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