gage also supported this request and stated that confidentiality will be maintained. Councillor Harley noted the requests.
Councillor Abbott considered the report on the Braintree Loop as disappointing, and urged Members and Officers to continue pressure. Councillor Harley also expressed his disappointment to the news that initial findings of
42
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, People and Democracy, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] the study had reported that while it is feasible, it could only accommodate trains operating out of the rush hour, due to scheduling complications at the main line at Witham. However, a meeting with Network Rail is planned and the Council will continue to maintain pressure.
Councillor Mrs Beavis, Customers and Community Support
Councillor Mrs Beavis had no further additions to her report, and there were no questions raised.
Councillor Lager, Efficiency and Resources
Councillor Lager had no further additions to his report.
Councillor Dr Evans referred to the last Council meeting, and the encouraging news that Mayland House in Witham may have a prospective buyer, and continued to request an update on the current position. In response, Councillor Lager stated that negotiations are continuing, and will be brought to a conclusion. However, it was reported that the Council had removed the furniture from Mayland House, with a result of costs decreasing from £30,000 to £21,000 per month.
(ii) Oral Questions
INFORMATION: Members were invited to ask any questions of the Leader on non- operational matters and the following questions were asked: -
Councillor Foster reported that Barclays Bank is proposing to close their branch in Kelvedon that serves residents and businesses in the Kelvedon, Feering and Coggeshall areas. This would result with people having to travel to Witham or Tiptree to transact their business. In response, Councillor Butland agreed this is unfortunate for local people, and that many large organisations are leaving rural areas. He agreed to write with Councillor Foster to Barclays Bank advising of the disquiet shared as a Council, the local views, and to query other arrangements or ways of banking can be transacted in Kelvedon and include how older people without transport can reach another bank.
(iii) Chairmen’s Statements
INFORMATION: No statements were made.
(iv) Meetings in Public Session
INFORMATION: Members were invited to raise any matters arising from meetings that had been held in public session since the last Council meeting on 27th September 2010.
Councillor Hughes referred to the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 27th October 2010, and Minute 39 – Petitions Process, Appeal, Silver End Village Hall, Councillors Abbott and Hughes. The decision stated that a scrutiny review would be instigated and it was questioned when this would take place. Councillor M G Gage, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, advised he would respond on this issue over the next few days.
48. BUSINESS OF EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS
43
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, People and Democracy, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
INFORMATION: There were no reports received from Council representatives on external organisations.
At the close of Public Session the Chairman, on behalf of the Council, wished everyone a Happy Christmas and prosperous New Year.
********************************* Exclusion of Public and Press: -
That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Act.
Although the following items were taken in Private Session the Minutes do not contain any confidential information and are therefore admissible in the public domain.
PRIVATE SESSION
49. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS - PRIVATE SESSION
INFORMATION: No statements were made.
50. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS - PRIVATE SESSION
(i) Reports from the Leader and Cabinet Members
INFORMATION: There were no further reports.
(ii) Oral Questions
INFORMATION: No questions were asked.
(iii) Chairmen’s Statements
INFORMATION: No statements were made.
(iv) Minutes of Meetings (Private Session)
INFORMATION: Members were invited to raise any matters arising from meetings that had been held in private session since the last Council meeting on 27th September 2010. No issues were raised.
51. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFERENCES (PRIVATE SESSION) & URGENT DECISION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE Local Development Framework Panel – 1st December 2010
Proposed Purchase of Land
Consideration was given to the minute extract advising that ownership of a property on a busy road junction in Braintree would facilitate a Highways improvement scheme to improve traffic flows and junction access. The opportunity for the Council to purchase the property would allow for the highway to be 44
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, People and Democracy, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected] widened allowing HGV movements, two way traffic, and removal of traffic lights.
Urgent Decision by the Chief Executive
The Leader of the Council presented details of an Urgent Decision taken by the Chief Executive in accordance with Part 3, Section 5, Paragraph 10 of the Council’s Constitution, in relation to a proposed traffic scheme in Braintree.
DECISION:
1. That Growth Area Funding be used for the purchase, demolition and associated costs of a property in Braintree.
2. That the Urgent Decision made by the Chief Executive on 1st December 2010 be noted
The meeting commenced at 7.15pm and closed at 9.40pm.
Councillor A F Shelton (Chairman)
45
For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, People and Democracy, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
APPENDIX
COUNCIL MEETING
6TH DECEMBER 2010
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Summary of Questions Asked / Statements Made During Public Question Time
1. Statement by Mrs Juliet Walton, 51 Constable Way, Black Notley Agenda Item 6 – Maternity Service in Braintree
Mrs Walton referred to her previous involvement on maternity services in Braintree in 2004, and the campaign at the William Julien Courtauld (WJC) hospital that resulted with WJC reopening 24 hours per day. Reference was made to certain maternity cases at that time – a baby being born in the car park, and a mother in labour having to travel to St Peter’s hospital in Maldon. It was considered that similar cases could happen again if 24 hours maternity provision is not maintained in Braintree and Members were requested to support the Motion on maternity services, and ensure 24 hour care.
2. Statement by Mrs Glenda Dixey, representing Park Pre-School, Halstead Regarding the proposed closure of Halstead Senior Citizens’ Centre, New Street, Halstead
Mrs Dixey reported that Park Pre-School has regular attendance by 85 children, with 12 staff members, and is an unofficial co-operative with a good reputation; holds a waiting list for children; is Ofsted approved, and serves the local community. It is understood that the building is near its end of life, but the Park Pre-School has been a good tenant for 35 years maintaining the premises inside and out, and have nowhere else in Halstead to use. Mrs Dixey requested that Park Pre-School be allowed to remain open until the end of July 2012 – instead of the proposed date of 31st March 2012 – to allow for the summer term of the academic year to be completed. Councillor Butland, the Leader of the Council, stated that the request to enable the Pre-School to complete their full school year can be supported. A report is to be produced on the new community facility in Halstead and the usage of the proposed facility and availability of community groups to manage it, could be beneficial to this issue.
3. Statement by Mr Vernon Rolls, 8 Croft Close, Braintree Agenda Item 8(ii) Financial Procedure Rules and Item 8(iv) Decision Making Arrangements Mr Rolls advised that he was speaking from a personal viewpoint, and not on behalf of the BBCA.
Firstly, Mr Rolls spoke on the Financial Rules and Responsibilities report and the role of the Audit Committee being a main issue in the document. Further in the report the differing functions of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Audit Committee are set out, and Mr Rolls continued to refer to the cost savings
(i) For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, People and Democracy, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
proposed by the Council, including the merging of these two Committees and, in his opinion that the independence of a separate Overview and Scrutiny Committee should be maintained to allow the activities of a reduced Council to be scrutinised. It was presumed that the proposals would be subject to proper public consultation.
Secondly, Mr Rolls referred to the proposal for a ‘Strong Leader’ model, as opposed to an elected Mayor for Braintree, under the Decision Making reference from Cabinet. The consultation quoted in the report, states only one response and that ‘no valid representations were received’. Mr Rolls reported that through his regular use of the Council website, and the Council page in local press there was no recollection of this issue being out for consultation. This was considered to emphasise the extent to which consultation of the public as being inadequate. Therefore, it was questioned whether it ever occurred to the Council that, at least, one person in Braintree and perhaps many others may prefer an elected Mayor. However, the Council ‘assumed’ that the public did not wish to be involved – that Mr Rolls considered being unlikely. In conclusion, Mr Rolls stated that as, for example the Victoria Street development is soon to receive public consultation – that the Council seriously reviews its procedures for consultation to ensure there is genuine involvement of the public.
(ii) For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Member Services, People and Democracy, on 01376 551414 or e-mail [email protected]
Minutes
Cabinet
26th March 2007
Present:
Cabinet Members Portfolio Present Councillor G Butland Leader Yes Councillor M G Gage Environment Yes Councillor N R H O Harley Economic Development and Transportation Yes Councillor M C M Lager Finance and Assets Yes Councillor Mrs W D Scattergood Planning and Rural Issues Yes Councillor Mrs J W Schmitt Public Protection and Healthy Living Yes Councillor S M Walsh Housing and Customer Services Yes Councillor R G Walters Efficiency and Performance Yes from 7.47pm
Lead Members Portfolio Present Councillor Mrs J C Beavis Customer Services Yes Councillor Lady Newton Health and Children and Young People Yes Councillor T S Wilkinson Management of Change Yes
Councillors J E B Gyford and R A G Tincknell were also in attendance at the meeting and Councillor E Lynch and Tony French were present in the audience.
Ian Davidson, PKF [the Council's external auditors] was welcomed to the meeting.
At the start of the meeting the Chairman announced that he would be taking the item concerning the business case for the Discovery Centre and Great Notley Country Park as the first item, to allow Councillor Gage to leave the meeting for another appointment. However, the items below are recorded in the order they appear on the agenda.
91 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no interests declared.
92 MINUTES
DECISION: That the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 5th February 2007 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Leader.
46 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Melanie Phillips, Democratic Services, on 01376 552525 or email [email protected]
93 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - There were no questions asked or statements made.
94 QUARTERLY PEFORMANCE REPORT
The Cabinet received a copy of the Quarterly Performance Report for the period October to December 2006.
In the absence of Councillor Walters, Sara Moutard, Head of Policy, took Members through the report. She referred the Cabinet to a number of highlights within the report including the increase in the number of transactions undertaken on the Council's website, graffiti removal, housing repairs and the decreasing number of missed bins. The Cabinet was also advised of those areas in need of improvement and Members were referred to the remedial action being taken, which was set out in the report. It was reported that the analysis of the estimated outturn for 2006/07 indicates that, at year end, approximately 68% of the best value performance indicators will be above the median for district councils nationally which is an improvement of 14% on 2005/06. Sara Moutard reported that a robust exercise for setting targets for 2007/08 is taking place and these targets will be measured against the national quartile positions and we will be aiming for second or top quartile.
On discussing the report, Councillor Lager updated Members on the latest position with regard to the assessment of benefit claims and payment of council tax, showing a significant improvement. In answer to a Member's question, the Cabinet was advised that front line staff are trained to deal with issues surrounding debt and the links are in place for referrals for help, these being longstanding links which have been in place for a number of years.
The Leader reported that he, together with fellow Councillors Lager and Walters, who form the Business Efficiency Review Member Panel, would be looking at those areas where the Best Value Performance Indicators [BVPIs] need a bit of push, in conjunction with the Heads of Service and the relevant Cabinet Member.
DECISION:- That the Quarterly Performance Report for the period October to December 2006 be received and noted.
95 CORPORATE ACTION PLAN
The Cabinet received a report summarising the key corporate documents which will be produced in 2007/08 as a further development of the Corporate Action, Improvement and Performance Plan 2006/07. It also set out some of the projects and initiatives which will be delivered in the community during 2007/08 and which will be included in the Corporate Action Plan 2007/08.
On discussing the report, reference was made to the number of initiatives highlighted in the report which were to take place in the Witham area which has often been seen by some Witham Members as 'not getting a fair look in'.
47 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Melanie Phillips, Democratic Services, on 01376 552525 or email [email protected]
DECISION:- (1) That the projects and initiatives which are to be delivered during 2007/08 and included in the Corporate Action Plan 2007/08 be noted; (2) That the Leader of the Council be given delegated authority to approve the final document; (3) That the final document be communicated to all members, partners, stakeholders and the public when complete.
96 AUDIT MANAGEMENT LETTER/DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
The Cabinet welcomed Ian Davidson, PKF to the meeting. Ian summarised the findings of the Audit Management Letter which had only been finalised earlier in the day and a copy of which had not yet been made available to Members.
It was noted that the Letter is in two parts, the first part being the Direction of Travel which is an unscored judgement comparing where we are now to where we were last year, together with where progress has been made and where it is a little slower. The second part of the Letter is a scored judgement on the use of resources.
The conclusion was that there were good quality officers in terms of delivery and vision and the Council had secured some very good improvements. The Council was introducing some wider mechanisms in term of finance, performance and partnerships and it now needs to ensure consistency in the delivery of high quality performance, which the Council has in parts but not in whole.
The Chief Executive advised that the report needed to be published by 31st March 2007 and a copy would be made available on the website.
The Leader conveyed his thanks to all officers for their hard work which had resulted in this very positive report and asked that the Chief Executive extends these thanks to all staff. Ian Davidson also praised the honesty of staff and Members which had assisted him enormously in putting together the report.
DECISION: That the summary of the Audit Management Letter and Direction of Travel be received and noted and that a full copy of the report be made available to all Members
ACTION POINTS- (1) That the Finance Director makes the necessary arrangements to make the Audit Management Letter/Direction of Travel available to all Members. (2) That the Chief Executive passes on the Leader's thanks to all staff for their hard work which had resulted in the positive outcomes set out in the Audit Management Letter.
48 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Melanie Phillips, Democratic Services, on 01376 552525 or email [email protected]
97 REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCRUTINY PANEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS SINCE 2003
The Chair of the Scrutiny Panel referred the Cabinet to an extract of the minutes of the Panel's last meeting and the recommendations on the 'review of the Scrutiny Panel's recommendations since 2003'. He conveyed the Scrutiny Panel's thanks to all Cabinet Members and to officers who had responded to requests for information, without which the Panel would not have been in a position to make a judgement. The Panel's full report on this issue was sent to all Cabinet Members prior to the meeting.
DECISION: (1) That the report be received and noted; (2) That, for all subsequent Scrutiny Panel recommendations, the relevant Cabinet Member[s] should submit to the Panel a progress report on the implementation within nine months of the Cabinet accepting the Panel's recommendations. Subsequent progress reports are to be submitted to the Panel upon request pending full implementation of the recommendations.
98 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM CABINET SUB GROUP.
The Cabinet received the minutes of the meeting of the Local Government Reform Cabinet Sub Group of 12th March 2007. Discussions had taken place at this meeting on a proposed review of the overview and scrutiny functions and the Leader summarised these proposals together with the Group's findings. He advised that the Group had also considered the draft Member Induction Programme, Public Question Time, Council procedure rules and the Employment Appeals Committee. Details of the proposals and Group's discussions were set out in the report.
In response to points raised during discussion on this report, it was acknowledged that the management of the 'task and finish' groups would be of prime importance to ensure that the structure, cohesion and drive is led by the Chairs of the groups. It is therefore important to ensure that Members with particular skills and interests are self selected onto the groups and that the reporting arrangements and relationship with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is managed effectively. It was hoped that a degree of innovative practice would be seen coming from this structure with Members being equipped to do some of the work themselves using their own initiative whilst recognising that the process will need to be reviewed. The first year would be used as a 'pilot'.
DECISION:- (1) That the minutes of the meeting of the Local Government Reform Cabinet Sub Group held on 12th March 2007 be received and noted. (2) That a Member Seminar be held on Saturday 12th May at Causeway House for all new and existing Councillors with invites also going to Members of PACT; (3) That the Member Services Manager, in consultation with the Leader and the Chief Executive, puts together a programme of events in line with the views expressed by Members having considered the draft programme as set out in the report;
49 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Melanie Phillips, Democratic Services, on 01376 552525 or email [email protected]
(4) That a welcome letter to all newly appointed Councillors, setting out details of the Induction Programme, be handed out immediately after the results have been declared on 4th May 2007; (5) That Members of the Local Government Reform Cabinet Sub Group oversee the work surrounding the implementation of the Member Development Charter. (6) That it be Recommended to Council
(a) That the revised Overview and Scrutiny process, as set out in the report, be approved; (b) That the revised order of Council business be endorsed and the Democratic Services Manager be authorised to make any consequential changes to paragraph 10 of the Council procedure rules in part 4 of the Constitution; (c) That the terms of reference of the Employment Appeals Committee, as set out in part 3 of the Constitution, be amended to incorporate the change set out in the report; (d) That the rules for public question time at full Council meetings be amended to reflect the rules that apply to all other public meetings of the Council; (e) That paragraph 9 of the Council Procedure Rules in part 4 of the Constitution be amended to reflect those changes highlighted in the report.
Action Point:- That the Democratic Services Manager ensures that the above recommendations are placed on the agenda for the next meeting of Council scheduled for 16th April 2007.
99 WEB CASTING
The Cabinet considered a report on the different opportunities which have been considered in terms of how to make the best use of technology for the customer and the organisation. It was considered that web casting gives an opportunity to deliver some of the key issues currently facing the Council, including social inclusion, community cohesion and the opportunity to make the decision making process accessible to a large part of the population. This report highlighted some of these issues and proposed a year long project to implement and exploit the use of web casting to assist in delivery.
Members were advised that the first event to be broadcast would be the forthcoming election and during discussion on the report Members considered it to be an exciting project although it was acknowledged that the level of public interest was unknown but the demand and take up on the Council's website will be monitored. There would be opportunities for voluntary groups to showcase their services and enable the Council to be imaginative when debating issues of public interest.
DECISION: That the bid for a year long project for web casting, using the hybrid solution as outlined in the report and broadcasting 5 hours footage per month, be approved.
50 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Melanie Phillips, Democratic Services, on 01376 552525 or email [email protected]
100 GENDER EQUALITY SCHEME
The Cabinet considered a report which advised that the gender equality duty comes into force in April 2007 and is the biggest change to sex equality legislation in thirty years since the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act. The duty has been introduced to provide a tool to change the way in which public sector organisations think about the way they work and the way that public services are designed and delivered.
On discussing the report it was acknowledged that the Council meets the majority of the requirements and has done so for many years.
DECISION: That the Gender Equality Scheme be approved.
101 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK - CORE STRATEGY
The Cabinet received a report on the Issues and Options Document, an important stage in the preparation of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and the Review of the Community Strategy. The report set out a series of options and issues for the area for consultation and it was noted that the responses to the consultation will be used to inform the preparation of a Preferred Options Document.
On discussing the report, it was confirmed that the Local Development Framework consultation, whilst dealing with the Core Strategy, would also deal with the consultation on the review of the Community Strategy, although it remained to be seen from the responses where some issues might correctly fall, but the aim was to be as inclusive as possible to ensure that community and social issues will be picked up and taken forward as part of the review. Members felt that the timetable, as set out in the legislation, was too rigid and it was reported that an extension to the 6 week consultation had been sought but not granted.
DECISION:- That the Braintree District 2025 Issues and Options Document be approved for public consultation
102 APPROVAL FOR NEW ALLOCATIONS POLICY FOR HOUSING IN THE BRAINTREE DISTRICT
The Cabinet was reminded that a draft allocations policy was published in December 2006, which set out how the Council intends to change the allocations policy in preparation for a change to Choice Based Lettings.
The report summarised the extensive consultation undertaken and detailed the issues raised. The report also set out the timetable for the implementation of the new policy and considered the financial and risk issues associated with it.
51 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Melanie Phillips, Democratic Services, on 01376 552525 or email [email protected]
DECISION:- (1) That the recommended modifications to the draft policy be approved and that authority be delegated to officers, to publish the new policy in a form that is clear and straightforward for people to access and implement the necessary changes to the IT systems and the application process, as detailed in the report. (2) That authority be delegated to officers, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, to make any further minor changes to the policy as necessary, when working through the draft.
103 BUSINESS CASE FOR THE PARTNERSHIP WITH ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL - DISCOVERY CENTRE & GREAT NOTLEY PARK.
The Cabinet received a report on the proposals for Braintree District Council and Essex County Council to work together in creating a unique and exciting opportunity for the development of the Discovery Centre and Country Park at Great Notley to create:-
A ‘flagship’ country park A regional centre of environmental excellence The ‘public face’ of archaeology in Essex
Councillor Gage took Members through the report and referred to the shared vision for the future management and operation of the site which will secure its long-term future, whilst delivering significant benefits to our communities through the provision of facilities for education and recreation.
On discussing the report, Members were advised that young people would be consulted as part of the public consultation. It was also acknowledged that land ownership was not being transferred and that the project would be a partnership with a report on joint governance being brought to a future meeting of the Cabinet. Members also acknowledged the need for joint promotion of the project, particularly in the north of the district.
Councillor Gage paid tribute to the officers from both Essex County Council and Braintree District Council in bringing together this report.
DECISION: (1) That the Business Case be approved and the Discovery Centre and Great Notley Country Park be developed in accordance with the interim agreement set out in the report, with a view to agreeing a final position by mid- May 2007 following consultation with Braintree District residents. (2) That a contribution of the current annualised revenue cost of the service based on the projected spend for 2007/2008 (estimate £60,000), and a re-alignment of the base budget and apportioned expenses, which can be met from within existing funds, be approved. (3) That a report on joint governance be submitted to a future meeting of Cabinet.
ACTION POINT:- That the Head of Street Scene makes the necessary arrangements for a report on joint governance in relation to the partnership with Essex County Council with regard to the Discovery Centre and Great Notley Park, to be submitted to a future meeting of Cabinet.
52 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Melanie Phillips, Democratic Services, on 01376 552525 or email [email protected]
104 REPORTS FROM CABINET MEMBERS ON ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE BROUGHT TO THE CABINET’S ATTENTION
The following issues were brought to the Cabinet's attention:-
(i) Sustainability Vision Statement.
The Leader referred to a decision by Council that the Cabinet be recommended to consider the Vision Statement and, in accordance with the Policy Development Group [PDG] protocol, to make a formal response to the PDG within 3 months having considered the report and recommendations of the PDG. A copy of the Sustainability Vision Statement was circulated to the Cabinet prior to the meeting.
DECISION:- That the Sustainability Vision Statement be placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the Cabinet scheduled for 4th June 2007.
Action Point:- That the Member Services Manager ensures that this item is placed on the agenda for the next meeting of Cabinet scheduled for 4th June 2007.
(ii) Housing Transfer
The Leader advised the Cabinet that the date for the housing transfer has been changed from 5th November to 12th November 2007 to ensure that there is no upset in the payment of benefits to tenants.
EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS
DECISION:- That under Section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) of the Act.
Whilst the following items of business were discussed in private session, the minutes do not contain any confidential information and are therefore admissible in the public domain.
53 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Melanie Phillips, Democratic Services, on 01376 552525 or email [email protected]
105 COMPENSATION POLICY FOR REDUNDANCY
The Cabinet received a report advising that on 8th November 2006, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued the Local Government (Early Termination of Employment)(Discretionary Compensation)(England and Wales) Regulations 2006, governing the compensation authorities can award to an employee whose contract ends on the grounds of redundancy or efficiency. The purpose of the Regulations is to ensure compliance with European Employment Directive and the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
The main provisions of the regulations are to remove the facility for employers to make an award of Compensatory Added Years (CAY) to an employee’s pensionable service and to increase the current maximum lump sum payment on redundancy from 66 weeks actual pay to 104 weeks actual pay.
A copy of the Council's Redundancy Compensation Scheme was appended to the report.
DECISION:- That, with effect from 1st April 2007, redundancy compensation payments be based on actual pay using 2.2 times the national calculator.
106 **PREMATURE RETIREMENT
The Cabinet received a report that set out details of a request for premature retirement, in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Premature Retirement Policy.
DECISION:- That the application for premature retirement, as set out in the report, approved.
At the close of the meeting the Leader, on behalf of the Cabinet, extended his good wishes to Rob Atkins at this his last meeting before his retirement. He went on to thank all the officers and Members, past and present, for their help over the years at this the last meeting of the Cabinet in the current civic year.
The meeting commenced at 7.15pm and closed at 9.28pm
G BUTLAND (Leader)
54 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Melanie Phillips, Democratic Services, on 01376 552525 or email [email protected]
Minutes
Cabinet
9th October 2008
Present:
Cabinet Members Portfolio Present Councillor G Butland Leader Yes Councillor N R H O Harley Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member Apologies for Enterprise, Culture & Leisure Councillor Mrs J C Beavis Customers & Communication Yes Councillor M C M Lager Efficiency & Resources Yes Councillor Mrs J W Schmitt Communities & Housing Yes Councillor R G Walters Environment and Sustainability Apologies
Deputy Cabinet Members Portfolio Present Councillor N G McCrea Leader’s Portfolio Yes Councillor T S Wilkinson Enterprise, Culture & Leisure Yes Councillor D L Bebb Customers & Communication Yes Councillor J McKee Efficiency & Resources Yes Councillor Mrs E Edey Communities & Housing Apologies Councillor R G S Mitchell Environment and Sustainability Yes
The following Councillors were also present as invitees of the Leader
Councillor J E Abbott, Leader of the Green Group Councillor Dr R L Evans, Leader of the Labour Group Councillor T J W Foster, Chairman of Witham Local Committee Councillor M G Gage, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee/Leader of Halstead Residents’ Association.
Councillors M J Banthorpe, A V E Everard, D L Hume, E R Lynch, D Mann, Lady Newton, Mrs C Sandbrook, A F Shelton and Mrs J A Smith were also in attendance.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R J Bolton, Chairman of Halstead Local Committee and S M Walsh, Chairman of Braintree Local Committee.
Councillor G Butland, the Leader of the Council, welcomed everyone to the Cabinet meeting being held in the Town Hall, Braintree to commemorate 80 years of democracy in the Town Hall, and to launch Local Democracy Week that commences 13th October 2008.
31 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]
73 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following Declarations of Interest were made
Councillor J E Abbott declared (i) a personal interest as a Rivenhall Parish Councillor in (a) Agenda Item 2(a) Local Development Framework Strategy Core Strategy & Sustainable Community Strategy, and (b) Agenda Item 4(a) the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Essex, and (ii) a personal and prejudicial interest as a Rivenhall Parish Councillor in Agenda Item 7(f) Local Committee Funding – Rivenhall Village Hall Acoustics as the Parish Council may be involved financially when the Village Hall is refurbished. Councillor Abbott left the meeting whilst this item was discussed and determined. Councillor M C M Lager declared a personal interest as a Member of Witham Town Council, in Agenda Item 7(g) Local Decisions – Allotment Provision in the Witham Area, as Witham Town Council are in negotiation with the allotment holders at Cut Throat Lane, Witham.
In accordance with the Code of Conduct all Members remained in the meeting for these items, unless stated otherwise, and took part in the debate and decision thereon.
74 QUESTION TIME
There was one statement made, a summary of which is attached as an Appendix to these Minutes.
75 COUNCIL INVESTMENTS
The Leader gave a position statement on assets of Braintree District Council invested with three Icelandic banks, which are now in receivership or administration. The total investment of £5m was made 18 months ago in accordance with government and professional financial guidance, and the Local Government Association (LGA) are in discussion with the Treasury on behalf of 70 Local Authorities that have a total of £870m deposited in Iceland. In respect of Braintree’s investment of £5m this represents 9% of the Council’s Investment Portfolio of £56m, that has been accrued over a period of time and includes owed debts at low interest rates, the collection of Council Tax contribution held for Essex County Council, the Police Authority and the Fire & Rescue Service that is paid to them on a monthly basis. The situation will impact on the Council’s Revenue Account that will lose approximately £236,000 interest from this investment. It was noted that the remaining £50m is invested with sound, reputable organisations. In response to a statement that the LGA needs to accentuate that constituents are also at risk, as they may be affected on a personal basis by the current financial crisis and also by funds the Council had invested for them, the Leader advised this point had already been made. Economic pressure is affecting most taxpayers, and will also impact on Councillors when ‘bridging the gap’ whilst setting Council Services and Council Tax budgets.
32 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]
76 MINUTES
DECISION: That the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 1st September 2008 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Leader.
77 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK CORE STRATEGY AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY STRATEGY
Councillor McCrea, Deputy to Leaders Portfolio and Chairman of the Local Development Framework Panel, presented the combined draft Community Strategy and Core Strategy for public consultation. The document entitled ‘One District – One Vision’ covers social and economic priorities for the District, strategic policies (mostly sustainable), and the requirement of 4,600 new dwellings. New growth locations are identified in northwest Braintree, southwest Witham and northeast Witham (with Rivenhall), and mixed-use sites at Silver End and Sible Hedingham. The consultation period on the combined Strategies runs between 31st October and 12th December 2008, followed by submission to government for examination and approval. The Council is to approve the Local Development Framework (LDF) element of the strategy, with the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) to approve the Sustainable Community Strategy elements.
During the discussion the following was noted - The glossary and definitions appendix was welcomed - A ‘user-friendly’ shorter version of the combined strategies will be available for the public - 300 proposed dwellings within Rivenhall were not justified, and local residents requested a green wedge to be left. Priorities should be given to brownfield sites in Witham - The Council is constrained by the present Regional Spatial Strategy when making these proposals - That new developments have appropriate infrastructure to support them - For officers to create one combined ‘Vision’ for the Braintree District (Page 22 of document) - Item 12 on Page 24 of document to read ‘To enable accessible and varied opportunities…’ (not ‘to provide’)
The Leader advised that the document remains open to public consultation, with opportunities for Parish Council’s and residents to comment.
DECISION: That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:-
That the draft Braintree District Sustainable Community and LDF Core Strategy (in relation to the Core Strategy and planning elements only) be approved for consultation.
78 MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY UPDATE
Councillor Lager, Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources, presented the Strategy update and the main areas to impact on the Council reviews and the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) including rising inflation, decline in income received from 33 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]
Council services, i.e. planning applications and local land charges searches, and the non performing economy. Efficiency Reviews will continue and ways to reduce costs, with significant decisions anticipated on leisure provision and community halls, whilst continuing a high standard of customer service.
Councillor Lager agreed to provide written answers to questions raised regarding - number of redundancies in Customer Services (Item 1.5 of report), and any redundancy payments reclaimable and amounts involved - amount of additional income for receiving and disposing of recyclable waste from Uttlesford District Council (Item 1.7) - the commencement date of the existing contract on energy costs (Item 2.2)
The Leader requested that the Chief Executive and Officers address ways the Council may assist people in difficult circumstances, i.e. repossession of homes, pensioners, and to work with other organisations, e.g. Citizens’ Advice Bureau and other voluntary organisations, to increase support available to people
DECISION:
(1) That the issues identified in the report that are expected to impact on the review of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy for 2009/10 to 2012/13 be received and noted.
(2) That a detailed analysis of post, current and future income trends is undertaken and a report is prepared on the predictions for the 2008/09 budget and the following three years.
(3) A comparison of the Council’s spend be undertaken, service-by-service, in comparison with other District Councils of a similar size and demographics.
(4) A schedule of current and proposed efficiency savings is prepared.
(5) That a schedule of the Service Level Agreements (SLA) with Greenfield’s and an assessment of the risk regarding the retention or not of the SLA’s and the implications for the next three years budgets, be drawn up.
(6) That each Cabinet Member reviews their priorities and non-priorities against the Corporate Strategy and brings forward options for savings to a budget value of £100,000 minimum.
(7) That the Chief Executive reviews the options for organisational efficiencies above the budget value of £100,000 (minimum).
(8) That a review of the Council’s capital spend and capital investment be undertaken, which sets out all the funding available to the Council and all the current and potential capital commitments. This to include the revenue consequences of the financial investments of the revenue/budgets.
(9) That the Chief Executive takes every opportunity to minimise ongoing revenue commitments without impacting significantly on the Council’s core services between 34 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]
now and the next Cabinet meeting. The Chief Executive will report to the next Cabinet meeting any interim action that has been taken as a short-term opportunity to maximise greater flexibility for the 2009/10 budget.
(10)That the Leader of the Council makes representation to the appropriate Secretary of State regarding the economic situation and the impact upon the Council’s funding to maintain much needed services for the residents of this District. Emphasising that the CSR07 Settlement is totally inadequate due to the economic changes and calls upon the government to reassess immediately the inadequate level of grant.
That all the above reports are presented to the December Cabinet with an overall assessment of the implications for the 2009/10 budgets and the following two years.
ACTION POINTS:
(1) That Councillor Lager & officers provide written responses to the questions stated above (2) That the Chief Executive and officers instigate initiatives to help people in difficulties due to the current financial climate (as stated above)
79 ADOPTION OF A JOINT MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR ESSEX
Councillor Mitchell, Deputy Cabinet Member for the Environment and Sustainability, presented the Strategy setting out the objectives, options and context for the future management of waste in the District and County for the period 2007-2032.
Councillor Abbott welcomed the opportunity to open debate the Strategy at Full Council on 20th October 2008 although, it was considered, that some parts of the ‘brief’ report was already out of date and some final decisions had been taken. Reference was made to incineration plants and low efficiency levels and serious health implications; and that the Rivenhall planning application was already lodged with Essex County Council. The view of neighbouring Colchester Borough Council and Chelmsford Borough Council to the Strategy was also noted. As Braintree District Council are aiming to achieve 50% recycling in 2009 it was considered that large, centralised sites are not required, or the financial risks involved to the Strategy and its’ inflexibility. Therefore, Councillor Abbott urged the Council not to sign the Strategy. Councillor Mitchell advised that the written questions from Councillor Abbott (published on the Council’s website) referred to these topics, and stated that incineration is not necessarily the final process and companies could be asked to consider alternative options.
Further discussion will take place on the Strategy at Council on 20th October 2008.
DECISION: That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:-
That the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Essex be adopted by Braintree District Council.
35 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]
80 DELEGATED DECISIONS
That the following delegated decision be noted Councillors Harley and Lager agreed the transfer of land and buildings at John Bramston Sports Centre from John Bramston School to Braintree District Council, and to renegotiate a joint use agreement.
81 CABINET MEMBERS’ UPDATES
There were no reports from Cabinet Members.
82 REFERENCE FROM COUNCIL MEETING 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 – REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES POLICY
Councillor Mrs Sandbrook, Chairman of the Fees and Charges Task and Finish Group, referred to her statement to Council on proposals in the report, and considered this a way forward for the Council to revise its’ fees and charges and how they are applied.
The Leader stated that as the recommendations of the report will impact on budget considerations the normal three-month response period will be wavered. The principles of the report are accepted and it was proposed that officers and Members, together with the Fees and Charges Task and Finish Group, take issues forward and identify the implications of the 700 charges of the Council, including simplification of the concessions process, and provide a report later in the municipal year.
DECISION:
(1) That the report of the Fees and Charges Task and Finish Group be accepted in principle
(2) That further work be undertaken by Members, officers, with involvement from the Task and Finish Group Members, on the implications and implementation of the options in the report, including potential costs, and recommendations made within the current municipal year.
83 REFERENCE FROM COUNCIL MEETING 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 – RURAL ISOLATION TASK AND FINISH GROUP
The Leader advised that the Chairman of the Rural Isolation Task and Finish Group, Councillor Mrs Spray, had been unable to attend and present the report. Therefore, it was requested that the item be deferred to the next Cabinet meeting on 1st December 2008.
DECISION: That the report from the Rural Isolation Task and Finish Group be received at the Cabinet meeting on 1st December 2008.
84 REFERENCE FROM CABINET 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 – RESOURCES IN THE COUNCIL’S ENFORCEMENT SECTIONS
Councillor Wilkinson, Deputy Cabinet Member for Enterprise, Culture and Leisure, 36 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]
presented the report on proposed additional resources in the Council’s enforcement sections (funded by the Housing and Planning Delivery Grant), as requested at the last Cabinet meeting (Minute 56 refers). A two-year temporary contract for a Planning and Environmental Health Enforcement Officer is already funded, and a further post is now proposed, enabling an increased proactive approach in the areas stated in the report.
The Leader considered that the paper did not address specific issues and requested officers to circulate to Cabinet attendees further written information on improved performance; measurable results and targets the funding of £25,000 will display; and the realistic and stretching outcomes expected from the post holder.
DECISION:
(1) That a written response be provided to Cabinet attendees on the issues raised by the Leader, as indicated above.
(2) Subject to the above response, authority be delegated to the Cabinet Member for Enterprise, Culture and Leisure, to agree the allocation of an element of the Housing and Planning Delivery Grant for the funding of a two-year Planning and Environmental Health Enforcement Officer post, shared between the Council’s District Development and Environment Directorates.
ACTION POINT:- That the Head of District Development provides further detail as requested in (1), and progress this issue as indicated in (2)
85 REFERENCE FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 – NEW SCRUTINY LEGISLATION (i) Local Petitions and Calls for Action – the Government Response (ii) Communities in Control: Real People, Real Power – Improving Local Accountability – Consultation report
Cabinet received an extract of the minutes from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on papers published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, as indicated above, and noted the deadline for responses was 10th October 2008.
Councillor M Gage, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, drew attention to the proposed accountability arrangements for each new Crime and Disorder Partnership (CDRP), as set out in the Policing Green Paper and for a new politician to be elected to the local CDRP to sit on the Police Authority in place of the current system, where the local Council appoint their own District Councillor representative. It was highlighted that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had proposed a motion against this proposal, but on being put to the vote the motion was declared lost.
Councillor Mrs Schmitt, Cabinet Member for Communities and Housing, advised that she is the Council’s current representative on the CDRP, and provides local accountability, takes views to and from the CDRP, and is available on a local basis to Councillors and constituents.
The Leader stated that these issues will be taken to the meeting of the Local Government Reform Cabinet Sub Group on 13th October 2008, and the Home Office 37 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]
advised of a delay in the consultation response.
DECISION: That the issues from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of 17th September 2008 be taken to the Local Government Reform Cabinet Sub Group on 13th October 2008, and a joint response made to the Home Office.
86 REFERENCE FROM WITHAM LOCAL COMMITTEE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 – LOCAL COMMITTEE FUNDING
Rivenhall Village Hall Acoustics. Cabinet received the extract from the minutes of Witham Local Committee for funding to solve the acoustics problems in Rivenhall Village Hall, following refurbishment of the Hall by the Council.
DECISION: That urgent funding up to £10,000 from this years budget be approved, to rectify the acoustics problems at Rivenhall Village Hall.
87 REFERENCE FROM WITHAM LOCAL COMMITTEE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 – LOCAL DECISIONS
Allotment Provision in the Witham Area. Councillor Foster, Chairman of Witham Local Committee, presented the extract from the minutes, and advised of the Cut Throat Lane, Witham bid for allotment improvements, from the 2009/10 central budgets. Other Witham Members supported the recommendation and stated there is a waiting list for allotments, and requested an early indication for priority in next year’s budgets to ensure the security fencing is installed at the earliest opportunity, to safeguard the site and crops on the allotments.
DECISION: That this issue will be considered when preparing the 2009/10 central budgets, but as with any other budget bid there can be no guarantee that it will be included.
88 CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT
The Chief Executive, Allan Reid, reported on three issues:- The Council had been successful in achieving Equalities Standards Level 3 The Comprehensive Performance Assessment should be available mid October to go in draft form to the Audit Commission A Health Improvement Manager for junior health is to be appointed and based at Causeway House. The joint funded post between the Primary Care Trust and Braintree District Council will provide a health co-ordinator for the District .
DECISION: That the verbal report be noted.
89 PERFORMANCE & EFFICIENCY PROGRAMME BOARD
Consideration was given to the minutes of the Performance & Efficiency Programme Board held on 24th September 2008.
DECISION: That the minutes of the meeting of the Performance & Efficiency 38 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]
Programme Board of 24th September 2008 be noted.
EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS
DECISION: That under Section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) of the Act.
************************************************************ Whilst the following item of business was discussed in private session, the minutes do not contain any confidential information and is therefore admissible in the public domain.
90 **RIVERSIDE DEVELOPMENT SITE, BRAINTREE
Cabinet received an urgent report regarding the Riverside Development site, Braintree under Rule 16 - Special Urgency, of Part 4 of the Constitution and following agreement with the Leader of the Council, the Chairman of the Council, and the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The reasons for urgency were given as:- - The seven-week period to the next Cabinet meeting on 1st December 2008 - The exchange of contracts and submission of a planning application by the recommended purchaser, and an application to the Housing Corporation for affordable housing funding by a Housing Association - The current market conditions also suggest that it would be prudent to delay in case market conditions deteriorate further - The financial ‘bigger picture’ at the Council at the moment is also an important consideration.
Councillor Lager, Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources, presented the report and advised on the tight timetable and the enhanced proportion of affordable housing at the site. The Head of Asset Management advised of two conditions with the recommended purchaser requiring planning permission to be obtained within six months from the exchange of contracts, and on provisions for the deal to progress in an orderly, efficient manner.
Members welcomed the increase in affordable housing, and requested that the Right of Access between Notley Road and the Railway Station is maintained throughout the process and in the future, and is part of the completion of sale. It was also requested that due diligence is taken to ensure completion of the build.
DECISION: That disposal of the redevelopment site at Riverside/St Johns Avenue, Braintree to the company quoted and the sum stated in the report, subject to the two conditions quoted above; or on such other terms and conditions as agreed by the Head of Asset Management and approved by the Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources, be approved.
The meeting commenced at 7.15pm and closed at 9.15pm
G BUTLAND (Leader) 39 Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]
APPENDIX
CABINET MEETING
9TH OCTOBER 2008
QUESTION TIME
Summary of Questions Asked / Statements Made During Question Time
1. David Webb, 54 Peel Crescent, Braintree Public Scrutiny of Council Decisions
Mr Webb referred to a ruling by the Deputy Information Commissioner earlier in 2008 stating that not only is it vital that Council’s act openly and people should be able to view how decisions are made but there ‘is also a public interest in public authorities being accountable, particularly where its’ actions are in relation to the accumulation or use of public funds and assets.’ ‘Given how Braintree District Council is interested in ‘Local Democracy Week’ is the Cabinet willing to make a public statement in support of the ruling from the Deputy Information Commissioner?’
In response, the Leader of the Council advised that the Council had demonstrated that all decisions with regard to assets and funds are dealt with in Public Session. It is only when a transaction involves a member of staff or is of a commercial confidence that it is under Private Session. All financial material is published and is available for public scrutiny.
(i) For further information regarding these minutes, please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or e-mail
Minutes
Cabinet
8th June 2009
Present:
Cabinet Members Portfolio Present Councillor G Butland Leader Yes Councillor N R H O Harley Deputy Leader and Cabinet Yes Member for Enterprise & Culture Councillor Mrs J C Beavis Customers & Communication Yes Councillor M C M Lager Efficiency & Resources Yes Councillor Lady Newton Housing & Well-Being Yes Councillor Mrs J W Schmitt Communities Yes Councillor R G Walters Environment and Sustainability Yes
Deputy Cabinet Members Portfolio Present Councillor D L Bebb Customers & Communication Yes Councillor Mrs E Edey Communities Yes Councillor N McCrea Enterprise & Culture Yes Councillor J McKee Efficiency & Resources Yes Councillor R G S Mitchell Environment & Sustainability Apologies Councillor Mrs C Sandbrook Efficiency & Resources Yes Councillor C Siddall Leader’s Portfolio Yes Councillor Mrs G Spray Housing & Well-Being Yes Councillor T Wilkinson Enterprise & Culture Yes
The following Councillors were also present as invitees of the Leader
Councillor M G Gage, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee/Leader of Halstead Residents’ Association Councillor D Mann, representing the Labour Group.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor R J Bolton, Chairman of Halstead Local Committee, Councillor Dr R L Evans, Leader of the Labour Group, Councillor T J W Foster, Chairman of Witham Local Committee, and Councillor S M Walsh, Chairman of Braintree Local Committee.
16 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors Butland, Lager and Walters all declared a personal interest as Essex County Councillors in Agenda Item 7a, Waste Inter-Authority Agreement.
In accordance with the Code of Conduct all Members remained in the meeting for all the items, unless stated otherwise, and took part in the debate and decision thereon. 9
Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]
17 QUESTION TIME
There was no questions asked or statements made.
18 MINUTES
DECISION: That the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 11th May 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Leader, subject to Councillor Lager’s personal interest under Minute 1 Declarations of Interest being amended to read ‘as he is a member of the Essex & Southend Member Project Board for Waste’ and not ‘Essex & Suffolk’.
19 QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT
Councillor Lager, Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources, presented the Fourth Quarter Performance Management Report for 1st January to 31st March 2009.
In response to a query with regard to the cost of recycling and targets, it was clarified that specific costs could not be quantified at this stage.
DECISION: That the Quarterly Performance Report be noted.
20 FINANCIAL OUTTURN REPORTS FOR 2008/09 AND 2009/10 UPDATE
Cabinet received reports on Financial Outturn 2008/09 and an Update Profile 2009/10 to 2012/13. Appendix A of the report - The Notes on Projected Full Year Variances (£10k or over) stated that the Rural Development Fund (RDF) had £52,800 held over, as grant applications are now made to Local Committees.
Councillor McCrea, as the former Chairman of the RDF, stated that the amount could be allocated to Local Committee funding. In response, Councillor Lager advised that the funding to Local Committees for rural issues and rural development was considered adequate and Local Committees could request additional resources if the situation changes. Other Members referred to the Local Priorities currently being costed for each Local Committee, and supported the view that the under spend from the RDF could be diverted to the Local Committees budget. However, Members were encouraged to look further ahead to three years to ascertain where future funding will be found. The Leader of the Council, proposed that the contents of the RDF will be retained and following the Strategic Plan on priorities for each Local Committee being submitted, the notional figures for each Committee will be considered by himself and the Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources. It will be for Members to decide whether projects are for green or urban issues.
Support was expressed for the Apprenticeship Scheme as being beneficial both to the young person involved and the Council. It was considered appropriate for officers to provide to Cabinet the costing of Apprenticeship Schemes across the Council. Responding to this proposal, the Leader requested the Chief Executive to provide to the Cabinet meeting on 6th July 2009 a report on extending the Modern Apprenticeship Scheme across the authority, including both manual and professional scenarios for young people of all capabilities.
10
Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]
DECISION:
1. That the budgets to be carried forward to 2009/10 and the new bids for 2009/10, as detailed in Appendix B be approved, the latter to be subject in each case to submission of a business case and authorisation by the Leader of the Council.
2. That the financial outturn for 2008/09 including the movements on the Earmarked Reserves as detailed in Appendix D be accepted.
3. That the capital outturn for 2008/09 as detailed in Appendix C be accepted.
4. That an increase to the amount of savings to be identified by the Performance, Innovation and Efficiency Programme Board from the original target of £500,000 to £800,000 be agreed.
5. That the process for the efficiencies to be identified as outlined in section 2.6 of the report be agreed.
6. That £52,800 in relation to the Rural Development Fund in Appendix A be retained for future availability to the Local Committees
7. That a report on extending the Apprenticeship Scheme across the Council is made to the next Cabinet meeting on 6th July 2009
8. That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: -
a) That the budget bid for temporary accommodation costs at £80,000, as detailed in Appendix B be approved. The release of funds to be subject to submission of a business case and authorisation by the Leader of the Council.
b) That the allocation of £110,111 for improving non-decent properties in the private sector occupied by vulnerable people from GO-EAST be added to Housing Grants budget in 2009/10; and
c) That a budget provision of £75,000 for repairs to the boundary wall of St Marys Closed Churchyard be agreed, subject to the requirement to incur expenditure being agreed by the Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources.
21 BRAINTREE DISTRICT SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY STRATEGY
Cabinet received the Braintree District Sustainable Community Strategy (to 2025) for recommendation to Council. Councillor Bebb, Deputy Cabinet Member for Customers and Communication, requested that the Council works with neighbouring authorities and be mindful of their Strategies and to any impact, i.e. on infrastructure and jobs, in the delivery of the Braintree Strategy.
11
Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]
DECISION: That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:-
That the Braintree District Sustainable Community Strategy, including the above amendment, be agreed.
**22 WASTE INTER-AUTHORITY AGREEMENT Minutes Published: 18th June 2009 Call-in Expires: 26th June 2009
Councillor Harley, Cabinet Member for Enterprise & Culture, presented the report on the Essex Waste Partnership – Inter-Authority Agreement.
Cabinet welcomed the Agreement, including the proposal of a weekly food waste collection service in urban areas in 2011/12, and the reduction in recycling costs whilst improving the service.
DECISION:
1. That the Council signs up to the Waste Inter-Authority Agreement.
2. That responsibility is delegated to the Head of Law & Governance to finalise the Agreement, in consultation with the Chief Executive.
3. That the Service Delivery Plan at Appendix 2 which has been submitted by Braintree District Council in accordance with the Inter-Authority Agreement be approved.
23 CORE STRATEGY – GROWTH LOCATIONS – Reference from the Local Development Framework Panel 20th May 2009.
Councillor McCrea, Chairman of the Local Development Framework Panel, presented the minute extract on Proposed Growth Locations from the Panel’s meeting on 20th May 2009. It was noted that the Core Strategy report would be available to all Members for the Council meeting on 22nd June 2009.
A Member raised an issue on the impact of traffic flow on a development adjacent to the partially built Malting’s Lane development at Witham, and was reminded that the Council meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss this type of issue.
DECISION:
1. That the minute extract of the Local Development Framework Panel of 20th May 2009 be noted.
2. It was agreed that the recommendations from the Local Development Framework Panel should be presented to Council to enable all Members to debate the proposed Growth Locations.
12
Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]
24 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – Reference from the Performance, Innovation & Efficiency Programme Board 27th May 2009
Councillor Lager, Cabinet Member for the above Programme Board, presented the amendment of CHLP10 (the average number of days taken to respond to complaints made to the Local Government Ombudsman) from 28 days to a local target of 23 days, contained in the draft performance targets for the Annual Plan 2009/10.
DECISION: That the Performance Targets for 2009/10 including the amendment to CHLP10 (as indicated above) be approved.
25 DELEGATED DECISION
That the following delegated decision be noted • Councillor Schmitt agreed to sign up to the Essex Compact – to extend the Council’s commitment on good practice when working with the voluntary sector countywide.
EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS
DECISION: That under Section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 & 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) of the Act.
************************************************************
Whilst the following items of business were discussed in private session, the minutes do not contain any confidential information and are therefore admissible in the public domain.
26 PROPOSED DISPOSAL OF THE RIVERSIDE SITE, BRAINTREE Cabinet received details and considered the offers for the former Riverside Swimming Pool site, at St John’s Avenue, Braintree, including the affordable housing provision. A comment from a Cabinet Member regarding the current position of the housing market was noted.
DECISION:
1. That consultation between the Council and the developer quoted in the report takes place to acquire certain details and to ascertain the mix of accommodation, and to define certain users on the site.
2. That the Terms and Conditions be negotiated by the Head of Asset Management, and delegation to the Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Resources and the Cabinet Member for Housing and Well-Being to agree the final offer, prior to consideration by Cabinet.
13
Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]
3. That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: - That £1m be made available from the Capital Programme towards affordable housing, associated with the scheme.
27 ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO MEET TOMORROW’S NEEDS
The Chief Executive presented proposals on the future management structure of the Council.
DECISION: That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.
The meeting commenced at 7.15pm and closed at 9.25pm
G BUTLAND (Leader)
14
Those minutes identified by the prefix ** may be the subject of the “call-in” provisions of the Constitution within 6 working days of the publication of these minutes. Any decisions made and not “called in” by this date and time will become effective. For further information regarding these minutes please contact Eileen Self, Law & Governance, on 01376 551414 or email [email protected]