West Colchester

Lesley and to who other this concerns, I have decided to 'E' mail instead of all the messing about with each topic on the Colchester Council web site.
After reading the Stanway Parish Council news letter on the local plan I have decided to put forward some ideas and views. My answers to the six questions as follows:
1) Swan Green should be an green open space, too many areas like this are built on and lost.
2) The old Sainsbury's site should be a mixture of leisure and business, where by the business being the small shops. We currently have many business parks like Peartree road, Angora Park, Westside. These bring in many large vehicles and large white vans all speeding along our roads. We just don't need any more.
3) Houses on the Fiveways Fruit Farm should and will need an arterial road to restrict lorries taking short cuts on the Stanway roads. Even now Council lorries, Tarmac & heavy goods lorries still cut through Winstree road, Villa road via Warren lane, Dyers road through to Winstree road, again many speeding.
4) Roman river just leave it alone and protect its history.
5) Western Relief Road, Well there's me thinking Bernie Ecclestone had bought it for racing. Does it need a 30mph limit and crossings, more like speed cameras and speed bumps.
What a shambles this road has become, 3am in the morning at week-ends early mornings at the week-ends, its like living next to Silverstone. Does any one with a brain need to answer this one.
6) Road Improvements, now is that filling in the death trap holes or sorting out the lorry short cuts or the speeding vehicles, which are every where.

Now my views on other issues.
It's good to hear that Daniel Watts has now said we need more road improvements and crossings in Stanway if we keep building more homes and businesses, but again no one is prepared to sort out Heckford Bridge junction with its chaotic layout and traffic jams most days. Yes its under E.C.C control like most roads, and as normal bring the roads to a stand still before sorting. We have many problems in Stanway and its getting worse with the zest to build more homes, more businesses, we are forgetting the noise, smell, (Cory Waste) traffic jams and fumes from vehicles all making it an Industrial area where noise and pollution are in control.

Lesley and to who other this concerns, I have decided to 'E' mail instead of all the messing about with each topic on the Colchester Council web site.
After reading the Stanway Parish Council news letter on the local plan I have decided to put forward some ideas and views. My answers to the six questions as follows:
1) Swan Green should be an green open space, too many areas like this are built on and lost.
2) The old Sainsbury's site should be a mixture of leisure and business, where by the business being the small shops. We currently have many business parks like Peartree road, Angora Park, Westside. These bring in many large vehicles and large white vans all speeding along our roads. We just don't need any more.
3) Houses on the Fiveways Fruit Farm should and will need an arterial road to restrict lorries taking short cuts on the Stanway roads. Even now Council lorries, Tarmac & heavy goods lorries still cut through Winstree road, Villa road via Warren lane, Dyers road through to Winstree road, again many speeding.
4) Roman river just leave it alone and protect its history.
5) Western Relief Road, Well there's me thinking Bernie Ecclestone had bought it for racing. Does it need a 30mph limit and crossings, more like speed cameras and speed bumps.
What a shambles this road has become, 3am in the morning at week-ends early mornings at the week-ends, its like living next to Silverstone. Does any one with a brain need to answer this one.
6) Road Improvements, now is that filling in the death trap holes or sorting out the lorry short cuts or the speeding vehicles, which are every where.

Now my views on other issues.
It's good to hear that Daniel Watts has now said we need more road improvements and crossings in Stanway if we keep building more homes and businesses, but again no one is prepared to sort out Heckford Bridge junction with its chaotic layout and traffic jams most days. Yes its under E.C.C control like most roads, and as normal bring the roads to a stand still before sorting. We have many problems in Stanway and its getting worse with the zest to build more homes, more businesses, we are forgetting the noise, smell, (Cory Waste) traffic jams and fumes from vehicles all making it an Industrial area where noise and pollution are in control.

Lesley and to who other this concerns, I have decided to 'E' mail instead of all the messing about with each topic on the Colchester Council web site.
After reading the Stanway Parish Council news letter on the local plan I have decided to put forward some ideas and views. My answers to the six questions as follows:
1) Swan Green should be an green open space, too many areas like this are built on and lost.
2) The old Sainsbury's site should be a mixture of leisure and business, where by the business being the small shops. We currently have many business parks like Peartree road, Angora Park, Westside. These bring in many large vehicles and large white vans all speeding along our roads. We just don't need any more.
3) Houses on the Fiveways Fruit Farm should and will need an arterial road to restrict lorries taking short cuts on the Stanway roads. Even now Council lorries, Tarmac & heavy goods lorries still cut through Winstree road, Villa road via Warren lane, Dyers road through to Winstree road, again many speeding.
4) Roman river just leave it alone and protect its history.
5) Western Relief Road, Well there's me thinking Bernie Ecclestone had bought it for racing. Does it need a 30mph limit and crossings, more like speed cameras and speed bumps.
What a shambles this road has become, 3am in the morning at week-ends early mornings at the week-ends, its like living next to Silverstone. Does any one with a brain need to answer this one.
6) Road Improvements, now is that filling in the death trap holes or sorting out the lorry short cuts or the speeding vehicles, which are every where.

Now my views on other issues.
It's good to hear that Daniel Watts has now said we need more road improvements and crossings in Stanway if we keep building more homes and businesses, but again no one is prepared to sort out Heckford Bridge junction with its chaotic layout and traffic jams most days. Yes its under E.C.C control like most roads, and as normal bring the roads to a stand still before sorting. We have many problems in Stanway and its getting worse with the zest to build more homes, more businesses, we are forgetting the noise, smell, (Cory Waste) traffic jams and fumes from vehicles all making it an Industrial area where noise and pollution are in control.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) wishes to make the follow representations on the Colchester Preferred Options Local Plan which has been published for public consultation until 16 September 2016.

Middlewick Ranges, Colchester

The MOD is seeking the inclusion of an area of land at Middlewick Ranges, Colchester within the Local Plan as a housing allocation site for up to 2,000 dwellings. The site, which is currently used as a firing range, extends to an area of 84.695 hectares and is shown outlined in red on the attached plan.

Background
Middlewick Ranges was one of 13 sites across the Defence Estate that was the subject of a Ministerial Announcement on 6 September 2016.
The MOD is nearing the completion of an ambitious Estate Optimisation Strategy programme which will provide a plan for a smaller, but significantly better Defence Estate to meet the needs of the Armed Forces. It is expected that the MOD will announce the finalised Estate Optimisation Strategy later this year; however it was confirmed on 6 September that Middlewick Ranges was one of another 13 sites to be released. Land at the 13 sites covers more than 1,200 hectares and is expected to provide space for up to 17,000 new homes.

Last week's announcement is part of the department's strategy to reduce the size of its estate by 30% by 2040, resulting in a smaller, but better Defence estate to cater for the future Armed Forces, and delivers upon the commitments made in the Strategic Defence & Security Review 2015 (SDSR15).
The Estate Optimisation Strategy will reduce the size of the MOD estate through the sale of sites for which there is no longer a long-term Defence requirement and allowing the co-location of similar functions. This will not only reduce unnecessary estate running costs for Defence, but also free up space for up to 55,000 homes across the UK.

It is anticipated that these will contribute some £225 million toward the MOD's £1 billion target for land release sales as set out in the SDSR.

These sites will also contribute to the Government commitment to provide land for 160,000 homes in this Parliament and the MOD's target to provide land for 55,000 houses as set out above.
.
The MOD has only therefore very recently been in a position to promote the site at Middlewick Ranges for housing development, and that is the reason it has not submitted representations earlier in the Local Plan process.

The MOD would welcome an on-going dialogue with the Council in order to determine how best the outcomes of the Estate Optimisation Strategy can be accommodated in the Colchester area.

Supporting Information

Site Location and Description

The previously developed site of Middlewick Ranges comprises a military live firing range and training area. It extends to approximately 85 hectares and is adjacent to the Colchester settlement boundary with predominately residential uses to the east, west and north. The site is bounded to the north and northeast by Abbotts Road and to the northwest by Mersea Road and it forms a logical extension to the existing built up area of Colchester.

The site is mainly flat with some minor ground undulations. There are military earthworks to provide firing points and stop butts.

Colchester Borough Council Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2016

It is noted that Middlewick Ranges is included in the Council's published Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA) dated August 2016 (site reference COL71); due to the site having been assessed in an earlier study by the Council.

The overall rating for the site (page 66 of the SLAA document) is shown to be 'amber'.

It is stated on page 23 of the SLAA that:

'Sites assigned an amber rating had an issue or issues which whilst not significant enough to rule out development completely, were nonetheless significant enough to be highlighted in the site's overall rating. Sites were given an amber rating if the issues affecting the site were able to be overcome through reasonable mitigation measures. For example sites with no current availability may have been given an amber rating if the site's suitability and achievability rated highly (in the expectation that the site would become available in the near future). Essentially an amber rating means the site needs further consideration of key issues before being allocated for development in the Local Plan.'

The Middlewick Ranges site is shown to have been rated 'green' with respect to stage two of the assessment relating to suitability and sustainability and the criteria used to assess sites for this stage of the assessment process are set out on pages 12 to 18 of the SLAA.

It is stated on page 12 of the document that:

'Stage 2 of the site assessment had the purpose of assessing sites' suitability and sustainability. A site is considered to be suitable for development if it is free from constraints, or where any constraints affecting the land can be overcome through reasonable mitigation. Suitability constraints include physical constraints such as the site's relationship to the relevant settlement boundary and the capacity for highways access to site. Additionally there are environmental constraints to assess such as the impact on landscape character and the effects of development on wildlife sites. A site's suitability is also affected by its sustainability level, that is how close it is located to existing services and facilities or whether development of the site could accommodate new services and facilities within its boundaries.'

It is clear therefore from this assessment that the Council already considers the site to be 'suitable' for development and in a sustainable location.

In terms of the sites 'availability' Middlewick Ranges is given an amber rating in the SLAA. Given the very recently announcement by the MOD that the site is to be released for development in order to contribute to the Government's target for the MOD to provide land for 55,000 new homes; this status can be amended to 'green'. Although the site is currently used as a firing range, this is no obstacle to the sites development and it is anticipated that the site will be available for development within the next five years.

With respect to the sites 'achievability' Middlewick Ranges is again rated amber. A site is considered to be achievable if it is feasible to actually develop the site and whether it is financially viable to do so. The Middlewick Ranges site is subject to a local wildlife site designation but is otherwise free from any known major constraints to development, and there is no evidence to suggest that development of the site would not be viable. It is acknowledged that some improvements are likely to be needed to the surrounding highway network, and it is noted that Colchester Borough Council intend to prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan in the near future which will provide details of the required main items of infrastructure to deliver the Local Plan, including highways.

Policy SG1: Colchester's Spatial Strategy

Policy SG1 stipulates that growth in the Borough will be located at the most accessible and sustainable locations in accordance with the spatial strategy for North Essex set out in Policy SP6 and with the Settlement Hierarchy set out in Table SG1.

The MOD supports the Spatial Hierarchy of SG1 which focuses growth on the urban area of Colchester reflecting its position as the main location for jobs, housing, services and transport.

The Middlewick Ranges site is immediately adjacent to the built up area of Colchester and the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes would be in accordance with the spatial hierarchy set out in Policy SG1. If the site were to be brought forward for housing it would reduce pressure on the need to develop greenfield sites in less sustainable locations away from the urban area and having a lower priority order in the spatial hierarchy.

Policy WC4: West Colchester

Policy WC4 safeguards allocations on the policies map for residential uses, subject to satisfying specific requirements.

The MOD objects to the omission of the Middlewick Ranges site from policy WC4. The previously developed site is considered to be in a suitable location; and forms a logical extension of the Colchester settlement boundary given the surrounding residential land use. It is located in a sustainable location with good links to transport and key facilities.

Merville Barracks, Colchester

The policies map for West Colchester shows an area of land to the north of Earlswood Way (and bounded to the east by Berechurch Road) as designated public open space. Part of the area shaded green on the map forms part of Pegasus Camp, the northern section of Merville Barracks, and is not public open space.

The MOD therefore objects to the West Colchester policies map as currently drafted.

Summary

The MOD is seeking the allocation of land at Middlewick Ranges for residential development in the Colchester Local Plan for up to 2,000 dwellings, subject to detailed assessment.

The release of the site was announced on 6 September 2016 as part of the Estate Optimisation Strategy which will reduce the size of the MOD estate through the sale of sites for which there is no longer a long-term Defence requirement. The aim is to have a smaller, but better Defence estate to cater for the future Armed Forces. The release of sites such as Middlewick Ranges will also contribute to the Government commitment to provide land for 160,000 homes in this Parliament and the MOD's target to provide land for 55,000 houses as part of that target.

This very recent announcement regarding the release of the site is the reason that the MOD has not promoted the site for development at an earlier stage in the preparation of the Colchester Local Plan.

The Council's Strategic Land Availability Assessment concludes that the site is suitable for development and in a sustainable location. The issue of 'availability' is resolved by the Ministerial announcement that the site is to be released, and it will be available for development within the next five years. In terms of the 'achievability' criteria there are no known major constraints to development or any reason why the development of the site would not be viable.

The Middlewick Ranges site forms a logical extension of the Colchester settlement boundary given the surrounding residential land use and the site is previously developed; located in a sustainable location with good links to transport and key facilities. Its development accords with the spatial hierarchy of the Preferred Options Local Plan which prioritises the urban area of Colchester for development. The development of Middlewick Ranges could help to reduce the need to build housing on greenfield land in less sustainable locations remote from the urban area.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should have any queries or require further information on the above.

The MOD would welcome a meeting with the Council to discuss the issues surrounding the potential residential development at Middlewick Ranges when further details become available.

COLCHESTER LOCAL PLAN
1. Thank you for consulting us on your local plan on the 6 July 2016. We welcome the opportunity to input to your plan.
1.1. As you are aware, Highways England is responsible for maintaining and operating the strategic road network (SRN), which within Colchester's administrative area, is the A12 and the A120.
1.2. Both of these routes are under increasing pressure from traffic growth. This is recognised within your plan and we welcome the fact that improvements to public transport and sustainability of transport systems features highly in your plan, which will go some way to addressing the pressure in the short term.
1.3. It was announced in the Roads Investment Strategy (RIS), published in December 2014, that the A12 between J19 (Chelmsford) and J25 (Marks Tey) would be widened to three lanes by 2020 and electronic signs and CCTV installed on the A12 between the M25 and Ipswich, as noted in your plan.
1.4. In order to deliver this growth, in partnership with Essex County Council (ECC), we will seek to progress improvements to the strategic road network.
1.5. The key strategic projects include:-
1.5.1. A120 Braintree to Marks Tey; long term (dualling); being led by ECC to determine options for a new A120 route between Braintree and the A12.
1.5.2. A12 widening between M25 and J25 of the A12. In addition, ECC is undertaking highway modelling of the effect of three Local Plans; Braintree, Colchester and Tendring, including a 'Rapid Transit Study' for East Colchester/West Tendring.
1.5.3. The A12/A120 route based strategy was published separately by the Highways Agency in March 2013 and revised strategies are being prepared for delivery post 2020.
1.5.4. Supporting the case for improved rail connections.
1.5.5. We welcome reference in your policy for the need to agree 'all' access points from the development sites with ECC, and where appropriate Highways England as the highway authority. This will be undertaken through discussion with respective developers through the planning application process.
Highway Modelling
2. The growth identified in the Draft Local Plan, and in neighbouring Local Plans, will need to be supported by appropriate transport infrastructure. Highways England has been working closely with Essex County Council and the Districts to consider the impacts of this growth, and appropriate means to mitigate its impact, where possible.
2.1. In order to inform the selection of a 'preferred strategy', ECC/Ringway Jacobs were commissioned by Colchester to undertake highway modelling to inform the emerging spatial strategy and its implications. The Colchester Local Plan - 'Options Assessment' described the likely impact on the transport network of the development options identified by the District. This identified preliminary feasible and affordable improvements, with the potential for changing trip patterns and modal choice and review ongoing strategic studies/projects. It is clear that mitigation is not feasible at all key junctions to enable them to operate 'within capacity' at 2033. Increased focus will need to be placed on encouraging modal shift as most journey to work trips are by car.
2.2. It is recommended to improve access to rail stations by sustainable modes, given the high level of trips between settlements with rail links. Increased emphasis will need to be placed on increasing levels of public transport provision and walking and cycling in order to reduce car trips.
2.3. It is understood additional modelling will be undertaken by ECC to support the Pre-Submission Local Plan and will seek to address the issues raised in the above reports.
Strategic Highway Projects
3. It is clear that additional growth will impact on the strategic road network, which is currently subject to a number of ongoing strategic studies/projects aimed at improving the existing transport network and alleviating known congestion issues in the Colchester District. These projects could result in a significant redistribution and a reduction within the District in the plan period.
3.1. Strategic projects being progressed include:
3.1.1. A12 widening between M25 and A14: Highways England is currently investigating widening the A12 to 3 lanes in each direction between J19 and J25. This section between Chelmsford and Marks Tey has been identified in the RIS 1 document to be delivered first, with construction outlined to start by the end of 2020. Public consultation is expected spring 2017. Widening of the remainder of the route is expected to be included in RIS 2 which will run from 2020 to 2025.
3.1.2. A120 Braintree to Marks Tey; long term (dualling): This is being led by ECC to determine options for a new A120 route between Braintree and the A12. Public consultation is likely to take place between January and March 2017.
4. Moving forward, ECC/HE will recommend its preferred route to the Government in the summer of 2017 for inclusion in RIS 2. Increasing the capacity of the A120 has the potential to reduce traffic on local roads within Braintree and improve the wider strategic road network.
4.1. As highway authorities, Highways England and Essex County Council are actively advancing these studies/projects, so that they are included in national strategies and plans, in order that necessary funding can be secured and the schemes delivered.
4.2. Moving forward, close partnership working will be undertaken with Colchester, Highways England, Essex County Council and other local authorities to progress the above projects to improve roads, public transport, and promote walking and cycling. All parties will continue to lobby Government, including DfT, to include these schemes in future programmes to secure necessary funding where possible.
5. At the Maldon local plan inquiry, concerns related largely to long term concerns about the impact of growth across the region and not specifically the Maldon Local Plan. Upgrades to the A12 (identified in RIS 1 2014) regarding the potential widening to 3 lanes of the A12, would improve its reliability and ensure a limited level of queuing at the Kelvedon north junction. In addition, a combination of the public transport improvements proposed to support the Maldon District Council (MDC) Local Plan through its site allocations would provide some short term relief. More significant mitigation options are limited, given minimal land availability between development and roadway; the character of the locality and proximity to the A12 slip lanes, reducing the opportunity for increased signal timings. The transport modelling work undertaken to date for the Colchester Local Plan supports the findings from the Maldon Local Plan work.
6. It will be essential that a step change in people travelling by sustainable means in the district occurs over the plan period although there are a number of policies and incentives in the new Local Plan should also consider the following: -
6.1. Implementation of car sharing schemes (either development or area based).
6.2. Creation of car clubs.
6.3. Inclusion of public transport vouchers or discounts schemes (in conjunction with any new bus services/routes).
6.4. Creation of additional cycle/pedestrian paths linking new developments with key locations and community facilities, as well as connections between existing developments.
6.5. Shuttle bus services for employment travel (a possible alternative for residents living and working within the borough).
7. Turning to the sites you have suggested, we have the following comments:-
7.1. Central Colchester: Unlikely to have a severe impact on the A12 or A120.
7.2. North Colchester: This could have a severe impact on the A12 and A120. We would wish to see a traffic impact assessment demonstrating the potential impacts of such a proposal. Of particular concern are; J25, J26, J27, J28 and J29. There may also be impacts on the main line of the A12. However, although these need to be quantified, this section of the A12 is subject to a study for potential widening (as discussed above).
7.3. West Colchester: This could have a severe impact on the A12 and A120. We would wish to see a traffic impact assessment demonstrating the potential impacts of such a proposal. Of particular concern are; J25, J26, J27, J28 and J29. There may also be impacts on the main line of the A12.
However, although these need to be quantified, this section of the A12 is subject to a study for potential widening (as discussed above).
7.4. Abberton and Langenhoe: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.5. Aldham: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.6. Birch: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.7. Boxted: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.8. Chappel and Wakes Colne: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.9. Copford: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.10. Dedham: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.11. Easthorpe: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.12. Eight Ash Green: Development here could have an adverse impact on the A12 J26. There is a large amount of development already permitted, which will load on to the junction which already suffers from peak time congestion.
7.12.1. Investigations are being undertaken in partnership with ECC to solve the existing congestion problems and allow some future growth, but this could be difficult and expensive to deliver. This has not been helped by Highways England's requested development mitigation, which has not, for various reasons been possible to deliver.
7.12.2. Jointly we need to ensure contributions from new developments compliment mitigation measures already identified by committed development, thus enabling improvements to the junction, needed to support growth.
7.13. Fingringhoe: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.14. Great Horkesley: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.15. Great Tey: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.16. Great Wigborough: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.17. Langham: Development here could have an adverse impact on the substandard junctions along this section of the A12.
7.18. Layer Breton: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact upon the SRN
7.19. Layer de la Haye: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.20. Little Horkesley: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.21. Marks Tey: Development here has the potential to have a severe impact on the SRN. From the plan, it is unclear were access will be obtained from. There are also proposals as discussed above, to widen both the A120 and A12 which may affect this site.
7.22. Mersea Island: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.23. Mount Bures: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.24. Peldon: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.25. Rowhedge: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.26. Salcott cum Virly: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.27. Symthes Green: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.28. Tiptree: There are long standing access problems to the A12 at this location. These should be looked at before these sites are allocated. A possible solution may be an all movement junction to the north of Kelvedon. This could have an affect on traffic movements over a large area, which would need to be carefully assessed before any firm conclusions could be drawn. Consideration would also need to be taken of the A12 and A120 widening proposals.
7.29. West Bergholt: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.30. Wormingford: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.
7.31. Wormingford Airfield: Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN.