colchester metro planning report 1. introduction 2. … · colchester metro planning report january...

31
COLCHESTER METRO PLANNING REPORT January 2016 __________________________________________________________________ 1. Introduction CAUSE has commissioned this report to highlight the key planning considerations to be taken into account in developing and testing the Colchester Metro Town Concept as the basis for taking forward an alternative option for accommodating strategic housing requirements in Colchester, Tendring and Braintree. 2. Background 2.1 Timetable for Local Plan preparation Local Plans are currently being prepared for Colchester, Tendring and Braintree. The timescales for preparation are roughly aligned and this should assist in ensuring alignment of the respective growth strategies and the potential for collaborative working. The new Local Plans will cover the period to 2032 (note: the Braintree and Tendring Local Plans cover the period to 2033). The current programmes for plan preparation and adoption (as at January 2016) are set out below. Work on the Preferred Options will be progressed by all three authorities over the next 6 months with the next round of public consultation currently scheduled to commence in June 2016. Local Plan Sub- Committees will meet during this period to consider draft policies and potential development sites during this period and to feed inti preparation of the Preferred Options. These committee meetings are public meetings and agendas, minutes and pod casts are available on the Councils’ web sites. Examinations of all three Local Plans are currently expected to take place in May-June 2017. Table 1: Local Plans- Key Dates Stage Colchester Tendring Braintree Call for Sites On going Completed August- October 2014 Consultation on Issues and Options Document January- February 2015 September-October 2015 January-March 2015 Consultation on Preferred Options June-July 2016 June-August 2016 June-July 2016 Approval of Submission Local Plan November 2016 November- December 2016 November 2016 Consultation on Submission Local Plan December 2016 December 2016- February 2017 November-December 2016 Submission of Local Plan March 2017 March 2017 February 2017 Examination June 2017 May- June 2017 May 2017 Adoption Late 2017 October 2017 September 2017

Upload: others

Post on 22-Jan-2020

7 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

COLCHESTER METRO

PLANNING REPORT

January 2016

__________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction

CAUSE has commissioned this report to highlight the key planning considerations to be

taken into account in developing and testing the Colchester Metro Town Concept as the

basis for taking forward an alternative option for accommodating strategic housing

requirements in Colchester, Tendring and Braintree.

2. Background

2.1 Timetable for Local Plan preparation

Local Plans are currently being prepared for Colchester, Tendring and Braintree. The

timescales for preparation are roughly aligned and this should assist in ensuring

alignment of the respective growth strategies and the potential for collaborative working.

The new Local Plans will cover the period to 2032 (note: the Braintree and Tendring

Local Plans cover the period to 2033). The current programmes for plan preparation

and adoption (as at January 2016) are set out below. Work on the Preferred Options

will be progressed by all three authorities over the next 6 months with the next round of

public consultation currently scheduled to commence in June 2016. Local Plan Sub-

Committees will meet during this period to consider draft policies and potential

development sites during this period and to feed inti preparation of the Preferred

Options. These committee meetings are public meetings and agendas, minutes and pod

casts are available on the Councils’ web sites. Examinations of all three Local Plans are

currently expected to take place in May-June 2017.

Table 1: Local Plans- Key Dates

Stage Colchester Tendring Braintree Call for Sites On going Completed August- October 2014

Consultation on Issues and Options Document

January-February 2015

September-October 2015

January-March 2015

Consultation on Preferred Options

June-July 2016 June-August 2016 June-July 2016

Approval of Submission Local Plan

November 2016 November- December 2016

November 2016

Consultation on Submission Local Plan

December 2016 December 2016- February 2017

November-December 2016

Submission of Local Plan

March 2017 March 2017 February 2017

Examination June 2017 May- June 2017 May 2017

Adoption Late 2017 October 2017 September 2017

2.2 Duty to Cooperate

Through the legal ‘Duty to Cooperate’, Councils are required to work in partnership with

adjoining authorities in preparation of their Local Plans. It is will therefore be essential

that the Councils work with neighbouring authorities and other public bodies throughout

the plan making process in order to ensure the duty to cooperate is satisfied and that

Local Plans can be drawn to a successful conclusion. Any cross-boundary development

identified as part of a preferred growth option will only come forward with the support and

cooperation of the relevant neighbouring authority and will need to accommodate the

joint requirements of both authorities.

To aid coordination and the legal requirements of the Duty to Cooperate, Colchester,

Braintree and Tendring Councils have an agreed Memorandum of Understanding and a

joint approach to strategic planning. Under the duty to cooperate, Colchester Borough

Council has engaged with Tendring District Council and Braintree District Council and

the authorities have agreed to work cooperatively in respect of any potential cross-

boundary developments. This will include the consideration of larger sites and exploring

the concept of garden communities to meet the combined housing need of the authorities

in a sustainable way within the plan period and beyond.

The three Councils working in partnership with Essex County Council, the University of

Essex and other stakeholders have been exploring the potential for large cross-boundary

developments to west and east of Colchester and have received assistance from the

‘ATLAS’ team at the Homes and Communities Agency (specialising in major

development proposals). The authorities have jointly commissioned Garden City

Developments CIC, a not for profit community interest company, to promote and

establish partnerships with local landowners and option holders to investigate the

feasibility of the proposed Garden Settlements.

Garden Cities Ltd CIC has been advising Councils on how to apply Garden City

principles (in particular land value uplift to deliver essential infrastructure) in

accommodating growth requirements. The Company describes their remit as follows:

‘The key to our role is to help build the confidence of local authorities and others that

the Garden City principles of land value uplift contributing to infrastructure and high

quality development, and the long term local stewardship of places are possible, and

that asserting the local responsibility for what happens locally is crucial to successful

communities. We are not attempting to plan Garden City developments but to help

those responsible for planning to see how creating “places rather than housing estates”

can be done. In our discussions with the three Councils for whom we are currently

working, we are encouraging the Councils to take a strategic approach - clarifying their

vision, being willing to show leadership, investing in their projects, creating credible

development agencies and long term governance structures through a Community

Trust. On their behalf, we will be discussing their plans and aspirations with local land

owners, with whom we hope to agree terms on which their land will be made available,

ensuring that land value can be ploughed into infrastructure and facilities. We are

equally happy to support the Council’s officers where they can lead such negotiations.

The position is stronger whilst the Councils are at an early stage in the local planning

process and have not yet determined the preferred locations for major growth. In

parallel we have encouraged ATLAS (an Agency of CLG) to become involved, not only

in the process of developing the approach in the specific locations, but also in

developing a financial model that will allow plans to be tested for viability under various

assumptions about scale, pace, funding and standards’.

Garden Cities Developments has met Members from each Council, has held numerous

meetings with key landowners, and is understood to be undertaking discussions with

landowners and option holders. The intention of these discussions is to develop the

Councils’ options around applying land value capture and long term stewardship

arrangements, and to specifically explore landowners’ appetites for engaging with the

councils on these issues and willingness to enter legally binding agreements with the

respective councils to such effect.

A Steering Group consisting of Council Leaders, Planning Portfolio Holders, Chief

Executives and other Senior Officers, Essex County Council and the University of Essex

has been established a project manager has been employed to coordinate this work.

The work is at an early stage, but it is clear that all three authorities with the support of

Essex County Council are actively seeking to evolve the policy process to further

endorse the emerging concepts – the result being that all three Councils may decide to

identify a Garden Settlement as a broad location for growth in their Local Plan Preferred

Options.

A joint bid for £953,000 of government funding was submitted to government in October

2015 in response to the ‘Locally Led Garden Cities’ prospectus to procure further

specialist advice in advancing the garden settlement proposals in an efficient manner.

DCLG announced on 7 December 2015 that £1.1 million funding had been approved to

fund initial work on the Greater Didcot Garden Town (15,000 new homes) and ‘new

Garden Communities in North Essex with upto 35,000 new homes’. The funding for

North Essex amounts to £640,000 and will enable the authorities to ‘explore the

feasibility’ of garden communities.

The funding has been welcomed by all three authorities. Cllr Paul Smith, Leader of

Colchester Borough Council has said:

“The Councils are under pressure to deliver more homes now than ever before.

Historically homes have been built first, straining the existing infrastructure. This

funding allows us to see if the Garden Communities can be built with the infrastructure

first, so schools and other essential structures and facilities are ready before residents

move in. It would provide a more sustainable approach.”

Essex County Council’s Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning and Environment, Cllr Roger Hirst has stated:

“We are very pleased to be working in partnership with the three local authorities to find

ways to deliver the homes we need and the jobs and infrastructure which must come

with them. The advantage of Garden Community development is that we can ensure

the right provision of schools, healthcare and transport infrastructure will be in place

from the start, and we welcome the opportunity to explore this fully.”

It should be noted that the award of this funding does not commit Councils to including

garden settlement options in Local Plans but will enable further feasibility work to be

undertaken which will inform Local Plan preparation. Unlike Greater Didcot Garden Town

which has been awarded garden town status (the third town after Ebbsfleet and

Bicester), the location of new garden communities in North Essex has not been

specified. This is reiterated by Cllr Graham Butland Leader of Braintree District Council

who has said:

“We welcome this money to explore the possibility of one or more new garden settlements but it is important to stress that no decisions have been made as to whether Garden Communities is a suitable option for us.”

Of particular note is the resolution of Tendring DC to support the principle of

development crossing the Colchester/Tendring boundary as a means of delivering

housing and economic growth and for both Councils to work together, in line with the

legal duty to cooperate, to draw up the plans in more detail. Tendring Council has made

it clear that if proposals were to be progressed in the Local Plan for a new garden

settlement on the Colchester/ Tendring border, a separate East Colchester/West

Tendring Development Plan Document should be jointly prepared to guide future

development.

2.3 What are Garden Cities?

It is important to put the potential contribution of Garden City development into context

in considering its potential contribution to meeting the growth requirements of North

Essex. Whilst there is significant Government support for Garden Cities and

consideration of new Garden Settlements is at the forefront of current strategic planning

thinking, it is recognised that significant work is still required to address issues of

delivery, in particular land value capture for the benefit of the community and

infrastructure delivery. Confirmation of significant funding for further feasibility work

does, however, indicate in principle Government support for this type of larger scale

strategic development as a means of addressing housing growth requirements in North

Essex.

Garden Cities are described by the Town & 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”. In terms of scale, the Government has indicated that Garden

Cities should comprise approximately 15,000 dwellings and above, as well as

associated employment, green space and infrastructure, with the expectation that it

would take longer than one plan period to deliver these new communities.

However, there is clearly scope to apply Garden City Principles including land value

capture to smaller settlements and the reference to Garden Communities rather than

Garden Cities or Towns in North Essex in the recent DCLG announcement is of

particular relevance when considering the scale of new development. A Garden

Community does, however, need to be viable and development is likely to extend

throughout and beyond the emerging Local Plans.

3. Accommodating Growth requirements

3.1 Growth Requirements

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Councils to boost significantly

the supply of housing by: “using their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan

meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the

housing market area”. The Government’s latest good practice guidance on assessing

future housing need recommends that such studies be undertaken over a ‘housing

market area’ across more than one authority rather than for one authority in isolation.

This will ensure that cross-border relationships, along with housing market and

economic factors, are properly taken into account.

A Joint Objectively Assessed Housing Needs Study has been prepared for Braintree,

Chelmsford, Colchester and Tendring (Peter Brett Associates, July 2015). From looking

at migration and commuting data, the study has concluded that the inter-relationship

between Tendring, Colchester, Braintree and Chelmsford is sufficiently strong for the

combined area to be considered as a ‘housing market area’. This report will form part of

this ‘evidence base’ and will help determine how many new homes the Councils need to

plan for through their new Local Plans.

The Objectively Assessed Housing Needs Study starts with official government

population and household projections and makes adjustments to take into account a

range of factors including the economy, migration patterns, census figures and the

housing market. Having taken those factors into account, the study had recommended

both an ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ housing growth figure for each Council to consider as the

basis for allocating land for housing in their Local Plans. The recommended housing

growth figures are summarised in the following table.

Table 2 Housing Targets- Suggested Ranges

High Low Requirement over Local Plan period (2017-2032)

Colchester 903 920 13,545-13,800

Tendring 597 705 8,955-10,575

Braintree 793 845 11,895-12,675

Chelmsford 736 775 11,040-11,625

Housing Market Area (HMA)

3,029 3,245 45,435-48,675

Source: OAHNS Report (Peter Brett Associates, July 2015)

The study recommends that it would be sensible for Braintree, Chelmsford and

Colchester to apply the higher figures but for Tendring, lower economic projections and

adjustments for ‘unattributable population change’ would justify applying the lower

figure. For Tendring, this would mean 597 homes a year would be needed to meet

projected needs and the new Local Plan would have to identify enough land to

accommodate around 10,000 homes between now and 2032 (a reduction from the

previously estimated figure of 12,000 homes). The recommended figure for Colchester

is 920 homes a year and the figure for Braintree is 845 homes a year.

The Colchester Issues and Options Document was published before the report had

been completed and assumed the objectively assessed need would be in the region of

1000 or more dwellings per annum. The figure in the OAHNS Report is lower than the

figure included in the Issues and Options Report and implies a reduction in the

requirement over the plan period from the figure of 15,000 as quoted in the report to

around 13,800. The Issues and Options Document concludes that taking into account

the existing supply of allocated land which will contribute towards meeting this growth,

there will be a need to identify sufficient land to accommodate in the region of 10,000

dwellings to meet the OAHN over the plan period (2017-2032). This figure would be in

the region of 8,800 dwellings based on the upper figure in the OAHNS (July 2015).

The Braintree Issues and Options Scoping Report assumed a requirement for 750-950

new homes per annum over the plan period upto 2033. The range in the OAHNS report

is lower at 793-845 which implies a reduction in the overall growth requirement to be

planned for in the plan period.

Colchester Borough Council and Braintree District Council have accepted the

recommendations of the OAHNS Report. It is significant to note, however, that Tendring

members took the view that even by adopting the lower figure, the housing requirement

in the OAHNS Report was too high for Tendring District and at the meeting on 17

September, the Local Plan Committee instructed Planning Officers to go back to the

consultants to address these concerns. In doing so, the Committee expressed the hope

that the figures could be revised downwards to no greater than 479 homes a year (albeit

this could have implications for housing needs in other Districts in the HMA).

Officers reported back to the Local Plan Committee at the meeting on 12 November that the

authors of the study had advised against a reduction in the numbers as suggested by the

Committee unless this could be secured through agreement with other Councils within the

housing market area. This would need to be done through the Local Plan process and the

legal duty to cooperate, in order to address any ‘unmet’ need. Having considered the author’s

advice, Officers recommended that the study should be endorsed as part of the Local Plan

evidence base.

In representations to the recent Issues and Options consultation, Braintree and

Colchester Councils have clearly stated that Tendring should as a minimum plan for 597

dwellings per year. Significantly, however, Essex County Council considers that

Tendring should plan for the higher growth scenario of 705 dwellings per year. If

Tendring adopts a figure lower than 597 dwellings per year without sound evidence,

these authorities can be expected to submit to government that Tendring has not

complied with the duty to co-operate. In such a circumstance Tendring’s Local Plan

could be found to be unsound.

At the Local Plan Sub- Committee meeting in November 2015, Tendring members

requested that further work be undertaken on housing numbers and in the light of this

work, officers have recommended that members agree that the range of Objectively

Assessed Needs for Tendring District Council is 500-600 dwellings per annum; that the

mid-point of 550 dwellings per annum is used as the Council’s provisional housing target

for the Local Plan and that officers consider options up to 600 dwellings per annum as

the Local Plan refines through its next consultation stage and new data is assessed. A

report was presented to the Local Plan Sub-committee on 21 January 2016. Housing

numbers, therefore, clearly remain a significant political issue in Tendring.

Further work is now being carried out by consultants on behalf of Tendring, Colchester,

Braintree and Chelmsford Councils (Strategic Housing Market Assessment Part 2) in

order to assess, in more detail, the likely requirements for affordable housing and

housing to meet the needs of particular groups in the community including, but not

limited to, families with children, older people and people wishing to build their own

homes. This further work will inform planning policies on housing type, mix and tenure

and is expected to be completed in early 2016.

3.2 Housing Land Availability

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments form an important part of the evidence

base for Local Plans. Their purpose is to establish realistic assumptions about the

availability, suitability and likely economic viability of land to meet identified

requirements for housing.

Colchester

Colchester faces the greatest challenge in accommodating growth requirements within

its boundaries. As part of the preparation of the new Local Plan, the Council carried out

a Call for Sites and invited developers, land owners and other interested parties to

submit potential sites for future allocation in the Plan. The Call for Sites ran over

summer 2014 and during January and February 2015. However as part of the new Local

Plan preparation the Council is still accepting site submissions after these periods. The

Council will consider the suitability of these sites against agreed Strategic Land

Availability Assessment criteria and through the Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal.

Sites identified in the call for sites are shown on the following plans:

A total of 695 ha have been identified in East Colchester-West Tendring in the Call for

Sites comprising: Site 089X- 132 ha; Site 089Y- 409.3 ha and Site 089Z-153.6 ha as

indicated on the following plan.

A total of 990.35 ha have been identified in Mark Tey and Great Tey in the Call for Sites

comprising Site 121- 666.9 ha and Site 122- 323.45 ha as shown on the following plan.

A total of 52 ha have been identified in separate sites in Wivenhoe.

The sites identified through the call for sites are indicated on the following plans.

Figure 1: Colchester Eastern Fringe- Call for Sites

Figure 2: Marks Tey and Great Tey- Call for Sites

Figure 3: Wivenhoe- Call for Sites

Tendring

The Tendring SHLAA (October 2014) indicates that there is sufficient capacity to

accommodate in excess of objectively assessed needs in the period to 2033. However,

the SHLAA takes a very conservative view on deliverability due to infrastructure capacity

and concludes that infrastructure capacity in rural service centres such as Great

Bentley, Arlesford and Elmstead Market (in particular, primary school capacity) will limit

growth over the plan period due to the requirement for new provision.

The SHLAA identifies a capacity for 10,004 new homes in urban extensions including

east of Colchester and Weeley. It is concluded that the area around the eastern fringe

could deliver upto 3,200 new homes in the plan period with the potential for an

additional 2,700 in the longer term and an estimated 1,462 could be accommodated on

the periphery of Weeley if the principle of major settlement expansion in this location is

accepted.

Braintree

The Call for Sites was held from August to October 2014. Further sites were accepted during the Issues and Scoping consultation held in early 2015. No new submissions will be considered prior to the publication of the Draft Local Plan. 300 sites have been submitted with a further 30 sites submitted during the Issues and Scoping Consultation. A Draft SHLAA has been prepared.

4. Accommodating Growth requirements

Colchester, Braintree and Tendring have all published Issues and Options consultations

which have included the potential for new settlements as one of the options for

accommodating growth requirements.

4.1 Colchester

The Issues and Options Document published for consultation purposes in January 2015

sets out a number of growth options. With cross-boundary allocations, the total number

of homes being planned for is higher than Colchester’s own target. The Council may

also allocate land to accommodate a higher number of homes than the level of housing

need identified in order to plan comprehensively for the longer term post-2032.

Infrastructure provision

The Council has consulted with providers of key infrastructure to identify major

constraints or issues to be considered in the generation of growth options including

providers of rail network, rail and bus services. Key constraints may be summarised as

follows:

Water and sewerage- requirement for network upgrades

Electricity- Some reinforcement required and work may be more difficult in east than

elsewhere in Borough. However, constraints can be overcome and this does not pose a

threat to the deliverability of any particular site or growth location.

Gas- requirement for reinforcement of low pressure infrastructure to provide sufficient

spare capacity to accommodate growth. Sufficient capacity in medium pressure

infrastructure to meet needs of level of growth required.

Education- Limited existing spare capacity in primary and secondary schools. Growth

will require new provision. In terms of the provision of new school places, the education

authority advise that it is easier to meet the required need on larger sites (at least 700

dwellings) than on smaller sites which do not generate sufficient numbers to warrant a

new school. The location of school provision needs to be incorporated into the

masterplanning of new sites.

Health- limited information available in relation to provision of health infrastructure to

service growth but need to ensure provision is accounted for.

Infrastructure for non-motorised users- importance placed on encouraging modal shift to

walking and cycling in delivering sustainable growth options.

Public transport- Current network of public transport is based around serving the town

centre which is constrained by limited capacity, congestion and air quality issues. It is

recognised that greater innovation is required so that developments incorporate a public

transport infrastructure from the outset. Colchester recognise that bus operation needs

to be given greater priority and the network needs upgrading.

Road Infrastructure- significant constraints on development with much of strategic road

network at capacity. The road network around the urban area also suffers from

congestion. This congestion is perceived to restrict the economic performance of

Colchester and to deter the use of alternative forms of transport.

Type of land identified for Growth

Most of land identified in the growth options is greenfield land due to the limited supply

of brownfield sites that can contribute to the accommodation of growth requirements. All

of the growth options include new settlements, given significant constraints around the

edge of Colchester which will limit opportunities for urban expansion.

The Council states that the development of any new settlement should ‘be as

sustainable and as high quality as possible’ and based on Garden City principles

including integrated and accessible local transport systems ‘with a series of settlements

linked by rapid transport providing a full range of employment opportunities’.

A detailed assessment of sites will be included in the Preferred Options Paper at the

next stage of Local Plan preparation.

Growth Options

The following growth options have been identified. Due to limited land availability within

the urban area, all growth options are dependent on the development of one or two new

settlements to the east and/or west of Colchester. It should be noted that the number of

houses identified under each option are estimates and will be subject to further analysis

and testing at the preferred options stage. However, the issues and Options Paper

states that the Council has already concluded that ‘due to land constraints, development

of a new settlement to the west is likely to be larger than development to the east’.

The Issues and Options Paper highlights the opportunity provided by the railway station

at Marks Tey and proposes that this should be a focal point for growth. Additional

capacity improvements would be required at the station to allow for growth and to create

an improved passenger transport interchange. Capacity and journey time improvements

have been identified for the Great Western Mainline in the Anglia Rail Study. It is

proposed that a new bus network would be required for a new settlement on the west

together with access to a new park and ride facility in West Colchester.

It is recognised that the rail line from Clacton/Walton-on-the-Naze to Colchester has

capacity to accommodate growth. However, the Issues and Options Report also states

that access to the rail line is difficult, with the nearest stations at Wivenhoe and the

Hythe. It is proposed that larger scale sustainable development in the east would

provide a good opportunity to create a new public transport system linking the

development area, the University and the existing urban area of Colchester which could

combine a high frequency quality rapid transit system, linking into new and/or improved

rail stations, an improved transport interchange and an eastern park and ride.

In relation to Rural District Centres, it is recognised that bus service improvements

linking new development to the town centre and key services would be needed. In

terms of access to rail, Marks Tey and Wivenhoe are on the rail line and improved

access to the station would be important at these locations, along with improvements to

the level of service and the availability of car parking.

Any new development to the west would be heavily dependent on improvements to the

A12 and A120. The A120 is currently a single carriage trunk road carrying 23,000

vehicles per day between Marks Tey and Braintree. It has been identified for further

investigation in the Highways Agency Route Based Strategy and will require substantial

investment to perform its role as a trunk road and to support economic growth.

Any growth to the west would require capacity improvements to the A12 which is

already at capacity with 90,000 vehicles per day using the section to the east of Marks

Tey. Growth would also require improvements to the A120 between the A12 and

Braintree and to the A120 junction with the A12. This would allow for improved access

to marks Tey train station and would help alleviate through traffic from the existing

village.

Development to the east is considered likely to impact on the section of the A120 east of

Colchester which carries 34,200 vehicles per day and on the A12 Junction 29 Crown

Interchange. Development will also impact on the local road network. A package of

public transport measures associated with new development would help to control traffic

impact. A new road may be required to link the A120 and the A133.

Options 1A and 1B Development to the East and West

This option includes:

A separate settlement to the west of Colchester town- 15,000 homes in the longer

term ie: beyond the current plan period (7,500 to contribute towards Colchester’s

housing supply and the same to Braintree’s)

A separate settlement to the east of Colchester town- 6,000 homes (3,000 to

contribute towards Colchester’s housing supply and the same for Tendring)

Urban development on sites in and around the existing urban area

Proportional expansion of the Rural District centres- Wivenhoe, Tiptree and West

Mersea

Option 1B also includes a proportional element of rural growth across the Borough’s

villages.

Options 2A and 2B Development to West

This option includes:

A separate settlement to the west of Colchester town- 15,000 homes in the longer

term (7,500 to contribute towards Colchester’s housing supply and the same to

Braintree’s)

Urban development on sites in and around the existing urban area

Proportional expansion of the Rural District centres- Wivenhoe, Tiptree and West

Mersea

Option 2B also includes a proportional element of rural growth across the Borough’s

villages.

Colchester recognise that under Options 2A and 2B, with such a large proportion of the

total land supply being tied up in one new settlement, there could be a significant risk

that the Council could struggle to maintain a 5 year land supply.

Objections were raised through the consultation process to the large scale of

development proposed at West Tey on grounds of the lack of infrastructure; the need for

infrastructure to be provided up-front in advance of development; impact on the

character of villages and loss of countryside and open space. ECC as Highway

Authority would require a new A120 between Marks Tey and Braintree and also

consider that the development of a new settlement may require a new station on the

mainline. Concerns expressed that Council could not be reliant on delivery in early

stages of plan period due to infrastructure requirements.

Options 3A and 3B Development to East

This option includes:

A separate settlement to the east of Colchester town- 6,000 homes (3,000 to

contribute towards Colchester’s housing supply and the same for Tendring)

A significant urban extension to the north of Colchester town

Urban development on sites in and around the existing urban area

Proportional expansion of the Rural District centres- Wivenhoe, Tiptree and West

Mersea

Option 3B also includes a proportional element of rural growth across the Borough’s

villages.

In the north, existing bus services are limited and would need to be enhanced. With the

construction of the NAR busway, new rapid services could be developed to serve this

area through to the hospital, railway station and town centre. Access to Colchester

station would be by bus. Objections were raised to development to east of Colchester

on the grounds of the impacts on Salary Brook. If development is proposed to the east,

respondents to consultation requested a buffer of 1.5 km to the Salary Brook Valley.

Colchester BC has concluded that Options 1A and 1 B are most likely to satisfy the duty

to cooperate as they allow for cross-boundary development to the east and west and

can contribute to the growth requirements of Colchester, Tendring and Braintree.

Tendring District Council supports the proposal for a sustainable settlement to the east

of Colchester town which crosses the Tendring/Colchester border. Options 1A or 1B are

Tendring’s preferred options, followed by Options 3A or 3B. Tendring does not support

Option 2A or 2B. Tendring’s Economic Development Strategy advocates this approach

as a means of facilitating growth of the University of Essex and supporting the creation

of new employment opportunities in higher paid employment sectors. Tendring have

expressed the preference for development to the east of Colchester to be planned jointly

by both Councils through a separate Local Plan/DPD for that specific area. Tendring

would envisage any major development to the west of Colchester crossing the

Colchester/Braintree border being a much longer term project than growth east of

Colchester and suggest that greater priority is given to delivering the East Colchester/

West Tendring project within the plan period to realise the opportunities arising from

growth at and around the University as soon as practical.

Essex CC and Braintree District Council did not express an opinion on Options but

stated their willingness to work with Colchester on a joint approach to strategic

development.

In response to consultation on the Issues and Options Paper, Highways England

commented that Options 1A and 1B and Options 2A and 2B would result in significant

impact on the A12 and A120. Their view was that it may be better to focus growth in the

earlier part of the plan period to the east of Colchester until the position regarding the

future improvement of the A120 is clearer.

4.2 Tendring

The Issues and Options consultation document published in September 2015

communicates a possible vision for Tendring in 2032 but the vision statement omits the

Colchester Fringe stating that a separate vision is to developed for this key strategic

area. The future of the Colchester Fringe is critical to the growth strategy for Tendring

and Colchester and should be considered as an integral part of the local plan options

assessment.

The document states that it is reasonable to assume that a large proportion of the

housing development which is expected to be required could be delivered as follows.

This implies that decisions on the location of development are being taken in advance of

the Local Plan process:

Around 2,400 homes will be built on sites that already have planning

permission for housing development of which around 500 are in Clacton, 500 are

in Harwich, 200 are in Frinton and Walton, 500 between Manningtree,

Brightlingsea and the edge of Colchester and 700 in and around our rural

villages. These developments include the remaining phases of the Blenheim

Gate development in Clacton; the ‘Harwich Valley’ development off the A120 in

Dovercourt and development off Cox’s Hill currently under construction in

Lawford.

Another 1,500 homes will be built on other sites within our built up areas

including brownfield sites and other small ‘windfall sites’ that are yet to obtain

planning permission. These include the Martello site in Walton, the Delfords site

in Harwich and the waterworks sites in Clacton and Manningtree along with a

range of other smaller development sites across the district.

Around 3,100 homes will be built on greenfield sites around the edge of Clacton

and Harwich that are yet to gain planning permission. These include land off

Jaywick Lane, Thorpe Road, Centenary Way in Clacton which will be

accompanied by new schools, medical facilities and open spaces. For the

Harwich area, it includes land off Ramsey Road and Low Road.

An additional 900 homes will be built on greenfield sites around the edge of

Tendring’s smaller towns of Frinton and Walton, Manningtree and Brightlingsea

including land off Elm Tree Avenue in Frinton; Halstead Road in Kirby Cross;

Bromley Road in Lawford; Stourview Close in Mistley; and Robinson Road in

Brightlingsea.

Around 300 homes would be built through proportionate expansion around

some of the district’s larger villages including Elmstead Market, Great Bentley,

Little Clacton, St. Osyth and Thorpe-le-Soken.

A new settlement will be built on land crossing the Colchester/Tendring

border planned for jointly by Tendring District Council and Colchester Borough

Council (duty to cooperate) which will deliver approximately 2,000 new homes

between now and 2032 of which 1,000 would count towards Tendring’s housing

requirements and 1,000 would could towards Colchester’s with the potential for

further phases of development in the longer-term beyond 2032. The

development would be accompanied by new schools, medical facilities, a link

road between the A120 and A133 and rapid bus services into Colchester town

centre. The development would maintain a countryside gap around the valley of

Salary Brook on the edge of Colchester and around the village of Elmstead

Market.

The issues and Options document envisages that development in these areas would

deliver most of the homes that the Local Plan needs to make provision for the period up

to 2033 and would result in a distribution of 3,500 new homes in Clacton, 1,400 in

Harwich, 1,100 in the Frinton and Walton area; 800 in the Manningtree area, 2,000 in

the new settlement east of Colchester (of which half would count towards Tendring’s

requirement), 300 in Brightlingsea and 1,000 across Tendring’s rural villages.

To deliver the remaining new homes expected to be needed between now and 2032,

comments were invited on four alternative options, some of which would involve the

creation of new settlements with the potential for further phases of development in the

longer-term beyond 2032. The four options are:

Option 1: Hartley Garden Suburb: A major development on greenfield land in

north-west Clacton;

Option 2: Weeley Garden Village: A new settlement to be built on greenfield

land around the A133 at Weeley;

Option 3: Tendring Central Garden Village: A new settlement to be built on

greenfield land around the A120 at Frating; and

Option 4: Higher Urban Densities: House building at a higher density in and

around our towns to reduce the amount of greenfield land needed for

development in other locations.

Option 1: Hartley Garden Suburb

This option involves a major new suburb being built on greenfield land to the north-west

of Clacton that would be accessed through the construction of a new road between the

‘Bovill’s Roundabout’ on the A133 and the roundabout junction of St. John’s Road and

Jaywick Lane that would also help to relieve traffic on the existing road network. This

would be a long-term development project that would deliver around 800 new homes

between now and 2032 with further phases of development likely to take place after

2032 which could deliver a further 1,700 homes up to 2047. The development would be

accompanied by a new school, new community facilities, new sewerage treatment

facility and open space built on the opposite side of the A133 from Brook Retail Park on

the gateway into Clacton. If this option is agreed, more than 5,000 of the district’s new

homes could be built in Clacton.

Tendring DC has expressed concerns about the deliverability of this proposal because of:

The level of upfront infrastructure investment that would be required to deliver

this scale of housing development in this location, in particular the new road and

the provision of sewage treatment facilities, which might not be deliverable in the

current economic climate and because viability is more of an issue in this part of

the district where house prices are lower. Development is not likely to come

forward until the latter stages of the plan period and so will have little impact on

the Council’s five year supply of housing;

Development in this location is not supported by the local community; and

Development of this scale could create housing market saturation in Clacton

given the proposed strategic housing growth already being proposed for the west

and north of the town.

The site is not served by the Clacton-Colchester rail line.

Option 2: Weeley Garden Village

This option involves establishing a new settlement on greenfield land off the A133 at

Weeley. It would be a long-term project that would deliver around 800 new homes

between now and 2032 (more than doubling the population of the parish) with the

potential to expand even further west along the A133 beyond 2032 to deliver a further

2,000 homes and associated facilities up to 2047. The development would need to be

carefully planned to ensure it integrates with and respects the character of the existing

village, is accompanied with the necessary infrastructure which would include a new

primary school, medical centre and improvements to the transport network including the

A133 between Weeley and Frating and the services and facilities at Weeley rail station.

Residents have expressed concerns about continual development around the edge of

Clacton and Tendring’s other seaside towns and that the Council should focus more

development further inland or land in the centre of the district with good connections to

the transport network, particularly the A120. The proposed development at Weeley has

attracted a considerable amount of public objection with a petition of more than 700

names being submitted to the Council in objection to the proposal with many people

concerned about the impact of the development on the character of Weeley village and

the local infrastructure.

However, Weeley is considered by Tendring DC to be the location best placed to

accommodate development of a scale that, with some investment in new and improved

infrastructure, can be made sustainable. Weeley is identified as a ‘Strategic Rural

Service Centre’ in recognition of its existing services and facilities including, critically, rail

services, its good connections to the road network and surrounding towns and villages.

Weeley is also well located to meet the need for family housing for younger people and

commuters in the Clacton sub-area if the focus for development in Clacton itself is likely

to be more for older and active retired residents. Key advantages may be summarised

as follows;

The existing and planned local communities will benefit from the direct provision

of key facilities and services, including; a primary school, medical centre, shops

and community facilities in a new local centre;

Weeley has good links to the A133 between Clacton and Colchester (and the

A120 further west) and the B1027 to Frinton and Walton;

Weeley has a railway station with direct links to Colchester and beyond to

London Liverpool Street, however, it is accepted that the frequency of services

needs to be improved;

The site is not covered by any local or national policy designation and the vast

majority of the site is located in flood zone 1 (low risk);

A strategic development in this location has the potential for further phases of

development that could deliver a further 2,000+ homes and other facilities

beyond 2032; and

There would be potential to create new employment opportunities and jobs

taking advantage of close links with Colchester.

Tendring DC has identified the following potential disadvantages:

A development of this scale would significantly increase the size of Weeley

affecting its character as a small village;

Development in this location is not supported by the local community; and

Strategic housing growth in Weeley could divert investment in regeneration

opportunities away from other areas in the district such as Clacton.

Option 3: Tendring Central Garden Village

The option involves establishing a new settlement on land off the A133 and A120 at

Frating. It would be a long-term project that would deliver around 800 new homes and

business premises between now and 2032 with the potential for further phases of

development that could deliver a further 2,000+ homes and other facilities beyond 2032.

The development would be carefully planned to ensure it is accompanied with the

necessary infrastructure which would include a new primary school, medical centre and

other community facilities.

In 2005 the Council identified, land east of the A120 slip road for a major business park

to be accompanied by a new multi-directional junction on the A120 to allow cars and

lorries to travel between the southern parts of Tendring and Harwich without having to

navigate some of Tendring’s narrow and winding rural roads. In response to this, a

consortium of landowners put forward a proposal for a large number of houses on

adjoining land which attracted a significant level of local objection with thousands of

representations submitted to the Council as part of the Local Plan process. Following a

Public Inquiry in 2006, the Planning Inspector decided to remove the business park

proposal from the Local Plan and subsequently rejected the scheme on the basis that,

following government planning policy in place at the time, Frating would not be a

sustainable location for such a large development. However, in 2014, a new consortium

of landowners is promoting a major development in the Frating area and they are calling

it ‘Tendring Central Garden Village’ and it was presented to the Local Plan Committee

as an alternative to creating a new settlement at either Weeley or to the east of

Colchester.

Principal advantages may be summarised as follows:

There would be potential to create new employment opportunities and jobs

through a commercial business park taking advantage of the sites close

proximity to Colchester;

The site is in a strategically important location at the junction of the two main

roads through the district (the A120 and A133) and this development proposes a

new multi-directional road link between the A120 and A133;

The existing and planned local communities will benefit from the direct provision

of key facilities and services, including; new bus links, education and medical

facilities, shops and community facilities in a new local centre; and

The site is not covered by any local or national policy designation and the vast

majority of the site is located in flood zone 1 (low risk).

Tendring DC have highlighted the following principal disadvantages:

This proposal would result in the coalescence of the three existing smaller rural

communities of Frating, Balls Green and Hare Green;

This proposal would result in the loss of grade 1 and 2 agricultural land;

This location is not as sustainable as other areas due to the lack of shops,

services, facilities and essential infrastructure, in particular a railway station and

it is unlikely that such a facility would be able to be created in the future and this

is likely to generate a high number of vehicular movements to and from

Colchester by those who will choose to work in Colchester and use its greater

range of shops, services and facilities;

Because such a developments infrastructure would need to be delivered upfront

and will be costly, development is not likely to come forward until the latter

stages of the plan period and so will have little impact on improving the Council’s

position with regard to identifying a five year supply of housing land.

Option 4: Higher Urban Densities

This option involves encouraging housing developments of a higher density on sites in

and around Tendring’s towns. For most sites, the Council has assumed relatively

modest densities of between 20 and 30 dwellings per hectare, but this approach would

allow for higher densities nearer to 30 dwellings per hectare and above. Whilst this

approach would result in the construction of smaller properties with smaller gardens

than many people might wish to see in Tendring but it would also reduce the overall

amount of greenfield agricultural land being lost to development so that none of the

major developments being suggested for north-west Clacton, Weeley or Frating would

be needed, at least for the period between now and 2032.

The higher density approach would have implications for the amount of housing being

built in and around the district’s larger towns with around 3,800 homes for Clacton,

1,600 for Harwich and 1,200 for the Frinton and Walton area.

Key advantages may be summarised as follows:

High-density housing can encourage local retail development and help improve

the vitality and viability of our districts town centre;

Higher density developments can help promote and sustain public transport and

offer safer routes for walking and cycling;

Higher density development offers greater efficiency in use of public services

and infrastructure;

High-density developments also help protect our districts natural areas, as well

as minimise the encroachment of development on agricultural land, woodland

and other ecologically sensitive environments;

Higher density developments can help stimulate regeneration in our urban

centres; and

In areas with lower land values, providing more homes can ensure that new

developments are viable which can deliver the required infrastructure such as

medical facilities, new school and road improvements.

Tendring DC has highlighted the potential disadvantages of this option as follows:

Higher density developments whilst promoting a mix of dwelling types and tenure

could promote smaller house and garden sizes;

Higher density developments are perceived as being overcrowded and

promoting, anti-social behaviour and crime; and

Higher density development will increase the total volume of new homes being

built in and around certain towns, particularly Clacton, Harwich and

Frinton/Walton.

The East Colchester/West Tendring development opportunity is critical to Tendring’s

strategy for housing delivery. There is significant opposition from local communities to

any significant development in villages due to impact of the development on settlement

character and the local infrastructure. Local action groups have been established in

Great Bentley and Weeley to oppose development.

An initial review of the key issues raised during consultation was reported to the Local

Plan Committee on 12 November. Key findings may be summarised as follows:

The most significant concern expressed by other Councils was to ensure that

Tendring adopts the recommended annualised housing target of at least 597

new dwellings each year. Essex County Council suggests that Tendring should

plan for the higher economic growth scenario which has an annualised housing

target of 705 new dwellings each year. Environmental submissions include the

need to protect and enhance the most sensitive habitats and to ensure the

provision of appropriately networked Green Infrastructure.

Few technical stakeholders commented specifically in regard to locations for

growth although ECC suggests that the potential allocation of East

Colchester/West Tendring needs further housing trajectory work to see if more

homes could be delivered in the plan period. It suggests that Option 1: Hartley

Gardens Suburb and Option 4: Higher Urban Densities are the most sustainable,

Option 2: Weeley Garden Village is sustainable if secondary school travel is by

train and Option 3: Tendring Central Garden Village is not sustainable.

The majority of representations for landowners and developers proposed sites

which could accommodate between 40 - 250 dwellings. Other representations

suggested revisions to settlement development boundaries to enable smaller

residential developments to take place. There were also two representations

from developers and landowners promoting large, mixed use development in

support of Option 2: Weeley Garden Village

The comments received from community representatives were wide- ranging

and generally dealt with issues specific to the area being represented. Options 1:

Hartley Gardens Suburb and 2: Weeley Garden Village were generally preferred

with Option 3: Tendring Central Garden Village being least preferred. The lack of

healthcare, transport, education and employment were common concerns.

Traffic and congestion issues were also often raised as an area of concern. A

number of representatives raised the need for a new town within the District and

a number questioned the need for new housing growth in their particular areas.

The responses from residents were numerous and wide - ranging. Broadly, the

benefits of Option 1: Hartley Gardens Suburb, were noted in terms of

infrastructure and access to employment although concerns were also raised

over the scale and impact of development. The general consensus was that the

main advantage for Option 2: Weeley Garden Village was in respect of transport

infrastructure, including the railway. The main advantages of Option 3 Tendring

Central Garden Village were perceived to be in its proximity to Colchester.

Disadvantages included the lack of supporting infrastructure of all types. The

main advantages of Option 4: Higher Urban Densities were perceived to be in

relation to the reduced need for greenfield land and better job opportunities

although disadvantages were also perceived in that respect and in terms of

traffic and medical facilities

Transport England expresses concern that public transport appears to have

been overlooked as part of the strategy. This is a view reiterated in

representations submitted by CAUSE. With the exception of Weeley, none of the

options presented for new "garden suburbs/villages" are related to the railway,

and so will be less sustainable in transport terms, with high car dependence.

Alternative scenarios for these to be served by high quality bus and walk/cycle

networks or to relate development more closely to railway infrastructure have not

been assessed.

4.3 Braintree

Consultation on the Issues and Options Scoping document took place in January 2015.

The Council accepts that as there is a need to plan for a larger number of new homes in

the District, it will be necessary to look at larger sites. This could include urban

extensions like Great Notley which was built in the early 2000s, or new settlements

which could follow Garden City or Garden suburb designs. The Issues and Scoping

consultation highlighted possible strategies and options to address issues facing the

District but does not include specific sites for development. These will be identified in the

Preferred Options which have not yet been approved by the Council for consultation

purposes. The following strategic options were identified:

New homes should be focused on the existing towns and larger villages;

New homes should be built in one or more new villages;

New homes should be dispersed between all areas of the District;

New homes should be built in areas where they can provide funding for major

infrastructure projects such as new roads;

New homes should be built on the existing public transport/rail network to

encourage sustainable travel;

The District will ensure that land is available in the District for people to build

their own homes;

Bring forward sites for affordable housing only.

A significant number of responses were received to the consultation which highlight a

number of development options. Significant support was expressed for a strategy which

focuses development on existing towns and larger villages with infrastructure and

opportunity to encourage sustainable travel. Concern also expressed about

concentration of development in A12 and A120 corridors which would divert

development from most sustainable locations in district. Other proposals include:

A new settlement at Boxted Wood between Rayne and Stebbing on Uttlesford

border- potential for 4500 homes (1500 in Braintree) with longer term potential

for upto 10,000 homes (Galliard Homes)

More development in Key Service Villages

Maximise growth in areas that offer transport choice including rail including

Kelvedon/Feering (Crown Estate)

Urban extension at Braintree (land east of Great Notley)

Small extensions to village development limits to maintain vitality of rural

communities eg: Black Notley

Dispersal strategy with growth of Key Rural Service Centres in A12/A120 rail-

road corridors

More housing on edge of Witham to fund new infrastructure

5. Colchester Metro Town

The Colchester Metro Town concept promoted by CAUSE is consistent with the

objective of promoting sustainable patterns of development with housing well related to

jobs and services and served by public transport. It would also enable a pattern of

development which makes best use of existing infrastructure and encourages

sustainable transport solutions whilst reducing car dependency. It must, however, be

seen as part of a wider strategy for growth in the Colchester eastern fringe and a holistic

approach to housing and economic development and infrastructure delivery. Viewed in

isolation, there will inevitably be objections to development from residents living within

the settlements located on the Colchester-Clacton line due to infrastructure capacity

(particularly schools) and impact on the rural character of the area but the Tendring

SHLAA has shown there to be theoretical capacity in Arlesford and Great Bentley to

accommodate growth. This must be carefully planned and integrated with the existing

settlements.

The key challenge to taking forward the Colchester Metro Town concept would appear

to be the strategic approach to development in the emerging Tendring Local Plan which

has made a number of key assumptions regarding the scale and location of growth.

The Issues and Options document fails to acknowledge the opportunities offered by the

under-utilised Colchester-Clacton railway line for a sustainable and integrated solution,

linking jobs, housing and infrastructure provision linked to development in the

Colchester eastern fringe. Only 300 homes are proposed in the Rural Service Centres

including Arlesford and Great Bentley which would not be adequate to support new

infrastructure provision. A larger scale of development would be required to overcome

existing infrastructure constraints (for example a development of approximately 800 new

homes would be required to support the provision of a new primary school). A carefully

planned approach is required to minimise impacts on settlement and rural character and

highways impacts which may place an upper limit on the level of development which

could be accommodated in these locations. This should focus on the creation of

walkable neighbourhoods with access to public transport and services and multi-

functional green space developed at an average density of around 30-35 dph.

5.1 Promoting the Colchester Metro Town Concept

In taking forward and seeking support for the Colchester Metro Town concept, there

would be benefits in building on the options which have been advanced during Local

Plan preparation to demonstrate alignment with strategic objectives of each authority.

Clearly with the joint work currently being undertaken, there is a shared commitment to

Garden Suburb principles and the development of sustainable communities. The

recommended approach is therefore to bring the visions and growth options together in

an alternative holistic strategy which encompasses all three authorities and to test this

against Garden City principles. In doing so, the focus should be on ‘integrated network

of sustainable communities’ rather than one very large settlement which is served by an

integrated public transport system. This approach is based on key growth locations

linked by an integrated transport system. In promoting this approach, the scale and

distribution of growth in Tendring is key- even if the level of growth remains as proposed

in the OANS, a case can be made for a change in distribution to maximise opportunities

presented by existing transport infrastructure and to facilitate economic growth.

The rationale behind the Colchester Metro Town concept should be that in association

with development on the eastern fringe of Colchester, the under-utilised Colchester-

Clacton railway line offers the scope for a sustainable and integrated solution, linking

jobs, housing and infrastructure provision and that this should be the focus of major

growth should be. It is suggested that the Colchester Metro Town concept should be

extended to ‘a well-connected network of garden communities’ across the three

authorities with a range of infrastructure to meet the needs of existing and new

residents. This could benefit from bringing together the following elements presented

through the Issues and Options consultation- Colchester + Tendring + Braintree:

Colchester

Option 1b adapted to incorporate:

A garden community on the Colchester eastern fringe with a larger number of

units to be delivered within the plan period (consistent with representations made

by Essex County Council and Transport England). The University/Knowledge

Gateway would provide the focus of growth, and the development would be

served by a high quality bus rapid transit link to Colchester and (enhanced)

railway services, a network of green infrastructure and high quality community

facilities. This will maximise opportunities presented by links to the University of

Essex and economic development benefits (integrating delivery of homes, jobs

and infrastructure). This development could proceed at earlier stage subject to

highway improvements and investment in public transport services.

A smaller garden community focused around Marks Tey Station which reflects

the constraints on the more limited capacity of mainline rail services- the

justification for the scale of development currently being considered should not

be based solely on the potential to fund highways infrastructure works which are

required to overcome existing problems and not directly related to the new

development. The requirement for up-front infrastructure calls into question the

ability of the development to come forward within the period to 2032. The

potential for land value uplift to support the scale of infrastructure works required

may also be questioned given that the sites have been promoted for a number of

years and options on the land have already been granted.

Proportional growth of smaller settlements served by existing/ enhanced public

transport infrastructure to create a network of well-connected garden

communities.

Tendring

Option 2 adapted to incorporate:

Development at growth points on Clacton- Colchester railway line- Arlesford,

Great Bentley, Weeley and Thorpe le Soken (potential development at

Thorrington subject to new station). This could support "metro" type service

frequencies of four trains per hour in each direction.

Development to north of Clacton linked to railway

Development at Elmstead Market and new garden community east of Colchester

Braintree

A growth strategy based on the following key principles:

New homes should be built on the existing public transport/rail network to encourage sustainable travel;

New homes should be focused on the existing towns and larger villages with development in Key Service Villages;

The potential for new villages to be considered where these can support integrated public transport services.

Development could include:

A new garden community at Boxted Wood between Rayne and Stebbing on Uttlesford border- potential for 4500 homes (1500 in Braintree) with longer term potential for growth

Growth of Key Rural Service Centres in A12/A120 rail-road corridors

Urban extension at Braintree (land east of Great Notley)

Small extensions to village development limits to maintain vitality of rural communities eg: Black Notley

More housing on edge of Witham to support and fund new infrastructure provision

The Colchester Metro Concept is dependent on a holistic approach and collaborative

working between the three authorities, Essex County Council, land promoters, transport

providers and local communities. Significantly, none of the three authorities are

committed in terms of Local Plan allocations and have yet to publish Preferred Options.

The proposed approach does not represent a totally new option –rather it builds on

established principles and options which have already been considered.

The fact that the three authorities are working together as part of the Duty to Cooperate

is helpful although work to date suggests a growing focus on the promotion of two new

garden settlements to the west and east of Colchester- with a larger settlement built on

Garden City principles at Marks Tey. It will therefore be important to demonstrate that

the approach being developed remains relevant to the Colchester Metro Town concept

with the potential for land value uplift and locally led development.

6. The Way Forward

6.1 Local Plan Representations

Local Plan preparation in all three authorities is at a critical stage and there will be the

opportunity to advance proposals through the consultation process at each stage of the

process through to Examination. The timescales for Local Plan preparation are

consistent and it will therefore be possible to ensure that the growth strategies are

aligned and to promote this through representations at each stage of the plan

preparation process. The next 6 months will be particularly important as authorities

prepare their Preferred Options consultation documents and further feasibility work is

undertaken on the garden communities.

Timescales for preferred options consultation and Local Plan submission mean that

there is the opportunity to promote alternative growth options. However, these must be

capable of delivery within the Local Plan period.

It is important that CAUSE are fully engaged at each stage of the Local Plan process

and where appropriate engage with other organisations in the preparation of

representations. Representations need to be positively framed and evidence based.

6.2 Promoting an alternative Growth Strategy

The promotion of an alternative approach to accommodating growth based on the

Colchester Metro Town concept should be based on a full appreciation of the issues and

options and context for development and delivery. It will be necessary to develop a clear

rationale particularly given that other site allocations are being aggressively promoted by

land owners/ developers (such as Gateway 120). However, the context for housing

development is changing, and the focus on delivery means that proposals which have a

more realistic chance of coming forward within the plan period will have an inherent

advantage over longer term development opportunities which are dependent on

largescale infrastructure investment (such as a large new settlement to the west of

Colchester).

Critically, no decisions have been made on the location of growth and the DCLG funding

confirmed in December 2015 is for feasibility work on new garden communities in North

Essex and not for the promotion of site specific developments. This would imply that

options for smaller garden communities could also be considered. The focus on ‘garden

communities’ could assist in the promotion of the Colchester Metro Town concept and

the creation of a network of well-connected garden communities.

There appears to be a strong rationale for the promotion of a larger development to the

east of Colchester (supported by Essex County Council) and the housing numbers

which have been proposed in the Tendring Issues and Options Report seem very

conservative. This location offers the best opportunities in terms of integrated housing,

employment and infrastructure development and economic development/ regeneration

benefits. The Colchester Metro Town Concept of making better use of the Colchester to

Clacton railway line, with development along it based around more frequent train

services and more growth in the two towns and around the University of Essex is in

keeping with the objective of making better use of existing infrastructure and promoting

the use of sustainable infrastructure. It is however dependent on a higher level of growth

over the longer term in Tendring.

A case could be advanced for a higher number of homes in the Tendring area in order

to take advantage of the economic development opportunities presented by Colchester.

Even in the current circumstances, it would be possible to suggest (as Essex County

Council have done) that Tendring should adopt the upper figure of 705 units per annum

suggested in the OANS and a different distribution of growth based on existing

infrastructure and economic development opportunities. This would increase the number

of new homes to be accommodated in the District by around 1500 in the plan period. It

must be recognised, however, that there will continue to be very strong local and

political opposition to an increase in housing allocations.

6.2 The Need for a Strategic Approach

The requirement for a comprehensive approach to development which goes further than

cross-boundary considerations in the Duty to Co-operate is paramount. Colchester,

Braintree and Tendring are part of the same HMA but Objectively Assessed Needs are

still being addressed separately and this will continue to be the case unless there are

some fundamental changes to the Local Plan process or agreement is reached on an

alternative distribution of growth between the authorities. Clearly it is unlikely that any

authority will want to take more housing than is needed to meet their own OAN due to

local opinion and politically, may seek to accommodate less (notably Tendring).

This situation may change in the future and it is interesting to note that the need for

greater cooperation and a more coordinated approach across adjoining local authorities

in planning for growth is one of the principal issues being raised in the current

consultation exercise being led by the panel appointed by government to advise on

speeding up the Local Plan process. The Panel will report on its recommendations in

February. In the longer term, the creation of a Combined Authority in Greater Essex and

the devolution of further powers could result in greater collaboration on strategic issues

such as meeting housing needs and the funding and provision of infrastructure and

services.

Given the pressures for housing growth and the need for an integrated approach to

housing, employment and infrastructure provision, there is a strong case for the sub

regional area encompassing Colchester and Tendring (and Braintree) to be holistically

planned, with additional housing and jobs distributed according to principles of

accessibility by the sustainable transport modes. It is not possible to effectively consider

the vision for any of the three authorities in isolation and a vision for the wider North

Essex area is required. A strong vision can help to address the concerns of residents

and can result in integrated planning and high quality development (where jobs,

infrastructure and housing are linked). In effect, with the Local Plans following a

common timetable it will be impossible to consider them in isolation when it comes to

examination in June 2017. There may even be a case for seeking joint hearing sessions

to consider strategic matters of housing needs and distribution across the three

authorities. CAUSE should continue to promote the case for a strategic plan which

covers all three authorities.

Sub-regional growth provides the opportunity for economic growth rather than focussing

on the narrow issue of how housing numbers will meet the OAN of individual authorities.

In the longer term, this could be benefited by the formation of a joint development

corporation bringing together the local authorities, the County Council, the University,

the landowners and other interested parties together to deliver sustainable growth. The

basis for this has already been established through the joint working arrangements

established by the local authorities and could be further strengthened by the funding

confirmed in December for further feasibility work. This will enable further consideration

to be given to delivery including the potential role of a development corporation or

public-private partnership to help deliver growth and infrastructure in a sustainable way.

The potential benefits of a local delivery vehicle are clear in bringing forward high quality

planned development and should be further explored.

The other initiative that must be strongly promoted is the need for largescale cross-

boundary developments to be jointly planned through a separate Development Plan

Document or masterplan for that specific area. This is particularly important in the

Colchester eastern fringe and would enable the development of a spatial strategy to

direct growth in a way that meets the sustainable growth objectives of both Tendring

District and Colchester Borough.