MM69

To 'consider' (rather than 'address') cross boundary issues (paragraph 1, line 1)
This will include 'acknowledgement of' (inserted words) the additional traffic forecasts.... (paragraph 1, line 2)
To support the delivery of 'at least' (inserted words) 400 houses (paragraph 2, line 4)

Whilst generally supportive of this modification I am suggesting a few minor changes to more clearly express what the Neighbourhood Plan should be expected to achieve.

The plan should clarify how cross boundary issues such as road building will be managed.

The Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan was partly rejected because of proposals to develop a road which crossed local authority boundaries. If the goal of routing traffic around Tiptree village is to be achieved this road will need to be developed. It seems illogical to commence building a road which links the B1022 and B1023 when there is no certainty that it will ever be completed by building across local authority boundaries.

In principle I support the lower housing development allocation dependent upon the selection of suitable sites and the right mix of housing for the village.

Further modifications must be included to alleviate the current absence of a reasonable range of new housing sites in Tiptree and the dearth of available land generally. Modifications are required to reflect the absence of a NP and to address the deficiencies identified by the NP Inspector.

Colchester Borough Local Plan – Section 2 Tiptree

Main Modification MM69: Local Plan Policy SS14

• The Modifications relating to Tiptree - namely Mod. Numbers MM69 and MM71 - principally stem from the need to reflect material changes of circumstance following the recommendation of the Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan Inspector that the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) should not proceed to referendum and also an allowed Planning Appeal for 200 dwellings at Barbrook Lane. Whilst it is indisputable that such material changes should be reflected in the Modifications, we do not consider the Modifications adequately deal with the implications of the above changes.

• Furthermore, the failure of the NP to proceed to referendum and the need to produce a new revised draft NP will result in several years’ delay in delivering much needed housing in the second largest settlement in the Borough. It will require the necessity to undertake a wide range of technical studies to justify any proposals, with no certainty at the end of the process that the revised draft NP will be any more successful than its predecessor in meeting the Basic Conditions and legal requirements. During the time the NP is awaited, the tightly drawn Tiptree settlement boundary as defined in Local Plan (LP) Policy SS14 constrains housing delivery. Rather than operating ahead of the LP, the revised draft NP will now lag behind it and delay the delivery of housing that could otherwise have been released earlier via the LP. Apart from the Barbrook Lane site, the Planning process is therefore hindering housing delivery rather than promoting it. Accordingly, it is considered that as a consequence, Modifications should have been put forward to alleviate the current absence of a reasonable range of new housing sites in Tiptree and the dearth of available land generally.

• MM69 sets out the revised infrastructure requirements in new paragraph 14.219 and information about a revised NP is found in amended paragraph 14.221. Logically, these paragraphs should be in reverse order to reflect the sequence of events whereby the NP comes first and sets the context for the necessary infrastructure requirements.

• MM69 : Reference to the need "to address cross boundary issues with neighbouring Local Planning Authorities and neighbouring Parishes" is vague and does not indicate what the cross boundary issues are.

• MM69 : The final sentence states : "The Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan will be expected to deliver the first phases of the road through a design which allows future completion/linkage". The reference to "first phases" is unclear in terms of the extent of works which would constitute the first phases and begs the question as to how the completion of a link between the B1022 and B1023 is to be achieved via the NP. The wording needs to be far more informative.

• MM69 : The "are" after "The Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan Working Group" should be "is".

• MM69 : For consistency, the amendment from 600 to 400 dwellings should be preceded by the words "a minimum of" to accord with national policy.

Update text to read: Infrastructure necessary to deliver the growth up to 2033 will need to consider cross boundary issues with neighbouring Local Planning Authorities and neighbouring Parishes. This will include acknowledgement of the additional traffic generation forecasts for the proposed new junction 24 onto the A12 as well as from the growth locations. With the northern growth location there is potential for a new road which would ultimately link the B1022 and B1023. The Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan will be expected to deliver the first phases of the road through a design which allows future completion/linkage

See Attachment for full representations

Update text to read: The Plan will allocate final site boundaries and will include a policy framework to support the delivery of at least 400 houses up to 2033 and to guide all other planning issues in the village

See Attachment for full representations

Please see accompanying letter for recommendations

See attachment for full representation

See attachment for full representation