Agenda Item no. 9 Page 1 / 2

REPORT of

HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

to

PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE

12 JUNE 2008

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – ISSUES AND OPTIONS

CONSULTATION PART 3 (CSIO3)

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To inform Members that the Policy Planning Panel met on 29 May and of its deliberations. Members are asked to approve the Core Strategy Issues and Options

Paper (CSI03) for the purposes of public consultation .The consultation will be

consistent with previous rounds so that the results can be considered together and

provide the basis of a “Preferred Issues and Options” report.

1.2 Update members on other matters affecting the Local Development Framework.

2. AREA FOR DECISION/ACTION

2.1 The Policy Planning Panel received a presentation from Liz Williams of Scott Wilson,

the Council’s flood risk consultants, on Appendix D of the Mid-Essex Strategic Flood

Risk Assessment (attached as APPENDIX 1). Members were informed that the main

report that considers the whole of Mid-Essex together with Appendix D (which

focuses on Maldon District) are now in their final form and that the changes discussed

with the Environment Agency have now been agreed. Both reports will be published

on the Council’s website and will form part of the evidence base for the Local

Development Framework (LDF). Paper copies of the main report of the Strategic

Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) and Appendix D of the SFRA for Maldon District are

available at the Members’ room.

2.2 Members considered the revised CSI03 document and amended it .The completed

document incorporating these changes is attached as APPENDIX 2.

2.3 A revised Transportation Issues and Options paper was considered by Members and

amended. It was pointed out that it remains a “work in progress” and is attached as

APPENDIX 3.

2.4 Members were given an update on other matters affecting the Local Development

Framework including the adoption of the East of England Plan. The report is attached

as APPENDIX 4.

DOC61

Agenda Item no. 9 Page 2 / 2

3. LINKS WITH COPORATE OBJECTIVES

3.1 The Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation is an important step in preparing the Local Development Framework which is itself closely linked to the Maldon

District Sustainable Community Strategy and is consistent with its objectives.

4. IMPLICATIONS

(i) Corporate Risk. – The Council needs to follow the steps prescribed by legislation in preparing the LDF otherwise the process could be judged to be

unsound.

(ii) Sustainability – Sustainability is a thread running throughout the polices of the LDF.

(iii) Resources – The Council is advised to consult in the same way as on previous Issues and Options papers so that the results can be compared. This will

require commissioning consultants help with the marketing.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 That the Council consult the public on the Issues and Options raised in CSI03.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

(i) That the Planning and Licensing Committee receive the Mid Essex Flood Risk Assessment including Appendix D Maldon District Supplementary Report.

(ii) That the Planning and Licensing Committee approve the Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper 3 (CSI03) for public consultation.

Background paper: None.

Enquires to: Alan Storah, Head of Planning Services. 01621 875870

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE

12/6/08 – APPENDIX 1

Presentation on Mid Essex Strategic Flood Risk

Assessment

By Liz Williams, Scott Wilson

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

Maldon District Council

Mid Essex SFRA- Maldon

Presented by Liz Williams

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

Todays Presentation

Maldon SFRA

SFRA aspirations and requirements

Objective, Maldon study area

Development vulnerability and application to Maldon

Process

Modelling Completed

Ground modelling

Deliverables

Depth maps

Hazard maps

How to use the SFRA

Summarise results for Maldon and implications

Where do we go from here

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

SFRA Aspirations

SFRAs identify catchment wide flooding issues

SFRAs should enable the Sequential Test and Exceptions Test to be completed

SFRAs should be used to inform: Sustainability Appraisals

Land Allocations

Development Control Policies

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

PPS25: SFRA Requirements

Consider all sources of flooding

Enable suitable policies to be

developed

Used to inform the Sustainability

Appraisal

Consider effects of climate change

for lifetime of development

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

Maldon SFRA Objective

Increase understanding of flood risk for

application of ST and ET;

Provide more detailed focus on the

Heybridge Causeway area with respect

to flood risk;

Consideration of cumulative impacts of

development of surface water

discharges into R.Blackwater;

Provide information on associated flood

hazard and depth for chosen locations

around district.

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

Flood Risk in Maldon

Tidal Flooding 70 miles coastline

Flood defences not to standard

Actual flood risk

Residual flood risk

Climate change water level increase by 1.02m by 2107.

River Flooding River Chelmer and Blackwater

upstream of Beeleigh Falls

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

Development Vulnerability

PPS25 Table D3 Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood Zone 'Compatibility'

Flood Risk

Vulnerability Classification

Essential Infrastructure

Water Compatible

Highly Vulnerable

More Vulnerable

Less Vulnerable

Flood Zone

1

2 Exception

Test Required

3a Exception Test

Required Exception

Test Required

3b Exception Test

Required

- Development is appropriate

- Development should not be permitted

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

Maldon

Regeneration proposed

around the Heybridge

Causeway area

Large areas of floodplain

including functional floodplain

3b

Inadequate defences to 1 in

191 standard. 1 in 200 year

plus CC required as standard.

Tidal modelling undertaken to

improve knowledge

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

Modelling completed

Tidal modelling (breach and overtopping) Five settlement locations around the coastline

1 in 20 year (FZ3b)

1 in 200 year (FZ3a)

1 in 1000 year (FZ2)

River modelling- Blackwater and Chelmer 1 in 20 (FZ3b)

1 in 100 (FZ3a)

1 in 1000 (FZ2)

Completed for both 2007 and 2107 for tidal and river models.

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

SFRA Ground Modelling

Constructed

using LIDAR

data (Light

Detection And

Ranging). +/-

150mm

accuracy

Detailed focus

on specific

areas of

interest.

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

Depth Maps

Produced for settlement areas of Maldon previously identified

Identify areas at greatest risk of deep water

GIS format can be used to inform floor levels and site specific FRA’s.

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

Hazard maps

Splits flood

zones into

areas of high,

medium and

low risk.

Based on

depth and

velocity

Used to

determine safe

egress/access

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

How to use the SFRA:

The LPA use the SFRA to apply the Sequential Test

Identify flood risk to existing allocations and future site allocations- and inform on Exception Test where needed

Optimise regeneration masterplans based on hazard and depth maps

Provide future Development Control information with regards to design and floor levels

Provide information for Emergency planning and safe egress and access.

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

Heybridge Causeway Issues

Actual flood risk as defences under standard therefore

overtopping.

Functional floodplain. Most development is not permitted

in 3b.

Maldon large areas FZ1 therefore under ST difficult to

justify causeway for development.

Restricted safe egress/access so wouldn’t pass ET.

With present defences compensation storage required

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

Where do we go from here?

The SFRA should be used to complete the

Sequential Test for the LDF process.

Emergency plans should be reviewed using the

depth mapping to plan evacuation routes in times

of flood.

The SFRA is a Living Document and should be

reviewed in 6-10 years time.

A

mb

itio

us

n

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve n

Div

ers

e n

Pro

fes

sio

na

l n

Res

po

ns

ive

www.scottwilson.com

Questions

1

PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 12/6/08 – APPENDIX 2

MALDON DISTRICT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Core Strategy Issues and Options Facing the Future - Sustainable Community Strategy and Core Strategy Issues and Options for the Maldon District Local Development Framework Third Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation – towards the Preferred Options INTRODUCTION Following the first Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation in March/April 2007, a second Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation (CSIO 2) was carried out in October/November 2007. The results of that consultation were posted on the Maldon District Council web site in January 2008. Since then further studies have been commissioned and more work has been carried out on key issues and possible options are set out below. REGIONAL CONTEXT The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) - the East of England Plan - was published in its final form on 12th. May 2008. The East of England Plan is the first region-wide RSS revision to be completed. As the Secretary of State’s planning policy for the East of England, it puts forward a sustainable, long term vision for development in the region. At the heart of this vision is affordable homes, new jobs, tackling climate change and enhancing local quality of life. An assessment of its implications for the Maldon District Local Development Framework has identified the following key considerations: 1 Maldon District is not a strategic growth location, is not included in the

list of key centres where new development should be concentrated and does not figure in the strategic infrastructure or regional transport requirements.

2 The Housing target for Maldon District for the period to 2021 is

accordingly small (1,650 between 2006 and 2021) although the policy states that this should be treated as a minimum. The region-wide need for additional social housing is addressed through a minimum affordable housing target of 35% in new developments. In addition, rural exception

2

policies (pp 13 of RSS) are identified as a key tool to support the provision of affordable housing for local people in rural areas.

3 Despite the low profile of Maldon District in the RSS, a number of its

policies will apply to the District and will therefore need to be taken into account in the Local Development Framework. In particular:-

Policy SS2 sets a target for 60% of new housing development

taking place on previously developed sites – a potential issue for Maldon District in view of its rural nature.

Policy SS4 requires Local Development Frameworks to set out

the approach to development in towns – including those with the potential to increase their economic and social sustainability, other key service centres and rural settlements.

Policy SS9 identifies a number of issues that apply to coastal

areas including the restructuring of their economies, providing for local and visitor needs, compatibility with flood management plans, protecting important coastal environmental assets and pursuing the opportunities for new coastal habitats.

MALDON DISTRICT SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY STRATEGY Work has progressed to improve the links between the Maldon District Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) and the emerging Core Strategy of the new Local Development Framework (LDF). This led to a joint SCS/LDF workshop with representatives of key partners and interests on 17th March 2008. This workshop and a follow up meeting with Essex County Council officers in relation to transport matters further informed the Issues and Options for this third consultation in relation to the following: Employment Land and Premises Housing Needs and Supply Rural Facilities and Services Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Transport This third consultation document This document:- 1 Identifies the consultation issues and options related to the above

subjects and explains why potential preferred options could be chosen.

3

2 Sets out the principles for an approach that could be taken to the

various issues and options facing the District - looking ahead for the next fifteen years or more.

Once comments on this round of consultation have been received and considered with the earlier ones, (CSI01 and CS102) this will enable the Preferred Options for the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework to be identified and agreed before they are submitted to Government. The comments will also be taken into account in the further development of the Sustainable Community Strategy. THE PORTRAIT OF MALDON DISTRICT The ‘portrait’ – a general description - of the District as it stands set out in the first Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation received a very high level of support with only 3% of those responding disagreeing. The things that make Maldon District distinctive as a place need to be reflected in the Vision for the future of the District which the Core Strategy needs to set out in spatial terms. Key distinctive features appear to be:- 1 The relative isolation of the District – on the mid east coast of Essex

with poor road access to most settlements and the coast itself – despite being within about 15 to 30 minutes drive of Chelmsford or Colchester and around 40 minutes to London by train depending on where people live.

2 The river estuaries of the Blackwater and Crouch (with their associated

towns of Maldon and Burnham) with their history of commercial sailing and marine trade are now focussed more on leisure boating and new marine related businesses.

3 The extensive low lying, predominantly agricultural and relatively

inaccessible coastal areas which also form the basis of internationally important wildlife sites

4 Three distinct areas within the District to which most people relate -

Maldon and Heybridge, the villages and rural area to the north and the Dengie area to the south – the most remote part of the district.

5 The historic and attractive features of much of Burnham, Maldon and

Southminster and many of the villages in the rural areas. These are the things that make Maldon attractive to many residents and form the basis of its tourist trade – despite some of the associated drawbacks such as poor road access, they are a key part of the vision for the future of the

4

District but this will also need to embrace change in response to both the changing outside world and aspirations to make improvements in some areas. This can be summarised by the expanded Vision Statement from the Draft Sustainable Community Strategy, namely:- “A sustainable coastal district, with a rich rural identity and heritage underpinning the local economy and an active community life. There will be a focus on high quality design in new buildings and alterations to existing ones. All people will have access to high quality services that meet their individual requirements particularly for the young and elderly. Barriers to business will be broken down to enable the provision of jobs that match local skills thus helping to reduce the daily outflow of commuters and helping to build stronger local communities. More “affordable” housing will be developed to meet the needs of those unable to enter the housing market the environment will be safeguarded and enjoyed. The District will work to develop positive outcomes from the anticipated effects of environmental change” Do you agree that these are the things that make Maldon distinctive and an important part of the Vision for the Future? ISSUES AND OPTIONS Maldon District has issues that need to be addressed. Many of these have been identified in the two previous Core Strategy consultations together with some options for addressing them. This consultation is focussed on the five subjects identified earlier. Background papers have been published for each of the five subjects to support this consultation. The Issues and Options identified for consultation are set out below. EMPLOYMENT LAND AND PREMISES Issue 1 - on what basis should we be planning for additional job creation in the District up to 2021? Maldon does not figure in the region as an economic growth centre or ‘engine’ and there are unlikely to be any regionally based resources to assist this although European and some national resources are available on a project basis. Too great a scale and rate of employment expansion – even if it could be achieved – could be in conflict with the regional economic and spatial strategy. Options for the approach the Core Strategy could take are:-

5

(i) To plan towards a target for reducing out-commuting by a

specified amount by 2021, creating a similar number of local jobs and a concomitant development land requirement.

(ii) To plan for new job creation based on targets for increasing the

overall existing employment and business base in the District (26,000 jobs and 2,845 VAT registered businesses in 2006 according to official labour market statistics (NOMIS) linked to population growth resulting from new housing in the District.

(iii) To set a target based on net growth of jobs for example, by

sectors such as manufacturing, construction, services and tourism. In 2006 numbers employed in these sectors were:-

Manufacturing 3,500 Construction 1,500 Services 12,500 Tourism 1,800 Source: NOMIS

The 2006 Mid Essex Economic Futures study provides a basis for identifying future potential for business and job development.

(iv) To plan for renewing and improving the existing employment

base by focussing on the retention, improvement, expansion or replacement of existing employment sites and business premises as necessary and appropriate. This includes identifying new inward investment sites on the side of the District nearest the A12 and to continue to support the conversion and re-use of redundant agricultural premises for new business uses appropriate to each location.

(v) To set no target for additional jobs (converted into land

requirements) and plan only for specific site based needs as follows:-

a) replacement sites to decant businesses from the Causeway

area and other identified flood risk areas b) the needs of existing businesses to expand where they are

or, if that is not possible, to relocate Issue 2 – on what basis should employment land supply allocations be identified up to 2021? Options for the overall supply to be provided are as follows:

6

(i) To retain the sites identified in the current Local Plan as the basis for development up to 2021.

(ii) To increase the amount of employment land allocated within the

District beyond the Local Plan target of 10 hectares. Issue 3 – on what basis should we planning for retention, abandonment or replacement of existing employment uses in the Heybridge Causeway area and other areas at risk from major flooding? According to the assessment of the flood risk in the Causeway area and the decisions of individual businesses/occupiers of sites there, a significant amount of land and premises could become available for redevelopment or for other uses more appropriate for this location. The Causeway area totals some 50 hectares and is currently the main employment area in the District. However a significant quantity of the floorspace and open land is vacant. Options could be as follows:

(i) To plan for replacement sites in locations that have no major flood risks for half of the area currently occupied by existing businesses and other employment uses that will need to relocate (approximately 25 hectares).

(ii) To plan for the other half of the existing businesses and other

employment uses being able to adapt to an acceptable level of flood risk and thus remain on site.

(iii) To plan for land that is currently vacant in the Causeway area

being occupied by new uses that are either innately compatible with the flood risk or can adapt to it.

HOUSING NEEDS AND SUPPLY Issue 1 - the number of additional housing units (1173 at 31/3/07) needed to meet the East of England Plan minimum requirement up to 2021 is far less than the number of additional affordable houses needed based on currently available estimates. If the proportion of all new housing that is to be built as affordable housing were to be in line with the assumed proportion in the Plan (35%) this gap would increase further Options:-

(i) No change from the RSS figures and pursue additional affordable housing through compatible options as proposed below.

(ii) Establish an updated requirement for affordable housing

provision and assume that this will be 35% of all new housing

7

and then calculate the overall requirement for new housing based on this.

Pros and cons:- Option (i) could be the starting point with further sites being added

if developers agree to provide more affordable housing. Option (ii) would give a better chance of addressing the deficiency

that has built up over time and would better reflect the priority that needs to be given to this issue.

A further option could combine the two by using the RSS figures as a starting point, establishing the target for additional provision based on an updated assessment and then negotiating additional sites based on their contribution to this target beyond the 35% level and consideration of other factors as set out below. Issue 2 – the location of new affordable housing will need to recognise the variation in housing need across the District. Options:-

(i) Concentrate all future housing developments in/adjacent to Maldon, Heybridge and Burnham-on-Crouch.

(ii) Spread future housing development throughout the District in

defined settlements in proportion to their existing population.

(iii) Allocate housing development to the three sub areas of the District in proportion to their populations and locate development sites in key settlements in those areas.

(iv) Allocate the East of England Plan minimum requirements for

new housing and support additional affordable housing based on established need following options i to iii.

(v) No sites have been proposed for additional pitches for use by

gypsies and travellers. However future requirements will necessitate looking beyond existing sites.

Pros and cons:- Settlement strategy of concentrating additional housing development in Maldon, Heybridge, Burnham on Crouch and Southminster may stimulate an opportunity for improving/funding the provision of new infrastructure through regeneration of the towns. A dispersed settlement strategy would place additional pressure on the District by needing to provide local jobs, rural services, and improved public transport links to ensure sustainability.

8

A preferred option:- Additional affordable and sheltered housing could be provided outside Maldon, Heybridge and Burnham on Crouch by using the exception sites approach. This would need to be focussed on the most sustainable locations where any existing infrastructure deficiencies would need to be addressed. Issue 3 - Greenfield and /or brownfield sites - the majority of the new houses built recently have been built on previously developed land. Such sites appear unlikely (based on the 2002 Urban Capacity Study) to be able to provide the quantity of affordable housing that is currently estimated to be needed and sites put forward in response to the calls for sites are almost exclusively greenfield. Introducing green field sites will potentially conflict with the East of England Plan which says that 60% of development across the region should be on previously developed land. Options:-

(i) Allow some greenfield site development but require a higher proportion than 35% to be affordable housing.

(ii) Increase the target for affordable housing provision on

brownfield sites from the current local plan target 30% (with delivery at about 25%).

(iii) Reduce the threshold for seeking affordable housing (currently

15 houses/0.5 hectares) to a figure that reflects the size of sites likely to become available in the District. Most of the sites put forward for planning permission only propose 1 or 2 units and the average in relation to all sites in the Annual Monitoring Report is 3.21 houses/site.(AMR).

(iv) Retain the exception sites policy (affordable housing sites within

the parish boundary which would not normally be supported for market housing).

(v) Expand the exception sites policy to allow the provision of land

by the developer (either free or at an appropriately low price) for affordable housing providing one or two specialist need houses (e.g. for transient agricultural workers, high level on site security and live/work space with an existing employment use) within a private development.

Pros and cons:- All options have some merits but the exceptions sites approach needs some flexibility in relation to existing development boundaries and local

9

impacts, such as parking and traffic generation, will be important considerations. A preferred option:- A preferred option could set a variable target across the District, subject to a housing needs assessment, with 35% as a minimum. Exception sites would relate to a higher target and especially so if they involved greenfield land. This may require some alterations to existing development boundaries or new boundaries to be drawn where there are currently none. Issue 4 – retaining existing affordable housing stock is important if any increases through new provision are not to be offset by losses of existing units Options:-

(i) establish policy and/or other constraints that would prevent the loss of existing affordable housing.

(ii) establish policy that would prevent existing low cost housing

being altered and extended so that it is no longer affordable. A preferred option:- Combining options i and ii could be the best approach for retaining what is provided in the future as a long term community asset. . RURAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES The Highway Network Maldon District is located 8 miles to the east of Chelmsford and 12 miles south west of Colchester and is linked by narrow poorly aligned rural single carriageways to the nearest towns. The main road west from Maldon to the A12, Chelmsford and the A414 is of higher quality than other routes in the District. The other main routes are the B1019 to Hatfield Peveral and the A12, the B1022 to Colchester, the B1026 to Tolleshunt D’Arcy, the B1018 north to Witham and the A12 and the B1018 southwards towards South Woodham Ferrers and the A130. Within the Dengie Peninsula key routes are the B1010 to Burnham on Crouch and the B1018 to Latchingdon and Southminster and the local road from Latchingdon and Bradwell. Option 1: The Council will seek to retain existing services. This will mean keeping the existing local plan policy of supporting 25 key

10

settlements. Any new development in the District will be directed to within one of these identified settlement boundaries. Option 2: Adopt a similar approach to Option 1. However, the number of key settlements could be reduced from 25 to 6 based on sustainability measures. All new development in the District will be directed to the 6 most sustainable settlements. Option 3: Implement a more flexible approach where existing facilities and services will be protected, but new development proposals would be considered on their own merits so long as they are sustainable. This option could lead to the review of development boundaries and, potentially, could result in more dispersed development in the District. Option 4: The Council could adopt an approach based on whether the provision is being made by the private sector, statutory agencies or the voluntary sector. Option 5: The District could be divided into a number of sub areas based principally on the interrelationships between settlements. It will be expected that a range of services and facilities would be capable of being supported by each network of settlements. A number of settlements can be chosen as network centres based on public transport and accessibility, together with other sustainability indicators. Pros and cons:- Focussing expansion on a limited number of villages can create a need for additional facilities and services which needs to be resourced and the option of improving mobile ‘outreach’ services also exists. The severe limitations on service provision and access due to the poor road network and transport services in the rural areas also need to be recognised together with the importance of avoiding undesirable impacts on the character and tranquillity of these areas. A preferred option:- No single option is likely to produce the best result and a combined approach based on options 3, 4 and 5 could be developed. This would create an area network based approach to supporting the retention of existing facilities and services plus the option of dispersed new developments in those areas which will provide and support improved facilities and services. STRATEGIC FLOOD RISKS

11

Maldon District Council together with Braintree, Chelmsford and Colchester local authorities jointly commissioned consultants Scott Wilson to carry out Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs) to identify the flood risk to existing and future developments as required by the government publication PPS 25 “Development and Flood Risk”. PPS25 takes into account flood hazards and the presence of flood defences. In summary, a sequential test is applied whereby all new development is steered into Flood Zone 1, then, if there are no sites available, into Flood Zone 2 and then if there are no sites available, into Flood Zone 3. The methodology allows for an Exception Test. This is only to be used when there are large areas of development in Flood Zones 2 and 3 and there are wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk informed by an SFRA. The North Sea is the main source of tidal flooding in the District with the estuaries of the rivers Blackwater and Crouch as the main pathways. Tidal flooding in the Essex estuaries is typically caused by a storm surge coinciding with a high spring tide. There is potential for fluvial flooding when the watercourse is tide locked and this could be a particular problem in the Causeway area. Issue 1 – the areas predicted to be at major flood risk in Maldon District differ in terms of the quantity and nature of existing development and land use – should the options vary accordingly? Options:-

(i) vary the approach to the existing defences depending on where they are and what they are defending, concentrate on the urban areas.

(ii) take the same approach in all areas to maintain, improve, or

abandon existing defences. . Pros and cons:- An opportunity to work out and pursue different solutions would not exist if taking the same approach is established as a matter of principle. A preferred option:- A preferred option could be for the responses to the identified tidal flood risks – the principal threat – to vary according to the nature of land uses and the scale of development in the flood cell in question. The preferred option need to be practical, have the support of the key stakeholders for delivery and maintenance of that option and be compatible with the approach taken in

12

other flood cells. This option could result in different approaches being taken according to whether the flood cell is principally in employment, residential or agricultural/rural uses. Subject to the approach taken in a flood cell, the adaptation and modification of premises to reduce the risk of damage in the event of a flood and the inclusion of ‘flood proofing’ measures in new development would be needed. Issue 2 – Employment Areas The Causeway is the principal employment area in the District but is also predicted to be at major flood risk together with some other business and employment sites in parts of Burnham on Crouch and Maylandsea. Should the Core Strategy be based on defending or abandoning these areas or pursuing an ‘in between’ option of ‘managed retreat’? Options:-

(i) Decide in principle not to defend the area beyond the existing defences, therefore not to maintain the existing defences – leaving it to flood eventually - and actively encourage the vacation/relocation of existing business uses/premises at risk.

(ii) allow reversion to functional flood plain as above but support the

introduction of new shoreline/marine compatible uses that are at low risk from the effects of flooding.

(iii) enhance existing defences by increasing their height and

possibly rationalising them in order to allow the area to renew and change its uses.

(iv) New defences - As above for new and/or replacement land uses

with no restraint on any particular use, based on new defences to the required height.

(v) Managed retreat - Maintain defences to give time for re-location

of existing uses and replacement by uses that can stand the risk of flooding.

Pros and cons:- Planning for the reversion of these flood risk area areas to functional flood plain will have major impacts on the present land uses/occupiers and substantially reduce the employment base in the District unless they can be moved elsewhere. If this option was chosen, it would be likely to require a greenfield location due to the areas of land involved. Options allowing for the progressive replacement of existing uses and/or improved flood resistance would reduce these impacts and allow for the introduction of new ‘marine

13

friendly /flood resistant uses that could help to regenerate the Causeway area in particular. Pursuing improved/new defences would best be considered in the context of the proposed Causeway Area Action Plan. A preferred option:- In recognition of the existing occupiers, the potential for regeneration/new uses, the attractive coastal location and the existence of defences that almost comply with the 1:200 year flood standard, a preferred option is to maintain existing defences while working out an action plan for the replacement and redevelopment of the existing sites. Issue 3 – Residential Areas The Causeway/ Heybridge residential area (NW of the Causeway Road) and parts of the developed residential areas of Burnham on Crouch and Maylandsea are at risk from flooding – what approach should be taken to these? Options:-

(i) Abandon - Not seen as an acceptable or realistic option other than long term.

(ii) Managed retreat - Again not seen as an acceptable or realistic

option other than long term.

(iii) Enhance existing defences- Feasibility and effectiveness not clear.

(iv) New defences - Possible new lines of defence may be able to

manage flood risk but feasibility not clear. Pros and cons:- The prospect of abandoning or relocating residential uses in the identified flood risk areas raises major issues in terms of impact and feasibility – not least of all financial feasibility. Managed retreat raises similar issues although as all land uses change over time this might be a more realistic scenario but would require a very long time to achieve – probably well beyond the life of the Core Strategy. As the existing defences do not separate the residential areas from the employment/commercial flood risk areas, the feasibility of introducing new defences in order to do this would need to be examined. A preferred option:- In recognition of the impact and feasibility issues a preferred option could be to investigate the option of defending these areas with new and/or improved defences albeit with a reserve option of managed retreat if this is not feasible.

14

Issue 4 - what approach should be taken to rural areas where the principal land use is agricultural? Options:-

(i) Avoid any further development in the flood plain and also increase its functionality by breaching the existing defences so that the flood plain does flood when the tide comes in.

(ii) Maintain or improve existing defences based on joint action for

the relevant flood cell by the relevant landowners. Pros and Cons:- Making the move to functional flood plain will provide some certainty for the future but require the existing uses to cease or move. The option of maintaining or improving existing defences based on local action is uncertain both in terms of its practical feasibility, any knock on effects that would also have to be addressed and its long term viability. A preferred option:- A preferred option at this stage could be to investigate the feasibility and implications of maintaining and improving existing defences for these areas. Issue 5 - can preferred options for the individual areas at risk of major flooding be identified at this stage to guide the Core Strategy and if not what can be done to achieve this? Options:-

(i) Identify preferred options for confirmation through CSIO3 for the flood risk areas in Burnham on Crouch, Bradwell, Causeway, Maylandsea.

(ii) Identify further information and activities that will provide a basis

for agreeing preferred options for these areas through CSIO3.

(iii) Identify an alternative basis on which the Core Strategy can proceed based on the available evidence and a robust and deliverable approach.

Pros and cons:- Because the Environment Agency has not yet published its proposed Shoreline Management Plan or the Blackwater and Colne Flood Management Strategy it is not possible to confirm the options that can be chosen.

15

Establishing a basis for a Preferred Option at this stage will however help to assess and respond to those plans when they are published. Ideally this should be done before the Core Strategy Preferred Options are submitted to the Government for approval. A preferred option:- Identifying a preferred option could be used as a basis for further discussion with the Environment Agency in relation to their forthcoming plans BRADWELL POWER STATION NEW NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT Any transport strategy for Maldon District needs to be closely linked and / or determined by the overall vision and strategy for the future development of the District ;as well as individual strategies for housing, employment etc. A key strategic issue, which will arise during the lifetime of the Local Development Framework, is the future development of Bradwell Power Station. Following the publication of the Government White Paper on Nuclear Energy (January, 2008) strategic assessments, including the site at Bradwell, are being undertaken by the Government. It is proposed that a new decision making body - The Infrastructure Planning Commission will become the consenting body for major infrastructure (including nuclear build) superseding DBERR ( the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform ). It will also be responsible for validating planning applications and ensuring compliance with all the associated regulations such as Environmental Impact Assessment, Habitats and the new pre-application procedures. The prospect of a new power station at Bradwell will be determined (including a public examination) within a set timeframe and well within the period of preparation of the LDF. Key impacts are likely to be:- Transport 1. Construction Requirements (5 years)

(i) Increased traffic on the local highway network (large workforce, 1,350 - 2,500 and high volume of materials’ delivery).

(ii) Possible rail delivery for bulk materials. (iii) Marine delivery of large abnormal loads and bulk materials.

2. Operational Requirements (60 years)

(i) traffic on local highway network from normal operational workforce (400-600 employees).

16

(ii) Increased traffic on local highway network from major planned maintenance.

(iii) Occasional delivery of large abnormal loads.

(iv) Temporary and permanent accommodation.

The Environmental Impact Assessment will be wide ranging, taking into account the impact of the development on SACs, SSSIs and RAMSAR sites There will be a requirement to mitigate the impact on flora, fauna and the wider environment. The assessment will also cover topics such as archaeology and cultural heritage, marine ecology and fisheries ,water quality ,air quality and traffic and transport. It will be necessary to consider a number of options and a wide range of policies and solutions before a final decision can be reached. Consultation on the future development of Bradwell Power Station is not the responsibility of Maldon District Council, but will the responsibility of the Government. The Council will consider how it can best canvass public opinion on this issue, which will inevitably become a key part of the Core Strategy since in the event of a new power station being given approval considerable infrastructure gains may result from its construction. Recommendation That the Planning Policy Panel receive and comment on the amended CSIO3 consultation report for consideration at the next Planning and Licencing Committee (12/06/08) for approval for stakeholder consultation. Background Papers. Papers submitted to the Planning Policy Panel on 28 March,2008.

1

PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 12/6/08 – APPENDIX 3 MALDON DISTRICT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Core Strategy Issues and Options Transportation – Issues and Options background paper 1. Introduction 1.1 Transportation and access to transport services is a cross-cutting

subject relating to all uses and particularly where there is the need to maintain access to facilities and services for our rural communities. Accessibility to transportation should be an important consideration in the allocation of future housing and employment; topics looked at by other papers.

1.2 Maldon District Council will need to reflect Government’s shared

priorities of:-

Improving accessibility Increasing sustainable travel Making roads safer Maintaining the network

1.3 The Council may have to decide on what other priorities it would need

to add to the above list. But to do so, the Council needs to gain a better appreciation of the transport issues that confront it.

1.4 Firstly, it is important to assert that the District can influence these

themes by decisions it makes regarding the location of new development. It can do this because all new development generates additional demand for travel. The spatial relationship of different uses affect how many journeys are made, how long they are and what means of transport are used.

1.5 However, Essex County Council (ECC) is the Highway Authority and as

such has ultimate responsibility for transport matters. 1.6 The Vision of ECC, which is contained in the Local Transport Plan

2006-2012 is to “create safe, healthy, diverse and sustainable communities that are open and welcoming to all; where people want to live, work and visit; where people and communities take charge of their lives through active citizenship; where heritage is valued and innovation thrives; where people can travel easily, both locally and through making the most of excellent access to London, the rest of England and Europe.”

2

2. Road Based Transport Issues Network Character and capacity 2.1 Maldon is located 8 miles to the east of Chelmsford and 12 miles

south west of Colchester and is linked by narrow and poorly aligned rural single carriageways to the nearest towns. The main road west from Maldon to the A12, Chelmsford and A414 is considered a higher quality than other routes in the district. The other main routes are the B1019 to Hatfield Peverel and the A12, the B1022 to Colchester, the B1026 to Tolleshunt D’Arcy, the B1018 north to Witham and the A12, and the B1018 southwards to South Woodham Ferrers and the A130. Within the Dengie Peninsula key routes are the B1010 to Burnham on Crouch and the B1018 to Latchingdon and Southminster.’

2.2 The road network in the district is poor, predominantly narrow and

windy. This is very marked in the Dengie 100 area which is also more remote.

2.3 The rural character of the road network presents problems in terms of

capacity, journey time and also safety in some locations. This is also perceived to affect inward investment by business. On the other hand the remoteness and rural character can be viewed as an asset by some residents especially in relation to visitors and the tourist trade.

2.4 It has to be acknowledged that the District is mostly dependent on

roads for transportation of goods, services and people. Essex County Council’s Local Transport Plan 2 does indeed recognise ‘that the car will remain central to the needs of Essex people.’ This explains why there has been a great focus on roads.

2.5 As such, a report is being prepared by ECC with proposals for

improvements along the B1018 between the outskirts of Hatfield Peverel and Heybridge. The short term measures will be contained within the highway boundary. However, in the long term, there may be the need for some land take to allow smoothing of bends. There are no current proposals to look at any off line improvements.

2.6 According to the 2001 Census, more than two in every three working

residents, travelled in a car to work. This figure is higher than both the national average, and indeed the East of England average. Table 1 below depicts resident’s mode of travel to work by ward. It also shows the distance travelled.

3

Table 1: Mode of Travel to Work by Ward

Wo

rkin

g A

ge

Po

pu

lati

on

Ho

me %

Un

der-

gro

un

d

%

Tra

in %

Bu

s %

Mo

torc

ycle

%

Car

%

Passen

ger

%

Min

icab

%

Cycle

%

Fo

ot

%

Oth

er

%

Avera

ge

Kilo

metr

es

Tra

vell

ed

Althorne 1937 13.89 0.36 6.09 1.91 0.83 65.62 5.89 0.15 1.29 3.36 0.62 22.25 Burnham-on-Crouch North 1740 9.83 0.17 11.15 1.21 0.63 58.97 4.6 0.23 4.77 8.16 0.29 23.12 Burnham-on-Crouch South 1904 9.09 0.37 11.5 1.47 0.53 54.31 5.3 0.16 4.1 12.66 0.53 24.33 Great Totham 1713 15.47 0.18 8.93 1.05 0.93 64.39 4.03 0.23 1.11 2.98 0.7 20.98 Heybridge East 2200 9.36 0.18 5.41 1.36 1.18 66.05 5.55 0.23 2.82 7.5 0.36 17.22 Heybridge West 1839 8.1 0.16 5.98 1.52 0.98 64.76 6.04 0.33 2.94 8.81 0.38 18.64 Maldon East 905 7.73 0 5.19 2.32 0.88 56.8 7.62 0.44 2.98 15.36 0.66 18.76 Maldon North 1649 10.37 0.3 3.82 1.76 0.61 54.64 5.03 0.36 1.94 20.19 0.97 15.6 Maldon South 2101 8.47 0 5.95 1.43 0.62 64.26 5.38 0.52 2.62 10.52 0.24 17.1 Maldon West 2042 9.5 0.15 5.14 1.22 0.73 66.9 5.48 0.64 2.3 7.69 0.24 18.11 Mayland 1860 13.12 0.16 6.13 0.81 0.91 69.57 5.32 0.48 1.24 1.88 0.38 25.24 Purleigh 1584 16.35 0 9.09 0.82 0.63 64.71 3.98 0.44 0.57 2.97 0.44 23.21 Southminster 1925 11.38 0.26 10.39 1.30 1.09 60.83 6.23 0 1.82 6.29 0.42 26.35 Tillingham 1031 13 0.29 5.82 0.78 0.87 64.02 5.82 0 2.72 5.63 1.07 24.34 Tollesbury 1033 10.55 0 3.97 1.74 1.26 65.05 3.78 0 5.23 8.03 0.39 20.29 Tolleshunt D'Arcy 1923 16.95 0 6.86 1.25 0.78 62.4 4.37 0 2.08 4.84 0.47 22.65 Wickham Bishops and Woodham 1554 16.54 0.39 10.75 0.58 0.51 61 4.63 0.39 1.22 3.02 0.97 25.28

Maldon District 28943 11.73 0.18 7.29 1.31 0.82 62.8 5.22 0.29 2.38 7.46 0.51 21.21

Source: 2001 Census

Options 2.7 Whereas the potential for carrying out major improvements to create a

step change in capacity have previously been investigated, the scale of investment required to do this, set against the limited growth that Maldon will experience, render this unsustainable in terms of resource investment, having regard to the investment assessment criteria for road schemes and also having regard to the regional priorities for investment in the region in support of the Regional Spatial Strategy – the East of England Plan – and the regional economic strategy. Major development as a basis for improving road capacity is therefore not an option.

2.8 The current options therefore relate to focussing limited funds available

for highway safety improvements and any funding provided from new development via s106 agreements or perhaps through the introduction of a development levy.

2.9 The scale of future development in the Dengie and northern areas of

the District based on current local planning requirements will however be very limited if the majority of new development is focused on Maldon, Heybridge and – to a lesser extent - Burnham on Crouch in

4

accordance with the feedback from previous Issues and Options consultations.

2.10 Another option will be to focus all Locally Determined Funding on improving one or 2 key routes in the District. This position is informed by the knowledge that this funding stream is extremely limited and therefore will need to be focus to achieve any impact.

2.11 Within the Maldon/Heybridge area there are currently no schemes for

road improvements. If future development is to be mainly focussed on Maldon and Heybridge there may be the need for developer contributions to fund some local improvements and the potential for concentrating development on either the north or south sides of the urban area could provide a basis for funding any significant improvements. Bearing in mind the significance of the Causeway as the main current employment area in the District but the need for it to change in response to flood risk if that response is to be to regenerate the area as a basis for business/employment and other viable uses, improved roads access and the use of developer contributions to deliver this would be an option that would need to be investigated.

Commuting by Road 2.12 There are circa 12,000 daily trips out of the District of commuters to

access other employment locations either by road or by road and then train. This raises an issue in relation to the lack of counter balancing local employment opportunities and the sustainability of this level of out commuting continuing up to 2021 and beyond.

2.13 The high level of work commuting to places outside the District is a key

feature of the local situation. Further it has a direct impact on the environment in terms of noise, visual effect, air quality and indeed global warming.

5

Map 1: Main (A & B) Roads and Train Stations in Maldon District

Goldhanger

TolleshuntD’Arcy

Tollesbury

Bradwell-Waterside

Bradwell-on-Sea

LittleTothamGreat

Totham

Heybridge

Langford

Maldon

WoodhamMortimer

Purleigh

ColdNorton

Latchingdon

Althorne

Burnham-on-Crouch

Southminster

Asheldham

Steeple

Mayland

St. LawrenceA414

B1023

B1026

B102

6

B1022

B1018

B1019

B1018

B1010

B1012

B1418

A132

B1010

B1018

B1021

A12

A12

Settlement

A Road

B Road

A12

Rail Track

Railway Station

Witham

2.14 The potential for reducing out commuting will be based on other

incentives for changing individual travel patterns such as the cost of road travel and congestion. While any growth of employment within the District could help to reduce out commuting for example, the scale of the effects of that growth are likely to be more than offset by the scale of increased commuting due to employment and road and rail improvements at Chelmsford which is a regional growth centre.

2.15 However, there is the possibility of trying to create an environment

within Maldon that will encourage greater home working. According to the 2001 Census almost 12% of the working population work mainly at home, a figure higher than both the national and regional averages and there may be opportunities to improve on that.

2.16 The Government wants to help raise awareness of the impacts of travel

decisions and promote the widespread use of Travel Plans amongst businesses, schools, hospitals and other organisation (PPG13, para.87). There are some locations where Travel Plans can have an impact on car usage, for example, major employers, schools and developments generating significant amounts of travel.

Scheduled Buses Services 2.17 Rural bus services are a lifeline to many communities that would

otherwise feel isolated. The cost, the reliability, frequency and quality

6

of bus services in the district is variable throughout the district and impacts on whether buses become a viable alternative or in fact the only alternative for transport.

2.18 The more remote Dengie 100 has poor bus links. Purliegh, has a twice

a week bus service to Maldon for example. 2.19 Map 2 below depicts the time it takes residents to travel to identified

centres. It is quite clear that for most of the more rural locations, it will take over 30 minutes in travel time to reach the closest town centres.

2.20 There is a specific issue with the scheduling of bus services. The bus

service in the town of Maldon, starts at 6:20 pm too late for workers who need to commute to catch early trains, and generally those who require an early start.

2.21 One option may be to focus any improvements that can be made on

the routes used by buses. However, this may make it more attractive for other road users as well and the benefits can easily be eroded. If such improvements are focussed solely on buses, for example creating bus shelters or devising bus priority measures would be likely to provide the best overall benefits.

2.22 Another option will be to reduce the cost using buses or improving the

frequency of bus services, or in fact the start times of the service. This may require some subsidy from the County or other sources but will result in buses becoming a more popular alternative, which may in turn make it a more feasible service.

7

Map 2: Travel time by Bus to Retail Centres (Between 9:30-17:00) Source: Essex County Council

Formatted: Top: 0.95 cm

8

2.23 Within the Maldon/ Heybridge area some past residential developments have taken place in the form of urban extensions and these are relatively remote from the town centre. On their own, they will not support scheduled bus services. However, there may be the opportunity to provide a bus service that will link these newer developments if further extensions are allowed. Private hire/transport services 2.24 The role of taxis and other private transport services is not always

completely understood. Some more research will have to be undertaken in order to measure their impact on transport.

Community based services 2.25 There are a number of Community based transport services in Maldon

District, some funded by the County and the District, with support from the voluntary sector. There are others associated with churches which provide a similar service. They have different criteria for membership. Viking Community Transport which is pre eminent in Maldon provides transport for any resident of the district who chooses to use it.

Freight 2.26 Freight movements in the district are focussed in the main employment

areas of Maldon/Heybridge but also Burnham on Crouch and Southminster. There are also farm based movements, but their impacts are more evenly spread. The main problem associated with freight movements tends to be that of pollution, both noise and air quality, which is less compatible to the serene rural setting, narrow and windy roads.

3. Rail Services 3.1 The mainline railway stations at Chelmsford, Hatfield and Witham are

all located outside the district. Within the District there is the Southminster branch line with stations at Althorne, Burnham, North Fambridge and Southminster.

3.2 The branch line runs close to the southern boundary of the District and

therefore is not immediately accessible to all residents. Maldon, the principal town in the district does not have a train service.

3.3 Table 1 clearly shows that people are more likely to use a train where

there is one local to them. Generally the use of trains to work is higher for residents in the Wards of Southminster and Burnham-on-Crouch.

3.4 Whereas the possibility of re-opening the former branch line from

Southminster to Maldon has been raised previously it has also previously been concluded that the scale of investment required to do

9

this, combined with the fact that parts of the route have been built over, rule this out as a realistic option.

3.5 The development of a new rail station at Springfield, North East of

Chelmsford, may improve rail access for residents of the district. However, this has the potential of encouraging extra road traffic as commuters are likely to drive out of the district to park in order to access the main rail connection.

Frequency of Trains 3.6 The trains from Southminster are hourly (of peak) to Liverpool Street

changing at Shenfield (some to Wickford only). At peak times there are through trains to Liverpool Street and at a greater frequency. Present patronage levels are huge although there is spare capacity off-peak. Essex County Council has previously run connecting buses between Fambridge Station and Maylandsea but with sparse results.

Connectivity 3.7 Currently, there are connectional facilities at Southminster with service

31X and Dengie local service D4. Service D5 provides a limited facility from South Woodham. The rail passenger service between South Woodham, Stow Maries and Cold Norton to Maldon was abandoned in 1939 and the Maldon to Witham branch line closed in the Beeching cuts in 1964 when patronage was reported at between 300-400 passengers per day.

Future Increase in Capacity 3.8 The present service is unlikely to be very attractive to expand should

additional development take place in the area but it is equally unlikely that unless there were really major development of the Eco-town scale that the railway authorities would be inclined to significantly improve the carrying capacity..

4. Car parking in Maldon Town 4.1 The importance of car parking to people who want to use Maldon town

centre and the need for improvements to it have been raised in previous consultation responses.

4.2 Car parking provision and its management in terms of costs of parking

etc, can impact on the amount of traffic generated within settlements. Higher parking costs, or the lack of parking, can easily cause modal shifts in travelling to a centre.

4.3 There is also the need to consider the extent to which car parks could

provide new investment and development opportunities to improve the town centres’ services and facilities. Whereas these are not strategic

10

issues they will need to be addressed in order to support which ever options are preferred in the Core Strategy as part of its delivery plan. This could be examined further by undertaking a Car Parking Strategy.

4.4 A Car Parking Strategy will examine in greater detail existing parking

patterns and capacity. Key drivers influencing car parking in the town centre over the LDF period set out an approach to achieving the Council’s planning objectives.

5. Other Means of Transport Walking 5.1 From (Table 1) people living in the more urban wards in Maldon District

are more likely to walk to work. Residents living in Maldon Town travel the least distance to work but are also less likely to use the train for travelling. Residents living in the Rural North are more likely to work from home than those living in the more urban settlements.

Cycling 5.2 Cycling can be an important mode of transport, which is

environmentally friendly, healthy, affordable, but can also help tackle traffic congestion. For some it is the main form of transport but it can also be an excellent pastime. This is particularly relevant to Maldon District which is keen to promote tourism. Only 2.4% of working residents in the District cycle to work, compared to 3.8% of the East of England.

5.3 Cycling has a particular appeal to the young people, but also offers

independent travel to a wide range of age and socio economic groups. Cycling England is the national body which co-ordinates the development of cycling across England, but the responsibility for the upkeep and management of the roads on which most cycling takes place rests with Essex County Council.

5.4 Cycling has the potential to play an important role in Maldon District’s

transport system. However, the District will have to work closely with the County Council and Cycling England in order to promote it. Due to the rural nature of the district, and giving the distances residents have to travel to access a range of services, it will be a great challenge to achieve a substantial modal shift.

5.5 The greatest potential contribution of cycling to transport in the District

is in replacing short car journeys with bicycle journeys and as a means of getting to public transport which has also been recognised to be poor. This can be achieved by increasing support for the adopted cycle routes network, and the extension of routes to cover the more rural parts of the District.

11

5.6 To encourage more cycling, new development should include safer cycle parking, but also improved access to cyclists and better connections to approved cycling routes.

5.7 More research may need to be undertaken in order to identify specific

issues that pertain to cyclist in the district, and measures that will attract more residents to cycle in the district.

6. Environment 6.1 Growth in road traffic can be damaging to our towns and villages. It

can contribute towards air pollution resulting in poor human health and can affect our countryside and the planet through global warming and climate change.

6.2 It is possible to reduce the impact of transport on the environment,

especially with regard to its effect on air quality and its contribution to climate change by reducing the length and number of car journeys and encouraging the use of alternative modes of transport. The use of public transport; buses, community transport services, cycling or indeed walking are all considered to be more sustainable ways of travelling.

6.3 This can be achieved by guiding new development to locations which

reduce the need for car journeys and the distances driven, or which permit the choice of more energy efficient public transport, the adverse environmental effects of increased traffic will be minimised and the possible need for costly highway improvements avoided.

7. Conclusion 7.1 The rural nature of large parts of Maldon District means that, for most

people, there is a need to travel some distance to get to work, school, further/higher education, food shops, healthcare, leisure facilities and other services. Improving accessibility is key to tackling social isolation and exclusion, which disadvantages many people.

7.2 The location and scale of future development is largely dependent on

ensuring good transport links and accessibility to services and community facilities.

7.3 Maldon District has a very high level of car ownership with 86% of all

household having access to a car or a van (2001 Census). Comparable figures for East of England and England stand at 80% and 73% respectively.

7.4 Car ownership has some considerable benefits through giving people

access to a range of facilities and activities, but can also lead to problems such as road safety, air pollution, congestion, noise, as well as representing a heavy financial burden for those on low incomes.

12

High levels of car ownership and usage also compromise those who do not have access to a car, as it contributes to making public transport unviable.

7.5 It is also possible that it is the lack of alternative transport, more

specifically bus services early in the morning before 6:00am that results in residents having a greater dependency on the private car.

7.6 Climate change and obesity are two key issues of public policy facing

the UK in the 21st century – shifting travel patterns from the car to walking and cycling addresses both these issues.

7.7 In order to address transport and accessibility issues, the Core

Strategy should aim to reduce the need to travel in Maldon District; promote sustainable transport choices such as cycling, walking and public transport; and ensure good accessibility to services and community facilities.

7.8 Where new development is likely to generate significant amounts of

traffic, it is necessary to ensure that the road infrastructure is adequate. 7.9 Do you agree with our overall approach? 7.10 Are there any issues for Maldon District that have been missed? 7.11 Are there any other option(s) you can think of for dealing with the

issues raised?

1

PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 12/6/08 – APPENDIX 4 UPDATE ON MATTERS AFFECTING THE LDF 1. Revised Core Strategy Work Programme.

a) Consultants Roger Tym and Partners have been appointed to carry out an Employment Land Review of the District. This was one of the gaps in the evidence base identified by the “critical friend “review. The report will be finished by the end of September.

b) A draft Transportation Issues and Options Paper has been prepared for this agenda (Item 7) following a meeting between Essex County Council officers and Maldon planners on 20 March, 2008.

2. Saved Policies from the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan

The Planning and Licensing Committee, at its meeting on 24 April 2008, agreed to save some policies and delete others from the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan 1995. This was because current legislation requires the Plan to expire 3 years after its adoption but also allows for policies to be saved so as to continue to operate beyond 2 November 2008, subject to compliance with set criteria. The Government Office (GO-East) will then, on behalf of the Secretary of State, consider the Council's proposals and may vary them accordingly. GO-East will then issue a Direction which has the effect that the deleted policies will no longer be referred to in recommendations and refusals of planning applications. The Development Plan will then comprise the saved policies in the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan 1995, together with the saved policies from both the Minerals and Waste Local Plan and the Essex and Southend on Sea Structure Plan. In due course, each of these will be superseded such that the Development Plan will then comprise the East of England Plan, the Maldon District Local Development Framework and the Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework.

3. Publication of the East of England Plan

The East of England Plan in its final version has been approved by the Secretary of State and has now been published (12 May 2008)

Some of the key measures in the plan are highlighted below:-

2

Higher housing growth to deliver 508,000 homes by 2021 -

revised from 478,000 to reflect the independent examination panel’s recommendations on the need for higher growth rates.(see attached Housing Growth Map)

Job growth targets increased from 440,000 to 452,000. This includes the addition of Bedford as a key employment location.

New growth foci close to London will be supported by nearly £28m of growth funds. These include Chelmsford (£11m), Hemel Hempstead (£6.5m), St. Albans (£0.6m), St Edmunsbury (£4.8m) and Welwyn / Hatfield (£4.6m). The plan also confirms that King’s Lynn and Harlow will be important towns for growth.

Additional investment (confirmed in December) will support development on Brownfield sites and urban extensions in Cambridge (£36m), Peterborough (£17.5m), Stevenage (£6.7m), and the recently announced new growth points at Norwich (£12m), Thetford (£6m), and Colchester and Ipswich (£17.5m).

The region-wide need for additional social housing is addressed through a minimum affordable housing target of 35% in new developments. In addition Rural Exception sites are identified as a key tool to support affordable housing for local people in rural areas.

Water management and conservation are recognised as an important regional issue and the plan sets per capita consumption targets, emphasising the sewage work investment needed to balance growth with high quality.

The plan sets targets for the first time for waste recycling; with landfill of untreated waste to be eliminated by 2021 across the East of England.

There is a net increase to the green belt as a result of extensions to Hertfordshire’s green belt with reviews likely at Harlow, Hemel Hempstead, Stevenage and Welwyn/Hatfield.

The implications of the East of England Plan for Maldon District are covered in Item 6 on this Agenda.

4 Adopted Essex and Southend on Sea Structure Plan

Most of the policies in the Adopted Essex & Southend-on-Sea Structure Plan (April 2001) automatically expired on the 27 September 2007 and are therefore no longer in effect. The Secretary of State issued a statutory direction in September 2007 to save eight structure plan policies, and as a result of the East of England Plan’s approval on 12 May 2008, this has been reduced down further to only six policies.

3

The following six structure plan policies continue to be ‘saved’ for the time being and will be a material consideration for the purposes of local planning and development control:-

NR3 – Extension of Suffolk Coast/Heaths AONB (in Tendring district) CC1 – Undeveloped Coast:/Coastal Protection Belt BIW9 – Airport Development LRT6 – Coastal Water Recreation EG1 – Proposals for New Power Stations MIN4 – Sterilisation & Safeguarding of Minerals Sites The approved East of England Plan does not contain equivalent policies to those above, and to ensure continuity and stability in the plan-led system they have been ‘saved’ for the time being under the transitional arrangements.