Objectives

Showing comments and forms 1 to 11 of 11

Support

Preferred Options Local Plan

Representation ID: 254

Received: 19/08/2016

Respondent: Mr Simon Hall

Representation:

3.15 Wholly support these objectives which should inform all decisions and policy developments

Full text:

3.15 Wholly support these objectives which should inform all decisions and policy developments

Support

Preferred Options Local Plan

Representation ID: 1471

Received: 16/09/2016

Respondent: Ms Susanna Harrison

Agent: Fenn Wright

Representation:

We support the Council's objectives in terms of ensuring new development is of high quality, supports existing communities and is delivered at sustainable locations. Proposals for development around Marks Tey are supported as being a sustainable location where all these objectives can be satisfied.

Full text:

We support the Council's objectives in terms of ensuring new development is of high quality, supports existing communities and is delivered at sustainable locations. Proposals for development around Marks Tey are supported as being a sustainable location where all these objectives can be satisfied.

Comment

Preferred Options Local Plan

Representation ID: 1489

Received: 15/09/2016

Respondent: Essex Bridleways Association

Representation:

Paragraphs 3.13 and 3.14 - include access for equestrians

Full text:

Objectives paragraph 3.13: we note that this states that it is intended to 'Promote healthy lifestyles through the provision and enhancement of sport and recreation facilities, public open space and green infrastructure'. We request that this commitment is clarified so that it includes all users within this Policy rather than considering just pedestrians and cyclists which unfortunately appears to be the norm. Equestrians also need safe off-road connecting routes which link to the wider network of public rights of way and this need should be catered for - after all, horse riding is an excellent form of exercise most commonly undertaken by women and children, two groups that are frequently encouraged to increase their level of exercise. Better multi-user links accessible to all will contribute to the health and wellbeing of all sectors of the community, and this includes the disabled.

Paragraph 3.14 Natural Environment: we note that it is recognised that the provision of Green Infrastructure is an excellent benefit and we request that a commitment to make it accessible to all users is also embedded into this Policy. The opportunity to fund this infrastructure via developer contributions together with a commuted sum for future maintenance of this infrastructure should not be missed.

Comment

Preferred Options Local Plan

Representation ID: 1543

Received: 15/09/2016

Respondent: British Horse Society

Representation:

Re paragraph 3.13 we request clarification on the last bullet point so that it includes ALL users rather than just catering for pedestrians and cyclists.

Re para 3.14, again this aims to provide a green infrastructure network and again, we request that access for ALL users, including equestrians, is embedded within this Objective.

Full text:

Re paragraph 3.13 we request clarification on the last bullet point so that it includes ALL users rather than just catering for pedestrians and cyclists.

Re para 3.14, again this aims to provide a green infrastructure network and again, we request that access for ALL users, including equestrians, is embedded within this Objective.

Support

Preferred Options Local Plan

Representation ID: 1600

Received: 16/09/2016

Respondent: Mr Ian Melrose

Agent: Fenn Wright

Representation:

3.13 Sustainable Growth - We support the Council's objectives in terms of ensuring new development is of high quality, supports existing communities and is delivered at sustainable locations. Proposals for development around Marks Tey are supported as being a sustainable location where all these objectives can be satisfied.

Full text:

3.13 Sustainable Growth - We support the Council's objectives in terms of ensuring new development is of high quality, supports existing communities and is delivered at sustainable locations. Proposals for development around Marks Tey are supported as being a sustainable location where all these objectives can be satisfied.

Object

Preferred Options Local Plan

Representation ID: 1864

Received: 16/09/2016

Respondent: Turnstone Colchester Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation:

It is considered that in light of the scale of planned growth within Colchester, and having regard to existing levels of demand for leisure uses, the delivery of high quality and accessible leisure facilities should also be listed as one of the strategic objectives for the Local Plan if sustainable growth is to be achieved.

Full text:

Paragraph 3.13 lists the Strategic Objectives for sustainable growth. To reiterate our previous comments lodged in respect of Paragraph 2.29 of Part 1 of the Local Plan, it is considered that in order to set the policy framework for delivering sustainable growth, the final bullet point of paragraph 3.13 should be reworded. The suggested text change is that after the text "sport and recreation facilities", that the following text be added "leisure facilities,". Such a change is considered necessary to ensure that the key infrastructure to support the existing and future community's needs is adequately catered for in a manner that accords with the NPPF's objectives for delivering sustainable growth.

Comment

Preferred Options Local Plan

Representation ID: 2256

Received: 19/09/2016

Respondent: North East Essex Clinical Commissioning Group

Representation:

There are numerous paragraphs throughout this section mentioning infrastructure and facilities to support the growing community but no specific mention of working exclusively with stakeholders such as Health to ensure plans for Primary and Community Health Service facilities are factored in. This is supported in my comments of 3.10 where the local Health Service now find itself in a position of lack of essential funding to ensure provision of facilities to new developments in North Colchester. Better processes need to be embedded to ensure any potential funding is realised. In addition, as part of our emerging strategies which include the Primary Care Strategy, Sustainability Transformation Plan and Strategic Estates Plan we are reviewing potential options for Primary Care Hub's which will support services in the community in line with our Care Closer to Home contract.

Full text:

Your Ref: Colchester Borough Council Local Plan Tel: 0113 824 9111
Our Ref: CBC/LP/CCG/KHJM

Email only

Planning Policy
Colchester Borough Council
Rowan House
33 Sheepen Road
Colchester
Essex, CO3 3WG
local.plan@colchester.gov.uk
16th September 2016


Dear Sir / Madam

Colchester Borough Council - Draft Local Plan Consultation 2016- 2033

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Thank you for consulting NHS England and North East Essex CCG on the above Draft Local Plan (DLP) Document.

1.2 In reviewing the context, content and recommendations of the DLP Document and its current phase of progression, the following comments are with regard to the primary healthcare provision on behalf of NHS England Midlands & East (East) (NHSE) North East Essex Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and NHS Property Services (NHSPS).

2.0 Existing Healthcare Position in the Emerging Plan Area

2.1 The DLP Document covers the administrative area of Colchester with reference to the North Essex authorities to include Tendring District Council and Braintree District Council.

2.2 Currently, within the administrative area, healthcare provision incorporates a total of 21 GP Practices and 9 branch surgeries; 36 pharmacies, 30 dental surgeries, 17 opticians, and 1 Acute Hospital.

2.3 These are the healthcare services available that this DLP must take into account in formulating future strategies.

2.4 Growth, in terms of housing and employment, is proposed across a wide area and would likely have an impact on future Primary Care service provision. Existing GP practices in the area do not have capacity to accommodate significant growth.

2.5 In terms of optimal space requirements to encourage a full range of services to be delivered within the community there is an overall capacity deficit, based on weighted patient list sizes¹, within the 21 main GP Practices providing services in the area.

2.6 NHS England working with the North East Essex CCG (CCG) and the local authority has begun to address capacity issues in the area and there are a number of proposals in the pipeline. We are also working with the GP practices within Colchester to identify a preferred option to collocate many of the services provided in the area and significantly increase capacity and the range of services available to the community.

2.7 Optimal space standards are set for planning purposes only. This allows us to review the space we have available and identify the impact development growth will have in terms of capacity and service delivery. Space capacity deficit does not prevent a practice from increasing its list size, however it may impact on the level and type of services the practice is able to deliver.

2.8 NHS England and the CCG are currently working together to help plan and develop new ways of working within our primary care facilities, in line with the Five Year Forward View, to increase capacity in ways other than increasing physical space. The CCG's emerging Strategic Estates Plan will contain further detail on this and the 3 year Primary Care Estates and Technology Transformation Funding programme, which commenced in June 2016, will help to provide funding and solutions for existing capacity issues.

2.9 Existing health infrastructure will require further investment and improvement in order to meet the needs of the planned growth shown in this DLP document. The developments contained within would have an impact on healthcare provision in the area and its implications, if unmitigated, would be unsustainable.

3.0 Identification and Assessment of Policies and Strategies that have Healthcare Implications

3.1 In developing the final Local Plan document, care should be taken to ensure that emerging policies will not have an adverse impact on healthcare provision within the plan area and over the plan period.

3.2 In instances where major policies involve the provision of development in locations where healthcare service capacity is insufficient to meet the augmented needs appropriate mitigation will be sought.

3.3 Policies should be explicit in that contributions towards healthcare provision will be obtained and the Local Planning Authority will consider a development's sustainability with regard to effective healthcare provision.

3.4 The exact nature and scale of the contribution and the subsequent expenditure by NHS England will be calculated at an appropriate time as and when schemes come forward over the plan period to realise the objectives of the DLP.

3.5 Before further progression and amendment of policies are undertaken, the Local Planning Authority should have reference to the most up-to-date strategy documents from NHS England and the CCG which currently constitute The Five Year Forward View and the emerging CCG Strategic Estates Plan & Primary Care Strategy and the Sustainability Transformation Plans.

3.6 Plans and policies should be revised to ensure that they are specific enough in their aims, but are not in any way prescriptive or binding on NHS England to carry out certain development within a set timeframe, and do not give undue commitment to projects.

3.7 Notwithstanding this, there should be a reasonably worded policy within the emerging Local Plan that indicates a supportive approach from the Local Planning Authority to the improvement, reconfiguration, extension or relocation of existing medical facilities. This positive stance should also be indicated towards assessing those schemes for new bespoke medical facilities where such facilities are agreed to in writing by NHS England. New facilities will only be appropriate where they accord with the latest up-to-date NHS England and CCG strategy documents.

3.8 NHS England note the requirement for Colchester Borough Council to deliver a plan for increased levels of housing growth for their area, resulting in approximately 18,400 new dwellings during the plan period 2016 - 2033 and have identified the anticipated impact on infrastructure arising from these proposals.

3.9 NHS England and the CCG would like to draw attention to the fact that as well as infrastructure it is important to take into consideration Workforce. Primary care in Colchester has major issues with GP/Nurse workforce recruitment and retention which has resulted in compromised quality of provision in some areas, with a number of practices being rated by the Care Quality Commission as under special measures, and reduced patient access. It is vital that primary care workforce planning and need is fully considered by CBC when planning for additional housing development to ensure that the health needs of an increased population is met by a sufficient and well trained workforce. CBC also need to consider how the Local Plan can support NHSE and the CGG to pro-actively attract primary care staff to come and work and live in the area to meet the health need challenges of the population both now and in the future and ensure the safe and continuing provision of primary care services in Colchester. It is also important to ensure that workforce across the health and social care network is taken into consideration with any major developments such as the Garden Committee proposals.

3.10 As stated above the exact nature and scale of mitigation required to meet augmented needs of proposed developments will be calculated at an appropriate time, as and when schemes come forward over the plan period to realise the objectives of the LDP. It will be vital that the CCG and NHS England are consulted with by means of participating in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan process. To date it appears there has been a breakdown in communication which has resulted in no healthcare 106 contributions being realised for 2 major developments currently underway being Severalls Hospital Site and Mile End Road. Following recent discussions between the CCG and the Planning Department, a process for future potential 106 contributions has been agreed. However, the council need to take into consideration the potential implications on the health sector services the two major developments underway will have especially on Primary Care provision and ensure that the CCG and NHS England are supported with any potential funding opportunities.




3.11 Policy SP8: East Colchester/West Tendring New Garden Community, point E item 13. should be amended to read 'Primary healthcare facilities as appropriate'.

3.12 Policy SP9: West of Colchester/East of Braintree New Garden Community, point E item 13 should be amended to read 'Primary healthcare facilities as appropriate'.

3.13 Policy SP10: West of Braintree New Garden Community, point E item 12 should read 'Primary healthcare facilities as appropriate'.

3.14 Section 3. Vision and Objectives for Colchester Borough Council 2033: There are numerous paragraphs throughout this section mentioning infrastructure and facilities to support the growing community but no specific mention of working exclusively with stakeholders such as Health to ensure plans for Primary and Community Health Service facilities are factored in. This is supported in my comments of 3.10 where the local Health Service now find itself in a position of lack of essential funding to ensure provision of facilities to new developments in North Colchester. Better processes need to be embedded to ensure any potential funding is realised. In addition, as part of our emerging strategies which include the Primary Care Strategy, Sustainability Transformation Plan and Strategic Estates Plan we are reviewing potential options for Primary Care Hub's which will support services in the community in line with our Care Closer to Home contract.

3.15 Section 4.20: As part of the described Sustainable Development of 3 District Communities (I am assuming this is referring to the Garden Community Settlements) there is a list of accessible community facilities which includes a Doctors Surgery within the list of facilities within a 400m distance. Can this be amended to Health Facility (including Community and Primary Care Services) if appropriate as our emerging strategies including Sustainability Transformation Plan, Primary Care Strategy and Strategic Estates Strategy may establish a different need for a facility to be required/located.

3.16 Section4.56 - 4.57: please provide timescales for when input to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be as this is our best opportunity to ensuring Health facility requirements and funding associated with those requirements can be made clearer.

3.17 Section 4.58: Please amend to and healthcare services and facilities by the North East Essex Clinical Commissioning Group and NHS England Midlands & East (East) (NHSE)

3.18 Section 6.177: reference to Winstree Road Medical Practice and the practice being at capacity. As part of the Primary Care Transformation agenda, capacities at existing surgeries are currently under review. The potential additional capacity requirements of this area will be taken into consideration.

3.19 Section 7 DM1 Health and Wellbeing: North East Essex Clinical Commissioning Group and NHSE Midlands and East agree with the statements in this section and welcome discussion to ensure that Health Impact Assessments are undertaken by developers at the point of any preliminary enquiry or outline Planning Application.







4.0 Conclusions

4.1 This response follows a consultation by Colchester on the Preferred Options Local Plan.

4.2 In its capacity as healthcare provider, NHS England and the CCG have requested that the Local Planning Authority identifies policies and strategies that are considered to directly or indirectly impact upon healthcare provision and has responded with comments to help shape future policy.

4.3 Assuming the comments are incorporated wholly within the future Local Plan then NHS England or the CCG would not which to raise an objection to the Colchester Preferred Options Local Plan.

4.4 NHS England has also identified shortfalls in capacity at existing premises covered by the DLP. Provision needs to be made within the emerging DLP to address the impacts of development on health infrastructure and to ensure timely cost-effective delivery of necessary infrastructure improvements, in the interests of pursuing sustainable development.

4.5 The recommendations set out above are those that NHS England, the CCG and NHSPS deem appropriate having regard to the projected needs arising from the Colchester Preferred Options Local Plan. However, if the recommendations are not implemented then NHS England reserve the right to make representations about the soundness of the plan at relevant junctures during the adoption process.

Yours faithfully

Kerry Harding Jane Mower
Estates Advisor (NHSE) Estates Programme Manager (NEE CCG)


CC:. Pam Green - North East Essex CCG - Director of Transformation and Strategy
James Archard - North East Essex CCG - Deputy Director of Transformation & Strategy
Penny Lansdown - North East Essex CCG - Interim Head of Primary Care
David Barter - NHS England- Contracts Manager

Comment

Preferred Options Local Plan

Representation ID: 2277

Received: 21/09/2016

Respondent: Essex County Council

Representation:

fifth bullet point mentions accessible walking and cycling but it could mention the need to ensure these are connected across the Borough to already existing developments. ECC strongly supports accessibility through active travel to support healthy lifestyles.

Full text:

APPENDIX 1 TO ECC CABINET MEMBER ACTION DATED 2 SEPTEMBER 2016 (FP/530/06/16)

ECC RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION OF THE COLCHESTER BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS CONSULTATION, JULY 2016



1. INTRODUCTION

Essex County Council (ECC) supports the preparation of a new Local Plan for Colchester Borough Council (Colchester BC) and welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Colchester Borough Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation Document (July 2016) (the Draft Plan).

A Local Plan, by setting out a vision and policies for the long-term planning and development of the borough, should provide a platform from which to secure a sustainable economic, social and environmental future to the benefit of its residents, businesses and visitors. A robust long-term strategy will provide a reliable basis on which ECC and its partners may plan future service provision and required infrastructure for which they are responsible. ECC will use its best endeavours to assist Colchester BC on strategic and cross-boundary matters under the duty to cooperate, including engagement and co-operation with other organisations for which those issues may have relevance.

The following is the response from ECC to the Draft Plan covering matters relevant to ECC's statutory service provision and its function as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. The response does not cover ECC as a landowner and/or prospective developer. A separate response will be made on these matters (if relevant) and that response should be treated in the same way as a response from other developers and/or landholders.'

For ease the ECC response will work through each of the chapters set out in the Draft Plan, and indicate where acknowledgements, recommendations and alterations are sought. This is preceded by commentary on the duty to cooperate.

2. DUTY TO CO-OPERATE

ECC acknowledges the production of the Draft Plan consultation by Colchester BC. ECC supports the key issues that the 'Part 1' strategic plan chapter seeks to address, namely providing for homes and jobs in the area; provision of infrastructure for transport and telecommunications; provision of education, health, community and cultural infrastructure; and the conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment.

The PPG makes it clear that the duty to cooperate requires cooperation in two tier local planning authority areas and states 'Close cooperation between district local planning authorities and county councils in two tier local planning authority areas will be critical to ensure that both tiers are effective when planning for strategic matters such as minerals, waste, transport and education.' (Paragraph: 014, Reference ID: 9-014-20140306)

In preparing its Draft Local Plan ECC has assisted Colchester BC in the following:

* Commissioning joint evidence base documents as required

o Joint evidence base: Colchester Local Plan Traffic Modelling Technical Report (July 2016); Submission of SELEP (Round 1 - 3) Single Local Growth Fund Bids for highway schemes, Integrated Transport Packages, and Route Based Strategies. Joint commissioning of Garden Community evidence base documents.
o Evidence base by ECC: Minerals Safeguarding Assessment (2016).
o Statutory Plans: Essex Minerals Local Plan (July 2014) and Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Waste Local Plan (submitted for examination June 2016).

* Joint meetings with relevant authorities as and when required

Joint meetings have been held with Highways England (HE); the Heart and Haven Transport Board; the ECC Community Infrastructure Group, and as part of the North Essex Garden Communities proposals, in addition to regular Local Plan meetings.

* Memoranda of understanding (MOU)

ECC is a signatory, along with North Essex districts (Colchester, Braintree, Tendring), and Chelmsford City Council, to the 'Memorandum of Co-operation: Collaboration on Strategic Priorities in North and Central Essex' (MOU), regarding the exploration of the potential for new garden communities across the area and other strategic cross boundary matters. ECC is an active member on member and officer working groups regarding the North Essex Garden Communities proposals.

A MOU has also been signed between ECC, Colchester BC, University of Essex, and Tendring DC, which sets a framework for collaboration between parties in order to promote the economic interests and prosperity of North East Essex (April 2014). The MOU was supplemented in March 2015 to clarify joint strategic objectives and justify investing further time and resources into developing proposals for a potential new garden village (i.e. Garden Community). It is recommended that this MOU is also mentioned in the Draft Plan. A copy is included at the end of this response and reference should be made in the Draft Plan.

* Pre-consultation during the production of the new Local Plan and other relevant local plan documents

ECC, as Highway Authority, Education Authority, Lead Local Flood Authority, and Minerals and Waste Planning Authority (MWPA) provides pre-application advice and response to planning applications, and potential Local Plan allocations. Interim advice on the capacity of education facilities, highway impacts and mineral issues is also provided. ECC acting as the MWPA are pleased to note the references to minerals and waste policy throughout the relevant sections of the Draft Plan that have resulted from ongoing engagement under the Duty to Co-operate.

ECC will provide information to inform a Colchester BC Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). The IDP will need to support the Pre-Submission Plan, and identify infrastructure required arising from growth proposals. ECC will continue to assist the Colchester BC in the preparation of the IDP in our role as a provider of key services and subject to statutory responsibilities, for example minerals and waste; highways, education (primary, secondary, and early years and childcare), flood and water management, and adult social care.

COLCHETER BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN PREFERRED OPTIONS DOCUMENT

3. INTRODUCTION (P1)

The MWPA welcome the description of the wider Development Plan in the introductory section, and particularly the references to mineral and waste safeguarding.

Paragraph 1.10
The reference to the safeguarding policy in the Essex Minerals Local Plan is welcomed, although it should refer to the correct title i.e. Minerals Local Plan Policy S8 - Safeguarding mineral resources and mineral reserves.

The MWPA are satisfied that no such reference to a specific policy can be made with regard to Waste Consultation Zones in the Replacement Waste Local Plan, as this has yet to be adopted. Instead, it is anticipated that would be added once the Waste Plan is adopted; scheduled early 2017.

Paragraph 1.19
ECC as the Lead Local Flood Authority recommends the inclusion of the Colchester Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) as part of the Draft Local Plan's evidence base. The SWMP will also inform the Local Plan's IDP and the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Colchester

Paragraph 1.24
Reference is made to Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) under the fourth bullet point. It is recommended that reference to the Annual Monitoring Report and the Community Infrastructure Levy should be listed as separate points and not part of the SPD bullet point.

PART 1 NORTH ESSEX AUTHORITIES

4. NORTH ESSEX AUTHORITIES: STRATEGIC PART 1 FOR LOCAL PLANS (p9)

The 'Strategic Plan' chapter provides a strategic approach to the requirement for the three North Essex authorities (Colchester, Braintree and Tendring) to meet their objectively assessed need for development land, including the identification of three broad areas of search for new Garden Communities. This strategic planning chapter is common to all three Local Plans and provides a spatial portrait, vision, objectives and policies for key growth topics covering strategic cross boundary issues. ECC supports the 'Strategic Objectives' of the Part 1, which includes providing sufficient new homes; fostering economic development; providing new and improved infrastructure; addressing education and healthcare needs; and ensuring high quality outcomes. A new approach to the delivery of such development is proposed and includes land value capture, long term community stewardship and a new model for funding infrastructure, which is supported.

The new Garden Communities are of interest to ECC in its role as an infrastructure and service provider. ECC, is a signatory to the 'Memorandum of Co-operation: Collaboration on Strategic Priorities in North and Central Essex', and is thereby committed to working closely with the three local planning authorities in identifying the infrastructure that is needed to support the growth set out in Local Plans and beyond. In this work ECC will continue to engage on an on-going basis to assess the infrastructure requirements for these new communities and how this can be delivered in a timely and cost effective way, having regard to the following statutory and non-statutory responsibilities held by ECC:

* Highways and Transportation. ECC is the Highway Authority and is also responsible for long-term strategic transport planning within, to and beyond Essex. ECC will undertake further modelling to inform the three Pre-Submission Local Plans of 'North Essex', along with progressing a number of ongoing strategic studies/projects (with Highways England), and to lobby Government for their inclusion in national strategies and plans.
* Minerals. ECC is the Minerals Planning Authority. ECC has prepared and adopted the Essex Minerals Local Plan (2014), which seeks to ensure a steady and adequate supply of mineral resources to facilitate development. Where known mineral reserves are identified, their extraction and any after use will be considered alongside the preparation of the Masterplan Frameworks (or site specific Local Plans) for the proposed new Garden Communities in order to prevent the sterilisation of known mineral reserves.
* Waste. ECC is the Waste Planning Authority. ECC submitted the Replacement Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan for examination in June 2016. It will cover the period from 2017 to 2032. The submitted Plan supports waste management facilities at specified sites within the District and identifies a number of Areas of Search where the Waste Planning Authority may support development outside of allocated waste sites. The submitted Plan seeks to focus any new proposals for waste management facilities, which support local housing and economic growth, within these Areas of Search before other locations are considered.
* Education (Primary and Secondary). ECC is the Education Authority and will assess the requirements for school place provision for any new housing developments; and be a signatory to any S106 agreement and receive the appropriate financial or land contributions. ECC would wish to see any site for new primary and secondary schools to be identified early and safeguarded. ECC will continue to work with the North Essex local authorities in the preparation of the Masterplan Frameworks to ensure delivery.
* Early Years and Childcare. ECC delivers early years and childcare (EYC) through a commissioning approach, with a responsibility for providing targeted support and Government funded Free Early Education Entitlement (FEEE) for vulnerable 2-year olds and FEEE for all 3 and 4 year olds, which are commissioned from the private, voluntary and independent sectors. ECC will advise on the requirement for new facilities based on the places generated by the new development.
* Flood and Water Management. ECC is the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and must develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management across the county consistent with national strategies. ECC has and will prepare Surface Water Management Plans (SWMP) in North Essex, which will help inform any necessary mitigation arising from development.
* Broadband. ECC is implementing the 'Superfast Essex Programme'. Phase 1 has been completed, with Phase 2a and 2b commenced and to be complete by 2019. ECC will seek to ensure high quality broadband is connected to all new homes and businesses at the point of construction in Essex.
* Independent Living. ECC seeks to develop a range of supported living options and to commission services to support people to remain living independently for as long as possible. A similar process is being considered to meet the needs of working age adults with disabilities. ECC in partnership with local authorities, developers and providers will seek to deliver a range of supported living options that provide integrated and supportive communities for all the citizens of Essex.
* Specialist Housing. In order for ECC to meet the statutory obligations as the provider of adult social care, control costs, and improve the lives of residents, ECC is committed to influencing the provision of a range of housing options for the older population. Such provision should be considered as part of the overall housing mix in Garden Communities to meet identified need. Suitable locations are those close to neighbourhood/local service centres and served by public transport.
* Community Services. ECC is the provider of a number of community services (eg libraries and youth service). ECC will seek to work with partners to ensure multi-purpose 'community hubs' offering several multi-local council/partner services (such as library and registrar services - births, deaths and marriages, and possibly GP and dental practices) are provided within neighbourhood/town centres within the new Garden Communities.

ECC acknowledge and support the commitment of the three authorities to meet their 'objectively assessed need' for housing (2,315 new homes per annum) up to 2033, as identified in Part 1 Policy SP2. Each authority is proposing a spatial strategy that includes at least one new Garden Community, which will provide new housing in sustainable mixed use communities during the emerging Local Plans, and beyond. For Colchester BC, the Draft Plan identifies 2,500 new homes are to be provided on the 'East of Colchester Garden Community' on the border of Colchester BC and Tendring DC, and 2,500 homes to be provided on the 'West of Colchester Garden Community' on the border of Colchester BC and Braintree DC, during the plan period. Across all three local authorities the Garden Communities may be capable of providing 7,500 new homes in the plan period, and between 32,000 to 42,000 new homes, as identified in Policy SP7 at East of Colchester; West of Colchester, and West of Braintree beyond the plan period. ECC acknowledges these are presently 'Areas of Search' and will be refined following further discussions with landowners, and future masterplanning work.

Given the statutory responsibilities of ECC identified above, the strategic priorities for infrastructure identified in Policy SP4 are supported.

In order to deliver the growth outlined in the Draft Plan, ECC in partnership with Highways England will seek to progress improvements to the strategic transport network common to all three local authorities through progression of specific schemes (particularly improvements to the A120 and A12) and through the lobbying of central Government and the Department of Transport for appropriate funding and inclusion in national programmes. The key strategic projects for North Essex include:
* A120 Braintree to A12 (dualling) - being led by ECC to determine options for a new A120 route between Braintree and the A12. Consultation on options will commence January 2017 and a preferred route submitted to Government in Summer 2017.
* A12 Widening between M25 and A12 J29 - being led by Highways England.
* In addition, ECC has and will continue to undertake highway modelling of the three Local Plans, and has produced a 'Rapid Transit Study' focused on the East Colchester/West Tendring locality.
* Route-based strategies are being prepared for delivery post 2018/19 onwards regarding the A133 - Colchester to Clacton, A131 - Chelmsford to Braintree; and A131 - Braintree to Sudbury. The A12/A120 route based strategy was published separately by Highways Agency (now Highways England) in March 2013.
* Lobbying for implementation of rail network projects identified in the Anglia Route Study.

Part 1 Policy SP6 identifies the proposed 'Spatial Strategy for North Essex', which seeks to focus growth on existing settlements prioritising the re-use of previously developed land, but with extensions to settlements where appropriate. Beyond these settlements rural diversification and the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment is supported. Three new Garden Communities are proposed supplying some 7,500 new homes in the plan period, accompanied by employment land, with significant further growth beyond the plan period. ECC supports the strategy and the ambition of maximising growth in existing urban areas on previously developed land. In addition, strategic growth at the edge of the main settlements is supported, where these provide the most sustainable location for growth. All local authorities are seeking to provide a mix of development sites, which will assist in maintaining a five year housing supply to enable plan led growth. The ambition of the three local authorities to promote a strategy that will extend beyond the proposed plan period is welcomed.

Comments and recommended amendments to Part 1

4.1 Introduction (p9)

Paragraph 2.2
It is recommended that the last sentence include reference to ECC's role as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority (MWPA), and is amended as follows,

...'Essex County Council is a key partner in its strategic role for infrastructure and service provision, and as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority.'

Paragraph 2.3
The MWPA welcome reference to county planning in this section but would advise that the Minerals Local Plan and Waste Local Plan are two separate documents. The Essex Minerals Local Plan (MLP) was adopted in July 2014 and therefore forms part of the statutory development plan in Colchester Borough. The replacement Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan (WLP) has been submitted to the Secretary of State and is scheduled to be examined in September / October 2016 with a view to adopt in early 2017. The text in paragraph 1.2.3 should be amended as follows;

'The Local Plan together with the Essex Minerals Local Plan and Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan prepared by the County Council ....'.

4.2 Mineral Resource Assessment

ECC has assessed all sites proposed in the Draft Plan, which have not already gained planning permission for their impact on mineral resources. The assessment was carried out to ensure that finite mineral resources are not needlessly sterilised by non-mineral development, in line with national planning policy requirements.

The sites proposed in the Draft Plan were assessed against whether the whole site or a proportion lies within a mineral safeguarding area; whether that proportion was over the minimum site threshold identified in Policy S8 of the Essex Minerals Local Plan, and what proportion of this potentially workable area was outside of 250 metres of the defined settlement boundary. ECC's assessment concluded that a Minerals Resource Assessment (MRA) would be required in relation to the development proposed at the Garden Communities.

Part 1 Policy SP7 - Development and Delivery of New Garden Communities in Essex, refers to a number of principles that each garden community will be required to conform with in regards to design, development and delivery. Principle xi) seeks to ensure that a sustainable approach to mineral management is undertaken, and is supported.

ECC recommends the following additional principle is necessary given the identified need of undertaking a MRA at the Garden Communities:

'Where development is proposed in a Mineral Safeguarding Area, it will be necessary to ensure that finite mineral deposits are not sterilised unnecessarily, which accords with the notion of sustainable development. A minerals resource assessment is required (see Essex Mineral Local Plan, Policy S8) to ascertain the viability of prior extraction of the mineral in advance of the non-mineral development proceeding. The Minerals Resource Assessment can also be used to assist in the phasing of the new communities.'

It is recommended that sites covered by Garden Communities (Part 1 Policies SP8, SP9 and S10) should contain a specific reference to minerals safeguarding. This will ensure that a MRA is undertaken, where necessary, to support a planning application or masterplanning in order to assess if mineral extraction is viable, and can be programmed with the development of the site. ECC recommend the following principle should be added to Part 1 Policies SP8, SP9 and SP10:

'In accordance with national mineral policy (NPPF para 143) and the Essex Minerals Local Plan (Policy S8), a Minerals Resource Assessment must be submitted as part of any planning application. The Minerals Resource Assessment must assess the economic viability of prior extraction and be prepared using the latest PERC standard. Should the viability of extraction be proven, the mineral shall be worked in accordance with a scheme / masterplan as part of the phased delivery of the non-mineral development. Consultation with the Minerals Planning Authority and Local Planning Authority will be required to determine whether a separate minerals planning application would be required.'


4.3 Policy SP3: Providing for Employment (p23)

ECC supports Policy SP3 and the associated strategic objective 'Fostering Economic Development'. ECC will use its endeavours to implement the strategic economic vision and objectives contained in Part 1 of the Draft Plan and those outlined in the Economic Plan for Essex (2014) and the South East Local Enterprise Partnership's Strategic Economic Plan. ECC will seek investment to improve the east-west connectivity along the A120 to support growth opportunities, particularly those focusing on the proposed new Garden Communities. ECC would seek for the 'employment ask' for the new Garden Communities to be explored in further detail through the Masterplan Frameworks and other specific employment related studies.

4.4 Policy SP4: Infrastructure and Connectivity (p29)

Paragraph 2.59
The paragraph should be amended to read as follows:

'Highways England and Essex County Council will work together to study options for dualling the A120 between Braintree and the A12 junction with the County Council taking the lead.'

Paragraph 2.61
The paragraph should be amended to read as follows:

Route based strategies are prepared and delivered by the County Council for strategic road corridors, in consultation with local authorities. The following strategies are currently being prepared for delivery post 2018/19: A130 A131 - Chelmsford to Braintree; A131 Braintree to Sudbury; and A133 - Colchester to Clacton; A131 and A120 Colchester to Harwich.

Policy CP4, fourth bullet point
ECC welcomes reference to a dualled A120 but the fourth bullet needs to be amended to read as follows:

'A dualled A120 between the A12 junction and Braintree'

Policy CP4, eighth bullet point
ECC welcomes reference to superfast broadband within Part 1 Policy CP4. It is recommended that it is made clear this applies to both residential and non-residential development.

Policy CP4, ninth bullet point
ECC welcomes the policy requirement that in terms of the infrastructure necessary to support development there will be a need to 'Provide sufficient school places in the form of expanded or new primary and secondary schools.'

To ensure all statutory responsibilities are covered, the following should be included at the end of the above criterion '...together with early years and childcare places'.

It should also be made clear that ECC will require the proposed new developments to meet the cost of expanding existing and building new schools as a consequence of the new housing growth proposed.

4.5 Policy SP5: Place Shaping Principles (p30)

ECC would recommend the inclusion of an additional principle as follows:

* 'promotes the benefits of multi-functional land use for services such as habitat creation, carbon storage and flood risk mitigation.'

4.6 Policy SP7: Development and Delivery of New Garden Communities in Essex (p36)

ECC welcomes the principles outlined for the design, development and delivery of each of the three Garden Communities proposed in north Essex and particularly those which relate to the successful provision of the additional school places (and early years and childcare) that will be required to serve these developments, as contained below.

* ii) ii) ensuring the timely delivery of both on-site and off-site infrastructure required to address the impact of these new communities;
* viii) structure the new communities to create sociable, vibrant and walkable neighbourhood with equality of access to all to arrange of community facilities, including ....education....

ECC recommend an additional principle is added, which seeks the new Garden Communities to implement sustainable drainage measures as part of their development, as below:

* 'Plan and deliver a range of appropriate sustainable drainage measures.'

4.7 Policy SP8: East Colchester/West Tendring New Garden Community (p38)

4.7.1 Surface water management

Parts of the Garden Community 'area of search' are at risk of surface water flooding in both 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 year events. In masterplanning the new community the provision of improved drainage infrastructure to future-proof and accommodate the needs of the new development will need to be considered. In so doing opportunities should be explored to promote and encourage multiple beneficial infrastructures such as the use of green space for wildlife, recreation, carbon storage and flood risk mitigation. ECC supports reference to sustainable surface water drainage under Part F (no. 17).

4.7.2 Primary and Secondary Education

ECC's Schools Service supports this policy since it identifies the need to provide "A secondary school, primary schools and early years facilities.......to serve the new development". It also welcomes the recognition of the need for a "phasing and implementation strategy which sets out how the rate of development will be linked to the provision of necessary social and physical to ensure that the respective phases of the development do not come forward until the necessary infrastructure has been secured". Such a strategy should ensure that sufficient school places are made available, at the appropriate time, within reasonable travelling distance for children moving onto this development.

The package of measures envisaged "to encourage smarter transport choices to meet the needs of the new community and maximise the opportunities for sustainable travel including the provision of a network of footpaths, cycle ways and bridleways to enhance permeability within the site" should ensure that all children of school age have the opportunity to walk or cycle to school. This would support the delivery of 'garden city' principles.

Developments totalling 2,500 homes in the East Colchester/ West Tendring new Garden Community during the plan period (1,250 in Colchester BC's administrative area) would generate up to 750 primary and 500 secondary aged pupils.

Primary pupil forecasts indicate that there will be little surplus capacity in primary schools located in east Colchester to accommodate pupils from this new Garden Community. As a consequence a new 2 forms of entry (420 place) primary school would be required in the early phases of the development and a second new 2 forms of entry (420 place) primary school would be required later in the plan period. (This would also provide capacity to accommodate pupils from the later phases of the development which would take place beyond the period covered by the Draft Plan. It should be noted that the allowance of 930 dwellings for sites east of Colchester (as stated on page 65) is likely to require the expansion of an existing primary school in this broad locality which would limit the scope for pupils from the new Garden Community to be accommodated at surrounding schools.

Secondary pupil forecasts indicate that there will be little surplus capacity in secondary schools located in Colchester to accommodate pupils from this new Garden Community. There are also significant barriers to pupils travelling from the new Garden Community to secondary schools in Colchester town: the A133 and the Colchester to Clacton railway line to the south and south-west, and the A137 and the Colchester to Ipswich railway line to the north-west. As a consequence, a new 4 forms of entry (600-place) secondary school is likely to be required in the early phases of the development followed by an expansion to accommodate 9 to 12 forms of entry during the next plan period. The establishment of a new secondary school to serve the new Garden Community would also reduce the need for pupils to travel significant distances between home and school.

There would also be a need to transport secondary aged pupils produced by the early phases of this development to existing school until such time as the development reached sufficient critical mass to support the new secondary school.

School sites for both primary and secondary education should be secured in the early phases of the development to allow appropriately timed provision.


4.7.3 Early Years and Childcare

East Colchester / West Tendring New Garden Community seeks to provide a minimum of 2,500 new homes in the plan period by 2033 (as part of an overall total of between 7,000 - 9,000 homes), which would generate 225 additional early years and childcare places by 2033. As a minimum, two new facilities would be required, each offering between 30 and 56 places, and co-located with new primary school development.

Comments applicable to Part 1 Policies SP8, SP9 and SP10
Part 1 Policies SP8, SP9 and SP10 under Section E - Community Infrastructure, point 14, refer to the need to provide 'at least one secondary school, primary schools and early years facilities', and is supported. The number of new facilities will be further evidenced through the masterplanning process.

However, ECC notes there is inconsistent reference to the need to provide new early years and childcare facilities in the new Garden Communities. ECC recommend additional reference is made to early years and childcare in the opening paragraph of Policies SP8 (iv) SP9 (v), SP10 (v), and should be amended to read:

'Primary schools, a secondary school, early years and childcare facilities and other community facilities as appropriate'

As indicated in Part 1 Policies SP8, SP9 and SP10 these new garden communities will be progressed through the preparation of a Masterplan Framework, which will consider their design, development, and delivery with regards to place-making and design quality, housing, employment, transportation, community infrastructure and other requirements. This process will be required to consider the holistic approach to the provision of early years and childcare, alongside schools, and other social infrastructure (libraries, adult social services and youth services, public health, community and sports facilities, parks and recreation). Consequently, the new facilities requirement should be considered as indicative only, and based on the delivery of new homes in the plan period, as identified in the housing trajectory.

4.7.4 Transportation

ECC provides in-principle support for the transportation initiatives outlined in Part 1 Policy SP8. The full package of requirements will be developed through the Masterplan Framework and ECC as Highway Authority will work collaboratively with the North Essex authorities and Highways England to confirm appropriate Local Plan policy requirements.

Policy SP8 states that 'primary vehicular access to the site will be provided off the A120 and A133'. ECC would seek a strategic link road between the A120 and A133. This option will be modelled as part of the next stage of transport modelling to support the Pre-Submission Local Plan. An amendment to Policy SP8 may be required once modelling has been complete.


4.8 Policy SP9: West of Colchester/East of Braintree New Garden Community (p41)

4.8.1 Surface water management

Parts of the Garden Community 'area of search' are at risk of surface water flooding in both 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 year events. In masterplanning the new community the provision of improved drainage infrastructure to future-proof and accommodate the needs of the new development will need to be considered. In so doing opportunities should be explored to promote and encourage multiple beneficial infrastructures such as the use of green space for wildlife, recreation, carbon storage and flood risk mitigation. ECC supports reference to sustainable surface water drainage under Part F (no. 18).

4.8.2 Primary and Secondary Education

ECC's Schools Service supports this policy since it identifies the need to provide "A secondary school, primary schools and early years facilities.......to serve the new development". It also welcomes the recognition of the need for a "phasing and implementation strategy which sets out how the rate of development will be linked to the provision of necessary social and physical to ensure that the respective phases of the development do not come forward until the necessary infrastructure has been secured". Such a strategy should ensure that sufficient school places are made available, at the appropriate time, within reasonable travelling distance for children moving onto this development.

At primary level a development of 2,500 dwellings during the Plan period (1,350 within CDC's administrative area) would generate up to 750 primary aged children. The primary schools located closest to this area: Great Tey Primary, St Andrew's Primary - Marks Tey, Marks Tey Primary and Copford Primary all have limited scope to expand and a new primary school would be required close to the start of this development, together with a requirement for a second new primary school prior to the end of the plan period.

At secondary level a development of 2,500 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 500 secondary aged pupils. Housing developments on other sites located close to Marks Tey within Colchester BC such as 600 new homes at Tiptree and those located within Braintree DC (1,000 new homes proposed on land south of Feering, and 300 new homes at Monks Farm) would fully utilise any surplus capacity available at The Honywood School and Thurstable School and Sixth Form Centre. Some expansion of The Honywood School and Thurstable School might be possible but there is no scope for the further expansion of The Stanway School, Colchester. A new secondary school would be required to serve this new garden community well before the end of the plan period.

School sites for both primary and secondary education should be secured in the early phases of the development to allow appropriately timed provision.

4.8.3 Early Years and Childcare

West of Colchester/East of Braintree New Garden Community seeks to provide a minimum of 2,500 new homes in the plan period by 2033 (as part of an overall total of between 15,000 to 20,000 homes), which would generate 225 additional early years and childcare places by 2033. As a minimum, two new facilities would be required, each offering between 30 and 56 places, and co-located with new primary school development.

4.9 Community Facilities

Policies SP8, SP9 and SP10 regarding the new Garden Communities seeks to provide accessible neighbourhood centres of an appropriate scale, which will provide health facilities and community meeting places. The policies acknowledge the need to deploy new models of delivery in terms of housing and associated infrastructure in these communities. ECC welcomes reference to the need for timely delivery of both on-site and off-site infrastructure required to address the impact of these new communities, and the provision of a mechanism for future stewardship, management, maintenance and renewal of community infrastructure and assets.

PART 2 LOCAL PLAN FOR COLCHESTER

5. VISION AND OBJECTIVES FOR PART 2 (p50)

5.1 Local characteristics and key issues for Colchester (p50)

ECC acknowledges the 'local characteristics and key issues for Colchester' which provides a clear and coherent link to the Draft Plan's vision and objectives.

Paragraph 3.5 - Building houses fit for the 21st Century
As well as 'high quality and sustainable construction,' reference could also be made to ensuring a suitable housing mix to meet the needs of a changing and new population over the plan period, such as older people.

Paragraph 3.6 - Improving accessibility
It is noted that 69% of residents live and work within the Borough. It is recommended that reference to 'non-car based alternatives' is expanded to explicitly refer to 'active travel such as walking or cycling'. A useful reference is provided below.

* Local Government Association (2016) Working Together to Promote Active Travel; A Briefing for Local Government
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523460/Working_Together_to_Promote_Active_Travel_A_briefing_for_local_authorities.pdf)

Additional key issues
Colchester BC may wish to consider including an additional key issue that covers health and well-being.

ECC is responsible for the health of the public it serves following the shift in responsibility for public health from the NHS to ECC in April 2013. Much of the key responsibilities of ECC impact on public health whether it is a direct use of the public health grant to commission a specific service or the impact of our broader policies around social care, education, transport, the economy and the environment and communities. This role is outlined in the ECC Commissioning Strategy titled 'People in Essex enjoy good health and wellbeing'.

* http://www.essex.gov.uk/Your-Council/Strategies-Policies/Documents/Enjoy_good_health_wellbeing.pdf

ECC Public Health would like to highlight that no reference has been made within the Draft Plan to the published health priorities for the residents of Colchester Borough. This includes levels of obesity, levels of residents participating in physical activity or wider health inequalities faced by residents. Your attention is drawn to the PHE APHO Health Profiles of 2015 and the Essex Insights Local Authority Portrait for Colchester 2016. See weblink below.

https://www.essexinsight.org.uk/Resource.aspx?ResourceID=379&cookieCheck=true

The Draft Plan could also benefit from recognition of the need for sustainable options to manage the waste material produced by a growing community. This is currently omitted from the Draft Plan; this would include an increase in household waste created by a growing population, construction waste resulting from built development, and commercial and industrial waste created by a growing economy. It is considered that development cannot be sustainable if appropriate provision is not made for the waste that will be produced.

5.2 Vision: Colchester in 2033 (p51)

The vision would benefit from referring to the health and well-being of residents, which would provide a link with the objective under paragraph 3.13.

5.3 Objectives (p52)

The fifth bullet point mentions accessible walking and cycling but it could mention the need to ensure these are connected across the Borough to already existing developments. ECC strongly supports accessibility through active travel to support healthy lifestyles.

6. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH POLICIES (p54)

6.1 Comments on Strategic Transport Issues arising from the Draft Plan's Spatial Strategy and Sustainable Growth Policies

Colchester is a historic town with a severely constrained highway network. All of the key radial routes accessing the centre of Colchester (A133, A134, A1124, A1232, A137, B1025) currently experience significant congestion in the peak periods.

Colchester is one of the fastest growing towns in the country. Over the period 2001-2023 (as contained in the adopted Core Strategy), Colchester BC has allocated land for 19,000 new houses and is on course to deliver this target. The Draft Plan seeks to deliver at least 14,720 new homes between 2017 and 2033 (Part 2 Policy SG2). This consists of existing commitments (7,481 new homes) and new allocations (7,570). The focus will be on the Colchester Urban Area, Stanway, and the two new proposed Garden Communities to the east and west of Colchester. The larger 'Sustainable Settlements' of Tiptree, West Mersea and Wivenhoe will see smaller housing growth.

Through monitoring of the highway network, data clearly illustrates that the Colchester road network is largely at capacity, particularly at peak periods, on the key radial routes into the town. It has been observed that congestion is occurring for longer time periods, year on year, demonstrating a tendency towards 'peak spreading'.

ECC has recently completed the following transport projects in Colchester to address network issues.
* Construction of a 1,000 space Park and Ride, located off A12 J28.
* Opening Northern Approach Road (NAR3).
* The provision of bus priority measures through the Station area towards the town centre.
* A133 Colne Bank Avenue widening between Colne Bank roundabout and Albert roundabout (construction currently taking place).
* Bus priority measures in the town centre giving priority to public transport including Park and Ride.
* Improved junction layout and capacity at Brook Street/ East Hill.
* The provision of improved cycle facilities on key links to the town centre, Mile End Road, Ipswich Road, Winstree Road.

To inform the Draft Plan and the growth options considered by Colchester BC, traffic modelling was undertaken by Jacobs and results outlined in the 'Colchester Traffic Modelling Technical Report' (July 2016). The model used was based on the existing Colchester Area SATURN (CAS) model, and a variable demand model developed specifically for the task.

The report shows a list of junctions and links for which demand exceeded capacity. In each case, the volume to capacity ratio has been identified, along with the resulting delays which occur. The network wide summary statistic results, show that, following changes to highway trip generation in response to congestion, the Draft Plan development scenarios experience a reduction in average network speed with a corresponding increase in congestion and delay when compared against the 'current Local Plan allocated development' scenario.

Within the 2032 scenarios, the development proposed as part of scenario 2a indicated the greatest reduction in highway trip generation predicted by the variable demand model; however this is in part due to the provision of new highway infrastructure as part of development within scenarios 1a and 3a in the form of the A133/A120 link road (associated with the proposed new Garden Community).

Key localised impacts identified as part of the model runs are as follows:
* Scenarios 1a, 2a, and 3a show additional overcapacity links along the A12 between the A134 and Ipswich Rd in the AM peak compared to the current Local Plan allocated scenario
* Scenarios 1a and 3a, extra overcapacity links are indicated at the A133/B1028 because of traffic associated with development to the East of Colchester and the attractiveness of the new A133/A120 link road in the PM peak for scenarios.
* Scenarios 1a and 3a, the junction analysis shows more delays at the A12 junction 28 in the AM peak but no notable change in PM in scenarios
* Scenario 2a, junction analysis shows Ipswich Rd/St John's Rd is operating at overcapacity in PM

Longer term potential issues
* Both scenarios 1b and 3b have overcapacity links at the two ends of the new A133/A120 link road in the AM peak
* In the PM peak, both scenarios have extra overcapacity links along the A133/A120 link road as well as on the A12 West of Colchester.
* In addition, for scenario 3b, links on the A12 north of Colchester operate in excess of capacity. In the PM peak, scenario 3b also has overcapacity conditions on Dedham Rd connecting to the A12.

Clearly 'doing nothing' would lead to a situation where none of the growth options in the town could be undertaken without additional significant congestion. This is not an option and the new Local Plan will need to be predicated on the introduction of a range of measures to allow growth to take place while facilitating improvements to the road and highway network.

Key pinch points along the A12, A120 and A133 which are key links and already experience congestion will need to be addressed in the Draft Plan. To this end a number of studies are underway to look at the A133 corridor through central Colchester, A12 Junctions 26 and 28 in addition to the A120 Braintree to A12 study being led by ECC in partnership with Highways England. Access from the east and west of Colchester has been highlighted as crucial and ECC will explore opportunities to improve the access to southern Colchester from the A12/ Stanway area. ECC would also seek a strategic link road between the A120 and A133 as part of the proposed new Garden Community. There is also the potential to further investigate Rapid Transit proposals as part of the new Garden Communities, additional Park and Ride, dedicated bus lanes in the town and proposals that further promote walking and cycling. Accordingly, ECC supports initiatives and policy requirements in the Draft Plan that seek to promote sustainable transport and change travel behaviour (Policies DM20 and DM21).

These studies, together with the findings of the traffic modelling from July 2016, will be reviewed and inform the next stage of transport modelling for the Pre-Submission Plan. A focus will be on identifying appropriate and necessary mitigation, costs, sources of funding and phasing to ensure delivery. Links can then be made to local plan policy and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

ECC together with Highways England will ensure regular and on-going meetings take place with Colchester BC as it prepares its Pre-Submission Plan. As noted above ECC through Jacobs will undertake additional transport modelling focusing on mitigation, and ensure Highways England projects are considered (A120, A12).

6.2 Policy SG2: Housing Delivery (p62)

Paragraphs 4.26 to 4.31
ECC is supportive of a strategy and policies that seek to meet the identified objectively assessed need for housing.

Clarity is sought on the relationship between Part 1 Policy SP2 and Part 2 Policy SG2, including Table SG2, where each provides a different housing number and plan period. This may require an appropriate explanation and/or one or both of the policies and the table to be amended in the Pre-Submission Plan.

ECC recommends the Pre-Submission Plan is supported by a housing trajectory clearly setting out the sites contributing to housing supply, site capacity and phasing. The Draft Plan did not include a housing trajectory therefore ECC is only able to provide information on the need for additional services and facilities on the basis of total housing growth and has not considered phasing. The housing trajectory and site specific requirements will also be necessary to inform the IDP, along with informing the assessment of the viability of the Draft Plan.

Minerals and Waste
It is recommended that Policy SG2: Housing Delivery should make reference to the requirements of MLP Policy S8. The policy could conclude with a re-iteration of the thresholds expressed in paragraph 1.10 of the Draft Plan. This ensures a policy link between the emerging Colchester Local Plan and the MLP.

6.3 Economic Delivery Policies (p65)

ECC welcomes Colchester BC's strategic and local economic allocations that support the NPPF and reflect the need for economic growth to be targeted at the most accessible and sustainable locations. The ability to deliver and bring forward employment land is particularly important for the Strategic Economic Areas and Garden Communities. ECC will use its endeavours to implement the strategic economic vision and objectives contained in Part 1 of the Draft Plan and those outlined in the Economic Plan for Essex (2014) and the South East Local Enterprise Partnership's Strategic Economic Plan. ECC will seek investment to improve the east-west connectivity along the A120 to support growth opportunities, particularly those focusing on the two new Garden Communities. ECC is providing support for the Innovation Centre (part of the Knowledge Gateway) and has contributed to the Creative Business Centre.

ECC has commissioned consultants to undertake a feasibility study to explore the need for employment 'Grow-On Space' within the County. The purpose is to explore, firstly, whether a lack of 'Grow-On Space' is a substantial problem in the county and if so, what are the classes and sizes of commercial property that are lacking. The study will also seek to make recommendations on what can be done to address this issue including public sector interventions. Whilst there is provision of incubation / start-up space in various forms across Essex, there is anecdotal evidence to say that once established businesses have struggled to find suitable properties to move onto from their incubation / enterprise centres / start-up spaces which also prevents businesses from freeing up the units for other potential start-ups. The study and its recommendations are expected to be available late September 2016 and will be shared with Colchester BC to inform whether an appropriate policy response can be included in the Pre-Submission Plan.

The MWPA welcomes the safeguarding of employment land and the flexibility within Policies SG3 and SG4 to permit those sui generis uses that are akin to employment type uses and which accord with the caveats set out in the policies. This is consistent with the Pre-Submission Waste Local Plan and the identification of 'Areas of Search' (Policy 4, Table 4). The 'Areas of Search' seek to meet the need for additional small scale waste management facilities. It identifies the following areas located on existing industrial estates in Colchester Borough at Land off Axial Way, Myland; Severalls Industrial Park; Tollgate, Stanway; and Whitehall Road Industrial Estate. The Replacement Waste Local Plan would seek to focus any new proposals for waste management facilities, which support the local housing and economic growth, within these Areas of Search, before other locations are considered.

6.4 Policy SG6: Strategic Infrastructure (p75) and Part 2 Policy SG8: Developer Contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy (p77)

ECC supports the inclusion of policies covering strategic infrastructure, and developer contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy.

As a provider of key services and subject to statutory responsibilities, for example minerals and waste; highways, education (primary, secondary and EYC), and flood and water management, ECC will assist Colchester BC in the preparation of its IDP. ECC also recommend specific reference is made to ECC's Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions 2016, which sets ECC's standards for the receipt of relevant infrastructure funding.

Paragraph 162 of the NPPF states that LPAs should work with other authorities and providers to assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk, and its ability to meet forecast demands. An IDP will need to be prepared to support the next iteration of the emerging Colchester Local Plan, and identify infrastructure required. The Local Plan should make clear, for at least the first five years, what infrastructure is required, who is going to fund and provide it, and how it relates to the anticipated rate and phasing of development. For the later stages of the plan period less detail may be provided as the position regarding the provision of infrastructure is likely to be less certain. If it is known that a development is unlikely to come forward until after the plan period due, for example, to uncertainty over deliverability of key infrastructure, then this should be clearly stated in the Local Plan.

ECC supports reference in Policy SG6 to:
* All new developments should be supported by, and have good access to, all necessary infrastructure, and
* development may need to be phased either spatially or in time to ensure the provision of infrastructure in a timely manner.

Any policy should ensure that sufficient school and EYC places are made available, at the appropriate time, within reasonable travelling distance for children moving onto new housing developments.

ECC supports reference in Policy SG8 that housing developers should contribute proportionally to the cost of providing the additional primary and secondary school places that will be required to accommodate the additional pupils moving onto their new housing developments.

It is recommended that Colchester BC consider a combined policy which encapsulates the main elements from Policy SG6 and Policy SG8 so that there is one coherent policy covering strategic infrastructure, and developer contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy. A new combined policy should consider covering the following:
* Specify when developers are required to either make direct provision or to contribute towards development for the provision of local and strategic infrastructure required by the development (including land for new schools);
* Requirements for all new development to be supported by, and have good access to all necessary infrastructure;
* Requirement to demonstrate that there is or will be sufficient infrastructure capacity to support and meet all the necessary requirements arising from the proposed implications of a scheme (i.e. not just those on the site or its immediate vicinity) and regardless of whether the proposal is a local plan allocation or a windfall site;
* When conditions or planning obligations will be appropriate - as part of a package or combination of infrastructure delivery measures - likely to be required to ensure new developments meets this principle; and
* Consideration of likely timing of infrastructure provision - phased spatially or to ensure provision of infrastructure in a timely manner.

Recommended wording for such an 'Infrastructure delivery and impact mitigation' policy is provided below:

Policy X: Infrastructure delivery and impact mitigation

Permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is sufficient appropriate infrastructure capacity to support the development or that such capacity will be delivered by the proposal. It must further be demonstrated that such capacity as is required will prove sustainable over time both in physical and financial terms.

Where a development proposal requires additional infrastructure capacity, to be deemed acceptable, mitigation measures must be agreed with the Council and the appropriate infrastructure provider. Such measures may include (not exclusively):
* financial contributions towards new or expanded facilities and the maintenance thereof;
* on-site construction of new provision;
* off-site capacity improvement works; and/or
* the provision of land.

Developers and land owners must work positively with the Council, neighbouring authorities and other infrastructure providers throughout the planning process to ensure that the cumulative impact of development is considered and then mitigated, at the appropriate time, in line with their published policies and guidance.

The Council will consider introducing a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and will implement such for areas and/or development types where a viable charging schedule would best mitigate the impacts of growth. Section 106 will remain the appropriate mechanism for securing land and works along with financial contributions where a sum for the necessary infrastructure is not secured via CIL.

For the purposes of this policy the widest reasonable definition of infrastructure and infrastructure providers will be applied. Exemplar types of infrastructure are provided in the glossary appended to this plan.

Exceptions to this policy will only be considered whereby:
* it is proven that the benefit of the development proceeding without full mitigation outweighs the collective harm;
* a fully transparent open book viability assessment has proven that full mitigation cannot be afforded, allowing only for the minimum level of developer profit and land owner receipt necessary for the development to proceed;
* full and thorough investigation has been undertaken to find innovative solutions to issues and all possible steps have been taken to minimise the residual level of unmitigated impacts; and
* obligations are entered into by the developer that provide for appropriate additional mitigation in the event that viability improves prior to completion of the development.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESTS POLICIS (p79)

7.1 National Environment Policy (p79)

The preamble to Policy ENV1: Natural Environment, currently addresses international sites, protected species, species of principal importance and priority habitat, but not the other suite of sites, except in the policy itself. European legislation is mentioned and strong protection given to European sites. However, it is recommended that reference is made to national sites. In addition to the international sites, the text should also explicitly state after paragraph 5.3 that the borough contains a range of other sites designated for wildlife including Sites of Specials Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves, Local Nature Reserves, Local Wildlife Sites and Special Roadside Verges and it should set out its proportionate approach for each, depending on their status. It should also highlight that brownfield sites can be important for biodiversity. The PPG provides further information.

* http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/natural-environment/brownfield-land-soils-and-agricultural-land/

Paragraph 5.3
To set out the legal requirements, an additional sentence is required at the end of this paragraph:

"Proposals will only be acceptable if the appropriate assessment can demonstrate that it will not adversely affect the integrity of an international site".

Paragraph 5.7
It should be made clear that the review and amendment to the Coastal Protection Belt only applies to that part of the designation falling within Colchester Borough. Colchester BC is responsible for this designation and how this is progressed in its Local Plan. This is no longer a County Council responsibility.

Paragraph 5.9
The correct title is the 'Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan'.


7.2 Policy ENV1: Natural Environment (p80)

It is recommended that Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are included within the policy as follows:

"In particular, developments that have an adverse effect on Natura 2000 sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest or the Dedham Vale AONB....."

It is also recommended that in order to comply with the terminology within the legislation, the wording should be amended to read as follows:

'Proposals likely to have an adverse a significant effect on Special Protection Areas (SPAs)...'

Constraints maps
It is recommended that the Local Plan evidence base includes a constraints maps. This would ensure the identification of the statutory wildlife sites as well as Local Nature Reserves, Local Wildlife Sites and Special Verges.

7.3 Coastal Areas Policy (p81)

Paragraph 5.12
Reference should be made to the Blackwater, Crouch, Roach and Colne Estuaries Marine Conservation Zone, which is designated under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. See weblink below.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/marine-conservation-zone-2013-designation-blackwater-crouch-roach-and-colne-estuaries

ECC draws Colchester BC's attention to proposals to extend the Dedham Vale Area of Natural Outstanding Beauty (ANOB). This extension should be considered as part of the Draft Local Plan's evidence base and potential reference made in the Plan itself. Details of the ANOB extension are provided in the weblink below.

http://www.dedhamvalestourvalley.org/assets/2014-2-14-Dedham-Vale-AONB-boundary-extension-press-release.pdf

Paragraph 5.14
It should be made clear that the review and amendment to the Coastal Protection Belt only applies to that part of the designation falling within Colchester Borough. Colchester BC is responsible for this designation and how this is progressed in its Local Plan. This is no longer a County Council responsibility.

Additional issue
It is recommended that reference is made to the new national Coast Path and that Colchester BC work with Natural England, ECC and other partners to improve access to the coast. It is intended that this will be jointly branded as the 'Essex Coast Path' and partners are seeking to secure external funding for its delivery. The provisions outlined in Policy ENV2: Coastal Areas, should ensure the delivery of the path can be facilitated.


7.4 Climate Change Policy (p86)

ECC is supportive of a section dedicated to climate change and that in 2015 Colchester BC published an Environmental Sustainability Strategy which covers the key themes relating to climate change as stated in paragraph 5.46.

Colchester BC should be aware that updated climate change figures were released in February 2016 and should be accounted for in Local Plan preparation and the evidence base.

7.5 Policy CC1: Climate Change (p89)

ECC is supportive of Policy CC1: Climate Change, however the policy omits the need for development proposals to consider water efficiency, and the risks from flooding. It is acknowledged that these matters are covered under Policy DM23: Flood Risk and Water Management, but consideration should be given to Policy CC1 including the following:

* All new developments to consider:
o the impact of and promoting design responses to flood risk for the lifetime of the development, and
o availability of water and water infrastructure for the lifetime of the development and design responses to promote water efficiency and protect water quality.
* Directing development to locations with the least impact on flooding or water resources. Where development is proposed in flood risk areas, mitigation measures must be put in place to reduce the effects of flood water.
* Green infrastructure to be used as a way of adapting and mitigating for climate change through the management and enhancement of existing habitats and the creation of new ones to assist with species migration, to provide shade during higher temperatures and for flood mitigation

The NPPF requires Local Plans to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the framework and to set out the strategic priorities and polices for their area, this includes strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change in line with the Climate Change Act 2008. This involves taking account of climate change over the longer term, including factors such as flood risk, coastal change, water supply and changes to biodiversity and landscape. New development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change.

8. PLACES (p92)

Comments are provided for each place specific policy. The following is provided as a context for the assessment of primary and secondary education requirements and EYC.

8.1 Assessment of Primary and Secondary Education Requirements

Comments with regards to primary and secondary education requirements are provided below on the basis of the housing numbers in Part 2 Policies NC3, EC3, WC4, SS1 to SS16 and SS18. ECC will provide more detailed information on school provision once Colchester BC has an agreed housing trajectory. In preparing the ECC response to the Draft Plan the requirements have been formed using the School Commissioning for Places 2015 - 2020. Consideration has been given to existing spare capacity of facilities, their scope to expand, and utilising the ECC 'Developers Guide to Infrastructure Contributions' child yield rates to identify future demand for places. These requirements will need to be reviewed in the light of more detailed information, including a housing trajectory, the proposed housing mix and the capacity of nearby schools. In addition, it may be necessary to seek contributions from other sites where appropriate.

Where growth is to be located it will be essential to ensure the delivery of education facilities is undertaken in a timely and phased manner. Additional school places can be provided either by the expansion of existing schools/ academies or the opening of new "free schools" or academies. Existing schools and academies can only be expanded if they have sufficient site area to do so. In many cases existing school/ academy sites are restricted and cannot, therefore, be expanded easily without the provision of additional land. This is often impracticable in urban areas as schools are located within the existing built up area. In many rural areas schools are on restricted sites but there may be land adjacent to the existing school/ academy site that could be utilised to enable expansion.

Whilst faith schools and academies may have sufficient site area to expand this would need the agreement of the Anglican Diocese of Chelmsford/Roman Catholic Diocese of Brentwood/ the academy trusts responsible for these schools/ academies. This is particularly relevant as a significant proportion of schools/ academies located within the borough are faith schools.

As indicated, ECC can identify those locations, particularly in rural areas, where scope exists to expand existing schools/ academies without the provision of additional land. In those areas where expansion opportunities are limited, sites for new schools should be identified within or close to the proposed developments. If existing schools cannot be expanded or growth is insufficient to provide a new school, it will be necessary for ECC to seek contributions from developers towards meeting the cost of providing transport between homes and schools.

Each year ECC publishes the Commissioning School Places in Essex document, and the current issue covers the period 2015-2020. This document sets out the number of places available at each school and the number of pupils that currently attend each. Using historic births data, current GP registrations, historic admissions patterns and current numbers on roll the demand for places five years hence is forecast. Longer range forecasts are produced but are less reliable as data on future birth rates is projected rather than based on actual births.
It will be important that in considering the housing allocations, and subsequent planning applications, the interests of schools should be taken fully on board. This is likely to involve allocating land for new school sites on new development sites, especially in and around Colchester and the new Garden Community. School site requirements are provided in the ECC Developer's Guide to Infrastructure Contributions 2015. ECC would wish to see any site for a new primary and secondary school identified early, safeguarded, and allocated as a D1 land use. ECC will continue to work with TDC to ensure delivery.

The scale of expansion of existing schools/academies is also important. The majority of primary schools are organised in classes of 30 pupils to comply with infant class size limits. It is easier, more cost effective and better from an organisational perspective to expand primary schools by a full form of entry (30 pupils per year group) or half a form of entry (15 pupils per year group) than it is to accommodate a smaller number of pupils. On this basis it is often easier and more cost effective to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of school places for larger scale housing developments than it is for relatively small scale developments, particularly in rural areas.

8.2 Assessment of Early Years and Childcare Requirements

Comments with regards to early years and childcare requirements are provided on the basis of the housing numbers in Part 2 Policies NC3, EC2, EC3, WC2, WC4, SS1 to SS16, and SS18. ECC will provide more detailed information on EYC provision as part of the Colchester BC's IDP and once there is a final housing trajectory. In preparing the ECC response to the Draft Plan the requirements have been formed using the 'Early Years Sufficiency Report, Spring 2016'. Consideration has been given to existing spare capacity of facilities, their scope to expand, and utilising the ECC 'Developers Guide to Infrastructure Contributions' child yield rates to identify future demand for places. These requirements will need to be reviewed in the light of more detailed information, including a housing trajectory, the proposed housing mix and the capacity of nearby schools. In addition, it may be necessary to seek contributions from other sites where appropriate.

ECC delivers EYC through a commissioning approach, with responsibility for providing certain elements of Early Years, particularly with regard to identifying gaps in childcare provision, targeted support and Government funded Free Early Education Entitlement (FEEE) for vulnerable 2-year olds and FEEE for all 3 and 4 year olds, which are commissioned from the private, voluntary and independent sectors.

Sufficient EYC provision also needs to be considered alongside other essential services and infrastructure. Exactly what the provision could look like depends on the nature of the development proposed. There is also the possibility that new EYC facilities could be located near employment areas, with adequate provision of land/buildings in employment centres. Consequently, ECC seeks amendment to Part 2 Policies SG3 and SG4 so that reference is made to the provision of EYC facilities.

The 'Early Years Sufficiency Report, Spring 2016' identifies there is presently 271 vacancies in existing facilities within the district. The Draft Plan is expected to generate the need for 682 additional places (calculated using new allocations of 7,579 in Table SG2 multiplied by 0.09 - the child yield). Provision will need to be at new facilities funded by individual developments or the expansion of existing facilities through developer contributions. Current vacancies are split into:
* 15hr vacancies for 2 year olds (80 vacancies); and
* 15hr vacancies for 3-4 year olds (191 vacancies).

Wards under pressure for both 2 year olds, and 3-4 year olds are as follows:
* St Johns
* East Donyland
* Wivenhoe Cross
* Pyefleet

Additional wards under pressure specifically for 2 year old provision are as follows:
* Castle
* Copford and West Stanway
* Great Tey
* Highwoods
* New Town
* Old Heath
* West Mersea

8.3 Policy NC1: North Colchester and Severalls Strategic Economic Area (p97)

Any new development should incorporate SuDS, which should include elements that address water quantity as well as biodiversity and amenity.

8.4 Policy NC2: North Station Special Policy Area (p100)

This area encompasses a Critical Drainage Area (CDA007) identified in the Colchester SWMP. Any development within this area should take a conservative approach to drainage design to ensure that flood risk is not increased and where possible address existing flood risk issues.

8.5 North Colchester (Zone 3 - Northern Gateway area north of the A12) (p98)

Paragraph 6.19
Reference is made to a growing population and the provision of 2,500 new dwellings over the plan period. Clarification is sought on where the 2,500 dwellings will be located within 'North Colchester' and how this figure correlates to Table SG2: Colchester's Housing Provision, on page 64.

8.6 North Colchester - Land at St. Botolph's Farm, Braiswick (p101)

Transport comments
Reference should be made in paragraph 6.34 to 'safe access' to ensure consistency with paragraph 6.36.

Surface water management comments
The area shows significant surface water flood risk to the east of St Botolph's Brook.

8.7 North Colchester - Land north of Achnacone Drive, Braiswick (p102)

Transport comments
Reference should be made in paragraph 6.35 to 'safe access' to ensure consistency with paragraph 6.36.

8.8 Policy NC3: North Colchester (p102)

Transport comments
Land at St Botolph's Farm Braiswick - an additional bullet point needs to be added to ensure consistency with paragraph 6.34 as follows:

* Access to be directly off the B1508


Education comments
At primary level developments totalling 88 dwellings during the plan period would generate up to 26 primary and up to 18 secondary aged pupils. Additional capacity has been provided in the Colchester north and rural north-east primary forecast planning group in the form of two new schools: Braiswick Primary - 2 forms of entry (420-place) primary school, opened in September 2015, and Camulos Academy - 2 forms of entry (420-place) primary school to open in September 2016. It is anticipated that the relatively small number of pupils from these developments could be accommodated at these schools.

At secondary level The Gilberd School has been expanded by one form of entry (150-places) from September 2015. However, this school remains the only secondary school located in the north of Colchester until new provision can be opened on the North Colchester Growth Area Urban Extension (NCGAUE). The Gilberd School will be under increasing pressure as housing is completed in the early part of the plan period. Until capacity is available in the NCGAUE it is possible that students may need to travel large distances to access secondary education.

Early years and childcare comments
New provision on the Braiswick school site and surplus places in surrounding settings will meet additional demand.

Surface water management comments
The following additional bullet point should be added to ensure surface water management issues are covered:

* Appropriate SuDS for managing surface water runoff within the overall design and layout of the site

8.9 East Colchester (Knowledge Gateway and University Strategic Economic Area) (p103)

Paragraphs 6.41 to 6.47
A MOU (April 2014) has also been signed between Colchester BC, University of Essex, ECC, and Tendring DC, which sets a framework for collaboration between parties in order to promote the economic interests and prosperity of North East Essex. The MOU was supplement in March 2015 to clarify joint strategic objectives and justify investing further time and resources into developing proposals for a potential new garden village (i.e. Garden Community). It is recommended that this MOU is mentioned in the Draft Plan.

8.10 Policy EC2: East Colchester - The Hythe Special Policy Area (p108)

Education comments
At primary level developments totalling 600 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 180 primary and up to 120 secondary aged pupils. (If much of this development took the form of flats/ apartments, then the pupil yield would be reduced.) At primary level this level of planned growth, taken together with other sites already granted planning permission, could not be accommodated without the expansion of one or more of the schools serving this area. (See also comments for Policy EC3.)

Secondary school places are currently under pressure in school's located within Colchester's urban area. Whilst there is currently some surplus capacity this will be fully utilised as higher pupil numbers feed through from primary schools and pupils are produced from the new housing developments that have already been granted planning permission. The expansion of an existing secondary school is likely to be required to accommodate the growth in pupil numbers from these housing developments.

Early years and childcare comments
The number of new dwellings would generate 54 additional childcare places. The requirement could be met by a new 26-30 place facility as there is some limited availability at existing facilities in the surrounding area.

Surface water management comments
The development area intersects with CDA001 and CDA002 (as identified in the Colchester SWMP) and has significant surface water flow paths passing through it as well as a number of key areas of historic flooding. Great care should be taken to ensure that SuDS are included as part of all developments in the area, this should include restriction of discharge rates into existing sewer networks wherever possible limiting back to the greenfield 1 in 1 year rate. If it is demonstrated that this is not achievable then a minimum of 50% reduction in rates should be applied to all developments

The following additional bullet point should be added to ensure surface water management issues are covered:

* Appropriate SuDS for managing surface water runoff within the overall design and layout of the site

8.11 Policy EC3: East Colchester (p111)

Education comments
At primary level developments totalling 430 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 129 primary and up to 86 secondary aged pupils. (If much of this development took the form of flats/ apartments, then the pupil yield would be reduced.) (See also comments for Policy EC2)

Secondary school places are currently under pressure in school's located within Colchester's urban area. Whilst there is currently some surplus capacity this will be fully utilised as higher pupil numbers feed through from primary schools and pupils are produced from the new housing developments that have already been granted planning permission. The expansion of an existing secondary school is likely to be required to accommodate the growth in pupil numbers from these housing developments.

Early years and childcare comments
The number of new dwellings would generate an additional 37 childcare places and wards within East Colchester are generally pressure points for childcare sufficiency. An additional 26 place facility would be required.

Surface water management comments
Land at Port Lane, Easy Bay Mill, and the Magdalene Street sites are located in a Critical Drainage Area (CDA003) as defined in the Colchester Surface Water Management Plan, with Barrington Road/Bourne Road vacant site located in CDA002. Appropriate measures should be taken to accommodate the drainage needs of the proposed developments and re-developments in order to avoid exacerbating the current surface water flood risk in the catchment area. These measures could include the provision of onsite SuDS in accordance with National Guidance or the provision of flood alleviation measures in line with the Colchester SWMP. The following additional bullet point should be added to ensure surface water management issues are covered:

* Appropriate SuDS for managing surface water runoff within the overall design and layout of the site

8.12 Policy WC1: Stanway Strategic Economic Area (p113)

Surface water management comments
Any new development should incorporate SuDS which should include elements that address water quantity as well as biodiversity and amenity. The following additional bullet point should be added to ensure surface water management issues are covered:

* Appropriate SuDS for managing surface water runoff within the overall design and layout of the site

8.13 Policy WC2: Stanway (p116)

Education comments
At primary level developments totalling 778 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 233 primary and up to 156 secondary aged pupils. Existing pressure on primary school places in the Stanway area due to significant amounts of new housing has already resulted in the development of plans to expand both Stanway Primary and Stanway Fiveways Primary Schools. The additional housing planned for the area will exacerbate the shortfall of places. A site for a new 1 form of entry primary school on the Lakelands development can be developed, when it becomes available, to ease the pressure on primary school places in the Stanway area.

At secondary level the significant amounts of new housing in the area has already resulted in the development of plans to expand The Stanway School and The Philip Morant School by 2 forms of entry each. The additional housing planned for the area will exacerbate the current shortfall of places. However, the availability of the former Alderman Blaxill School site would allow the provision of additional secondary school places to serve this area.

Early years and childcare comments
Stanway is a pressure point for childcare. The area is currently served primarily by childminders and sessional provision. The number of new dwellings would generate an additional 70 childcare places. A new facility providing a minimum of 56 places, ideally co-located as part of the school project, would be required.

Surface water management comments
The following additional bullet point should be added to ensure surface water management issues are covered:

* Appropriate SuDS for managing surface water runoff within the overall design and layout of the site

8.14 Policy WC3: Colchester Zoo (p118)

The MWPA is pleased to note that the policy refers to the need to submit a MRA.

Surface water management comments
The following additional bullet point should be added to ensure surface water management issues are covered:

* Appropriate SuDS for managing surface water runoff within the overall design and layout of the site

8.15 Land at Gosbecks Phase 2 (p119)

Paragraph 6.86
ECC questions the statement that the site '...is well supported by infrastructure including public transport to the town centre...'. The existing Gosbecks Farm estate is (and any extension would be) poorly served by public transport and so it should be made clear improved public transport services and infrastructure would be required.

8.16 South of Berechurch Hall Road (p120)

Paragraph 6.87
Depending on the location of this site, there are no public transport services along Berechurch Hall Road. This paragraph refers to access onto Berechurch Road. It is suggested that this should be Berechurch Hall Road.

8.17 Land at Itvine Road (p120)

Paragraph 6.88
Reference is made to the site being 'accessed via a private track however there is no public access to this plot of land'. ECC seeks clarification on access arrangements and the how the land can be allocated for development if there is a question mark over whether an access to the required highway design standards can be provided.

8.18 Policy WC4: West Colchester (p121)

Education comments
At primary level developments totalling 308 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 92 primary and up to 62 secondary aged pupils. Existing pressure on primary school places serving west Colchester has already resulted in the development of plans to expand primary provision in this area. The additional housing planned for the area will exacerbate the shortfall of places. Further expansion of primary provision is likely to be required to accommodate this level of growth.

At secondary level the significant amounts of new housing in the area has already resulted in the development of plans to expand The Stanway School and The Philip Morant School by 2 forms of entry each. The additional housing planned for the area will exacerbate the current shortfall of places. However, the availability of the former Alderman Blaxill School site would allow the provision of additional secondary school places to serve this area.

Early years and childcare comments
West Colchester is reasonably well served and could absorb additional demand for childcare places.

Surface water management comments
The following additional bullet point should be added to ensure surface water management issues are covered:

* Appropriate SuDS for managing surface water runoff within the overall design and layout of the site

8.18 Policy SS1: Abberton and Langhorne (p125)

Transport comments
In paragraph 100 replace the word 'footpaths' with 'footways'.
Housing sites located within Abberton and Langenhoe need to refer to the visibility issue at the Peldon Road/Layer Road junction.

Education comments
Developments totalling 30 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 9 primary aged pupils and up to 6 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Langenhoe Primary School, which serves this area, is operating at capacity and is forecast to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. An expansion of this school would be required to accommodate the growth from the planned housing. (See also policy SS14 - Rowhedge. For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
Langenhoe sits within the Pyefleet ward which has a current shortage of childcare places across the age range. Demand could be met by expansion of local settings.

8.19 Policy SS2: Land east of Birch Street (p126)

Education comments
Developments totalling 15 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 5 primary aged pupils and up to 3 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Birch Primary School, which serves this area, could accommodate this level of growth. For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
There is existing capacity in current facilities and growth can be accommodated.

8.20 Policy SS3: Boxted Housing sites (p128)

Education comments
Developments totalling 36 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 11 primary aged pupils and up to 7 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Boxted VA CE Primary School, which serves this area, could accommodate this level of growth. For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
There is existing capacity in current facilities and growth can be accommodated.

8.21 Policy SS4: Chappel Housing Sites (p130)

Education comments
Developments totalling 30 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 9 primary aged pupils and up to 6 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Chappel CE VC Primary School, which serves this area, could accommodate this level of growth. For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
There is existing capacity in current facilities and growth can be accommodated.

8.22 Policy SS5: Copford Housing sites (p131)

Education comments
Developments totalling 120 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 36 primary aged pupils and up to 24 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Copford VC CE Primary School, which serves this area, is operating at capacity and is forecast to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. This school also has a significant amount of temporary accommodation that will need to be replaced to meet ongoing demand in this area. For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
Developer contributions would be required to expand the current facilities to accommodate the growth.

8.23 Policy SS6: Dedham and Dedham Heath (p134)

Transport comments
In paragraphs 6.139 and 6.140 replace the word 'footpaths' with 'footways'.

Education comments
Developments totalling 17 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 5 primary aged pupils and up to 3 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Dedham CE VC Primary School, which serves this area, could accommodate this level of growth. For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
There is existing capacity in current facilities and growth can be accommodated.

8.24 Policy SS7: Eight Ash Green (p136)

Education comments
Developments totalling 150 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 45 primary aged pupils and up to 30 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Holy Trinity CE VC Primary School is operating at close to capacity but has the site capacity to allow expansion to accommodate the growth from the planned housing. For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
Developer contributions would be required to expand the current facilities to accommodate the growth.

Surface water management comments
The EA uFMfSW indicates surface water risks in the area and it would be appropriate for this policy to include the provision of SuDS for managing surface water runoff within the overall design and layout of the site. The following additional bullet point should be added to ensure surface water management issues are covered:

* Appropriate SuDS for managing surface water runoff within the overall design and layout of the site

8.25 Policy SS8: Fordham (138)

Transport comments
The third bullet point refers to 'the development incorporating a new footway along the frontage/behind the existing hedgerow to provide safe pedestrian access from the site to existing footways and the rest of the village'. For personal safety (perceived and/or real) ECC would prefer the footway to be immediately adjacent the carriageway.

Education comments
Developments totalling 20 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 6 primary aged pupils and up to 4 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Fordham CE VC Primary School, which serves this area, could accommodate this level of growth. For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
There is existing capacity in current facilities and growth can be accommodated.

8.26 Policy SS9: Great Horkesley (p139)

Education comments
Developments totalling 93 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 28 primary aged pupils and up to 19 secondary aged pupils. At primary level The Bishop William Ward CE VC Primary School, which serves this area, is operating at close to capacity. However, forecasts indicate a decline in pupil numbers in future years which would allow the school to accommodate this level of growth. For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
Developer contributions would be required to expand the current facilities to accommodate the growth.

8.27 Policy SS10: Brook Road, Great Tey (p141)

Education comments
Developments totalling 17 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 5 primary aged pupils and up to 3 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Gt. Tey CE VC Primary School, which serves this area, could accommodate this level of growth. For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
There is existing capacity in current facilities and growth can be accommodated.


8.28 Policy SS11: Langham (p142)

Transport comments
In paragraphs 6.171 and 6.172 replace the word 'footpaths' with 'footways'.

Education comments
Developments totalling 125 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 38 primary aged pupils and up to 25 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Langham Primary School, which serves this area, could accommodate this level of growth. However, as a consequence some pupils from Colchester town who can currently access places at this school would no longer be able to do so. This would put more pressure on primary school places in Colchester town. For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
Developer contributions would be required to expand the current facilities to accommodate the growth.

8.29 Policy SS12: Layer de la Haye (p144)

Transport comments
The following amendments need to be made to the second and third bullet points.
* Access shall be via Old Forge Road and/or Great House Farm Road. A single access point via Hawthorn Road/Great House Farm Road. There shall be no vehicular access onto The Folley;
* A safe pedestrian access agreed with the Highway Authority to existing footpaths footways and Layer village to improve connectivity;

Education comments
Developments totalling 50 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 15 primary aged pupils and up to 10 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Layer-De-La Haye CE VC Primary School, which serves this area, is operating at capacity and is forecast to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The school could accommodate this level of growth. However, as a consequence some pupils from Colchester town who can currently access places at this school would no longer be able to do so. This would put more pressure on primary school places in Colchester town. For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
There is existing capacity in current facilities and growth can be accommodated.

Public Health comments
It is noted that the GP surgery is at capacity. Discussions will need to take place with the surgery and NHS to determine if additional capacity is possible or in nearby GP surgeries.

8.30 Policy SS13: Marks Tey (p145)

Education comments
Whilst no specific allocation of housing has been made in respect of Marks Tey it is noted that the proposed new Garden Community in the area (Part 1 Policy SP9) will have a significant impact on schools in the area. Education comments have been provided under 'Part 1' of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
There is existing capacity in current facilities and growth can be accommodated.

Surface water management comments
The following additional bullet point should be added to ensure surface water management issues are covered:

* Appropriate SuDS for managing surface water runoff within the overall design and layout of the site

8.31 Policy SS14: Land to the south of Battleswick Farm, Rowhedge Road (p147)

Transport comments
The following amendment needs to be made to the second bullet points.
* Vehicular and pedestrian access from Rowhedge Road, utilising the existing approach from Battleswick Farm. Additionally the development should improve pedestrian connectivity to the rest of the village by linking the site to Hill View Close;

Education comments
Developments totalling 60 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 18 primary aged pupils and up to 12 secondary aged pupils. The Rowhedge Port development at Rowhedge Wharf, which has recently been granted conditional planning permission, will produce an additional 46 primary aged and 30 secondary aged pupils. At primary level St Lawrence CE VC Primary School, which serves this area, is operating at close to capacity and, due to its restricted site area could not be expanded further to accommodate this level of growth. Another primary school in the area, Langenhoe Primary School or Cherry Tree Primary School would need to be expanded to accommodate this level of growth. (See also Policy SS1 - Abberton and Langenhoe.)
For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
There is existing capacity in current facilities and growth can be accommodated.

8.32 Policy SS15: Tiptree (p148)

Transport comments
The additional growth of 600 homes (Table SG2) will be considered as part of the transport modelling for the Pre-Submission Plan. There will need to be a link to the Braintree DC modelling as additional housing growth is planned at Feering.

Education comments
Developments totalling 600 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 180 primary aged pupils and up to 120 secondary aged pupils. The three sites in Tiptree granted conditional planning permission will produce an additional 76 primary aged and 51 secondary aged pupils. There is currently a significant number of surplus places in the primary schools serving Tiptree. However, with this level of growth it is likely that there would be a need to expand one of these schools by 1/2 form of entry (105-places).

At secondary level Thurstable School and 6th Form currently has some surplus capacity, however, most of this will be utilised as pupils are produced from the new housing developments that have already been granted planning permission in the area. It is, therefore, likely that the school will need to be expanded to accommodate the additional pupils that will be produced from the planned housing growth. (See also comments under Part 1 Policy SP9.)

Early Years and Childcare Comments
The number of new dwellings would generate an additional 54 childcare places. As a minimum a new facility offering 26 places would be required. It would make sense if this was developed as part of any primary school expansion. Additional capacity could be provided by existing providers.

Surface water management comments
The EA uFMfSW indicates surface water risks in the area and it would be appropriate for any potential Neighbourhood plan to include the provision of SuDS for managing surface water runoff in individual development areas as well as the provision of improved surface water alleviation scheme where appropriate.

8.33 Policy SS16: West Bergholt (p150)

Education comments
Developments totalling 120 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 36 primary aged pupils and up to 24 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Heathlands CE VC Primary School, which serves this area, is operating at close to capacity and is forecast to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The school could accommodate this level of growth. However, as a consequence some pupils from the surrounding area who can currently access places at this school would no longer be able to do so. This would put more pressure on school places in neighbouring schools. For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
Developer contributions would be required to expand the current facilities to accommodate the growth.

Surface water management comments
The EA uFMfSW indicates surface water risks in the area and it would be appropriate for any potential Neighbourhood plan to include the provision of SuDS for managing surface water runoff in individual development areas.

8.34 Policy SS17a: Mersea Housing and Employment

Transport comments
In connection with 'Development of land at Dawes Lane, West Mersea', the third bullet point refers to 'A single site access off East Road.' The site does not appear to have any frontage onto East Road and it is suggested this should instead read 'Dawes Lane'.

Education comments
Developments totalling 350 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 105 primary aged pupils and up to 70 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Mersea Island School, which serves this area, is unusual insofar as almost all of the primary aged children on the island attend the school. The school would require further expansion to enable it to accommodate this level of growth. For impact on secondary schools see paragraph 8.37 of this response.

Whilst primary aged pupils attend the primary school serving the island all of the secondary school pupils living on the island require transport to reach the nearest secondary school in Colchester town. The provision of home to school transport falls to ECC and the scale of development proposed will influence the on-going transport costs.

Early Years and Childcare Comments
The number of new dwellings would generate an additional 31 childcare places. As a minimum, a new facility offering 26 places would be required. It would make sense if this was developed as part of any primary school expansion. Additional capacity could be provided by existing providers.

8.36 Policy SS18: Wivenhoe

Education comments
Developments totalling 250 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 75 primary aged pupils and up to 50 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Broomgrove Infant and Junior Schools and Millfields Primary School, which serve this area, are all operating at, or close to, capacity and are forecast to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. With this level of housing growth, coupled with natural growth in the area, it is likely that there would be a need to expand either Broomgrove Infant and Junior Schools or Millfields Primary School by 1/2 form of entry (105-places).

Early Years and Childcare Comments
The number of new dwellings would generate an additional 22 childcare places. These places could be created by either extending existing local provision or by building a new facility. It would make sense if this was incorporated into any primary school expansion.

Surface water management comments
The EA uFMfSW indicates surface water risks in the area and it would be appropriate for any potential Neighbourhood plan to include the provision of SuDS for managing surface water runoff in individual development areas.

8.37 Education comments: secondary school provision Policies SS1 to SS16, SS18

The vast majority of secondary aged pupils can be expected to attend one of the nine secondary schools located within Colchester's urban area. The cumulative impact of the new housing proposed for these villages would be the production of up to an additional 2 forms of entry (300 pupils).

Secondary school places are currently under pressure in school's located within Colchester's urban area. Whilst there is currently some surplus capacity this will be fully utilised as higher pupil numbers feed through from primary schools and pupils are produced from the new housing developments that have already been granted planning permission. Future school place planning will need to take into account the increased student quantum as a result of additional housing and depending on the location of the housing expansion of existing schools may need to be considered.

8.38 OV1: Development in Other Villages and Countryside (p158)

Surface water management comments
The EA uFMfSW indicates surface water risks in areas such as Aldham, Messing, Salcott-cum-Virley and Great Wigborough and it would be appropriate for this policy to include the provision of SuDS for managing surface water runoff within the overall design and layout of any proposed developments in these areas. The following additional bullet point should be added to ensure surface water management issues are covered:

* Appropriate SuDS for managing surface water runoff within the overall design and layout of the site

9. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICIES (p160)

9.1 Health and Wellbeing (p160)

Public Health comments
ECC supports the inclusion of a specific policy within the Local Plan covering health and wellbeing. ECC's responsibilities for public health were outlined in paragraph 5.1 of this response.

It is suggested that paragraph 7.2 is reworded as follows:
'There is a strong evidence base that shows the impact that the built environment has on the health and wellbeing of residents. This evidence base is growing and consideration must be given to how new developments will support and integrate health, wellbeing and lifestyle choices throughout the lifecourse of residents, workers and visitors to these new developments.'

Paragraph 7.3 refers to health impact assessments (HIA). It should be noted that the scope of a HIA is wider than assessing the impact on health services and facilities. ECC in its Public Health role support liaison with NHS England and the North East Essex Clinical Commissioning Group when looking at developments but would strongly encourage interaction with ECC Public Health colleagues for more specific advice on health improvement and ill-health prevention that impacts on a population level. In addition, the policies, guidance and information listed at the end of this response can further inform the preparation of the next version of the Draft Plan.

ECC seeks clarification as to who will advise and review the Health Impact Assessment once submitted. The need to assess the impact of development on people's health and wellbeing is supported. ECC considers such assessments are a good evaluation to access the impact of a development on the health of a community, to help develop potential ways to improve the quality of air and environment (including building resilience to climate change) and to make the local greenspace, and leisure facilities more accessible.

ECC Public Health would like to draw to the attention of Colchester BC that 'Green Space HIA' exist and provides the following link for information purposes.

* http://greenspacescotland.org.uk/SharedFiles/Download.aspx?pageid=133&mid=129&fileid=41

Given ECC's role in public health (outlined earlier in this response) ECC would seek clarification regarding the process being considered to determine the health impact of new development proposals, and in particular:
* How is the impact of health by new development to be undertaken?
* Who is to be consulted on the health impact assessments provided by developers?
* Is the impact of individual and/or cumulative impacts of development to be monitored?

Further clarification on this issue is sought following consultation of the Draft Plan, to ensure ECC works with the local authority and developers to deliver high quality healthy places in which people can live and work.

ECC does not support the alternative options to Policy DM1 where the requirement for HIA is related to EIA development, or there is no requirement for a HIA.

9.2 Policy DM2: Community Facilities (p163)

ECC supports the statement in paragraph 7.6 that community facilities are an essential element of sustainable communities. ECC would recommend there is a need to ensure local such facilities are in place to coincide with the completion of different phases of development. This will need to be progressed through the IDP to support the Pre-Submission Plan.

There are presently seven libraries operating in Colchester Borough providing some 4,123 sq.m of library space. The ECC Library Service consistently seeks opportunities to work with partners and local people to shape its service. Moving forward the preferred approach is to provide multi-purpose 'community hubs' offering several multi-local council/partner services, with library and registrar services (births, deaths and marriages) and provide space for communities to gather and share skills and experiences. ECC would welcome discussions on a site by site basis to gather information and possibilities around a multitude of deliverable spaces. This relates to the proposed new Garden Communities, Stanway Community Hub, Greenstead and any other community centres or new builds across Colchester.

The Essex Youth Service operates a light-touch community model with youth workers becoming 'community commissioners' supporting the community to deliver services themselves. ECC retains ownership of a number of physical Youth Centres (three in Tendring District), where utilisation is maximised, especially for those youth functions that aren't compatible with other community uses. Whilst no new facilities are planned to be built, it will be necessary to provide multi-purpose community spaces in the proposed Garden Communities and perhaps at larger development, which also take account of specialised requirements of youth provision.

These requirements will need to be considered during relevant pre-application discussions, and whether multi-functional space is required or alternatively, a developer contribution.

9.3 Policy DM3: New Education Provision (p164)

ECC Schools Service supports this policy which states that "the council will respond positively to and support appropriate and well-designed applications regarding the creation of new schools and education facilities.........Where necessary the, the Council will utilise planning obligations to help mitigate any adverse impact of an educational development and assist in delivering development that has a positive impact on the community". This approach will be important as current government policy requires that any new schools will be "free schools"/ academies.

Where housing growth takes place it will be essential to ensure the delivery of education facilities is undertaken in a timely and phased manner. Additional school places can be provided either by the expansion of existing schools/academies or the opening of new "free schools" or academies. Existing schools and academies can only be expanded if they have sufficient site area to do so. In many cases existing school/academy sites are restricted and cannot, therefore, be expanded easily without the provision of additional land. This is often impracticable in urban areas as schools are located within the existing built up area. In many rural areas schools are on restricted sites but there may be land adjacent to the existing school/academy site that could be utilised to enable expansion. Whilst faith schools and academies may have sufficient site area to expand this would need the agreement of the Anglican Diocese of Chelmsford/Roman Catholic Diocese of Braintree/ the academy trusts responsible for these schools/ academies.

ECC recommends Policy DM3 seeks the protection of proposed sites and those in current educational use on the Proposals Map for that use (Class D1).

As noted, the NPPF (paragraph 72) stresses the importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities (LPA's) are encouraged to take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. LPA's are advised that they should give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; and work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.

It should be noted that ECC's home to School Transport policy changed for children joining primary and secondary schools from September 2015. The new policy provides for free home to school transport to the nearest available school to a child's home address. The previous policy provided free home to school transport to a child's designated local school. This change in policy may, over time lead to a change in the pattern of attendance at schools in the district and will need to be monitored carefully to ensure that new school places are provided in those areas of greatest demand.

9.4 Policy DM6: Economic Development in Rural Areas and the Countryside (p170)

Colchester BC may wish to mention the LEADER EU funding (managed by Defra) which is promoting diversification for rural businesses. Representatives from Essex local authorities and ECC oversee the assessment of project bids.

9.5 Policy DM8: Affordable Housing (p173)

ECC recommends that housing classified as 'independent living' is included within the definition of affordable housing. This would support the delivery of ECC's Independent Living programme, which seeks to provide market and social housing for those within this specialist housing category.

9.6 Policy DM9: Housing Density (p175)

In considering the density of new development consideration should also be given to the need to provide high quality open space, including the provision of appropriate above ground SuDS features where necessary. Development in areas at risk of surface water flooding will need to consider whether the development could provide alleviation for the existing and proposed developments.

9.7 Policy DM10: Housing Diversity (p177)

ECC welcomes reference to Independent Living in paragraph 7.53. The following additions should be made as follows:

After '297 additional units' include (124 rental: 173 ownership)
The date of the position statement is now 2016

ECC further recommends specific reference to Independent Living within Policy DM10. In order for ECC to meet the statutory obligations as the provider of adult social care, control the costs of adult social care and improve the lives of residents, ECC is committed to influencing the provision of a range of housing options for the older population. Consequently, ECC is keen to support and enable older people to live independently.

ECC has reviewed its provision and delivery of Extra Care and is now promoting the Independent Living Programme throughout the county in liaison with Essex district authorities, which commenced in 2015. ECC's long term objective is to move from a model of approximately 60% residential care and 40% domiciliary care, to 45% domiciliary care, 50% independent living and 5% residential care. In 2015 ECC endorsed capital investment of around £27m to facilitate the delivery of around 2,730 units over a 5 - 7 year period.

The ECC Housing Board identified that greater awareness and consistent information and intelligence regarding Independent Living units should be provided to Local Planning Authorities, to enable them to produce planning policy frameworks and to make development management decisions that enable the increased supply of Independent Living units. An Independent Living Working Group, made up of ECC officers, Registered Providers, and officers from a number of local authorities has been established to move this forward. An Independent Living Planning Briefing Note is being prepared by ECC to identify how the Independent Living programme is to be delivered, and to identify the land use and planning aspects that need to be considered (i.e. design, layout, locations etc.). A copy will be circulated to Colchester BC when finalised.

9.8 Policy DM11: Gypsies, Travellers, and Travelling Showpeople (p178)

ECC recommends inclusion of specific reference to 'walking/cycling distance via a safe route' to the named services and facilities. ECC is liable for long term school transportation costs where a school is not within safe walking distance of home. Further, the safely accessible schools should be capable of accommodating pupils from the travelling community within existing spare capacity, given the unlikelihood of developer contributions being secured from traveller site proposals.

9.9 Policy DM12: Housing Standards (p180)

ECC welcomes inclusion of Lifetime Homes but would seek their mandatory application for older people and specialist housing.

ECC Public Health reference dementia friendly communities as national guidance, HAPPI design principles and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea older people planning guidance as below.

* RBKC (2015) Older People's Housing Design Guidance
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Older%20People's%20Housing%20Design%20Guidance%20(low%20res).pdf

* LGA and Innovations in Dementia (2015) Dementia Friendly Communities Guidance for Councils
http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/7058797/L15-238+Dementia+friendly+communities+guidance+for+councils/7acaa658-329e-4aa1-bdff-ef6a286dd373

Colchester BC may wish to consider strengthening the policy to meet the NPPF requirements regarding climate change by adding:

'Development will be planned to minimise the vulnerability to climate change impacts and that such development will not exacerbate vulnerability in other areas.'

The policy also should ensure that 'development layout allows for the inclusion of above ground SuDS features wherever possible'.

9.10 Policy DM18: Provision for Public Open Space (p192)

ECC Public Health supports access to green space for the multitude of health benefits that this provides.

It is also crucial to take into consideration that open spaces can also perform other functions such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production (as outlined in the NPPF). Prioritising green infrastructure that has multiple benefits, specifically green space, can also reduce flood risk from a development.

There is the potential to add to Policy DM18 to cover mitigation and adaption to climate change in line with the Climate Change Act 2008. This includes taking into account climate change over the longer term, including factors such as flood risk, coastal change, water supply and changes to biodiversity and landscape. New development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change.

The following additional point for inclusion in Policy DM18 is provided for consideration.

'Provision of public open space will be used as a way of adapting and mitigating for climate change through the management and enhancement of existing habitats and the creation of new ones to assist with species migration, to provide shade during higher temperatures, and for flood mitigation.'

9.11 Policy DM20: Promoting Sustainable Transport and Changing Travel Behaviours (p195)

ECC welcomes Policy DM20, which seeks to increase modal shift towards sustainable modes; and improve the strategic road, rail and cycle network.

The growth identified in the Draft Plan, and in neighbouring Local Plans, will need to be supported by appropriate transport infrastructure. ECC has been working with Colchester BC and Highways England (HE) to consider the impacts of this growth, and as plan preparation progresses will, where possible, identify appropriate means to mitigate its impact.

ECC/Ringway Jacobs were commissioned by Colchester BC to undertake highway modelling to inform the emerging Draft Plan, and identify the likely impact on key junctions. Mitigation may not be 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. Increased emphasis will need to be placed on increasing levels of public transport provision to reduce car trips. Additional modelling will be undertaken by ECC to support the Pre-Submission Local Plan.

ECC Public Health support linking existing cycling and walking routes, and provision of cycle storage. Reference can also be made to the Essex Countywide Cycling Strategy (2016).

ECC welcomes the safeguarding of existing and proposed routes for walking from developments. The England/Essex Coast Path should be noted as a proposed walking route of significance to both health and the local economy. The path has the potential to draw in significant numbers of visitors. Access to the path and the provision of appropriate parking at strategic locations within close proximity to this new and emerging national trail should be considered.

Additional requirement
Policy DM20 should make specific reference to the need for development to adhere to the content of ECC's Highway Authority Development Management Policies.

Highway Projects
It is clear that additional growth will impact upon the highway network, which is currently subject to a number of ongoing studies/projects aimed at improving the existing transport network and alleviating congestion issues in Colchester Borough. These projects are likely to have a significant positive effect on trip distribution within the Borough in the plan period.

ECC is preparing route based strategies for delivery post 2018/19, A133 - Colchester to Clacton, and Highways England for the A120 Colchester to Harwich. As outlined in Part 1 of the Draft Plan, route based strategies are prepared and delivered by ECC for strategic road corridors, in consultation with local authorities. The strategies will aim to provide:
* improved journey times and reliability for all users with traffic management;
* capacity enhancements and congestion relief measures;
* passenger transport improvements along the routes;
* walking and cycling improvements along the routes where appropriate;
* targeted safety improvements; and
* highway asset renewal.

ECC and Colchester BC will work closely with developers to put in place schemes that can both mitigate impact and contribute to improving the overall road network. These are likely not only to mitigate against the impacts of the development but will also provide relief to the existing road network through use as an alternative route by existing trips in the immediate vicinity. Further consideration will be given to appropriate access and safety matters through the consideration of Transport Assessments supporting the major development proposals.

Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 018 Reference ID: 12-018-20140306) states that the Local Plan should make clear, for at least the first five years, what infrastructure is required, who is going to fund and provide it, and how it relates to the anticipated rate and phasing of development. However, less detail may be provided at the later stages of the plan period as the position regarding the provision of infrastructure is likely to be less certain. ECC and Highways England will continue to progress these studies, and lobby Government, for their inclusion in national strategies and plans, to provide the Local Plan with the necessary degree of certainty for their future implementation and funding.

Moving forward close partnership working will be undertaken with Colchester BC, Highway England, ECC 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.

9.12 Policy DM21: Sustainable Access to Development (p197)

Paragraph 7.119
The word 'Guidance' should be deleted.

Paragraph 7.120
Reference should be made to 'residential travel plans, school travel plans and residential travel information packs'. This should also be made to the last paragraph of Policy DM21 itself.

Additional requirement
Policy DM21 should make specific reference to the need for development to adhere to the content of ECC's Highway Authority Development Management Policies.

Contextual information to support Policy DM21
ECC has a statutory duty to publish a 'Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy' (SMoTS), and recently completed consultation regarding a draft Strategy. The SMoTS sets out how ECC aims to effectively target and adopt different methods of encouraging modal shift, by giving existing and future residents of Essex a better choice to travelling in and around the county. It outlines the steps ECC are taking to enable accessibility to places of employment and education for all, including other neighbourhood services such as retail and leisure; with the associated health, social and economic benefits to them and their associated communities.

The SMoTS covers a wide range of activities, with the following key objectives:
* To consolidate and build on the existing Travel Plans developed within the County
* Promoting and supporting the development and enablement of a range of travel alternatives being used to access employment, health and education
* Contribute to meeting the County Council's performance indicator targets for the Local Transport Plan (LTP)
* Better management of congestion during peak travel times
* Improving the environment by introducing high quality choices thereby reducing the need to travel by car and potentially reducing CO2 and other emissions
* Help to improve the health, welfare and safety of all Essex residents by encouraging an active lifestyle through increased walking and cycling
* Allow and enable residents to make an informed choice about how they travel for work, school and leisure

A key strategy element for the successful delivery of the objectives is the preparation and implementation of Travel Plans. These are long term management strategies providing a framework for managing transport issues and promoting travel choice. Developing and implementing a Travel Plan can help to reduce the use of the private car, which in turn helps to tackle localised congestion.

The SMoTS promotes the implementation of a number of travel plans, including:

* Workplace Travel Planning Initiatives - including ECC Travel Plan Accreditation Scheme (working alongside local businesses and employers with 50 or more staff members); ECC Employee Travel Plan (Cycle to Work Scheme, Interest Free Bike Loan Scheme, Rail Discount Scheme, Bus Discounts, Car Share Scheme(s) across hub offices and a Pool Bike Scheme); and Recommendations for Planning Applications (advice, support and guidance to developers and/or local employers on sustainable travel related matters).
* Residential Travel Planning - a Travel Plan is required on all developments of 250 dwellings or more and are requested through responses to individual planning applications; Residential Travel Information Pack (prepared by ECC) - sustainable travel booklet to all dwellings on new residential developments, including the provision of bus/rail tickets for free travel (if required), a Travel Plan may still be required for smaller developments if there are existing concerns relating to congestion, pollution, air quality and strain on the public transport network; ECC Residential Travel Plan Co-ordinator - promoting and monitoring alternatives to the private car through a menu of Travel Plan measures to housing developers and residents
* School Travel Planning - Recommendations for Planning Applications (as above); Assessment of the travel and transport requirements of young people; Audit of Sustainable Travel Infrastructure and Accessibility - to enable schools to assess how accessible their site is for pupils from their home locations; ECC Travel Training Team
* Hospital and Airport Travel Planning - Bus Travel discounts to staff; Car Share
* Marketing and Promotion - Support with promoting national campaigns such as Walking Month (May), Bike Week (June), Catch the Bus Week (July), and Car Free Day (September)

Other Travel Planning initiatives include:

* Neighbourhood/Community Travel Plans - if an area has been earmarked for multiple developments, either full residential or as mixed use, it is possible to implement a neighbourhood or community wide Travel Plan to mitigate against the cumulative impact of development. This may be particularly beneficial if there are a number of smaller applications over a period of time which would not ordinarily require a Travel Plan by themselves, but once complete will form a much larger community. This approach will also enable developments to share knowledge, resources, a Travel Plan Co-ordinator, as well as forming a joined up approach.
* Personalised Travel Planning (PTP) - as part of the Residential Travel Plan new residents can be provided with Personalised Travel Planning. This will be advertised within bespoke Residential Travel Information Packs, and will be exclusive to new residential developments built within Colchester Borough.

ECC strongly supports specific reference in Policy DM21 to Travel Plans especially given the need to encourage modal shift to accommodate the planned growth.

The ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (paragraph 5.72 - 5.74) further requires development to provide workplace, residential and school travel plans to encourage modal choice and reduce movements by car, and will be secured through s106 agreements. This will be supported by the SMoTS once adopted.
The ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (paragraph 5.3.2) seeks to promote sustainable modes of travel. ECC has a statutory duty to promote the use of sustainable methods of transport for all education and training related journeys, from pre-school age to post 16 students. Under the Education and Inspections Act 2006 authorities are encouraged to develop Travel Plans with schools.

ECC will use its highways, transport and schools expertise to examine the provision of safe walking and cycling routes from new housing to education and other community facilities. Safe direct routes that encourage parents to leave the car at home will be required on all new developments. Financial contributions may also be required for off-site works. Such contributions may also be appropriate from smaller developments.

Walking and cycling are good for physical and mental health. Switching more journeys to active travel will improve health, quality of life and the environment, while at the same time reducing costs to the public purse. The following key tasks are recommended to encourage active travel; namely
* active travel should be enshrined in transport policies,
* ensure that safe, convenient, inclusive access for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport users is maximised and is prioritised over private car use in the movement hierarchy,
* focus on converting short car trips to active travel and public transport,
* ensure that policies and budgets demonstrate how maximising active travel can benefit health, the economy and the environment,
* encourage new developments (and retrofits) to maximise opportunities for active travel with appropriate infrastructure (eg cycle lanes, cycle parking), and
* ensure that travel plans for new developments (including schools) prioritise and support active travel over car transport as part of designing safe and attractive neighbourhoods.

Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 12-010-20140306) highlights that Local Plans should plan for the development needs of the plan area, and include a 'strategy and opportunities for addressing them, paying careful attention to both deliverability and viability'.

Education
Section 508A of the Education Act 1996 places a general duty on ECC to promote the use of sustainable travel and transport to and from schools and academies. The duty applies to children and young people of compulsory school age who travel to receive education or training in the County Council's area.

The Act defines sustainable modes of travel as those that ECC considers may improve the physical well-being of those who use them, the environmental well-being of all or part of the ECC's area, or a combination of the two.

ECC would wish to promote the principle of sustainable travel and transport to and from schools/ academies from new housing developments. This is because the sustainable school travel duty should have a broad impact, including providing health benefits for children, and their families, through active journeys, such as walking and cycling. It can also bring significant environmental improvements, through reduced levels of congestion and improvements in air quality to which children are particularly vulnerable. Creating safe walking, cycling and travel routes and encouraging more pupils to walk and cycle to school are also some of the best ways to reduce the need for transport and associated costs.

9.13 Policy DM23: Flood Risk and Water Management (p203)

Paragraph 7.133
The Updated Flood Map for Surface Water Flooding is not generally considered when reference is made to flood zones, however, ECC would like areas of flood risk highlighted within this data to be given similar treatment to the differing flood zones.

Paragraph 7.135
In addition to the requirement for a site specific flood risk assessment to be submitted for all developments over 1ha or within flood zones 2 and 3, a surface water drainage strategy should be submitted with any Major application in order to assess whether proper consideration has been given to SuDS.

Paragraph 7.139
The use of SuDS is an important tool regardless of whether infiltration is possible on a site. The current policy suggests that SuDS should only be used in these situations which is not in line with ECC policy or national guidance and best practice.

Policy DM23, second paragraph
It is essential that development includes flood defence/resilience measure AND SuDS. While both have different goals Policy DM23 should not consider it as an either or option. The policy should be amended accordingly.

Policy DM23, third paragraph
The following sentence needs to be deleted, "The use of SuDS will be particularly important as part of green field developments (but not exclusively)."

The use of SuDS is equally important on both greenfield and brownfield developments. Where possible both should have rates restricted back to the greenfield 1 in 1 year rate, however, should it be demonstrated that this is not possible on brownfield sites then a minimum of 50% betterment should be demonstrated for all storm events.

Policy DM23, first bullet point
ECC seeks removal of the example of 'water butt' from the acceptable source control measures. While their use is supported they are an unreliable way to manage surface water as the storage provided is often not available at times when the capacity is actually needed.

Policy DM23, second bullet point
All development should have rates restricted back to the greenfield 1 in 1 year rate, however, should it be demonstrated that this is not possible on brownfield sites then a minimum of 50% betterment should be demonstrated for all storm events.

9.14 Policy DM24: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (p204)

All development should give priority to SuDS, however, it is only all major development that is subject to consultation with ECC as the Lead Local Flood Authority.

Only where there is a significant risk of pollution to the water environment, inappropriate soil conditions and/or engineering difficulties, should alternative methods of drainage discharge of water from the site be considered. It is important to note that SuDS is not restricted to ground that can infiltrate; SuDS covers a wide range of drainage options including attenuation when infiltration is not possible.

Role of Essex County Council - Lead Local Flood Authority
Under The Flood Risk Regulations (2009) and the Flood and Water Management Act (2011), ECC as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) is responsible for developing, maintaining, applying and monitoring a strategy for flood risk management, including flood risk from surface runoff, groundwater and ordinary watercourses.

In addition, ECC is responsible for preparing and implementing planning strategies that help deliver sustainable drainage by encouraging developers to incorporate SuDS for proposed developments wherever possible. ECC also has responsibility in approving SuDS proposals for new development as part of the wider planning application approval process. Under this arrangement, LLFAs act as a statutory consultee for major planning applications (sites for 10 or more houses or 1 ha in area) which have surface water drainage implications.

Geological constraints across Essex limit the use of infiltration features. Open water features can be used in open floodplain areas to provide attenuation upstream of large urban areas. Existing sustainable drainage features are predominantly attenuation / detention basins located in open floodplain. ECC, in coordination with water companies and Local Planning Authorities seeks to deliver SuDS on a strategic basis taking into account areas identified for growth, surface water drainage limitations and catchment characteristics.

On a local scale, site specific assessments are carried out to determine the most feasible SuDS mechanisms to use, as well as appropriate site tests to determine the suitability of SuDS options, as recommended by the CIRIA SuDS hierarchy, as included in the SuDS Manual (C753).

ECC considers that all development should incorporate SuDS measures, where possible. However, only major developments are the subject of a statutory consultation with the LLFA, which is defined as follows:

(a) the winning and working of minerals or the use of land for mineral-working deposits;
(b) waste development;
(c) the provision of dwelling houses where -
(i) the number of dwelling houses to be provided is 10 or more; or
(ii) the development is to be carried out on a site having an area of 0.5 hectares or more and it is not known whether the development falls within sub-paragraph (c) (i);
(d) the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is 1,000 square metres or more; or
(e) development carried out on a site having an area of 1 hectare or more.

ECC requires new development in Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs), which are located along surface water flow paths, to address the drainage infrastructure gap through the implementation of SuDS techniques.

In 2016 the EA published the 'Flood Risk Assessments: Climate Change Allowances', which identified amendments to allowances that should be made to flood risk assessments and strategic flood risk assessments arising from the effect of climate change on rainfall. These allowances are based on climate change projections and different scenarios of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. ECC's interpretation of this guidance requires all new development to allow for the upper end allowance of a 40% increase in rainfall events for most developments.

ECC notes that an update to the District Council's Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2009) (SFRA) is taking place. This will address the 2010 Flood and Water Act requirements in relation to the surface water implications.

9.15 Policy DM25: Renewable Energy, Water and Recycling (p206)

It is encouraging that the Draft Plan includes a section and policy covering renewable energy, water and recycling and is supportive of the approach outlined in Policy DM24.

9.16 Additional Policy: Improving the Telecommunications Network)

ECC recommends that the Draft Plan include a specific policy which requires all new dwellings and non-residential buildings to be served by at least a 'superfast' broadband (fibre optic) connection. It is noted this is included in Part 1, but a more detailed policy should be included in Part 2 of the Drat Plan. Colchester BC is referred to Policy CP3 from the Tendring Draft Local Plan, which recently finished public consultation. This was strongly supported by ECC.


Government Policy
The government has committed to ensuring that every premise in the UK has access to broadband with a minimum download speed in line with the defined Universal Obligation Service (UBS) by the end of 2015. The UBS is currently 2Mbps however will shortly be amended to 10Mbps under the Government's planned Digital Economy Bill.

In more remote locations where connection into BT Openreach/Virgin Media's broadband network to achieve these speeds is not possible, support and funding towards alternative connection technologies such as satellite broadband is offered.

Superfast Essex Programme
Connection to superfast broadband throughout the Greater Essex area is continuously undertaken via commercial roll-outs by BT Openreach, Virgin Media and Gigaclear. Superfast broadband is currently defined as speeds of 24Mbps or more, however Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) are currently updating the definition as speeds of 30Mbps or more. ECC is working in partnership with BT and Gigaclear to deliver Phase 2 of this programme.

Phase 1 aimed to expand superfast broadband connectivity to 87% of premises in Essex. This has been achieved and delivered earlier than programmed in 2016. Phase 2 has commenced with the objective of reaching 95% coverage by 2019. At present, this is based on the definition of 24Mbps or more, however will be updated following the revision of the definition of Superfast Broadband. Phase 2a, is to be delivered by BT, and Phase 2b, by Gigaclear concentrating on the more rural areas commenced in 2015.

Superfast Essex programme is currently investigating and testing options for further coverage and ultrafast technology. Ultrafast is defined, depending on the supplier, as delivering between 300Mbps and 1,000Mbps. This work includes the Phase 2b - Gigaclear contract, which delivers ultrafast speeds, and initial supplier engagement with suppliers representing a variety of technologies including fixed wireless broadband, in preparation for commissioning further coverage.

ECC is also looking at the development of ultrafast broadband provision to employment centres using Fibre to the Premises (FTTP). The objective would be to provide ultrafast to all major business parks in the Greater Essex area.

BT Openreach and other providers offer superfast broadband connection for all new developments, either free of charge or as part of a co-funded partnership. FTTP shall be provided free of charge to housing developments with one hundred or more dwellings. Developments smaller than this may have to provide contributions to ensure FTTP connection, or shall be provided copper connections for free.

Planning policies are under review at the local and national level to ensure that new build properties are enabled with fast broadband as part of any new development. Many councils are including within their Local Plan a requirement for all new developments to have high speed connectivity, a position strongly supported by ECC. ECC is recommending that requires all Local Plans in Essex to have broadband planning policies in place which when applied ensures high quality broadband is connected to all new homes and businesses at the point of construction in Essex.

The Phase 1 target of ensuring 87% of premises in Essex are connected to superfast broadband by 2016 has been achieved, with Phase 2 to provide 95% coverage by 2019 currently underway. Schemes to provide ultrafast broadband to both residential and commercial properties are underway by means of FTTP connections, with employment centres being a priority.

10. DELIVERY STRATEGY AND IMPLEMENTATION (p208)

ECC would welcome specific mention of its responsibilities covering its role as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority, Education Authority, Highway Authority, Lead Local Food Authority, and the provider of a range of children's and adult social care services including housing.

11. GLOSSARY (p212)

The following definition for infrastructure is recommended for inclusion in the Draft Plan.

Infrastructure means any structure, building, system facility and/or provision required by an area for its social and/or economic function and/or well-being including (but not exclusively):

a. footways, cycleways and highways
b. public transport
c. drainage and flood protection
d. waste recycling facilities
e. education and childcare
f. healthcare
g. sports, leisure and recreation facilities
h. community and social facilities
i. cultural facilities, including public art
j. emergency services
k. green infrastructure
l. open space
m. affordable housing
n. live/work units and lifetime homes
o. broadband
p. facilities for specific sections of the community such as youth or the elderly

12. APPENDIX 2 - KEY DIAGRAM (p221)

ECC would recommend the key diagram is amended to better reflect the Local Plan's spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy to more clearly show where future development will be focused in the district and those areas to be protected. A clear base map and place names would provide clarity.

13. POLICIES / PROPOSALS MAP

It is recommended that each 'New Housing Allocation' shown on the Proposals Map is appropriately numbered/referenced on the maps to align with the relevant Local Plan policy.

The MWPA welcome the inclusion of Mineral Safeguarding Areas on the Colchester Local Plan Policies Map.

Map: East Colchester Policies EC1, EC2 and EC3 - ECC note the inclusion of the 'East Colchester Transit Route' on the map. ECC seeks further discussion with Colchester BC and other transport partners on this route and further detail around delivery and implementation before the Pre-Submission Plan is prepared.

14. MINERAL AND WASTE COMMENTS - PROPOSED GROWTH LOCATIONS

A number of growth locations identified in the Draft Plan are within 250m of safeguarded operational or permitted minerals and/or waste developments. Future development proposed at these locations must have reference to the requirements of the wider development plan, which includes the adopted MLP and submitted WLP. Such reference must seek to ensure that new development in Colchester Borough avoids impacts on the operation of important mineral and waste infrastructure. Whilst not amounting to an objection from the MWPA at this current time, the MWPA must be consulted on any development proposed within 250m of these safeguarded sites. The MWPA would object to proposed development where it is considered that the granting of planning permission would impact on the ability of these facilities to carry out their permitted or intended operations.

The table below shows those growth locations proposed in the Draft Plan that are within 250m of a safeguarded operational or permitted minerals and/or waste site. In recognition of the fact that some minerals and waste developments are temporary, permission expiry dates have been included. Where development is proposed within 250m of a facility at such a time as the permission has expired, the MWPA would still wish to be consulted to ensure that works have indeed been completed and have not been extended by way of a further permission.

Colchester Proposed Growth Location Minerals and/or Waste Facility
East of Colchester New Garden Community (EST06) Application Number: ESS/16/13/TEN
Site Reference: 14 457 31
Site Name: Land adjacent to A120
Proposal: Proposed development of a new waste management facility, with associated change of use of land. The facility comprises erection of a building for the transfer/bulking of municipal waste, together with ancillary development.
Permission Expiry Date: N/A
Application Number: 12/00960/FUL (Tendring Permission)
Site Reference: N/A
Site Name: Allens Farm Tye Road Elmstead Colchester Essex CO7 7BB
Proposal: Erection of a combined heat and power bio-gas plant comprising anaerobic digester, silage clamp and digestate store.
Permission Expiry Date: N/A
Wivenhoe Application Number: ESS/45/15/TEN
Site Reference: 14 421 27
Site Name: Wivenhoe Quarry
Proposal: Continuation of extraction of sand & gravel, reinstatement with inert fill and restoration to part agriculture, part nature conservation and part open water without compliance with conditions 50 (Operations completion date) and 51 (Removal of all associated infrastructure) attached to planning permission ref: ESS/42/12/TEN to allow an extension in time to the life of the permitted operations and deadline for removal of all associated infrastructure for an additional 3 years until December 2018.
Permission Expiry Date: December 2018
Application Number: ESS/48/15/TEN
Site Reference: 14 421 27
Site Name: Wivenhoe Quarry
Proposal: Continuation of use for the recycling of glass, coated roadstone chippings and scalpings, concrete and brick waste to produce secondary aggregates involving associated plant on land at Wivenhoe Quarry without compliance with condition 2 (operations completion date) attached to planning permission ref: ESS/41/12/COL to allow an extension in time to the life of the permitted recycling operations for an additional 3 years until 31 December 2018
Permission Expiry Date: December 2018
West of Colchester Garden Community Application Number: ESS/26/08/COL
Site Reference: 13 421 15
Site Name: Church Lane, Marks Tey
Proposal: Periodic review of mineral permission IDO/COL/1/92A for the extraction of brickearth clay and use in the adjacent brickworks
Permission Expiry Date: N/A
Please note that this quarry is within the proposed growth location boundary
Application Number: ESS/41/08/COL
Site Reference: 13 457 17
Site Name: Honeylands Farm
Proposal: Change of use of an industrial unit to a waste transfer station to be used for the recycling of waste arising from highway gullies
Permission Expiry Date: N/A
Please note that this facility is within the proposed growth location boundary
West of Colchester Garden Community Application Number: COL/476/91
Site Reference: 13 422 01
Site Name: Marks Tey Rail Depot
Proposal: Overnight HGV Lorry Park
Permission Expiry Date: N/A
West of Colchester Garden Community Application Number: ESS/41/08/COL
Site Reference: 13 457 17
Site Name: Honeylands Farm
Proposal: Change of use of an industrial unit to a waste transfer station to be used for the recycling of waste arising from highway gullies
Permission Expiry Date: N/A

15. MINOR WORDING CHANGES TO SUPPORTING TEXT

Refer to 'London Stansted Airport' rather than 'Stansted Airport' wherever this appears throughout the document.

Reference is made in the Strategic Plan Policies SP7 - 10 under transportation to 'foot and cycle ways'. ECC recommend a consistent reference is used, namely 'cycleway and footway' and wherever the terms appear throughout the Draft Plan.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PUBLIC HEALTH LOCAL PLAN EVIDENCE - USEFUL LINKS

The following links provide useful information/documents, which can be used to inform emerging policies regarding public health matters:

1. Active Design principles; Planning for health and wellbeing through sport and physical activity"; by Sport England and Public Health England
2. Public Health England (2015) Health Profiles by authority area, published June 2015 Public Health England (2015) Health Profile Colchester (June 2015)
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?QN=HP_RESULTS&GEOGRAPHY=22

Health Profiles provide summary health information to support local authority members, officers and community partners to lead for health improvement. Health Profiles is a programme to improve availability and accessibility for health and health-related information in England. The profiles give a snapshot overview of health for each local authority in England. Health Profiles are produced annually.

Designed to help local government and health services make decisions and plans to improve local people's health and reduce health inequalities, the profiles present a set of health indicators that show how the area compares to the national average. The indicators are carefully selected each year to reflect important public health topics. For more information about the 2015 profiles data (including changes compared to the 2014 profiles) please see the Data page or read our FAQs.

3. Healthy Places- wellbeing in the Environment (2016) by The UK Health Forum
http://www.healthyplaces.org.uk/themes/access-to-healthy-food/hot-food-takeaways/development-control/

The UK Health Forum conducts and commissions research for the on-going development of Healthy Places. This work gives an outline of local structures and responsibilities in each area of focus at the time of research and provides the starting point for many of the themes and key issues found on Healthy Places.
* The regulatory environment and public health: Assessing the options for local authorities to use the regulatory environment to reduce obesity
* Planning
* Sustainability, health and local authorities
* Transport and public health
* Local alcohol control

4. Essex Insights (2015) Local Authority Portrait Published June 2015

5. Dementia friendly communities Guidance for Councils by LGA (second edition) (circa 2014/5)
The publication date is not stated but the Guidance builds on earlier guidelines produced by the LGA in 2012, and is informed by good practice over the last three years and emerging evidence about what works well in supporting people with dementia and those that support them. It is about what local government can do to help make this a reality. The purpose of the guide is to help councils play their part in developing communities where people can live well with dementia. It is about enabling people with dementia, their families, friends and carers to feel at home, supported, understood and that they matter.

6. Healthy New Towns by NHS England 2016
NHS England are working with ten housing developments to shape the health of communities, and to rethink how health and care services can be delivered. The Programme offers a golden opportunity to radically rethink how we live - and takes an ambitious look at improving health through the built environment. In March 2016, following a rigorous selection process, NHS England announced the ten demonstrator sites they will be working with.

In the NHS Five Year Forward View, a clear commitment was made to dramatically improve population health, and integrate health and care services, as new places are built and take shape. This commitment recognises the need to build over 200,000 more homes in England every year, and invited Expressions of Interest from developments across the country. Over time, NHS England look forward to connecting with this broad community of sites look to build health into the design of new and regenerated places. Now, the Healthy New Towns Programme will work alongside the ten housing developments across the country to offer challenge, inspiration and support as they develop their ambitious plans for building healthy communities. The programme is looking at how sites can redesign local health and care services, and how they can take a cutting edge approach to improving their community's health, wellbeing and independence.

7. Working Together to Promote Active Travel by Public Health England May 2016 A briefing for local authorities

The briefing has been written for transport planners, others concerned with the built environment, and public health practitioners. It looks at the impact of current transport systems and sets out the many benefits of increasing physical activity through active travel. It suggests that while motorised road transport has a role in supporting the economy, a rebalancing of our travel system is needed. Some key messages when developing a healthy local transport strategy include:
* physical inactivity directly contributes to 1 in 6 deaths in the UK and costs £7.4 billion a year to business and wider society
* the growth in road transport has been a major factor in reducing levels of physical activity and increasing obesity
* building walking or cycling into daily routines are the most effective ways to increase physical activity
* short car trips (under 5 miles) are a prime area for switching to active travel and to public transport
* health-promoting transport systems are pro-business and support economic prosperity. They enable optimal travel to work with less congestion, collisions, pollution, and they support a healthier workforce

This guide suggests a range of practical action for local authorities, from overall policy to practical implementation. It highlights the importance of community involvement and sets out key steps for transport and public health practitioners.
8. Tackling Obesity and Planning

Local Government Association (2016) Tipping the Scales; Case studies on the use of planning powers to limit the use of hot takeaways
(http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/7632544/L15-427+Tipping+the+scales/6d16554e-072b-46cd-b6fd-8aaf31487c84)

Public Health England, LGA and TCPA (2016) Building The Foundations; Tackling Obesity through Planning and Development
(http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/7632544/L16-6+building+the+foundations+-+tackling+obesity_v05.pdf/a5cc1a11-57b2-46e3-bb30-2b2a01635d1a)

9. Provision of open space, sport and recreation

There is a tool that provides a Health Impact Assessments are available for green space/open space
http://greenspacescotland.org.uk/SharedFiles/Download.aspx?pageid=133&mid=129&fileid=41

Public Health England (September 2014) Local Actions on Reducing Health Inequalities; Improving Access to Green Space to reduce health inequalities Health Briefing
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/355792/Briefing8_Green_spaces_health_inequalities.pdf)

10. Ageing population and development planning

Dementia Friendly Communities Guidance for Councils 2015. LGA and Innovations in Dementia
(http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/7058797/L15-238+Dementia+friendly+communities+guidance+for+councils/7acaa658-329e-4aa1-bdff-ef6a286dd373)

Communities and Local Government (2008) Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods; A National Strategy for Housing an Ageing Population
(http://www.cpa.org.uk/cpa/lifetimehomes.pdf)

11. Wider guidance to be considered for better mental health and wellbeing related to planning

The King's Fund (2013) Improving the Public's Health; A guide For Local Authorities
(http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/improving-the-publics-health-kingsfund-dec13.pdf)

Mental Health Foundation (2016) Mental Health and Housing
(https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/Mental_Health_and_Housing_report_2016_1.pdf)


Public Health England and UCL Institute of Health Equity (2015) Reducing Social Isolation across the lifecourse.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461120/3a_Social_isolation-Full-revised.pdf)

London Healthy Urban Development (no date)
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461120/3a_Social_isolation-Full-revised.pdf)

Design Council Planning for Health (2009)
(http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/future-health-full.pdf)

Comment

Preferred Options Local Plan

Representation ID: 2488

Received: 28/09/2016

Respondent: Myland Community Council

Representation:

The objectives are welcomed but actions need to live up to the sentiments expressed.

Full text:

See attached scanned document.

Support

Preferred Options Local Plan

Representation ID: 2954

Received: 16/09/2016

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation:

Section 3.14: Natural Environment
We support the inclusion of objectives to protect the countryside and coast, and to ensure that new development avoids areas of flood risk and seeks to reduce future flood risk where possible. The SFRA, Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) and the published Flood Maps are the key evidence base documents to help inform this objective.
We also fully support and welcome the objective to "protect and enhance ...biodiversity, green spaces...water quality and river corridors".

Full text:

Thank you for the consultation on your draft Local Plan. We have provided our comments below in the same format as the draft Plan for ease.
Part 1
1 North Essex Authorities
Paragraph 1.19 - No reference is made in this section to the Strategic Flood risk Assessment (SFRA) update as a key evidence base document. As highlighted further on in this response, the SFRA will have an essential role in ensuring that the flood risk Sequential and Exception test have been appropriately applied to the Local plan. The Water Cycle Study is referred to, but is not available in the webpage of accessible evidence base documents. Paragraph 1.22 suggests that all of this evidence base is publically available, but this does not currently appear to be the case.
Policy SP4 - Infrastructure and Connectivity
Whilst we acknowledge that this policy currently focuses principally on transport and broadband, we would highlight that there is no similar overarching policy that addresses other 'environmental' infrastructure requirements. For example, there is no reference to the need to provide further waste water or flood risk infrastructure to help accommodate the proposed growth. We suggest that the need for similar overarching policy references are considered.

Policy SP5 - Place Shaping Principles
We support the inclusion of this policy, and would take this opportunity to highlight the positive role that a comprehensive design approach (in the form of development frameworks and master-plans) can have in helping to deliver well designed and multifunctional green infrastructure. Public open space and green infrastructure can serve to provide benefits such as sustainable drainage, amenity and ecological habitat improvements. It would be useful for reference to such multiple benefits to be included in the bullet points.
The inclusion of areas of ditches and watercourses within areas of public open space (as opposed to putting these within or bounding property curtilages), will help to ensure that these features are retained. This will ensure that the benefits that they can provide, in terms of managing surface water, enhancing ecology and amenity etc., can continue to be realised through on going management into the future. There also is likely to be lesser potential for watercourse related problems if the site layout allows for these features to be incorporated within land areas that are to be maintained by management companies or community trusts or organisations, rather than being the responsibility of individual property owners.
Policy SP7 - Development and Delivery of New Garden Communities in Essex
We welcome Policy SP7 and the aspiration for the new Garden Communities to be climate resilient and water neutral, for there to be net gains in biodiversity and high standards of innovation, water efficiency and waste management. We look forward to engaging on these issues further as the design of these communities' progresses.
We particularly support point iv) of this policy, which states that 'Sequencing of development and infrastructure provision (both on-site and off-site) to ensure that the latter is provided in tandem with or ahead of the development it supports.' The addition of 30-40,000 new homes in total will influence the quality and capacity of existing waste water treatment works and we would expect to be consulted further in future planning phases to discuss potential impacts on the water environment and any potential upgrades to existing infrastructure. In particular, early consultation with ourselves and Anglian Water is strongly recommended regarding the foul water treatment arrangements of the three new garden communities. It is likely that they will need either complete new works, or substantial upgrades to existing works.
We are disappointed, however, that there is no specific text to support the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems and the multifunctional use of green space to provide areas for recreation and flood risk management. We do, however, note that the provision of sustainable drainage systems is mentioned in Policies SP8, SP9 and SP10.
Policy SP8 - East Colchester / West Tendring new garden community
Policy SP9 - West of Colchester / East Braintree new garden community
Policy SP10 - West of Braintree new garden community
We are very supportive of these policies, which are specific to each proposed New Garden Community.
We are also pleased to see that a high proportion of green infrastructure is planned for the East Colchester/West Tendring New Garden Community, with a country park planned around Salary Brook. We would advise that the outer boundary of the new country park should be commensurate with the outer boundary of Flood Zone 2 to
assist the Council in its duty to demonstrate compliance with the required flood risk sequential approach.
When producing a masterplan for the development of this area, both Councils should consider flood risk from all sources, using the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRA), the Flood Map for Planning, and surface water flood risk maps from the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) and/or our published Risk of Surface Water Flooding maps as useful evidence base documents.
We support the specific references to the provision of sustainable surface water drainage measures. As above, we would highlight the potential multiple functions of such systems which can form part of public open space or other green-grid infrastructure, and provide biodiversity benefits if well designed.
In respect of foul drainage capacity, the minimum provision scheduled for the east and west new settlements up to 2033 can be accommodated within the current capacity of Colchester WRC. As has correctly been identified, upgrades and a new permit will at some point be required to serve the entire planned development. However, this is a much better option, both environmentally and in terms of permit restrictions, than trying to direct the waste water from these developments to smaller works. New discharges from smaller works will be subject to permits with extremely tight discharge limits, which would be very difficult and expensive to achieve. Upgrades to Colchester WRC are much more achievable and we are therefore supportive of this approach.
Part 2 Local Plan for Colchester
3. Vision and Objectives for Part Two
Objectives
Section 3.13: Sustainable Growth
We support the references to new development addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate change and of focusing development at sustainable locations. This is very important in the context of flood risk, both in the broad-scale siting of development and the chosen land use as well as in the final design of the development. The SFRA should be used as evidence base to help inform the conformity of both the LPA and developers to this objective through the application of the Sequential Test.
Where new development and re-developments will benefit from existing flood defence infrastructure, you should consider seeking contributions (directly or through CIL), to ensure that this type of infrastructure can be renewed or raised as required in future. New developments (post Jan 2012), built within recognised flood risk areas cannot be included in the cost benefit and outcome measure calculations used for determining investment from Central Government's Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid.
(See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flood-and-coastal-resilience-partnership-funding)
Section 3.14: Natural Environment
We support the inclusion of objectives to protect the countryside and coast, and to ensure that new development avoids areas of flood risk and seeks to reduce future flood risk where possible. The SFRA, Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) and the published Flood Maps are the key evidence base documents to help inform this objective.
We also fully support and welcome the objective to "protect and enhance ...biodiversity, green spaces...water quality and river corridors".
4. Sustainable Growth Policies
The Spatial Strategy, and in turn allocated sites for all development proposals, must be informed by the application of the flood risk Sequential Test as part of the plan making process. The Exception Test should then also be applied as necessary and to the degree required for a Local Plan allocation. We note the reference to the Sequential Test in policy DM23, but currently we have not seen any evidence that the Sequential or Exception Tests have been applied to and informed the emerging plan. This evidence will need to support the submission version of the plan for it to be sound. The SFRA will have a key role in informing this process. It must also be ensured that appropriate regard is given to future flood risk (flood risk is considered throughout the lifetime of any proposed development), and that the latest climate change allowances are used to assess this.
Sustainable Settlements
We are pleased to see that flood risk was one of the environmental constraints that was assessed when developing the list of sustainable settlements (although see comments in respect of the Sequential Test, above).
In communities where specific development locations will be decided through the evolution of Neighbourhood Plans, we would hope to see the evidence base of the SFRA, SWMP and the Flood Map for Planning and Risk of Surface Water Flooding Map used to influence those decisions. We would welcome early engagement to help with interpretation of the flood risk evidence base, and to be consulted on early draft Neighbourhood Plans where flood risk is a key issue.
Strategic Infrastructure Policy
Paragraph 4.57 and Policy SG6: Strategic Infrastructure
We are pleased to see and support the inclusion this policy. We welcome the consideration of flood risk management and resilience, and water quality within the categories of infrastructure covered in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and highlighted in 4.57. "Necessary infrastructure" as stated in the policy should include all of these infrastructure types, and this should be made clear.
We would also highlight the Government Policy on Flood Defence and Partnership Funding, and the potential need to support the construction of new or replacement flood risk management infrastructure with local contributions as the full funding of schemes from central government finances may not be applicable in all cases.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flood-and-coastal-resilience-partnership-funding)
Neighbourhood Plan Policy
Policy SG7: Neighbourhood Plans
We would welcome the opportunity to assist the LPA in providing advice to those communities producing Neighbourhood Plans, where flood risk is identified as a constraint within the boundaries of the Plan area. Early engagement would be beneficial to all parties.
Developer Contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy Policy
Paragraph 4.65 & Policy SG8: Developer Contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy
We would welcome the opportunity to contribute to CIL and developer contribution considerations. Where new development and re-developments will benefit from existing flood defence infrastructure, it is important that the Council seeks contributions (directly or through CIL) to ensure that this type of infrastructure can be renewed or raised in future. As mentioned above, new developments (post Jan 2012) built within recognised flood risk areas, cannot be included in the cost benefit and outcome measure calculations used for determining investment from Central Government's Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid.
New development on sites that have passed the Sequential test and are proposed on land without an adequate standard of flood protection will have to fund improvements in wider flood defence infrastructure or alternatively will be expected to develop and fund their own independent flood defences.
5. Environmental Assets Policies
Natural Environment Policy
Paragraph 5.4 & 5.5: While we welcome the inclusion of this text, there should also be reference to taking opportunities to enhance and improve the natural environment, to enable Strategic Objective 5 from the Sustainability Appraisal to be met and to further support the implementation of Policy ENV1. We welcome the reference to "conserve and enhance" the natural environment in ENV1, but would suggest the use of "providing net gains for biodiversity" to better reflect the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Specific reference should be made within the Plan to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). WFD objectives and local River Basin Management Plan actions should be used to inform the Local Plan making process, to ensure that waterbodies are protected and wherever possible improved. We are happy to discuss this with you further.
WFD requires EU member states to divide up the water environment into management units called water bodies. Environmental objectives are set for each water body to help protect and improve its quality. Each water body has an objective to achieve 'good status' and to protect the water body by preventing deterioration in its status.
Colchester Borough falls within the Combined Essex Catchment within the Anglian River Basin Management Plan (2015). Environmental objectives have been set for each of the protected areas and water bodies in the River Basin District. They were identified through a process involving technical and economic appraisals and formal public consultation. Achieving the objectives will optimise the benefits to society from using the water environment. These are legally binding. All public bodies must have regard to these objectives when making decisions that could affect the quality of the water environment. Policies that could be included refer to de-culverting, removal of redundant structures from main rivers, creation and maintenance of wildlife-rich corridors to buffer watercourses, appropriate planting with native species and removal of non- native species.
The environmental objectives of the WFD are:
* to prevent deterioration of the status of surface waters and groundwater
* to achieve objectives and standards for protected areas
* to aim to achieve good status for all water bodies or, for heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies, good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status
* to reverse any significant and sustained upward trends in pollutant concentrations in groundwater
* the cessation of discharges, emissions and loses of priority hazardous substances into surface waters
* progressively reduce the pollution of groundwater and prevent or limit the entry of pollutants
Coastal Areas Policy
Paragraph 5.12: We agree that the coastal area is an extremely valuable asset. This section should also include mention of the Blackwater, Crouch, Roach and Colne Estuaries Marine Conservation Zone.
Paragraph 5.13: We support the inclusion of this text. Paragraph 071 of the NPPF PPG (7-071-20140306) suggests that a coastal change management area should be identified by a Local Plan. This is described as an area which is likely to be affected by physical change to the shoreline through erosion, coastal landslip, permanent inundation or coastal accretion. Furthermore, paragraph 072 (ID 7-072-201403060) states 'A Coastal Change Management Area will only be defined where rates of shoreline change are significant over the next 100 years, taking account of climate change. They will not need to be defined where the accepted shoreline management plan policy is to hold or advance the line (maintain existing defences or build new defences) for the whole period covered by the plan, subject to evidence of how this may be secured.' The Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan section 4.6 provides a plan summary for Management Unit E (Mersea Island). The variance in policy can be seen on policy maps 4-17 to 4-20 and includes areas of 'managed realignment' and 'no active intervention'. You therefore may wish to consider the definition of coastal change management areas at Mersea Island.
Paragraph 5.15: We note the restrictions on development due to the Coastal protection belt. We would also highlight that where development is proposed in these areas (where flood risk is also a constraint), it must be an appropriate land use with regard to the flood zone in which it is proposed to be sited and to the flood vulnerability classification.
Policy ENV2: Coastal Areas: We would suggest that bullet point (ii) includes the addition of "Is a land use type that is appropriate to the Flood Zone, will be safe from flooding over its planned lifetime and will not have an unacceptable impact on coastal change;"
Green Infrastructure Policy
Para 5.22 and Policy ENV3: Green Infrastructure - We support the protection of green spaces and links along river corridors within the Borough. We would like to see specific mention of the use of green infrastructure that contributes to protecting and enhancing water bodies. This could include policies to require de-culverting, creation and management of ecological buffer strips and new wetland areas to help manage flood risk and reduce diffuse pollution.
Climate Change Policy
Paragraph 5.37: We would highlight that the preference should be to avoid development in areas that are considered to be most vulnerable to future flood risk rather than looking to mitigate against future risks; i.e. preference for avoid rather than mitigate wherever possible. Mixed use sites should look to direct land uses with the lowest vulnerability to flooding in the areas that are known to be more susceptible to future flooding as a consequence of climate change.
Paragraph 5.38: We would suggest that flood risk, as above, should also be referenced within this section, as should water efficiency. In respect of water efficiency, it should be noted that 5.5% of UK greenhouse gas emissions arises from hot water for cooking and showers (this does not include space heating). 89% of the total CO2 emissions are associated with heating water in the home, while 11% is associated with the emissions resulting from abstracting, conveying and treating domestic water outside the home. Installing simple water-saving measures, such as water-efficient taps and showers, therefore saves both water and energy by minimising heated water. All saving of water helps to reduce greenhouse gas emission in the UK as well as reduce the use of this resource.
The Local Plan should also highlight the importance of identifying and using opportunities to help wildlife to adapt to climate change through design. This may be through use of sustainable drainage systems, wetland creation and restoration, promoting urban green space, protecting new wildlife corridors and developing new corridors which ideally link in with existing sites.
Paragraph 5.44: We would suggest that the long standing problems of surface water sewer and ordinary watercourse flooding in the area of the Hythe would need to be resolved prior to establishing a heat network scheme in that area.
Policy CC1: Climate Change - We would wish to see some reference to flood risk relative to climate change in respect of locating developments, to water resource efficiency and to biodiversity improvements.
Section 6. Places
Colchester
Central Colchester
Town Centre
Paragraph 6.9: With reference to the residential allocation for the Britannia Street car park, we would draw your attention to the published 'Risk of Flooding from Surface Water' maps which suggest that there is a frequent surface water flooding risk to that site in its current form. We would advise that discussions are held with Essex County Council with regard to the existing flood risk at this site and the surrounding St Boltolph's area and establishes whether there are any potential flood alleviation measures that are proposed relative to the Action Plan/Preferred Options of the Colchester Surface Water Management Plan which the developer and the Borough Council might look to support.
Policy TC1: Town Centre Policy
Policy TC3: Town Centre Allocations
Significant parts of the St Boltolph's , Middleborough and Town Centre fringe areas have been identified to be at risk of flooding from surface water (Flood Modelling and
mapping for both the Colchester Borough Surface Water Management Plan and the Risk of Surface Water Flooding maps shows these risks).
Essex County Council and Colchester BC have identified Action Plans and Preferred Options for addressing and reducing the current flood risk from surface water in "Critical Drainage Areas" (CDAs) within the Borough and we would advise that the council and developers look to support flood risk reduction projects (potentially through developer contributions or the adaption of useful land for flood management purposes) that will benefit both these sites and existing developments in the surrounding areas.
North Colchester
Policy NC1: North Colchester and Severalls Strategic Economic Area
Some of the land within zones in the policy area are shown to be at risk of surface water flooding and care should be taken with development designs to avoid those areas.
We would advise that the LPA and prospective developers enter into discussions with Essex County Council's Flood Management team with regard to addressing the existing flood risk at these sites and to bring about opportunities to support schemes to reduce flood risk through the adaptive use of land for flood management infrastructure or to seek developer contributions towards solutions that will address this (to the benefit of the site) on lands elsewhere.
Any existing watercourses should be located ideally in open space without residential plot curtileges extending to the banks or centreline of the watercourse. The benefits of this will be to prevent residents from culverting or modifying the channel in future. Maintenance will be easier if a watercourse is left visible in open space.
Policy NC2: North Station Special Policy area and adjacent existing mixed use commercial areas north of Cowdray Avenue.
No consideration is currently given to fluvial or surface water flooding issues. The Risk of Flooding map for Surface Waters shows flooding along Cowdray Avenue. North Station Special Policy Area is partially located in Flood Zone 2 & 3. For all locations, the flood risk Sequential Test should be applied. This should consider all sources of flooding.
We would advise that the LPA and prospective developers enter into discussions with Essex County Council's Flood Management team with regard to addressing the existing flood risk at these sites and to bring about opportunities to support schemes to reduce flood risk through the adaptive use of land for flood management infrastructure or to seek developer contributions towards solutions that will address this (to the benefit of the site) on lands elsewhere.
There is Main River at St Botolphs Brook with housing development shown adjacent (NGR TL9748927334). As above, this site must be sequentially considered in line with the NPPF. There is currently 'J-flow' flood modelling only at this location, which means that further detailed modelling should be carried out prior to site development. This is to establish detailed flood extents and to assist the LPA in advocating a sequential approach to flood risk, avoiding the areas shown to be at highest risk of flooding from the Brook.
Policy NC3: North Colchester
We would suggest that there may be a need to support Preferred Scheme options for existing Surface Water flooding issues (as identified in the Colchester SWMP) as developer contribution either through CIL or through S106 obligations. This should be discussed in detail with Essex County Council who are the lead Flood Risk Management Authority for the delivery of Surface Water Management Schemes.
We are pleased to see the references to avoiding areas of land at St Boltophs Farm shown to be within Flood Zone 3, but the developer and LPA may need to rely on more detailed modelling to fully understand fluvial flood risk extents on the sites near to St Boltolphs Brook as our flood map for planning relies on a very simplistic modelling techniques for that area.
East Colchester
Knowledge Gateway and University Strategic Economic Area (East Colchester)
Policy EC1: Knowledge Gateway and University of Essex Strategic Economic Area: We would recommend reference made to the avoidance of built development within the flood plain of the Salary Brook.
East Colchester/Hythe Special Policy Area
Paragraphs 6.49 & 6.50: We welcome recognition and reference to the existing surface water and ordinary watercourse flooding and infrastructure issues. We would recommend that these are addressed through infrastructure improvements between Colchester BC, Essex County Council and Anglian Water. You should consider developer contributions or CIL levied to support infrastructure schemes that will resolve the existing problem and provide capacity in the drainage network for incoming developments and regeneration.
Paragraph 6.51: We would have concerns that the use of tidal flows to generate power may increase fluvial flood risk in the town given that such schemes require the maintenance of a high upstream head of water. Flood Modelling will be required to develop this beyond a very outline concept as there could be large flood risk management infrastructure implications associated with power generation through the potential restriction of tidal inflows and outflows.
A flood risk activity permit would most likely be required from us in advance of any such works, and early engagement is recommended. In addition to flood risk, other issues such as maintaining fish and eel passage would need to be addressed.
The bridging of the river would also require a permit and need careful consideration to ensure that flood flows are not impeded within the river channel and that access to flood defences and the river's edge is maintained. We would wish to seek early dialogue with the Borough about outline ideas for such a crossing.
Paragraph 6.54: We appreciate the inclusion of this paragraph, and again would reference the importance of the flood risk Sequential and Exception Tests. We would also highlight that currently the most frequent flood risk in this area is from surcharging of the surface water sewers. It would be useful to identify this within the supporting text as this is where investment in infrastructure is a vital requirement to support the aspirations for regeneration.
There are significant constraints in this area due to flooding from various sources. Engagement of ECC as the LLFA /CBC and AW should be carried out in order to strategically inform this development area.
Policy EC2: East Colchester - The Hythe Special Policy Area
While we support many parts of this policy (for example maximising opportunities to enhance biodiversity), we are unsure of the inference in the bullet point with the wording "Manage flood risk pragmatically, further to Flood Risk Management policy DM23". We would welcome further discussions on this point.
Residential moorings, referenced in the final bullet point, should also consider any flood risk implications. This should include for example access to the moorings from land in a flood scenario. We would be happy to discuss this issue further.
The final paragraph of this policy should make reference to the need for development to contribute towards infrastructure that is currently needed to provide adequate capacity for surface water management (and not just responding to constraints).
East Bay Mill
Paragraph 6.59: Please note that it is not the "Environment Agency's exception test for development" in flood risk areas. The Exception Test is a DCLG test laid down within the NPPF to be addressed through the planning process. Additionally, the first requirement is always to satisfy the Sequential Test. We welcome the specific references that development will have to adequately address flood risk issues.
Policy EC3: East Colchester
If deemed necessary, replace reference to "Environment Agency exception test" with "the NPPF Exception Test". However, this test is to be applied to all development proposals as indicated in Table 3 of the Flood Risk and Coastal Change section of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).
Sustainable Settlements
Boxted
Boxted and Langham are both served by Langham Water Recycling Centre (WRC). The WRC is over capacity by a figure equivalent to roughly 133 houses. This must not be exacerbated by further connections. Either upgrades need to be undertaken by Anglian Water and a new permit applied for, or sufficient capacity needs to be created by reducing infiltration into the system. In the latter case, bear in mind that the volume of capacity that will be created cannot be predicted in advance, and in order to plan for a specific amount of development the cost and difficulty of upgrades and a revised permit will need to be considered and quantified. Development must not occur until it has been demonstrated that there is adequate wastewater treatment and sewerage infrastructure capacity in the catchment. This isn't currently referenced in the plan.
Chappel and Wakes Colne
Paragraph 6.123: we welcome the reference to water infrastructure capacity constraints within this section and within Policy SS4.
For information, there is a fluvial flow path from an ordinary water course flowing to Colne adjacent to proposed residential area at grid ref TL8947628069. There is also a potential constraint of a culvert near the development.
Copford and Copford Green
Paragraph 6.132: we welcome the reference to water infrastructure capacity constraints within this section. Copford and Copford Green (and Marks Tey) are all served by Copford WRC. The WRC is over capacity by a figure equivalent to roughly
500 houses. This must not be exacerbated by further connections. Either upgrades need to be undertaken by Anglian Water and a new permit applied for, or sufficient capacity needs to be created by reducing infiltration into the system. In the latter case, bear in mind that the volume of capacity that will be created cannot be predicted in advance, and in order to plan for a specific amount of development the cost and difficulty of upgrades and a revised permit will need to be considered and quantified. Development must not occur until it has been demonstrated that there is adequate wastewater treatment and sewerage infrastructure capacity in the catchment.
For information, fluvial flood risk from Roman River could impact on development. We currently only have J-flow data so further detailed flood modelling will be required to inform the siting of development within the site.
Dedham & Policy SS6: Dedham Heath Housing Sites
Dedham currently shows sufficient capacity for the development allocated. However, last year indications showed that the WRC was at over-capacity for the existing settlement. For additional security we would recommend that the infiltration into this network is investigated and reduced by Anglian Water, otherwise there may not be capacity for new developments to connect to once they are completed.
Eight Ash Green & Policy SS7: Eight Ash Green
There is an un-modelled Main River running through existing developed areas. We would wish to seek early engagement with the Parish and the LPA over the preferred locations of development when these are considered during the evolution of the Neighbourhood Plan. This is to help the community to avoid siting development in areas that may potentially be at risk of flooding.
Great Horkesley
For information, there is a tributary of Black Brook running to the rear of the identified residential development area on School Lane TL9832929404. This is currently un-modelled Main River and the degree of flood risk is therefore unknown. We do, however know that there is a very small and restrictive culvert which takes the ditch under the conservatory of Yew Tree Cottage and there have been flooding problems in this area historically. The Updated Map for Surface Water shows some water out of channel in this area.
Marks Tey & Policy SS13: Marks Tey
Please see comments above in respect of waste water capacity at Coptford WRC (Coptford and Coptford Green). Those comments also apply to Marks Tey.
No specific development site options are shown on the plan. Main River and surface water constraints must be considered as part of the strategic planning for this development area. The Main River - 'Roman River' will require detailed modelling to be carried out to fully understand the fluvial flood risk and inform a sequential approach to the siting of development and the design requirements. We would seek to work with the Parish in the consideration of development site options during the evolution of the Neighbourhood Plan.
Mersea Island
Residential development of up to 150 dwellings at Dawes Lane, is shown in an area of Surface water flooding TM0222413585 this site should be considered sequentially. The Updated Map for Surface Water shows a significant proportion of the proposed development area is subject to surface water flooding.
Policy SS17b: Coast Road
We support the presumption against residential development in the Coast Road area.
Caravan Parks
Paragraph 6.228: We welcome reference to flood risk and waste water infrastructure requirements. We would also suggest that reference is included to the requirement (in the NPPF) that sites must have adequate flood warning and evacuation arrangements for them to be acceptable. The reference to these required measures is however in the policy (Policy SS17c).
Rowhedge
Housing development proposed immediately adjacent to Main River. The defended flood source shown on our mapping is tidal. However the undefended fluvial main river at this location (the Birch Brook) has only got a J-Flow outline and therefore we would suggest that further modelling be carried out to understand the fluvial flood risk, this will need to take into account new climate change allowances.
Tiptree
We would welcome the opportunity to work closely with the Borough and Tiptree Parish Council to ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere as a consequence of growth in Tiptree
West Bergholt
We would welcome the opportunity to be involved with the strategic development of the Neighbourhood Plan.
Wivenhoe
We would wish to be involved with the strategic development of the Neighbourhood Plan. There are flood risk issues with regard to the location of development, including access to the Colne Flood Barrier, an essential element of infrastructure for the whole Borough.
Section 7. Development Management Policies
Policy DM5: Leisure & Tourism
Given the vulnerability to flood risk of visitor accommodation in particular, we recommend that flood risk is highlighted as a significant constraint. Public safety and emergency planning will be key issues in relation to some of these sites.
Housing Standards
Paragraph 7.57: We welcome the current reference to waste and recycling facilities, but note there is no reference to this issue in Policy DM12. New developments should include easy recycling systems for the householder, but also recycling on the go in public areas. This should also be included either in this section, or all waste and recycling requirements moved to fall under Policy DM25.
Policy DM12: Housing Standards: We would suggest that this policy is more closely linked to Policy DM25, or is revised. There is some overlap with water efficiency and waste in particular.
Policy DM13: Domestic development: Residential alterations, extensions and outbuildings
We note that for replacement dwellings in the countryside, the rebuild should be "on a one-for-one basis and the property to be demolished is a permanent lawful dwelling". This will have potential flood risk benefits as there have been past cases
where uninhabitable former dwellings on plots with high flood risk have had applications for rebuilds where there had been no residential occupancy of the former property for years.
Policy DM14: Rural Workers Housing
A reference within the policy to avoid the siting of rural workers housing in recognised flood risk areas would be welcomed. This is particularly with regard to temporary housing which tend to have the same vulnerabilities and safety issues, in flood risk terms, as static caravans and Park Homes. These are deemed, by the NPPF, to be inappropriate development within Flood Zone 3 and can only be sited in Flood Zone 2 after the Exception Test is passed and that there are adequate warning and evacuation arrangements.
Policy DM17: Retention of Open Space and Recreation Facilities and Policy DM18: Provision of Public Open Space
We support the inclusion of these policies protecting green links. We would welcome the inclusion of existing ditches and watercourses as specific protected features within both policies. This is to ensure that such features can continue to be maintained and serve as drainage and biodiversity features.
Flood Risk and Water Management
Some updating of the text and policies within this section is required, and there is scope to provide further detail relevant to development in Colchester Borough. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further with you, but have provided some initial comments below:
Paragraph 7.133: This paragraph is one of several parts of this section that refers to the NPPF Technical Guidance. This is no longer current, having been replaced by the Flood Risk and Coastal Change section of the Planning Practice Guidance. The flood zones quoted are in relation to tidal and fluvial flood risk. They do not show surface water flooding and are not shown on the surface water flood maps.
Paragraph 7.134: This text requires some re-working. The text currently does not accurately define the process for applying the Sequential Test. Application of the Sequential Test is a pre-requisite before any other flood risk considerations apply. It should consider all sources of flooding and development should only be further considered once it has been shown to have been passed.
Paragraph 7.138: We support the inclusion of this paragraph.
Paragraph 7.140: Reference could be made to the Environment Agency's 'Risk of Surface Water Flooding' maps to help identify surface water flooding constraints in areas of the Borough not covered by the SWMP. Reference could also be made to the potential need for new developments to support the provision of the SWMP CDA preferred management options, possibly through developer contributions (particularly where the development will benefit from such the construction of flood alleviation infrastructure/measures).
Paragraph 7.141: While we feel that this is a useful paragraph, we would suggest that it may be clearer if 'flood risk' and 'water management' were separated? Water management in this context would appear to be more appropriate in the Renewable Energy, Water, Waste and Recycling section.
Policy DM23: Flood Risk and Water Management
We support the reference in this policy to the Sequential Test. However, we have not seen evidence of it being applied to the preparation of the Local Plan. As mentioned
above, this is a key issue for all proposed allocations and must be demonstrated for the plan to be deemed sound.
As above, we would suggest that the current policy text requires some updating and rewording for clarity. We would welcome the opportunity to assist with this.
We would also add at this time that the use of CIL to support future interventions for tidal and fluvial flood management should not be overlooked and should relate to any new development located in defended flood plain areas where there will be future investment required to renew or raise existing flood defences.
There is also the potential for future small flood defence projects at Dedham and Ford Street, Aldham to proceed following project appraisal. The ability to deliver such schemes is likely to depend upon partnership funding contributions to supplement Central Government Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid and CIL or developer contributions can help the Council to support projects that lower flood risk in these communities.
Policy DM24: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
As above, this policy would also benefit from some re-wording and we would welcome the opportunity to contribute to that. While the LLFA lead on managing surface water flooding, it is essential that run-off does not have the potential to pollute receiving surface or groundwaters. Further text in relation to required treatment steps should be added to the existing policy. We would also add at this stage that all new developments should be required to include SuDS, not just major development as stated. Many small scale measures are available, but we would not consider water butts to be a SuDS measure. We welcome the reference to integrated SuDS and biodiversity improvements.
Renewable Energy, Water, Waste and Recycling
Paragraph 7.150 & Policy DM25: Renewable Energy, Water, Waste and Recycling: We note and welcome that developers are to be encouraged to meet higher than minimum standards for water efficiency. We would suggest that you may wish to consider requiring the higher water efficiency standards for new development through the Local Plan. The 'Water supply, waste water and water quality' section of the Planning Practice Guide identifies this as an option. We would be happy to discuss this further, including the evidence required to pursue this approach. You may also wish to consider adding further guidance as to how residential and non-residential developments can voluntarily achieve further efficiency gains, and the benefits (environmental and economic) of doing so.
Please also note our comments on waste recycling facilities in new developments made in respect of Housing Standards, above. It may be more appropriate to address those points in this section.
We trust this advice is useful, please contact me if you would like to discuss any aspect of this response further.

Comment

Preferred Options Local Plan

Representation ID: 3128

Received: 17/10/2016

Respondent: North Colchester Community Development CIC

Representation:

Mile End Community Council will use planning procedures and possibility a Community enterprise delivery structure to fund, recover and extend Community Amenities and Social Cohesion. Will submit policies and site allocations for adoption which will place an active obligation to identify and procure resources to maximise the number of places for employment education and recreation.

Full text:

MASTER DOCUMENT TO RESPOND TO MILE END RESIDENTS' HOUSING, FACILITIES AND SERVICES NEEDS 2014-2032
Section 1 List of proposed new or amended Local Plan Policies
Section 2 List of new projects and existing Local Plan Projects
: Author Cllr J E Dickinson Myland Community Council, in her personal capacity, on this LOCAL PLAN Policy & Projects Submission.
Due to current NHP pressures, MCC Community Council have not been able to endorse this previously prepared document in time for the Local Plan Submission deadline.
It is intended that separate support and endorsement will be issued by MCC and Braiswick, to CBC, in a few days time
_______________________________________________________________________
LOCAL PLAN POLICY ONE , 2016*2032;

Statement of Overarching Policy through an adopted Neighbourhood Plan Approach
(ref objective 1)
We will, over the next 16 years, undertake all possible initiatives to fund, recover and extend Community Amenities and Social Cohesion, between all residents in our existing and new sub neighbourhoods, using various Planning Procedures, and possibly a Community Enterprise delivery structure
The procedures could comprise;
1. Influencing the emerging Colchester Borough Council's 2016-2032 Local Plan
2. Applying the NPPF legislation relating to the Neighbourhood Plan/ Development Orders/ Right to Build and Right to Bid processes;
3. Undertaking both capital and service providing projects ,both large and small, to make a real difference within Mile End
4. Lobbying Building Control and DCLG on restrictive planning and construction regulations
5. green environment management and any other amenities already identified through public consultation
6. Raising funding from CIL, Sec106, public and private community sources, Developers and our own commercial endeavours, to secure serviced land, and procure, design, build and operate vital social amenities for residents such as; community centres, elderly day care facilities crèches


PLAN POLICY TWO 2016-2032 OVERARCHING ,
Need for a Truly Sustainable Community (ref objective 2)
Context
WE can best alleviate anticipated future travel problems by ensuring, through the emerging CBC Local Plan to 2032, the maximum number of possible places for permanent employment, education and recreation are established and maintained within our ward boundaries.
Policy
WE will submit overarching Local Plan Polices, Neighbourhood Plan Policies and Site Allocations for adoption which will place an active obligation on both our organisations to identify and procure all resources, to maximise, at every opportunity, the number of possible places for permanent employment, education and recreation, and thus meet the various needs of the majority of our residents.
________________________________________________

LOCAL PLAN POLICIES ROADS & TRANSPORT
Policies RT 1 & RT 2, A New adopted Transport Strategy is needed with effective Travel Plan forum
Context
WE will take formal steps to motivate partners to procure a new, effective and CBC adopted North Colchester Travel Strategy to 2032.This will have to be developed jointly by Essex County Highways, Colchester Borough Council, Myland's Professional adviser, Community Council, and major landowners .
Policy
A new North Colchester Travel Strategy, should be designed and implemented on a committed funding basis, be actively monitored, and if necessary modified through the North Colchester Travel Plan Forum, which includes all local major organisations
Policy RT 3, Funding Ongoing Traffic Management
All Developers and major facility owners in Mile End should regularly contribute to a local Highways Improvements budget through Rates and the Sec 106/ CIL/ commitments.
ECC, Developers and major facility owners should also be held financially accountable to the Community, through the independent North Colchester Travel Plan Forum, if they do not meet their annual agreed or designed modal shift targets


Policy RT 4 Policy for the station area for inclusion in the emerging Local Plan is;

RT 5A WE believe there is no long term solution to the station traffic issue without the creation of a new southbound carriageway under the rail way line. MCC will apply for a site allocation in the Local Plan to protect the possibility of such action in the future.
RT 5B Prior to such construction in 5 A above, WE seek the minimum amount of traffic to pass under the station bridge, and a partial solution should be the establishment of bus passenger transfer stops, so that only full buses cross the road under the bridge
___________________________________________________________________

LOCAL PLAN POLICIY HOUSING Policy H1:
Builders/Developers of new housing in Mile End are encouraged and required to;
H1.1 Respect the scale of the existing urban environment, (the exception being possible high rise flats in the Western Boulevard area of the Northern Gateway).
H1.2 Be designed in accordance with the most recent version of the Building for Life 2012 Design Guide
H1.3 Submit house and urban environment proposals which promote a variety of design and living / working styles, with enhanced community identity e
H1.4 Build between 5-10% of new units as 2 bedroom homes capable of appropriate later extension and facilities for occupants requiring up to 4 bedrooms.

LOCAL PLAN POLICY HOUSING H2 Older People's Accommodation in Mile End
H2 .1 Major Developers should be requested to provide the following numbers of housing units for aging people (60-100 yrs), in distinct, social clusters of approximately 20 units, near to general amenities, day care centres, and public transport, across all major developments.
Suggested Numbers
house/ bungalows Flats Care Home
Severalls Ph 2 50 50
Chesterwell North 75 50
Chesterwell South 90
Northern Gateway 40
Braiswick 20 20

H2.2 Whilst no guidance on tenure for older people's housing is proposed , we wish to see a condition on all deeds and leases for the above properties that they may only be sold or re-let on the basis that they shall be exclusively reserved for local residents of >10 yrs in Mile End


LOCAL PLAN POLICY H 3 NO MORE HOUSING INFILL IN MILE END
H3 WE will adopt a planning presumption against all new housing 'infill' development, across Myland. Planning Approval will only be given in exceptional circumstances
(Reason So many of the street scenes, large gardens, private footpaths and breathing spaces on our estates have been lost over the last decade, as a result of insensitive infill, and there are so few, poor opportunities left across the ward it is clearer to propose a blanket policy)

LOCAL PLAN POLICY H 54 URBAN DESIGN & STREET SCENE ( see also Public Realm section
H6 We wish to collaborate with all Builders and Developers in Mile End in applying the principles of our modified BREEAM Communities 2012, social assessment model for URBAN Design, with the aim of to achieving a standard of EXCELLENT/VERY GOOD on the three major development s(ref PR 1),and VERY GOOD Elsewhere
____________________________________________________________________
PUBLIC REALM & HERITAGE
LOCAL PLAN POLICY PR 1 SETTING & APPLYING URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS
PR 1 The LPA is requested to adopt the BREEAM COMMUNITIES 2012 (modified) Assessment and Proposals(2015) prepared for the Mile End Neighbourhood Plan area, as a tool to determine, with Community representatives, all future planning applications. The target standards are of EXCELLENT for major applications and VERY GOOD/ GOOD over the full area .
It is requested this Policy should be implemented as a material consideration on new relevant planning negotiations
.LOCAL PLAN BUSINESS POLICIES , Existing Policy Amendments


Ref B1 Land already allocated for employment in North Colchester should not be changed to any other Planning use, unless there is a permanent increase in FTE employment number of 15% on the 2016 base numbers.
Ref B2 All B class premises in Mile End Ward should be granted change of use to any other form of B Class use provided that FTE employment genuinely rises by at least 15%, (based on either the number of FTE employees in September 2016 or at the time of the application, whichever is the greater)
Ref B3 The amount of existing B class floor space in Mile End should be increased, once the Park & Ride is established, by reducing parking requirements, ( to create space for adjacent new buildings), or by installation of mezzanine floors,


LOCAL PLAN BUSINESS New Class A &B Employment Site Allocations / Changes
Ref B4 We request that new class A employment sites are created at;
I. South of Axial Way, preferably for highly staffed an inward investment company ) e.g medical technology company cluster
II. Temporary (120yrs) granting of planning permission to B class use in one of the existing ward blocks at on the Severalls Hospital site , as a construction site training centre
___________________________________________________________________

LOCAL PLAN POLICIES MILE END EDUCATION
ED 1 In line with overarching Policy no 1, We intend will strive to ensure all Under 5, primary and secondary children will be able to receive their early years care, education and supervised out of hours play within the ward boundaries
ED 2 We intend under Community Right to Bu y, and Right to Build, secure 3 nr, 1.5acre serviced plots of land from the Borough Council, Developers of Chesterwell and Severalls, to ensure provision of adequate full and part time crèche facilities services
___________________________________________________________________

LOCAL PLAN POLICY ? SOCIAL AMENITIES & LEISURE
SOC 1 The modified BREAM Communities 2012 Assessment template for Mile End contains an objective analysis of all the social amenities which should rightly serve a population of 25000-30 000 people, and which indicates new locations on the three major developments where these could be located for optimum efficiency

LOCAL PLAN MILE END POLICIES for Social Care for Older People
SOC 1 In line with overarching Policy no 1, We will strive to ensure most over 65s will be encouraged to contribute and/or participate in the wider community, receive care, attend social/medical day facilities and enjoy entertainment within the ward boundaries
SOC 2 We intend under Community Right to Buy ,and Right to Build, secure 3 nr, 1.5acre serviced plots of land from the Borough Council, Developers of Chesterwell and Severalls, to ensure provision of adequate elderly care and social services
End of Summary of all Local Amendments to proposed 2016 Local Plan Policies
______ __________________________________________________________