COLCHESTER BOROUGH COUNCIL Council Thursday, 08 December 2016 at 18:00

Council Meeting

Council Chamber, Town Hall, High Street, Colchester, CO1 1PJ Thursday, 08 December 2016 at 18:00

Page 1 of 210 Information for Members of the Public Access to information and meetings You have the right to attend all meetings of the Council, its Committees and Cabinet. You also have the right to see the agenda, which is usually published 5 working days before the meeting, and minutes once they are published. Dates of the meetings are available at www.colchester.gov.uk or from Democratic Services. Occasionally meetings will need to discuss issues in private. This can only happen on a limited range of issues, which are set by law. When a committee does so, you will be asked to leave the meeting. Have Your Say! The Council values contributions from members of the public. Under the Council's Have Your Say! policy you can ask questions or express a view to most public meetings. If you wish to speak at a meeting or wish to find out more, please refer to Attending Meetings and “Have Your Say” at www.colchester.gov.uk Audio Recording, Filming, Mobile phones and other devices The Council audio records all its public meetings and makes the recordings available on the Council’s website. Audio recording, photography and filming of meetings by members of the public is also permitted. The discreet use of phones, tablets, laptops, cameras and other such devices is permitted at all meetings of the Council, with the exception of Committee members at all meetings of the Planning Committee, Licensing Committee, Licensing Sub-Committee and Governance Committee. It is not permitted to use voice or camera flash functionality and devices must be kept on silent mode. Where permitted, Councillors’ use of devices is limited to receiving messages and accessing papers and information via the internet. Access There is wheelchair access to the Town Hall from St Runwald Street. There is an induction loop in all the meeting rooms. If you need help with reading or understanding this document please use one of the contact details at the bottom of this page and we will try to provide a reading service, translation or other formats you may need. Facilities Toilets with lift access, if required, are located on each floor of the Town Hall. A vending machine selling hot and cold drinks is located on the ground floor.

Evacuation Procedures

Evacuate the building using the nearest available exit. Make your way to the assembly area in the car park in St Runwald Street behind the Town Hall. Do not re-enter the building until the Town Hall staff advise you that it is safe to do so. Library and Community Hub, Colchester Central Library, 21 Trinity Square, Colchester, CO1 1JB telephone (01206) 282222 or textphone 18001 followed by the full number you wish to call e-mail: [email protected] www.colchester.gov.uk

Page 2 of 210

COLCHESTER BOROUGH COUNCIL Council Thursday, 08 December 2016 at 18:00

TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL Published 07/12/2016

You are hereby summoned to attend a meeting of the Council to be held at the Town Hall, Colchester on Thursday, 08 December 2016 at 18:00for the transaction of the business stated below.

Chief Executive

AGENDA - Part A (open to the public including the press)

Please note that the business will be subject to short breaks at approximately 90 minute intervals.

Members of the public may wish to note that Agenda items 1 to 5 are normally brief.

1 Welcome and Announcements (Council) (a) The Mayor to welcome members of the public and Councillors and to invite the Chaplain to address the meeting. The Mayor to remind all speakers of the requirement for microphones to be used at all times.

(b) At the Mayor's discretion, to announce information on-

• action in the event of an emergency; • use of mobile phones; • audio recording of the meeting; • location of toilets.

2 Have Your Say! (Council) The Mayor to ask members of the public to indicate if they wish to ask a question, make a statement or present a petition on any matter relating to the business of the Council - either on an item on the agenda for this meeting or on a general matter not on this agenda and to invite any such contributions (Council Procedure Rule 6(2)).

Page 3 of 210

(Note: A period of up to 15 minutes is available for general statements and questions under 'Have Your Say!').

3 Minutes (Council) A... Motion that the minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2016 be confirmed as a correct record.

Minutes 02-11-16 9 - 20

4 Declarations of Interest The Chairman to invite Councillors to declare individually any interests they may have in the items on the agenda. Councillors should consult Meetings General Procedure Rule 7 for full guidance on the registration and declaration of interests. However Councillors may wish to note the following:-

• Where a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest, other pecuniary interest or a non-pecuniary interest in any business of the authority and he/she is present at a meeting of the authority at which the business is considered, the Councillor must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest, whether or not such interest is registered on his/her register of Interests or if he/she has made a pending notification.

• If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a matter being considered at a meeting, he/she must not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter at the meeting. The Councillor must withdraw from the room where the meeting is being held unless he/she has received a dispensation from the Monitoring Officer.

• Where a Councillor has another pecuniary interest in a matter being considered at a meeting and where the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the Councillor’s judgement of the public interest, the Councillor must disclose the existence and nature of the interest and withdraw from the room where the meeting is being held unless he/she has received a dispensation from the Monitoring Officer.

• Failure to comply with the arrangements regarding disclosable pecuniary interests without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence, with a penalty of up to £5,000 and disqualification from office for up to 5 years.

5 Mayor's Announcements Mayor's Announcements (if any) and matters arising pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 8(3).

Page 4 of 210 6 Items (if any) referred under the Call-in Procedure (Council) To consider any items referred by the Scrutiny Panel under the Call- in Procedure because they are considered to be contrary to the policy framework of the Council or contrary to, or not wholly in accordance with, the budget.

7 Recommendations of the Cabinet, Panels and Committees To consider the following recommendations:-

7(i) Adoption of Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan 21 - 22 B... Motion that the recommendation made in minute 90 of the Local Plan Committee meeting of 7 November 2016 be approved and adopted.

7(ii) Adoption of Boxted Neighbourhood Plan 23 - 24 C... Motion that the recommendation contained in minute 91 of the Local Plan Committee meeting on 7 November 2016.

7(iii) Establishment of the North Essex Garden Communities Local 25 - 28 Delivery Vehicles and Funding Requirements D... Motion that the recommendations contained in minute 117 of the Cabinet meeting of 30 November 2016 be approved and adopted.

Main Amendment Proposer: Councillor Willetts

That the motion on the Establishment of the North Essex Garden Communities Local Delivery Vehicles and Funding Requirements be approved and adopted subject to the following amendments:-

• to add after the words “Motion that recommendations” the following words: “(n), (o), (p) and (r). “ • Add after the word “adopted” “but that in regard to recommendation (q) Council informs Cabinet that the emerging local plan for 2017-2033 can be delivered without recourse to a garden community on the Colchester/Braintree borders, for which the economic case is unproven. Therefore Council considers that it would be strategically inopportune to proceed with the formation of Colchester Braintree Borders Ltd.”

If approved the revised wording of the Motion would be:-

D... Motion that recommendations (n), (o), (p) and (r) contained in minute 117 of the Cabinet meeting of 30 November 2016 be approved and adopted but that in regard to recommendation (q) Council informs Cabinet that the emerging local plan for 2017-2033 can be delivered without recourse to a garden community on the Colchester/Braintree borders, for which the economic case is unproven. Therefore Council considers that it would be strategically inopportune to proceed with the formation of Colchester Braintree Borders Ltd.

Page 5 of 210 7(iv) Local Council Tax Support 2017-18 29 - 30 E... Motion that the recommendation contained in minute 119 of the Cabinet meeting of 30 November 2016 be approved and adopted.

7(v) Officer Pay Policy Statement 2017-18 31 - 32 F..,.Motion that the recommendation contained in minute 120 of the Cabinet meeting on 30 November 2016 be approved and adopted.

7(vi) Nomination for Deputy Mayor 2017-18 33 - 34 G... Motion that the recommendation contained in minute 123 of the Cabinet meeting of 30 November 2016 be approved and adopted.

8 Notices of Motion pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 11 (i) Sustainability and Transformation Plan

Proposer: Councillor Bourne

H Motion that this Council notes:

• The increasing level of public disquiet on the publication of the Five Year Forward View 2016-2021 'A Guide to the local health and care plan for North East Essex, West & East Suffolk', otherwise known as the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP).

• That it is essential for closer integration and joint working around hospital, ambulance, primary care, social care and community services to not just meet common resource challenges in public and voluntary sectors, but to improve the patient/resident experience and outcomes.

• The lack of transparency around this latest NHS England overlay of health plans at a much wider footprint, together with the recent news revelations about hospital reconfigurations and changes to hospital and GP services without any engagement for Colchester residents undermines local democratic and public confidence in the STP process.

In these circumstances the Council calls upon those responsible for producing the forward view to agree that no steps will be taken to implement any changes until there is effective engagement with the public, patients and those many organisations, such as Colchester Borough Council, that are expected to be contributors to the planning and implementation of the STP. This includes formal public consultation on the Business Case that justifies the changes.

As the motion relates to a non-executive function it will be debated and determined at the meeting.

9 Questions to Cabinet Members and Chairmen pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 10 To receive and answer pre-notified questions in accordance with

Page 6 of 210 Council Procedure Rule 10(1) followed by any oralquestions (not submitted in advance) in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10(3).

(Note: a period of up to 60 minutes is available for pre-notified questions and oral questions by Members of the Council to Cabinet Members and Chairmen (or in their absence Deputy Chairmen))

None received at the time of the publication of the Summons.

10 Members Allowances Scheme 35 - 62 See report by the Monitoring Officer

11 Schedule of Portfolio Holder Decisions 63 - 66 To note the Schedule of Portfolio Holder decisions for the period 17 October 2016- 21 November 2016.

12 Urgent Items (Council) To consider any business not specified in the Summons which by reason of special circumstances the Mayor determines should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.

13 Reports Referred to in Recommendations The reports specified below are submitted for information and referred to in the recommendations specified in item 7 of the agenda:

Adoption of Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan - report 67 - 104 to Local Plan Committee

Adoption of Boxted Neighbourhood Plan - report to Local Plan 105 - Committee 150

Establishment of Garden Communities - report to Cabinet 151 - 180

Local Council Tax Support - report to Cabinet 181 - 194

Officer Pay Policy - report to Cabinet 195 - 210

14 Exclusion of the Public (not Scrutiny or Executive) In accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the public, including the press, from the meeting so that any items containing exempt information (for example confidential personal, financial or legal advice), in Part B of this agenda (printed on yellow paper) can be decided. (Exempt information is defined in Section 100I and Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972).

Page 7 of 210 Part B (not open to the public including the press)

Page 8 of 210 Council

Wednesday, 02 November 2016

Attendees: Councillor Christopher Arnold (Member), Councillor Lewis Barber (Member), Councillor Nick Barlow (Member), Councillor Lyn Barton (Member), Councillor Kevin Bentley (Member), Councillor Tina Bourne (Member), Councillor Roger Buston (Member), Councillor Nigel Chapman (Member), Councillor Peter Chillingworth (Member), Councillor Helen Chuah (Member), Councillor Phil Coleman (Member), Councillor Nick Cope (Member), Councillor Mark Cory (Member), Councillor Beverly Davies (Member), Councillor John Elliott (Member), Councillor Andrew Ellis (Member), Councillor Daniel Ellis (Member), Councillor Adam Fox (Member), Councillor Martin Goss (Member), Councillor Dominic Graham (Member), Councillor Dave Harris (Member), Councillor Pauline Hazell (Member), Councillor Theresa Higgins (Member), Councillor Mike Hogg (Member), Councillor Brian Jarvis (Member), Councillor John Jowers (Member), Councillor Darius Laws (Member), Councillor Cyril Liddy (Member), Councillor Michael Lilley (Member), Councillor Sue Lissimore (Member), Councillor Derek Loveland (Member), Councillor Fiona Maclean (Member), Councillor Jackie Maclean (Member), Councillor Beverley Oxford (Member), Councillor Gerard Oxford (Deputy Mayor), Councillor Philip Oxford (Member), Councillor Chris Pearson (Member), Councillor Lee Scordis (Member), Councillor Rosalind Scott (Member), Councillor Jessica Scott-Boutell (Member), Councillor Lesley Scott-Boutell (Member), Councillor Paul Smith (Member), Councillor Martyn Warnes (Member), Councillor Dennis Willetts (Member), Councillor Barbara Wood (Member), Councillor Julie Young (Mayor and Chairman), Councillor Tim Young (Member) Substitutes: No substitutes were recorded at the meeting

149 Prayers

The meeting was opened with prayers from Sister Theresa and Sister Diana of the Canonesses of the Holy Sepulchre.

150 Apologies

Apologies were received from Councillors Chaplin, Davidson, Feltham and Moore.

151 Minutes (Council)

Page 9 of 210 RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 27 July 2016 be confirmed as a correct record.

152 Have Your Say! (Council)

Peter Hope addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 7(5) to express his concern about the future of the Go4 café in Holy Trinity Church. Go4 had worked in partnership with the Council since 2013 and had recently opened a further café at the Old Heath Recreation Ground. The cafes provided employment and volunteering opportunities for ex-offenders and the long term unemployed. They had also recently begun providing paid for breakfasts for the homeless. Their work provided valuable social benefit at no cost to the taxpayer. He understood that the Council was considering ending its partnership with Go4 and asked that Council clarify its intentions and pledge that the partnership would continue.

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, explained that Go4 had given notice of its intention to terminate the lease agreement on Holy Trinity Church as they believed it was not a suitable location. Council officers were helping them to find a suitable alternative venue and were in dialogue with Go4. He hoped that the Council’s partnership with Go4 would continue.

Karen Taylor addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 7(5). She noted the local media coverage of aggressive begging in Colchester. Go4 provided a service which enabled resident to pay for breakfasts for the homeless, which allowed residents to support the homeless without providing cash to them directly, which should reduce levels of aggressive begging. Go4 was an excellent example of an asset based community project. It had turned a redundant building into a community asset and more importantly had developed people into valued members of the community. Go4’s work was in line with the principles set out in the Council’s Strategic Plan. The Council had helped Go4 establish itself and it needed to ensure that it was retained.

Councillor Lilley, Portfolio Holder for Safer Communities and Licensing, explained that the Council had received a number of complaints about begging and street drinking, which he had asked Community Support Officers to look into. The aim was to identify those who were sleeping rough and to help them secure the help they needed. It was necessary to distinguish between the genuinely homeless and aggressive beggars. Aggressive begging was a matter for the police to deal with. Whilst it was noted that Ipswich and Chelmsford had sought to tackle the issue through a Public Space Order in the town centre, the Council did not believe that this was an appropriate solution.

Lee Parker addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 7(5). His family had been in emergency accommodation for two years and temporary

Page 10 of 210 accommodation for eight years before that. His family were now threatened with eviction. Colchester Borough Homes were not working with him to help resolve the situation and it was difficult to secure appropriate housing for his family in the private rented sector.

Councillor Bourne, Portfolio Holder for Housing and Public Protection, explained that she could not comment on individual cases. The Council did its best to support to support the most vulnerable and took its duties in respect of housing and homelessness very seriously. The Council always sought to get involved before eviction was necessary and to help families stay in their accommodation. In addition it had a Welfare Rights team who helped ensure that residents were able to access the benefits to which they were entitled. The Council had built 34 new Council houses and had developed a programme to build more, but changes introduced by central government meant that this was no longer possible.

Holly Parker addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 7(5) to explain the impact of homelessness on her as a teenager. Living in temporary accommodation meant a lack of space and privacy and made it hard to study. She had also been subject to bullying as a consequence. The Housing Act would only exacerbate the difficulties. She did not consider that sufficient consideration was given to the impact of these issues on families and young people.

Councillor Smith, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked Holly for speaking and congratulated her on giving a voice to young people on this issue. The administration wanted to build more Council housing but had been thwarted by changes in government policies. He noted with concern that 56% of residents working in Colchester would not be able to obtain a mortgage on a 1 bedroom flat at current prices and so were forced into the private rented sector. The solution was more social rented housing and pressure needed to be put on central Government to address this.

Diane Stevens of Colchester People’s Assembly addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 7(5) to express her concern that the new Housing Act would require local authorities to gather data on the income of those living in rented Council accommodation. There were implications for civil liberties in how this information was gathered and used. The government’s solution to the housing crisis was to build new starter homes which were unaffordable. The solution was to build Council housing at affordable prices and this should be the responsibility of the state rather than the private sector.

Councillor Bourne, Portfolio Holder for Housing and Public Protection, responded and stressed that starter homes were not a replacement for affordable housing. A firm commitment from government for more social housing at affordable rents was needed.

Autumn Parker addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure

Page 11 of 210 Rule 7(5) about the Teenspeak Campaign. They had expanded their campaign to cover 10 points, as follows:- • Compulsory unbiased political education in secondary schools; • Lowering of the voting age to 16; • Views of under 18 to be taken in consideration when important issues are considered or in any referendum; • Essential life skills to be taught within schools, such as financial management and personal finance; • Compulsory first aid training in schools; • Better understanding of teenage mental health problems and access to mental heath support for teenagers; • Recognise British sign language as a third language; • Bullying to be recognised as a serious issue and all schools to be required to have a behaviour policy; • Schools to comply with the Equality Act 2010; • Recognitions of disabilities that require additional support such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, aspergers and autism.

Councillor Smith, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked Autumn for addressing the Council and wished the campaign every success.

Sue Blair-Jordan addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 7(5) about homelessness issues. There was a lack of provision to help the homeless, particularly those who were under 25. For instance there was only one refuge in Colchester. The figures for homelessness in Colchester underestimated the scale of the problem. Most homelessness resulted from the lose of homes that were tied to employment. There was not a problem of aggressive begging by homeless people in Colchester. The changes to the benefit cap would only exacerbate these problems.

Councillor Bourne Portfolio Holder for Housing and Public Protection, responded. Local councils were the safety net for the most vulnerable as a consequence often received the blame for issues such as homelessness. Councils sought to deliver support along with local partners but with cuts in government funding this was becoming increasingly difficult. The Council was taking part in a Rough Sleeper count with an independent organisation. Many of the homeless in Colchester already engaged with the services available such as Beacon House.

Christopher Lee addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 7(50 to seek clarification from Greenstead ward councillors on the location of the suggested Salary Brook Country Park.

The Mayor, Councillor Julie Young, indicated that a response would be provided in due course.

Page 12 of 210

153 Mayor's Announcements

The Mayor invited Council to stand for a minutes silence in memory of former Councillor Nigel Offen and Honorary Alderman Joyce Brooks, who had recently died.

The Mayor thanked those involved for making the Oyster Feat on 28 October 2016 such a special event, in particular those who had provided sponsorship which had enabled a diverse range of residents to attend. The traditional alternative Oyster Feast had also been held. The following Mayoral and civic events were also scheduled:-

• The Remembrance Day service on 13 November 2016, followed by a free Sunday lunch for invited veterans at Firstsite. • Military Wives Choir Christmas Concert, Moot Hall, 15 December 2016 • “A Christmas Carol” performance by Anthony Roberts, Mayoral Suite, 17 December 2016 • Civic Carol Service, St Botolphs: 18 December 2016 • “A Christmas Carol” performance by Anthony Roberts, Colchester Arts Centre, 23 December 2016.

A full report would be sent to Councillors following the meeting.

154 2015/16 Year End Review of Risk Management

RESOLVED that the recommendation contained in minute 111 of the Cabinet meeting of 12 October 2016 be approved and adopted.

155 Health and Safety Policy 2016-17

RESOLVED that the recommendation contained in minute 25 of the Governance and Audit Committee meeting of 11 October 2016 be approved and adopted.

156 Review of the Council's Ethical Governance Policies

RESOLVED that the recommendation contained in minute 27 of the Governance and Audit Committee meeting of 11 October 2016 be approved and adopted.

157 Review of Local Code of Corporate Governance

RESOLVED that the recommendation contained in minute 30 of the Governance and

Page 13 of 210 Audit Committee meeting of 11 October 2016 be approved and adopted.

158 Questions to Cabinet Members and Chairmen pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 10

Questioner Subject Response

Pre-notified questions

Councillor When will Colchester Councillor Lilley, Portfolio Higgins Borough Council adopt a Holder for Safer policy to govern the use of Communities and Advertising Boards (“A” Licensing, responded to Boards) on the public acknowledge that A Boards highway within the Borough were an issue of concern, boundaries? both in terms of streetscene and the difficulties they caused to visually impaired residents. The Council did not currently have a policy on the use of Boards but he would be discussing the matter with cabinet colleagues and would be inviting the Scrutiny panel to look at the issue. This was likely to be scheduled in March 2017, but preliminary work on the issue could begin in advance of that date.

Verbal Questions

Councillor D. What discussions had been Councillor Lilley, Portfolio Ellis held with licensed premises Holder for Safer to ensure that they and their Communities and customers behaved in a Licensing indicated that the neighbourly way to residents issue was being looked at. of the Dutch Quarter, Some premises behaved particularly in the disposal of responsibly and ensured waste? that litter outside their premises was cleared. There were some

Page 14 of 210 difficulties in that some litter was dropped after premises closed and it was not always possible to prove what premises litter had originated from.

Councillor D. Did the Portfolio Holder Councillor T. Young, Ellis agree that the Council’s Portfolio Holder for Culture investment in the Mercury and Regeneration Theatre not only produced a indicated that he agreed financial return in terms of and that the Mercury the borough’s economy, but Theatre redevelopment also improved Colchester’s project was progressing reputation? Would the well. A public square Portfolio Holder support the outside the Mercury concept of a public square in Theatre was a good idea the area outside the Mercury and would help give the Theatre, with the possibility area a vibrant atmosphere. of lighting up some of the buildings?

Councillor Would the Leader of the Councillor Smith, Leader of Goss Council be able to find a the Council and Portfolio volunteering opportunity for a Holder for Strategy, invited number of young adults all Councillors to consider whose voluntary project for the request and make their Duke of Edinburgh available any volunteering award had fallen through? opportunities of which they were aware.

Councillor At what stage was the Councillor T. Young, Jarvis Portfolio Holder in acquiring Portfolio Holder for Culture a new partner to help acquire and Regeneration, and develop the Vineyard explained that the land Gate site? Did he envisage a purchases had been design competition with a completed. Discussions public consultation? with developers were at an early stage, but there had been a number of expressions of interest. A design competition was not anticipated.

Councillor Did the Portfolio Holder Councillor B. Oxford,

Page 15 of 210 Harris agree that the suggestion Portfolio Holder for from the Labour Party that Customers, agreed and publicly funded funerals for indicated that she had children would be a sign of a arranged a meeting on this compassionate society? issue this week. The Council was also looking at how it could help with the funding of funerals for veterans who died without family.

Councillor Given the decrease in the Councillor Cory, Portfolio Arnold number of Councillors, the Holder for Resources, overall value of the locality indicated that in view of the budgets had decreased by pressures on the budget 15%, how would the Portfolio and the fact that there were Holder restore the value of other schemes, such as the scheme next year? the Big Choice, which made funding available for community schemes, he was not proposing to increase community budgets next year. However, he would keep the issue in mind.

Councillor Had the recent break-in at Councillor Smith, Leader of Davies Rowan House resulted in a the Council and Portfolio data breach? Would the Risk Holder for Strategy, Register be amended to take indicated he would provide account of these a written response on the circumstances? issue of the data breach. The Risk Register was reviewed annually and all relevant circumstances would be taken into account.

Councillor L. What approach would be Councillor T. Young, Scott-Boutell taken to planning Portfolio Holder for Culture applications from developers and Regeneration, and before the new Local Plan Councillor Graham, was adopted? Portfolio Holder for Waste and Sustainability, explained that the

Page 16 of 210 emerging draft Local Plan had little weight in planning terms. Applications would be determined in line with the existing plan. Developers needed to work in line with the existing plan, rather than make speculative applications. The Council had a five year land supply so was not under pressure to approve applications not in line with the current Local Plan.

Councillor Would the Leader of the The Leader of the Council Barber Council publish a breakdown indicted that a written of the use of the New Homes response would be sent. Bonus?

Councillor Would the Portfolio Holder Councillor Bourne, Portfolio Warnes for Housing and Public Holder for Housing and Protection comment on the Public Protection, criticisms of the Council’s explained that the Council housing advice made by Will worked very hard to Quince MP. prevent homelessness. The Council did not routinely advise residents to remain in their property until evicted. It did sometimes try and liaise with landlords to try and delay evictions whilst alternative accommodation was found. Advice provided was not negligent or unlawful and to claim it was did not give confidence in the Council housing services to vulnerable residents

Councillor Would the Chairman of the Councillor Davies, Pearson Scrutiny Panel ensure that Chairman of the Scrutiny scrutiny of Colchester Panel, indicated that it had

Page 17 of 210 Hospital University been initially left of the Foundation Trust was programme given the included in the Panel’s work robust scrutiny of the Trust programme given ongoing last year. She would concerns about the consider whether it should leadership of the Trust? be restored to the work programme for next year.

Councillor Would the Portfolio Holder Councillor Cory, Portfolio Willetts for Resources reissue the Holder for Resources, report on the 2017/18 budget indicated that in previous to Cabinet on 12 October years, this expenditure had 2016 which was misleading been included as a “one – in that it classified the off” item, but was now for expenditure on locality the first time included in the budgets as a growth item? base budget as an ongoing commitment. Therefore in budgeting terms this was a growth item and therefore the report was not misleading.

Councillor Would the responses of Councillor Smith, Leader of Willetts individual Councillors on the the Council and Portfolio issue of introduction of Holder for Strategy and wheelie bins to their wards Councillor Graham, by published and if so, Portfolio Holder for Waste when? and Sustainability, indicated that the responses would be published and included in the report on the proposals to the Scrutiny Panel in December.

Councillor In view of the comments of Councillor T. Young, Willetts the Alliance of Sports Clubs Portfolio Holder for Culture on the Northern Gateway and Regeneration, proposals, would the Council indicated that the meet with them and indicate comments were not what alterations would be representative of the views made to the proposals to of most sports clubs. A meet their concerns? number had contacted the Council to express their dissatisfaction with the

Page 18 of 210 comments. Most sports clubs supported the proposals.

Councillor Had bus companies Councillor Davies Scordis responded to the questions Chairman of the Scrutiny from the Scrutiny Panel? Panel, indicated that responses had been received from all but one of the bus companies and this would be reported back to the Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 8 November.

Councillor Why was there no longer an Councillor Smith, Leader of Hazell option to pay and play during the Council and Portfolio the winter months at the Holder for Strategy, West End Tennis Centre? indicated that in the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Business, Leisure and Opportunities, a written response would be sent.

159 Schedule of Portfolio Holder decisions

RESOLVED that the schedule of Portfolio Holder decisions for the period 13 July 2016 - 16 October 2016 be noted.

Page 19 of 210

Page 20 of 210

Agenda item 7(i)

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LOCAL PLAN COMMITTEE HELD ON 7 NOVEMBER 2016

90. Adoption of Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Commercial Services providing details of the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan.

Karen Syrett, Place Strategy Manager, presented the report and responded to Councillors’ questions. Karen explained that in 2013 the Council had designated the area for the purpose of preparing the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan. This included the whole of Myland parish and, following the 2016 Boundary Review, an additional area of Braiswick and a small area which was within the Highwoods Ward. Public consultation had been undertaken which included a household survey which received almost 800 responses and informed the following aspects of the plan: • Housing should be of quality design and meet all needs; • Education should cater for all needs in step with growth; • Employment should be supported at a local level; • Environment should be protected and enhanced where possible; • Social amenity should meet the community’s needs; • Sport and leisure should be available as key to health and well-being; • Roads and transport options should be available and effective.

A pre-submission draft consultation was also undertaken in in May/June 2015 as well as a Submission consultation in January/February 2016.

The Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan was examined during April and May 2016 and, subject to minor amendments, the independent examiner had found that the plan satisfied all the Basic Conditions and recommended that the plan proceed to Referendum. The Referendum on the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan was held on 15 September 2016 with 1,070 (87.4%) in favour of the plan and 154 against.

Members of the Committee acknowledged the work required to bring the Plan to fruition and welcomed the adoption of this and the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan which would make Colchester the first Essex authority to adopt Neighbourhood Plans.

RECOMMENDED to Council that, following its approval at examination and referendum, the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan be made (adopted) following which the Plan will become part of Colchester Borough Council’s Local Development Plan.

Page 21 of 210

Page 22 of 210 Agenda item 7(ii)

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LOCAL PLAN COMMITTEE HELD ON 7 NOVEMBER 2016

91. Adoption of Boxted Neighbourhood Plan

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Commercial Services providing details of the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan.

Karen Syrett, Place Strategy Manager, presented the report and responded to Councillors’ questions. Karen explained that, in 2012, the Council had designated the area for the purpose of preparing the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan which included the whole of Boxted Parish.

Extensive consultation had been undertaken to support the development of the Neighbourhood Plan, including a drop-in event attended by 250 people which generated 350 responses and the distribution of a household survey which received 226 responses. The questionnaire informed the following aspects of the plan: • Housing development at Hill Farm, Boxted Cross; • Support for appropriate small scale employment in Boxted, including smallholdings; • Environment should be protected and enhanced through the provision of a new Village Green; • Improvements to community infrastructure including sports & leisure facilities, open space, a village shop and broadband; • Highway improvements; • A Travel Plan to manage traffic issues at the village school.

After an initial Submission Consultation in 2014 the developer/owner of Hill Farm, lodged an appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission to develop the only site being proposed for housing in the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan. The appeal was unsuccessful but required changes to be made to the Plan document to reflect the appeal inspector’s comments. The amended document was subject to a second Submission consultation.

The Boxted Neighbourhood Plan was examined during April/May 2016 and, subject to minor amendments, the independent examiner had found that the plan satisfied all the Basic Conditions and recommended that the draft plan proceed to Referendum. The Referendum on the Neighbourhood Plan had been held on 15 September 2016 with 305 (81.5%) in favour of the plan and 69 against.

Members of the Committee acknowledged the work required to bring the Plan to fruition and welcomed the adoption of this and the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan which would make Colchester the first Essex authority to adopt Neighbourhood Plans.

RECOMMENDED to Council that, following its approval at examination and referendum, the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan be made (adopted) following which the Plan will become part of Colchester Borough Council’s Local Development Plan.

Page 23 of 210

Page 24 of 210 Agenda item 7(iii)

Extract from the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 30 November 2016

117. Establishment of the North Essex Garden Communities Local Delivery Vehicles and Funding Requirements

The Strategic Director, Commercial and Place, Section 151 Officer and Monitoring Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Peter Chillingworth attended and with the consent of the Chairman addressed the Cabinet. He noted the scale of the Garden Communities project. The concept was untested in this era and he was concerned that the Government was effectively trialing the concept in North Essex. Seeking to deliver two Garden Communities within the borough was likely to stretch the Council to the limit. In terms of the proposed West Tey development the development would be premature as the essential infrastructure would not be in place by 2033. For instance, the funding for the dualing of the A120 had not yet been allocated and a major upgrade of the railway network was required and it was not clear when this would be delivered. He believed that the Colchester/Braintree border settlement should not proceed and other options be explored.

Rosie Pearson of CAUSE addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to express her concerns about the creation of two new Garden Communities. These were enormous and complex projects and a small change in the assumptions on which they were based could have huge consequences. Taxpayers would bear most of the risks involved but with little reward, which would mostly go to landowners and developers. Concern was also expressed about the lack of public involvement or representation on the Local Delivery Vehicles. The Council needed to consider very carefully and look at the proposals and modelling in detail, before proceeding.

John Akker of Stop 350, addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to express his concern about development in the borough. The proposed development of 350 homes in West Mersea had led to many objections to draft Local Plan, and the Council need to reflect on its mandate. The Garden Communities were a high risk project, especially given the economic uncertainties and the consequences of the vote to leave the European Union. To consider the delivery of two Garden Communities was particularly risky. The Council should consider and take further advice.

Councillor Alan Walker, Chairman of Marks Tey Parish Council, addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1). He believed that the issue needed a wider debate and should be considered by Full Council. The process needed to be apolitical in order to succeed and therefore backing from Full Council was critical. There were critical weaknesses in the report before Cabinet which would hamper delivery and expose the Council to risk. The report failed to look at alternative options for delivery of development. For example Ebbsfleet had set up a development corporation in order to deliver a similar community.

Page 25 of 210

Ian Vipond, Strategic Director, made a presentation to the Cabinet setting out the challenges faced by the Council and how Garden Communities could help the Council meet them. He highlighted the Garden Community principles and set out the governance and funding arrangements for the Local Delivery Vehicles. He stressed that the decisions the Cabinet were being invited to make were about the mechanisms to bring forward Garden Communities and were not related to site specific considerations.

Councillor Smith, Leader of the Council and Portfolio for Strategy, explained that there was a clear need for more housing in the borough. In the past development had failed Colchester in that the necessary infrastructure to support housing and population growth had not been delivered. Therefore a different approach was necessary. One of the key aspects of Garden Communities was that the infrastructure was developed first. Whilst it was acknowledged that there were risks involved, there were also considerable benefits. There would be greater risks in not proceeding and allowing developers to lead on the provision of housing development. This involved a collaborative approach with landowners and developers. The option of proceeding through a development corporation had been looked at, but the membership of development corporations were appointed by central government and so there was less local accountability.

It was important to progress in a non- partisan way and the proposals would be referred to Full Council to debate. The proposals had received unanimous support at Braintree and Tendring.

As part of the project, an Independent Peer Review had been commissioned and had commenced. The review was being led by Lord Kerslake and the results were due in December and would be made public. The findings would be carefully considered as the project progressed.

Other Cabinet members also indicated their support for the proposals and highlighted that the Garden Communities had been in both the Liberal Democrat and Labour manifestos so the administration had a clear mandate to proceed. This was an excellent example of partnership working and the four authorities would work together to get the best possible deal for their residents.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The external legal advice received that these decisions cannot and do not prejudge the outcome of any future decisions that the Council may make about the Local Plan to be made by Council in relation to the allocation of any Garden Community be noted.

(b) The proposal that, if appropriate terms can be agreed, the Local Delivery Vehicles will need to enter into legal agreements with landowners to enable the delivery of the proposed schemes be noted

North Essex Garden Communities Limited

Page 26 of 210 (c) In line with the resolution contained at minute 60 of the Cabinet Meeting of 27 January 2016, Cabinet agrees to set up and subscribe to North Essex Garden Communities Limited in accordance with the terms set out in the report and Appendix 2.

(d) The North Essex Garden Communities Limited shareholder agreement between the Local Authorities in accordance with the terms set out in the report and Appendix 3 be approved.

(e) Councillor Paul Smith be appointed in his capacity as Leader of the Council to represent the Council as a Director on the Board of North Essex Garden Communities Limited.

Tendring Colchester Borders Limited

(f) In line with the resolution contained at minute 60 of the Cabinet Meeting of 27 January 2016, Cabinet endorses the formation of Tendring Colchester Borders Limited by North Essex Garden Communities Limited in accordance with the terms set out in the report and Appendix 4.

(g) The Tendring Colchester Borders Limited shareholder agreement between the Local Authorities in accordance with the terms set out in the report and Appendix 5 be approved.

(h) Ian Vipond be appointed to represent the Council as a Director on the Board of Tendring Colchester Borders Limited, and gives Delegated Authority to the Chief Executive to undertake any future appointments.

(i) In principle Cabinet agrees to provide an appropriate proportion of necessary funding to Tendring Colchester Borders Limited (by a combination of loan or equity) subject to a satisfactory business case setting out the full terms of the arrangement, which will need to accord with the approved Business Plans and masterplans for the project and the funding options available at the time any funding is required by the LDV. Such commitment to be subject to Council approval.

Colchester Braintree Borders Limited

(j) In line with the resolution contained at minute 60 of the Cabinet Meeting of 27 January 2016, Cabinet endorses the formation of Colchester Braintree Borders Limited by North Essex Garden Communities Limited in accordance with the terms set out in the report and Appendix 6.

(k) The Colchester Braintree Borders Limited shareholder agreement between the Local Authorities in accordance with the terms set out in the report and Appendix 7 be approved.

(l) Ian Vipond be appointed to represent the Council as a Director on the Board of Colchester Braintree Borders Limited, and gives Delegated Authority to the Chief Executive to undertake any future appointments.

Page 27 of 210 (m) In principle Cabinet agrees to provide an appropriate proportion of necessary funding to Colchester Braintree Borders Limited (by an appropriate combination of loan or equity) subject to a satisfactory business case setting out the full terms of the arrangement, which will need to accord with the approved Business Plans and masterplans for the project and the funding options available at the time any funding is required by the LDV. Such commitment to be subject to Council approval.

RECOMMENDED to COUNCIL that it:

(n) Notes the decision of the Cabinet to set up and subscribe to the North Essex Garden Communities Limited.

(o) Notes the Cabinet’s endorsement of the formation of Tendring Colchester Borders Limited and Colchester Braintree Borders Limited.

(p) Endorses the in principle decision of Cabinet to provide an appropriate proportion of necessary funding to Tendring Colchester Borders Limited (by an appropriate combination of loan or equity) subject to a satisfactory business case setting out the full terms of the arrangement, which will need to accord with the approved Business Plans and masterplans for the project and the funding options available at the time any funding is required by the LDV.

(q) Endorses the in principle decision of Cabinet to provide an appropriate proportion of necessary funding to Colchester Braintree Borders Limited (by an appropriate combination of loan or equity) subject to a satisfactory business case setting out the full terms of the arrangement, which will need to accord with the approved Business Plans and masterplans for the project and the funding options available at the time any funding is required by the LDV.

(r) Notes the external legal advice received that these decisions cannot and do not prejudge the outcome of any future decisions that the Council may make about the Local Plan to be made by Council in relation to the allocation of any Garden settlement.

REASONS

To seek Cabinet’s on-going support, working together with Braintree District Council, Essex County Council and Tendring District Council, to progress the concept of ‘garden communities’ and to approve governance arrangements for the project

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

No alternative options are presented.

Page 28 of 210 Agenda item 7(iv)

Extract from the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 30 November 2016

119. Local Council Tax Support 2017/18

The Head of Customer Services submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with minute 93 of the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 8 November 2016.

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, highlighted that the new scheme introduced changes to amend backdating to one calendar month and to reduce the period a person could be absent from the country and still receive Local Council Tax Support to four weeks. It remained one of the most generous schemes in Essex and provided valuable support to vulnerable residents.

RESOLVED that the proposals set out in the Head of Customer Services’ report in respect of the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2017-18 be agreed.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Local Council Tax Support Scheme 2017- 18 be approved and adopted.

REASONS

Colchester Borough Council implemented a Local Council Tax Support scheme from 1 April 2013.

Legislation requires that following public consultation, amendments to the scheme for 2017/18 need to be agreed by Full Council before 31 January 2017.

It is recommended to bring the scheme in line with national legislative amendments and to propose the following changes:

Amend backdating to one calendar month Reducing the period for which a person can be absent from Great Britain and still receive Local Council Tax Support from 1 April 2017.

All other fundamental features of the scheme, other than those described under paragraph 2.3 of the Head of Customer Services report are proposed to remain unaltered.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Removal of the family premium for new working age Local Council Tax Support awards from 1 April 2017.

Consultation proposals included an option to remove the family premium for new working age Local Council Tax Support awards from 1 April 2017.

Page 29 of 210 Applicants to Local Council Tax Support have a maximum amount of weekly income they can receive before their income starts to affect their level of entitlement. This figure is called the applicable amount.

Where one member of a family is a child or young person a Family Premium can be awarded adding £17.45 to the applicant’s weekly applicable amount. The Government has removed the family premium for new claims for Housing Benefit from May 2016. This change would not affect those on Universal Credit, Income Support, Income Related Employment and Support Allowance or Income Based Jobseeker’s Allowance. Modelling indicates this would reduce total scheme provision by £137,380.

The removal of the family premium would reduce the applicable amount for new applicants with dependent children yet will provide consistency with the Housing Benefit scheme.

The option of removing the family premium for new working age Local Council Tax Support awards from 1 April 2017 received support in consultation. However this would not be recommended, taking into account the following considerations:

Maintaining the current assessment basis for families would provide further stability for this resident basis in terms of wider welfare adjustments

The removal of the family premium would have a disproportionate effect on families on a low income.

Respondents were also asked to provide wider comment on alternative options for scheme funding including increasing the level of Council Tax, accrue savings from reducing other Council Services or using Council's reserves.

The alternative options did not receive support through consultation.

If Colchester Borough Council keeps the current scheme, it will be administratively more complex as it will not align with Housing Benefit which is also administered by the Colchester Borough Council and this will have a cost implication.

Page 30 of 210 Agenda item 7(v)

Extract from the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 30 November 2016

120. Officer Pay Policy Statement for 2017/18

The Assistant Chief Executive submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Officer Pay Policy for 2017/18 be approved and adopted.

REASONS

The Localism Act requires “authorities to prepare, approve and publish pay policy statements articulating their policies towards a range of issues relating to the pay of its workforce, which must be approved by full Council annually. An authority’s pay policy statement must be approved by a resolution of that authority before it comes into force”.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The only alternative would be to not recommend the approval of the Pay Policy Statement but that would be contrary to the requirements of the Localism Act.

Page 31 of 210

Page 32 of 210

Agenda item 7(vi)

Extract from the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 30 November 2016

123. Nomination of Deputy Mayor 2017-18

Consideration was given to the appointment of the Deputy Mayor for the 2017-18 Municipal Year.

Councillor Willetts attended and with the consent of the Chairman addressed the Cabinet to propose that Councillor Peter Chillingworth be nominated as Deputy Mayor for the 2017-18 municipal year. Councillor Chillingworth had been elected in 2002 and had a long history of service including holding positions as Portfolio Holder and Chairman of Planning Committee.

Councillor G. Oxford addressed Cabinet to support the nomination and to state that he looked forward to working with Councillor Chillingworth during his Mayoral Year.

Councillor Lilley and Councillor Smith indicated their support for the nomination of Councillor Chillingworth.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that Councillor Peter Chillingworth be nominated for appointment as Deputy Mayor for the Borough of Colchester for the 2017-18 Municipal Year.

Page 33 of 210

Page 34 of 210

Item Council 10 8 December 2016

Report of Monitoring Officer Author Andrew Weavers ℡ 282213 Title Members’ Allowance Scheme Wards Not Applicable affected

This report requests the Council to consider amendments to the Members’ Allowances Scheme following recommendations from the Independent Remuneration Panel

1. Decision(s) Required

1.1 To consider and approve, as appropriate, the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel following its review of the Members Allowances Scheme as set out in the report of the Panel and as detailed in paragraph 4.3 (a) – (f) of this report;

1.2 To give authority to the Assistant Chief Executive to make the necessary consequential amendments to the existing Members Allowances Scheme.

2. Reasons for Decision(s)

2.1 The Independent Remuneration Panel had been convened to review the scheme and the index applied to the scheme to adjust the level of allowances, the periodic review of which was required to be undertaken.

2.2 All Councils are required to convene an Independent Remuneration Panel before any changes or amendments are made to their allowances scheme and they must pay regard to the Panel’s recommendations before setting a new or amended Members’ Allowances Scheme.

3. Alternative Options

3.1 It is for the Council to determine to what extent it wishes to pay regard to the recommendations made by the Independent Remuneration Panel.

4. Supporting Information

4.1 The Independent Remuneration Panel, convened under The Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003, which comprises three independent members of the local community, has conducted a review of the Members’ Allowances Scheme. Its report, dated November 2016, and recommendations are attached at Appendix 1 for the Council's consideration.

4.2 The terms of reference, composition and working arrangements of the Panel are described in its report and as such the report is self-explanatory.

4.3 In summary the Panel’s recommendations are as follows, such amendments to be effective from 1 January 2017:

Page 35 of 210

(a) The existing arrangement for increasing allowances be retained in line with the Council’s Allowance Adjustment Index;

(b) No changes be made to the Scheme in respect of the following matters, namely: • Basic Allowance and Adjustment Index; • Special Responsibility Allowances for the Leader, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Members; • Special Responsibility Allowances for the Chairmen of Committees/Panels; • Special Responsibility Allowances for the Group Leaders; • Special Responsibility Allowances for the members of the Planning Committee; • The facility to make the payment of a Special Responsibility Allowance for co- opted members; • Claim based Travel and Subsistence Allowances in respect of approved duties; • Child Care and Dependent Carers’ Allowance;

(c) The Basic Allowance rate be maintained for at least a year after the Electoral Review ward changes came into effect and, from May 2017 onwards, the Panel will welcome any representations from Councillors regarding the impact on their workload;

(d) The Special Responsibility Allowance payable to members of the Licensing Committee be retained at the current level and in the event that the Council decides to constitute the Licensing Sub-Committee on a formal basis with a fixed membership, the Panel would consider the possibility of transferring the Special Responsibility Allowance from the Licensing Committee members to the Licensing Sub-Committee members;

(e) The travel payment rates for approved duties continue to be in accordance with the approved HMRC rates and the subsistence payment rates for approved duties be:

Breakfast £5.00 Lunch £7.00 Tea £3.00 Evening meal £10.00 Overnight £80.00 London / Conference £100.00

(f) More detailed information be made available to current and future councillors about the Members Allowance Scheme and the expense claim options;

(g) The Council undertakes a review of its current promotional activity relating to the work of a councillor, the commitment required to be a councillor and the opportunities available to elected representatives with a view to more detailed information being made readily available.

4.4 If the Council approves the recommendations of the Panel without further amendment the provisions contained within the existing Members’ Allowances Scheme will not require any alteration a copy of which is attached at Appendix 2.

5. Proposals

5.1 The recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel are self explanatory and it is for the Council to determine their merits or otherwise.

Page 36 of 210

6. Standard References

6.1 There are no particular references to the Strategic Plan; publicity or consultation considerations; or financial; equality, diversity and human rights; community safety; health and safety or risk management implications.

Page 37 of 210

Page 38 of 210

Appendix 1

A Review of

Members’ Allowances

For

Colchester Borough Council ______

The Eighth Report by the

Independent Remuneration Panel

November 2016

Page 39 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______

Foreword

This is the eighth report produced by the Independent Remuneration Panel for the Colchester Borough Council. The Panel was established in the Spring of 2003 to make recommendations to the Authority on the range and levels of remuneration for the Authority’s members. It was done as part of the wider modernisation agenda that has now been undertaken throughout the country.

The Panel had also reported in July 2003 on various matters including the principle of pensionable allowances, travel and subsistence and co-optees allowances; in January 2005 on childcare and dependant carers expenses; in June 2005 on the workload of the Licensing Committee; in April 2007 on the adjustment index and in October 2012 on the periodic review of the scheme and the adjustment index and had made recommendations to the Council accordingly. The Panel last reported in November 2015 and made recommendations regarding Group Leader Special Responsibility Allowances.

The Panel had been convened on this occasion in order to undertake the periodic review of the Indexation mechanism which was a legal requirement for completion by the end of 2016 and, at the same time to give consideration to the travel and subsistence allowance and the dependent carers’ allowance.

In addition the Panel had been requested to give consideration to the workload and remuneration of Councillors in the light of the reduction in their number following the recent Electoral Review from 60 down to 51 as well as ways to attract a greater number of candidates to stand for election. During the course of its deliberations, the Panel was also asked to consider the entitlement to the Special Responsibility Allowance payable to the members of the Licensing Committee.

This report contains the Panels’ recommendations.

Richard Aldridge Chairman of the Independent Remuneration Panel November 2016

Page 40 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______

Summary of Recommendations

The Independent Remuneration Panel makes the following recommendations as a result of their review of the Colchester Borough Council Members’ Allowances Scheme, such amendments to take effect from 1 January 2017:

(a) The existing arrangement for increasing allowances be retained in line with the Council’s Allowance Adjustment Index;

(b) No changes be made to the Scheme in respect of the following matters, namely: • Basic Allowance and Adjustment Index; • Special Responsibility Allowances for the Leader, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Members; • Special Responsibility Allowances for the Chairmen of Committees/Panels; • Special Responsibility Allowances for the Group Leaders; • Special Responsibility Allowances for the members of the Planning Committee; • The facility to make the payment of a Special Responsibility Allowance for co-opted members; • Claim based Travel and Subsistence Allowances in respect of approved duties; • Child Care and Dependent Carers’ Allowance;

(e) The travel payment rates for approved duties continue to be in accordance with the approved HMRC rates and the subsistence payment rates for approved duties be:

Breakfast £5.00 Lunch £7.00 Tea £3.00 Evening meal £10.00 Overnight £80.00 London / Conference £100.00

Page 41 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______

(f) More detailed information be made available to current and future councillors about the Members Allowance Scheme and the expense claim options;

Page 42 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______Independent Remuneration Panel

For

Colchester Borough Council

Review of Members’ Allowances Scheme

Terms of Reference and Background

The Regulatory Context

1. The following is a summary of the proceedings and recommendations made by the Independent Remuneration Panel appointed by the Colchester Borough Council under the 2003 consolidated regulations to consider the applicability and, if appropriate, implementation of certain allowances and advise the Authority on a revised scheme of such allowances for Members. This report forms part of the Panel’s recommendations to Colchester Borough Council.

2. The Independent Remuneration Panel has been set up in the context of the Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 (SI 1021 and 1022), which came into force on 1 May 2003.

3. The Independent Remuneration Panel has been convened to consider making recommendations on the periodic review of the Indexation mechanism which was a legal requirement for completion by the end of 2016 and, at the same time to give consideration to the travel and subsistence allowance and the dependent carers’ allowance.

4. In addition the Panel had been requested to give consideration to the workload and remuneration of Councillors in the light of the reduction in their number following the recent Electoral Review from 60 down to 51 and whether this would contribute to attracting a greater number of candidates to stand for election.

5. During the course of its deliberations, the Panel was also asked to consider the entitlement to the Special Responsibility Allowance payable to the members of the Licensing Committee.

As such, this forms the Panel’s terms of reference.

Page 43 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______

Methodology and Evidence Considered

6. The Panel met in private on 8 August and 14 September 2016 at the Town Hall in Colchester. The Council’s Monitoring Officer and Democratic Services Officer drafted the report and the Panel agreed its final form.

7. The Panel reviewed a wide range of information, including background information relating to Colchester Borough Council, the last Colchester Borough Council Independent Remuneration Panel report dated November 2015, Colchester Borough Council’s Members’ Allowances Scheme for the year 2016/17, the Department for Communities and Local Government - Guidance on Members’ Allowances for Local Authorities in England, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s (LGBCE) report dated March 2015 on the Colchester Electoral Review, benchmarking data on all Essex Authorities Allowances Schemes, details of Colchester Borough Council Members Allowances for each year 2003- 4 to 2016-17 inclusive, an alphabetical list of candidates who had stood for election to the Borough Council in May 2016, details of the amounts and names of Councillors who had made claims for subsistence and / or travel during 2015-16 and age profiling information of current Colchester Borough.

8. The Panel also invited and considered individual representations from the Leader of the Council, the Chief Executive and the four Group Leaders of the Council (or their representative). Furthermore, the Panel took into account practice and allowance levels and populations elsewhere, particularly in district authorities. This exercise was done mainly for benchmarking purposes. It is from these processes and deliberations that the Panel has arrived at the recommendations set out in this report.

Principles of the Review

9. In accordance with the practice adopted in previous reviews, the Panel sought to arrive at a set of recommendations in relation to the terms of reference based on a framework that was transparent, simple and could be easily understood by both Members and the public. This objective, the Panel felt, had been achieved through its previous reviews and it decided that it would not make significant changes to the framework laid down previously unless there was a strong case to do so.

10. The Panel has laid out a summary of its deliberations in this report to assist Members and the public to understand its approach. While the Panel’s recommendations are not mandatory, it is hoped that if the Council disagrees with the recommendations that they will accept the Panel’s logic. The recommendations presented in this report represent the view of the Panel and not the official view of Colchester Borough Council.

Page 44 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______

The Panel

11. The Panel comprised the following members all of whom were present:

Richard Aldridge - Panel Chairman, Solicitor and Chief Executive of Citizen’s Advice Colchester, Director of Healthwatch Essex and Director and Trustee of Colchester Mind David Priest - Former Managing Director of Woods Air Movement Limited and former Chair of Colchester Institute Board Amanda Westbrook - Director of Balkerne Gardens Trust

12. Andrew Weavers, Monitoring Officer, and Amanda Chidgey, Democratic Services Officer, assisted throughout the review process.

13. The Panel wish to record its gratitude to the Leader of the Council, Leaders of the political groups (and their representatives) for making themselves available to talk to the Panel and to the Chief Executive for submitting his detailed views to the Panel and for ensuring the work of the Panel was supported and conducted in an efficient and effective manner.

Current level of Members’ Allowances

14. The Panel was provided with details of the categories of SRA within the current Allowances scheme together with the allowances currently paid to Councillors, as follows:

Members ’ Allowance £ Basic Allowance All Councillors 6,572.98 Special Responsibility Allowances Leader of the Council 19,718.94 Deputy Leader of the Council 12,422.94 Other Cabinet Members 11, 831.37 Chairman Scrutiny Panel 6, 901.62 Chairman Planning Committee 6, 901.62 Chairman Licensing Committee 5, 915.68 Chairman Other Panel / Committee / Board 3, 943.79 Group Leader (Conservative) 6840.00* Group Leader (Labour) 4420 .00 * Group Leader Liberal Democrats 5300.00* Group Leader (Highwoods Independent ) 2660 .0 0* Member of Planning Committee 1,035.25 Member of Licensing Committee 443.69 * amount equates £2,000 plus £220 per member of each Group .

Page 45 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______

NB. Each Councillor will qualify for only one Special Responsibility Allowance (the highest) regardless of the number of positions of responsibility.

Current level of Allowance Index

15. The Panel were also advised that the allowances paid were increased annually by the same percentage as that applied to the Council’s officers’ salary scale and this mechanism was known as the Allowance Adjustment Index.

The Evidence Reviewed

Colchester Borough Council Background Information

16. The Panel was provided with background information regarding Colchester Borough Council, including details of the administrative arrangements in place since the Independent Remuneration Panel was first convened in 2003 to the present day. The contents of the report were considered by the Panel members and were noted.

Independent Remuneration Panel report 2015

17. Copies of the most recent report compiled by the Independent Remuneration Panel in November 2015 were provided to the Panel. At that time the Panel had been requested to review the Group Leaders Special Responsibility Allowance and level of Basic Allowance following the Electoral Review. The contents of the report were considered by the Panel members and were noted.

Colchester Borough Council Members’ Allowances Scheme 2016/17

18. Full details of Colchester Borough Council’s Members’ Allowances Scheme for the year 2016/17 were provided to the Panel which the Panel members considered and reviewed in the context of all the associated information supplied to them.

Department for Communities and Local Government - Guidance on Members’ Allowances for Local Authorities in England

19. The document entitled Guidance on Members’ Allowances for Local Authorities in England, published by the Department for Communities and Local Government was supplied to the Panel members and its contents assisted them in their deliberations. Reference was made to the principle of a one third public service discount which had been established in the Council’s first Allowance Scheme under the 2003 Regulations. This had acknowledged the statutory requirement to build into the Basic Allowance a recognition that a Councillor serves the public and should not be remunerated for all that they do.

Page 46 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______

The report by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on the Electoral Review

20. Details of the outcome of the Electoral Review of Colchester Borough which had been undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England were provided to the Panel. The review (which came into effect in May 2016) had resulted in the number of Councillors serving the Borough being reduced from 60 to 51, representing 17 three member wards across the Borough. Some wards covered very large geographical areas, however, they had been drawn up to provide for an average electorate of 2,842 for each Councillor by 2020, taking into account future anticipated development in the Borough. The details of the review were considered by the Panel members and were noted.

Summary of Members’ Allowances Schemes for all Essex Districts

21. The Panel received comparative information on the current allowances paid by the twelve District Councils in Essex, together with those allowances paid by Southend and Thurrock Councils. Statistics were also provided on the current population estimates for each Authority including population to councillor ratios. The details were considered by the Panel members, in particular the information illustrating that, excluding Southend and Thurrock, Colchester’s population was second highest in the County whilst the Basic Allowance paid was not only the highest in the County but was also over £500 greater than the second highest.

Further Evidence Requested

Colchester Borough Council Members Allowances 2003 to 2016

22. To assist with consideration of the annual indexation applied to the Allowances and the current level of Allowances payable in Colchester, the Panel members requested a breakdown of the Members Allowances for each year since 2003, including the annual percentage increase which had been applied. It was noted that the percentage increases applied to Council officers’ salary scales was generally used as the annual adjustment increase by other Councils in Essex.

Borough Council election candidates May 2016

23. As part of its assessment of the factors effecting the number and range of candidates willing to stand for election the Panel asked for details of the number of candidates who had stood for election in May 2016. It was noted that there were 203 candidates for the 51 council seats.

Amounts and names of Councillors who had made claims for subsistence and / or travel during 2015-16

Page 47 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______

24. To assist in the consideration of factors influencing numbers of candidates willing to stand for election, the Panel requested details of the claims made by Borough Councillors in 2015-16 for subsistence and travel expenses incurred whilst undertaking approved duties.

Colchester Borough Councillors Age Profiling

25. In order to assess the diversity of councillors currently elected to the Council, the Panel members asked to be provided with a breakdown of the age ranges of Colchester Borough Councillors. This showed that 47% of councillors were over 60 years of age and 68% were over 50 years old. In addition 12% of councillors fell within both the 21 to 30 and 41 to 50 year ranges, however, only 8% fell within the 31 to 40 age range.

Consultation Undertaken

Representations from the Leader of the Council, Group Leaders and the Chief Executive

26. The Panel conferred with and received representations from the Leader of the Council, Group Leaders (or their representatives) and the Chief Executive regarding the assertion of difficulties in attracting potential candidates to stand for election, particularly from those who were in full time employment and whether the level of allowances may be a factor in this situation.

27. The Panel members asked for responses to questions relating to impediments to prospective candidates; the workload of councillors with concurrent roles compared to that of councillors in full-time employment; diversity monitoring of candidates currently undertaken; the Council’s role in promoting the work and responsibilities of councillors; the age profile of current councillors and the anomaly relating to Licensing Committee members and attendance at Licensing Sub-Committee Hearings.

28. The responses indicated that remuneration was not considered to be an inhibiter to prospective candidates, whilst reference was made to the time commitment involved in undertaking casework and the need for a more detailed understanding of the role of a councillor. Generally, no formal monitoring of candidates was undertaken although there was acknowledgement that the 30 to 40 year age range was recognised nationally as the most poorly represented age group. The negative view of politicians by the public was mentioned, in particular in relation to making claims for expenses incurred on council duties.

29. Views were expressed regarding an increase in workload and the time commitment necessary to undertake the role of a councillor. This was variously attributed to increased expectation due to the 24/7 nature of social media interaction and the level of casework being generated by increased numbers of constituents and increased numbers seeking 9

Page 48 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______

assistance. Notwithstanding these assertions, no evidence was presented to the Panel to support this view.

30. Comment was also made on the work of the Licensing Sub-Committee which tended to occur during the daytime rather than in the evenings and, as such, tended to fall disproportionately on those councillors who did not have work commitments.

31. The panel noted that the Council’s meetings currently all commenced at 6pm which may create issues for those who commuted to London for work but also those who had little control of their working day.

32. The Panel also acknowledged the need to encourage an equal and diverse range of people to act as Councillors whilst ensuring Councillors were not being required to use their own income in order to undertake duties as a Councillor.

Issues Arising

The Basic Allowance and Adjustment Index

33. The Panel noted that the current Basic Allowance (£6,572.98) was the highest of all District Councils in Essex. In addition the Panel acknowledged the Colchester’s position as one of the largest District Councils in the country and its relative influence across the region generally.

34. The Panel considered the representations it had received regarding the level of the Basic Allowance following the reduction of the number of councillors to 51 in May 2016 and the potential increase in workloads. The Panel noted that the new arrangements had only been in place for 6 months and that it had not received any specific evidence around increased workloads and saw no reason to deviate from its recommendation contained in its report dated November 2015; i.e.

“On the basis of the evidence, the Panel recommends that the Basic Allowance rate be maintained for at least a year after the Electoral Review ward changes come into effect and, from May 2017 onwards, the Panel will welcome any representations from Councillors regarding the impact on their workload.”

35. The Council currently linked the Basic Allowance and Special Responsibility Allowances to the annual percentage salary increase for staff and that, over time, it appeared that this mechanism had proved to be the most appropriate because it treats Officers and Members equally in terms of their annual ‘cost of living’ increase of salary/allowances.

36. As a result of this evidence, the Panel recommends no change be made to the Adjustment Index arrangements. 10

Page 49 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______

37. On the basis of the evidence, the Panel recommends that the Basic Allowance rate be maintained at the current level and, from May 2017 onwards, the Panel will welcome any representations from Councillors regarding the impact on their workload and whether the level of the Basic Allowance should be reviewed.

Special Responsibility Allowances - The Leader, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Members

38. In considering all the evidence presented to them, the Panel members were of the view that there was no requirement to warrant the making of any changes to the Special Responsibility Allowance payable to the Leader of the Council, the Deputy Leader and the Cabinet Members. In terms of the time required to undertake the role of a portfolio holder, the Panel did not consider this would have changed as a consequence of the Electoral Review.

39. As a result of this evidence, the Panel recommends no change be made to the Special Responsibility Allowances payable to the Leader of the Council, the Deputy Leader and the Cabinet Members.

Special Responsibility Allowances - Chairmen of Committees/Panels

40. In considering all the evidence presented to them, the Panel members were of the view that there was no requirement to warrant the making of any changes to the Special Responsibility Allowance payable to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel, Chairmen of Planning and Licensing Committees and Chairmen of other Panels/Committees.

41. As a result of this evidence, the Panel recommends no change be made to the Special Responsibility Allowances payable to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel, Chairmen of Planning and Licensing Committees and Chairmen of other Panels/Committees.

Special Responsibility Allowances – Group Leaders

42. In considering all the evidence presented to them, the Panel members were of the view that there was no requirement to warrant the making of any changes to the Special Responsibility Allowance payable to the Group Leaders.

43. As a result of this evidence, the Panel recommends no change be made to the Special Responsibility Allowances payable to the Group Leaders.

Special Responsibility Allowances - Members of the Planning Committee

Page 50 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______

44. The Panel noted that the Members of the Planning Committee currently received a Special Responsibility Allowance amounting to £994.93. The Panel had received information that indicated that the workload of the Planning Committee was significantly higher than for all other Committees and Panels and with regular fortnightly meetings.

45. As a result of this evidence, the Panel recommends the Special Responsibility Allowance payable to members of the Planning Committee be retained at its existing level, to reflect the higher workload of this Committee.

Special Responsibility Allowances - Members of the Licensing Committee

46. The Panel were informed that all members of the Licensing Committee currently received a Special Responsibility Allowance (£443.69). However the majority of the work was being undertaken by those members of the Committee who were sitting as a three member Panel on a Licensing Sub- Committee. These Sub-Committees, which met both during the day and in the evening, dealt with a variety of matters ranging from alcohol licensing to taxi and hackney carriage licensing. The Panel had received representations that it was felt unfair that all members of the Licensing Committee were receiving the Special Responsibility Allowance irrespective of whether they sat on a Sub-Committee. The Panel were advised that a solution to this would be for the Council to consider creating fixed membership Licensing Sub-Committees and give the Licensing Committee Special Responsibility Allowance to those members instead.

47. The Panel recommends that the Special Responsibility Allowance payable to members of the Licensing Committee be retained at the current level. In the event that the Council decided to constitute the Licensing Sub-Committee on a formal basis with a fixed membership, the Panel would consider the possibility of transferring the Special Responsibility Allowance from the Licensing Committee members to the Licensing Sub-Committee members.

Co-opted Members’ Allowance

48. The Panel noted that a Special Responsibility Allowance payable to Co- opted Members was at a rate of £210.56 but that the use of such Members on Panels and Committees had declined considerably.

49. The Panel recommends that the facility to make the payment of a Special Responsibility Allowance for Co-opted Members remain unchanged.

Page 51 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______

Travel and Subsistence Allowances

50. The Panel noted that currently travel and subsistence allowances were made to Councillors on a claims basis in respect of certain approved duties and that the usage of this facility was required to be published on the Council’s website under the transparency agenda. The Panel had noted that the use of this by Councillors was relatively modest.

51. The Panel recommends that no change be made to the current arrangement for claim based travel and subsistence allowances payable in respect of approved duties.

52. The Panel further recommends that the travel payment rates for approved duties continue to be in accordance with the approved HMRC rates and the subsistence payment rates for approved duties be: Breakfast £5.00 Lunch £7.00 Tea £3.00 Evening meal £10.00 Overnight £80.00 London / Conference £100.00

Child Care and Dependents’ Carers Allowance

53. The Panel noted that the Council currently had in place a Child Care and Dependents’ Carers Allowance scheme, as permitted by the 2003 Regulations, the Allowance being payable for the reimbursement of expenses at a maximum of £7.00 per hour.

54. The Panel recommends that no change be made to the existing arrangements for the Child Care and Dependents’ Carers Allowance.

55. The Panel further recommends that more detailed information be made available to current and future councillors about the Members Allowance Scheme and the expense claim options.

Effective Date

56. The Panel further recommends that the revision to the allowance scheme is to be effective from 1 January 2017.

Advisory Note regarding attraction of person wishing to be Councillors

57. Whilst technically outside of the remit of the Panel, it was asked to consider whether the current level of allowances were a barrier to persons from all sectors of society becoming councillors. The Panel was not provided with any evidence of this and was made aware of the wider review being undertaken by the Councils Governance and Audit 13

Page 52 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______

Committee on the way the council conducts its meetings and decision making processes. The Panel were, however, of the view that there was a role for the Council itself in informing the public and explaining the political perspective of the Council and to increase the awareness of potential candidates to a commitment to attendance at meetings and to the resolution of ward casework as well as the existence of an allowance for these duties.

58. The Panel recommends that the Council undertakes a review of its current promotional activity relating to the work of a councillor, the commitment required to be a councillor and the opportunities available to elected representatives with a view to more detailed information being made readily available.

Page 53 of 210 Members’ Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel ______

APPENDIX

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE PANEL

• Colchester Borough Council Background Information;

• Independent Remuneration Panel report 2015;

• Colchester Borough Council Members’ Allowances Scheme 2016/17;

• Department for Communities and Local Government - Guidance on Members’ Allowances for Local Authorities in England;

• The final report by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on the Electoral Review of Colchester;

• Summary of Members’ Allowances Schemes for all Essex Districts

• Colchester Borough Council Members Allowances 2003 to 2016

• Borough Council election candidates May 2016

• Amounts and names of Councillors who had made claims for subsistence and / or travel during 2015-16

• Colchester Borough Councillors Age Profiling

Page 54 of 210

Colchester Borough Council Appendix 2

MEMBERS’ ALLOWANCES SCHEME (Note : This scheme was approved by Colchester Borough Council on 8 December 2016)

Colchester Borough Council, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) Regulations 2003, hereby makes the following scheme:

This scheme may be cited as the Colchester Borough Council Members’ Allowances Scheme, and shall have effect from 1 January 2017 and thereafter for subsequent Municipal Years.

In this scheme;

“Councillor” means an elected Member of the Colchester Borough Council.

“Co-opted member” means a non elected member of a Council Committee or Panel.

1. Allowances

Each Councillor shall be paid a Basic Allowance, and those Councillors who undertake special responsibilities shall be paid a Special Responsibility Allowance. Allowances and Co-opted members' allowances shall be increased annually with effect from the Annual General Meeting of the Council by the same percentage as that applied to the Council’s officers’ salary scale.

2. Payment

The annual allowance payable to each Councillor and Co-opted member shall be made in twelve equal instalments (as far as possible) paid on the 25 th day of each month or thereabouts subject to compliance with the part-year payment provisions set out below.

3. Renunciation A Councillor or a Co-opted member may by notice in writing given to the Chief Executive elect to forego any part of his/her entitlement to allowances payable under this scheme.

Part 6 – Section A - Page 1 of 7 Date: December 2016 Members Allowances Scheme Page 55 of 210

4. Part-year Entitlements

If the term of office or duties undertaken by a Councillor or Co-opted member begin or end part way through a Municipal Year, or amendment of the scheme during a Municipal Year changes the amount to which a Councillor or Co-opted member is entitled, then calculation of the allowance payable shall be on a pro- rata basis having regard to the proportion that the term of office, period of duty or relevant periods of the scheme bear to the Municipal Year in which they occur.

5. Suspension and Repayment of allowances

Where payment of any allowance has already been made in respect of any period during which a Councillor either:-

(a) ceases to be a member of the Council; or (b) is in any other way not entitled to receive the allowance in respect of that period,

the Council will require the Councillor to repay the allowance.

6. Travel and Subsistence Payments

Travel and subsistence payments shall be made to Councillors in respect of approved duties. Duties which are approved comprise meetings of the Council, Cabinet, Panels, Committees and Sub-Committees, site inspections by members of the Planning Committee and training courses for Councillors facilitated by the Council. Other duties may be approved pursuant to the Council’s Scheme of Delegation.

The rates for travel and subsistence allowances are determined annually by the Council following the determination by HMRC of the maximum rates for such allowances.

Payment of approved travel and subsistence allowances claims received no later than three working days before the 9 th day of each month will be included in the next following instalment payment. Claims received after the deadline will not be paid until the instalment payment made in the following month.

Part 6 – Section A - Page 2 of 7 Date: December 2016 Members Allowances Scheme Page 56 of 210

MEMBERS’ ALLOWANCES 2016/17

Allowances Paid to Councillors from 1 April 2016

Members Allowances £

Basic Allowance 6,572.98

Mayor 11,800.00

Deputy Mayor 2,700.00

Special Responsibility Allowances £

Leader of the Council 19,718.94

Deputy Leader of the Council 12,422.94

Cabinet Member 11,831.37

Chairman, Scrutiny Panel 6,901.62

Chairman, Planning 6,901.62

Chairman, Licensing 5,915.68

Chairman, Other Panel/Committee/Board 3.943.79

Group Leader (Conservative) 6,840.00*

Group Leader (Liberal Democrats) 5,300.00*

Group Leader (Labour) 4,420.00*

Group Leader (Highwoods) 2,660.00*

Member, Planning Committee 1,035.25

Member, Licensing Committee 443.69

*amount equates £2,000 plus £220 per member of each Group.

NB. Each Councillor will qualify for only one Special Responsibility Allowance (the highest) regardless of the number of positions of responsibility.

Part 6 – Section A - Page 3 of 7 Date: December 2016 Members Allowances Scheme Page 57 of 210

TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE

1. The following mileage allowances for journeys in pursuance of official duties have been approved by the Council and are in line with HMRC rates.

Travel

(a) Travel by public transport shall not exceed the amount of the ordinary fare or any available cheap fare.

(b) Taxi fares in cases of urgency where no public service is reasonably available, please claim the actual amount, otherwise claim the amount of fare by public transport.

(d) Motorcycle rate (Councillors own solo motorcycle or one provided for his/her use): 24p per mile.

(e) Motor car rate (Councillors own private motor vehicle or one provided for his/her use): 45p per mile.

Subsistence Allowance

(a) Subsistence rates in connection with official duties- actual amounts are to be claimed. The amounts specified below are maximums.

Breakfast allowance (more than 4 hours away from usual place of residence before 11am) £5.00

Lunch allowance (more than 4 hours away from usual place of residence including the £7.00 period between 12 noon and 2pm)

Tea allowance (more than 4 hours away from usual place of residence including the £3.00 period 3pm to 6pm)

Evening meal allowance (more than 4 hours away from usual place of residence ending after 7pm) £10.00

Overnight subsistence (absence overnight from normal place of residence) £80.00

London/approved conference subsistence (absence overnight from normal place of residence in London or at an £100.00 approved conference)

NB Specified rates for all allowances are maximum rates

Part 6 – Section A - Page 4 of 7 Date: December 2016 Members Allowances Scheme Page 58 of 210

2. Under the relevant Regulations, Councillors are required to claim within two months of meetings. Payment is therefore made for each cycle of meetings and claim forms should be forwarded to Democratic Services by the 7th of the month for payment on the 25th. Late claims will normally be held over until the next month’s pay date. Failure to provide receipts for all claims except mileage may result in a deduction for income tax.

3. Travel claims for meetings of an outside body can only be made if Councillors are attending a bona fide meeting of the outside body concerned in their role as the Council’s representative. Allowances and expenses involved in attending any meeting on behalf of the outside body should be met by that body.

Part 6 – Section A - Page 5 of 7 Date: December 2016 Members Allowances Scheme Page 59 of 210

Councillors Child Care and Dependant Carers Allowance Scheme

1. Introduction

1.1 The dependant carers allowance is a subsidy provided by the Council to Councillors towards the cost of the provision of child or dependent care while attending Council meetings.

1.2 For the purpose of this allowance, a Council meeting is defined as a meeting of the Council, the Cabinet, a Panel or a Committee to which the Councillor has been appointed; in addition, a working group, commission or forum to which the Councillor has been appointed by the Council, the Cabinet, a Panel or a Committee.

1.3 It is not intended that the allowance will meet the full cost of carers, but it will assist towards the cost.

2. Eligibility - Child Care

2.1 Any Councillor may qualify for the allowance and will be required to show that as a result of their attendance at Council meetings they are required to arrange paid care for children up to the age of 16 years who reside with them.

2.2 Any doubts as to the eligibility of an individual under the scheme will be resolved by the Assistant Chief Executive.

3. Allowance - Child Care

The allowance is intended to cover the costs involved up to a maximum of: • £7.00 per hour for the first child; • £5.25 per hour for a second child; • £3.50 per hour for a third child; and • £1.75 per hour for a fourth child.

3.2 If a Councillor is required to pay a reasonable booking and/or registration fee to a registered child care agency then the Councillor may claim for the amount incurred

3.3 Any payment made under the scheme will be made on the basis of actual expenditure incurred up to the maximum amount referred to at 3.1 and 3.2 above.

3.4 Payment of the allowance will be in arrears on completion of a signed claim form.

Part 6 – Section A - Page 6 of 7 Date: December 2016 Members Allowances Scheme Page 60 of 210

4. Eligibility - Dependants

4.1 Any Councillor can claim the allowance if they comply with the following criteria:

(i) That in order to qualify for the allowance, the Councillor must show that as a result of their attendance at Council meetings they are required to arrange paid care for any dependant.

(ii) A dependant is defined as any person (other than a child up to the age of 16 years), who resides with the Councillor and requires care and supervision.

4.2 Any doubts as to the eligibility of an individual under the scheme will be resolved by the Assistant Chief Executive.

5. Allowance - Dependants

5.1 The allowance is intended to cover reasonable costs incurred up to a maximum of £7.00 per hour (based on Essex County Council Social Services Homecare Assistant Rate).

5.2 Any payment made under the scheme will be made on the basis that expenditure incurred is of at least the level of allowance agreed.

5.3 No payments will be made towards registration fees or deposits etc.

5.4 Payment of the allowance will be in arrears and based on receipted evidence.

6. Application

6.1 Application for inclusion on the scheme must be made on the appropriate application form at the start of each municipal year.

6.2 The Assistant Chief Executive must be notified immediately of any change in circumstances which might affect the eligibility to continue claiming under this scheme, this includes written confirmation of when a child reaches the age of 16 years.

7. General Notes

7.1 This payment attracts income tax and national insurance deductions and may affect your entitlement to DSS benefits. The allowance is not superannuable.

Note: This Scheme was revised by the Council on 8 December 2016

Part 6 – Section A - Page 7 of 7 Date: December 2016 Members Allowances Scheme Page 61 of 210

Page 62 of 210 Agenda item 11 Record of Decisions taken under Scheme of Delegation to Cabinet Members 17 October 2016 – 21 November 2016

Portfolio – Business, Leisure and Opportunities Date Number Report Title Author Decision Result No decisions in this period

Portfolio – Culture and Regeneration Date Number Report Title Author Decision Result 03/11/16 CRG-002-16 Disposal of objects from the Philip Wise The disposal of certain objects from Agreed agricultural collections of Colchester the agricultural collections of 10/11/16 Museums Colchester Museums as part of an ongoing programme of collections rationalisation.

Portfolio – Customers Date Number Report Title Author Decision Result No decisions in this period

Portfolio – Housing and Public Protection Date Number Report Title Author Decision Result No decisions in this period

C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\77C530E5-A959-4AD0-8E3A-985AF7BB9537\032dd196-d933-4e59-a09d-33d9f2c60e55.docx Page 63 of 210 Agenda item 11 Record of Decisions taken under Scheme of Delegation to Cabinet Members 17 October 2016 – 21 November 2016

Portfolio – Resources Date Number Report Title Author Decision Result 26/10/16 SCL-006- Procurement of Design and Jane To extend a current contract with Agreed 16/RES-006- Implement Work with Exception to Thompson DPQ to allow them to carry out 02/11/16 16 the Requirement to Invite Tenders design and implementation work for the second tranche of Fixing the Link elements. Commission DPQ to carry out design and implementation work on the Marking the Gates project. 14/11/16 RES-007-16 Local Authority Mortgage Rates Michelle To set the locally determined Interest Agreed Tarbun Rate as 4.81% for the 6 months 21/11/16 starting 1 October 2016

Portfolio –Safer Communities and Licensing Date Number Report Title Author Decision Result 26/10/16 SCL-005- Procurement of Design and Jane To extend a current contract with Agreed 16/RES-006- Implement Work with Exception to Thompson DPQ to allow them to carry out 02/11/16 16 the Requirement to Invite Tenders design and implementation work for the second tranche of Fixing the Link elements. Commission DPQ to carry out design and implementation work on the Marking the Gates project. 26/10/16 SCL-004-16 Anglia Level Crossing Reduction Jane To agree Colchester Borough Agreed Strategy – Preferred Options Thompson Council’s position as set out in this 02/11/16 Consultation report and respond to Network Rail’s consultation.

C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\77C530E5-A959-4AD0-8E3A-985AF7BB9537\032dd196-d933-4e59-a09d-33d9f2c60e55.docx Page 64 of 210 Agenda item 11 Record of Decisions taken under Scheme of Delegation to Cabinet Members 17 October 2016 – 21 November 2016 10/11/16 SCL-006-16 Parking Software Framework Richard To award the contract for the supply Agreed Purchase Walker of a parking software system, to the 17/10/16 supplier demonstrating best value, from the Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation (ESPO) Framework, being Chipside for £246,003 p.a. for a term of 4 years from 1 December 2016.

Portfolio – Strategy Date Number Report Title Author Decision Result No decisions in this period

Portfolio – Waste and Sustainability Date Number Report Title Author Decision Result No decisions in this period

C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\77C530E5-A959-4AD0-8E3A-985AF7BB9537\032dd196-d933-4e59-a09d-33d9f2c60e55.docx Page 65 of 210

Page 66 of 210 Item Local Plan Committee 9 7 November 2016

Report of Head of Commercial Services Author Laura Chase  282473 Title Adoption of the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Wards Mile End and Highwoods Wards affected

The Local Plan Committee is asked to recommend that Full Council adopts the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

1. Decision(s) Required

1.1 To recommend to Full Council that it makes (adopts) the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan (attached as Appendix A), following its approval at examination and referendum. Once adopted, the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan will become part of Colchester Borough Council’s Local Development Plan.

2. Reasons for Decision(s)

2.1 To ensure the Council’s planning policies provide a robust basis for decisions on future planning applications in the Borough.

3. Alternative Options

3.1 The alternative would be to recommend to Full Council that it does not adopt the Neighbourhood Plan. This alternative, however, would be contrary to the positive approach to Neighbourhood Plans found in the National Planning Policy Framework (Paras 184-185).

4. Supporting Information

4.1 On 28 January 2013, Colchester Borough Council designated the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Area for the purpose of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan (in accordance with Part Two of the Town and Country Planning (England), Neighbourhood Planning (General) regulations 2012). The plan area includes the whole of Myland Parish, an additional area of Braiswick and a small area which is now within Highwoods Ward (following the recent Boundary Review).

4.2 The Neighbourhood Plan Working Group comprising Myland Community Council councillors, Braiswick Residents Association representatives and resident representatives carried out development and consultation on the Neighbourhood

Page 67 of 210 Plan. This work included a household survey completed in early 2014 which received almost 800 responses and informed the following aspects of the plan; • Housing should be of quality design and meet all needs. • Education should cater for all needs in step with growth. • Employment should be supported at a local level. • Environment should be protected and enhanced where possible. • Social amenity should meet the community’s needs. • Sport and leisure should be available as key to health and well-being. • Roads and transport options should be available and effective.

4.3 Further consultation included pre-submission draft consultation in May/June 2015 and final plan consultation in January/February 2016. There were 14 responses to the final consultation, the majority of which were supportive of the Plan.

4.4 Colchester Borough Council appointed an independent examiner, Dr. Angus Kennedy, to examine the Plan. The Inspector concluded that subject to minor amendments the plan satisfied all the Basic Conditions i.e. it promoted sustainable development; was in general conformity with national planning policy and guidance and with strategic policies in Colchester’s adopted Local Plan; and complied with EU Regulations. The Inspector also recommended that the draft plan could proceed to Referendum.

4.5 The Referendum on the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan was held on 15 September 2016 with the following results: 1,070 in favour of the plan and 154 against, or 87.4% in favour.

4.6 Information gathered by Planning magazine indicates that 199 Neighbourhood Plans had been adopted nationwide as of September 2016. The adoption of the Myland/Braiswick and Boxted Neighbourhood will add to this total and make Colchester the first Essex authority to adopt Neighbourhood Plans.

5. Proposals

5.1 It is proposed that the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan is made (adopted) to form part of the Council’s Adopted Local Plan in accordance with Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning (England), Neighbourhood Planning (General) regulations 2012).

. 6. Strategic Plan References

6.1 The Strategic Plan Action Plan includes a commitment to regenerating the Borough through buildings, employment, leisure and infrastructure. There are also commitments to attract investment and provide more affordable homes. The

Page 68 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan will contribute towards achieving these objectives.

7. Consultation

7.1 The preparation of the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan was underpinned by extensive public consultation. The consultation process was documented in a Consultation Statement submitted along with the Neighbourhood Plan document as part of the examination process. On adoption, the document will be made available on the Colchester Borough Council and Myland Community Council websites, and stakeholders will be notified, in accordance with Section 20 of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012

8. Publicity Considerations

8.1 Both Myland Community Council and Colchester Borough Council have publicised the Neighbourhood Plan on their respective websites. News of the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan will also be publicised.

9. Financial Implications

9.1 Colchester Borough Council is financially responsible for organising the examination and referendum for Neighbourhood Plans in their areas. The Council however, can reclaim £20,000 from DCLG for all Neighbourhood Plans once a date is set for a referendum following a successful examination. These payments have been made by Central Government to Local Authorities to reflect the additional financial burdens associated with supporting Parish Councils or Neighbourhood Plan Forums prepare Neighbourhood Plans. The Government has recently announced that only the first 5 Neighbourhood Plans Area Designations in any LPA area will receive a grant £5000. This has financial implications for planning authorities like Colchester where more than 5 Neighbourhood Plans are being progressed.

10. Equality, Diversity and Human Rights implications

10.1 An Equality Impact Assessment has been prepared for the Local Development Framework and is available to view on the Colchester Borough Council website by following this pathway from the homepage: Council and Democracy > Policies, Strategies and Performance > Equality and Diversity > Equality Impact Assessments > Commercial Services > Local Plan.

10.2 There are no particular Human Rights implications.

11. Community Safety Implications

11.1 None identified.

12. Health and Safety Implications

Page 69 of 210 12.1 None identified.

13. Risk Management Implications

13.1 The adoption of the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan will help ensure that the Council’s planning policies are robust and up-to-date and help to reduce the risk of inappropriate development being permitted.

14. Disclaimer

14.1 The information in this report was, as far as is known, correct at the date of publication. Colchester Borough Council cannot accept responsibility for any error or omissions.

Page 70 of 210 MYLAND AND BRAISWICK

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

JULY 2016 2016 - 2032

INDEX

COMMUNITY FOCUS ON QUALITY OF LIFE

Page 71 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

CONTENTS

FORWARD

1 INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND

1.1 A Brief History of Myland and Braiswick

1.2 Myland and Braiswick Today

2 CONTEXT and SCOPE

3 OBJECTIVES and VISION

3.1 Objectives

3.2 Vision

4 POLICIES

4.1 Housing

4.2 Education

4.3 Employment

4.4 Environment

4.5 Social Amenity

4.6 Sport and Leisure

4.7 Roads and Transport

4.8 Development and the Public Realm

5 IMPLEMENTATION OUTLINE

6 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Myland & Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Area and Sub-Neighbourhoods map

Appendix B – Myland & Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Boundary and Key Features map

Appendix C – Remaining Major Development Areas in Myland.

Appendix D – Northern Gateway, Mill Road Green Space

Appendix E - Bibliography

Appendix F - Acknowledgements

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 1

Page 72 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

FORWARD

This is the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan.

As part of the 2011 Localism Act the Government introduced the idea of neighbourhood plans. Through such plans greater local level influence is possible over how communities are shaped. Our Neighbourhood Plan will have extra powers under planning law and once voted for through local referendum Colchester Borough Council (CBC) must use it in determining planning applications. It will form part of the statutory development plan for the area, sitting alongside CBC’s Local Plan.

Because north Colchester is under intense development pressure Myland Community Council (MCC) and Braiswick Residents Association (BRA) joined forces to produce the Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan. The Plan focuses on the protection and enhancement of the community’s quality of life within an ongoing passage of housing and other development.

The Neighbourhood Plan area is shown on the map at Appendix A. The map highlights how developments have led to distinct areas within Myland and Braiswick which we have called sub- neighbourhoods. It covers the whole of Myland Parish plus Braiswick (sub-neighbourhood 8). It reveals the urbanisation of Myland and Braiswick.

The Plan builds upon the Myland Design Statement, the Myland Parish Plan and various community engagement exercises concluding with a survey questionnaire to every Myland and Braiswick household. The Plan will be for the years 2015 to 2032 to cover the next CBC Local Plan period 2017 – 2032. It will be constantly monitored with formal review points at 2020 and 2025.

The Plan is based on evidenced community feedback which has been interpreted and developed by a working group comprising representatives from MCC, BRA and the local community. It seeks to put in place policies that enhance community quality of life for the residents of Myland and Braiswick. This approach is supported by CBC who state “Overall, it is considered that the document sets out a clear desire for the achievement of a sustainable community and sustainable development, and this is considered to be entirely consistent with the purpose of neighbourhood planning”.

The next stages of the neighbourhood planning process are set out below with indicative timescales

• Independent examination – May 2016 • Referendum – September 2016 • Adoption – October/November 2016

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 2

Page 73 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 A Brief History of Myland and Braiswick

A History of the County of Essex: Volume 9 tells us that Mile End probably took its name from its original settlement a mile north of Colchester town. It had become a separate parish by 1254, when the original church was recorded, and presumably a settlement already existed. By the late 13th century it was sometimes called Myland. In the middle-ages settlement seems to have been scattered over the un-wooded areas of the parish including Tubswick, recorded from 1295, and Braiswick which seems to have originated as a medieval freehold.

Much of Mile End was woodland and heath but much of Mile End’s woodland had been cleared by the end of the 11th century. All of the parish was subject to royal forest jurisdiction. Kingswood included all of the parish except probably the part west of Nayland Road. The north part of Kingswood became the estate called Kingswood and Kingswood Heath, later known as the Severalls and Mile End Heath. Part of the south became the land of Mile End Manor. West of Nayland Road lay part of the ancient wood of Cestrewald or Chesterwell in the north; in the south was part of the Braiswick Estate.

There were potters living in the north-west of the parish in the 12th and the 13th century. Nursery gardens become important in the 19th century. In 1801 the population was recorded at 299 and there were 44 houses. By 1901 the population increased to 1,373 with 300 houses largely influenced by the coming of the railway. Employment centred mostly on arable farming on cleared land.

The nineteen hundreds saw gradual expansion but the parish retained much of its rural feel. However, growth began to increase significantly late in the century with a population of around 6,000 by 1999.

1.2 Myland and Braiswick Today

The release of NHS and other land and the bisecting of Myland by the Northern Approach Road (NAR) to enable development of Cuckoo Farm has urbanised this once semi-rural part of Colchester Borough.

Since 1999 Myland Parish has undergone substantial change. This has accelerated in recent years to growth on an unprecedented scale. Based on recent and known future housing growth and applying the CBC formula of 2.33 persons per dwelling we can expect there to be a population well in excess of 21,000 by 2032. Such growth brings with it many changes that challenge the sustainability of the area. From a semi-rural environment centred round Mile End village, the area will be a patchwork of diverse urban neighbourhoods with direct impacts on the adjacent neighbourhood of Braiswick. This transformation is already evident and has brought with it a number of issues that challenge economic, social and environmental sustainability. (Appendix A & B).

The Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan has therefore to look holistically across the area, its various sub-neighbourhoods, and if necessary its adjacent communities, when identifying the impacts of growth and the consequent needs of the community as a whole. Whilst much of the Neighbourhood Plan area is subject to agreed masterplans, the future of a large part of the Plan area is currently under review. This area known as the ‘Northern Gateway’ is important to the future of our community and the Neighbourhood Plan provides an opportunity for it to shape that future with CBC. MCC and BRA are supportive of Colchester Borough Council’s proposals for the Northern Gateway area of Colchester, set out in the Master Plan Vision document (June 2012).

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 3

Page 74 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

The Northern Gateway area covers over 100ha on either side of the A12, east of the new Junction 28. It is considered that the development of this area will contribute important opportunities for the community to partake in sport, leisure and recreation activities. MCC and BRA will seek to ensure their continued involvement in the development of these proposals including the retention of a significant portion of the existing Rugby Club land, Mill Road, as Local Green Space. (Appendix D).

MCC and BRA are also aware of a small area of proposed development at St Botolphs Farm in Braiswick, submitted in response to the CBC 2015 Call for Sites exercise. MCC and BRA anticipate being included in discussions with CBC and developers if this site becomes an option.

2 CONTEXT AND SCOPE

The Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan cannot be used to challenge developments included in Colchester Borough Council’s existing Local Plan, it will have to “conform generally to the strategic policies and proposals of the Local Plan” and care has been taken to do this.

The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to ensure the delivery of “sustainable developments”. By sustainable development the Framework means that we enhance quality of life for our residents now and for future generations. This Neighbourhood Plan is therefore concerned with working alongside the development of housing and other sites within Myland and Braiswick to establish policies to address identified shortfalls in economic, social and environmental conditions within and surrounding our neighbourhoods.

The Plan establishes a number of policies. Which are defined in the following pages. They fall within the subject areas covered in the most recent and major community engagement survey and mirrored in our objectives. To these we have added an overarching policy for Development & the Public Realm. The main policy areas are:

• Housing • Education • Employment • Environment • Social Amenity • Sport and Leisure • Roads and Transport • Development & the Public Realm

The full range of survey material taken into account consists of:

• June 2000: An all-households survey carried out on creation of Myland Parish Council. • March 2007-10: Local events in response to Colchester Borough Council’s Core Strategy Policies, culminating in a Masterplan for Myland. • 2009-2010: Local events and questionnaires on the Myland Design Statement and Myland Parish Plan. • March 2010: Local events and communications on the response to the Chesterwell development masterplan proposals. • October 2012: A local community engagement exercise covering Myland and run by Essex University on behalf of Colchester Borough Council. • May 2013: Myland Development Committee public meeting. • 2013-14: All households survey for the Neighbourhood Plan with related and other communications via the Mylander magazine and Community Council website.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 4

Page 75 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

3 OBJECTIVES AND VISION

3.1 Objectives

Community input to previous documents such as the Myland Design Statement and Myland Parish Plan, enhanced by other community engagement exercises and culminating in the most recent survey coverage of every household in the Neighbourhood Plan Area provided a strong basis upon which the Plan could be developed. From the circa 800 responses to the latest survey the working group have interpreted feedback into the following objectives:

• Housing growth will provide a mix of high quality, well designed dwellings that meet the different needs across the community.

• Education provision for all ages and requirements will be in-step with housing growth.

• Local employment opportunities will be created to support housing growth, minimise related travel burdens and boost the local economy.

• High-speed broadband will be encouraged as a standard infrastructure feature in all new business and housing developments.

• Sensitive development design will help meet the challenge of climate change and protect and enhance the natural and historic environment.

• Social amenity will be provided by developments that bring facilities and services to support social cohesion, health and well-being and sense of place.

• Housing growth will be matched by health and well-being opportunities through sport and leisure provision including the protection and provision of open space.

• Developments will be supported by road and transport strategies that provide effective and environmentally friendly travel solutions.

3.2 Vision

Collectively the objectives provide a vision for our future:

The neighbourhoods of Myland and Braiswick will continue to be desirable places to live. Quality of life will be supported by suitable housing, the necessary education provision and local employment opportunities. Health and well-being will be gained through access to social amenity including sport and leisure, green open space, a network of public rights of way (multi-use tracks) and community venues. Ours will be a cohesive community that enjoys the benefits that flow from connectivity across neighbourhood areas.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 5

Page 76 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

4 POLICIES

4.1 Housing

Objective

Our objective for housing is that growth will provide a mix of high quality, well designed dwellings that meet the different needs across the community.

Policies

The following housing policies are applied:

HOU1 – Housing in Myland and Braiswick will have a variety of choices, design and living styles that meet the needs of residents, including the elderly, and respect the scale and character of the existing street scenes and environment. Developers should achieve the highest quality of design commensurate with current national and local design guidance.

HOU2 – New housing will need to respect the setting of any nearby designated local heritage assets, including, but not restricted to: • Grade II listed Administration Block, Severalls Hospital • Grade II listed Braiswick Farm House • Church Farm House • Grade II listed Park and Gardens, Severalls Hospital • War Memorials • Myland Primary School • Churches

Rationale and Evidence

The main housing development programmes in Myland and Braiswick are encompassed by the Colchester Borough Council ‘Local Plan’. Planning permission exists on identified development sites. This Neighbourhood Plan does not therefore seek to promote further significant housing development.

Our latest survey results found that a clear majority of residents (63%) have no current intention to move. It is a reasonable conclusion therefore to identify a need for housing that meets peoples changing circumstances whether that means expansion or down-sizing.

Indeed, this aligns with paragraph 50 of the NPPF which recognises the need to cater for a wide range of needs and states that local planning authorities should plan for “a mix of housing needs of different groups in the community, e.g. families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes”.

Some specific needs which impact on housing types are highlighted at pages 11 and 26 of Colchester Borough Council’s ‘Local Plan Issues and Options, January 2015’. “The number of people over 65 years is projected to increase by 50% between 2012 – 2032” and “As predictions indicate an ageing population the impact of smaller, older households on services and housing will need to be managed”.

MCC and BRA support NPPF paragraph 50. We will seek to influence and encourage owners of development land and developers to deliver serviced land for older people accommodation and the provision of land for self-build needs.

The Severalls Phase 2 site has outline planning permission for housing. The Northern Gateway site, although primarily focussed on sport and leisure, will also accommodate some housing.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 6

Page 77 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

Our recent research also shows that residents feel strongly that housing design should provide adequate and suitable living space and should be of a scale in keeping with the neighbourhood. This is consistent with both the Myland Design Statement and the Myland Parish Plan. It would also seem sensible, given the pressure on housing in terms of space demand, to utilise well insulated head height roof spaces to enable optimisation of living/storage requirements, e.g. to provide an extra bedroom or home office.

It is therefore reasonable for MCC and BRA to expect emerging housing developments to meet the above needs.

Relevant CBC Housing Policies

The above policy aligns with the key Borough Council Housing policy:

H3 – Housing Diversity – “Colchester Borough Council intends to secure a range of housing types and tenures on developments across the Borough in order to create inclusive and sustainable communities…”

The Grade II listed Braiswick Farmhouse. (See policy HOU2 above).

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 7

Page 78 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

4.2 Education

Objective

Our objective for education is that it will be in-step with housing growth.

Policies and Projects

Local education provision across the spectrum of needs is recognised as key to quality of life and raises the following policy.

EDU1 – CBC as the Local Planning Authority will give due regard and support to infrastructure requirements for, as a minimum, early years, primary and secondary education needs for Myland and Braiswick. Such needs, including provision of safe and accessible walking/cycling routes will be identified and confirmed at the time of development application.

Rationale and Evidence

The Myland Parish Plan expressed a vision for the future “that local children will not need to travel or be driven across Colchester to go to school” and “There will be enough local school places for children from the same family to attend the same school”.

In December 2014 it was reported that 58 primary age children from Myland would need to travel to schools elsewhere in the Borough. The Parish Plan vision therefore remains valid. Our research also finds that the community sees a need for wide-ranging education provision from childcare and pre-school through to primary and secondary education, as well as skills and vocational training through to further education including retirement skills.

This kind of dilemma and need is recognised as a key component of sustainable development at pages 18 and 27 of CBC’s ‘Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report’, “The provision of day care, nursery education and out-of- school care remains an issue for the Borough, with there being more demand than formal supply” and”…ensuring that school places, including early years, are available in the right location is a key issue”.

Relevant Education policies / guidance

CBC Core Strategy Policy SD2 – Delivering Facilities and Infrastructure embraces education provision.

MCC and BRA note paragraph 72 of the NPPF which states “The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement and to development that will widen choice in education”. MCC and BRA policies are consistent with Government guidance.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 8

Page 79 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

4.3 EMPLOYMENT

Objective

Our objective for employment is that local opportunities will be created that support housing growth and minimise related travel burdens and boost the local economy.

Policies

EMP1 – The North Colchester Strategic Employment Zone effectively delivers the local employment opportunities to support housing growth in the area commensurate with CBC Strategic Policy SD1 – Sustainable Development Locations.

EMP2 – The provision of a broad range of business unit sizes will be encouraged to facilitate new start-ups and help growing businesses to remain in North Colchester.

EMP3 – High-speed broadband will be encouraged as a standard infrastructure feature in all new business and housing developments to promote both formal and home working environments.

Rationale and Evidence

It is recognised that employment and the opportunity to find local work feature strongly in people’s health, well-being and hence quality of life. Indeed, access to employment is central in contemporary guidance such as the BREEAM Communities Social and Economic Well-Being coverage. This is a concern as page 28 of CBC’s ‘Local Plan Sustainability Scoping Report’, July 2014 states “…a key issue for the Borough’s economy is that the rate of job creation…is less than the rate of growth of the working age population”.

A feature that has emerged during research for both the Myland Design Statement and the Myland Parish Plan is the requirement to help reduce commuter travel need and time and to boost local business enterprise by providing, for example, small workshops such as Cuckoo Farm Studios, flexible office accommodation and business incubator units. Reliable high performance communications such as fibre-optic broadband is also regarded as essential. This would also bring benefits to schools and in the home to enhance education, business opportunity and the use of communication media.

This is replicated in our most recent survey which also suggested types of employment the Plan should encourage. The results clearly identify that residents see North Colchester as an area of opportunity for employment across a wide range of businesses from tourism and leisure to office accommodation, from retail to restaurants and cafes and from community services to small businesses and start-up units. Tourism would be commensurate with CBC’s acknowledged attraction of the Borough and businesses related to medicine and health would be geographically situated with the hub of the Borough’s health provision in north Colchester.

Our latest survey results also reveal that 16% of residents work locally within Myland and Braiswick, including Severalls Business Park, a further 39% work elsewhere in Colchester and 25% commute to London. Neighbouring towns such as Ipswich, Clacton and Chelmsford collectively account for 13%. Train travel accounts for 23%, walking for 14%, cycling 7% and buses 6%. By far the most workers, 48%, travel by car. This adds to local road and transport issues covered later in this Plan.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 9

Page 80 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

It is important therefore that opportunities are taken to promote and deliver local opportunities for this essential aspect of quality of life.

Relevant CBC Employment policies

The following are seen as the key CBC policies relevant to employment considerations in this Plan:

CE1 – Centres and Employment Classification and Hierarchy – “The Borough Council will encourage economic development…through the allocation of land necessary to support employment growth at sustainable locations.”

CE2c – Local Centres – “Neighbourhood Centres will be protected and enhanced to provide small scale shops, services and community facilities for local residents…”

CE3 – Employment Zones – “Employment Zones will accommodate business developments that are not suited to Mixed Use Centres, including industry and warehousing… The Council will seek to deliver approximately 45,100sqm (gross) of industry and warehousing floor space, primarily within the North Colchester and Stanway Strategic Employment Zones…The Council will encourage the provision of incubator units and grown-on space to support the development of small and medium enterprises.”

The Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan policies are in compliance with the above current CBC policies.

“Planning for sustainable development includes building a strong economy that is well connected to global markets. This includes trying to provide local jobs for residents moving in to new housing

to minimise the need to travel”.

CBC, New Local Plan, Issues and Options, January 2015.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 10

Page 81 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

4.4 ENVIRONMENT

Objective

Our objective is that Sensitive development design will help meet the challenge of climate change and protect and enhance the natural and historic environment.

Policies

Collectively this local and national support evidences the vital role that our natural environment and heritage play in maintaining health and well-being in sustainable communities. The following policies are therefore proposed.

ENV1 – Development design will maximise opportunities for the creation, restoration, enhancement, expansion and connectivity of Green Infrastructure within and between development sites. All major developments should seek to include elements of Green Infrastructure and Ecological Networks, such as but not limited to Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS), allotments, street trees, green roofs, recreational areas, areas of new and existing natural habitat, green corridors through the sites and waterbodies. Specific attention should be given to:

• The protection of mature trees, shrubs and historical hedgerows and important features that define the local landscape character.

• Specified areas of green space within the Chesterwell development will be delivered and will be provisioned as wildlife areas with effective connecting green corridors, such as native species woodland in sound attenuation areas, flower meadows and balancing lakes suitable to support aquatic related wildlife. This will be in accordance with the Colchester North Green Infrastructure Strategy and the Ecological Design Scheme.

• The Severalls Phase 2 development will retain existing parkland features to a significant degree as shown in the masterplan and not result in harm to the character and appearance or significance of the Registered Park and Garden.

• If Colchester Rugby Club is relocated a significant proportion of the current sports fields will be retained as local green space in accordance with proposals agreed with CBC as part of the Northern Gateway stakeholder consultation (see Appendix C). MCC will seek to secure this key portion of the existing Mill Road sports fields as designated Local Green Space, in line with NPPF paragraphs 76 – 77, or as a village green.

• MCC and BRA will urge relevant bodies to set aside unused green space adjacent to the Braiswick School for local green space in accordance with NPPF paragraphs 76 -77.

ENV2 – In partnership with CBC and other relevant parties, MCC will explore the opportunity for the Fords Lane sports field and its extension, agreed as part of the Chesterwell development, to be reconfigured to provide recreational space adjacent to the proposed community centre.

ENV3 – Drainage for new developments should be based on the principles of sustainable drainage as outlined in the Essex County Council SuDS Guide. Wherever possible this should be designed using the ‘above ground’ drainage features to help ensure robust treatment to improve the quality of water entering into local water bodies. The system should also promote wildlife habitats and green and blue corridors running through new development.

ENV4 – Highwoods Country Park is a valuable and important asset. Planning applications must ensure the protection and enhancement of Highwoods Country Park.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 11

Page 82 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

Rationale and Evidence

The local environment in respect of green open space and natural features has registered strongly in all community engagement exercises in regard to what resident’s value most about Myland and Braiswick. In particular High Woods Country Park (as shown in Appendix B) is cherished as accessible natural green space. The Park covers approximately 370 acres and is a significant ‘green lung’ within an increasingly urbanised area. It is managed to protect and enhance flora and fauna that is accessible to the community through a network of footpaths and cycle routes. The Myland Design Statement states “…important features that define the local landscape character should be protected”. The Myland Parish Plan vision is that “Development on protected or unallocated green spaces will have been kept to a minimum with the retention of existing hedges, mature trees and footpaths, and bridleways. Natural green areas will be provided as a refuge for wildlife”.

Inevitably urbanisation through the release of land has brought with it significant loss of green open space together with its integral wildlife habitats. Similarly, registered park land at Severalls will be severely diminished. Efforts to contain the loss of such key assets and to see the provision of adequate green space feature strongly in this Plan. Likewise historic and natural features attract the same importance as highlighted in the latest resident survey. Over 90% of respondents agree or strongly agree on the need for provision of green space (97%), the protection of historic and natural features (94%) and the protection of the varied local wildlife (93%).

Other important documents endorse these requirements. Page 28 of CBC’s ‘Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report’ clearly states “All future developments will need to take account of current cultural and heritage assets as well as continuing to protect and enhance them. One key consideration will be the preservation of countryside areas and strategic green gaps between settlements”.

This is not just a local requirement. Page 2 of the document ‘Planning for a healthy environment – good practice guidance for green infrastructure and biodiversity. July 2012’ (listed in Appendix E) more robustly claims “Maintaining and restoring the natural environment will play a fundamental role in sustaining our collective future”. Page 9 of that document reminds us that “The NPPF identifies (paras 6 & 17) sustainable development as the purpose of the planning system and conserving and enhancing the natural environment as a ‘core planning principle’”. Similarly, the NPPF identifies the historic environment as a key component of environment consideration and important to community ‘sense of place’.

As well as the loss of habitat referred to above, increased development can lead to a change in the natural drainage of a site; if not carefully managed this can lead to increased flood risk both within the area and further downstream. The inclusion of sustainable drainage systems as part of new development can help to minimise the runoff from a new site, as well as improve water quality locally. The use of above ground drainage features such as swales, detention ponds, bio-retention areas and wetland areas help to ensure that areas of green and blue space are maintained within the development.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 12

Page 83 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

Relevant CBC Environment policies

The CBC Strategic Policy relevant to this aspect of the Plan is;

ENV1: - “The Borough Council will conserve and enhance Colchester’s natural and historic environment, countryside and coastline. The Council will safeguard the Borough’s biodiversity, geology, history and archaeology through the protection and enhancement of sites of international, national, regional and local importance.”

The above Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan policies are in compliance with this CBC Policy.

Oak tree lines such as those above on the Chesterwell site will be retained as important ecological, biodiversity and ‘sense of place’ features.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 13

Page 84 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

4.5 SOCIAL AMENITY

Objective

Our objective is that social amenity will be provided by developments that bring facilities and services to support social cohesion, health and well-being and sense of place.

Policies

Given the above NPPF and other recognised guidance/standard references to the importance of social amenity to sustainable communities it is essential that the following policies are applied.

SAM1 – MCC and BRA will actively seek to encourage developers to provide and CBC to support the provision of community facilities and services on the Chesterwell, Severalls Phase 2 and Northern Gateway developments such as but not restricted to: • Community Centres • Post Office and/or bank • Local market • Coffee shop(s) • Activity venues • Library facilities • GP Surgery(s)

SAM2 – MCC and BRA will encourage the ultimate developer of Severalls Phase 2 to explore the retention of suitable existing buildings that would serve the purpose of amenity venue provision.

Rationale and Evidence

House building to-date in Myland and Braiswick has fallen short in providing sustainable developments in terms of social amenity. Whilst developer s106 contributions will provide some alleviation including community centres at Severalls and Chesterwell there is much to be done towards community cohesion.

Whilst the two local pubs and the ASDA café appear to be favourite spots and Myland Parish and Methodist Church halls are busy venues, for example with scouts, guides, nurseries etc. and the Dance Studio, Rugby Club and Golf Club are all well supported, there is a whole host of attractions that residents seek to improve their quality of life. For example, informal meeting venues and shops, local markets and craft centres, library and bank and/or post office facilities, young people venues and general meeting/activity centres for young and old alike are sought.

The Myland Parish Plan sees the community centres offering leisure, educational and entertainment events as well as being focal points for socialising for residents of all ages.

The above requirements align well with paragraph 70 of the NPPF which says “To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments”. This is particularly relevant to a population growth reaching 21,000 plus by 2032.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 14

Page 85 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

Representation has also been received that this Neighbourhood Plan should seek to provide more GP surgery access. Although Myland is home to the Town’s General Hospital and Walk-In Centre these serve the whole Borough. Myland has only one GP Surgery that already has access issues including parking limitations.

The importance of community amenity is reflected in the contemporary guidance ‘BREEAM Communities’ (currently 2012) which sets out eleven mandatory standards, one of which is ‘demographic needs and priorities. Equally the ‘Building for Life’ standard asks the question, “Does the development provide (or is it close to) community facilities, such as shops, schools, workplaces, parks, play areas, pubs or cafes?”

Relevant CBC Social Amenity policies

The CBC Strategic Policies relevant to this aspect of the Plan are;

SD2 – “The Borough Council will work with partners to ensure that facilities and infrastructure are provided to support sustainable communities in Colchester. New facilities and infrastructure must be located and designed so that they are accessible and compatible with the character and needs of the local community. New developments will be required to provide the necessary community facilities…”

SD3 – “The Borough Council will work with partners to deliver key community facilities to support the Sustainable Community Strategy…The Council will also provide facilities for the local communities, based upon an analysis of need, with particular regard to disadvantaged groups.”

The Myland and Braiswick policies and initiatives are in compliance with these CBC Policies.

This is an example of integrated green space, play facilities, cycle and footways off Bergholt Road that link people to popular destinations.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 15

Page 86 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

4.6 SPORT AND LEISURE

Objective

Our objective in this area is that housing growth will be matched by health and well-being opportunities through sport and leisure provision.

Policies

The following policies are focused more specifically on access to sport and leisure and should be seen as complementary to other policies with a health and well-being focus.

SPL1 – In harmony with active lifestyles afforded by greenspace provision MCC and BRA will encourage developers and CBC to enable the provision of sport and leisure facilities, as far as possible on the Chesterwell, Severalls Phase 2 and Northern Gateway developments.

SPL2 - As amenities that facilitate both sustainable transport and bringing benefit to health and well- being, Myland and Braiswick footpaths and public rights of way will be maintained and protected (if necessary by authorised diversion) and new rights of way, including bridleways, encouraged commensurate with the Essex Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan. This will include Public Rights of Way suitable for vulnerable users.

SPL3 – CBC and developers will liaise with MCC and BRA, local sports clubs and societies as key stakeholders in determining sport provision in north Colchester in harmony with the most up to date CBC Sports Strategy and Action Plan available.

Rationale and Evidence

Similar to the loss of green open space at ‘Environment’ above, Myland and Braiswick have seen major loss of sports and associated leisure venues, e.g. Flakt Woods, Severalls, Turner Village and Royal London are all sites that offered a range of sports and linked social activities, not only to their employees but also to the wider local community.

Prominent sports activities currently pursued include rugby, cricket, football, dance and by far the most, keep-fit. In response to a survey question on what other sporting facilities would be used locally, residents commenting via the 2013/14 survey scored the following activities in the following manner:

Swimming 46% Athletics track/field 9% Cycling recreational 29% Skate park 9% Tennis 23% Squash 9% Tree walking/zip wires 23% Paddling pool 8% Badminton 19% Basketball/handball/netball 6% Outdoor gym 19% Cycling (competitive) 6% Aerobics 13% Fishing 6% Running cross country 11% Hockey 2% Horse riding 10%

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 16

Page 87 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

Mindful of CBC policies DP4 ‘Community Facilities’ and DP15 ‘Retention of Open Space and Indoor Sports Facilities’ that both offer to replace lost sport and leisure facilities, Myland and Braiswick would be hopeful that the adopted Myland Design Statement aspiration “New developments in Myland should incorporate accessible, varied sport and leisure facilities for residents” will be met. The importance attached to sport and leisure as key components of health and well-being are recognised in CBC’s Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report’ which says at page 27 “Access to recreation, leisure and open space is as important as access to formal health facilities”.

MCC and BRA identify the emerging Northern Gateway proposals as having the potential to deliver an array of sport and leisure facilities which will provide much needed opportunities for sport and recreation and which will make an important contribution to the sustainability of the Neighbourhood Plan Area. To that end MCC and BRA will work with CBC to ensure the proposed Northern Gateway sports and leisure development area will help to satisfy resident aspirations. The CBC Sports Strategy and Action Plan, published July 2015 will help to inform these discussions. After all “access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities” is a message at paragraph 73 of the NPPF.

There is also a high demand for cultural aspects of leisure on a more local basis, for example performing arts, arts and crafts, further education, cinema and clubs of various types for all ages. These may be catered for in the promised community centres or may need to be found other dedicated venues. See also Social Amenity above.

Relevant CBC Sport and Leisure policies

The relevant CBC strategic policy is:

“PR1 Open Space – The Borough Council aims to provide a network of open spaces, sports facilities and recreational opportunities that meet local community needs and facilitate active lifestyles by providing leisure spaces within walking distance of people’s homes, school and work”

The Myland and Braiswick policies and initiatives comply with this policy.

Colchester United’s Weston Homes Stadium is within Myland.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 17

Page 88 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

4.7 ROADS AND TRANSPORT

Objective

Our overall objective is that developments will be supported by road and transport strategies that provide effective and environmentally friendly travel solutions.

Policies

MCC and BRA conclude that, to ensure that Myland and Braiswick do not end in perpetual gridlock, there needs to be an overall reduction in car use and a modal shift to public transport, cycling and walking. Accordingly, MCC and BRA will promote policies that encourage a more sustainable travel choice.

RAT1 – Ongoing development in north Colchester will provide an effective and integrated transport solution by considering the following:

• Maximising opportunities to walk and cycle.

• Maximising the use of the Park and Ride service.

• Promoting the Essex Car Share Scheme.

• Ensuring developments are provided with secure, sheltered bicycle storage.

• Ensuring multi-use routes are provided between popular destinations, such as community facilities.

• New developments will take into account the recommendations of Sustrans and Town and Country Planning Association, as well as other recognised design documents, thus enabling the integration of North Colchester through walking and cycling and multi-use routes between and within neighbourhoods.

• Ensuring public transport (bus) routes are to popular destinations and where appropriate integrate effectively with other providers, such as, railway services.

• Ensuring public transport (bus) services are frequent, reliable and clean.

• Bus stops to be provided with shelters and ‘real-time’ service information.

RAT2 – Ongoing development of north Colchester will ensure all dwellings have sufficient off-street parking spaces commensurate with property size and adopted policies.

RAT3 – MCC and BRA will pursue with partners the provision of a multi-use bridge across the A12 to re-establish connection from footpath 39 to The Essex Way and other footpath networks.

Rationale and evidence

An adequate and effective transport infrastructure is an absolute necessity for any community. Traffic volumes, congestion and on-street parking are already of major concern to residents of Myland and Braiswick. Inevitably, the current and proposed developments within Myland and Braiswick will bring increasing traffic volumes. Community survey responses reveal the main concerns as being traffic volume (82%), traffic congestion (80%) and on street parking (74%). Other concerns range from danger to pedestrians, traffic speed and air quality.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 18

Page 89 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

Whilst MCC and BRA acknowledge that the Neighbourhood Plan can only have a limited effect with respect to overall transport policy, it seeks to utilise the Neighbourhood Plan to attempt to both mitigate the current traffic problems and promote alternative forms of transport. Improved cycle, walking and bridleway routes to prime destinations are seen as important actions. In harmony with this, improved, reliable and better quality bus services are another important factor in shifting people from cars to alternatives.

The basis of policy has been derived from results of the resident’s survey, previous MCC transport studies and both Government and independent institution design guides.

MCC’s policies recognise the North Colchester Transport Strategy (NCTS). Although it is likely to be amended its key feature will remain modal shift away from private car usage.

Myland and Braiswick, and all the villages north of Colchester, are separated from the rest of the borough by a physical barrier, the main line railway. The road network of these communities is focused towards North Station, a congestion hot-spot. The residents have to negotiate this pinch-point to access Colchester Town Centre, the A12 and the majority of leisure, retail and commercial facilities. The only other route across the railway line is an unlit, narrow pedestrian tunnel and footpath which runs from Petrolea Close and eventually to the Cowdray Business Centre.

Whilst the completion of the Northern Approach Road (NAR) network, the connection with the A12, and Park & Ride are regarded as potential mitigation for current problems, MCC and BRA remain concerned that these and other planned highway improvement works may not be sufficient for increased traffic volumes.

As part of the 2013/14 community survey the residents of Myland and Braiswick were asked for their views on the road network, public transport, cycling and walking. Residents were also asked where they worked and how they currently travelled there. The results reveal that whilst the majority of Myland and Braiswick residents (53%) work within the Borough of Colchester, only a minority (27%) use public transport, walk or cycle. By far the biggest mode of transport is the car (48%).

With regard to parking, many residents (43%) ‘Disliked or Strongly Disliked’ the parking facilities within Myland and Braiswick. Virtually all residents (96%) wanted the Neighbourhood Plan to focus on adequate off-road parking.

Residents generally considered that public transport should be affordable, have cheaper fares and family tickets, more regular/frequent buses - especially in the mornings and evenings, direct local destinations e.g. General Hospital and PCT Centre, better display of bus times and more information and that the buses should be ‘friendlier and cleaner’. Bus priority at North Station was also suggested. Nevertheless, 68% ‘Strongly Liked’ or ‘Liked’ the existing local public transport, only 25% of respondents stated that they would use a hopper bus service if it was introduced with 46% stated they wouldn’t use it.

The majority of residents (85%) stated that the Neighbourhood Plan should concentrate on pedestrian and cycle access to the town centre and 80% of residents on Public Rights of Way.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 19

Page 90 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

Relevant CBC Transport Policies

The following are the key CBC policies relevant to road and transport considerations in this Plan.

TA1 – “Accessibility and Changing Travel Behaviour: The Council will work with partners to improve accessibility and change travel behaviour as part of a comprehensive transport strategy for Colchester…”

TA2 – “Walking and Cycling: The Council will work with partners to promote walking and cycling as an integral and highly sustainable means of transport…”

TA3 – “Public Transport: The Council will work with partners to further improve public transport and increase modal shift towards sustainable modes…”

TA4 – “Roads and Traffic: The Borough Council will work with partners to accommodate necessary car travel making the best use of networks and manage demand for road traffic…”

TA5 – “Parking: The Council will work with partners to ensure that car parking is managed to support the economy and sustainable communities…”

The MCC and BRA policies and initiatives are in compliance with the above CBC policies.

“With traffic reaching unsustainable levels in recent times, it is imperative that greater travel choice is provided.”

Essex County Council, North Colchester Travel Strategy, 2012.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 20

Page 91 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

4.8 DEVELOPMENT AND THE PUBLIC REALM

Policies

In order to contribute to the achievement of the vision set out in this Neighbourhood Plan for Myland and Braiswick to continue to be desirable places to live it is important that high levels of design quality and overall sustainability are achieved in the development of new communities. The following policy is therefore applied.

DPR1 – Developments will aim to attain the highest quality and design standards and where appropriate encourage the use of relevant national standards by developers in order to achieve the highest possible levels of overall sustainability in the design and layout of new developments.

Rationale and Evidence

As stated under “Context and Scope” this section of the Plan is additional to the subjects covered in the most recent community survey. ‘Development and the Public Realm’ brings together those survey themes and is important to realising the Myland and Braiswick ‘vision’.

Developments to-date across Myland and Braiswick have given rise to an area of diverse sub- neighbourhoods and this will continue with the development of the Chesterwell, Severalls Phase 2 and Northern Gateway sites, see Appendix B. How events have urbanised the once semi-rural nature of north Colchester is evident in the map of distinct neighbourhoods provided at Appendix A.

It is important that the community can be integrated through access to amenities and venues and connectivity can be achieved through road and multi-use routes that provide leisure and destination. This suggests that developments will need to embrace the concept of ‘life time neighbourhoods’. These are described as neighbourhoods that “provide all residents with the best possible chance of health, well-being and social inclusion, particularly as they grow older. This would require an accessible and pleasant built environment….”. Indeed some criticism has been laid at the density and narrowness of roads within recent developments with resultant problems such as chaotic parking.

Social cohesion is critical and highlights the importance of integrating new and existing communities. There is much current guidance from Government and industry sources that support best practice towards achieving it this. The 2007 discussion paper ‘Towards Lifetime Neighbourhoods: Designing sustainable communities for all’ (as listed in Appendix D) sees the central themes as: social cohesion and sense of place; the built environment; social inclusion, services and amenities; housing; and innovation and cross-sectoral planning.

Similarly the ‘Building for Life’ (as listed in Appendix D) industry standard, endorsed by Government, constructs sustainable development around: Integration into the neighbourhood (connections / facilities & services / public transport / meeting local housing requirements); Creating a place (character / working with the site and its context / creating well defined streets and spaces / easy to find your way around); and Street & Home (streets for all / car parking / public and private spaces / external storage and amenity space).

This evidences ample support and guidance from both Government and the Industry for what this Neighbourhood Plan aspires to achieve in respect of its vision for quality of life for current and future residents of Myland and Braiswick. A policy is required that brings focus to what should be attainable.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 21

Page 92 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

5 IMPLEMENTATION OUTLINE

Implementation of the Plan will be spread over a number of years. It will run alongside future development phases in north Colchester and CBC’s Local Plan. Implementation detail will emerge as it becomes clear the extent to which potential actions need to be initiated. Thus this implementation outline does not include planning policies and does not form part of the Neighbourhood Plan rather it anticipates projects that need to take place to support the Plan policies and aspirations of the community.

It is evident from the projects set out below that MCC and BRA will need to maintain on-going liaison and close co-operation with other organisations. This will be necessary, for example, to stay abreast of developments, infrastructure and facility provision and identification of potential shortfalls. This will form the basis upon which additional funding requirements will become known and action plans defined.

Where it becomes apparent that development contributions through S106 (Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as substituted by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991) and CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) is not sufficient to meet the needs of the community it may be necessary to consider a range of options such as forming a non-profit making Community Enterprise Company, working partnerships with charitable and other non-profit making organisations or a combination of these. Sources of funding in addition to S106 and CIL contributions will also embrace grant streams so as to minimise reliance on local council taxes.

The question of funding was covered in the most recent community survey where residents were asked which potential funding sources should be used. The response was that a combination of several sources should be utilised: Central Government 49%; Local council tax 47%; Pay as you use 42%; Privately funded 35%; and Fundraising 24%.

An associated detailed Implementation Forecast Plan identifying needs and exploring and recommending options will be produced replicating the CBC Local Plan period. This will contain details of how projects and actions will be monitored against progress and achievement. As referred to above, MCC and BRA anticipate a range of local projects (LP’s) that will need to be undertaken to activate some of the policies and what they aim to provide. An overview of those already under consideration is outlined below as an indication of what may be undertaken.

LP1 – Housing: MCC and BRA have identified the need for elderly day and social facilities, including residential care. This is not currently included in development master-plans. If necessary MCC will exercise the ‘Community Right to Bid’ procedure to identify and bid for land under the NPPF regulations to locally operate such facilities.

LP2 – Housing: MCC will review and where necessary enhance the existing Myland Design Statement in light of emerging guidance, revised standards and the policies contained within this Neighbourhood Plan.

LP3 – Housing: MCC and BRA will strongly oppose any allocation of housing on sites currently earmarked for social amenity, e.g. school sites, green space proportion of the Rugby Club.

LP4 – Housing: MCC will lobby industry bodies and professional organisations against further reductions in housing living space standards.

LP5 – Education: MCC and BRA will consistently monitor identified education needs, including non- statutory needs against those in place and will examine alternative means of provision including if necessary the right to bid for sites or buildings.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 22

Page 93 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

LP6 – Employment: MCC and BRA will consistently review business growth, including the creation of business and work opportunities for local young people. This will include if necessary exploring local financing and ‘right to bid’ opportunities.

LP7 – Environment: Northern Gateway - If Colchester Rugby Club is relocated ensure a significant proportion of the current sports fields is designated Local Green Space or as a village green to which the public will have full access to and use of, subject to restrictions on some activities, to be controlled by Myland Community Council. Ensure that plans for the residential development and any other uses will respect the natural features, particularly trees and hedgerows, and seek to incorporate them in development proposals and to protect them during and after construction, replacing them if damaged.

LP8 – Environment: Historic, natural and local features, including buildings of interest, pertinent to the legacy and ‘sense of place’ within Myland and Braiswick will be identified and registered with CBC to ensure their protection.

LP9 – Social Amenity: MCC and BRA will examine in partnership with appropriate representatives, the need for a future multi-faith centre.

LP10 – Social Amenity: MCC and BRA will identify gaps and/or opportunities in amenity provision and examine methods for meeting those gaps/opportunities through local initiatives, including the ‘right to bid’.

LP11 – Social Amenity: MCC and BRA will maintain liaison with health providers concerning adequate provision of primary care (GP surgeries) as the Neighbourhood Plan develops further.

LP12 – Sport & Leisure: Where necessary MCC and BRA will examine alternative methods of providing sport and leisure opportunities including the ‘right to bid’ option on sites and buildings.

LP13 – Roads & Transport: MCC and BRA will lobby Colchester Borough Council/Essex County Council to introduce resident parking permit schemes to areas shown to be adversely affected by commuter parking.

LP14 – Roads & Transport: MCC and BRA will lobby the Colchester Borough Council and local bus companies to provide a comprehensive bus network to Myland and Braiswick with real-time information at main bus-stops and improved information at other bus stops.

LP15 – Roads & Transport: MCC will lobby Colchester Borough Council to upgrade the footpath with an adjoining cycle-way which runs from Petrolea Close through the Cowdray Centre direct to the Colchester Leisure Centre.

LP16 – Roads & Transport: MCC will continue to pursue the provision of a multi-use bridge across the A12 in association with policy RAT3.

LP17 – Development & the Public Realm: MCC and BRA will investigate means by which assessment methods such as BREEAM Communities 2012 may be applied at no cost to developers.

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 23

Page 94 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

APPENDIX A

Myland & Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan and Sub-Neighbourhoods Area map

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 24

Page 95 of 210 Page 96 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

APPENDIX B

Myland & Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Boundary and Key Features map

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 25

Page 97 of 210 Page 98 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

APPENDIX C

Remaining Major Development Areas in Myland

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 26

Page 99 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan North Colchester Masterplans in context. PLAN C

LEGEND

Open space

Residential

Commercial

Education

Mixed use

North Colchester: masterplans in context

Page 100 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

APPENDIX D

Northern Gateway / Mill Road Green Space

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 27

Page 101 of 210 Page 102 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

APPENDIX E

Bibliography

Myland Community Council, November 2013, Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Residents Survey.

Myland Community Council, 2010. Myland Design Statement. (adopted by CBC 2010)

Myland Community Council, 2012. Myland Parish Plan. (adopted by CBC 2012)

A History of the County of Essex: Volume 9

Myland community Council, March 2010, ‘Community Response and Outline Project Brief to Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance of West Mile End.

Colchester Borough Council, Local Development Framework - Core Strategy, Adopted 2008, Selected policies revised July 2014.

Colchester Borough Council, Local Development Framework – Development Policies, Adopted October 2010, Selected policies revised July 2014.

Colchester Borough Council, Local Development Framework – Site Allocations, Adopted October 2010.

Department for Communities and Local Government. 2012. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Myland Community Council, The Mylander, (a quarterly publication to all households).

Colchester Borough Council, 2014 Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report.

Building Research Establishment, 2012, BREEAM Communities 2012.

Town and Country Planning Association and Wildlife Trusts. 2012. Planning for a health environment – good practice guide for green infrastructure and biodiversity.

Cabe at the Design Council, Design for Homes and the Home Builders Federation, with the assistance of Nottingham Trent University, 2012. Building for Life.

Essex County Council, 2013, North Colchester Transport Strategy (unadopted)

Department for Communities and Local Government and The International Longevity Centre. (Discussion paper 2007). Towards Lifetime Neighbourhoods: Designing sustainable communities for all.

The Foundation for Lifetime Homes and Neighbourhoods, 2010, Life-Time Home Standard.

Central Housing Advisory Committee, 1961, Homes for Today and Tomorrow (Parker Morris Model).

Colchester Borough Council, Local Plan, Issues and Options, January 2015

Colchester Borough Council, Call for Sites, 2015

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 28

Page 103 of 210 Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan

APPENDIX F

Acknowledgements

The following participants enabled this Neighbourhood Plan to be produced:

The residents of Myland and Braiswick

The Neighbourhood Plan Working Group

• Ken Aldred, resident • David Clouston, Councillor, MCC • Jean Dickinson, Councillor, MCC • Helen Harris, Clerk, MCC • Pete Hewitt, Councillor, MCC • Chris Law, representative, BRA • Patrick Mills, resident • Marcus Poole, resident • Luisa White, resident

Colchester Borough Council

• Sarah Pullin, Planning Policy Officer • Vincent Pearce, Major Development Manager • Laura Chase, Planning Policy Manager • Daniel Cameron, Planning and Contributions Officer

Cover Design

• Coral Weston

Myland and Braiswick Neighbourhood Plan Page 29

Page 104 of 210 Item Local Plan Committee 10 7 November 2016

Report of Head of Commercial Services Author Beverley McClean 282480 Title Adoption of the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Wards Rural North affected

The Local Plan Committee is asked to recommend that Full Council makes (adopts) the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan, incorporating the Planning Inspector’s Main Modifications

1. Decision(s) Required

1.1 To recommend to Full Council that it makes (adopts) the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan (attached as Appendix A), following its approval at examination and referendum. Once adopted, the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan will become part of Colchester Borough Council’s Local Development Plan.

2. Reasons for Decision(s)

2.1 To ensure the Council’s planning policies provide a robust basis for decisions on future planning applications in the Borough.

3. Alternative Options

4. Supporting Information

4.1 On 8 October 2012, Colchester Borough Council designated the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Area for the purpose of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan (in accordance with Part Two of the Town and Country Planning (England), Neighbourhood Planning (General) regulations 2012). The plan area includes the whole of Boxted Parish.

4.2 The Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Working Group carried out extensive consultation to support the development of the Neighbourhood Plan. This included a drop in event early in July 2012, attended by 250 people which generated 350 responses and the distribution of a household survey during

Page 105 of 210 October - December 2012 which received 226 responses. The questionnaire informed the following aspects of the plan; • Housing development at Hill Farm, Boxted Cross • Support for appropriate small scale employment in Boxted, including smallholdings. • Environment should be protected and enhanced through the provision of a new Village Green. • Improvements to community infrastructure including sports & leisure facilities, open space, a village shop and broadband • Highway improvements • A Travel Plan to manage traffic issues at the village school.

4.3 Further consultation was carried out including a pre-submission consultation in September 2014, and an initial Submission consultation in November 2014. Following this consultation the developer/owner of Hill Farm, lodged an appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission to develop the only site being proposed for housing in the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan. This delayed the Neighbourhood Plan and required changes to be made to the document. As a result of these changes, it was necessary to undertake a 2nd Submission consultation during February-March 2016. In total 24 responses were received to both Submission consultations.

4.4 Colchester Borough Council appointed an independent examiner, Mr Richard Hill, to examine the Neighbourhood Plan in April 2016. The Inspector concluded that subject to minor amendments the plan satisfied all the Basic Conditions i.e. it promoted Sustainable Development, was in general conformity with national Planning Policy & Guidance and with strategic policies in Colchester’s adopted Local Plan and complied with EU Regulations. The Inspector also recommended that the draft plan could proceed to Referendum.

4.5 The Referendum on the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan was held on 15 September 2016 with the following results: 305 in favour of the plan and 69 against, or 81.5% in favour.

4.6 Information gathered by Planning magazine indicates that 199 Neighbourhood Plans had been adopted nationwide as of September 2016. The adoption of the Myland/Braiswick and Boxted Neighbourhood Plans will add to this total and make Colchester the first Essex authority to adopt Neighbourhood Plans.

5. Proposals

5.1 It is proposed that the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan is made (adopted) to form part of the Council’s Adopted Local Plan in accordance with Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning (England), Neighbourhood Planning (General) regulations 2012).

Page 106 of 210 6. Strategic Plan References

7. Consultation

7.1 The preparation of the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan was underpinned by extensive public consultation. The consultation process was documented in a Consultation Statement submitted along with the Neighbourhood Plan document as part of the examination process. On adoption, the document will be made available on the Colchester Borough Council and Boxted Parish Counicl websites , and stakeholders will be notified, in accordance with Section 20 of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

8. Publicity Considerations

8.1 Both Boxted Parish Council and Colchester Borough Council have publicised the Neighbourhood Plan on their respective websites. News of the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan will also be published.

9. Financial Implications

10. Equality, Diversity and Human Rights implications

10.2 There are no particular Human Rights implications.

11. Community Safety Implications

Page 107 of 210

11.1 None identified.

12. Health and Safety Implications

12.1 None identified.

13. Risk Management Implications

13.1 The adoption of the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan will help ensure that the Council’s planning policies are robust and up-to-date and help to reduce the risk of inappropriate development being permitted.

14. Disclaimer

14.1 The information in this report was, as far as is known, correct at the date of publication. Colchester Borough Council cannot accept responsibility for any error or omissions.

Page 108 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2029

Referendum Version

July 2016

Page 109 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 2

2 LOCAL CONTEXT ...... 4 History of Boxted...... 4 Character of Boxted ...... 6 Key facilities ...... 7 Socio-economic profile ...... 8

3 VISION AND OBJECTIVES ...... 12 Planning context ...... 12 Vision for Boxted ...... 13

4 VILLAGE SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES ...... 14

5 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ...... 18

6 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ...... 24

7 HILL FARM SITE ...... 26

8 RETAIL ...... 31

9 BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 33

10 TRANSPORT AND MOVEMENT ...... 35 Highway safety and parking ...... 35

11 NON-PLANNING ACTIONS AND DELIVERY OF PLAN PROPOSALS ...... 36 Action plan for non-planning matters ...... 36 Delivery of plan proposals ...... 40

Page 110 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This is the Neighbourhood Plan for Boxted Parish. It seeks to represent one part of the development plan for the parish over the period 2014 to 2029. For clarity, the development plan consists of any planning policies currently adopted by the local planning authority, Colchester Borough Council, and this Neighbourhood Plan. 1.2 The map in Figure 1.1 below shows the boundary of the Neighbourhood Plan area, which is the same as the administrative boundary of Boxted Parish. Figure 1.1: Boxted Neighbourhood Plan boundary

Page 111 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

1.3 The principal purpose of the Neighbourhood Plan is to guide development within the parish and enable planning applications to be determined through a clear policy framework. The process of producing a plan has sought to involve the community as widely as possible. In particular there has been considerable consultation and a Neighbourhood Plan questionnaire that has provided a substantial amount of evidence. The different topic areas addressed in the Neighbourhood Plan are reflective of matters that are of considerable importance to Boxted, its residents, businesses and community groups. 1.4 This submission version of the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan is accompanied by a Basic Conditions Statement and a Consultation Statement. The Basic Conditions Statement includes a short appraisal of the sustainability of the site proposed for allocation at Hill Farm. It also confirms that a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Neighbourhood Plan was not required.

How to read this document Each section of the plan covers a different topic. Under each heading there is the justification for the policies presented which provides the necessary understanding of the policy and what it is seeking to achieve. There is also a summary of how each policy contributes towards the objectives of the plan. The policies themselves are presented in the blue boxes. It is these policies against which planning applications will be assessed by Colchester Borough Council in its role as local planning authority. It is advisable that, in order to understand the full context for any individual policy, it is read in conjunction with the supporting text. conjunction with the supporting text. Each section of the plan covers a different topic. Under each heading there is the justification for the policies presented which provides the necessary understanding of the policy and what it is seeking to achieve. There is also a summary of how each policy contributes towards the objectives of the plan. The policies themselves are presented in the blue boxes. It is these policies against which planning applications will be assessed by Colchester Borough Council in its role as local planning authority. It is advisable that, in order to understand the full context for any individual policy, it is read in conjunction with the supporting text.

Page 112 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

2 LOCAL CONTEXT

History of Boxted 2.1 Boxted is a sprawling parish of some 3,177 acres situated on the Essex/Suffolk border, part in Dedham Vale, north of Colchester. Its history stretches from Neolithic and Trinovante tribesman, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Plantagenets, Tudors, Stuarts, King William and Queen Anne, The Georges, Victoria, and her descendants to the present day. 2.2 The Parish Church of St Peter stands on a ridge to the south of the River Stour. This was a building started by the Saxons and completed by the Normans. It has been greatly altered through the centuries, the Tudors put in the dormer and lattice windows, the porch is 17th century and in the 18/19th century the thatched roof was replaced with tiles. It remains a small compact building made from pudding stone, rubble, and Roman brick

2.3 Various manor houses were built; the present Hall and Pond House are by the church, but Rivers Hall, a partly moated dwelling is on the eastern outskirts of the parish, and its lands take in the Cross Area. Rivers Hall was surveyed in 1586 by John Walker and these maps still exist today, giving minute detail of the fields and dwellings on the estate. The oldest thatched cottage in Essex, if not in Europe, was on part of the 1586 Rivers Hall estate – this is Songers dated 1260, situated in Cage Lane. There are many thatched cottages in the village, some at peculiar angles to the road pattern – they were built to an earlier road design . Most of these cottages are 17th century.

Page 113 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

2.4 Prior to the Enclosures Act 1813, a large heath separated Boxted from Myland (Mile End), how Colchester. The heath was crossed by two distinct cart tracks, one going to the east of Colchester, the other linking up with Great Horkesley and on into Myland. After the enclosure of the heath (1815) and the laying out of the Straight Road, which is three miles in length, the character of the village changed. The Straight Road led directly to Myland, which expanded with the coming of the railway to Colchester in 1840.

2.5 In 1906 the Salvation Army set up a ‘Labour Colony’ to put ‘landless people on the people less land’. As a result, 67 smallholdings were created and at least 50 were occupied when General Booth visited Boxted in 1910.

Plan showing the Boxted smallholdings in 1916

Page 114 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

2.6 Discontent by the smallholders with the administration of the scheme led to tenants being evicted and by 1916 the scheme was wound up and the smallholding sold. Most holdings were bought by Essex County Council to resettle servicemen returning from the Great War 1914-18.

2.7 At one time there were seven public houses in the village, but today there are none. The oldest, The Cross Inn, was recently refurbished and sold as a private residence. Whilst restoring, the builders found a priest hole in the roof rafters, where supposedly Lord Goring was hidden whilst escaping from Colchester in 1648, the time of the Civil War. A battle was fought near the Cross and Hill Farm and in 1925 when Hill Farm House was being renovated, a skeleton in 17th century armour was found in a rooftop hideaway. It is thought to be the remains of Colonel Farr, a double agent. Boxted now has a new primary school built near the Cross site the original school was built near the church in 1837. There is also a Methodist Church in Chapel Road dating back to 1852, and in 1910 the Methodists opened a schoolroom near their church. There is also a silver band, one of the oldest Methodist bands in Essex. 2.8 Just before the Second World War the King George V Jubilee Trust enabled the villagers to create a Sports Field in Cage Lane. Alongside the sports field is the village hall. There are also well defined footpaths across the village. Today the village no longer has a post office or any shops and, in fact, only a limited number of businesses of any sort. Once a vibrant agricultural community, and for 200 years a prosperous weaving ‘Towne’, it now largely functions as a commuter dormitory. 2.9 Today, the historic legacy still remains, with two Grade I listed buildings (the Parish Church and Songers’) and several Grade II listed buildings dispersed across the parish. In the north there is also the conservation area.

Character of Boxted 2.10 The village has no common architectural style or theme and has a wide variety of styles and designs of house building. These reflect the historical span of construction which started in the thirteenth century. Additionally there is considerable variety of size extending from the three-storey flats as at White Arch Place to large manor houses such as Boxted Hall and Rivers Hall. The character of the village is enhanced by a series of

Page 115 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

thatched cottages dotted around the village such as Songers in Cage Lane, also Medlars and Holly Cottage in Straight Road, a number of thatched cottages in Ellis Road and others along Church Street. Songers Cottage (1280)

2.11 A number of historic houses such as Aubrey’s Cottages are centred on the church in Church Street. The Wheelwright’s House and the old bakery exist close to Boxted Cross and represent the second original focal area of the village. There are other interesting old properties scattered around the village such as Harbutts and Wenlocks in Cage Lane dating from Tudor times, Thatchers and Went (now the Thatched Cottage) in Mill Road, and Oak Cottage in Chapel Road. There are a number of large distinctive properties within the village boundary such as Cheshunts at the end of Church Street, Hill House on Carter’s Hill, Boxted House and Pond House, all with their distinctive styles. 2.12 What was originally council housing was built post war near Boxted Cross and private housing was built such as in Hobbs Drive and East Side. These are typical urban-type twentieth century housing. More recently, building has been mainly in-fill such as on the car-park area of Boxted Cross Inn (now a private house) and along Straight Road.

Key facilities 2.13 Boxted has a primary school – Boxted Primary School – that caters for the education needs of the community between the ages of 4 and 11. The school has recently expanded to take up to approximately 30 pupils per year. Pupils in Years 5 and 6 are taught in a mixed-age class. The February 2014 Ofsted Inspection showed that, at that time, there were 144 children on the school roll, with a theoretical capacity to accommodate 210 pupils. It is understood that a number of the children at the school come from outside its catchment area. 2.14 The expansion of the school was against the wishes of the Parish Council, which was concerned about the impact that additional traffic would have on child safety.

Page 116 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

Socio-economic profile

Population

2.15 In 2011, the population of Boxted parish was 1,363 people. Over the decade since 2001, the population remained static, whilst the population of Colchester Borough increased by 10%. 2.16 However, as Figure 2.1 shows, the profile of Boxted parish’s population changed quite considerably. The proportion of people of retirement age rose by 5% whereas the proportion of children and adults of traditional ‘family’ age (25-44) fell by a total of 7%. This shows that Boxted has an increasing proportion of older people and is losing younger families from its community. Figure 2.1: Population profile change, 2001-2011

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

% of population 10%

0% 0-15 16-24 25-44 45-64 65+

2001 2011

Source: 2001 and 2011 Census

Dwellings and households

2.17 There were a total of 553 households in Boxted parish in 2011 living in 579 dwellings. As is shown in Figure 2.2, the vast majority of these are either owned outright or owned with a mortgage. Boxted parish has a much lower proportion of people living in private rented accommodation. In total, 12% of households are in social rented accommodation.

Page 117 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

Figure 2.2: Tenure of households

Source: 2011 Census 2.18 The profile of dwellings shows that there is a greater proportion of larger properties in Boxted than in Colchester Borough. Figure 2.3 shows that Boxted parish has a far higher proportion of 4- and 5+-bed properties than Colchester Borough – 38% compared to 22%. By contrast, it has a much lower proportion of smaller properties – just 22% are 1- or 2- beds compared to 39% across the Borough as a whole. Figure 2.3: Number of bedrooms

45% 40% 35%

30% 25% 20% Colchester 15% Boxted % of households 10% 5% 0% 1 2 3 4 5+ No of bedrooms

Source: 2011 Census

Economic activity

2.19 Boxted parish does show some differences from the Borough profile in terms of the economic activity of its residents of working age. Figure 2.4 shows that it has a lower proportion of full-time employees but a higher proportion of part-time employees. What is also noticeable is the proportion of people that are self-employed – 21% of the population are self-employed, either with or without employees. This compares to just 13% across

Page 118 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

the Borough. In particular, 14% are self-employed but do not have any employees, suggesting that they work on their own. This is supported by the fact that 7% of the parish’s population works mainly at or from home, compared to just 3% across the Borough. Figure 2.4: Economic activity

Full-time student

Unemployed

Self-Employed - With Employees

Self-Employed - Without Employees

Employee - Full-Time

Employee - Part-Time

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % of economically active

Boxted Colchester

Source: 2011 Census 2.20 What Boxted parish clearly shows is that its workforce works at very senior levels. Table 2.5 shows that 35% of its workers are either at manager/director level or work in professional occupations – this compares to 29% across Colchester Borough. By contrast, Boxted has a very low proportion of people working in the service sector – just 13% working in the care/leisure or sales sectors compared to 19% across the Borough.

Page 119 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

Figure 2.5: Type of occupation

Managers, Directors and Senior Officials

Professional Occupations

Assoc. Professional & Technical Occupations

Administrative and Secretarial Occupations

Skilled Trades Occupations

Caring, Leisure & Other Service Occupations

Sales and Customer Service Occupations

Process, Plant and Machine Operatives

Elementary Occupations

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% % of residents

Boxted Colchester

Source: 2011 Census

Summary

2.21 The socio-economic profile of Boxted parish suggests that the community has the following features:  It is an increasingly ageing population living predominantly in large houses that are owned.  It is losing young people and young families.  It has a significant number of self-employed people, many of whom work from home.  Its workforce has a significant proportion working in high value occupations which are most likely to be located outside the parish.

Page 120 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

3 VISION AND OBJECTIVES

Planning context 3.1 National planning policy is provided by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The ‘golden thread’ running through the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan-making this means positively seeking opportunities to meet the development needs of the area. Neighbourhood plans should:  develop plans that support the strategic development needs set out in Local Plans, including policies for housing and economic development; and  plan positively to support local development, shaping and directing development in their area that is outside the strategic elements of the Local Plan” (paragraph 16). 3.2 This and other matters are supported by Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), which was issued in March 2014. 3.3 The NPPF in paragraph 184 states that Neighbourhood Plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies in the Local Plan. The Local Plan is prepared by Colchester Borough. The key strategic policies in the Colchester Local Plan of relevance to the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan are as follows:

Topic Key Local Plan Policies Sustainable Development SD1 Housing H1, H2, H3 & H4 Employment CE1, DP5, DP8 & DP9 Transport TA1 Environment PR1, ENV1

3.4 It should also be noted that part of Boxted parish is in the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and therefore subject to the Dedham Vale AONB Management Plan and the NPPF as well as Local Plan policy relating to the AONB. 3.5 The Neighbourhood Plan is considered to be in general conformity with these policies and this is articulated in the Basic Conditions Statement which has been submitted along with this document as required at the Submission Stage (Regulation 15).

Challenges for Boxted 3.6 The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to address, as far as is possible, the challenges that face the community of Boxted Parish. The community itself considers these challenges to be:

 Housing – ensuring that any new housing recognises the rural setting of Boxted.

 Affordable housing – addressing a shortage of affordable housing required to serve the needs of the parish.

 Landscape – recognising that part of Boxted lies within the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

 Coalescence with Colchester – ensuring that development does not cause the coalescence of the parish with urban Colchester.

 Community facilities – the need to improve the quality and availability of community infrastructure, particularly leisure and local retail facilities.

Page 121 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

 Movement by non-car modes – the need to protect and enhance the bridleway network for use by cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians in the parish.

 Traffic and highways – addressing issues of highway safety, particularly along Boxted Straight Road, movement of non-local HGV traffic through Boxted village and parking associated with Boxted Primary School.

 Rural character – the need to balance the vitality of the local economic base with the importance of avoiding industrialisation of rural premises, e.g. smallholdings.

 Infrastructure – in particular improved broadband speeds are needed to provide for the growing number of small businesses and levels of working from home that are reflective of the modern economy.

Vision for Boxted 3.7 The vision for Boxted Parish is as follows:

‘In 2029, Boxted Parish will be a thriving rural community. It will have provided for many of the needs of its residents, both in terms of market and affordable housing. Importantly, development will not have been at the expense of the character of Boxted parish, both of its settlements and its landscape and in particular, the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It will have retained and protected its green and blue spaces of value and created new ones. This will be complemented by new and improved facilities, both for sports and leisure and for day-to-day shopping needs through the provision of a community shop.’ Rural employment will continue to thrive and the provision of high speed broadband will enable the network of self-employed people to run global businesses from home or from small, local offices. The road network and its safety for drivers and pedestrians alike will be improved and people will be benefitting from the expanded bridleway network. Congestion at Boxted Primary School has been resolved through a ‘Park and Walk’ initiative.

Objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan 3.8 The objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan as identified by the community are as follows:

 Objective One: Conserve and enhance the character and landscape of the parish and ensure that it does not coalesce with urban Colchester

 Objective Two: Provide additional community infrastructure to maintain and improve the sustainability of Boxted as a rural parish

 Objective Three: Ensure housing developments meet the needs of the local community, including for affordable housing

 Objective Four: Ensure that the rural employment base is, where possible, retained and the supporting infrastructure for rural working is provided

 Objective Five: Address highway safety and parking issues and improve the potential for movement by non-car modes

Page 122 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

4 VILLAGE SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES

4.1 The Colchester Local Plan, which covers the period to 2021, is clear that rural villages such as those in Boxted parish are not appropriate locations for significant growth. It is therefore important to balance the need for growth that addresses the needs of the community with the necessary protection to ensure that unrestricted growth and sprawl of rural settlements does not occur.

Policy justification 4.2 There are four built-up areas within the parish of Boxted. The largest is Boxted Cross. The other built-up areas are Boxted Mill Road, Boxted Workhouse Hill and Boxted Church Hamlet. All of these areas, apart from Boxted Church Hamlet, have defined settlement boundaries in the Colchester Local Plan. 4.3 Policy ENV2 of the Colchester Local Plan recognises the importance of appropriate development in rural communities. It states: “The Borough Council will enhance the vitality of rural communities by supporting appropriate development of infill sites and previously developed land (PDL) within the settlement development boundaries of villages. The design and construction of new village development must be high quality in all respects, including design, sustainability and compatibility with the distinctive character of the locality. Development should also contribute to the local community through the provision of relevant community needs such as affordable housing, open space, local employment, and community facilities.

Outside village boundaries, the Council will favourably consider sustainable small-scale rural business, leisure and tourism schemes that are of an appropriate scale and which help meet appropriate to local employment needs, minimise negative environmental impacts, and harmonise with the local character and surrounding natural environment. Development outside but contiguous to village settlement boundaries may be supported, primarily where it constitutes an exception to meet identified local affordable housing needs.

Towns and villages are encouraged to plan for the specific needs of their communities by developing Neighbourhood Plans which provide locally- determined policies on future development needs. Communities are also encouraged to continue to develop other plans, where appropriate, such as Community Led Plans Parish Plans and Village Design Statements, for adoption as guidance.”

Page 123 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

Figure 4.1: Settlement boundaries in Boxted Parish

Page 124 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

Page 125 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

4.4. The Neighbourhood Plan reiterates this policy and Figure 4.1 shows the extent of the settlement boundaries in Boxted parish. This includes the Hill Farm site that is proposed for allocation for residential development in Policy HF1. This would increase the size of the settlement of Boxted Cross so is included within the proposed change to the settlement boundary as shown in Figure 4.1.

Policy

POLICY SB1: VILLAGE SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES The settlement boundaries within Boxted parish are shown in Figure 4.1. The settlement boundary of Boxted Cross shall include the allocation of the Hill Farm site (Policy HF1) and the land between the primary school and Crossfield Way. Development within the settlement boundaries will be supported in principle where other policy requirements can be satisfied. Outside of the settlement boundaries in Boxted parish, small-scale rural business, leisure and tourism schemes that are appropriate to local employment needs, minimise negative environmental impacts and harmonise with the local character and surrounding natural environment will be considered favourably. Development outside but contiguous to village settlement boundaries may be supported where it constitutes an exception to meet identified local affordable housing needs.

Policy SB1 Objective 1: Conserve and enhance the character and landscape of the YES parish and ensure that it does not coalesce with urban Colchester Objective 2: Protect and enhance the green spaces within the Parish which

are of value to the community Objective 3: Ensure housing developments meet the needs of the local

community, including for affordable housing Objective 4: Ensure that the rural employment base is, where possible,

retained and the supporting infrastructure for rural working is provided Objective 5: Address highway safety and parking issues and improve the

potential for movement by non-car modes

Page 126 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

5 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

5.1 As a series of rural settlements, the community of Boxted parish greatly values the benefits that living in such a setting provides. Whilst the landscape is not generally considered to be of the value of the adjacent Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it is characterised by attractive valleys and woodland. Development that is not carefully considered and which fails to properly mitigate any negative impacts would have a detrimental impact on the quality of this environment. 5.2 The policies in this section of the Neighbourhood Plan seek to balance the recognition that growth can bring benefits with the need to ensure that it does not have a detrimental impact on the landscape.

Policy justification 5.3 Boxted parish encompasses three landscape character areas – the Stour River Valley Slopes, the Great Horkesley Farmland Plateau and the Stour River Valley Floor. These are shown in Figure 5.1. 5.4 The Colchester Borough Landscape Character Assessment1 (LCA) summarised the key characteristics of the relevant parts of the Stour River Valley Slopes as:  Steep sided river valleys  Damp pasture and willows  Patches of mixed woodland  Small farmsteads and orchards  Network of public footpaths 5.5 The LCA recommends a landscape strategy objective of preserving and enhancing these areas. The specific planning guidelines provided are to:  conserve the tranquil undeveloped character of the intimate tributary valley of the River Stour;  conserve the landscape setting of historic settlements such as Boxted;  maintain cross-valley views and conserve characteristic views along the valley; and  ensure any new small-scale development in or on the edges of historic villages of the area is of an appropriate scale, form, design and uses materials which respond to historic settlement character.

1 Chris Blandford Associates (2005) Colchester Borough Landscape Character Assessment, for Colchester Borough Council

Page 127 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

Figure 5.1: Landscape character areas in Boxted Parish

Source: Chris Blandford Associates (2005) Colchester Borough Landscape Character Assessment, for Colchester Borough Council

Page 128 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

5.6 The assessment of the Great Horkesley Farmland Plateau, which covers the majority of the parish, summarised this area as:  Arable fields with mature trees at field boundaries  Interesting field pattern consisting of small, regular fields  Orchards 5.7 The LCA recommends a landscape strategy objective of conserving and enhancing these areas. The specific planning guidelines provide are to:  ensure that any appropriate new development responds to historic settlement pattern and uses materials, which are appropriate to local landscape character;

 conserve the landscape setting of existing settlements, such as Boxted, ensuring where appropriate that infill development does not cause linkage with the main Colchester settlement; and  conserve panoramic and framed views into the Stour River Valley corridor to the north of the character area; 5.8 The assessment of the Stour River Valley Floor summarised this area as:  Wet floodplain consisting of several areas of damp pasture and meadows and ponds;  Willow and remnant poplar plantations following the alignment of the River Stour;  Numerous mills, weirs, water works and pumping stations (human influences) associated with the River;  Large areas of open grazed grassland traversed by a ditch network;  Intimate small fields enclosed by tall hedges and/or wet ditches. 5.9 The LCA recommends a landscape strategy objective of conserving and enhancing these areas. Planning Practice Guidance on flood zones indicates that only water compatible development and essential infrastructure developments which have passed the necessary exception test should be considered within the functional floodplain. Essential infrastructure that passes the exemption test should:  remain operational and safe for users in times of flood;  result in no net loss of floodplain storage; and  not impede water flows and not increase flood risk elsewhere. 5.10 Colchester Borough Council’s ‘Assessment of open countryside between settlements in the Borough of Colchester’2 provides evidence that the character of the landscape between the settlements of Boxted and Colchester (including its Northern Growth Area) makes a high contribution towards the separation of settlements. It summarises at paragraph 9.4.2 as follows: “Any new built development, as defined, between Boxted and Colchester is likely to seriously undermine the sense of settlement separation and the rural character of the intervening land, as perceived by people moving along public rights of way between Boxted and Colchester, or along Straight

2 Colchester Borough Council (2009) Assessment of open countryside between settlements in the Borough of Colchester, Final Report

Page 129 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

Road. Any such development is likely to result in visual coalescence with Colchester and/or Boxted and also visual coalescence with existing houses alongside Straight Road, particularly as perceived from the public rights of way across the adjacent farmland. This visual coalescence is likely to seriously undermine the sense of settlement separation and the predominantly rural character of this land. The sense of leaving one settlement and entering another would also be significantly diminished.”

5.11 This is shown in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2: Contribution to separation of settlements of Boxted and Colchester

Source: Colchester Borough Council (2009) Assessment of open countryside between settlements in the Borough of Colchester, Final Report, Figure 9.3 5.12 The community of Boxted is particularly concerned about encroachment from the Colchester Northern Growth Area. Whilst the A12 forms a robust barrier to prevent further sprawl of Colchester, in recent years there has been the development of a petrol station on the north side of the A12 and planning permission granted for a fast food outlet and the Cuckoo Farm park-and-ride development. The community considers that further development in these locations will serve to have a permanent and detrimental impact on the function of Boxted as a rural parish and settlements. 5.13 It is important therefore that development in Boxted parish is provided with an appropriate and clear policy context to ensure that the character of the local landscape is properly respected and that coalescence with the Colchester Northern Growth Area is prevented.

Page 130 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

5.14 In addition, a further concern of the community is the impact of light pollution from large scale developments. The floodlights from the Weston Homes Community Stadium on the north side of the A12 were altered due to having a detrimental light pollution impact on residents of Boxted (indeed residents still consider that the alteration has not completely addressed the light pollution caused). There is concern that the Cuckoo Farm Park and Ride development, which is closer to residential properties in Boxted than the stadium, will have a similarly unacceptable impact on the amenity of residents. Whilst outside the parish boundary and therefore the influence of this Neighbourhood Plan, the community considers it important that the impacts of light pollution on local residents by major developments such as the Park and Ride and properly mitigated.

Policy 5.15 There are two policies in the Neighbourhood Plan that protect the local landscape character and serve to prevent coalescence. 5.16 Policy LC1 seeks to ensure that the ongoing growth of the Colchester urban area does not serve to reduce the gap in any way between Colchester and Boxted, thereby eroding Boxted’s function as a rural settlement. 5.17 It is important to be clear that, within Policy LC1, there are certain types of development that are generally not considered to be sustainable in this location and are likely to materially reduce the green gap. These are very much guided by the requirements of Policy SB1 in respect of development outside of settlement boundaries and would commonly include residential development or any commercial or leisure development that was not of a small-scale nature appropriate for such a rural setting.

POLICY LC1: COALESCENCE WITH COLCHESTER URBAN AREA Developments in Boxted parish which can be demonstrated to be sustainable and which do not materially reduce the green gap between Boxted and urban Colchester will be supported. This must reflect the requirements of Policy SB1 in respect of development outside of settlement boundaries.

Policy LC1 Objective 1: Conserve and enhance the character and landscape of the YES parish and ensure that it does not coalesce with urban Colchester Objective 2: Protect and enhance the green spaces within the Parish which are of value to the community YES Objective 3: Ensure housing developments meet the needs of the local

community, including for affordable housing Objective 4: Ensure that the rural employment base is, where possible, retained and the supporting infrastructure for rural working is provided Objective 5: Address highway safety and parking issues and improve the potential for movement by non-car modes

5.18 The second policy (Policy LC2) seeks generally to protect the local landscape character of the parish by requiring a landscape assessment to accompany anything but the smallest planning applications where those applications are anywhere other than in the middle of a settlement identified in Policy SB1. This assessment must demonstrate that

Page 131 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

the scheme is not going to have a detrimental impact on the landscape or that any such impacts can fully be mitigated. 5.19 A threshold of three dwellings has been used to avoid those wishing to deliver small scale development of just one or two dwellings from having an unnecessary burden when they submit a planning application. In most cases, it is not expected that just one or two dwellings could have a significant detrimental impact on landscape character. Equally, a threshold of 500m² of commercial floorspace broadly equates to a level of floorspace above which multiple light industrial units are being provided. In other words, below the threshold only a single unit would be provided which, following the same principle as that applied to single dwellings, would be unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on landscape character.

POLICY LC2: PROTECTION OF LANDSCAPE CHARACTER Where a new development of three or more dwellings or 500m² or more of floorspace is either outside a settlement boundary or inside a settlement boundary but contiguous to it, it must be accompanied by a landscape assessment. This landscape assessment must consider the impact that development would have on the local landscape character and must demonstrate that any impacts can be appropriately mitigated. Any proposal that is not capable of mitigating the impacts of development will not be permitted.

Policy LC2 Objective 1: Conserve and enhance the character and landscape of the YES parish and ensure that it does not coalesce with urban Colchester Objective 2: Protect and enhance the green spaces within the Parish which are of value to the community YES Objective 3: Ensure housing developments meet the needs of the local community, including for affordable housing Objective 4: Ensure that the rural employment base is, where possible, retained and the supporting infrastructure for rural working is provided Objective 5: Address highway safety and parking issues and improve the

potential for movement by non-car modes

Page 132 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

6 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

6.1 One of the predominant and sustained features of Boxted parish is the number of smallholdings. There are approximately sixty smallholdings along Boxted Straight Road alone. 6.2 Whilst these smallholdings were traditionally used to grow food for the local and wider community, this has changed significantly over time. Today very few produce food for commercial sale. Most are owned by people who either use the land to grow food for their own personal consumption or for equestrian use. The equestrian use is not insignificant for the local economy as it helps to support employment at Priory Saddlery, as well as at feed and equipment suppliers, farm contractors and blacksmiths. 6.3 The reality is that the majority of the smallholdings are now residential properties where the owners make a living elsewhere. However, these uses still, to a certain degree, reflect the rural nature of Boxted and provide for local needs and leisure pursuits, as well as supporting the local economy. It is considered that such uses are in keeping with the rural environment and therefore should not be discouraged. 6.4 Yet in recent years there has been constant pressure for some of the smallholdings to be used for businesses or interests ancillary to the construction industry, light industrial or storage areas for plant, machinery, caravans or vehicles. Very often these activities result in piecemeal and untidy developments that individually result in a loss of visual amenity and collectively are prejudicial to the appearance of the locality with a gradual erosion of the rural character of the parish. In addition, some these activities create significant noise which can also have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbours. 6.5 The historic effectiveness of CBC policies that have sought to protect visual amenity in relation to these smallholdings has been limited. Policy EMP6 in the 2004 Local Plan (now superseded) identified Boxted Straight Road as a special protection area but this did not prevent a loss of visual amenity as a result of development on some of the smallholdings. 6.6 Policy DP5 (Appropriate Employment Uses and Protection of Employment Land and Existing Businesses) in the CBC Local Plan seeks to direct appropriate employment uses within designated employment zones and this includes small areas within Boxted parish that contain some smallholdings. However, this is by no means extensive enough to cover all the smallholdings. In the areas outside the employment zones, Policy DP9 (Employment Uses in the Countryside) does provide policy guidance in respect of employment uses having to be appropriate to the countryside. 6.7 In addition, Policy DP1(i) and (iii) on Design and Amenity seeks to ensure that the character of the site’s surroundings and its design features are respected and that public and residential amenity is protected, particularly with regard to privacy, overlooking, security, noise and disturbance, pollution (including light and odour pollution), daylight and sunlight. However, the community still feels that this is not preventing the loss of visual amenity where such commercial uses are permitted. 6.8 It is therefore considered necessary to have a policy in respect of commercial development within the parish that seeks to ensure development:  protects visual and noise amenity;  does not prejudice the appearance of the locality; and  protects the rural character of the area.

Page 133 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

6.9 This may be achieved through actions such as appropriate screening/planting on the border of a commercial area. However, it must be able to demonstrate that the activity will not impact detrimentally on the visual amenity of the surrounding area and the parish in general as well as not creating unacceptable levels of noise. 6.10 This policy applies not only to smallholdings but all commercial activity in the parish in order to ensure that the issue is comprehensively addressed.

POLICY SM1: LOSS OF VISUAL AMENITY/UNACCEPTABLE NOISE IMPACT FROM COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY Any unacceptable loss of visual amenity and unacceptable levels of noise impact on the surrounding area and the parish in general arising as a result of commercial development in Boxted parish will not be permitted. Proposals for such commercial activity must demonstrate that any impacts can be properly mitigated through actions such as appropriate visual and noise screening.

As shown on Figure

Policy SM1 Objective 1: Conserve and enhance the character and landscape of the YES parish and ensure that it does not coalesce with urban Colchester Objective 2: Protect and enhance the green spaces within the Parish which are of value to the community Objective 3: Ensure housing developments meet the needs of the local community, including for affordable housing Objective 4: Ensure that the rural employment base is, where possible, retained and the supporting infrastructure for rural working is provided Objective 5: Address highway safety and parking issues and improve the

potential for movement by non-car modes 5.1, the

Page 134 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

7 HILL FARM SITE

7.1 As part of the Neighbourhood Plan process, the community identified that the Hill Farm site was an appropriate location for development. They were asked to consider what an appropriate future use for the site should be. This is the only brownfield site of significance within the parish. It covers an area of approximately 1.2 hectares and is located on the corner of Boxted Straight Road and Carters Hill, opposite Boxted Primary School. The site is located adjacent to the existing Boxted Cross village envelope as per the current Local Plan Proposals Map and as shown on Figure 7.1. Figure 7.1: Boundaries of Hill Farm site

7.2 The most recent active use of the site was as light industrial estate providing basic commercial units for a range of users, such as a joiners and machine repair. Only a small number of these units provided services of direct value to the local community but did provide some employment. 7.3 These units were demolished and the site currently lies derelict. In 2007 permission was granted for the development of new commercial units totalling over 2,000m². Of this, just over 600m² would be offices, with the remainder light industrial units. Access would be from Carters Hill, opposite the Primary School. This permission has since been renewed twice but development has not commenced. The site owners have not received any interest for industrial or office use, largely because of the significant amount of employment land that is available on the edge of Colchester with good access to the A12. 7.4 It is considered that the site represents the best opportunity for development that can meet the needs of the community in a sustainable manner. These needs relate to

Page 135 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

affordable and market housing, but also securing contributions that address particular infrastructure issues in the parish. In particular these infrastructure needs relate to improvements to open space, sports and recreation provision at King George Playing Fields, with a specific need for improvements to the Sports and Social Club. 7.5 A particular issue of importance to the community is the opportunity for the site to provide a ‘village green’ in the form of green open space which all the community of Boxted can use and enjoy collectively. It is important that this is properly maintained, so if responsibility for this is given to the Parish Council then an appropriate contribution towards its ongoing maintenance should be made. 7.6 It is important that development is appropriately screened along its boundary, particularly along Boxted Straight Road where there is existing housing opposite. This will help to minimise the potential for development to have an inappropriate ‘urban’ feel. This should be done, where possible, by retaining existing trees and hedgerows and through additional planting. There are also trees on the site that have tree preservation orders (TPOs) on them which should be retained as part of any scheme. 7.7 Another particular issue is the density and massing3 of the scheme. Policy H2 of the Colchester Local Plan (Housing Density) considers that the density of new housing schemes at locations such as Boxted which do not have good accessibility to town centres/urban gateways or to public transport should be moderated and reflect the character and density of the surrounding built form. 7.8 A mix of dwelling sizes should be provided in line with Policy H3 of the Colchester Local Plan. This policy states that the mix should be informed by ‘an appraisal of community context and housing need.’ 7.9 In order to help retain an element of employment use on the site, a proportion of residential units should be built with an element of ‘live-work’ in their design. This is distinct from specifically ‘live-work’ units which are less flexible and are considered unlikely to have a market in this location. Where, for example, it can be incorporated into the design, some units could have out-buildings/sheds built so that they may double up as an office. 7.10 The Boxted Housing Needs Survey suggested that all the local need for market housing was for housing of 1-3 bedrooms and the Colchester Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2013 found that 75% of need for market housing is for houses of 3 bedrooms or less. The policy seeks to reflect this need with an element of flexibility to assist the viability of the development and during the plan period more up to date assessments of housing need may identify a need for a different mix of dwellings. 7.11 A particular issue of importance to the community is ensuring that affordable housing provided on the site addresses local needs. The Boxted Affordable Housing Needs Survey (undertaken in November 2013) identified a requirement for five units to address the affordable housing needs of local people. These units would need to be a mix of 1- and 2-bed properties. When a scheme goes ahead, the size and tenure of these units should be reviewed in consultation with Boxted Parish Council, the selected housing association and Colchester Borough Council. 7.12 It is considered that, because this site represents the only significant opportunity for development within or adjacent to the settlements in the parish, it is imperative that the affordable housing provided addresses the needs of local people or those with a local connection as identified in the Affordable Housing Needs Survey. If it does not then there

3 ‘Massing’ refers to the shape and size of the buildings

Page 136 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

will be little if any opportunity for these people to access their needs locally unless an existing affordable property becomes available and they successfully apply for it. It is therefore considered that a ‘cascade’ system of allocating affordable housing should be adopted for the development, thereby giving local people the first option on the affordable dwellings. 7.13 Parking around the adjacent Boxted Primary School is an issue for many in the community. It is therefore important that any development does not result in more on- street parking on the existing highway which would worsen the problems at school drop- off and pick-up times. On a related theme, a travel plan should be prepared in conjunction with Boxted Primary School, which specifically seeks to address parking issues at the school. 7.14 The allocation of the site creates an opportunity to provide a community shop. However, this should only be included if there is demonstrable interest from the community. If, at the time of the application, there is no interest, then Policy RE1 in respect of the provision of a community will apply for when, in the future, there is sufficient interest to provide a unit elsewhere in Boxted. 7.15 There is a grade II listed building on the land immediately to the north of the site and any redevelopment of the site must respect its setting. 7.16 There is the potential issue of archaeological remains on the site. Cannon and musket balls were found when buildings were erected on the site as packing sheds for fruit in 1927/1928. These buildings, which situated mainly near the Hill House side of the site, have subsequently been demolished. In addition, in 1925 Hill House (next to the site) was renovated and a skeleton in armour was found in a hideaway in the roof. It is therefore considered necessary that an archaeological investigation is undertaken before development commences.

Page 137 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

POLICY HF1: HILL FARM SITE, CARTERS HILL/BOXTED STRAIGHT ROAD Development of the Hill Farm site, Carters Hill/Boxted Straight Road, will be permitted provided it complies with the following criteria:  It shall deliver a residential scheme at a density that respects the surrounding built-up area and its rural setting.  It shall provide the following mix of residential properties:  For market housing - at least 25% of the market properties delivered should be 1-2 bed properties and at least 25% should be 3-bed properties unless up-to-date published evidence of housing needs suggests otherwise.  For affordable housing – at least three no. 1-bed properties and at least two no. 2-bed properties in line with the Boxted Affordable Housing Needs Survey. This requirement may change if a subsequent Parish Affordable Housing Needs Survey identifies an alternative level and mix of local affordable housing need.  The total number of affordable housing units delivered must comply with Colchester Borough Council Local Plan Policy H4, with a proportion of these expected to be required specifically to address local needs in line with the most recent Boxted Affordable Housing Needs Survey. It is expected that the applicant will seek to agree with Colchester Borough Council the mechanism for allocating the required number and mix of affordable housing units to local residents in Boxted as a priority.  Proposals which incorporate an element of ‘live-work’ into their design will be encouraged.  It shall provide appropriately located public open space, in the form of a village green or equivalent, which is accessible and available for use by all the community, rather than just the residents of the new development. Contributions towards the ongoing maintenance of this space will be required.  The boundary of the site shall have effective natural screening, both through retention of existing trees and hedgerows and new planting. Existing trees that are subject to Tree Preservation Orders shall be retained within the development.  Subject to the statutory requirements for planning obligations, a contribution will be sought through a planning obligation or Community Infrastructure Levy income may be used for improvements to, and expansion of, open space, sports and recreation facilities at King George Playing Fields in Boxted, with a specific need for improvement of the Sports and Social Club.  It shall include an appropriate scheme of sustainable urban drainage (SUDS).  It shall be accompanied by a travel plan, prepared in conjunction with Boxted Primary School, which specifically seeks to address parking issues at the school.

 Parking provision needs to adhere to adopted parking standards in order to avoid increasing parking problems in the vicinity of Boxted Cross around Boxted Primary School.  Subject to the effect on the viability of the development as a whole, if there is demonstrable interest from the community at the time, a community shop shall be provided on site.  It must ensure that the setting of the Grade II listed building to the north of the site is respected.

 An archaeological investigation shall be undertaken prior to commencement of development.

Page 138 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

Policy HF1 Objective 1: Conserve and enhance the character and landscape of the YES parish and ensure that it does not coalesce with urban Colchester Objective 2: Protect and enhance the green spaces within the Parish which are of value to the community YES Objective 3: Ensure housing developments meet the needs of the local community, including for affordable housing YES Objective 4: Ensure that the rural employment base is, where possible, retained and the supporting infrastructure for rural working is provided Objective 5: Address highway safety and parking issues and improve the potential for movement by non-car modes

Page 139 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

8 RETAIL

8.1 As part of the Neighbourhood Plan process, the community was asked to consider if any new retail services were required in the parish. Rural communities such as Boxted need community facilities to act as its lifeblood. However, over recent years such facilities – pubs, post offices, local shops – have been closing in rural communities across the country. This puts the sustainability of small settlements at risk. 8.2 The community of Boxted has recognised the value of having a shop serving the community. Currently it does not have any such facility, with the nearest shops selling everyday convenience goods being located in Great Horkesley. In addition, there is Coleman’s, a butcher on Langham Road which also sells dairy products, fish, bakery goods and fruit and vegetables. There is also a well-stocked community shop in Langham. For older people and those without access to a car, these retail facilities are difficult to get to on a regular basis. 8.3 The principal issue in providing a new retail facility is the commercial viability of such a unit. There is no obvious generic demand for single rural convenience units even in times of economic prosperity, let alone during a prolonged economic downturn. The ‘story’ for why such units come forward is usually bound up in the individual shop owners’ personal circumstances and motivations, or a very specific market niche. Therefore it is recognised that whilst the Neighbourhood Plan could in theory facilitate the delivery of a retail unit, it cannot guarantee that it will be occupied, nor can it guarantee that it will be occupied by a retailer selling the type of goods that the community wishes to see. 8.4 It is therefore considered that the most appropriate way of addressing local retail needs in Boxted is to facilitate the provision of a community shop. This is in line with paragraph 28 of the NPPF which promotes the retention and/or development of local services and facilities such as local shops. 8.5 Such a shop would be run by the community and would provide a range of goods that the community needs. The most common examples are local convenience goods where such a facility acts as a ‘top-up’ facility to the weekly grocery shop that is most commonly done in large supermarkets. 8.6 The Neighbourhood Plan therefore seeks to facilitate the provision of an appropriate unit from which such a community shop can operate. Whether this is in an existing unit or provided as a new unit has not yet been identified. Certainly it would be preferable to occupy a unit as this would not require funding to cover the cost of a new building to be found. 8.7 It will be important that any unit can provide appropriate levels of parking as well as safe access to and from the site. 8.8 As at January 2014 there was no available commercial unit appropriate for use as a community shop in Boxted. It may be possible to use other types of existing buildings that do not immediately lend themselves to such a use – examples include garages or derelict buildings on smallholdings – so there is the possibility that this situation will change. 8.9 In order to ensure that, if a suitable unit is found, a community shop is ready to be opened, volunteers were invited in January 2014 to come forward and show interest in being part of such an organisation. To date, one volunteer has come forward and Boxted Parish Council is hopeful that further volunteers will come forward in the future.

Page 140 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

Policy 8.10 The following policy provides for the opportunity to deliver a community shop in Boxted:

POLICY RE1: PROVISION OF A COMMUNITY SHOP The provision of a community shop (Use Class A1) will be supported. Any planning application to change the use of an existing building to a retail facility that is capable of serving the local community will be strongly supported. This support will be subject to any application ensuring that sufficient parking and safe access can be provided at the site.

Policy LG1 Objective 1: Conserve and enhance the character and landscape of the

parish and ensure that it does not coalesce with urban Colchester Objective 2: Protect and enhance the green spaces within the Parish which are of value to the community Objective 3: Ensure housing developments meet the needs of the local community, including for affordable housing Objective 4: Ensure that the rural employment base is, where possible, retained and the supporting infrastructure for rural working is provided YES Objective 5: Address highway safety and parking issues and improve the

potential for movement by non-car modes

Page 141 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

9 BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE

9.1 The modern economy is changing and increasingly needs good communications infrastructure as a basic requirement. The 2011 Census highlights how people are working differently to a generation ago - in Boxted parish, 7% of people work from home and 21% are self-employed. Of these self-employed people, 14% have no employees so effectively work for themselves with no support. Commonly this is in service activities that simply require access to a computer and a broadband connection. 9.2 The need for high speed broadband to serve Boxted is therefore paramount. Broadband speeds are reported by residents to be poor and it is therefore a fundamental constraint to the continuing expansion of self-employed activity for those working from home or from a small office. 9.3 Government has recognised that there is a significant gap in availability of basic and superfast broadband, particularly in rural areas where British Telecom (BT) and other national providers have not invested in upgrades to the network and have allocated £530m through the Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) programme to deliver superfast broadband to 90% of premises by 2015 and have recently allocated an additional £250m to increase coverage to 95% of premises by 2017 and 99% by 2018. 9.4 The Essex County Council Community Broadband scheme has a roll-out programme for the delivery of superfast broadband infrastructure (24mbps+) and for Boxted, as of October 2014, work was in the process of being undertaken. It is also important to note that other broadband providers such as County Broadband Ltd also have roll-out programmes within the county and may include Boxted parish in the future. 9.5 Whilst BT has an obligation to provide a landline to every household in the UK and developers are expected to want to facilitate high speed broadband provision otherwise their developments will be substantially less marketable, there have been instances where developers have not contacted BT early enough in the process for fibre and ducting to be laid, or they have a national agreement with a cable provider that is not active in the area, leaving new housing developments with little or no connections. 9.6 Policy BE3 seeks to ensure that all new housing, community and commercial development in the parish is connected to superfast broadband. If this is not possible, the developer will be expected to make a contribution via the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), if this is in place, or through a Section 106 agreement towards off-site works that would enable those properties to gain access to superfast broadband, either via fibre- optic cable or wireless technology in the future.

Page 142 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

POLICY BI1: HIGH SPEED BROADBAND On new developments within or adjacent to the settlement boundaries, all new properties where possible must be served by a superfast broadband connection which must be installed on an open access basis. This will need to be directly accessible from the nearest British Telecom exchange and provided in such a way as to enable future repair, replacement or upgrading. If superfast broadband is not available at the time of construction, then the necessary infrastructure must be installed to ensure that superfast broadband can be accessed when it is ready. Elsewhere, it is expected that all properties will also have access to this standard of connection when available, unless it can be demonstrated, through consultation with British Telecom, that this would not be possible, practical or economically viable - in which case the District or Parish Council may utilise Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies or seek an equivalent developer contribution, toward off-site works that would enable those properties access to super-fast broadband, either via fibre-optic cable or wireless technology, in the future.

Policy BI1 Objective 1: Conserve and enhance the character and landscape of the

community, including for affordable housing Objective 4: Ensure that the rural employment base is, where possible, retained and the supporting infrastructure for rural working is provided YES Objective 5: Address highway safety and parking issues and improve the potential for movement by non-car modes

Page 143 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

10 TRANSPORT AND MOVEMENT

10.1 As part of the Neighbourhood Plan process, the community was asked to consider if there were any particular issues relating to transport and movement (both by car and non-car modes) in the parish.

Highway safety and parking 10.2 As identified in Section 7 in respect of Hill Farm, one of the biggest pinch-points in the parish is Boxted Cross, where Boxted Primary School is located and where Policy HF1 proposes the allocation of the Hill Farm site for residential development. 10.3 It is vital that new development – and in particular any development at Hill Farm – adheres to adopted parking standards, as set by Essex County Council. 10.4 In addition, highway safety is a concern in the parish. The particular issues that were raised by the community in consultation were speed and safety along Boxted Straight Road, particularly at junctions, and parking/safety issues in respect of school drop-off and pick-up at Boxted Primary School. Where new development has a direct impact on these issues it may be appropriate to seek a contribution towards measures to improve highway safety. To assess the impact on road safety, a transport assessment or statement proportionate with the scale of development is required but this would not be an onerous requirement for small scale development. 10.5 This issue is dealt with in more detail in Section 11 which addresses non-planning matters.

POLICY TM1: HIGHWAY SAFETY AND PARKING All development proposals will be required to meet adopted parking standards to avoid increasing parking issues in the village. All proposals for new development which impacts on the highway will be accompanied by a transport assessment or transport statement proportionate to the scale of the proposed development. Where appropriate, developments will be expected to contribute through a planning obligation towards measures to improve road safety, including junction improvements and signage. Community Infrastructure Levy income may also be used for this purpose.

Figure Policy TM1 Objective 1: Conserve and enhance the character and landscape of the

community, including for affordable housing Objective 4: Ensure that the rural employment base is, where possible,

retained and the supporting infrastructure for rural working is provided : Address highway safety and parking issues and improve the Objective 5 potential for movement by non-car modes YES

Page 144 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

11 NON-PLANNING ACTIONS AND DELIVERY OF PLAN PROPOSALS

Action plan for non-planning matters 11.1 The process of preparing the Neighbourhood Plan has resulted in the community raising a significant number of actions that are not specifically relevant to a Neighbourhood Plan. However, this is not to say that they are any less important. Indeed, many of these actions will help to address the problems that have been created by development in the past and will be able to mitigate the impacts of future development in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Traffic and safety 11.2 The particular issues that were raised by the community in consultation were speed and safety along Boxted Straight Road, particularly at junctions, and parking/safety issues in respect of school drop-off and pick-up at Boxted Primary School. A traffic report4 was commissioned to look at these issues in more detail. 11.3 The following recommendations were made to address the highways issues: a. A 40mph limit be introduced along Straight Road, Langham Road and Horkesley Road. This has now been implemented. b. The refurbishment and improvement of the Straight Road junctions. Whilst junction solutions such as mini-roundabouts have been raised by members of the community, it is understood that these are unlikely to be feasible, due to space constraints. However, Essex County Council has committed to make highway improvements to address these problems. c. The refurbishment and improvement of the Straight Road signage – certain actions relating to signage have been approved in principle by Essex County Council and require budgets to be secured before they are implemented. d. Once the Northern Approach Link Road to Mill Road is complete, to provide new signage for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) in order to direct them along the A134 from Severalls Business Park. This will serve to reduce non-local HGV traffic from coming through Boxted village and, in some cases, seeking access along very small country lanes that are inaccessible for such traffic. e. A travel plan be produced jointly by Boxted Primary School, Essex County Council and Boxted Parish Council to identify solutions to parking and safety problems associated with school drop-off and pick-up. In particular, this should identify proposals to ensure parents park in the Village Hall car park in Cage Lane and a ‘Park and Walk’ initiative is set up to allow parents to then walk their children safely to and from school. This could also consider the use of double yellow lines on Carters Hill to prevent parking adjacent to the school on inappropriate verges. f. Boxted Parish Council to request more use of Essex County Council ‘Ranger’ resources to carry out minor maintenance on signs, vegetation, etc, in order to ensure that junctions and roadways are maintained to an appropriate standard.

Improving bus services 11.4 It is important that the Parish Council continues to push for a bus service to serve Boxted parish.

4 Waterman Boreham (2013) Boxted Traffic Issues: Neighbourhood Development Plan

Page 145 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

Access and Leisure 11.5 The very location of rural communities means that the car is the predominant mode of transport. Certainly the need to access employment, services and, to a lesser extent, leisure opportunities outside of the immediate local area means that a car is the only realistic option, given the lack of public transport services. Also, there are opportunities to address issues of the volume of traffic on the road such as through car sharing5. 11.6 However, this does not mean that there is no role for access by non-car modes. The continued promotion of public transport is still an important issue for rural communities such as Boxted. Also though there is a role for walking, cycling and horse riding, both for 'necessary' trips (e.g. to employment, education, etc) and for leisure purposes. This often creates a difficulty where non-car travellers and those using vehicles are forced to share road space. In a rural setting, this is particularly dangerous. 11.7 It is therefore considered by the community of Boxted that there is a need to improve access by non-car modes on dedicated routes away from traffic. Within the villages, footpaths are generally considered to be sufficient in number and quality. 11.8 This local evidence is supported by the fact that less than 10% of Colchester Borough's public rights of way (PROW) are bridleways. Of the thirteen districts in Essex, only Maldon and Tendring have fewer bridleways by percentage. Colchester Borough is therefore seriously lacking in bridleways and this problem must be addressed in accordance with Government requirements. 11.9 The Boxted Neighbourhood Plan supports the Essex Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan (PROWIP)6, which acknowledges that a good public rights of way network promotes health and social benefits to local communities. 11.10 Many respondents to the community survey considered that a dedicated cyclepath direct to Colchester would be of benefit, not only to Boxted but also to the surrounding villages. However, such provision is considered to be beyond the scope of what can be achieved through a single Neighbourhood Plan. In particular, there is presently insufficient width along Straight Road to be able to physically accommodate a dedicated cyclepath. 11.11 The PROWIP states that there needs to be a particular focus on the provision of bridleways. There is an absence of bridlepaths in Boxted for use by horse riders and cyclists in addition to walkers. At present there is just one relatively short bridleway - One Hundred Lane - connecting Boxted and Langham. 11.12 The aspiration is to create an improved network of bridleways that can be used by residents and visitors alike to reduce the risk to cyclists and horses and riders, currently restricted to using the busy roads. In particular, the opportunity to link the parish to the Northern Growth Area would be a significant one because of the benefits that it would bring in improving accessibility for the local community. 11.13 In this context, all footpaths in Boxted parish should be considered for upgrade to bridleways. Creating safe, off road circular routes for horse riders and cyclists within Boxted, as well as safely linking Boxted with Great Horkesley, Langham and Myland is the ambition. All development in Boxted should be considered in light of the need to upgrade footpaths to bridleways and developer contributions and grants should be sought to pay for the legal process to upgrade a footpath and/or for fencing, drainage and

5 The Essex Care Share scheme is available (see https://essex.liftshare.com) 6 Essex County Council (2009) Essex Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan, Research undertaken by Steer Davies Gleave

Page 146 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

surfacing. Existing landowners will be encouraged by the Parish Council to upgrade their footpaths. 11.14 The development of a more comprehensive bridleway network requires the agreement of the relevant landowners and it will be important that the Parish Council and other interested parties work with Colchester Borough Council and Essex County Council to achieve this under the requirements of the relevant legislation. 11.15 Funding for this project will come from a variety of sources. There are a number of bodies that provide grants for this, including Entrust, the Environment Agency, the Heritage Lottery Fund, Grant Net and the Charity Commission. More locally, the Essex Bridleways Trust is a grant-giving body for the creation of new bridleways in Essex. This could also be supported by the use of developer contributions (assuming a Community Infrastructure Levy is in place).

Walnut Orchard 11.16 The Parish Council is in the process of seeking to list the Walnut Orchard as an Asset of Community Value (ACV). This would mean that, if the Orchard came up for sale, then the community would have time to raise the funds to submit a competitive bid for it. In addition, the ACV listing is also material in the consideration of any planning application for development on the site, should that come forward. 11.17 In addition, it is considered that a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) should be sought for the whole of the Orchard. This is to be taken forward by the Parish Council.

Broadband 11.18 Alongside the policy to ensure that new developments have access to superfast broadband, there is a general aspiration to improve broadband speeds for all in the parish. The Parish Council is working with Essex County Council to ensure that the roll- out of its broadband upgrades delivers faster broadband for all.

Summary 11.19 Table 11.1 shows a summary of the non-planning actions:

Page 147 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

Table 11.1: Non-planning actions

Theme Action Lead partners Priority Traffic safety 40mph limit be introduced along Essex County High Straight Road, Langham Road and Council Horkesley Road Traffic safety Refurbishment and improvement of Essex County High the Straight Road junctions Council Traffic safety Refurbishment and improvement of Essex County High the Straight Road signage Council Traffic safety New signage for HGVs Essex County Low Council Traffic and Preparation of a travel plan to identify Boxted Primary Medium parking solutions to parking and safety School, Essex problems associated with school County Council, drop-off and pick-up Boxted Parish Council Traffic safety More use of Essex County Council Boxted Parish Medium ‘Ranger’ resources to carry out minor Council maintenance on signs and vegetation Bus services Continue to push for a bus service to Boxted Parish Low serve Boxted Council Access and Put in place a bridleway network in Boxted Parish Medium Leisure order to create safe off-road rights of Council, Boxted way for vulnerable road users in Neighbourhood accordance with relevant legislation. Development Plan Committee, Colchester Borough Council, Essex County Council Walnut Orchard List as an ACV Boxted Parish High Council Walnut Orchard Seek a blanket TPO designation Boxted Parish Medium Council Broadband Improve broadband speeds for Essex County Medium residents and businesses Council Boxted Parish Council Bridleways Work with landowners to ascertain Boxted Parish Medium the feasibility of upgrading all Council footpaths to bridleways

Page 148 of 210

Boxted Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version

Delivery of plan proposals 11.20 The Neighbourhood Plan has identified a number of items of community infrastructure and their maintenance which will require funding. For these items it is considered that developer contributions will be an important source of funding, at least for part of the cost. Table 11.2 shows what projects are to be delivered, timescales for delivery where known, and key partners. Table 11.2: Delivery of Neighbourhood Plan proposals

Project Cost Timescale Key partners Maintenance of public open Approx. On completion of Hill Boxted Parish Council, space at Hill Farm £2,000 per Farm development developer/landowner development annum Improvements to open Not known On commencement Boxted Parish Council, space, sports and recreation of development of developer/landowner facilities at King George Hill Farm Playing Fields Improvements to Boxted Not known, On commencement Boxted Parish Council, Sports and Social Club but assume of development of developer/landowner (refurbishment of hall and approx. Hill Farm facilities) £200,000 Improvement of broadband Not known Ongoing Boxted Parish Council, infrastructure developer/landowner/ Essex County Council/ BT Open Reach Preparation of a travel plan £3,000 Ongoing Boxted Parish Council, for Boxted Primary School Boxted Primary School, Essex County Council/ Colchester Borough Council Identification of bridleway Not known Ongoing Boxted Parish Council, network landowners

Page 149 of 210

Page 150 of 210 Item Cabinet 7(i) 30 November 2016

Report of Strategic Director Author Ian Vipond ( 282992 Section 151 Officer Sean Plummer ( 282347 Monitoring Officer Andrew Weavers ( 282213

Title Establish ment of the North Essex Garden Communities Local Delivery Vehicles and funding requirements

Wards All affected

Executive Summary

Colchester Borough Council, Braintree District Council, Essex County Council and Tendring District Council are collaborating to identify an agreed strategic approach to the allocation and distribution of large scale housing led, mixed use development, including employment opportunities and infrastructure provision, in the form of Garden Communities.

The Councils have collaborated closely on the preparation of their Local Plans, with the draft Part 1 – which sets out the approach to Garden Communities across North Essex from a planning perspective – being identical in all three Plans.

This report sets out proposals whereby the Councils can take a much more direct approach to ensuring that the proposed Garden Communities are delivered and that they meet the high standards expected of them – in terms of housing quality and design, open space provision, roads, schools, healthcare facilities and sustainable transport systems.

The key elements in the approach are:

• A company – North Essex Garden Communities Limited - owned equally by the four Councils to oversee the project across North Essex and to drive the delivery of the three planned communities. • Legally binding deals with local landowners to secure a share in the land value which will arise from the development in return for the Local Delivery Vehicles providing early infrastructure for the developments (with the infrastructure costs being paid for in due course from the land sales). • A Local Delivery Vehicle for each of the planned Garden Communities with Council, landowner and independent membership and with the clear purpose of delivering the Garden Communities. (Colchester Braintree Borders Limited and Tendring Colchester Borders Limited). • Clear Masterplans for each Garden Community to be developed.

The issues associated with a project of this scale and complexity are many and varied and are detailed in this report. 1. Decisions Required

Page 151 of 210 1.1 To note the external legal advice received that these decisions cannot and do not prejudge the outcome of any future decisions that the Council may make about the Local Plan to be made by Council in relation to the allocation of any Garden Community.

1.2 Note that it is proposed that, if appropriate terms can be agreed, the Local Delivery Vehicles will need to enter into legal agreements with landowners to enable the delivery of the proposed schemes.

North Essex Garden Communities Limited

1.3 In line with the resolution contained at minute 60 of the Cabinet Meeting of 27 January 2016, Cabinet agrees to set up and subscribe to North Essex Garden Communities Limited in accordance with the terms set out in the report and Appendix 2.

1.4 To approve the North Essex Garden Communities Limited shareholder agreement between the Local Authorities in accordance with the terms set out in the report and Appendix 3.

1.5 To appoint Councillor Paul Smith in his capacity as Leader of the Council to represent the Council as a Director on the Board of North Essex Garden Communities Limited.

Tendring Colchester Borders Limited

1.6 In line with the resolution contained at minute 60 of the Cabinet Meeting of 27 January 2016, Cabinet endorses the formation of Tendring Colchester Borders Limited by North Essex Garden Communities Limited in accordance with the terms set out in the report and Appendix 4.

1.7 To approve the Tendring Colchester Borders Limited shareholder agreement between the Local Authorities in accordance with the terms set out in the report and Appendix 5.

1.8 To appoint Ian Vipond to represent the Council as a Director on the Board of Tendring Colchester Borders Limited, and gives Delegated Authority to the Chief Executive to undertake any future appointments.

1.9 That in principle it agrees to provide an appropriate proportion of necessary funding to Tendring Colchester Borders Limited (by a combination of loan or equity) subject to a satisfactory business case setting out the full terms of the arrangement, which will need to accord with the approved Business Plans and masterplans for the project and the funding options available at the time any funding is required by the LDV. Such commitment to be subject to Council approval.

Colchester Braintree Borders Limited

1.10 In line with the resolution contained at minute 60 of the Cabinet Meeting of 27 January 2016, Cabinet endorses the formation of Colchester Braintree Borders Limited by North Essex Garden Communities Limited in accordance with the terms set out in the report and Appendix 6.

1.11 To approve the Colchester Braintree Borders Limited shareholder agreement between the Local Authorities in accordance with the terms set out in the report and Appendix 7.

1.12 To appoint Ian Vipond to represent the Council as a Director on the Board of Colchester Braintree Borders Limited, and gives Delegated Authority to the Chief Executive to undertake any future appointments.

Page 152 of 210 1.13 That in principle it agrees to provide an appropriate proportion of necessary funding to Colchester Braintree Borders Limited (by an appropriate combination of loan or equity) subject to a satisfactory business case setting out the full terms of the arrangement, which will need to accord with the approved Business Plans and masterplans for the project and the funding options available at the time any funding is required by the LDV. Such commitment to be subject to Council approval.

Cabinet Recommends to Council that it:

1.14 Notes the decision of the Cabinet to set up and subscribe to the North Essex Garden Communities Limited.

1.15 Notes the Cabinets endorsement of the formation of Tendring Colchester Borders Limited and Colchester Braintree Borders Limited.

1.16 Endorses the in principle decision of Cabinet to provide an appropriate proportion of necessary funding to Tendring Colchester Borders Limited (by an appropriate combination of loan or equity) subject to a satisfactory business case setting out the full terms of the arrangement, which will need to accord with the approved Business Plans and masterplans for the project and the funding options available at the time any funding is required by the LDV.

1.17 Endorses the in principle decision of Cabinet to provide an appropriate proportion of necessary funding to Colchester Braintree Borders Limited (by an appropriate combination of loan or equity) subject to a satisfactory business case setting out the full terms of the arrangement, which will need to accord with the approved Business Plans and masterplans for the project and the funding options available at the time any funding is required by the LDV.

1.18 Notes the external legal advice received that these decisions cannot and do not prejudge the outcome of any future decisions that the Council may make about the Local Plan to be made by Council in relation to the allocation of any Garden settlement.

2. Reasons for Decision

2.1 To seek Cabinet’s on-going support, working together with Braintree District Council, Essex County Council and Tendring District Council, to progress the concept of ‘garden communities’ and to approve governance arrangements for the project.

3. Alternative Options

3.1 No alternative options are presented.

4. Background Information

4.1 In the work being carried by Braintree District Council, Colchester Borough Council and Tendring District Council on their respective Local Plans, the potential for new major developments in the form of new ‘garden communities’ has been identified by the Councils as planning authority as a means of meeting future growth requirements. These include three potential new settlements. One crossing the administrative boundary of Tendring and Colchester in the vicinity of the University. The second crossing the administrative boundary of Colchester and Braintree at Marks Tey. The third site is on land to the West of Braintree on the Uttlesford District Council border.

4.2 In accordance with the duty to cooperate, the District Councils are working closely with each other and are at similar stages in their respective Local Plan preparation, to plan Page 153 of 210 effectively for the long term. All three councils are also working with Essex County Council. As part of this process, all four Councils are thinking strategically, are not being restricted by current local plan making time horizons and are considering whether Garden Communities could address some of this long term need both within the plan period and beyond.

4.3 As part of the development of their Local Plans the three District Planning Authorities have included the three projects as areas of search within their Preferred Options Consultations under the Local Plan. These consultations occurred over the summer and will lead to recommendations to the respective Councils in January / February 2017.

4.4 At its meeting on 27 January 2016 Cabinet agreed to the continued joint working and development of proposals for the four Councils to take an active role in the development and construction of the new garden settlements. Following this Council has commitment a further £250,000 to support the joint work and funding was agreed together with a grant from the Department for Communities and Local Government (“DCLG”) of £640,000.

4.5 This joint working has continued with the work undertaken by the Shadow Delivery Board and the Steering Group, these structures will be superseded by the arrangements in this report once they come into effect. Officers from the four Councils will continue to meet during the early stages of implementation as partnership officer groups to aid transition and ensure continuity.

4.6 Separate negotiations have occurred with landowners and developers with interests in the three sites, this has been supported by consultants engaged jointly by the four Councils.

4.7 This report seeks Cabinet approval for the Council to enter into joint arrangements with the other Councils to create an overarching body to be known as North Essex Garden Communities Limited (NEGC) to coordinate the development of the sites. NEGC will establish a further company (a Local Delivery Vehicle (LDV) for each proposed garden community. The Council is asked to give and in principle agreement that it will provide proportionate funding to the LDVs in its area. This funding will be used to pay for delivery of the infrastructure in a more timely and co-ordinated way which is not available in a traditional development. The cost of infrastructure will be repaid out of land value as the scheme is developed (referred to as a “waterfall repayment” on which more information is provided under the financial section of this Report).

4.8 The decisions in this report do not commit any Council to allocate any sites within the Local Plan. A separate decision making process will be undertaken by the three Local Planning Authorities in accordance with the statutory requirements and material considerations at the relevant time.

5. Vision & Objectives

5.1 Addressing growth at any spatial scale must be founded on a clear vision of how and where change should occur. Braintree, Colchester and Tendring are all in the process of evolving new Local Plans to address future need with Preferred Options published by all three Councils in summer 2016. The Councils are thinking strategically for the long term, and are not being restricted by current plan making time horizons or administrative boundaries.

Page 154 of 210 5.2 The vision for North Essex at a strategic level has been set out by the Councils within Part 1 of the Preferred Option Local Plans. This addresses both the vision for the wider area together with the role and significance of the proposed Garden Communities. The vision sets out a clear statement of local ambition and establishes a strategic basis from which to move forward. It enables the Councils to plan positively for the future homes and jobs needed across the area, the provision of high quality infrastructure (transport, telecommunications, education, health, community and cultural infrastructure); and the creation of quality places including the conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape.

5.3 Figure 1 illustrates the vision for North Essex as set in Part 1 of the emerging Local Plans. This provides a key part of the rationale underpinning the strategy going forward.

Figure 1: The North Essex Strategic Vision

North Essex will be an area of significant growth over the period to 2033 and beyond, embracing positively the need to build well-designed new homes, create jobs and improve and develop its infrastructure for the benefit of existing and new communities.

Sustainable development principles will be at the core of the strategic area’s response to its growth needs, balancing social, economic and environmental issues. Green infrastructure and new and expanded education and health care facilities will be planned and provided; while the countryside and heritage assets will be protected and enhanced.

At the heart of our strategic vision for North Essex are new garden communities. The garden communities will attract residents and businesses who value innovation, community cohesion and a high quality environment, and who will be keen to take an active role in managing the garden community to ensure its continuing success. Residents will live in high quality, innovatively designed, contemporary homes, accommodating a variety of needs and aspirations. There will be a network of leafy streets and green spaces, incorporating and enhancing existing landscape features. This will provide safe and attractive routes and sustainable drainage solutions, as well as excellent opportunities for people to play. Open spaces will be attractive areas which offer leisure and recreation opportunities for residents of the garden communities. All Garden City principles will be positively embraced including new approaches to delivery and partnership working and sharing of risk and reward for the benefit of the new communities.

5.4 Alongside the vision are a set of related objectives, designed to help achieve the vision for the area and to provide a basis for achieving the necessary outcomes. The objectives include:

• Delivering for local communities – to ensure the highest standard of community and stakeholder involvement from the early evolution of proposals, through to the creation of assets of local community value with active local ownership and stewardship; • Providing New Homes – to provide for a level and quality of new homes to meet the needs of a growing and ageing population in North Essex; • Fostering Economic Development – to strengthen and diversify local economies to provide more jobs; these jobs will be across a wide range of new industries reflecting the changes and trends of the 21 st century, as well as existing sectors exploiting the opportunities of the A120 growthPage corridor; 155 of and 210 to achieve a better balance between the location of jobs and housing, which will reduce the need to travel and promote sustainable growth. • Providing New and Improved Infrastructure – to make efficient use of existing transport infrastructure and to ensure sustainable transport opportunities are promoted in all new development. Where additional capacity is required in the form of new or upgraded transport infrastructure to support new development, to ensure this is provided when it is needed. The approach must also include addressing education and healthcare needs – to provide good quality educational opportunities and health facilities as part of a sustainable growth strategy, together with the provision of upgraded broadband infrastructure and services. • Ensuring High Quality Outcomes – to secure the highest standards of urban and built design which creates attractive places where people want to spend time. • Managing change effectively –through a genuine and pro-active partnership approach between the public and private sectors, where risk and reward is shared and community empowerment enabled. • Long Term Stewardship – appropriate arrangements to secure the management and long term delivery of community infrastructure and facilities.

5.5 In addition, a ‘North Essex Garden Communities Charter’ has been prepared by the Councils and published alongside the evidence base supporting Local Plans. This sets out a series of interlined principles to underpin the evolution of further proposals and provides more detail across 3 key themes including:

• Place & integration: including the approach to green infrastructure, the living environment and quality, sustainable place making; • Community: including approach to community engagement & long term stewardship); • Delivery: including the need for strong and proactive public leadership and innovation in delivery).

5.6 The vision and objectives have been encapsulated in the Purpose of the delivery structures and are intrinsic to the Articles of the NEGC and the LDVs.

6. Planning Background

6.1 As part of the new Local Plan, Members will be aware that standalone new settlements are likely to be part of the picture to deliver growth in this Plan period and beyond. This has led to the creation of areas of search in each of the preferred options consultations.

6.2 New stand-alone communities are being considered only where they can meet garden city principles and where the Councils are confident that they can and will be delivered. Garden communities (cities) as described by the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) as; “holistically planned new settlements which enhance the natural environment and offer high quality affordable housing and locally accessible work in beautiful, healthy and sociable communities.” If proposals do not meet these standards then they cannot properly be supported as meeting the aspirations for development.

6.3 Standalone settlements must have a critical mass of new homes to ensure that all the facilities necessary can be provided within the new community. This would include education facilities, including a secondary school, health, retail facilities and other ‘town centre’ type uses such as restaurants and banks, indoor and outdoor recreation facilities, community buildings and facilities such as halls and doctor’s surgeries and significant employment opportunities. The design of a new community is intended to prioritise walking and cycling journeys within the community, and public transport options for journeys further afield, (although it is noted of course that some people will still use their cars to travel to work in other areas or high order shopping areas etc.). The new Page 156 of 210 community buildings must meet high standards of design, enhance and inhabit the local landscape and environment and deliver an inclusive community.

6.4 The approval of the Local Plan has its own statutory process. Each of the Local Planning Authorities will be considering the Pre-Submission Draft of the Local Plan in the New Year.

6.5 As noted below it is proposed that the Councils will be supporting the LDV to act as a developer in the schemes through the structures set out in this report. Importantly the Councils will always have a critical role in controlling development and setting the standards which will be applicable through the statutory plan and development management processes for the three Local Planning Authorities and Essex County Council through its statutory planning powers.

6.6 It is intended that any garden community taken forward under the Local Plan will be a partnership between the Local Authorities, County Council, and the private sector, with the public sector taking a key role. The public sector role is intended to provide confidence that the communities will be delivered in accordance with the Local Plan requirements: that infrastructure and social and community facilities that are needed to support the new development will be there from the very start of the community; and that housing and employment can be released more quickly to ensure that there are homes and jobs available for people when they need them.

7. Delivery Models

7.1 In order to give the Councils as planning authorities and the public confidence that the communities will be delivered as intended it is proposed that the public sector will take the primary responsibility – setting up and funding a local development vehicle that will enter into agreements with landowners and secure the necessary infrastructure.

7.2 It is accepted that delivery in this way and at this scale is untested since the delivery of New Towns. However, the Councils have taken advice which has confirmed that the approach is feasible, viable and lawful.

7.3 The Councils have considered a wide range of alternative delivery mechanisms and structures.

7.4 The principal alternatives would be to allow for the development of the settlements by the private sector or as part of a public/ private joint venture. Neither alternative approach can offer the same level of confidence that over a development programme of 30 years that the garden community objectives will be met throughout different economic cycles.

7.5 The proposed approach offers sufficient certainty about ambition and delivery to justify the identification of the broad locations for, and size of, the proposed garden communities. On the basis of the present evidence the other approaches cannot offer a similar level of confidence and are therefore not being pursued.

7.6 The projects will take in the order of 30 years to deliver; infrastructure which supports the development of the whole project will necessarily have a long payback period, the public sector is well placed to act as a patient investor taking a long term approach to payback enabling higher levels of investment at early stages.

8. Control of Land

8.1 The significant majority of the land within the project areas is not currently in the control of the Councils. The Councils have jointly worked to build working relationships with the Page 157 of 210 relevant landowners and promoters of the sites with a view to securing a controlling interest in the land.

8.2 The land deal will be entered into between the relevant landowners / developers and the LDV with the view that the LDV will then have the rights to control the delivery of the scheme ensuring that the delivery is undertaken on Garden Community principles.

8.3 The commercial negotiations for the land deals is currently ongoing; although reasoned assumptions about the outcomes of these negotiations in respect of the base value of land have been included within the modelling.

8.4 Although the LDV will only be in a position to deliver the project if it makes a suitable deal in relation to the land, there is no obligation on the LDV (or the Councils) to accept a deal on any terms. If it becomes unviable for the proposed development to proceed then the LDV has the ability to decline to take the offered deal. Should a commercially realistic deal which meets the Garden Community principles not be achieved then this will create risk for the landowner in showing that the site can be viably delivered under the Local Plan resulting in it not being included in the final adopted plan.

9. Conflicts of Interest

9.1 It has been raised by some responders to the local plan consultations that they consider there is a potential conflict between the Council’s role as planning authority and its role with respect to the LDV. Given that the councils will be playing a significant role in the delivery of garden communities within their area it has been suggested that this could prejudice proper decision making.

9.2 This position has been carefully considered and external legal advice has been obtained. Decision making procedures and arrangements can be put in place that prevent any conflict arising that would justify a successful challenge to decisions. It will, however, be equally important to manage the perception of such conflicts.

9.3 Clearly care will need to be taken to ensure that the roles, and decision making processes, are kept separate. As reports for decision are being prepared this will always need to be monitored to ensure clarity of approach.

10. Proposed governance structure

10.1 The Garden Communities Joint Shadow Delivery Board endorsed the proposed arrangements for the structure of Delivery Vehicles for the Garden Communities on which the Term Sheets appended to this report have been based. The corporate structure consists of an overarching body – North Essex Garden Communities Limited – with a separate Local Delivery Vehicle (“LDV”) for each of the Garden Community areas proposed. A diagram showing the interrelationship between the four local authorities and the new companies is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

10.2 The LDVs will have a high level of autonomy to deliver the development and ensure that a commercially appropriate approach is taken to delivery within the context of the proposal and the Garden Community Principles. The key control mechanism outside of the planning process will be the approval by the Councils / NEGC of the business plans and budgets.

10.3 The key elements of the companies’ constitutions (governance structures) have been drafted as “Term Sheets” (Heads of Terms) which are attached as Appendices to this report for information. The companies have now been created but are not yet owned by

Page 158 of 210 local authorities pending the approval of this report. A summary of the key elements is set out in the following table:

North E ssex Garden Communities Limited (NEGC):

Draft Term Sheet and Shareholder Agreement are attached as Appendix 2 and 3 respectively

• NEGC will hold the main shares (called ‘A shares’) in the LDV companies (see below), which oversee and hold to account the LDVs in order to develop each of the locations as garden communities, and coordinate funding of the LDV’s. • The shareholders of NEGC will be Essex County Council (Essex), Braintree District Council (Braintree), Colchester Borough Council (Colchester) and Tendring District Council (Tendring) (together referred to as “the Councils”) with each hold a 25% shareholding in NEGC. • Each of the Councils will have the right to appoint or remove a director (a Nominated Director) who will be a Cabinet Member to the NEGC Board. Up to a further 3 Independent Directors can also be appointed to the Board by the NEGC. • Board Quorum: at least 3 Nominated Directors need to be present. If not, the meeting will be adjourned, and at the adjourned meeting at least 2 Nominated Directors need to be present. • On any board decision a majority in favour is required, including all Nominated Directors. However, where a decision relates to one LDV only, the Nominated Director of a Council that does not hold B Shares in that LDV (see below) shall not be entitled to vote. • Business Plan: the directors will from time to time produce a business plan (the Long -term Business Plan for the life of the project conform to the requirements of the Master Plan (the adopted planning policy document for each LDV). This will be refreshed every 5 years and will set out detailed objectives for the following 5 years. The Board will also from time to time produce a budget. Both the Long -term Business Plan and the budget (and any changes) require the approval of each of the relevant Councils through the Cabinet or Cabinet Member. • Reserved Matters: there are certain matters that require the consent of all of the Councils through the Cabinet process – these include any changes to the structure of the group, and any significant deviation from the Long-term Business Plan or budget. • Shares can only be transferred with the prior written consent of each of the Councils through the by the Cabinet or Cabinet Member. • The Council will have a limited liability to the value of the share capital purchased. Unless additional agreements are entered into there are no liabilities accruing to the Council from holding these shares.

Local Delivery Vehicles:

The Term Sheet for each LDV are broadly similar and supported by Shareholder Agreements

Names: 3 LDVs have been incorporated with working names of: (a) Tendring Colchester Borders Limited (relevant Term Sheet is attached as Appendix 4 and Shareholder Agreement as Appendix 5) (b) Colchester Braintree Borders Limited (relevant Term Sheet is attached as Appendix 6 and ShareholderPage Agreement159 of 210 as Appendix 7) (c) West of Braintree Limited (relevant Term Sheet is attached as Appendix 8 and Shareholder Agreement as Appendix 9) • The LDV is the operational arm of the structure whose Purpose is to secure the development of the relevant area of land as a garden community. The LDV will be responsible for leading on the preparation of the masterplan and funding the provision of the infrastructure. The LDV will either seek planning permissions for sites or control the sale and planning application process through site specific development agreements. • The LDV will recover its infrastructure costs an appropriate time in accordance with the relevant land agreement with the landowner. • Shareholders: NEGC will hold 100 A Shares in each LDV. The A Shares will have voting rights on most issues but not rights to a dividend. Each Council investing in the LDV will also hold B Shares (see below). The B Shares will be non-voting (except in exceptional circumstances, principally a breach of any funding agreement) but will carry rights to a dividend. There are no formal requirements for the Councils to hold B Shares or for any to be issued in order for the LDV to deliver the projects. • Funding arrangements are to be agreed for each LDV. The expectation is that the LDV will fund the provision of infrastructure at the time when it is needed by the community rather than waiting for development to be completed prior to infrastructure being delivered. In order to do this the LDV will need access to finance. This finance will be repaid from land receipts as the scheme develops. Subject to approvals, the LDVs will be able to obtain finance from any source, but in practice the cheapest way of borrowing is likely to be from local authorities, if they are prepared to lend money to the LDV. • There are two main ways in which the councils can provide funding to the LDV: (i) Debt (by way of a funding agreement) which is repayable at a fixed or variable interest rate at a time set out in the agreement. (ii) Equity funding whereby funding is provided in exchange for B Shares which attract a dividend, with the shares being repaid when the company no longer has the requirement for the funding and is able to do so. Investment via equity will have more risk but potentially more reward, depending on the financial performance of the LDV • Each of the Councils involved in the LDV have the right to appoint or remove a director (Council Director) who will be an officer of the Council appointed by the Chief Executive. There may also be appointed [2-4] Independent Directors. Landowners/Option-holders can also appoint the same number of directors as the combined Council Directors. The Council Directors will be in a minority on the board. • An independent chair will be appointed (one of the Independent Directors). • Board Quorum: at least 3 directors need to be present (one of each category). If not, the meeting will be adjourned, and at the adjourned meeting at least 1 Council Director needs to be present. • On any board decision a majority in favour is required. • Business Plan: the directors will from time to time produce a business plan (the Short-term Business Plan). This will conform to the requirements of the Long-term Business Plan and the Master Plan. The board will also produce a budget. These key documents require NEGC approval. Page 160 of 210 • Reserved Matters: there are certain matters that require the consent of either all of the Councils (acting through the Cabinet or Cabinet Member) or NEGC – these include any changes to the structure of the LDV, and any significant deviation from the Short-term Business Plan or budget. • Share Transfers: shares can only be transferred with the prior written consent of each of the relevant Councils. • The Council will have a limited liability to the value of the share capital purchased. Unless additional agreements are entered into there are no liabilities accruing to the Council from the formation of the LDV. • The LDV to take a leading role in the preparation of the Master Plan.

11. Summary of the Financial Model

11.1 The project has developed a detailed financial model of the proposed schemes. This enables early consideration of the viability of the projects and an understanding of the likely scope of funding required.

11.2 The model was originally created by the Advisory Team for Large Applications in the Homes & Communities Agency and provides a basis to assess the long term financial performance of the emerging projects. Given the extent of input required to maintain and manage the models, the Councils have secured ongoing direct support from Hyas Associates to provide direct capacity support to the Finance Working Group and continue to manage and evolve the modelling process. This resource is embedded within the project team and working directly with key finance managers and analysts from each of the Councils.

11.3 Separate models have been created for each of the proposed Garden Communities. Over recent months these have been reviewed, updated and evolved in light of the outcomes of the ‘Garden Communities Concept Feasibility Study’ commissioned by the Councils to assess the feasibility and deliverability of the potential sites. This work was undertaken by a consultant team of AECOM (international consultancy in design, planning & engineering) and Cushman & Wakefield (property advisors) and has provided further technical evidence to inform decision making on the Local Plans. For each site, the work has involved assessing the feasibility and deliverability of proposals, and costing all infrastructure requirements including transport, utilities, education, community, open space, etc.

11.4 Local property markets have also been reviewed, including the market context for housing and employment alongside a range of broader scheme viability considerations and assumptions. This information has been reviewed and transferred into the financial modelling process and provides the basis to the assessments undertaken to date.

11.5 The Councils have also appointed Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) to provide additional corporate finance support to the project. Their work has included an integrity check of the financial modelling process undertaken to date to ensure it is appropriate and fit for purpose ,a commercial review of the delivery structure and consideration of optimum approaches to project financing, including key sources of funding and capital/revenue issues.

11.6 In addition, further consultancy advice has been commissioned from Cushman & Wakefield to consider in more detail the nature of local property markets and behaviour of landowners and developers, to further inform the approach to landowner negotiations.

Page 161 of 210 11.7 The financial model incorporates assumptions on the cost and phasing of all necessary infrastructure, not only to ensure that new communities are supported by necessary infrastructure, but also to ensure that they can deliver on garden city principles. Particularly in relation to the timely delivery of infrastructure to support development.

11.8 The Concept Feasibility work has helped to further refine the nature of the schemes being considered, but it will be for LDVs to take on ultimate responsibility for detailed site specific master planning. It will then be possible to better understand detailed scheme cost and value implications and as such costs and values are working assumptions at this stage in the absence of more work and technical testing. All assumptions will be subject to continual refinement.

11.9 It should be noted that the approach taken is one of a ‘master developer’ (the LDV/s) undertaking the infrastructure delivery, disposing of serviced plots to house builders/commercial developers who would be responsible for physical building construction costs and property sales. Thus the gross costs and values in relation to all built development activity will be far higher than indicated in the modelling overall, generating broader employment and economic impacts across the construction and other local service industries. The approach does not preclude the opportunity for public sector stakeholders to directly deliver development should they wish, however it does enable the LDVs to manage their risks.

11.10 It should also be noted that the current assumptions include some contributions towards strategic infrastructure upgrades (such as towards the creation of new bus/tram rapid transit systems and delivery of an upgraded A120). Such items will however serve broader needs and objectives beyond individual sites, and thus will require additional funding (such as through Central Government, Department for Transport) to be fully realised. Ongoing lobbying for Government grant support in the delivery of key infrastructure will be an ongoing and key part of subsequent processes, especially to present the scale of the opportunity and commitment being shown by the Councils to deliver through innovative means.

11.11 All modelling has been done on present day costs and values without any modelling for inflation in the cost of borrowing, construction, wages, land value or house prices. It must therefore be anticipated that these will be subject to change. Figures presented in this report illustrate a base case position, and a number of sensitivity tests have also been undertaken to consider changes to the most significant variables including alternative infrastructure costs, house values, levels of affordable housing provision and the impact of cost inflation and house price changes over time.

11.12 Inflation will be a key factor in the changes to the actual position, as against the working assumptions of the model. Historically it has been the case that house prices have increased at a greater rate than costs. This would increase overall returns to the proposed schemes as against the modelled sums. Given the long term nature of the projects and the potential variability in inflation and costs it is not possible to give a detailed accurate assessment; however it is anticipated that the outcome would be favourable on the testing done with likely future rates.

11.13 The financial models are reliant upon a broad range of input assumptions and calculations. They are highly sensitive to changes and will always only present a picture based upon the best available information and evidence. In order to better understand the potential range of positions, a number of sensitivity tests have been undertaken to consider changes to the most significant variables such as:

Page 162 of 210 • House values : to assess baseline house prices being either 10% under or over present day values. The latter could illustrate a potential garden community premium based upon the high quality nature of the environment to be created; • Infrastructure costs : the base case includes a 5% contingency allowance on infrastructure costs. Scenario tests have been run to consider lower infrastructure costs, a zero contingency rate, and a 10% contingency rate (with contingency being used as a proxy for higher or lower costs); • Inflation : the base case has been created on present day costs and values. Three scenarios have been run. 2% cost and 2% value inflation – this is to represent things changing as per Bank of England target, with no assumption that house values outpace costs; 2% cost and 4% value – as above but to make allowance for potential house prices outpacing cost inflation; and 3.4% cost and 6% value – based upon historic trends over past 30 years (1985-2015- Bank of England inflation data and Halifax house price index data).

11.14 The financial models are reliant upon a broad range of input assumptions and calculations. They are highly sensitive to changes and will always only present a picture based upon the best available information and evidence. Despite these caveats we are confident that the proposed garden community developments are viable and deliverable.

12. Short term requirements & revenue budget implications

12.1 An initial project budget was agreed in December 2015 and updates were brought to the Shadow Delivery Board in May and July 2016. This primarily related to the original grant funding secured from the DCLG (£640,000) as well as an additional contribution from Essex County Council (£15,000) in 2015/16 alongside forecast expenditure across a series of key workstreams.

12.2 A positive working relationship is being maintained with DCLG with a view to further support being provided as the project advances. Following further discussions with DCLG officials it is anticipated that a further £648,000 will be transferred in the current financial year. It is also anticipated that further funding would be available from DCLG for the remaining years of the Spending Review period, but any such amounts would be subject to HM Treasury approvals on a year by year basis. The Councils have also committed to contribute a £250,000 (each) to ensure the work can continue, and have been allocating significant officer time and resource to the project with particular pressures on planning, legal and financial staff together with senior management.

12.3 In total, a project budget of circa £2.3m has been committed,of which by the end of 2016/17 circa £1m will have been spent and/or allocated resulting in a residual of circa £1.3m to be carried forward into 2017/18. To date activity has focussed across the following key workstreams:

• Project Resources: dedicated support for project and programme management and a range of focussed inputs to planning, transport, infrastructure, funding and legal topics; • Legal Support: External legal support with respect to the planning process, establishment of LDV/s and evolution of legal agreements with landowners; • Corporate Financial Support : Commissioned work to investigate corporate financing, funding opportunities, and tax implications; • Planning and Infrastructure: Concept feasibility work and subsequent evolution of concept frameworks for each of the sites, infrastructure planning including transport modelling, property market advice, together with wider evidence gathering to support plan examinations; • Others: Other communications and consultation activities, secretariat services to the Shadow Delivery Board, SteeringPage 163 Group of 210 and project Working Groups.

12.4 Moving forward, the approach is to establish a dedicated delivery structure through the creation of NEGC and individual site focussed Local Delivery Vehicles (LDVs). These bodies will be responsible for bringing the projects forward through further design and planning stages, and into implementation through the direct delivery of infrastructure alongside the disposal of serviced plots to developers.

12.5 NEGC and each of the LDVs will require access to sufficient budget to create sufficient capacity (staff and support) as well as initiate more detailed design and planning consultancy activities over the first few years of operations. These will be required well in advance of potential land sales and the generation of income.

12.6 The extent of work required during the next year will involve further evolution of the approach, community engagement, evidence gathering and LDV business planning. The proposed model of resourcing the approach is based upon the creation of a dedicated technical ‘Joint Delivery Team’ with senior leadership and experience in project management, development and quality place-making to service NEGC and the LDVs from the outset prior to preparation of business plans which will set out the requirements for the next phases of work. It is proposed that the Joint delivery team will continue to be hosted by Colchester Borough Council in the interim whilst the local plans are considered at the Preferred Options Stage, with a view to preparing detailed transition plans and structures which will be implemented no later than the adoption of the Local Plans by Councils. This transition will be subject to further consideration by the Councils.

12.7 Initial estimates on resourcing requirements indicate costs of circa £850,000 in 2017/18 to fund the team and associated consultancy budgets. This is well within the anticipated carry over budget (£1.3m), and excludes any future assumptions on further grant support from DCLG. It is therefore not anticipated that there will be a requirement for further financial contributions by the Councils in 2017/18.

12.8 From 2018/19 onwards the projects will enter a new phase and require more significant funding to start to prepare proposals for planning and all necessary consents. The extent to which such costs can be appropriately covered will be explored as part of the LDVs’ business planning process including consideration on how to address the revenue requirements in light of the forecast time lag between upfront expenditure and income from land sales. The overall approach is to ensure that all costs are included in the overall financial model, and paid back during the course of the project.

12.9 Figure 2 illustrates the anticipated overall revenue cost implications for the initial five year period from 2017/18 to 2021/22 based upon the establishment of a Joint Delivery Team and initiation of site specific masterplanning by each LDV.

Figure 2: Programme Revenue Budget Implications

17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 Total Revenue Joint Delivery Team 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.1 Tendring Colchester Borders 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.5 3.3 LDV West of Braintree LDV 0.8 0.8 0.8 2.4 Colchester Braintree Borders 1 1 1 3 LDV Sub Total: Revenue 0.8 1.6 3.5 3.5 4.4 13.8 Expenditure Budget carry over from (1.3) (0.5) previous Page 164 of 210 Net Revenue Expenditure (0.5) 1.1 3.5 3.5 4.4 12

13. Proposals for Tendring Colchester Borders Limited

Scheme Overview

13.1 A detailed financial model has been based created to assess the costs, income and overall viability of the Tendring Colchester Borders proposal. The modelling has been based upon Option 1 of the AECOM Concept Feasibility work, which delivers circa 6,600 residential units together with employment space, social infrastructure (including 4 new primary schools and 1 new secondary school, health and community facilities), local retail, and generous amounts of open space to accord to Garden City principles. The total site area is circa 300 hectare, located between the A133 to the south, Bromley Road to the north and the A120 to the east.

13.2 The Concept Feasibility set out several options in this location, with growth potentially running northwards up to and beyond the railway line and onto to the boundary of Severalls industrial area. For the time being Option 1 provides a baseline scenario for testing but any increase in scheme size will have associated impacts on the scale of costs and values.

13.3 The precise details of the development will be subject to ongoing evolution and refinement as proposals are further considered through work that has recently been commissioned to prepare a Concept Framework for the site, and on into subsequent planning policy making and eventual planning applications in due course. All future stages will involve further community and stakeholder engagement, to ensure proposals deliver on the level of ambition as set out in the current Garden Communities Charter and vision as established in Part 1 of Preferred Option Local Plans. As such both the quantum of development and scale of land is subject to further change ; although it must be recognised that some key infrastructure requirements will drive a need for a certain minimum scale to ensure viability.

Financial Modelling Headlines

13.4 Financial modelling indicates that the scheme is viable overall, generating a positive residual surplus of £10m after accounting for all strategic infrastructure costs, set against income from land sales. Importantly, this is based upon a base case scenario based upon high level assumptions and present day costs and values. Figure 3 sets out the base case financial headlines relating to the scheme:

Figure 3: Base Case Financial Headlines Tendring Colchester Borders Houses 6,608 Jobs 1 2,253 Total Scheme Costs 2 £583m Total Scheme Income 3 £593m Residual 4 £10m Residual equivalent per hectare 5 £283k Start on Site 2021/22 Years to complete 26 Year cashflow goes positive 2046/47 Peak Debt £122m 1 Jobs forecast from B1, B2, B8 and retail uses only. There will be considerable additional job opportunities created in social infrastructure, community facilities and a broad range of home based employment activities. The aspiration Page 165 of 210 is for there to be 1 job per household within the community or within a sustainable commuting distance. 2 Scheme costs relate to all strategic infrastructure costs, enabling works, purchasing of land at minimum price provisions, professional fees, contingency and LDV running costs but exclude direct building construction. 3 Scheme values relate to disposals of serviced land to plot developers. 4 Residual is the balance between costs and income and illustrates viability. 5 Residual spread over total gross site area.

13.5 Figure 4 sets out further detail around the breakdown of costs included within the financial modelling. The analysis has been broken down to:

• Operational costs: including all cost related to operations such as LDV running costs (staff, administration, engagement & communications, business support, etc); professional fees (scheme wide masterplanning & planning applications, infrastructure design, project management, legal fees, property disposal fees); • Minimum land values: to allow for contractual obligations to pay minimum land values as land is acquired, serviced and sold on for development.; • Capital costs of infrastructure: All physical infrastructure required to deliver serviced development plots (including utilities, transport, schools, community space, open space, etc); • Contingencies to allow for uncertainties and potential cost overruns; and • Finance costs: interest costs on negative cash balances. Work is ongoing to assess the optimum approach to project financing. It is anticipated that the rate of finance levied on the LDVs will include a margin above the rates such finance could be secure.

13.6 As illustrated in Figure 4 the majority of costs relate to the physical provision of infrastructure (60%). Minimum land value payments will also form a sizeable proportion, and the rate of finance will have a key impact on both the scale of interest charges and overall scheme viability.

Figure 4: Scheme Cost breakdown by cost heading

Tendring Colchester Type Borders Operational costs £44m Land costs £77m Capital costs of infrastructure £348m Contingencies £16m Finance costs £99m Total Costs £584m

Key infrastructure

13.7 A key aspect of the Garden Communities approach is to secure the delivery of a full range of infrastructure in a timely manner to ensure new communities are served by a full and extensive range of services and facilities at the point of need. This is a key component of the delivery model and underpins part of the rationale for the Councils engaging more directly in the process to secure positive outcomes for local communities.

13.8 The financial modelling for the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community includes allowances to address a broad range of needs including but not limited to:

Page 166 of 210 • Education Facilities: including the provision of 4 Primary Schools, 1 Secondary School and 10 Early Years Facilities (overall totalling circa £60m); • New Community & health centres (£15m); • Leisure & Sports facilities (£18m); • New Country Park with facilities (£10m); • Sustainable transport (travel plan) measures, bus service subsidies, new on site public transport hub, & contribution to strategic public transit system (£28m); • New link road between A133 and A120 (£17m); • Upgraded pedestrian & cycle links including greenways & bridge over A133 (£6m)

Phasing & Cashflow

13.9 The approach to the delivery of large scale strategic sites generally involves early, upfront delivery of infrastructure followed by a steady disposal of plots to housebuilders/developers enabling them to deliver houses to the market. Delivery of the Garden Communities will accord to this profile, as illustrated in Figure 5 which illustrates the scale of costs and returns on an annual basis throughout the course of the delivery of the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community.

13.10 As indicated in Figure 5, the net funding requirement will quickly rise to a potential peak debt position of circa £120m. As income from land sales outpace costs, the debt would reduce to get to a cashflow positive position towards the end of the development period.

13.11 As indicated across the various figures in this report, the costs will build up over time with the LDVs requiring access to substantial funding via equity/loan finance to enable them to deliver the necessary infrastructure (and all other related costs). Whilst it will be for the LDVs to source the optimum funding arrangements (which could be a blend of public and private finance/equity).

13.12 Clearly not all funding will be needed from the outset of the project, and requirements will closely relate to key project stages and milestones and the scale and type of activity that will be undertaken, in the following general sequence:

• 2017/18 to 2021/22: design and planning stage, mainly requiring funding to prepare planning applications (site wide and initial infrastructure) and secure related approvals; • 2021/22: first phase acquisition of land and on site implementation of capital works in utilities and site access (initial outlay of circa £25m); • 2022/23 onwards: ongoing land purchases and implementation of infrastructure delivery, partly offset by income from serviced land sales to the market. The debt would rise over time to circa £75m in 2025/26, £100m by 2030/31, and peaking at £120m in 2033/34. • 2033/34 debt would be reducing to circa £100m in 2037/38, £75m in 2040/41and £25m in 2044/45.

Page 167 of 210

Figure 5: Tendring Colchester Borders Cashflow

Sensitivity Tests

13.13 The sensitivity test indicate that a careful approach will be required to affordable housing, and that if house prices were to fall or infrastructure cost overrun then viability will become challenging. However, the impact of inflation would be significant under all scenarios, potentially considerably boosting the residual surplus and bringing down peak debt and the timescale for the scheme to go cashflow positive.

14. Proposals for Colchester Braintree Borders Limited

Scheme Overview

14.1 A detailed financial model has been based created to assess the costs, income and overall viability of the Colchester Braintree Borders proposal. The modelling has been based upon Option 1 of the AECOM Concept Feasibility work, which delivers circa 17,000 residential units together with employment space, social infrastructure (including 11 new primary schools, 2 new secondary schools, health and community facilities), local retail, and generous amounts of open space to accord to Garden City principles. The total site area is circa 800 hectares, located in an arc around Marks Tey, North, West & South of the existing community.

14.2 The Concept Feasibility work revealed that a number of development options could be evolved in the location, potentially providing up to a maximum of circa 28,000 residential units. For the time being Option 1 provides a baseline scenario for testing but any increase in size will have associated impacts on the scale of scheme costs and values.

14.3 Precise details of the development will be subject to ongoing evolution and refinement as proposals are further considered through the preparation of a Concept Framework for the site, and on into subsequent planning policy making and eventual planning applications in due course. All future stages will involve further community and stakeholder engagement, to ensure that proposals deliver on the level of ambition as set out in the Garden Communities Charter and vision as established in Part 1 of Preferred Option Local Plans. As a result, both the quantum of development and scale of land will be subject to change. Page 168 of 210

Financial Modelling Headlines

14.4 Financial modelling indicates that the scheme is viable overall, generating a positive residual surplus of circa £69m after accounting for all strategic infrastructure costs, set against income form land sales. Importantly, this is based upon a base case scenario based upon high level assumptions and present day costs and values. Figure 6 sets out the base case financial headlines relating to the scheme:

Figure 6: Base Case Financial Headlines Colchester Braintree Borders Houses 16,858 Jobs 1 3,190 Total Scheme Costs 2 £1,425m Total Scheme Income 3 £1,494m Residual 4 £69m Residual equivalent per hectare 5 £338k Start on Site (infrastructure) 2022/23 Years to complete 45 Year cashflow goes positive 2062/63 Peak Debt £210m 1 Jobs forecast from B1, B2, B8 and retail uses only. There will be considerable additional job opportunities created in social infrastructure, community facilities and a broad range of home based employment activities. The aspiration is for there to be 1 job per household within the community or within a sustainable commuting distance. 2 Scheme costs relate to all strategic infrastructure costs, enabling works, purchase of land at minimum price provisions, professional fees, contingency and LDV running costs but exclude direct building construction. 3 Scheme values relate to disposals of serviced land to plot developers. 4 Residual is the balance between costs and income and illustrates viability. 5 Residual spread over total gross site area.

14.5 Figure 7 sets out further detail around the breakdown of costs included within the financial modelling. The analysis has been broken down to:

Page 169 of 210

14.6 As illustrated in Figure 7 the majority of costs relate to the physical provision of infrastructure (57%). Minimum land value payments will also form a sizeable proportion, and the rate of finance will have a key impact on both the scale of interest charges and overall scheme viability.

Figure 7: Scheme Cost breakdown by cost heading

Colchester Braintree Type Borders Operational costs £102m Land costs £197m Capital costs of infrastructure £810m Contingencies £39m Finance costs £278m Total Costs £1,425

Key infrastructure

14.7 A key aspect of the Garden Communities approach is to secure the delivery of a full range of infrastructure in a timely manner to ensure new communities are served by a full and extensive range of services and facilities at the point of need. This is a key component of the delivery model and underpins part of the rationale for the Councils engaging more directly in the process to secure positive outcomes for local communities.

14.8 The financial modelling for the Colchester Braintree Borders Garden Community includes allowances to address a broad range of needs including but not limited to:

• Education Facilities: including the provision of 11 Primary Schools, 2 Secondary Schools and 24 Early Years Facilities (overall totalling circa £152m); • New Community & health centres (£38m); • Leisure & Sports facilities (£46m); • New Country Park with facilities (£10m); • Sustainable transport including travel plan measures (car clubs, etc), bus service subsidies, new on site public transport hub, contribution towards improvements at Marks Tey rail station & contribution to strategic public transit system (£71m); • Local highways improvements including junction upgrades and contribution towards delivery of an upgraded A120 (£60m); • Upgraded pedestrian & cycle links including greenways & bridge over A120 (£17m)

Phasing & Cashflow

14.9 The approach to the delivery of large scale strategic sites generally involves early, upfront delivery of infrastructure followed by a steady disposal of plots to housebuilders/developers enabling them to deliver houses to the market. Delivery of the Garden Communities will accord to this profile, as illustrated in Figure 8 which illustrates the scale of costs and returns on an annual basis throughout the course of the delivery of the Colchester Braintree Borders Garden Community.

14.10 As indicated in Figure 8, the net funding requirement will quickly rise to a potential peak debt position of circa £210m . As income from land sales outpace costs, the debt would reduce to get to a cashflow positive position towards the end of the development period. Page 170 of 210

14.11 As indicated across the various figures in this report, the costs will build up over time with the LDVs requiring access to substantial funding via equity/loan finance to enable them to deliver the necessary infrastructure (and all other related costs). It will be for the LDVs to source the optimum funding arrangements at the point of need (which could involve a blend of public and private finance/equity).

14.12 Clearly not all funding will be needed from the outset of the project, and requirements will closely relate to key project stages and milestones, and the scale and type of activity that will be undertaken, in the following general sequence:

• 2018/19 to 2022/23: design and planning stage, mainly requiring funding to prepare planning applications (site wide and initial infrastructure) and secure related approvals; • 2022/23: first phase acquisition of land and on site implementation of capital works in utilities and site access (initial outlay of circa £25m); • 2022/23 onwards: ongoing land purchases and implementation of infrastructure delivery, partly offset by income from serviced land sales to the market. Given the scale of potential early contributions to transport infrastructure, the debt would rise quickly over time to its peak of £210m in 2028/29. • 2028/29 up to 2036/37: the debt remains around the £200m mark; • 2037/38 debt begins to reduce as incomes exceed costs, reducing to circa £150m in 2044/45, £100m in 2053/54and £50m in 2058/59.

Figure 8: Colchester Braintree Borders Cashflow

Sensitivity Tests 14.13 The sensitivity test indicate that a careful approach will be required to affordable housing, and that if house prices were to fall or infrastructure cost overrun then viability will become challenging. However, the impact of inflation would be significant under all scenarios, potentially considerably boosting the residual surplus and bringing down peak debt and the timescale for the scheme to go cashflow positive.

15. Proposals for West of Braintree Limited Scheme Overview Page 171 of 210

15.1 A detailed financial model has been based created to assess the costs, income and overall viability of the West of Braintree proposal. The modelling has been based upon Option 1 of the AECOM Concept Feasibility work, which delivers circa 10,000 residential units together with employment space, social infrastructure (including 6 new primary schools, 1 new secondary school, health and community facilities), local retail, and generous amounts of open space to accord to Garden City principles. The total site area is circa 570 hectares, located to the north of the A120 between Stebbing Green,Rayne, going northwards towards Great Salling.

15.2 The Concept Feasibility set out two potentially options in this location. Option 2 included land in Uttlesford District Council, which would increase the site’s capacity to circa 13,000 residential units. For the time being Option 1 provides a baseline scenario for testing but should Uttlesford District Council select the site for growth in its Local Plan, an increase in scheme size will have associated impacts on the scale of costs and values.

15.3 Precise details of the development will be subject to ongoing evolution and refinement as proposals are further considered through the preparation of a Concept Framework for the site, and on into subsequent planning policy making and eventual planning applications in due course. All future stages will involve further community and stakeholder engagement, to ensure that proposals deliver on the level of ambition as set out in the Garden Communities Charter and vision as established in Part 1 of Preferred Option Local Plans. As a result, both the quantum of development and scale of land will be subject to change.

Financial Modelling Headlines

15.4 Financial modelling indicates that the scheme is viable overall, generating a positive residual surplus of circa £190m after accounting for all strategic infrastructure costs, set against income form land sales. Importantly, this is based upon a base case scenario based upon high level assumptions and present day costs and values. Figure 9 sets out the base case financial headlines relating to the scheme:

Figure 9: Base Case Financial Headlines West of Braintree Houses 9,729 Jobs 1 3,688 Total Scheme Costs 2 £890m Total Scheme Income 3 £1,075m Residual 4 £186m Residual equivalent per hectare 5 £579k Start on Site (infrastructure) 2022/23 Years to complete 35 Year cashflow goes positive 2048/49 Peak Debt £149m 1 Jobs forecast from B1, B2, B8 and retail uses only. There will be considerable additional job opportunities created in social infrastructure, community facilities and a broad range of home based employment activities. The aspiration is for there to be 1 job per household within the community or within a sustainable commuting distance. 2 Scheme costs relate to all strategic infrastructure costs, enabling works, purchasing of land at minimum price provisions, professional fees, contingency and LDV running costs but exclude direct building construction. 3 Scheme values relate to disposals of serviced land to plot developers. 4 Residual is the balance between costs and income and illustrates viability. 5 Residual spread over total gross site area.

15.5 Figure 10 sets out further detail around the breakdown of costs included within the financial modelling. The analysis has been broken down to:

Page 172 of 210 • Operational costs: including all cost related to operations such as LDV running costs (staff, administration, engagement & communications, business support, etc); professional fees (scheme wide masterplanning & planning applications, infrastructure design, project management, legal fees, property disposal fees); • Minimum land values: to allow for contractual obligations to pay minimum land values as land is acquired, serviced and sold on for development.; • Capital costs of infrastructure: All physical infrastructure required to deliver serviced development plots (including utilities, transport, schools, community space, open space, etc); • Contingencies to allow for uncertainties and potential cost overruns; and • Finance costs: interest costs on negative cash balances. Work is ongoing to assess the optimum approach to project financing. It is anticipated that the rate of finance levied on the LDVs will include a margin above the rates such finance could be secure.

15.6 As illustrated in Figure 10 the majority of costs relate to the physical provision of infrastructure (60%). Minimum land value payments will also form a sizeable proportion, and the rate of finance will have a key impact on both the scale of interest charges and overall scheme viability.

Figure 10: Scheme Cost breakdown by cost heading

West of Type Braintree Operational costs £67m Land costs £141m Capital costs of infrastructure £535m Contingencies £25m Finance costs £122m Total Costs £890m

Key infrastructure

15.7 A key aspect of the Garden Communities approach is to secure the delivery of a full range of infrastructure in a timely manner to ensure new communities are served by a full and extensive range of services and facilities at the point of need. This is a key component of the delivery model and underpins part of the rationale for the Councils engaging more directly in the process to secure positive outcomes for local communities.

15.8 The financial modelling for the West of Braintree Garden Community includes allowances to address a broad range of needs including but not limited to:

• Education Facilities: including the provision of 6 Primary Schools, 1 Secondary School and 14 Early Years Facilities (overall totalling circa £88m); • New Community & health centres (£22m); • Leisure & Sports facilities (£27m); • New Country Park with facilities (£10m); • Sustainable transport including travel plan measures (car clubs, etc), bus service subsidies, new on site public transport hub & contribution to strategic public transit system (£40m); • Local highways improvements including junction upgrades and contribution towards delivery of an upgradedPage A120173 of (£75m); 210 • Upgraded pedestrian & cycle links including greenways & bridge connections over A120 (£13m).

Phasing & Cashflow

15.9 The approach to the delivery of large scale strategic sites generally involves early, upfront delivery of infrastructure followed by a steady disposal of plots to housebuilders/developers enabling them to deliver houses to the market. Delivery of the Garden Communities will accord to this profile, as illustrated in Figure 11 which illustrates the scale of costs and returns on an annual basis throughout the course of the delivery of the West of Braintree Garden Community.

15.10 As indicated in Figure 11, the net funding requirement will quickly rise to a potential peak debt position of circa £150m . As income from land sales outpace costs, the debt would reduce to get to a cashflow positive position towards the end of the development period.

15.11 As indicated across the various figures in this report, the costs will build up over time with the LDVs requiring access to substantial funding via equity/loan finance to enable them to deliver the necessary infrastructure (and all other related costs). It will be for the LDVs to source the optimum funding arrangements at the point of need (which could involve a blend of public and private finance/equity).

15.12 Clearly not all funding will be needed from the outset of the project, and requirements will closely relate to key project stages and milestones, and the scale and type of activity that will be undertaken, in the following general sequence:

• 2018/19 to 2022/23: design and planning stage, mainly requiring funding to prepare planning applications (site wide and initial infrastructure) and secure related approvals; • 2022/23: first phase acquisition of land and on site implementation of capital works in utilities and site access (initial outlay of circa £25m); • 2022/23 onwards: ongoing land purchases and implementation of infrastructure delivery, partly offset by income from serviced land sales to the market. Given the scale of potential early contributions to transport infrastructure, the debt would rise quickly over time to its peak of £150m in 2028/29. • 2028/29 up to 2035/36: the debt remains within the £130-150m mark; • 2036/37 debt begins to reduce as incomes exceed costs, reducing to circa £75m in 2041/42, and £25m in 2045/46.

Figure 11 West of Braintree Cashflow

Page 174 of 210

Sensitivity Tests

15.13 The sensitivity test indicates that the scheme remains viable under the majority of scenarios with the exception of a 10% fall in baseline house values. However, whilst macro-economic factors cannot be prevented, the design approach to deliver a quality living environment should mitigate against this risk materialising. The impact of inflation would be significant under all scenarios, potentially considerably boosting the residual surplus and bringing down peak debt and the timescale for the scheme to go cashflow positive.

16. Funding principles for the LDVs

16.1 The four Councils have been working on the basis of equal partnership in the delivery of the projects; it is proposed that this approach is maintained at this stage.

16.2 The decision in principle to fund each of the LDVs does not create a formal legally binding agreement with the LDVs that the Council will fund them. This will be a separate decision for Cabinet and Council at a later stage once there has been further development of the business case and the detailed funding requirements. The decision before Members is to commit to being a proactive funding provider to the schemes within its area, providing that the schemes meet appropriate business case and viability thresholds.

16.3 In light of the information set out in Sections 13 to 15 of this report, and the relative cashflow and peak debt funding needs of each of the proposals, Figure 12 sets out one potential scenario for the order of magnitude which proportionate funding may require from each of the Councils. This is based upon equal apportionment of requirements based upon the geographic location of each of the proposed Garden Community, and the relevant Councils for them. The scenario is based on the Councils being the only funder, without recourse to any third party funding.

Figure 12: Proportionate share of peak debt

Tendring Colchester West of Total Colchester Braintree Braintree Borders Limited Page 175 of 210 Borders Limited Limited 1/3 of total 1/2 of total Braintree District Council £145m = £70m =£75m

1/3 of total 1/3 of total Colchester Borough Council £110m =£40m =£70m

1/3 of total 1/3 of total 1/2 of total Essex County Council £185m =£40m =£70m =£75m

1/3 of total Tendring District Council £40m =£40m

Total £120m £210m £150m £480m

Note: Where a Council is involved in more than one scheme, the actual peak debt may be different across the combined schemes due to the combination of separate cashflows.

16.4 Each LDV is a separate legal entity with its own financial requirements and delivery aims and objectives. The principle is that each Council will make available funding in equal amounts for the schemes in which it is a partner.

16.5 At this stage the Councils are providing an in principle commitment to providing funding. The LDV will in determining its own business plans develop a detailed set of funding requirements; including the scale of funding required and the timescales which will be relevant to each block of funding. It is unlikely that it will seek to borrow the whole amount required in a single funding allocation, the information from specialists indicates that it will be advantageous to split borrowing requirements into phases and deal with these as required. It must be noted that as per the cashflows presented for each project, funding requirements will be phased over the life time of the projects, and reflect the timing and scale of necessary costs, set against the phasing of land sales driving income.

16.6 In addition, the Councils will also need to address short term revenue funding implications of the initial planning and design work related to both the operations of the Joint Delivery Team and individual LDVs, as set out at Figure 2 of this report. Work is ongoing to further consider the optimum approach to addressing such costs with support from Price Waterhouse Coopers, and financial officers across each of the Councils concerned. This will form a key part of the evolution of more detailed business plans during 2017/18 so as to create suitable funding arrangements and minimise impacts on Council revenue budgets .

16.7 Whilst it will be open for the Council to seek a range of funding sources depending on the detailed financial position at the time funding is requested it is likely that if needed the majority of the funding will be in the form of borrowing by the Council. Should the Council borrow funds then this will be subject to the prudential borrowing code requirements and subject to a detailed decision of the Council the relevant time. The Council would expect to borrow at rates which are preferential to those obtainable by the LDV, given its status as a local government body, in order to comply with State Aid rules the lending to the LDV would be on commercial terms; therefore, the Council would expect to receive a margin between the rate at which it borrows and that at which it is repaid, this margin would represent a gain to the Council; in part offsetting the risk that it is taking in providing funding.

16.8 Detailed considerations about the accounting treatment for the loans and the capitalisation of costs is being developed and would form the basis of subsequent detailed decision making.

Page 176 of 210 16.9 In terms of affordability there are expected to be opportunities to control costs through changes to the assumptions in the funding model to react to changing circumstances as the project develops and any decisions made by Councils to provide funding to the LDVs will be made with regard to the Prudential Code as explained in the Legal Powers Section of this report.

16.10 It must also be noted that the LDV will have the right to seek to secure funding from other sources as against the Councils. This could be from independent financial institutions, the developers or landowners within a scheme or other funding sources. Should the LDV do this it would reduce the amount sought from the Councils, reducing the call on the Councils’ finances. This would however reduce the scope for the Councils to obtain a financial return from the project. Any determination of funding will be determined by prevailing market conditions and the needs of the LDV for any given element.

17. Legal Powers

17.1 The General Power of Competence (“the Power”) provided for by the Localism Act 2011 is relied upon as the authority for the District/Borough/County Council to establish and subscribe to North Essex Garden Communities Limited and to subscribe for B shares in relevant Local Delivery Vehicles.

17.2 In exercising the General Power of Competence local authorities must do so in a way which does not compromise any pre-existing statutory limitations, and the actions identified in this report do not compromise those restrictions. Any activity which local authorities wish to take for a commercial purpose must be undertaken via a company, given the need for the LDVs to act in a commercially aware way and to develop the projects commercially (although within the requirements of the Garden Community principles the use of a company structure enables reliance on the General Power of Competence in this respect.

17.3 Deciding to establish a company, in the context of this report, being North Essex Garden Community is an Executive Function in accordance with the Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000 (as amended). The ‘in principle’ funding decisions are in accordance with the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework, (subject to Council approval as set out in the recommendations).

17.4 The statutory framework for local authority borrowing and investments is set out in Chapter 1 of the Local Government Act 2003, supplemented by the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Accounting) (England) Regulations 2003 (as amended).

17.5 A local authority may borrow money or invest (a) for any purpose relevant to its functions under any enactment, or (b) for the purposes of prudent management of its financial affairs. All money borrowed by a local authority, together with any interest on the money borrowed, shall be charged indifferently on all the revenues of the authority.

17.6 Local authorities must determine and keep under review how much money it can afford to borrow which is set by each Council as an “Authorised Limit”. This borrowing limit cannot be exceeded without the approval of full Council. (In the event that the Council agrees to provide funding to the LDV’s as illustrated in paragraph 16.3 then its borrowing limits will need to be revised accordingly).

17.7 In setting its borrowing limit, Regulations require a local authority to have regard to the Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (the Prudential Code) published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. The Prudential Code has been developed as a professional code of practice to support local authorities in taking decisions on capital investment which can are affordable, prudent, and sustainable. Page 177 of 210 These requirements will need to be demonstrated through the business case developed for each of the Garden Communities.

18. Risk Assessment

18.1 The project has developed a strategic risk assessment profile. This is attached as Appendix 10.

18.2 At the present time there are a significant number of risks, many of which are inherently uncertain given the timescales over which the project will develop. Officers have considered the risks carefully and recommend that these are broadly reflective of the risk profile associated with any project of this scale.

18.3 The project has a number of break points particularly the development of the detailed business case. Should this demonstrate a scenario which provides an unacceptable commercial viability, or other significant uncontrolled risk, then it is open to the partner Councils to terminate the project at that juncture.

18.4 The two largest risks relate to Land Control and Local Plan. Both of these have the potential to halt progress on a particular scheme. Should landowner agreements not be reached by the time the Pre Submission Draft is agreed by the Council, then this will represent a key change to the relationship between the landowners and the Councils / LDV; the underlying assumptions in the agreements would then need to be reconsidered and are not able to be implemented in the form indicated in this report. Equally if a scheme is not included in the Pre Submission Draft of the Local Plan on the basis of appropriate planning Policy determination, then it would not be possible for the LDV to pursue any development and accordingly it would be wound up.

19. Equalities Impact Assessment

19.1 The Public Sector Equality Duty applies to the Council when it makes decisions. The duty requires the local authority to have regard to the need to:

a) Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other behaviour prohibited by the Equality Act 2010. In summary, the Act makes discrimination etc. on the grounds of a protected characteristic unlawful. b) Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. c) Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not including tackling prejudice and promoting understanding.

19.2 The protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, gender, and sexual orientation. The Act states that ‘marriage and civil partnership’ is not a relevant protected characteristic for (a) or (b) although it is relevant for (c).

19.3 The proposals are to create an inclusive community which meets the needs of all residents regardless of whether or not they have a protected characteristic. The intention is to provide housing and facilities for all. By participating in the development in the way proposed the local authorities will have a greater influence over the content and layout than a development undertaken in a traditional way. The differing needs of people with different protected characteristics will need to be considered during the design and planning of the development and kept under review as the scheme progresses.

20. Implementation

Page 178 of 210 20.1 The project is currently seeking the support of the four relevant Councils in order to form the North Essex Garden Communities Limited, and it will then set up the constituent LDV’s. It is anticipated that the LDV’s will enter into legal agreements with landowners / developers before the end of the year.

20.2 The three local planning authorities are publishing the pre-submission versions of the Local Plans in the New Year. Should any of the proposed project sites not receive support in the local planning process this will be a critical point in the project; effectively closing it and the relevant LDV will be wound up.

20.3 For clarity the outline timetable for the project is set out in the following table:

25 November 2016 Tendring District Council; Cabinet 29 November 2016 Braintree District Council; Cabinet 29 November 2016 Tendring District Council; Council 30 November 2016 Colchester Borough Council; Cabinet 8 December 2016 Colchester Borough Council; Council 12 December 2016 Braintree District Council; Council 13 December 2016 Essex County Council; Cabinet 14 December 2016 Councils sign Shareholder Agreements and subscribe to NEGC Prior to determination of the Local NEGC Board meet and agree the Plan Pre Submission draft. subscription of LDVs including appointment of Directors Prior to determination of the Local Each of the LDVs Boards meet and Plan Pre Submission draft. agree the Landowner Agreements. Prior to determination of the Local Landowner Agreements completed. Plan Pre Submission draft. January 2017 Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Published for Committee Consideration January / February 2017 Council meetings to approve Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft March 2017 Relevant LDVs either wound up on basis of non-allocation; Or continues the development of the schemes.

20. Strategic Plan References

20.1 The Strategic Plan Action Plan includes a commitment to make Colchester a vibrant, prosperous, thriving and welcoming place. The new Local Plan will contribute to the attainment of this commitment through new development, conservation and regeneration .

21. Financial Considerations

21.1 See sections 12 to 16 of this report above.

22. Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Implications

22.1 See section 19 of this report above.

23. Consultation and Publicity Implications

23.1 The concept of new settlements crossing the boundary of Colchester and Tendring has already been the subject of public consultationPage 179 of both210 through the Colchester Issues and Options consultation and the recent Tendring Issues and Options consultation. Braintree District Council also made reference to Garden Settlements in their Issues and Options consultation.

24. Community Safety, Health and Safety and Implications

24.1 No direct implications.

25. Risk Management Implications

25.1 See section 18 of this report above.

Summary of Appendices:

1 Diagram showing Corporate Structure 2 Draft Term Sheet North Essex Garden Communities Limited 3 Shareholders Agreement North Essex Garden Communities Limited 4 Draft Term Sheet Tendring Colchester Borders Limited 5 Shareholders Agreement Tendring Colchester Borders Limited 6 Draft Term Sheet Colchester Braintree Borders Limited 7 Shareholders Agreement Colchester Braintree Borders Limited 8 Draft Term Sheet West of Braintree Limited 9 Shareholders Agreement West of Braintree Limited 10 Risk Assessments

In view of their size, the appendices have not been printed in the Council Summons but are available here or by following the pathway www.colchester.gov.uk / Your Council / Committees, Agendas and Minutes / Council/ 08 December 2016.

Page 180 of 210

Item Cabinet 8(ii) 30 November 2016

Report of Head of Customer Services Author Sean Plummer Strategic Finance Manager / Jason Granger Customer Interventions Manager 508824 Title Local Council Tax Support 201 7/1 8 Wards All Wards affected

This report concerns proposals for the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2017/18

1. Decision required

1.1 To agree and recommend to Full Council the proposals in respect of Local Council Tax Support scheme commencing 01 April 2017.

2. Reasons for Decision

2.1 Colchester Borough Council implemented a Local Council Tax Support scheme from 1 April 2013.

2.2 Legislation requires that following public consultation, amendments to the scheme for 2017/18 need to be agreed by Full Council before 31 January 2017.

2.3 It is recommended to bring the scheme in line with national legislative amendments and to propose the following changes:

• Amend backdating to one calendar month • Reducing the period for which a person can be absent from Great Britain and still receive Local Council Tax Support from 1 April 2017.

2.4 All other fundamental features of the scheme, other than those described under 2.3, are proposed to remain unaltered.

Alternative Options

3.1 Removal of the family premium for new working age Local Council Tax Support awards from 1 April 2017.

Consultation proposals included an option to remove the family premium for new working age Local Council Tax Support awards from 1 April 2017.

Applicants to Local Council Tax Support have a maximum amount of weekly income they can receive before their income starts to affect their level of entitlement. This figure is called the applicable amount.

Page 181 of 210

The removal of the family premium would reduce the applicable amount for new applicants with dependent children yet will provide consistency with the Housing Benefit scheme.

3.2 The option of removing the family premium for new working age Local Council Tax Support awards from 1 April 2017 received support in consultation. However this would not be recommended, taking into account the following considerations:

• Maintaining the current assessment basis for families would provide further stability for this resident basis in terms of wider welfare adjustments

• The removal of the family premium would have a disproportionate effect on families on a low income.

3.3 Respondents were also asked to provide wider comment on alternative options for scheme funding including increasing the level of Council Tax, accrue savings from reducing other Council Services or using Council's reserves.

3.4 The alternative options did not receive support through consultation.

3.5 If Colchester Borough Council keeps the current scheme, it will be administratively more complex as it will not align with Housing Benefit which is also administered by the Colchester Borough Council and this will have a cost implication.

4. Background information

4.1 Local Council Tax Support currently helps 10,100 residents reduce their Council Tax bill – 4,300 of state pension age and 5,800 working age residents.

The value of Local Council Tax Support granted in 2015/16 was £8.05 million. For 2016/17 it is estimated to be £8.10 million.

4.2 All working age recipients of Local Council Tax Support have to pay a minimum contribution of 20% towards their Council Tax bill. National regulations still require local schemes to ‘protect’ those residents of state pension credit age from any reduction to their level of support as a result of the localisation of the scheme.

4.3 A summary of the 2016/17 key scheme points are outlined below:

• Back to Work Bonus – additional 4 weeks support for those who find work • Award based on 80% of Council Tax liability • £6000 capital /savings limit • Flat rate £12 non-dependent deduction • Disregard of child maintenance as income • Include Child Benefit as income • £25 flat rate earnings disregard • £1.00 per week minimum level of entitlement.

Page 182 of 210

5. Proposals

5.1 Amend backdating to one calendar month

It is proposed to amend backdating to one month. This is a minor correction to our policy which currently states 28 days. This has negligible financial impact but aligns the scheme to other Welfare Benefit frameworks. Amending backdating has no adverse impact in relation to entitlement.

5.2 Reducing the period for which a person can be absent from Great Britain and still receive Local Council Tax Support from 1 April 2017 to four weeks

Within the current scheme, applicants can be temporarily absent from their homes for 13 weeks (or 52 weeks in certain cases) without it affecting their claim. This replicated the rule within Housing Benefit.

It is proposed that the Local Council Tax Support scheme is amended to reflect the changes in Housing Benefit. There will be exceptions for certain occupations such as mariners and the armed forces or where you have to go abroad due to the death of a close relative.

The limitation of temporary absence rules will require residents to reapply for Local Council Tax Support upon their return, yet provide consistency with the Housing Benefit scheme.

6. Strategic Plan references

6.1 The Council’s Strategic Plan sets out several priorities including a commitment to ensure Colchester is a welcoming and safe place for residents, visitors and businesses with a friendly feel that embraces tolerance and diversity.

6.2 Precepting authorities contributed additional funding to assist with the collection of Council Tax, recognising the additional number of residents we had to collect from and the potential difficulties we would experience collecting from residents who have either not previously paid Council Tax or who are paying an increased amount.

This additional money has helped fund a proactive intervention programme which provides a range of services including flexible payment plans, debt and back to work advice as well as administration an Exceptional Hardship fund. This work helps to protect the interests of our more vulnerable residents whilst focusing on the maintenance of collection.

7. Consultation

7.1 The Local Government Finance Act 2012 sets out that Billing Authorities have to hold a public consultation on any potential changes to their existing Local Council Tax Support scheme. To comply with this and to understand the impact on residents of the scheme a 6 week consultation was held from 22 August to 3 October 2016.

7.2 Historically response rates to consultation have been low. Ahead of, and during this year’s consultation considerable efforts were made to generate responses. A robust communications plan was formed and included the following:

• Design of consultation media, fixing the brand and providing consistency of message • Bespoke web page promoting consultation • Colchester Borough CouncilPage landing 183 ofpage 210 advert running throughout consultation

• Press release • Social media campaign - Colchester Borough Council and Colchester Borough Homes • Enews articles and Members Information Bulletin • Poster and screen promotion - internally and externally • Phone prompts on call centre telephony channels • Consultation advert on all Council Tax notifications issued during consultation period. In excess of 8,000 notifications were issued carrying this message at no additional cost • Key message for Customer Services officers to encourage response.

7.3 Outcomes of the public consultation are set out in Appendix A. The majority of respondents agreed with the terms presented.

8. Publicity considerations

8.1 Local Council Tax Support is publicised via a website and we continue to provide information within our annual Council Tax bills and other mailings.

9. Financial implications

9.1 The Government funding for Local Council Tax Support was originally provided as a specific grant.

The funding is no longer separately identified in Local Authority settlements yet forms part of the Revenue Support Grant and baseline retained business rates, together known as the Settlement Funding Allocation.

The Settlement Funding Allocation has reduced each year and therefore it could be assumed that the funding for Local Council Tax Support has also reduced.

The table below shows how the cost of Local Council Tax Support compares to the assumed Government grant.

Grant Settlement Colchester Local Colchester Difference Funding Borough Council Tax Borough (£’000) Allocation Council Support Council Reduction Assumed Costs Share Grant (£’000) (£’000) (£’000) 2013/14 1,321 9,085 1,081 240 2014/15 13% 1,149 8,497 1,011 138 2015/16 15% 977 8,047 958 19 2016/17 17% 811 8,113 933 -122 2017/18 17% 673 8,121 934 -261

9.2 The cost of the scheme is influenced by both caseload and the Council Tax rate set. The cost in 2016/17 has therefore increased due to the 3.4% Council Tax rise and further increases are likely in 2017/18.

This table shows that in 2016/17 there is an estimated net cost of the scheme for Colchester Borough Council. Looking ahead to 2017/18 and beyond, the Settlement Funding Allocation will reduce further and Council Tax rises are likely and therefore this could lead to a net cost of the Local Council Tax Support scheme in later years. However, the actual position will depend on caseload numbers.

Page 184 of 210

The 2017/18 Council budget already assumes the above reduction in Government funding and therefore the impact of this has already been factored in to the budget gap. It should be remembered that the cost of LCTS and funding is shared with the major preceptors (County, Fire and Police) and as such the overall net cost of the scheme will vary depending on how funding has reduced for different authorities.

Whilst we have seen a reduction in the caseload (approximately 1500 since the introduction of LCTS) volatility in the economic outlook could create future pressure on caseloads and subsequently the cost of the scheme. Furthermore fundamental changes to the current criteria could potentially affect the collection fund position. These factors have been taken into consideration when providing options for consultation.

Local Council Tax Support scheme proposals attempt to balance the ongoing pressures of Local Authority settlement for both billing authorities and preceptors whilst acknowledging potential for escalating scheme costs due economic volatility. These factors are placed in contrast for the need to support and protect those on a low income. Furthermore, the Council needs to consider the risks to collection rates from changes in the scheme.

10. Equality, Diversity and Human Rights implications

10.1 An updated Equality Impact assessment (EQIA) was carried out and published on 18 August 2016. It is available on the Colchester Borough Councils Website or by clicking here

11. Community Safety implications

11.1 The proposals contain provision for dealing with welfare concerns of residents, particularly vulnerable people. It is intended to limit hardship to avoid giving rise to crime and disorder.

12. Health and Safety implications

There are no health and safety implications.

13. Risk Management implications

13.1 Fundamental changes to the current criteria could potentially affect the collection fund position.

13.2 The absence of an adopted Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2017/18 by 31 January 2017 would lead to introduction of a prescribed default scheme which broadly represents the former Council Tax Benefit scheme with an additional funding requirement of circa £1.2 million.

13.3 Help and assistance is available to any resident affected by the proposed changes by the Customer Support Team. This team is currently supporting residents affected by the Governments Welfare Reform Agenda. This dedicated team are ready to provide a wide range of advice in relation to Welfare Benefits, money management and back to work support.

• Draft Local Council Tax Support 2017/18 policy document – access by clicking here • Appendix A – Local Council Tax Support Public Consultation – overview, analysis and free text comments

Page 185 of 210

Appendix A

Local Council Tax Support Consultation

Introduction

The Local Government Finance Act 2012 sets out that Billing Authorities have to hold a public consultation on any potential changes to their existing Local Council Tax Support Scheme. To comply with this and to seek public opinion on the scheme a 6 week consultation took place between 22 nd August and 3 rd October 2016.

There were a total of 164 respondents. However this did not relate to 164 fully completed questionnaires as they were a high level of respondents that did not fully complete the questionnaire, this was through abandoning the completion of the questionnaire at different points.

Overview

The questionnaire was divided into the following sections:

• Background to the Consultation

Within this section supporting information was provided to explain the broad principles of the Consultation.

• Paying for the Scheme

Within this section the views were sought on whether the current scheme should continue.

• Proposed changes to the scheme

Within this section views were sought on specific changes proposed.

• Alternative methods

Within this section views were sought on alternative options to fund the current scheme in contrast to the proposed changes with free text sections allowing wider comment to be provided.

• About you

Equality and Diversity responses.

Page 186 of 210

Responses

Rounding has been applied to results. Free type comments reported verbatim.

I have read the section ‘Background to the Consultation’ at the start of this Questionnaire.

Response Response Percent Total Yes 61 100 No 0 0

Paying for the scheme

Should Colchester Borough Council keep the current Local Council Tax Support Scheme? (Should it continue to provide the same level of support as it does at the moment?)

Response Response Total Percent Yes 29 62 No 12 26 Don't know 6 12

Please use the space below to make any comments you have in regards to maintaining the Local Council Tax Support Scheme:

• With the exception of the £12 non means tested regardless of savings element for non dependent. This should reflect the non dependents income - either up or down

• no comment

• If the council allocated money to the essential work needed in the borough then there would surely be enough funds to cover costs.

• I have serious concerns about the level of poverty fostered on to the most vunerable with the benefit cap as well a change in this could mean children not eating

• there should be some provision for those on a low income

• Why change a system that is already in place for something that won't save money

• People of working age on benefits cannot afford to pay as we are given the minimum to live on which is then made less by various payments such as this and bedroom tax putting us in poverty. DLA and PIP are Not incomes but grants to allow us to live as others.

• Should be supporting vulnerable people and those on low incomes

Proposed changes to the scheme

Option 1 – Removing the family premium for all new working age applicants The removal of the family premium from 1st April 2017 for new claims will bring the Local Council Tax Support Scheme in line with Housing Benefit. The family premium is part of how we assess the ‘needs’ (Applicable Amounts) of any applicant, which is compared withPage their 187 income. of 210 The family premium

(currently £17.45 per week) is normally given when an applicant has at least One dependant child living with them. This change would not affect those on Universal Credit, Income Support, Income Related Employment and Support Allowance or Income Based Jobseeker’s Allowance.

The benefit of doing this:

• It brings the working age Local Council Tax Support Scheme in line with Housing Benefit changes and provides efficiency in administration. • The change has already been introduced for pension age applicants by Central Government.

The drawbacks of doing this:

• New working age applicants may see a reduction in the amount of support they receive. • Some households with children may pay more

Do you agree with the option 1?

Response Total Response Percent Yes 29 72 No 7 18 Don't know 4 10

If you disagree what alternative would you propose?

• Entire scheme should be means tested.

• The affected parties would be those who are trying to meet their obligations by working. Those who don't work would benefit and make it easier for them to not consider getting a job. Many of those who do not work are capable of working and should be utilised in local community projects so that the borough does not need to fund minor projects such as litter picking and tidying of community areas.That way they are affectively earning their benefits thus saving the council money.

• I would propose continuing with this and find another way

• To avoid a 2 tier system, every claimat should be on the same as everybody else. Either keep the system we have now or if a new system is needed, then a completely new system that saves the council money and pass the savings on, where the money should be.

• People on benefits should not pay as it places us in poverty

• Continue with the family element as it is being removed for other benefits

Option 2 - Amending Backdating to 1 month

Currently claims for Local Council Tax Support from working age applicants can be backdated for 28 days where an applicant shows they could not claim at an earlier date. Central Government has reduced backdating for Housing Benefit claims to 1 month. It is proposed that the Council’s Local Council Tax Support Scheme should be in line with the changes to Housing Benefit.

The benefit of this: Page 188 of 210

• It brings the working age Local Council Tax Support Scheme in line with Housing Benefit and provides efficiency in administration

• The change will provide a small increase to the maximum period of backdating

The drawback of this:

• There are no drawbacks

Do you agree with the option 2?

Response Total Response Percent Yes 35 88 No 1 2 Don't know 4 10

If you disagree what alternative would you propose?

• This could be implimented provided it is looked into by then council benefits dept and listening to everyone on the tax benefit and drawn out so everybody is happy knowing money will be saved and passed on.

• People on benefits can not afford to lose money from the minimum they receive

Proposed changes to the scheme

Option 3 - Reducing the period for which a person can be absent from Great Britain and still receive Local Council Tax Support to 4 weeks

Within the current scheme, applicants can be temporarily absent from their homes for 13 weeks (or 52 weeks in certain cases) without it affecting their Local Council Tax Support. This replicated the rule within Housing Benefit. Housing Benefit has now been changed by the Central Government so that if a person is absent from Great Britain for a period of more than 4 weeks their benefit will cease.

It is proposed that Colchester Borough Council’s Local Council Tax Support Scheme is amended to reflect the changes in Housing Benefit. There will be exceptions for certain occupations such as Mariners and the Armed Forces or where an applicant has to go abroad due to the death of a close relative.

The benefit of doing this:

• It brings the working age Local Council Tax Support Scheme in line with Housing Benefit and provides efficiency in administration

The drawback of this:

• If a person is absent from Great Britain for a period which is likely to exceed 4 weeks, their Local Council Tax Support will cease from when they leave Great Britain. They will need to re-apply on return

Do you agree with the option 3?

Response Total Response Percent Yes 33 83 No 3 7 Don't know 4 10 Page 189 of 210

If you disagree what alternative would you propose?

• This doesnt make sense! Is it temporarily absent abroad? If so then i agree! if it is temporarily absent as in gone into hospital for 13 weeks then i dont

• Good idea in princable, it needs a full debate between the benefit dept and claimants and amendments must be implimented so obody looses out.

• If someone is out of Great Britain for reasons other than those exceptions mentioned above they should not receive benefit for this period.

Alternative methods

Alternatives to reducing the amount of help provided by the Local Council Tax Support Scheme

If Colchester Borough Council keeps the current scheme, it will be administratively more complex (as it will not align with Housing Benefit which is also administered by the Colchester Borough Council) and it will cost taxpayers more.

If this happens we will need to find savings from other services to help meet the increase in costs.

The proposals set out in this consultation could deliver savings. The alternatives are set out in the background information.

Do you think we should choose any of the following alternative options rather than the proposed changes to the Local Council Tax Support Scheme?

Please select one answer for each source of funding

Yes No Don't know Response Total Increase the level of Council Tax 10.26%(4) 64.1% (25) 25.64% (10) 39 Reduce the funding available for other Council 10.26% (4) 69.23% (27) 20.51% (8) 39 Services Use the Councils savings 17.95% (7) 56.41% (22) 25.64% (10) 39

If the Council were to choose these other options to make savings, what would be your order of preference?

Please rank in order of preference by selecting a number from 1 – 3 in the boxes below, where 1 is the option that you would most prefer and 3 is the least.

1 2 3 Response Total Increase the level of Council Tax 20.51% (8) 7.69% (3) 71.80% (28) 39 Reduce the funding available for other Council 20.51% (8) 28.21 (11) 51.28% (20) 39 Services Use the Councils savings 28.21% (11) 38.46% (15) 33.33% (13) 39

Please use the space below to make any other comments on the scheme

• Please see my comments previously

Page 190 of 210

• I think the reliance on food banks is a disgrace and the loss of council tax benefit was shocking and understand that the councils have to make up the shortfall which is also wrong. Some families simply cant have any more outgoings without going hungry- its 2016 its disgraceful.

• I think Cllr Paul Smith and his coalition colleagues are doing a great job under trying circunstances, with good support from Adrian Pritchard and other CBC officers. This public consultation is a good example of their commitment to democracy and open government

• concider the million pound council tax and the high earner tax, so the higher the cost of the home, the more you pay and the more you earn over £60,000, the more you pay.

Please use the space below if you would like Colchester Borough Council to consider any other options

• Include prison as absent from home

• I think those who are capable of work should be asked to work in the community to receive their benefits.It would give them a sense of earning their money and pride in themselves.

• What might help to a point is VAT on things, see what can be saved there also, cutting back on perks for council employees/managers

If you have any further comments regarding the Local Council Tax Support Scheme, please use the space below

• Local council tax support should be assessed by the amount of money going into a household regardless of whether that money is worked for or by benefits. If the amount of benefit is higher than a working persons income then it should be taken into account and not automatically given just because the person is already receiving other benefits by not working.A working person should not be treated differently to a benefit reliant person, when that person is struggling to pay their own bills by working but a benefit reliant person does not get means tested on their benefits.It makes no sense.

• They should have 100% reduction for people on DLA/PIP

• People on benefits should not have to pay from the minimum we are given. DLA & PIP are not incomes and should not be included in calculations. Pushing disabled and sick in to poverty should not happen.

Equality and Diversity Questions

Are you, or someone in your household, claiming Local Council Tax Support?

Response Response

Total Percent Yes 4 12 No 27 82 Don't know 2 6

Are you

Response Response

Total Percent Male 12 36 Female Page 191 of 210 17 52

Prefer not to say 4 12 Other, please specify 0 0

Age

Response Response

Total Percent 18-24 2 6

25-34 5 15 35-44 7 21 45-54 7 21

55-64 4 12

65-74 4 12 75-84 1 3 85+ 0 0 Prefer not to say 3 10

Do you consider yourself to have a physical impairment?

Response Response

Total Percent Yes 3 10 No 24 80 Not sure 1 3 Prefer not to say 2 7

Do you consider yourself to have a sensory impairment?

Response Response

Total Percent Yes 2 7 No 25 86 Not sure 0 0 Prefer not to say 2 7

Do you consider yourself to have a learning difficulty or disability?

Response Response

Total Percent Yes 2 7 No 23 85 Not sure 1 4 Prefer not to say 1 4

Do you consider yourself to have any mental health needs?

Response Response

Total Percent Yes 4 12 No 24 76 Not sure 0 0 Prefer not to say 4 12

Ethnicity

Response Response

Total Percent White British 24 75 White Irish 1 3

White Other 2 6

Gypsy / Roma 0 0

Traveller of Irish 0 0 Heritage Black or Black British 0 0 African Page 192 of 210

Black or Black British 0 0 Caribbean Mixed White/Black 0 0 African Mixed White/Black 0 0 Caribbean Black Other 0 0 Asian or Asian British 0 0 Pakistani Asian or Asian British 0 0 Indian Asian or Asian British 0 0 Other Mixed White/Asian 0 0

Asian Other 0 0

Chinese 0 0

Mixed Other 0 0 Not Known 0 0

Prefer not to say 5 16 Other, please specify 0 0

END

Page 193 of 210

Page 194 of 210

Item Cabinet 8(iii) 30 November 2016

Report of Assistant Chief Executive Author Jessica Douglas/ Chris Reed  282240 Title Officer Pay Policy Statement for 2017/18 Wards Not applicable

This report concerns the Council’s Officer Pay Policy Statement, which must be approved each year by Full Council under the Localism Act 2011.

1. Decision Required

1.1 To recommend the approval and adoption of the 2017/18 Statement by Full Council.

2. Reasons for Decision

2.1 The Localism Act requires “authorities to prepare, approve and publish pay policy statements articulating their policies towards a range of issues relating to the pay of its workforce, which must be approved by full Council annually. An authority’s pay policy statement must be approved by a resolution of that authority before it comes into force”.

3. Alternative Options

3.1 The only alternative would be to not recommend the approval of the Pay Policy Statement, but that would be contrary to the requirements of the Localism Act. . 4. Supporting Information

4.1 Local authorities must publish a pay policy statement for the financial year. The Officer Pay Policy for 2016/17 was approved by Full Council on 10 December 2015.

4.2 The Localism Act specifies items that must be covered by the statement including the level and elements of remuneration for each chief officer, remuneration of chief officers on recruitment, increases and additions to remuneration for each chief officer, the use of performance-related pay and bonuses for chief officers, the approach to the payment of chief officers on their ceasing to hold office under or to be employed by the authority, and the publication of and access to information relating to remuneration of chief officers.

4.3 The Council’s pay policy statement has been extended beyond the statutory requirements relating to chief officers as shown in 4.2 above to include all officers employed by the Council, in the interests of openness and transparency.

4.4 Please see the attached Officer Pay Policy. Appendix 1 of the policy contains the mostly numerical data which sits behind it, and the definitions of terms such as ‘chief officers’. These two documents form the Council’s pay policy statement.

4.5 The statement covers all pay and benefits for every employee of Colchester Borough Council. There are no financial allowances or bonuses other than those mentioned.

4.6 Mandatory requirements for data publication under the Local government transparency code 2015,and for the Council’s Statement of Accounts under the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 have also been taken into account when preparing this year’s update of the pay policy to ensure that the published data is complete and consistent.

Page 195 of 210

5. Living Wage

5.1 The Council has chosen to pay the Living Wage since 2013 as part of its commitment to being a good employer, and its approach to Social Value. The Council signed a ‘Living Wage Employer’ licence with the Living Wage Foundation in February 2016, which means the Council is also implementing a phased plan which rolls out as contracts come up for renewal so that these third-party contracted staff also receive the Living Wage.

5.2 The Council will continue to pay the Living Wage as a minimum standard for all employees. The Living Wage is set independently and calculated according to the basic cost of living in the UK (hourly rate is now £8.45, 18 and older), and it is higher than the compulsory National Living Wage brought in by central government in April 2016 (currently £7.20 if 25 or over / £6.70 if aged 21-24).

5.3 The Living Wage rate is set each November by the Living Wage Foundation. More than 300 permanent/casual Council staff and 40 third-party contracted employees (grounds maintenance contract from April 2016) had their wages increased to meet the £8.25 hourly Living Wage rate set in November 2015 (£8.45 from November 2016).

6. Looking ahead to 2017/18

6.1 The Council will need to comply with the effective dates and requirements of these legislative changes once these are known:

• The Government’s further consultation on regulations for the £95,000 public sector exit payments cap, along with the recovery regulations on exit payments for those earning £80,000 or more, and an ongoing consultation into any use of salary sacrifice / benefits in kind. From April 2017: • The Government will make public sector bodies and agencies responsible for operating the tax rules that apply to off-payroll working through limited companies in the public sector. • The national introduction of the Apprenticeship Levy. • All organisations which employ more than 250 employees will need to publish ‘gender pay gap’ information showing whether there are any differences in pay between male and female employees.

7. Strategic Plan References

7.1 The performance, remuneration and motivation of employees are key to delivering effective, efficient public services and the Strategic Plan’s aspirations and priorities.

8. Publicity Considerations

8.1 The data contained within the Officer Pay Policy is publicly available on the Council’s website via an online tool called ‘Datashare’. This brings a broad range of information into one place, and that helps to improve openness and transparency.

9. Financial implications

9.1 The pay policy statement provides transparency about the Council’s approach to pay and benefits for its employees.

10. Equality, Diversity and Human Rights implications

10.1 The Equality Impact Assessment is on the Council’s website here.

11 Other Implications

11.1 There are no community safety, consultation, health and safety or risk implications. Page 196 of 210 Colchester Borough Council Human Resources Policies

Officer Pay Policy

December 2016

Page 197 of 210 OFFICER PAY POLICY December 2016

......

Contents Page

Introduction ...... 1

1. Pay strategy and framework ...... 1

2. Pay review and annual increases ...... 2

3. Remuneration of Chief Officers ...... 2

4. Other items in addition to salary ...... 2

5. Rewarding performance ...... 4

6. Pension...... 4

7. Other financial benefits ...... 5

8. Recruitment ...... 6

9. Sick Pay ...... 6

10. Payments when employment status changes ...... 7

11. Election duties ...... 7

12. Temporary staff and interim arrangements ...... 7

13. Supporting Information ...... 8

Document Information ...... 8

Pay Data – Appendix 1 ...... 9

Page 198 of 210 OFFICER PAY POLICY December 2016

Introduction

The purpose of this policy is to provide an open and transparent framework that ensures clarity, fairness and consistency in the remuneration of officers.

The Council will comply with this policy which covers all officers. It ensures that employees are paid on a fair and equitable basis in accordance with equality legislation.

Colchester Borough Council recognises the importance of administering pay in a way that:

• attracts, motivates and retains appropriately talented people needed to maintain and improve the Council’s performance and meet future challenges • reflects the market for comparable jobs, with skills and competencies required to meet agreed delivery and performance outcomes • allows for a proportion of remuneration to be at risk, depending upon the delivery of agreed outcomes and results • delivers the required levels of competence within an overall workforce strategy within approved budget parameters • is affordable and transparent.

1. Pay strategy and framework

1.1 The Council determines the level of annual salary for employees, including chief officers, using an established job evaluation scheme. Jobs are independently evaluated, using this scheme, by experienced Human Resources staff and all employees have the right of appeal against their pay grade.

1.2 The pay grades and salary spines are shown in Appendix 1, along with other definitions such ‘chief officer’. The Council implemented the ‘Living Wage’, which is independently calculated, from April 2013 and became an accredited Living Wage Employer in February 2016. Each pay grade has a number of incremental points and employees normally progress up their pay grade by one increment on an annual basis, subject to satisfactory levels of performance (see also section 5 - rewarding performance).

1.3 The exception to this principle is where employees have transferred their employment to the Council and salary protection exists under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) legislation which is commonly referred to as TUPE.

1.4 The pay policy incorporates the Council’s Equality and Diversity policy (website link Equality and Diversity in employment - Colchester Borough Council) and periodic equal pay audits will be conducted. From April 2017, in line with new mandatory gender pay gap reporting, the Council will need to publish pay information showing whether there are any differences in pay between male and female employees.

1 Page 199 of 210 OFFICER PAY POLICY December 2016

2. Pay review and annual increases

2.1 The Council supports the principle of collective bargaining and has a recognition agreement with the trade union ‘Unison’. Negotiation and consultation is conducted at a local level in relation to levels of pay and benefits for all employees including Chief / Senior Officers (see definitions in Appendix 1). The Council therefore is not part of any national terms and conditions for local government employees.

2.2 Local negotiations around a pay review are conducted on an annual basis, and any increase is agreed taking into account inflationary factors, local salary levels and affordability. Any decision to increase salary levels for all employees has to be approved by the Portfolio Holder under delegated powers set in the Council’s Constitution.

2.3 The Council publishes its pay multiple (the ratio between the highest and lowest paid employees) and does not currently set a target for this.

3. Remuneration of Chief Officers

3.1 The remuneration of all officers is determined using the Council’s job evaluation and performance management schemes.

3.2 The median average value of Chief Officers’ pay is shown in Appendix 1 together with the relationship to the lowest paid staff and other staff (referred to in the legislation as “the pay multiple”).

3.3 The remuneration of all Chief Officers and Senior Officers will be published in the Council’s Annual Statement of Accounts (note 32), which also includes a wide range of financial information.

4. Other items in addition to salary

The Council pays the following additions to annual salary:

4.1 Overtime: This is paid to employees who are required to work in excess of their contracted weekly hours. All overtime is paid at plain-time rate derived from annual salary, and enhancements are not normally paid for working at weekends or public holidays. Employees on pay grade CMG5 or above are not entitled to receive overtime pay.

4.2 Unsocial hours working: The Council pays an allowance to employees who work unsocial hours which cover 24-hour shift working. Allowances are also paid to employees who undertake standby and call out duties. A small payment can also made to ‘front-line’ employees who are required to work over the Christmas/New Year period.

4.3 Maternity, paternity and shared parental arrangements: The Council has a policy that supports parents and provides some enhancement to the statutory maternity, paternity and shared parental provisions. These enhancements are shown in Appendix 1.

4.4 Recruitment and retention payments:

2 Page 200 of 210 OFFICER PAY POLICY December 2016

Where the Council is faced with difficulties in recruitment to and retention of specific jobs, as a result of market pressures and skills shortages, the Chief Executive is able to sanction the use of a temporary recruitment/retention supplement, reviewed on a regular basis. This may include a non-consolidated payment on appointment and/or a retention payment to reflect the employment market and the needs of the business. Any such payment is to be authorised by the Chief Executive. If the employee leaves the Council voluntarily within a year, they will be required to pay back this non-consolidated payment.

Where an individual is being recruited and has significant experience or skills in the role for which they are being employed, Heads of Service and above have discretion to appoint at any scale point (within the grade) above the lowest level.

Where an employee is upgraded using the Council’s job evaluation scheme, the employee will move to the lowest point of the new pay grade such that they receive at least one increment. Any proposal to move the employee to a higher point on the pay grade has to be authorised by the Chief Executive.

4.5 Increases in responsibility: Temporary or permanent payments can be paid at the discretion of the Chief Executive (for employees on CMG 7 and above), or at the discretion of a member of the Executive Management Team (for employees on CMG 8 and below), to reflect operational needs, the level of additional responsibility and the Council’s increment/acting-up policies.

4.6 Other items: The Council only reimburses reasonable business expenses actually incurred and in line with the Council’s travel and subsistence policy.

Professional membership fees are reimbursed to employees at the rate of 50% of fees incurred and only one membership per employee is reimbursed.

External training costs are paid where they form part of agreed learning and development, and in line with the post-entry training policy.

There are no expense allowances or bonuses other than those mentioned within this pay policy.

3 Page 201 of 210 OFFICER PAY POLICY December 2016

5. Rewarding performance

5.1 The Council uses a performance management scheme to appraise the performance of all employees, including Chief / Senior Officers. Issues of poor performance can result in any annual increment being withheld.

5.3 The Council also recognises the need to incentivise specific jobs whose role involves a proportion of sales or income generation. In such cases a reward package will be developed, which needs approval by Senior Management Team. The annual salary and incentive payment will be determined outside of the job evaluation scheme and will be risk-assured in relation to equal pay.

5.4 The Council incentivises and recognises employees for their individual contribution towards the three organisational goals of ‘Customer; Business and Culture’ through a non-salary rewards scheme. Where an employee’s contribution is deemed to be excellent they can be nominated for a non-consolidated payment up to the maximum value if authorised by the Chief Executive. See Appendix 1 for the value of these incentives.

5.5 The Council also recognises the importance of organisation-wide performance, and the contribution which employees can make to this. The Council is considering with the Trade Union the introduction of non-consolidated payments which would be related to its overall performance as measured against a range of financial, income and key performance indicators. If introduced, these would form part of the annual pay negotiations with Unison, and through the public governance process of portfolio holder approval. This matter is subject to formal member approval.

6. Pension

6.1 In accordance with statutory provisions, employees are offered membership of the Local Government Pension Scheme. The Council has a published pension policy and this policy applies to all employees including Chief / Senior Officers. It sets out the Council’s decisions relating to discretionary powers allowed within the scheme. The pension contribution rates are shown in Appendix 1.

6.2 The Council also supports the principle of flexible retirement whereby employees are able to gain access to their pension whilst continuing in employment, subject to the restrictions laid down within the scheme and in the Council’s Pension policy. This approach allows the Council to retain skilled employees and to assist individuals in managing the transition to retirement.

4 Page 202 of 210 OFFICER PAY POLICY December 2016

7. Other financial benefits

The Council currently offers the following financial benefits to employees, with the value of these charges and benefits shown in Appendix 1:

7.1 Travel Plan incentives/charges: In order to encourage employees to use ‘greener’ travel modes, which also help to reduce town centre congestion, the Council has developed a package of travel plan measures. These measures include a charge for car parking for employees based in the town centre, and discounts for the ‘home to work’ use of bus and rail travel.

7.2 Salary sacrifice schemes: The Council has adopted approved government salary sacrifice schemes which enable employees to have deductions from pay to purchase childcare vouchers or cycles for travel to work. These schemes are tax efficient for the employee and are cost-neutral to the Council.

7.3 Long Service Awards: The Council recognises the commitment of employees to public service and provides a gift to employees for 25 years’ service with the Council.

7.4 Other allowances: An allowance is paid for employees who volunteer to be designated First Aiders in the workplace.

An allowance paid as a contribution towards broadband costs, which applied if employees work at home on a regular basis using a PC to access Council systems, is no longer included in the terms and conditions of new starters joining the Council after 1 October 2016.

5 Page 203 of 210 OFFICER PAY POLICY December 2016

8. Recruitment

8.1 In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, appointments to Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive), Executive Directors, Heads of Service, Chief Finance Officer and Monitoring Officer, have to be approved by the Full Council.

8.2 All appointments are made in line with this pay policy.

8.3 The appointment of other Chief Officers and starting salaries within the grade must be approved by the Chief Executive.

8.4 The appointment of employees other than Chief Officers will be delegated to the appropriate management level, relevant to the vacant job. The starting salary within the pay grade range will be determined taking into account the skills and experience of the applicant and market pressures.

8.5 The Council does not restrict the re-employment of employees previously made redundant by either the Council or other Local Government. All applicants for vacancies are considered equally, based on their knowledge, skills and experience.

8.6 Full Council will be offered the opportunity to vote before large salary packages are offered in respect of new appointments. This level is set out in statutory guidance, and the current level is shown at Appendix 1 along with definitions of roles/posts.

9. Sick Pay

The Council applies the following sick pay scheme for all employees including Chief Officers.

Service Full Pay Half Pay (years) (months) (months) During first year 1 *2

During second year 2 2

During third year 4 4

During fourth/fifth years 5 5

After five years 6 6

* After completing 4 months' service

6 Page 204 of 210 OFFICER PAY POLICY December 2016

10. Payments when employment status changes

10.1 Redundancy: The Council operates a redundancy payment scheme which applies to all employees including Chief / Senior Officers. The scheme is based on the employee’s rate of pay and on the number of weeks paid under the statutory scheme, with an enhancement of 50% subject to a maximum of 45 weeks’ pay.

10.2 Pay Protection: The Council operates pay protection for a limited time period, within the terms of the redundancy policy. This applies when staff have their pay reduced as part of a process of re-deployment or job evaluation.

10.3 Agreements: Where the Council is in dispute with an employee, the Council will make use of legally binding agreements to settle disputes in appropriate circumstances. The use of these agreements and the value of any settlement will be determined by a consideration of factors such as the potential costs of litigation, the degree of risk at employment tribunal adjudications and any reputational impact. The decision to agree a legally binding agreement will rest with the Chief Executive or, in the case of the Chief Executive, will rest with the Cabinet.

11. Election duties

11.1 The Council has determined that the Returning Officer is the Chief Executive, and the remuneration is separate from the Chief Executive’s salary. The Council has set the remuneration levels of employees who assist with local government election duties on a secondary employment basis. These levels are set by Essex County Council for county elections, and by central government for national and European elections.

11.2 The amount paid for election duties will vary depending on the number and type of elections which take place. The amount paid to the Returning Officer in the previous year is shown in Appendix 1.

12. Temporary staff and interim arrangements

12.1 The Council occasionally uses temporary agency or interim staff where it meets specific business needs and delivers best value. Levels of reward are determined by market rates. However, the Council will not use payment arrangements that could be perceived to be designed to deliberately avoid personal taxation.

7 Page 205 of 210 OFFICER PAY POLICY December 2016

13. Supporting Information

The following references have been used in producing this Pay Policy, along with the Council’s existing Human Resource policies:

Legislation

• The Localism Act 2011 - chapter 8 - pay accountability. • The Equality Act 2010 • Local Government (Early Termination of Employment) (Discretionary Compensation) Regulations 2006 • Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2008 • Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015.

Best practice guidance

Department for Communities and Local Government: • Openness and accountability in local pay: Guidance under section 40 of the Localism Act • Local government transparency code 2015 The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy: • Code of Practice in Local Authority Accounting Local Government Association • Pay Policy Statements - guidance.

Our website

The Council’s website www.colchester.gov.uk has a section with more information about employment at Colchester Borough Council.

The following policies and forms should be taken into account alongside this document:

Policies Equality and Diversity policy Increment policy Maternity and Paternity policies Acting up policy Pensions policy Overtime policy Local Government Pension Scheme Performance management scheme (Administration) Regulations 2013 Discretionary Decisions by Colchester Borough Council Post-entry training policy Redundancy policy Travel and subsistence policy Travel Plan

The policies are on the Intranet in the HR section: A to Z of HR Policies and Procedures

Document Information

Title : Officer Pay Policy Status : 2016 update of existing policy Version : Version 1 Consultation : Cabinet 30 November 2016 Approved By : Full Council Approval Date : 8 December 2016 EQIA : click here Review Frequency : Annual Next Review : December 2017 8 Page 206 of 210 OFFICER PAY POLICY December 2016

Pay Data – Appendix 1

1. Annual Salary scales

Salary spine point Annual salary (£.p) point Annual salary (£.p) 4* 16,302.45 32 34,755.23 5* 16,302.45 33 36,093.98 6* 16,302.45 34 37,336.52 7* 16,302.45 35 38,579.09 8* 16,302.45 36 39,821.63 9* 16,302.45 37 41,113.61 10* 16,302.45 38 42,405.60 11 16,497.81 39 43,697.55 12 17,288.77 40 46,909.45 13 17,666.88 41 50,121.37 14 18,047.66 42 53,333.29 15 18,423.10 43 57,612.75 16 18,801.21 44 61,892.18 17 19,179.30 45 66,171.63 18 19,552.09 46 70,451.05 19 20,118.57 47 74,730.49 20 20,685.07 48 78,833.56 21 21,251.55 49 82,936.66 22 21,818.05 50 87,039.70 23 22,384.54 51 91,142.80 24 22,996.46 52 95,245.85 25 24,820.19 53 99,348.95 26 26,689.36 54 103,959.75 27 28,558.53 55 108,570.52 28 29,731.62 56 113,181.30 29 30,904.68 57 117,792.07 30 32,077.74 58 122,402.86 31 33,416.49 59 124,877.26

The last pay increase was in April 2016 – 1.5%.

* Note these salary points are ‘Living Wage’ (£8.45 from November 2016 – was £8.25). Employers can choose to pay the Living Wage on a voluntary basis, and the Council has done so since 2013.This is higher than the compulsory National Living Wage introduced by the government from April 2016 for all employees who are over 25 (currently £7.20, rising to £9 by 2020).

Pay Grade range Pay Grade Salary spine point Pay Grade Salary spine (CMG) range (CMG) point range 14 4 to 7 7 32 to 36 13 7 to 12 6 35 to 39 12 11 to 18 5 38 to 42 11 18 to 24 4 42 to 47 10 23 to 27 2-3 46 to 53 9 26 to 30 1 54 to 59 8 29 to 33 9 Page 207 of 210 OFFICER PAY POLICY December 2016

Apprentices The national introduction of an Apprenticeship Levy in April 2017 aims to encourage businesses to create three million new apprenticeships by 2020. Employers operating in the UK with a pay bill over £3 million each year will be required to invest in apprenticeships via an apprenticeship levy charged at a rate of 0.5% of the annual pay bill The Council is developing an apprenticeship programme in response to the introduction of this levy, and is reviewing the payment of apprentices in the light of these changes.

2. Pay relationship for Chief Officers

Year 2016/17 Median average pay for Chief Officers £74,730.49 Median average pay for staff other than Chief Officers £22,384.54 Median average pay for lowest paid staff £16,302.45 Pay multiple of Chief Officer (Chief Executive) pay to 5.58 staff other than this Chief Officer Pay multiple of Chief Officers’ pay to staff other than 3.33 Chief Officers Pay multiple of Chief Officers’ pay to lowest paid staff 4.58

Notes – please also see definitions of officers at section 8 below: • Median average pay is based on full-time equivalent annual salary plus additional payments for Chief Officers. It excludes election fees. • ‘Lowest paid staff’ is defined as those paid the ‘Living Wage’ - see chart of pay grades on page 9. • Pay multiple - the ratio between the highest and lowest paid staff.

3. Additional payments for Chief Officers

Returning Officer election fees paid to the Chief Executive: Elections held Amount paid Year Local Borough, Parish, Police and £29,178.02 2016/17 Crime Commissioner, Police Area, EU Referendum, Neighbourhood Planning Referendums

4. Other pay additions and allowances – see pages 2 and 3 for eligibility

Maternity, Paternity and Shared Parental pay: In addition to the statutory provisions, the Council pay 20 weeks at half-pay for mothers who go on maternity leave and subsequently return to work. Up to two weeks’ paid paternity leave is granted to eligible employees.

Non-salary rewards scheme: Quarterly – 1,500 loyalty points (£15 in value) can be redeemed on activities or products within Colchester Leisure World. Maximum of 42 staff across all services each quarter. Annually – incentive to be sourced via reciprocal marketing and voucher schemes.

Exceptional performance: Non-consolidated payment to a maximum of £1,000 if authorised by the Chief Executive.

10 Page 208 of 210 OFFICER PAY POLICY December 2016

6. Pension contribution rate

Employer rate is 13.7%. Employee rates are:

LGPS Contribution Bands April 2016 Actual Pay (includes overtime, Contribution rate per year additional hours and so on) Up to £13,600 5.5% £13,601 - £21,200 5.8% £21,201 - £34,400 6.5% £34,401 - £43,500 6.8% £43,501 - £60,700 8.5% £60,701 - £86,000 9.9% £86,001 - £101,200 10.5% £101,201 - £151,800 11.4% More than £151,801 12.5%

7. Other financial benefits – see page 5 for eligibility

Travel Plan benefits and charges:

Car parking charge – this is paid by employees if they drive to work: • £2 per day.

Home to work travel, in line with Travel Plan policy: • Bus season ticket discount 50% / train season ticket or ‘bulk buy’ discount 35%.

Long Service award: • Maximum value of £250 for 25 years’ service with the Council.

First Aid allowance - for employees designated as First Aiders in the workplace: • £141.96 a year.

Broadband allowance – to access Council computer systems if home working on a regular basis and were employed before 1 October 2016: • £132 a year.

8. Definition of terms used in the Officer Pay Policy and Pay Data documents

• Chief Officers – posts requiring appointment by elected councillors - designated as Chief Executive, Executive Directors and Heads of Service within the Council’s constitutional arrangements for appointment. It also includes the Section 151 and the Monitoring Officer where those roles are not performed by a Head of Service. These posts meet the Chief Officer definition in paragraph 43 Localism Act. • Chief Officer – this is the Chief Executive. • Senior Officers – any post with a salary of £58,200 and above, which is the Senior Civil Service minimum pay band (paragraph 12 code of practice). • Senior Management Team – the Chief Executive, Executive Directors and Heads of Service. • Large salary package – this is defined in statutory guidance and the current threshold is £100,000 (paragraph 14 Localism Act guidance).

11 Page 209 of 210

Page 210 of 210