MM71

1. Removal of the preferred direction of growth arrow to the south-west.
Changes to text:
2. Within the preferred directions of growth shown on the Tiptree policies map, to the 'north and north west' (rather than 'south west and north/north west), subject to existing constraints.... (line 2).
3. This will include a 'strategic transport appraisal' (rather than a 'detailed transport assessment'). (point (iv), lines 4 & 5)

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

By way of correction, since the preferred direction of growth arrows are not prescriptive but rather a reflection of the NP position the arrow to the south-west should be removed. The minor changes are detailed below.

No comment

Amend the second sentence of Policy SS14, iv) to read as below.

"iv) ...This will include a strategic transport appraisal with a view to confirming provision of phased delivery of a road between the B1022 and B1023;"

Essex County Council as the Highway Authority, request that the second sentence of part iv) to Policy SS14 is amended to clarify that the neighbourhood plan does not need to undertake a “detailed transport assessment”, but rather a "strategic transport appraisal" is required and considered more appropriate.

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. Adjustments to wording of modifications must be made in order to accord with National Policy

Colchester Borough Local Plan – Section 2 Tiptree

Main Modification MM71: 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.



• MM71 : Policy SS14 (ii) states : "Allocate specific sites for housing allocations to deliver a minimum of 400 dwellings". Whilst the LP's guidance suggests the main allocations should reflect the preferred directions of growth, regard should also be paid to NPPF paragraph 70 which states : "Neighbourhood Planning Groups should also give particular consideration to the opportunities for allocating small and medium-sized sites (of a size consistent with paragraph 69a) suitable for housing in their area". Paragraph 69 as a whole places great emphasis on the need to ensure that provision is made for small and medium-sized sites. To reflect this, we consider a modification should be made to Policy SS14 (i) to state: "(i) Define the extent of a new settlement boundary for Tiptree making specific provision for small and medium-sized housing sites". Alternatively or additionally, amend Policy SS14 (iii) to state: "Set out any associated policies needed to support this housing, including that on small and medium-sized sites ie: housing mix, type of housing and density for each site allocated for housing."

• MM71: The insertion of the words "within the parish" in Policy SS14 (iv) places a straight jacket on the NP and may hinder the revised NP's ability to address the problems which arose from part of the proposed link road lying outside the Parish. It is unclear how this matter can be resolved without extending the revised draft NP boundary. However, to cover all eventualities, we suggest the deletion of the wording "within the parish" or otherwise its replacement with the wording "within the Neighbourhood Plan area."

• The final sentence of Policy SS14 (iv) again refers to "...the first phases of a road between the B1022 and B1023" and as stated above, the extent and nature of this requirement is unclear.

• MM71: Objection is raised to the modified wording: "Proposals for development outside of the settlement boundary or settlement boundary defined by the Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan once adopted will not be supported." Either way, the exclusion of all development outside the settlement boundary is not only draconian but also, for example. is in direct conflict with the NPPF and Policy DM8 - Affordable Housing which facilitates rural exception sites close to village settlement boundaries. We consider that the LP's countryside policies already provide sufficient protection for land outside settlement boundaries and the sentence is therefore superfluous. It should therefore be deleted.

It is requested that the second paragraph of Policy SS14 is amended to read as follows: “Proposals for development outside of both the settlement boundary and settlement boundary defined by the Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan once adopted, will not be supported.” Please see attached representations letter, prepared by Lawson Planning Partnership

See attachment for full representation

Update text to read: (iv) Set out the policy framework within the parish to guide the delivery of any infrastructure/community facilities required to support the development in accordance with the requirements of Policies SG7 and PP1. This will include a strategic transport appraisal with a view to confirming provision of the first phases of a road between the B1022 and B1023;

See Attachment for full representations

Please see accompanying letter for recommendations

See attachment for full representation

See attachment for full representation