COLCHESTER Council has admitted it received a copy of a crucial ecology report on the Middlewick Ranges which was not published ahead of a key vote on the site’s future.
The news comes after a Freedom of Information request uncovered results of a survey prepared by Peter Brett Associates in 2017, long before a key vote on the future of the Wick in 2022.
That report gave the land a high biodiversity score and could have been a major barrier to houses being built on the site.
Instead, councillors were presented with a report which was published in 2020 by Stantec, which played down the environmental significance of the site.
Both reports were carried out at the request of the Ministry of Defence.
In 2022, councillors voted through the Local Plan, which allocated the Wick as a potential area for building up to 1,000 new homes.
The revelation that a previous report had been drafted but not published has led to claims that councillors and residents were misled about that land’s suitability for more homes.
It also posed questions as to whether the council was aware of the 2017 report and, if so, why it was not released.
A council spokesman has now confirmed the local authority had received the report, but said it was after the Local Plan had been submitted to the planning committee.
Andrea Luxford Vaughan, portfolio holder for planning, environment and sustainability, said: “The council is committed to making planning decisions that protect our environment and support sustainable development.
“The statutory review of the Local Plan, which happens every five years, includes a comprehensive re-examination of all site allocations, including Middlewick Ranges.
“This review will consider all new evidence, including the findings from the latest ecological surveys commissioned by the council, to ensure that we continue to make informed and responsible decisions.”
Reacting to the news, Save the Wick campaigner Richard Martin said the council “lacked due diligence”.
He said: “I can understand their predicament – the council has had two ecology reports, one varying completely to the other but nobody actually thought ‘why are these two different?’
“There was a lack of due diligence on scrutinising the ecology reports that have come in.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel