Report to follow.

The Council was required to produce a new Local Plan for the Borough.  A significant amount of work had gone into preparing this plan to date, and more would be required as the Council reached the final stages.  As part of this process there was a need to undertake further Regulation 18 preparation and consultation.  This process was summarised in Appendix A to the report.

As part of this a range of evidence was being undertaken and updated where relevant.  Recently completed evidence studies relating to market housing and specialist need, Green Belt, and economy were attached in Appendices B-G.

Working with adjoining authorities who were also preparing for growth and considering the wider area to which the Borough contributed required strategic leadership and representation. 

Cllr Mrs McKinlay MOVED and Cllr Hirst SECONDED the recommendations in the report.

Cllr Aspinell MOVED an AMENDMENT to the MOTION but it was declared illegal as it would negate the MOTION. Members were directed by officers advising the Mayor that the same effect would be achieved by voting against the MOTION, and that debate on the MOTION should therefore proceed forthwith.

A full discussion took place where concerns were voiced regarding the impact of the listed sites for possible development in the Borough particularly in relation to highways issues, education and health.

In summing up Cllr Mrs McKinlay reiterated that Members and public concerns were valid but any objections to sites put forward in the proposed Local Development Plan needed to be evidence based for the Plan to be accepted by the Secretary of State.  Lack of evidence would result in the Plan being rejected and central government dictating where development would take place in the Borough.

A recorded vote was requested in accordance with Rule 9.5 of the Council’s Procedure Rules.

Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Bridge, Cloke, Hirst, Mrs Hones, Hossack, Kerslake, McCheyne, Mrs McKinlay, Mrs Murphy, Parker, Poppy, Mrs Pound, Reed, Ms Rowlands, Russell, Ms Sanders, Mrs Slade, Trump, Tumbridge and Wiles (20)

AGAINST:  Cllrs Aspinell, Barrett, Chilvers, Clarke, Mrs Davies, Mrs Fulcher, Keeble, Kendall, Mynott and Newberry (10)

ABSTAIN:  Cllr Mrs Hubbard (1)

The MOTION was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED to

1.    Approve preparation of work set out in Appendix A of the report to commence further Regulation 18 Local Plan consultation.

2.    Note the update provided on evidence base as set out in Appendices B, C, D, E, F and G of the report for the LDP Scrutiny Working Group to scrutinise content.

3.    Approve the formal designation of the Deputy Leader of the Council as Chair of the LDP Member Working Group, to assist the Leader of the Council to carry out tasks relating to strategic leadership and Duty to Cooperate representation.

(During the debate Cllr Kendall declared a non-pecuniary interest under the Council’s Code of Conduct by virtue of being an Essex County Councillor).

Reasons for recommendations:

It was necessary to undertake further public consultation as part of the plan-making process to thoroughly consider the views of stakeholders and members of the public.  Consultation and consideration of comments would enable the Council to move forward and submit the Plan for examination in public by an independent planning inspector. 

The next stage was to undertake further Regulation 18 consultation with the public in January 2018.  Appendix A set out current progress and issues being assessed ahead of that consultation, which included further work with partners such as Essex County Council on highway modelling; and Duty to Cooperate discussion with neighbouring districts such as partners in South Essex and wider plans for growth in the region, among other things.  Recommendation 2.1 set out the need for approval of the process to progress towards this Regulation 18 consultation in January 2018.  Recommendation 2.3 set out the need for a strategic lead to represent the Council in discussions with partners through the Duty to Cooperate.

It was important that the plan was informed by robust and up-to-date evidence.  This evidence base needed to be wide ranging to consider all the intricacies of the plan-making process.  A summarised update was provided on the evidence base in Appendix A and recently completed studies were set out in Appendix B-G.  The approved scope of the LDP Scrutiny Member Working Group was to consider the appropriateness and proportionality of the evidence base.  Recommendation 2.2 set out the need to scrutinise recently completed and drafted evidence which would take place at future scrutiny working group meetings ahead of reporting to Scrutiny Committee.