A SPECIAL VILLAGE MEETING CALLED TO DISCUSS IMPORTANT PLANNING ISSUES
	On Friday 3rd December 2004 a special village meeting was called by the Parish council. Those present were shown a number of plans and details of the 'Third Party' submissions for the next stage of the new Local Plan. The above picture is of a large development on land between Daltes Lane and Beach Road St Osyth, which is 68 acres in extent, which TDC officers estimate could take 827 new properties.
	From the left above: Stuart Byers Vice-Chairman of the Parish Council, John White Chairman and Roger Squirrell, our recently appointed Parish Clerk. Councillor White explained to the meeting that the complete third party proposals for St Osyth village totalled approximately 956 properties on 77.78 acres, but he stressed that no actual plans had been submitted as the nature of a third party proposal was to explore an idea for consideration by the District Council Planners when drawing up the next draft of the local plan. John White went on to say that 9,536 submissions had been returned to the District Council following the publication of the first draft plan.  The proposals for the village were submitted by City & Country Group Limited, who are the owners of St Osyth Priory and part of the justification for their proposals was that the profits from such a development, were it to be permitted, would provide funds for the restoration of the Priory. Stuart Byers, speaking on behalf of the Parish Council said that we must preserve our rural setting and not allow an urban sprawl to take over. Residents must not be complacent, as developers do not mind being unpopular. He then went on to address the floor with the following questions: "Is this development needed?"   "Is it wanted?"   "Do we have to have it?" The reply from the floor was shouted out - "NO".

Keith Maxwell-Whale giving his personal views on the proposals

County Councillor Derek Robinson addresses the meeting

Jan King speaking to the meeting, urged total opposition to the proposals. She would like to see the Priory restored but not if the price to be paid was this development. She hoped Tendring district Council would reject inclusion of these proposals in the next stage of the Local Plan review.

Philip Wells spoke forcefully about the suggested development and his dislike of the idea of bringing a new population of about 2,400 residents from outside, stretching recourses to the limit

Sidge Kenny formerly a Parish Councillor for 16 years did not favour the proposals but did urge some sympathy for the Sargeant family over their restoration problem. He said the cost of the work needed had gone from £1m to £15m

Steve Dalton (by stage at front) gives the meeting his view of the proposals which he felt went against everything the village stood for. He said they would destroy our rural setting and went against the draft Parish Plan. This is one view of the audience at the meeting. There were 210 people on chairs and 68 people standing a total of 278 attending to hear about vital proposals concerning their village!

Richard Ford a local farmer, whose farm borders a part of the development, said he was not in favour of such a large increase in population. He spoke about existing transport problems being further exacerbated.

Reg Arthur, local naturalist and the custodian of the 'Howlands Nature Reserve' adjoining the Priory, warned of danger to the environment. He spoke of flood problems if all that land was covered with concrete.

Miss Phil Hendy (with headscarf) above and below, former District Councillor and Parish Chairman, now our local history recorder, was well known for her planning expertise and advice. Based on her experience she put to the meeting a comprehensive resolution stating in planning language why the proposal was unacceptable. She quoted in particular PPG3 (planning policy guidance note 3 - housing) which in Annex 'B' spoke about 'Providing for Rural Exception Housing', and the fact that this permitted some modest development on green field sites, but intended for low cost housing for the rural population. She went on to voice a number of specific objections and when she had concluded her motion was seconded in a number of places.

John White Chairman had been given a paper copy of Miss Hendy's motion before the meeting, which he read out. It was apparent from the audience reaction that Miss Hendy's motion was well received. The Chairman said he would put this motion and any other that came forward, to the meeting later on.

Simon Talbot, a Parish Councillor thought Miss Hendy's motion was excellent but a bit complicated for a village meeting on its own. He suggested adding simple words such as "This meeting is of the opinion that the development proposed for the village is totally inappropriate for St Osyth" This comment was greeted with applause.

The Chairman had asked at the begining of the meeting that all speakers gave their name and the road in which they lived, so that we could be sure that it was residents who would form the view of the meeting and not people from outside of St Osyth. John White then summarised the position with Miss Hendy's motion and Simon Talbot's addition. The addition of the words about the development being inappropriate were put to the vote and agreed with none against. Miss Hendy indicated that she was happy with the addition and the amended motion was agreed with none against.

Another speaker at the meeting referred  to the disproportionate nature of the proposed development.  Sincerely he hoped that it never saw the light of day.

The Chairman then said he was drawing the meeting to a close but before that he would ask Parish Councillors to stand in their places as he was going to ask them to consider the amended motion. Members then stood and the Chairman sought agreement from them for the meeting's motion to be sent directly to TDC in the name of both the meeting and the Parish Council.

As the Councillors stood up there was an unexpected burst of applause, but after some queries about Simon's addition, they went on to support Miss Hendy's motion with the addition, directing that it be sent to Tendring District Council's Planning Department as the united view of the whole village.

Printed here is the letter to TDC following the meeting Mr Roger Stewart Assistant Chief Executive                                                                 Tendring District Council Council Offices Weeley, CO16 9AJ. December 10th 2004 Dear Mr Stewart,   Re: TDR Local Plan: Potential Development Sites:   With reference to my previous letter of November 10th and Mr Guiver's letter of November 16th, confirming more time for Parish/Town Councils to seek the local community's viewpoint, regarding 2 further development sites, please be advised the Council held a "special public meeting" on December 3rd, in which 278 residents attended.   At that meeting the following resolution was unanimously approved, accepted and fully endorsed by all Council members. ------------------------------------------------------- "At a Village meeting held on 3rd December 2004, called to discuss Third Party proposals concerning our village, submitted after the publication of the first draft of the new Local Plan, the motion below was agreed by the meeting as its opinion on the proposal. This view has been formally supported by the Parish Council".   “We resolve as follows: The proposals numbered 3 & 4 on the list of third party submissions, “Schedule of Alternative Sites” (distributed by TDC’s planning department for the information of our Parish Council) are wholly inappropriate for the village of St Osyth. We have neither the infrastructure, employment nor services, which would be required by Planning Policy Guidance Note 3. Proposals such as this, if agreed outside the constraints of PPG3, would become a president for any ‘greenfield development’ in the District and would lend considerable support to any appellant seeking to overturn a refusal elsewhere. The proposal for site 3 includes the creation of a by-pass which undoubtedly will reduce to some extent traffic flows at the village cross roads during the holiday season, when many people visit holiday sites, but this diversion of traffic away from the village may also affect trade in our village shops. St Osyth currently has 1275 properties. The potential addition of up to 956 new dwellings, a near doubling of the village will, we think, adversely affect everyone’s quality of life. We do not think this is justified by the promise of the restoration of St Osyth Priory, nor are we confident that monies received from the development would be spent on restoration work.” ------------------------------------------------------------------- I would also bring to your attention Site 2 in the "Schedule of Alternative Development Sites". The area around Beach Road and Daltes Lane is not a "greenfield site". The proposal was to extend the village boundary to allow infilling and possibly enable the building of three, or a maximum of four dwellings. To allow "upwards of 8 dwellings" on undeveloped portions of the area is a gross over-development, based on a Government calculation for the land, purely to meet new housing requirements for the future.   On behalf of the Councillors, may I express my thanks for allowing the Council time to submit their observations on the Local Plan. Yours Sincerely,   Roger Squirrell, Clerk to the Council

5/12/04 and 16/12/04