TIP14: Highland Nursery and Elms Farm

In our previous comments we had asked that the Parish Council consider reference to Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs) being the preferred method for surface water management for the proposed allocation sites.

We note that additional text has been added to include reference to use of multi-functional SuDS for these allocation sites which is fully supported.

Why not use this site as a country park so as not to displace the wildlife, deer, bats, rabbits and numerous varieties of birds.

Make the development much smaller so as to make the houses attractive and inviting and have more green space around them.

Elms Farm is far too small for this amount of houses it will result in another concrete jungle like Grove park, why not have numerous smaller sites with 50 or so houses spread around the village, to keep it looking like a village.
Oak road is so narrow it struggles with parking, too many lorries and vans, most traffic travels in excess of 40mph, this development would make it much worse, a pedestrian crossing there is asking for trouble.

Policy TIP14: Highlands Nursery and Elms Farm has been positively prepared and represents a ‘sound’ and ‘robust’ overarching planning policy to guide these site allocations as:

• There has been a transparent, objective and robust methodology for assessing the site allocations and that has been applied on a consistent basis.

• The consultation process at each stage has been thorough and wide-reaching, covering all aspects of the community and stakeholders. The Parish Council has engaged with the landowners of these sites constructively and fairly.

• It is clear from the evidence gathered that the strategic infrastructure providers are capable of servicing the needs created by the allocations within this policy.

• The land at Highlands Nursery and Elms Farm represents the most sustainable location within Tiptree to meet the vision and objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan objectives.
Expanding upon the last bullet point, it is clear that Highlands Nursery and Elms Farm are the most appropriate site allocations, as:
This land is available for development – The landowners have been actively engaged with the Parish Council and have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to reaffirm their commitment and willingness to bring this land forward for development through the Neighbourhood Plan process.
The land is suitable for allocation – The landowners have been involved in the neighbourhood planning process from very early in the process and have developed a strong working relationship with the Neighbourhood Plan Working Group, and have sought to agree a collective vision for this land that meets the needs and aspirations of the local community, and delivers the essential local infrastructure, including the need and local desire to reduce traffic travelling through the village.

There are no known constraints that would prevent the development from being delivered, as evidenced by Tiptree Parish Council and Colchester Borough Council’s emerging Local Plan evidence base.

This allocation will also deliver essential highways infrastructure that will relieve the existing congestion problems within Tiptree, as well as help to mitigate the impact of any new trips generated by the proposed developments. No other site put forward can achieve this objective. This approach has been supported by Essex Highways, as evidenced in the correspondence between them and Tiptree Parish Council.

Overall, this site allocation would represent a logical extension to the village that would contribute to the strategic aims of the emerging Colchester Borough Local Plan and that of the Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan.

Development at these sites is deliverable – The site is viable for development. The Colchester Local Plan Viability Study (2017) provides the evidence to demonstrate that a major development in Tiptree would be viable.

The Neighbourhood Plan process has fully considered all the reasonable alternative sites, and through this process it is clear no other site as closely matches the aim and objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan or scored as highly in terms of the sustainability benefits.

The approach followed complies with the guidance set out in the paragraph 098 of the PPG [Reference ID: 41-098-20190509] as it is clear that the Parish Council has followed the relevant guidance and neighbourhood planning toolkits on assessing sites and they have carried out a strategic environment assessment. They have also clearly identified on a map all the sites they have considered.

By allocating the land at Highlands Nursery and Elms Farm, the Neighbourhood Plan has demonstrated that is has been planned positively for new homes, and provides greater certainty for the infrastructure providers and the community.

trust these comments will be considered during the Independent Examination and we look forward to the Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan being taken forward to the Referendum.

I understand that the Examination will be heard via written representations, but in the event that a Public Hearing is called, as the agent representing the landowners of the proposed allocations under Policy TIP14, we would request attendance at such a hearing.

Objection (TIP14) to the ELMS Farm and Nursery Site Allocations due to impact on the Heritage Assets

Reason:
The proposal is in conflict with proposed policy TIP17: Historic Environment
Any listed building or heritage asset and their setting within the Neighbourhood Plan Area should be maintained or where possible to protect from any future development.

Proposed development particularly at Elms Farm, but also potentially at Highland Nursery will impact on the setting of a number of Grade II listed buildings. The TNP fails to take into account Historic England’s guidance on setting. Broadly, the guidance outlines that the extent of setting embraces all of its surroundings from which an asset can be experienced. It also makes clear that settings of heritage assets do not have fixed boundaries, and elements of a setting may have a positive or negative contribution to the significance of the asset. The open countryside contributes to the settings of these particular heritage assets.

The provision of 450 homes in this area will have a significant impact on the setting of these listed buildings, positively contributes to the significance of the heritage assets. Development of this scale around these listed building would result in substantial harm.

Paragraphs 195 and 196 of the NPPF also require Local Planning Authorities to weigh that harm against the public benefits of the development proposed, including securing the optimal viable use of the heritage asset. Any harm should require clear and convincing justification and can arise from the loss of historic fabric or features of significance as well as impact on the setting of a heritage asset. In accordance with paragraph 194 of the NPPF, both ‘substantial’ or ‘less than substantial’, any harm should be avoided and should be exceptional in the case of Grade II listed buildings and wholly exceptional in the case assets of highest significance. The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to consider whether the public benefits of the proposed development outweigh the harm that may arise and whether it is justified. In the case of substantial harm, Local Planning Authorities should consider whether the harm is necessary to deliver the public benefits. The greater the harm the greater the justification required. It is considered that the provision of housing would not outweigh the perceived harm and that any allocated sites should be located away from heritage assets and their setting.

A reduction in the number of houses for the Elms Farm Site.
An increase in the allocated off road parking spaces per household from 1 space per 1 bedroom dwelling to 2 spaces per 1 bedroom dwelling.
The optimum route corridor (indicative) and the primary streets be guaranteed, to prevent a significant increase in through traffic on Oak road.
Consideration of the provision of parking laybys in existing roads, as well as the new estates, to increase available street parking for current and future residents and to prevent traffic being impeded.

There are several houses and blocks of flats in the streets adjacent to Oak Road, which do not have off-street parking and therefore rely solely on street parking. Due to the large volume of vehicles on the estate, finding street parking is already very difficult and often results in residents having to park along Oak Road. Even the street parking along there has become increasingly difficult to find. With an additional 230 homes on the Elms Farm site, unless suitable off street parking is provided for every household there will potentially be even greater demand for street parking in the vicinity.
In addition to this, Oak road is already used as a cut through road between Kelvedon Road and Maypole/Colchester Road, as map 8.2 shows, and the Elms Farm site would increase this flow of traffic significantly, especially as linking of the new primary roads to the north joining the Highlands Nursery and Elms Farm sites to Kelvedon Road, is not guaranteed. Residents from the 230 new dwellings on the Elms Farm site wishing to drive towards Inworth and Feering would all therefore need to drive down Oak Road, increasing traffic, noise and pollution for those of us already living in the vicinity and reducing the amount of safe street-parking available.
With a large increase in population, the impact on services such as GP and Dental surgeries also needs to be considered and provisions made to increase these in correlation to the increase in demand.

This revised policy is supported as it now provides more detail for the development of this site

Fully support this policy. The primary street will in time help to divert some traffic away from Baynards School, Windmill Green and Thurstable School, whilst reducing the pressure on Oak Road an ancient community of Tiptree which is lacking in footpaths and that is often used as a rat run. It will also enable traffic entering Tiptree from the A12 to head towards the communities to the east without having to use the B1022 and B1023 to any great extent..

Thank you for the opportunity to be consulted on Tiptree’s Neighbourhood Plan and on behalf of Feering Parish Council we comment as follows:

POLICY TIP01: Tiptree Settlement Boundaries
• The 600 homes allocation does not include the Wilkin & Sons site (Developer: Crest Nicolson) or the Vine Road development - both of which are nearing completion and these sites are closer to the village Centre.
• Considering Colchester's Council's Local Plan has effectively been rejected due to the Inspector finding two of the Garden Villages unsound, do the sections of Tiptree's plan referencing Colchester’s Local Plan including the CBC required housing number of 600 homes need to be re-visited?

POLICY TP05: Dwelling Mix
• The new homes are not located near to Tiptree Centre and as a need to provide for an increasing number of older residents has been identified, the proposed sites - especially the north-west Elm Farm site isolates the older community from amenities.

8. TRAFFIC & MOVEMENT: policies TIP06 and TIP07.
12. SITE ALLOCATIONS: policies TIP12 - TIP14
The objectives and text mention the issues with inadequate transport links to the A12 and neighbouring towns and railway stations, but these are not addressed in any of the policies.
• The majority of the proposed allocation of homes (600) are allocated near to the B1023, Kelvedon / Inworth Road. This additional scale of development would have a significant impact on the existing overstretched local highway infrastructure and congestion problems which would be further compounded by the other proposed Inworth road (housing)developments sites (i.e. Crown Estates Land in Feering).
• To alleviate this, the Tiptree plan policies should /must include the requirement for an all ways A12 junction including a means of connecting the Inworth /Kelvedon Road to the A12 (southbound and northbound) that takes away the need for traffic to go through Feering and Kelvedon to access the A12. These infrastructure improvements need to be in place prior to / contiguous with these sites being constructed in order to remove traffic from the current overstretched and congested highway infrastructure.
• TIP 14 C: The north-west Elms Farm site (225 or 230 homes allocation), which is on the north-west boundary of Tiptree parish, appears to be particularly unsustainable and intrusive into the surrounding countryside. The plan includes an "indicative route corridor" which is across farmland in the parish of Messing-cum-Inworth not Tiptree. The text on page 38 specifically states that "No development is planned in the section between these two areas that lies outside the parish boundary and therefore outside the direct influence of this Neighbourhood Plan".

GENERAL COMMENTS
• There appears to be little on sustainability and/or climate change policies, merely ensuring that traffic flows freely within Tiptree, hence the allocation of development near to the Inworth Road (refer to the above comments).
• We consider that there has been a lack of engagement with Feering Parish Council particularly with regards to transport (A12, railway station) and traffic matters especially as we have common interests and we further extend our invitation to attend our joint Neighbourhood plan meetings which are attended by other surrounding parishes.

As outlined in our 17 July 2019 representation submitted during the previous round of consultation, Granville Developments are joint promoters with Mersea Homes of land forming a major part o the Elms Farm allocation at the northern end of Tiptree. As such, we lend strong support to the Highland Nursery and Elm Farm allocation and Policy TIP14.

We foresee the need to work closely with the local community in the future in order to put flesh on the bones of Policy TIP14 and Sections A&C of that policy in particular.

With regard, therefore, to Policy TIP14 we register the following comments:

A(i) Consideration should be given to the inclusion of a references to special housing or key working housing rather than just “affordable housing”

A(ii) This limb is concerned with dwelling size rather than type and therefore it is incongruous to make special reference to bungalows as such can be larger than small two storey dwellings.

A(iii) support.

A(iv) The reference to Perrywood Garden Centre should be replaced with “nearby centres of employment”.

A(v) support.

A(vi) support.

A(vii) support.

A(viii) support.

C(i) support.

C(ii) support.

C(iii) we consider the last sentence referring to the Colchester Local Plan to be superfluous as the Neighbourhood Plan must not be in conflict with the Local Plan and will ultimately take precedence in the implementation of policy.

C(iv) support.

C(v) The reader of this limb of the policy will not be clear as to which land is being referred as the land behind the Bonnie Blue Oak is not identified or defined in the Plan.

C(vi) Support.

See attachment.

See attachment.

See attachment.

See attachment and Site Plan.

See Attachment and Site Plan.