See here from CAUSE
Perhaps unintentionally the Colchester Compromise undoes the fatal flaw in the submitted scheme.
Part iii is the key – without the road link and other infrastructure it wont go ahead.
Tbis is brilliant though probably unintentional as it now puts Marks Tey in the territory of the ‘Point Gaude’ principle. Brilliant this now puts the valuation of the land in a no scheme world of agricultural value + compensation rather than housing minus infrastructure. And compensation that is far less than market value by ECJ precedent – see here. That will add around 8-10 billion pounds on the positive side of the balance sheet.
What this means is the following can be cast into the dustbin and need re-evaluating with a fresh and open mind as they deal with a completely different scheme.
- CAUSE’s etc. own viability appraisal
- The inspectors decision on option 2 having regard to 1
- CAUSE’s counsels opinion based on 2.
So lets move on – a suggested way forward
A. A completely independent valuation of fourth way options
B. Training of all cllrs from the three authorities on understanding viability appraisals and SEA as they have asked.
C. Following the viability appraisal independent counsels opinion on what options are now ‘reasonable alternatives’
D. SEA – again fully independent
E. Decision on Major modification etc.
All of the above should be commissioned through a joint panel including CAUSE and other groups, and I would recommend chaired by n indpendent broker – such as Kevin Murray who has a fine reputation in this regard on major proposals.
Lets not get bogged down in the argument about whether the inspectors first option is reasonable having regard to the Grand Union principles, its now longer determinate, the real issue now is what gets consulted on in terms of teh first way.