Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA) - Draft Methodology

I do not object to the methodology but the consultation forced me to choose support or object. I have additions to make.Ideally, a call for sites should not happen until a strategy is in place, and ideally this SLAA should then apply to see if sites comply with the strategy.

The appraisals set out in the methodology need to go further, as follows, looking at
capacity of the road network adjacent to the site
capacity of public transport serving the site
frequency of public transport (bus or train)?
capacity of schools, doctors' surgeries?
number of bike paths adjacent to site

Thank you for your consultation request dated and received by Natural England on 20th October 2023. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. We recognise that SHLAAs form a critical component of the evidence base for Local and Neighbourhood Plans. In order to allocate the most appropriate sites to deliver high quality, sustainable development, environmental issues and opportunities should be considered as an integral part of the assessment process. Natural England does not have available staff resources to provide bespoke advice on SHLAAs or attend meetings in connection with them. In line with the National Planning Policy Framework, we offer the following generic advice on key natural environment considerations for use in producing or revising SHLAAs, which we hope is of use. 1. Landscape Avoiding harm to the character of nationally protected landscapes - National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty - and locally valued landscapes. Impacts of new housing upon landscape may be positive or negative, direct or indirect, short or long term and reversible or irreversible. Cumulative impacts may also occur as a result of the combined effects of more than one housing development. The assessment of potential housing sites should be informed by the landscape character approach. The National Character Area (NCA) profiles will provide useful information. These update the national framework of Joint Character Areas and Countryside Character Areas that are used to inform LCAs. Further information is available at NCAs Landscape Character Assessments (LCAs) identify the different landscape elements which give a place its unique character and can help inform the location and design of new development. Further information on LCAs is at Landscape Character Assessment. More detailed study (e.g. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) of the sensitivity of the landscape and capacity to accommodate change may be necessary to determine the suitability of potential housing sites, particularly those within or near protected landscapes.2. Biodiversity Avoiding harm to the international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity. International sites include: Special Protection Areas (SPAs); Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar sites ¹. National sites include biological Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves (NNRs) Local sites are Local Wildlife Sites (a variety of other terms are also in use). The potential impacts of new housing upon such sites may be positive or negative, direct or indirect and short or long term. Cumulative impacts may also occur as a result of the combined effects of more than one housing development. Indirect impacts may be experienced several kilometres distant from new housing e.g. water pollution. The key to assessing these is to understand the potential impact pathways that may exist between the development and sensitive sites. Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) are a GIS tool that can be used by LPAs to consider whether a proposed development (or allocation) is likely to affect a SSSI. They define zones around each SSSI which reflect the particular sensitivities of the features for which it is notified and indicate the types of development proposal which could potentially have adverse impacts. Information about using this data can be found here. The Magic website is a useful source of information on the location and qualifying features of the international and national designations. Local Environmental Records Centres should also be of assistance and often hold information on Local Wildlife Sites. Avoiding harm to priority habitats, ecological networks and priority and/or legally protected species populations Priority habitats and species are those listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006 and UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP). Further information is available here UK BAP priority species and habitats. Protected species are those species protected under domestic or European law. Further information can be found here Standing advice for protected species. Sites containing watercourses, old buildings, significant hedgerows and substantial trees are possible habitats for protected species. Ecological networks are coherent systems of natural habitats organised across whole landscapes so as to maintain ecological functions. A key principle is to maintain connectivity - to enable free movement and dispersal of wildlife e.g. badger routes, river corridors for the migration of fish and staging posts for migratory birds. Priority habitats can be found on the Nature on the Map website referred to above. Natural England does not hold records of priority or legally protected species but Local Records Centres may be able provide these. It may also be necessary to undertake a basic ecological survey in order to appraise the biodiversity value of any potential development site. A Phase 1 Habitat Survey is the commonly used standard for habitat audit and provides a starting point for determining the likely presence of important species. More information is available here Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Seeking opportunities to contribute to the restoration and re-creation of habitats, the recovery of priority species populations and biodiversity enhancement 1 The following wildlife sites should also be given the same protection as European sites: potential SPAs, possible SACs, listed or proposed Ramsar sites and sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sitesWhere Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs) are identified they can provide a focal point for creating more and better-connected habitats. Where housing allocations are proposed in the environs of NIAs the potential to contribute to habitat enhancement should be considered. Further information on NIAs is available here NIAs. Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) identify the local action needed to deliver UK targets for habitats and species. They also identify targets for other habitats and species of local importance and can provide a useful blueprint for biodiversity enhancement in any particular area. Further information through the UK BAP link above. Seeking opportunities to enhance and create Green Infrastructure Green infrastructure is a term used to refer to the living network of green spaces, water and other environmental features in both urban and rural areas. It is often used in an urban context to provide multiple benefits including space for recreation, access to nature, flood storage and urban cooling to support climate change mitigation, food production, wildlife habitats and health & well-being improvements provided by trees, rights of way, parks, gardens, road verges, allotments, cemeteries, woodlands, rivers and wetlands. Green infrastructure is also relevant in a rural context, where it might additionally refer to the use of farmland, woodland, wetlands or other natural features to provide services such as flood protection, carbon storage or water purification. Green infrastructure maintains critical ecological links between town and country. The SHLAA should consider the availability of GI and opportunities to enhance GI networks when considering sites for development. 3. Geological conservation Avoid harm to nationally and locally designated sites of importance for geological conservation - geological SSSIs and Local Geological Sites (also known as RIGS - Regionally Important Geological Sites). The Nature on the Map website referred to above is a useful source of information on the location and qualifying features of geological SSSIs. Local Environmental Records Centres should also be of assistance and often hold information on Local Geological Sites. Housing development may present opportunities for the enhancement of geological sites e.g. exposure sites in road cuttings. Further information on geological conservation is available on the Natural England website here Geodiversity. Seeking opportunities to contribute to landscape restoration and enhancement. The NCAs profiles identify potential opportunities for positive environmental change. LCAs also identify opportunities for landscape restoration and enhancement. These can help identify potential opportunities for housing developments to contribute to landscape enhancement in an area. 4. Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land Avoiding Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land Land quality varies from place to place. Information on Best and Most Versatile Agricultural land (grades 1,2 and 3 a) is available from the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC). ALC maps are available on the MAGIC website. Not all land has been surveyed in detail and more detailed field survey may be required to inform decisions about specific sites. Further information is available here ALC.5. Public rights of way and access Seeking opportunities to enhance public rights of way and accessible natural green space. Housing allocations should avoid adverse impacts on National Trails and networks of public rights of way and opportunities should be considered to maintain and enhance networks and to add links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails. More information is available here National Trails. Accessible natural greenspace should be provided as an integral part of development. Housing should make provision for appropriate quantity and quality of green space to meet identified local needs as outlined in paragraph 96 of the NPPF. Natural England's work on Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt) may be of use in assessing current level of accessible natural greenspace and planning improved provision. Existing open space should not be built on unless the tests of NPPF para 97 have been met. Open space is construed in the NPPF as all open space of public value which offer important opportunities for sport and recreation and can act as a visual amenity. Natural England does not have any specific comments on the draft Methodology

3.4 Anglian Water welcomes the inclusion of infrastructure and green infrastructure to the wider range of uses considered in the SLAA. This helps to ensure that the Local Plan is able to plan holistically and ensure that critical infrastructure can be delivered in a timely way to support sustainable growth. We would suggest that this list could also be broadened to include sites for renewable energy.

Table 2 – Initial survey constraints: Anglian Water recognise that some high level assessment is required to identify available and deliverable sites. However, the constraints should also consider that different conclusions may arise depending on the intended use of the site. Sites for infrastructure would not necessarily meet the same criteria as for residential development - for example, in terms of our water recycling infrastructure, it is considered less vulnerable in terms of flood risk.

3.29 – we agree that the site suitability can be considered in terms of where any constraints can be overcome through reasonable mitigation.

3.31 – Anglian Water suggests that the term infrastructure is broad but generally will provide a wider role in supporting existing communities and future growth.

General comments:
The staged approach to site assessment is identified in the consultation document is logical as it makes sense to rule out sites early if they don’t meet broad criteria deliverability, however, where mitigation is put forward, a pragmatic view must be taken.
Whilst previous iterations of the local plan should not influence the new, emerging plan, given the change in time and national planning agendas, there is logic in using evidence base documents and strategy that still remains relevant (national policy for example), therefore, whilst a full, detailed policy assessment cannot take place at this stage, consideration of existing sustainable settlements and general planning logic should be used, but it is assumed that most sites will need to be considered for further assessment as it will not be possible to pre-determine the preferred strategy for development, without knowing the outcomes of the sustainability appraisal process and associated spatial strategy at this early point in time in plan preparation.

Suitability Criteria:
Sites should not be ruled out where mitigation can potentially be delivered. As written, the criteria would appear to suggest that a pragmatic approach to assessment is going to be taken, which is supported and therefore it would appear that only those sites which are not physically able to accommodate development should be ruled out at this stage. This is especially true of criteria which are proximity-based as this is often not detailed enough to take into account context and the reality of a situation.
Ensuring that the SLAA process delivers a long list of potential sites to accommodate the objectively-assessed development requirements is critical to ensuring a sustainable, positively prepared local plan in line with national policy.

What is the main access point/s to the site? Are there any highway constraints?
In September 2022, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport, accepted an application by National Highways for a Development Consent Order for the A12 Chelmsford to A120 widening scheme. For the Colchester area this specifically includes creation of a bypass between Junctions 24 to 25, widening of the dual carriageway from two to three lanes in each direction and associated improvements to Junction 25. These enhancements and the associated benefits and improvements to highway capacity should form part of the assessment of sites in the local area as they will increase the capacity of the local road network.

Additionally, post-covid, vehicle movements have changed quite significantly, hence again, updated transport modelling will be necessary in order to make informed judgements in relation to road capacity and historic views cannot be relied upon to rule sites out at this stage.

Are there any issues that would prevent/limit the developable area of the site? e.g. topography/levels, pylons:
Low-level pylons are not considered to be a significant constraint to development in the same way as topography or other more significant constraints as they have no real impact on deliverability, as such I don’t believe they should be considered in the same vein or in the same classification. There are numerous examples where pylons have either been designed into a scheme or buried, which actually has the potential to improve the overall landscape impact of a development scheme. Given this is a local plan process and a trajectory will form part of the evidence base, again a pragmatic view should be taken to constraints of this nature.

Walking distance to key services including primary and secondary schools, supermarkets/convenience stores, GP surgeries and/or Colchester City Centre.
Whilst the SLAA process is designed to be crude in its assessment, the ability for sites to offer improvements to infrastructure should mean that all sites are given a fair consideration where potentially delivering infrastructure / improvements locally. Development provides the opportunity to overcome local issues and deficiencies.

Availability Criteria:
Other local authorities in Essex have taken a slightly confusing approach to land ownership and promotion, whereby a site can score lower if it is being promoted by a developer rather than a landowner, even though a site should be considered more deliverable if under option to a developer. The approach detailed in the draft criteria is supported in that regard.

On behalf of our client, Bloor Homes (Eastern), I am pleased to provide representations in respect of the above referenced public consultation. Whilst our client is in principle supportive of the Council's desire to find new land for future housing and employment sites to serve the needs of the city of Colchester, we do have specific concerns regarding the proposed SLAA methodology as outlined below.

Stage 1 Initial Survey Stage Table 2 - Initial Survey Constraints and Explanation (Residential, Commercial or Infrastructure - Built Development)
The initial survey stage is a simple 'red' or 'green' site assessment, with red sites being dismissed from the SLAA process and green sites proceeding, seemingly there is no 'middle ground' in the Council's assessment process at this initial stage. Bloor Homes (Eastern) have concerns regarding the following defined assessment criteria and the associated RAG rating: Is the site physically isolated from an existing settlement or located in the open countryside? In this criterion a site only scores a green rating if it is "adjacent or in very close proximity to an existing settlement or within a vicinity of potential growth". To our knowledge a "vicinity of potential growth" is yet to be defined or identified in the Local Plan Review process, indeed, a Regulation 18 Local Plan consultation has not been undertaken by the Council. Accordingly, it is not clear or transparent as to how the Council will apply this criterion when assessing sites. The Council should review their approach to this element of the initial assessment.

Stage 2 Site Assessment
The Stage 2 assessment provides a range of criterion which covers a range of matters under the headings of: Suitability, Achievability and Availability, with a site receiving a 'red', 'amber' or 'green' rating depending on its assessment. This basic foundation is understood and in principle supported by Bloor Homes (Eastern). Notwithstanding the above the following matters are not clear: Is the RAG rating on each criterion subject to any weighting dependent on the importance or relevance of that RAG rating and related constraint. For example, a red rating for highways access is surely more critical/fundamental to a site's suitability when compared to a red rating for a site being located in a Minerals Safeguarding Area. It is apparent that some criteria are more influential to a site's prospects than others, it is not clear, however, how the Council will address this as part of the SLAA process. The impact of receiving a red rating under a criterion is not clear. Is a red rating simply considered in the round as part of a holistic review of a site, or is a red rating a fundamental constraint? In addition, how many red ratings or amber ratings are required before a site is deemed to be unsuitable, unavailable or not achievable. How is an overall conclusion as to a site's overall prospects reached and how is this reflective/borne out of the SLAA process? This is not explained in the methodology document.

Bloor Homes (Eastern) object to paragraph 3.26 of the methodology document which states that 'Call for Sites' will not be published, with the Council's summary of the forms published as an alternative. It is commonplace for 'Call for Sites' forms to be published by a Council. This makes for a more robust and transparent process, thereby reassuring participants, the general public and often the Planning Inspector. If there are any General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) related concerns regarding the publication of information, any sensitive material should be redacted from forms and reports.
Section 1: Suitability
Bloor Homes (Eastern) has an overarching concern that the data source for each assessment suitability criterion does not include site specific technical evidence submitted by a site promoter. It is appreciated that in some, likely limited cases, the Council will have their own technical evidence and that Officers will have their own opinion on a site's prospects. However, it is vital that site- specific evidence prepared by professionals is taken into consideration when the Council review the suitability of sites.

This evidence forms an up to date and accurate impression of a site's suitability which will assist the Council in identifying the most sustainable and suitable development sites. The Council can of course scrutinise this evidence if they wish to do SO, but it should not be dismissed from the SLAA process. Physical Constraints Criterion 1 The first constraint is, "is the site within or adjacent to the existing settlement boundary?". Bloor Homes (Eastern) understand the rationale behind this criterion, however, it is recommended that this be amended alongside its associated RAG rating description, to state: "is the site within or adjacent to the existing settlement boundary; or the built up area of the settlement?". This amendment considers and positively addresses development which may have taken place outside of the settlement boundary in the current Plan period; and may reasonably fall within the new settlement boundary when it is reviewed as part of the Local Plan review process. Without this amendment the SLAA could prematurely dismiss potential development sites which are adjacent to the built up area and what will become the new settlement boundary.

Criterion 5
Criterion 5 is "are there any issues that would prevent/limit the developable area of the site? e.g. topography/levels, pylons". A site only scores a green rating if there are "no known site-specific issues". This is an exceptionally high and potentially unrealistic measure for a site to meet. Virtually all potential development sites are required to address constraints of some kind. The green rating description should be expanded to state "no known issues or evidence has been provided which demonstrates that site constraints can be adequately addressed".

Criterion 6
Criterion 6 is "Is the site brownfield or greenfield?". A red RAG rating is assigned for sites which are 75% greenfield. There is no evidence or explanation as to why a 75% threshold has been suggested. This red rating significantly constrains the availability of housing sites and if applied as a blanket approach would likely restrict the Council from meeting its overarching housing needs target and is inappropriate in its current form. A significant percentage of the new housing sites the Council will allocate via the Local Plan Review will inevitably be greenfield due to the wider rural context of Colchester, the lack of availability of brownfield sites and the need to ensure established rural settlements benefit from proportionate and sustainable development.
Criterion 7 Bloor Homes (Eastern) object to the classification "What is the agricultural land classification?". To accurately determine the classification of land, an intrusive site survey is required. Accordingly, unless a site promoter commissions a costly survey and submits it to the Council, the Council will not be able to assess a site against this criterion. The criterion should be removed from the SLAA proforma. In respect of Grade 3a agricultural land, the red and amber RAG ratings associated with this criterion are unclear. A site is rated red if it is 50% or more Grade 3a in area, it also scores an amber it is 50% or more Grade 3a in area. This simply does not make sense and requires review.

Access to Key Services Criterion 1 Bloor Homes (Eastern) object to the proposed approach to assessing a site's proximity to key services. The criterion "Walking distance to key services including primary and secondary schools, supermarkets/convenience stores, GP surgeries and/or Colchester City Centre" is far too broad a brush to be a robust and practical criterion for the purpose of SLAA. Key services should be defined into categories such as: retail, education, healthcare, community infrastructure, public transport connections etc. A site should then be assessed on each of these specific criteria in order to achieve a more accurate and reasonable assessment of site suitability. The availability of public transport links to provide sustainable connections to services such as Secondary School (i.e. school buses) should also be taken into account. Bloor Homes (Eastern) are concerned that a site will be assigned a red rating if it "is in excess of 2km walking distance from one or more key services". The existing Local Plan identifies a host of 'Sustainable Settlements' not all of which have a full range of services, however, these settlements are still defined as sustainable in the adopted Local Plan, likely due to the availability of other services, infrastructure and their size/scale. There is no justification as to why 'one or more' has been used as a threshold and ultimately it is not known from the criterion or methodology as to what the full list of key services actually are. A more detailed assessment with multiple additional new criteria is required in order to accurately determine the suitability of a site in respect of access to services. The current 'Key Services' criterion is unreasonable and unrealistic given the largely rural context outside of the urban area of Colchester.

Section 3: Achievability
Criterion 3
Bloor Homes (Eastern) object to a site being assessed as red if it is located wholly within a Minerals Safeguarding Area or amber if within a Minerals/Waste Consultation area. The Policies Map associated with the Essex Minerals and Waste Local Plan (EMWLP) demonstrates that a significant proportion of the area covered by the Plan is subject to a safeguarding designation. Hence, it is apparent that this potential constraint cannot be applied in a blanket and arbitrary fashion as currently proposed in the SLAA methodology. This matter requires careful consideration based on the realistic prospect of an area of safeguarded land coming forward as a viable area for commercial minerals extraction. Safeguarded land within a settlement boundary or outside of a settlement boundary adjacent to sensitive existing land uses are highly unlikely to come forward as viable commercial extraction opportunities due to the amenity and environmental impacts of undertaking such works. If the LPA was determined to ensure that any viable minerals were extracted at a site, at the planning application stage there may be an opportunity for specific Ground Investigations to form part of a planning condition which would ensure that practical minerals are extracted as part of site preparation works. This proposed criterion is largely irrelevant for edge of settlement sites and should be removed from the SLAA methodology. We trust these representations are useful to the Council at this time and we look forward to participating in future public consultations relating to the review of the Local Plan

Please take this as my consultation response on the SLAA, both as a resident and as a member of the Local Plan Committee. I regard it as a key document for future development in Colchester. I have two major comments

1. Size: I’m concerned that there is no established pathway for smaller sites of 5 dwellings or less. This has come up at two recent parish Council meetings and it is clear that such organic or balanced growth is more acceptable locally than large scale developments. Smaller sites can make a very significant increase to housing supply but residents are put off by a complex and unfriendly planning system.

Please can the SLAA explain that the screening system only excludes small sites for administrative reasons and is not intended to block proposals for
* small new build sites from 1-5 dwellings
* subdivision of large underutilised residential plots
* subdivision of under occupied houses
* separate occupation of cart lodges and annexes of which there are many in the countryside
* conversion of farm buildings in line with the permitted use rules

I hope that such “windfall” will be specifically encouraged in the revised plan, and that the Council will present a more friendly face to small developers and self builders.

2. Transport networks: I’m concerned that the methodology puts insufficient weight on transport networks - roads, railways and bus routes. As argued for many years by CAUSE this should be the starting point for locating development, not an afterthought.

The proposed site evaluation system favours adjacency to existing services which in practice means existing housing. But planning transport first will lead to a very different pattern of development. Adding “another field” to existing settlements points to donut development with a failing centre - there are many who believe that is already happening to Colchester. Transport led growth would create development along each of the major routes into Colchester - slices of cake, not donuts. There would be significant benefits for both the town centre and the countryside.

The Local Plan review would ideally start with an infrastructure audit: then planning for the transport network: and only then allocate land for housing. Please can we make a start in that direction by
i) strengthening the words around transport in the SLAA assessment criteria, and
ii) completing the long-promised infrastructure audit at pace.

At this stage, Gladman has general comments that will assist in preparing the Methodology; these comments are made to ensure that the document is sound. Gladman requests to be kept up to date on the progress of this document and any future consultation(s) on the SLAA.
Gladman specialises in promoting strategic land for residential development and associated community infrastructure and has considerable experience in contributing to the Development Plan preparation process and supporting documents, having made detailed representations on numerous Local Plan consultations and having participated at Local Plan Examinations across England. It is based on that experience that our comments are made in these representations. Comments on 'Stage 1 - Identifying the sites' Gladman notes that in the 'Initial Survey' section (paragraph 3.16 onwards), Tables 2 and 3 set out the proposed constraints and criteria for the initial survey which will omit sites from any further detailed assessment if a red 'RAG' rating is returned. Gladman would like to flag that the methodology potentially limits sustainable sites from progressing to the next stage of the SLAA process by not incorporating an 'amber' status into the RAG rating. There is a particular issue with excluding sites that are more than 50% in Flood Zone 3. While development should be directed away from flooding from areas of the highest risk (paragraph 159 of the Framework), there could be the capability for sites where more than half of the site area is in flood zone 3 to accommodate development outside of the floodzone or within lower risk flood zones 1 and 2. Instead, these sites should be given an amber rating (similar to page 22 of the Suitability Assessment), and further flood risk assessment should be undertaken on such sites. Taking this approach would be in line with the purposes of paragraph 159 and ensure that the Council does not overlook sites suitable for sustainable development. Comments on 'Stage 2: Site Assessment' Greenfield versus Brownfield Land Greenfield and brownfield housing sites are required to meet the housing needs of local planning authorities: indeed, Colchester BC's Local Plan comprises a mixture of greenfield and brownfield sites. It is, therefore, inappropriate that the Site Assessment table to determine the suitability of sites includes a RAG rating on page 18 that affords sites that are 'approx. 75% plus' greenfield a red score. A preference in the NPPF for utilising previously developed land is exactly that and should not be a determining factor of a positive or negative assessment. The potential issues that impact greenfield and brownfield sites are included as separate criteria within the assessment, making the greenfield/brownfield assessment criterion redundant. Gladman suggests removing the greenfield/brownfield criterion from the assessment; the information should be included in the SLAA for context only. Green Infrastructure Enhancement On page 21, the assessment asks, 'Could development of the site enhance or create green infrastructure' ('GI') before listing GI types. Gladman questions the ability to answer this question based on the call for sites proforma and GIS alone. Such a question can only be adequately addressed through in-depth assessment. Gladman suggests that Colchester BC revise the sources that will be used to assess the sites against this criterion. Conclusion Gladman welcomes the opportunity to comment on the SLAA and would like to be kept informed as this document progresses. I hope you have found these representations constructive, and should you wish to discuss any of the points raised in detail, please do not hesitate to get in contact

As the Government’s adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully taken into account at all stages and levels of the local planning process, and therefore welcome the opportunity to comment on these proposals. I can confirm that while we do not have any specific comments to make at this stage, we will be interested in receiving subsequent consultations on this and related projects

Hopkins Homes Ltd is the largest independent house building company in East Anglia with a reputation for delivering well designed, high quality residential and mixed-use development harmonising with its local context. In the past decade the company has succeeded in delivering sustainable developments which improve neighbourhoods, improve local infrastructure and add to local distinctiveness throughout the area. In respect of the content of the SHLAA Methodology Local Plan Consultation, Hopkins Homes wish to make the following comments:- Why previous SLAA documents are being used as a data source for sites - there is then the potential for this to lead to a predetermined conclusion ? Concerned regarding the potential loss of the 'Amber' category within the Red-Amber-Green assessment and how officers will seek to assess elements regarding access, close proximity to a site/feature, etc. ? Similarly, concerned that the Red-Amber-Green approach to things like agricultural land classification, utilities and land ownership - without an Amber option, sites could be prematurely discounted from further assessment ? Wording suggests that site visits will be undertaken where considered necessary, but the table confirms these are how evidence will be gathered - this seems like a lack of consistency ? Approach to judgements in respect of landscape, archaeology and heritage - What evidence base will be used for these and how will officers make informed judgements that can be consistent and "sound" in their approach/conclusions ? Any windfall allowance should be based on evidence of previous delivery to justify such an approach.

On behalf of our clients Vistry Homes Ltd who have multiple land interests across the plan area, we are delighted to see that the Council has begun the process of reviewing the Local Plan for the Colchester City area. In line with national policy, we recognise the importance of keeping Local Plans up to date and the timely review of a plan is essential to support the growth, development and provision of services and facilities across an area to meet identified needs and requirements. Undertaking a review of a Local Plan also provides the development industry with an opportunity to engage fully in the plan preparation process which is welcomed. In October 2023, the Council published the draft Strategic Land Availability Assessment and invited comments on the methodology that will be used to undertake site assessments. It is understood that the methodology allows the Council to appraise sites for suitability, availability and achievability with the aim of objectively determining which sites will be deliverable over the plan period. After reviewing the draft methodology, we have the following comments and observations to make.

Table 1 - sites We accept this is a potential source of sites but we would question the considered through benefit of including these within the assessments. There is no previous SLAAs guarantee that a site is still available after being submitted previously and this will need to be confirmed by landowners. We also query whether a previously discounted site would be pre-determined as part of the future considerations.

Paragraph 3.18 The Council is justified in taking into account national policy and designations, but in doing so, there is a risk that the LPA could discount a site which is only part within a boundary (such as a designated landscape) and part outside. Ruling such a site out an early stage would not be justified.

Table 2 - Site wholly We agree that where a site is not wholly located within such a located within designation, this should receive a "green" and remain within the designations such as assessment. Identifying sites which include such features can be a AONB, SSSI, SAC positive way of conserving and enhancing the area and surrounds of the designation.

Paragraph 3.21 We agree with the Council approach to providing reasons why a site has been omitted from the assessment and publishing this on the Council website adds to the overall transparency of the assessment. However there should be an opportunity within the SLAA (as well as future Local Plan consultations) for respondents to review the Council assessment and seek to amend the site proposals as necessary. Allowing for dialogue between the Council and respondents will facilitate an ongoing and iterative process and avoid "suitable" sites being omitted at the first attempt.
Paragraph 3.30 Methodology identifies that environmental constraints such as impact on landscape, archaeology and heritage will be considered. We are unclear as to what evidence base the Council will use to inform these considerations and how assessments will be undertaken in a consistent and transparent manner.

Page 17, criterion Utility connections come about through engagement with service relating to utilities providers through the Local Plan preparation stages, with many having a duty to provide capacity to meet planned growth. The criterion as written suggests that existing utility capacity will impact judgements and potentially omit a site because "existing" capacity is not available. This fails to take into account that capacity can be provided when there is certainty about a site(s) coming forward over the plan period.

Page 18, criterion Agree this should be a part of the assessment, but query how the relating to issues that Council would identify constraints that are underground and what would prevent/limit impact they may have on developable area. For example gas developable areas pipelines or sewers which are underground but have stand off distances to enable maintenance as required.

Page 20 - At this stage, it is unclear what evidence base or specialists the Council development harm to will be using to inform this part of the assessment and how the rating landscape character will be determined. Without clarity as to the source of evidence we can not be certain this will be done in a transparent and consistent manner.
Page 23 - Access to Suggest that the principles of walking, cycling and wheeling as Key Services promoted by Active Travel England are used to inform assessment and rating for this criterion. Page 24 - site The key consideration should be whether the site has been promoted ownership recently. A site should not be given a lower rating solely because it has multiple owners when they are in agreement for its promotion and future development potential.

Page 26 - We do not consider that taking account of existing policies such as development in line affordable housing is a useful metric. A new Local Plan provides the with existing policies opportunity to evolve policies based on new and emerging evidence. At this stage in the process further information will always be required in terms of demonstrating viability.

Page 26 - reliance on The methodology needs to recognise that in situations where another parcel of land additional land is required (e.g ransom strips) this issue is not unsurmountable with negotiations between landowners. A site should not be discounted at this early stage just because additional land might be required.
Page 27 - land It is beneficial to take account of policies which protect land for currently protected for alternative use, but we question how this will be undertaken, an alternative use especially when considering proposals within areas that have a made Neighbourhood Plan. As the Local Plan Review takes places, Neighbourhood Plans in particular will be out of date with the emerging Local Plan and therefore potentially protected for alternative uses.

Paragraph 3.32 Agree that the Council is likely able to justify a continued allowance for windfall, but this should be informed by windfall development identified each year in the housing land supply document or authority monitoring report. Any windfall allowance should be evidence based and reviewed each year.

Paragraph 3.33 The methodology requires additional commentary and guidance as to how sites will be taken forward. Currently it is unclear as to what happens if a site has a red rating for any criterion. Can a site progress to a future stage of consideration if it receives a red rating, or is that an absolute constraint?

On behalf of Vistry Homes Ltd, we are delighted that the Council has begun a review of the Local Plan covering the Colchester City Council area. We look forward to continuing to engage in future stages of the Local Plan review and working positively with the Council to identify sites that deliver sustainable development across the plan period.

We write on behalf our client, Mersea Homes, to provide comments on the Draft Strategic Land Availability Assessment Methodology. These comments are follows:
Paragraph 3.20 - We object to the use of the RAG (Red, Amber, Green) rating in Tables 2 and 3. Whilst the RAG rating can provide a useful visual aide when assessing sites, it is too simplistic to apply for this SLAA exercise. Each site will require a qualitative assessment to understand its planning merits, and such an assessment cannot be presented through the use of a RAG rating without losing some of the nuances that need to be taken into account. The RAG rating should therefore only be used to assess the overall score of a site, or to assess the site against national designations. A more informed and weighted scoring system would provide a more robust assessment of each site. The following extract is taken from Chelmsford's SHLAA assessment and would appear a more appropriate way of assessing individual sites.

An alternative approach could be to present each criterion within a single radar graph per site, see image below.

Table 2 - We object to the Red rating for any site that is deemed to be physically isolated from an existing settlement(s) or located in the open countryside. This is too restrictive and should be Amber. There will be instances where sites are in established built-up clusters but are away from existing settlement boundaries, yet they may still provide potential housing, commercial or infrastructure options needed to serve a community.

Table 3 - We object to the questions cited in Table 3. This table relates to Green Infrastructure, but the questions repeat those in Table 2, which relate to residential and commercial sites. This table should be tailored to the green infrastructure needs. The 0.25ha threshold is also too restrictive for green infrastructure, as smaller sites could also make a valuable contribution to tree coverage, biodiversity etc.

Section 1: Suitability - As previously mentioned, we have concerns over the use of the RAG rating to assess sites. It should only be used and applied to essential criteria e.g. flood risk and national land designations to sieve out any sites. The remaining criteria should be considered using an informed and weighted scoring system, supported by a qualitative assessment.

Section 1: Suitability - Assessment Criterion
The SLAA criteria will be discussed below. The objections made are in relation to the RAG rating. The criteria below should only be used if it forms part of an informed qualitative discussion and not a RAG rating. Is the site within or adjacent to the existing settlement boundary? This criterion is too restrictive as it fails to take account of existing communities and clusters of development that are currently away from existing settlement boundaries, but yet they may still perform an important community and economic function. Would development of the site lead to coalescence between settlements? This criterion is too restrictive as it fails understand the nuances of what is being proposed or the contextual circumstances of a site. For example, a site may sit within two settlements, but be proposing significant green infrastructure to maintain a gap between these settlements. This criterion would not take account of that scenario. Is there any evidence that it would not be possible to deliver the necessary utilities? This criterion is too restrictive, as matters relating to utilities are best addressed at the planning application stage. Any utility deficiencies can be addressed through an Infrastructure Delivery Plan and future local plan policy. Are there any issues that would prevent/limit the developable area of the site? e.g. topography/levels, pylons. This criterion is too restrictive as matters relating to the developable area should be addressed at the planning application stage, when the detailed technical evidence has been gathered for that process. Is the site brownfield or greenfield? This criterion is too restrictive as most sites in the Colchester administrative area will be red. This criterion should instead be a statement of fact, rather than a red assessment. Impact of neighbouring uses (e.g. noise, smell, amenity) - would development be likely to be negatively impacted by, or cause negative impact on, neighbouring areas? This criterion is too restrictive, as it would result in a subjective assessment that lacks the technical evidence required to make an informed decision. The technical evidence required to understand this matter is at the level required for a planning application submission. Is the site located within any of the following local designations? Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) Local Nature Reserve (LNR) Coastal Protection Belt. We object to the inclusion of the Coastal Belt, as this designation covers much of the Colchester administrative area and could negatively affect the assessment of the sites that are required to meet the needs of the coastal communities. Would development harm landscape character or setting? This criterion is too restrictive, as it would result in a subjective assessment that lacks the technical evidence required to make an informed decision. The technical evidence required to understand the landscape impact is at the level required for a planning application submission. Instead, landscape impact should be judged against national landscape designations e.g. the AONB. Are there any key views from the site? This criterion is too restrictive, as it would result in a subjective assessment that lacks the technical evidence required to make an informed decision. A Landscape Visual Impact Assessment would be required for each site to make an informed assessment. This is onerous and best undertaken at the planning application site. Could development of the site enhance or create green infrastructure e.g Open Space, Park, Sport and/or recreation grounds, Country Park, Allotments, Biodiversity Net Gain? Given that the SLAA will be considering sites of varying size and context, this criterion is too restrictive. For example, previously developed sites could be penalised because they lack opportunities to increase biodiversity or green infrastructure. If the RAG rating is retained, sites should only be considered against the amber and green ratings. Red should be removed from the assessment. Would development of the site result in the loss of, or partial loss of, public open space, a Public Right of Way (PRoW), or a bridleway? This criterion is too simplistic and fails to understand the full benefits that an individual site could deliver. For example, a site may result in a loss of public open space, but deliver other public benefits. Walking distance to key services including primary and secondary schools, supermarkets convenience stores, GP surgeries and/or Colchester City Centre. This criterion is too restrictive as it would penalise all the sites located outside of the Colchester Urban Area. Development will be required in the villages outside of Colchester that may not benefit from walking accessibility to these services.

Section 2: Availability
What is the site ownership situation? This criterion wrongly penalises sites with multiple owners. Many sites have multiple owners, and need not necessarily be a constraint. Therefore, multiple ownership should not be a red rating. This criterion should be noted as a statement of fact only. Is the landowner open to working in partnership and bringing the site forward in combination with others to enable a comprehensive approach to development? This criterion is too restrictive. Each site is different and will require a different response. This criterion should be noted as a statement of fact only. Is the site currently in use and is it likely to continue to be used for the foreseeable future / would that use prevent development on the site from coming forward? This criterion is too restrictive .Housing land supply is required over a 15 year period and as such, the conditions of the site at this stage of the process will not necessary be the same in a few years from now. Each site is different and will require a different response. This criterion should be noted as a statement of fact only.
Section 3: Achievability (including viability)

Is the site within a Minerals Safeguarding Area and/or Minerals and Waste Consultation Area? This criterion is too restrictive. It is incorrect to assume that a site being such an area could not come forward. This assessment should be considered in consultation with ECC and following a bespoke minerals assessment. Such an assessment would be more suitable at the planning application stage. Is the land currently protected for an alternative use within the Colchester Local Plan or a Neighbourhood Plan? This criterion is too restrictive. Not all existing allocations are now suitable and may not now need to be taken forward in a future local plan. Instead, this criterion should highlight possible recommendations to explore if an allocation may need to be reconsidered. Is the site contaminated or partially contaminated? This criterion is too restrictive. Contamination assessments are required at the planning application stage. It would not be possible to evaluate contamination as part of the SLAA without having such an assessment carried out for each site, which in itself would be too onerous.

Stage 3 - Windfall Assessment It is noted that paragraph 3.32 states that the evidence underpinning windfall allowance will be reviewed through the SLAA process. This is supported, however, by increasing the threshold allowance of the SLAA to include all possible sites, this will provide stronger evidence in which to make this windfall assessment.

Officer Summary:
1. I am concerned they are considering developing any site that has any part of it in flood zone3. (Page11)
2. The same goes for AONB's etc. Page 11)
3. We should be considering sites of less than 5 dwellings (Page10)
4. Sites in the development / neighbourhood plan are mentioned. Can we ensure that Great Tey neighbourhood plan is considered. (Page12)
5. General - I know it is not currently at approval stage but can we push to ensure that our Neighbourhood Plan is at least taken into consideration. It highlights the villages preferred site.