Policy PP1: Generic Infrastructure and Mitigation Requirements

The proposed developments are unsustainable in terms of the additional population relative to existing publicly used facilities and infrastructure..

Policy PP1 refers to proposals demonstrating that adequate wastewater treatment and sewerage enhancements are provided where necessary which is supported.

In light of the conclusions reached by the Council's Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) report dated June 2017 which was only produced at the same time as the publication draft Local Plan, the RSPB considers that this policy should make explicit reference to the Recreation Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) recommended as an output of the HRA.

This is relevant for any policies/allocations that are within the identified Zone of Influence of designated sites (Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation or Ramsar site), e.g. SS17a-c Mersea Island and which may require mitigation in order to avoid any adverse effect on these sites.

I am assuming the sports strategy and playing pitch strategy will be captured in this policy. I would press for any key sports infrastructure projects to be listed in this policy e.g. provision of more sports hall capacity which the IDP seeks to deliver strategically through several housing applications.

We are supportive of the thrust of this policy and the supporting text.
We have not been able, on this occasion, to screen each development allocation site individually against our environmental constraints map. We take it as read that the comments made in our letter dated 16 September 2016 which covered various development site allocations made at the Preferred Options stage have been considered.

We reiterate that any allocations in the Local Plan that lie within Flood Zones 2 and 3 must be subject to the Sequential Test to avoid development in areas of flood risk wherever possible and to maintain the function of these land areas for natural processes. Furthermore, it must be made clear that inappropriate development will be steered away from flood zones. Proposals will also be subject to the Exceptions Test, where applicable, and any planning applications must be supported by a site-specific flood risk assessment which must be submitted that meets the requirements of the NPPF and the Planning Practice Guidance.

Any works in, over, under or within 8m of a "Main River" may need a flood risk activity permit from us under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR). More information can be found at this link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities- environmental-permits

This policy is a change from the previous draft of the Local Plan. As such it has resulted in a number of amendments to site specific policies which we will comment on below. Our overarching concern is that where references to heritage assets and archaeological investigation have been removed from site specific policies it is not clear when criteria (v) and (vi) are 'relevant' to these site specific policies in the terms of policy PP1.

We welcome, in principle, the inclusion of criteria for the historic environment in this new policy in criteria (v) and (vi). In criterion (v) we recommend an amendment to delete the reference to "listed buildings" and replace it with "heritage assets" for consistency with the NPPF.

As currently drafted, criterion (vi) raises a number of questions. As drafted, all pre-determination evaluations will require a geophysical survey and trial trenching. It also is unclear as to what would happen if remains were of such significance that they should be preserved in situ but cannot be so preserved with the development proposed. We recommend that the wording in this criterion is reviewed and are happy to provide further detailed advice on this subject.

1. Introduction

1.1. Andrew Granger & Co. Ltd specialises in the promotion of strategic land for residential development, commercial and employment uses through the Local Plan process.

1.2. On behalf of the Trustees of the S A Meller Estate we are seeking to work with Colchester Borough Council in promoting Land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road, Colchester (Appendix
1) for residential and employment development uses.

1.3. This document provides a written submission to the Colchester Borough Local Plan 2017- 2033 Publication Draft Consultation and is framed in the context of the requirement for the Local Plan to be considered legally compliant and sound. The tests of soundness are set out at Paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF], which state that for a development plan to be considered sound it must be:

- Positively prepared - the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;

- Justified - the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;

- Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and

- Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

1.4. This submission supports the proposed allocations at Land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road, Colchester for employment and residential uses as identified in the Proposals Plan and also promotes additional adjacent land for residential development.




















P/300/15.1 - Land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road, Colchester 4

2. Site Appraisal & Context

2.1. The proposed development site has a total site area of approximately 5.97 ha (14.7 acres) and is located on the south-eastern edge of Colchester and accessed off Rowhedge Road, as shown outlined in red in Appendix 1.

2.2. The site consists of a single field of pasture land with clearly defined boundaries marked by mature hedgerow to the north, south, east and west. The site is bordered to the north and east by the Whitehall Industrial Estate (including the Colchester Sewerage Treatment Works), to the west by residential properties and to the south by further agricultural land.

2.3. The site is located in close proximity to a number of services and amenities, which are located approximately 0.4 miles from the site entrance on Old Heath Road which is identified as a Local Centre in the Plan. Services include Old Heath Congregational Chapel, Old Heath Community Primary School, Co-Op Food Store and a number of small, independent coffee shops and retailers. The Whitehall Industrial Estate, which is located adjacent to the proposed development site, also provides a number of employment opportunities. Businesses located at the estate include Gallery Bathrooms, Nash Bathrooms, Maple Tree Cars and Colchester Dairy.

2.4. There are further services and employment opportunities available in close proximity to the site in Colchester Town Centre (approx. 1.9 miles), Rowhedge (approx. 1.2 miles), Fingringhoe (approx. 2.1 miles), Wivenhoe (approx. 2.3 miles) and Abberton (approx. 3.7 miles).

2.5. In addition, the site is well served in respect of public transport links with the nearest bus stop located next to the site entrance on Rowhedge Road. This stop is served by the 66(A/B) bus service which runs between West Bergholt and Rowhedge via Colchester with services stopping at Rowhedge Road approximately once an hour between 7am and 7pm from Monday to Saturday.

2.6. We consider that the site has the capacity to accommodate a mix of residential and employment land uses, as follows:

2.6.1. It is considered that the allocated site, identified red on the Proposals Plan and blocked red at Appendix 2, and the adjacent land (blocked green at Appendix 2) could facilitate the development of approximately 100 dwellings including pedestrian links, public open space, car parking, landscaping and drainage. Any proposed development scheme would provide a range of property types and sizes, including a proportion of affordable housing, subject to viability.

2.6.2. The site also has the capacity to accommodate approximately 2.3 ha of employment land (shown blocked purple at Appendix 2), which could provide up to 9,200 square metres of new floor space, associated car parking, facilities and landscaping, which would complement the existing Use Class B employment land uses at Whitehall Industrial Estate.



P/300/15.1 - Land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road, Colchester 5

2.7. Any development of the site could be sensitively designed to protect the residential amenity of the neighbouring residents to the west of the site, by retaining the existing hedgerows and matures trees around the site boundary, and enhancing those boundaries with significant additional planting. Furthermore, any development scheme would give consideration to balancing the demands of the proposed residential land use in comparison to the existing and proposed employment land uses; to ensure that all land users enjoy an appropriate level of amenity.

2.8. Therefore, we consider the site to be in a sustainable location, close to a number of services and facilities and highly accessible. It provides a good opportunity to make a valuable contribution towards meeting the Borough's development needs.













































P/300/15.1 - Land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road, Colchester 6

3. Comments on the Colchester Local Plan Publication Draft Document
3.1. On behalf of the Trustees of the S A Meller Estate we wish to make the following observations on the Colchester Local Plan Publication Draft Consultation. Overall, we agree with the vision and objectives set out in the Draft Local Plan, however, to ensure that the plan is robust and provides for flexibility, we make the following comments.

Section 1: Shared Strategic Plan

3.2. In respect of Policy SP1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development, we strongly support the inclusion of this policy in the Colchester Local Plan in line with Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF]. We are encouraged by the Council's desire to positively consider proposals that contribute to the sustainable development of Colchester and North Essex.

3.3. We support the proposed spatial strategy for growth set out in Policy SP2: Spatial Strategy for North Essex. The NPPF and the Draft Local Plan are underpinned by a 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'. It is therefore considered rational to direct development towards locations that are accessible and are within close proximity to a wide range of employment opportunities and local services and facilities.

3.4. With regards to Policy SP3: Meeting Housing Needs, we fully support the flexibility provided by the recognition that the development requirements outlined in this policy are a minimum and the positive approach to development proposals outside of the Local Plan allocations, where they support the overall spatial strategy. We consider that the land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road has sufficient capacity to deliver up to 30 dwellings, which would provide a range of dwelling types and sizes and contribute towards meeting the identified housing needs for the Colchester Borough.

3.5. We fully support the flexible approach to employment and retail development shown in Policy SP4: Providing Employment and Retail. In particular, we support the flexibility demonstrated in relation to the quantum of development across the plan period through the use of baseline and higher growth scenarios. However, in order to ensure the plan has a robust approach towards the provision of employment and retail land, we believe that it is important for the policy to clarify that the baseline development levels are a minimum requirement. This will ensure that the Borough provides the level of employment and retail development that is necessary to deliver the jobs required to sustain the anticipated population growth. As previously stated, we consider that the land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road has sufficient capacity to deliver up to 2.3 ha of employment land which would contribute towards meeting the identified needs for the Colchester Borough.

3.6. In respect of Policy SP6: Place Shaping Principles we fully support the recognition that good planning and good design are inseparable in line with Paragraph 56 of the NPPF. The proposed development scheme for the subject site could be designed with consideration



P/300/15.1 - Land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road, Colchester 7

for all of the criteria contained within the policy; the proposed development site could be designed in a manner that respects local character and context and ensures that it enhances the quality of the street scene, any scheme would seek to retain a significant proportion of the trees and hedgerows that bound the site and a large amount of additional planting could also be provided to ensure that the residential amenity of neighbouring properties to the west and future residents of the site is not adversely impacted. Furthermore, sufficient space would be provided on-site to allow for off-street car parking for all proposed dwellings.

Re: Colchester Local Plan Publication Draft for Consultation
Consultation under Regulation 19 of Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012
Submission of the Education and Skills Funding Agency
1. The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the development of planning policy at the local level.
2. The ESFA launched on 1st April 2017, brings together the existing responsibilities of the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and the Skills Funding Agency (SFA), to create a single funding agency accountable for funding education and training for children, young people and adults. The ESFA are accountable for £61 billion of funding a year for the education and training sector, including support for all state-provided education for 8 million children aged 3 to 16, and 1.6 million young people aged 16 to 19.
3. Under the provisions of the Education Act 2011 and the Academies Act 2010, all new state schools are now academies/free schools and the ESFA is the delivery body for many of these, rather than local education authorities. As such, we aim to work closely with local authority education departments and planning authorities to meet the demand for new school places and new schools. In this capacity, we would like to offer the following comments in response to the planning policy framework outlined in the above consultation document.
Comments on the Strategic Approach to New Schools in North Essex
4. The ESFA notes that the strategic policies in this Local Plan are contained in the plans for Braintree, Colchester and Tendring. Comments on these strategic policies are provided in this section. Comments on the policies specific to Colchester borough are provided separately in the following section.
5. The ESFA notes that significant growth in housing stock is expected across the North Essex districts of Braintree, Colchester and Tendring; the Local Plan confirms the annual housing target of 2,186 new homes a year (43,720 in total) for this area (excluding Chelmsford) over the plan period 2013 to 2037. The specific requirement for Colchester Borough is 920 homes per year (18,400 in total). This will place significant pressure on social infrastructure such as education facilities.
6. The ESFA welcomes reference within the plan (section 6B) to adopting a coordinated approach to infrastructure planning across North Essex, including by ensuring new development provides for new and expanded schools in accordance with the details in districts' Infrastructure Delivery Plans.
7. The ESFA supports the requirement established in policy SP5 for new development to be supported by the infrastructure required to meet the needs arising from that development. We also support the strategic education infrastructure priorities identified, particularly the focus on providing sufficient school places. The policy refers to "larger developments setting aside land and/or contributing to the cost of delivering land for new schools where required". We suggest it would also be useful to refer to developer contributions to the build cost of new schools here, to make it clear that for larger sites developers should be both providing the land for new schools (to meet demand arising from the new development) and funding or contributing to the cost of their construction. As such the Policy would read "...with larger developments setting aside land and/or contributing to the cost of delivering land for new schools where required, as well as funding or contributing to the cost of building the new schools". 'Larger developments' should also be clearly defined. These amendments would ensure that the delivery requirements are clear and that the plan is 'effective'.
8. The ESFA also welcomes the focus in policy SP7 on the sequencing of development and infrastructure provision to ensure that the latter is provided ahead of or in tandem with the development it supports. Policies SP 8, 9 and 10 relate to each of the three proposed Garden Communities. Each policy requires at least one secondary school, primary schools (number and size unspecified) and early-years facilities to be provided to serve new development. The Integrated Delivery Plans for each district provide further details of the number and size of primary and secondary schools required. These details should be included in the above mentioned policies to further demonstrate that the plan has been 'positively prepared' based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed infrastructure requirements.
9. The ESFA notes that a site specific Strategic Growth DPD will be developed for the garden communities (including East Colchester) and that this will include further details of how infrastructure will be delivered and phased alongside new development, including allocating specific sites for schools.
Comments on Colchester's Policies and Site Allocations for New Schools
10. The ESFA supports the principle of Colchester Borough Council safeguarding land for the provision of new schools to meet government planning policy objectives as set out in paragraph 72 of the NPPF. Ensuring there is an adequate supply of sites for schools is essential and will ensure that Colchester Borough Council can swiftly and flexibly respond to the existing and future need for school places over the plan period.
11. The site specific policies generally highlight the need for developments to contribute to the expansion and/or improvement of existing education facilities and/or associated infrastructure (e.g. access, drop-off/pick-up areas). Policy WC2: Stanway highlights on-site requirements for a primary school at Lakelands (already allocated as part of the previous Local Plan) and a primary school as part of the 630 home development to the north of London Road (2.1ha site specified). The primary school will be secured through a S106 agreement and co-located with an early years and childcare facility. The ESFA suggest that the wording of policy WC2 should be clarified to clearly identify the size of the primary schools required (p.21 of the Integrated Development Plan indicates primary schools should be 2FE), particularly given that the Integrated Delivery Plan highlights the need to explore options for providing additional school places in the Stanway area before the site allocations are finalised (para 3.33). This would provide greater clarity for developers, based on current evidence.
12. While it is important to provide clarity to developers, retaining a degree of flexibility is also necessary given that the need for school places can vary over time due to the many variables affecting it. Policy PP1 provides some flexibility by highlighting that proposals will be required to make contributions to the cost of infrastructure improvements "...as required and supported by up-to-date evidence from appropriate sources including the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP)..." With regard to delivery of school places, it may be helpful if the council also highlighted that:
- specific requirements for developer contributions to enlargements to existing schools and the provision of new schools for any particular site will be confirmed at application stage to ensure the latest data on identified need informs delivery;
- requirements to deliver schools on some sites could change in future if it were demonstrated and agreed that the site had become surplus to requirements, and is therefore no longer required for school use.
13. The ESFA note that Policy SC2: Middlewick Ranges does not include any specific reference to school provision on this site. However, the Integrated Delivery Plan indicates that a school site of 2.8ha should be secured as part of this site allocation to deliver a primary school of at least 3FE to support growth of sites in Colchester South and South East. The school provision identified in the IDP should be carried through to the site allocation unless circumstances have changed (e.g. provision to meet the need arising from this growth has been secured elsewhere), in which case this should be explained.
14. It would be useful if a background paper could be developed setting out clearly how the forecast housing growth at allocated sites has been translated (via an evidence based pupil yield calculation) into an identified need for specific numbers of school places and new schools at different times, expanding on the information in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the site specific policies. This could also reference Essex County Council's recently published 10 year plan for meeting the demand for school places . This would help to demonstrate more clearly that the approach to the planning and delivery of education infrastructure is justified based on proportionate evidence. If required, the ESFA can assist in providing Colchester with good practice examples of background documents relevant to this stage of your emerging Plan.
15. The ESFA recommends that where sites are identified for new schools, local authorities should consider safeguarding additional land for any future expansion of these schools where demand indicates this might be necessary. For an example of this approach, see draft policy CC7 in Milton Keynes's Plan:MK Preferred Option draft from March 2017 .
16. The support for "appropriate and well-designed" applications for new schools in policy DM3 is welcomed, however it would be useful if further guidance could be provided in the supporting text on what principles will be used to judge if a school proposal is 'well-designed'. Given the requirement for all Local Plans to be consistent with national policy, the ESFA also welcomes the explicit reference in paragraph 15.11 to the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for LPAs to take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of communities, giving great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools to widen choice in education (para 72).
17. In light of the Duty to Cooperate on strategic priorities such as community infrastructure (NPPF para 156) , the ESFA encourages close working with local authorities during all stages of planning policy development to help guide the development of new school infrastructure and to meet the predicted demand for primary and secondary school places. Please add the ESFA to your list of relevant organisations with which you engage in preparing future Local Plan documents.
Developer Contributions and CIL
18. Paragraphs 12.76 to 12.82 set out the approach taken to securing the delivery of supporting infrastructure. Developers will be expected to contribute towards meeting "appropriate infrastructure costs" through section 106 planning obligations and/or community infrastructure levy (CIL). Policy SG7 states that "Permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is sufficient appropriate infrastructure capacity to support the development or that such capacity will be delivered by the proposal." Policy PP1 provides further clarity, stating that "...all proposals will be required to make contributions to the cost of infrastructure improvements and/or community facilities as required and supported by up-to-date evidence from appropriate sources including the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), Parish Council, or specially commissioned work." It also confirms this will be via CIL or s106.
19. One of the tests of soundness is that a Local Plan is 'effective' i.e. the plan should be deliverable over its period. In this context and with specific regard to planning for schools, there is a need to ensure that education contributions made by developers are sufficient to deliver the additional school places required to meet the increase in demand generated by new developments. The ESFA note that Essex County Council has produced a Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (revised 2016) that includes an explanation of contributions towards expanding existing schools and creating new schools. It would be helpful and relevant for this document to be referenced in the Local Plan alongside policy SG7 and/or policy PP1.
20. The ESFA would be particularly interested in responding to any update to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan or review of infrastructure requirements, or any CIL proposals. As such, please add the ESFA to the database for future CIL consultations.
Forward Funding
21. In light of the level of new housing being planned for (including within the three proposed Garden Communities) and the requirements for new schools to support this, emerging ESFA proposals for forward funding schools as part of large residential developments may be of interest to the council. We would be happy to meet to discuss this opportunity at an appropriate time.
Conclusion
22. Finally, I hope the above comments are helpful in shaping Colchester's Local Plan, with specific regard to the provision of land for new schools.
23. Please notify the ESFA when the Local Plan is submitted for examination, the Inspector's report is published and the Local Plan is adopted.
24. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding this response. The ESFA looks forward to continuing to work with the Council to aid in the preparation of the Local Plan.

Yours faithfully,
DC McNab
Douglas McNab MRTPI
Forward Planning Manager

Re: Colchester Local Plan Publication Draft for Consultation
Consultation under Regulation 19 of Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012
Submission of the Education and Skills Funding Agency
1. The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the development of planning policy at the local level.
2. The ESFA launched on 1st April 2017, brings together the existing responsibilities of the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and the Skills Funding Agency (SFA), to create a single funding agency accountable for funding education and training for children, young people and adults. The ESFA are accountable for £61 billion of funding a year for the education and training sector, including support for all state-provided education for 8 million children aged 3 to 16, and 1.6 million young people aged 16 to 19.
3. Under the provisions of the Education Act 2011 and the Academies Act 2010, all new state schools are now academies/free schools and the ESFA is the delivery body for many of these, rather than local education authorities. As such, we aim to work closely with local authority education departments and planning authorities to meet the demand for new school places and new schools. In this capacity, we would like to offer the following comments in response to the planning policy framework outlined in the above consultation document.
Comments on the Strategic Approach to New Schools in North Essex
4. The ESFA notes that the strategic policies in this Local Plan are contained in the plans for Braintree, Colchester and Tendring. Comments on these strategic policies are provided in this section. Comments on the policies specific to Colchester borough are provided separately in the following section.
5. The ESFA notes that significant growth in housing stock is expected across the North Essex districts of Braintree, Colchester and Tendring; the Local Plan confirms the annual housing target of 2,186 new homes a year (43,720 in total) for this area (excluding Chelmsford) over the plan period 2013 to 2037. The specific requirement for Colchester Borough is 920 homes per year (18,400 in total). This will place significant pressure on social infrastructure such as education facilities.
6. The ESFA welcomes reference within the plan (section 6B) to adopting a coordinated approach to infrastructure planning across North Essex, including by ensuring new development provides for new and expanded schools in accordance with the details in districts' Infrastructure Delivery Plans.
7. The ESFA supports the requirement established in policy SP5 for new development to be supported by the infrastructure required to meet the needs arising from that development. We also support the strategic education infrastructure priorities identified, particularly the focus on providing sufficient school places. The policy refers to "larger developments setting aside land and/or contributing to the cost of delivering land for new schools where required". We suggest it would also be useful to refer to developer contributions to the build cost of new schools here, to make it clear that for larger sites developers should be both providing the land for new schools (to meet demand arising from the new development) and funding or contributing to the cost of their construction. As such the Policy would read "...with larger developments setting aside land and/or contributing to the cost of delivering land for new schools where required, as well as funding or contributing to the cost of building the new schools". 'Larger developments' should also be clearly defined. These amendments would ensure that the delivery requirements are clear and that the plan is 'effective'.
8. The ESFA also welcomes the focus in policy SP7 on the sequencing of development and infrastructure provision to ensure that the latter is provided ahead of or in tandem with the development it supports. Policies SP 8, 9 and 10 relate to each of the three proposed Garden Communities. Each policy requires at least one secondary school, primary schools (number and size unspecified) and early-years facilities to be provided to serve new development. The Integrated Delivery Plans for each district provide further details of the number and size of primary and secondary schools required. These details should be included in the above mentioned policies to further demonstrate that the plan has been 'positively prepared' based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed infrastructure requirements.
9. The ESFA notes that a site specific Strategic Growth DPD will be developed for the garden communities (including East Colchester) and that this will include further details of how infrastructure will be delivered and phased alongside new development, including allocating specific sites for schools.
Comments on Colchester's Policies and Site Allocations for New Schools
10. The ESFA supports the principle of Colchester Borough Council safeguarding land for the provision of new schools to meet government planning policy objectives as set out in paragraph 72 of the NPPF. Ensuring there is an adequate supply of sites for schools is essential and will ensure that Colchester Borough Council can swiftly and flexibly respond to the existing and future need for school places over the plan period.
11. The site specific policies generally highlight the need for developments to contribute to the expansion and/or improvement of existing education facilities and/or associated infrastructure (e.g. access, drop-off/pick-up areas). Policy WC2: Stanway highlights on-site requirements for a primary school at Lakelands (already allocated as part of the previous Local Plan) and a primary school as part of the 630 home development to the north of London Road (2.1ha site specified). The primary school will be secured through a S106 agreement and co-located with an early years and childcare facility. The ESFA suggest that the wording of policy WC2 should be clarified to clearly identify the size of the primary schools required (p.21 of the Integrated Development Plan indicates primary schools should be 2FE), particularly given that the Integrated Delivery Plan highlights the need to explore options for providing additional school places in the Stanway area before the site allocations are finalised (para 3.33). This would provide greater clarity for developers, based on current evidence.
12. While it is important to provide clarity to developers, retaining a degree of flexibility is also necessary given that the need for school places can vary over time due to the many variables affecting it. Policy PP1 provides some flexibility by highlighting that proposals will be required to make contributions to the cost of infrastructure improvements "...as required and supported by up-to-date evidence from appropriate sources including the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP)..." With regard to delivery of school places, it may be helpful if the council also highlighted that:
- specific requirements for developer contributions to enlargements to existing schools and the provision of new schools for any particular site will be confirmed at application stage to ensure the latest data on identified need informs delivery;
- requirements to deliver schools on some sites could change in future if it were demonstrated and agreed that the site had become surplus to requirements, and is therefore no longer required for school use.
13. The ESFA note that Policy SC2: Middlewick Ranges does not include any specific reference to school provision on this site. However, the Integrated Delivery Plan indicates that a school site of 2.8ha should be secured as part of this site allocation to deliver a primary school of at least 3FE to support growth of sites in Colchester South and South East. The school provision identified in the IDP should be carried through to the site allocation unless circumstances have changed (e.g. provision to meet the need arising from this growth has been secured elsewhere), in which case this should be explained.
14. It would be useful if a background paper could be developed setting out clearly how the forecast housing growth at allocated sites has been translated (via an evidence based pupil yield calculation) into an identified need for specific numbers of school places and new schools at different times, expanding on the information in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the site specific policies. This could also reference Essex County Council's recently published 10 year plan for meeting the demand for school places . This would help to demonstrate more clearly that the approach to the planning and delivery of education infrastructure is justified based on proportionate evidence. If required, the ESFA can assist in providing Colchester with good practice examples of background documents relevant to this stage of your emerging Plan.
15. The ESFA recommends that where sites are identified for new schools, local authorities should consider safeguarding additional land for any future expansion of these schools where demand indicates this might be necessary. For an example of this approach, see draft policy CC7 in Milton Keynes's Plan:MK Preferred Option draft from March 2017 .
16. The support for "appropriate and well-designed" applications for new schools in policy DM3 is welcomed, however it would be useful if further guidance could be provided in the supporting text on what principles will be used to judge if a school proposal is 'well-designed'. Given the requirement for all Local Plans to be consistent with national policy, the ESFA also welcomes the explicit reference in paragraph 15.11 to the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for LPAs to take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of communities, giving great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools to widen choice in education (para 72).
17. In light of the Duty to Cooperate on strategic priorities such as community infrastructure (NPPF para 156) , the ESFA encourages close working with local authorities during all stages of planning policy development to help guide the development of new school infrastructure and to meet the predicted demand for primary and secondary school places. Please add the ESFA to your list of relevant organisations with which you engage in preparing future Local Plan documents.
Developer Contributions and CIL
18. Paragraphs 12.76 to 12.82 set out the approach taken to securing the delivery of supporting infrastructure. Developers will be expected to contribute towards meeting "appropriate infrastructure costs" through section 106 planning obligations and/or community infrastructure levy (CIL). Policy SG7 states that "Permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is sufficient appropriate infrastructure capacity to support the development or that such capacity will be delivered by the proposal." Policy PP1 provides further clarity, stating that "...all proposals will be required to make contributions to the cost of infrastructure improvements and/or community facilities as required and supported by up-to-date evidence from appropriate sources including the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), Parish Council, or specially commissioned work." It also confirms this will be via CIL or s106.
19. One of the tests of soundness is that a Local Plan is 'effective' i.e. the plan should be deliverable over its period. In this context and with specific regard to planning for schools, there is a need to ensure that education contributions made by developers are sufficient to deliver the additional school places required to meet the increase in demand generated by new developments. The ESFA note that Essex County Council has produced a Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (revised 2016) that includes an explanation of contributions towards expanding existing schools and creating new schools. It would be helpful and relevant for this document to be referenced in the Local Plan alongside policy SG7 and/or policy PP1.
20. The ESFA would be particularly interested in responding to any update to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan or review of infrastructure requirements, or any CIL proposals. As such, please add the ESFA to the database for future CIL consultations.
Forward Funding
21. In light of the level of new housing being planned for (including within the three proposed Garden Communities) and the requirements for new schools to support this, emerging ESFA proposals for forward funding schools as part of large residential developments may be of interest to the council. We would be happy to meet to discuss this opportunity at an appropriate time.
Conclusion
22. Finally, I hope the above comments are helpful in shaping Colchester's Local Plan, with specific regard to the provision of land for new schools.
23. Please notify the ESFA when the Local Plan is submitted for examination, the Inspector's report is published and the Local Plan is adopted.
24. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding this response. The ESFA looks forward to continuing to work with the Council to aid in the preparation of the Local Plan.

Yours faithfully,
DC McNab
Douglas McNab MRTPI
Forward Planning Manager

See attached response forms

Given the similarity of the policy with the previous version, my client repeats the previous concerns raised regarding the overly prescriptive elements contained within this policy. The second bullet point requires all new development to exhibit individual architectural quality within well considered public and private realms. This is a vague statement that taken to extreme could impose an unnecessarily high level of design quality that may not be appropriate to either the scheme or the area. The design requirements of the NPPF are adequately addressed in the first bullet point of this policy. The sixth bullet point requires the enhancement of the public realm through the provision of specified measures. This may not be appropriate or possible in all cases and as such the policy is unnecessarily rigid. The eighth bullet point assumes that all development will provide parking facilities. This may not be the case. For example, some development proposals may involve sites that are already adequately served by parking. The nineth bullet point has been expanded to require all new development to provide an integrated network of multi-functional public open space and green and blue infrastructure that connects with existing green infrastructure where possible. There is no definition of the term blue infrastructure anywhere in the Plan. Furthermore, this requirement may not be appropriate or necessary for all development and as such is an unjustified requirement. As currently drafted the policy is unjustified, inconsistent with national policy and prejudicial to the effectiveness of the plan.

The previous objection to the use of the word 'must' in the first paragraph of this policy is maintained as it is retained in this latest draft. As commented previously, it is important that the wording of this policy takes into account that a developer is rarely the provider of infrastructure. A good example is healthcare provision. A developer can reasonably be required to contribute towards healthcare (in the absence of CIL) but cannot be responsible for delivering the healthcare facility. The delivery of the facility relies on the actions of NHS England not the developer. As currently worded the policy is not consistent with national policy.

It is noted that the table continues to leave the annual requirement as a fixed figure rather than a minimum target which would be consistent with the stated minimum supply across the plan period. The previous request to refer to the annual supply as a minimum target is therefore repeated. It is also noted that the Plan has not been altered to explain how the need arising from London has been addressed. The previous request to address this is also repeated. It is considered that these issues raise doubts about the extent to which the plan is positively prepared and will be effective.

This policy advises that infrastructure requirements are (in part) to be identified by the Parish Council. It is acknowledged that Parish Councils will have an understanding of the local area but it is not an infrastructure provider and therefore cannot fully understand the infrastructure needs of the area. Parish Councils should not be the relevant consultee in this matter and so reference to this is objected to.
The policy also refers to meeting 'Borough wide requirements', which suggests that impacts beyond those generated by the scheme are to be addressed. This is not appropriate or lawful and therefore this part of the policy is objected to.
Criterion iii requires schemes to make a proportionate contribution towards addressing area-wide transport issues. My client objects to this as it is not appropriate or lawful to expect future developments to address existing problems. Furthermore, it is not possible for a developer to identify the likely costs of bringing a site forward when considering the wording of this criterion. It does not and cannot clarify what proportionate means or what costs it will be proportionate to.
Criterion vi of this policy includes specific and potentially onerous requirements regarding archaeological investigation. It is inflexible and does not allow for a proportionate investigation to reflect the archaeological potential of an individual site.
The wording of the policy is not considered to be positively prepared, lacks justification and is contrary to national policy

see attached table