Policy SP5: Infrastructure and Connectivity

Broadband speed in Abberton & Langenhoe presently is unacceptably slow (about 2 mb per second). The 55 houses planned to be built in the village will all be closer to the Peldon Exchange than existing properties and will result in even worse broadband speeds in the rest of the village. We require faster broadband for the whole village, not just the planned new houses.

Transport Infrastructure and Health provision are key concerns. whilst significant new homes have been provided in recent years little or no improvements to infrastructure have been realised resulting in more congestion and pollution with longer journey times. I believe the council has laboured under the impression that people want to come to Colchester. Not true most want to get across or round the town, not go through it

The University of Essex notes and, supports, the Council's commitment to ensuring that the necessary infrastructure, services and facilities are provided to meet the needs arising from both existing, and new, development.

The University supports improved and enhanced transport links throughout the Borough and, in particular, within and around East Colchester. It welcomes the commitment to improve connectivity to, and between, existing urban centres and key destinations, which include (para 6.22) the University Campus. In the latter respect, the University considers that a range of options need to be explored, including improving links from the University Campus and Knowledge Gateway to Colchester North Station.

It supports the emphasis being placed upon the need to increase rail capacity and develop innovative public transport solutions. Such measures should not, however, be advanced at the expense of the improvement of the strategic and inter-urban road network. A balanced, and co-ordinated, approach is needed, with improvements required to all forms of transport infrastructure.

The University, particularly, supports the planned improvements for the A12 and A120, which are required both to relieve existing traffic congestion and deliver the housing and employment growth objectives of Colchester, Tendring and Braintree Councils.

Most importantly, the University considers that any proposal for major new development on the east side of Colchester must include a new direct road link (preferably of dual carriageway standard) between the A120 and A133. Without major new infrastructure provision, including highway links, any significant development on this side of the town will exacerbate existing traffic congestion.

The University notes, and welcomes, the commitment made to improving education, healthcare and broadband infrastructure and looks forward to working with the North Essex Authorities to, in particular, help improve local education provision.

The CCG would also like to draw attention to the requirement of improved technology, to accessibility of services through broadband across the borough and as such may request mitigation for improved broadband connections associated with any major developments

Policy SP5 is not sound
The section of Policy SP5 on health is not compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework because it does not mention well-being. Consequently, the proposals for new facilities are too limited and, specifically, there is no mention of places of worship. Section 171 of the NPPF states: "Health and well-being - Local planning authorities should work with public health leads and health organisations to understand and take account of the health status and needs of the local population (such as for sports, recreation and places of worship) including expected future changes, and any information about relevant barriers to improving health and well-being."

Policy SP5 is excellent, but on past performance, Marks Tey local people do not trust CBC to deliver the policy benefits. Key areas are Transport and Health (community facilities)

The infrastructure and connectivity plan is not sound since it is based upon the assumption that there are existing connectivity and geographic strengths that can be built upon.
In fact, there are geographical difficulties and historic underinvestment in regional infrastructure that need to be overcome before our area can compete for infrastructure and connectivity development with locations more favorably located and closer to the national network that have received long term investment.
In the time that a vehicle can travel from a typical north London suburb Enfield, to Coventry a major network hub; a vehicle from Colchester would reach Cambridge, still remote from the major hubs. Our position at a coastal location on the east far away from the major city to city connections has been a factor in the lack of investment in our principal connections; Great Eastern Main Line (GEML), A12 and A120. While investment in these assets is identified as a pre-requirement for the plan no mechanism is identified to explain why the required investment, denied for so long, will be forthcoming now.
The proposed investment in infrastructure which envisages people using alternate modes of transport in place of their cars does not address the difficulty in encouraging people to use the alternatives.
Colchester's eastern approaches are particularly problematic. Restricted river crossings and high volume traffic contending with traffic approaching from multiple feeder road daily cause half hour tailbacks on the A133 Clingoe Hill. This major problem road is included in the plan only in generic detail despite its significant impact on our communities and its immediate proximity to the proposed eastern garden community site.
Colchester's population is particularly dependent upon their vehicles. A 2014 study showed Colchester to be 28th out of the 29 locations studied. While Colchester's cycling score was improving and is likely to increased further since the survey car it is still only a small factor in overcoming the problem.
"Colchester ranked lowest for accessibility and planning. Out of all the cities, residents in Colchester are least likely to be able to get to primary school, work or the town centre by walking or public transport. Whilst the historic centre is densely packed and walkable, more recent development has been spread more sparsely around the edges of the city, meaning longer journey times. Although residents are relatively satisfied with their railway station and should find bus passes affordable, they have the least frequent bus service to a local GP. Just over one per cent of people in Colchester commute by bike at least five times a week, which is in the top half of the rankings, but for example only a tenth of the number who commute by bike in Cambridge".
http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdfs/Car_Dep_Scorecard_2014_LOW_RES.pdf
The car dependency of our existing communities will not be addressed by the introduction of garden communities although their design will lessen the impact of the proposed additional population adding to the existing problem.
In the future the provision of broadband services will be as important as good transport connections. The report highlights the importance of this critical element to our future economy and contemplates:
"Where provision is possible broadband must be installed on an open access basis and which will need to be directly accessed from the nearest British Telecom exchange and threaded through resistant tubing to enable easy access to the fibre optic cable for future repair, replacement or upgrading".
The plan sufficient provisions of this type along with the mechanisms that will be employed to ensure that the base infrastructure is provided as communities grow.
Without a method for managing free market forces within a planned development the implementation will soon drift from the originally intended plan.
Unfortunately, general statements such as "Developers are encouraged to engage with broadband providers" provides insight into how the project is planned to be managed and directed.
The plan calls for a major change in modes and routes of travel, Sustainable Travel & Major New Developments 6.21 and 6.22. No incentives or other motivation are envisaged to encourage people to change to the new arrangement. The plan appears to be based upon the assertion that build it and behavior will change.
This is not borne out at the moment since despite ongoing major traffic congestion within Colchester; the new park and ride infrastructure is not being embraced, people preferring to continue to sit in their queues of traffic.
Many cyclists and country walkers in our community will be encouraged to see that walking and other non-car modes of transport being encouraged. Garden Communities 6.26 "Connectivity will be improved across barriers such as rail lines and major roads to bring together communities"
This is in stark contrast with the existing situation as Network Rail are currently engaged in consultation to close the majority of pedestrian footpath level crossings in East Anglia on safety grounds. The government policy even being applied to branch lines where locomotives travel far slower so the risk of crossing a track being equivalent to crossing a 60 mph road where there is only one car every 30 minutes.
The Infrastructure and Connectivity plan lacks details of any practical elements that would be adopted to demonstrate how such major a change in the way we live and work can be achieved on the garden communities designed to rejuvenate our location while the same elements and political conditions that are restricting the development of established proven working communities remain in place.

Again, the paper talks about improving transport but there are no timescales or commitments given. As the consultation states the A12 and A120 trunk roads cannot support the GC to be located at Marks Tey so what assurances will be given by the council that the new GC will not be developed prior to the infrastructure being put in place i.e. roads, rail, schools and hospitals.

West Tey is not a sustainable location and the infrastructure promises are not realistic, viable or deliverable. Our evidence is available here: http://www.cause4livingessex.com/about-cause/cause-papers-and-evidence/

1. CAUSE 2017 response, which includes papers on infrastructure & connectivity (page 57, appendix 8) and on the constraints on the GEML (page 54, appendix 54). The plans for the provision of infrastructure are inadequate for the scale of development proposed.
2. Our submission to the Preferred Options consultation 2016 which raised concerns about infrastructure & connectivity which have not been addressed in the Publication Plan.
3. Two additional papers by our rail consultant.

We support the overall objectives of this Policy however the wording adopted is unclear and needs greater clarity as regards the timing of the delivery and the extent of " new and improved infrastructure". Infrastructure delivery is at the heart of sustainable development. As written this Policy makes no reference to the need to ensure that strategic infrastructure must be delivered in advance of housing delivery. The phrase used in the fist line, 'identified to serve the needs arising from new development' indicates that it is acceptable for a developer to show that necessary infrastructure will be delivered by the end of each project not in advance of occupation of the dwellings. That approach is not acceptable when seeking to plan positively for major greenfield housing growth and development.
A failure to properly address the quality and capacity of strategic infrastructure required to meet the housing projections of Policy SP2,SP3 and SG1 risks the Plan being found unsound. (Paras 162 and 182 of the NPPF)

We support the broad objective of adopting a coordinated and integrated approach to infrastructure planning and delivery. It is accepted that the provision of appropriate and timely infrastructure to support growth will be central to the area's continuing prosperity, attractiveness and sustainability. However, we object to Policy SP5 on the basis that it restricts growth in the Colchester/Braintree Borders Garden Community pending improved road infrastructure in relation to the A12 and A120.

We submit that an early phase of growth at East Marks Tey could come forward and be served by the existing road network. An independent Transport Appraisal undertaken by Ardent Consulting Engineers in July 2017, demonstrates that initial capacity testing for a future year of 2033, allowing for projected background traffic growth and other committed developments in the wider area, shows that a development of some 1,100 dwellings could potentially be accommodated on land at East Marks Tey. (see attached Site Location Plan).

A development of this scale would justify the provision of additional services and facilities in respect of education and health, to meet its needs in a sustainable way. An early first phase of development at this location would benefit from existing public transport facilities and justify improved walking and cycling links to manage congestion and accommodate sustainable growth.

These proposals for early delivery in the Plan period are capable of starting the required step change in establishing sustainable modes of travel that can be expanded as part of the wider Garden Community. As the community grows and new retail, jobs, services and facilities are provided there will be continued reduction in the need to travel. At the same time, increased public transport links will provide important connections to higher order centres and reduce the need for car travel.

The proposed allocation can be planned so as not to prejudice a larger Garden Community, because it could be incorporated into a development framework for the wider area to be delivered in the longer term. It would bring about a number of short term benefits in terms of infrastructure and connectivity. Additionally it could act as a pump primer for the provision of early infrastructure, enhance the connections to existing and neighbouring communities and provide a wider range of services and facilities to the benefit of the area.

Initial discussions with First Essex has established that they would be willing to provide bus routes to serve early development on land at East Marks Tey. New high quality bus tops would be provided as part of the proposed development and existing nearby stops would be improved to the same standard.

There is scope to significantly improve pedestrian and cycle links between the development and the railway station by means of a new foot/cycle bridge across the A12/A120, and controlled crossings of the A12 westbound off slip and easbound on-slip. Cycleways would be provided alongside the main network of link roads within the development.

A Travel Plan would be required to be implemented in conjunction with any development on the site in order to promote the use of sustainable modes of transport (walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing) by those living there. This would be prepared in accordance with good practice guidelines and comprise initiatives such as the appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator to promote the existence of the Plan and undertake annual monitoring to ensure that modal split targets are met.

The policy suggests that all new development should minimise the need to travel and reduce the reliance on private motor vehicles, yet the creation of stand alone garden communities will work counter to this goal, given the likely dependance on existing centres for employment opportunities and the consequent increase in long distance commuting.

One of the claimed benefits of the Councils' approach is that it is "infrastructure first". This is essential given the present situation. Notwithstanding the need for early provision of social infrastructure, such as schools, health facilities and recreation amenities to ensure the communities are to be successful, it is the transport infrastructure deficit that is of absolutely critical significance.

As far as West Tey GC is concerned the major issue is improvements to the A12 and A120 and although the local authority is working closely with the relevant highway authorities, the funding and timing of these multi-million pound schemes is not under the control of the LDV. With the current level of congestion, it is considered that no development should be contemplated before these schemes are secure. Further, it seems unlikely that sufficient local jobs will be provided and therefore there will be significant out commuting. Rail capacity improvements are therefore also essential and, as with the highway improvements, need to be in place before development commences.

It is strongly felt that the strategic priorities for transport infrastructure improvements and new provision within the strategic area are highly aspirational and particularly complex to deliver in line with the proposed level of growth. In this respect, the number and scale of unknowns deems the Plan to be unsound.

Electric charging points are key and must be included with every house, flat by default for all new developments. Retail outlets should also include them by default for their customers along with commercial premises. Electric charging points are key to the future of transport changes where petrol and diesel cars will be outlawed by 2040.

We support the overall objectives of this Policy however the wording adopted is unclear and needs greater clarity as regards the timing of the delivery and the extent of the required new and improved infrastructure.
Infrastructure delivery is at the heart of sustainable development. As written this Policy makes no reference to the need to ensure that strategic infrastructure must be delivered in advance of housing delivery. The phrase used in the fist line, 'identified to serve the needs arising from new development' indicates that it is acceptable for a developer to show that necessary infrastructure will be delivered by the end of each project not in advance of occupation of the dwellings. That approach is not acceptable when seeking to plan positively for major greenfield housing growth and development.
A failure to properly address the quality and capacity of strategic infrastructure required to meet the housing projections of Policy SP2,SP3 and SG1 risks the Plan being found unsound. (Paras 162 and 182 of the NPPF)

The delivery of the Council's Spatial Strategy is based upon on an untested use of a joint Local Delivery Vehicle and assumptions about the ability to secure control of land at low cost, combined with an unrealistic assessment of viability.
The Spatial Strategy for the three NGCs relies on the Hyas North Essex Viability Assessment to demonstrate the viability for deliverability. However, as demonstrated in the CAUSE evidence at Appendix 9 , the overreliance on a simplistic residual valuation model to give a notional minimum land value per gross acre of £100k is inappropriate and flawed for a project of this scale. Given the requirement to purchase land upfront and pay for infrastructure considerably in advance of generating any significant value through land sales or housing completions it is one that will need to be funded largely from the public purse. In my experience the use of a Residual Land Valuation can be appropriate on smaller serviced land parcels but is wholly inappropriate for projects of the scale of the NGCs, and CBBGC in particular. Little weight should be given to the Hyas' Report in assessing the potential viability of such large publicly funded projects, which will ultimately require testing through standard HM Treasury appraisal rules, or similar. The Hyas Report clearly fails to demonstrate that the Councils' preferred mechanism for delivery of their Spatial Strategy is viable and therefore it must be unsound given the significant risk it cannot be delivered. This must also apply to the 2500 new homes required from each of the three NGCs in the plan period. In particular, the Council's evidence (Volume 3 Garden Communities Concept, June 2016 - 'the Aecom Report') suggests there is capacity for no more than 500-900 homes at CBBGC without significant improvements to transport infrastructure capacity.
4.3 The Infrastructure Report admits that there is no certainty over the costings for transport infrastructure and the CAUSE representations highlight a significant under estimation of contingency costs for such an early stage of a project of this scale. Furthermore, the Hyas Report takes no account of the funding of land purchase in the modelling.
Given the Council's claim (although not one substantiated in policy) of 'infrastructure first', there is a clear risk to the soundness of the Plan to deliver even the 2500 at CBBGC with the viability unproven and no certainty over the transport proposals, in terms of cost and timing.

As currently worded, the first sentence of this policy is not linked to the strategic priorities set out. It needs to be re-worded to make it clear that all development is expected to contribute to or to demonstrate how the states strategic priorities will be achieved as appropriate / relevant.

As a resident of Great Tey I already find it difficult at various times of the day to join or exit the A120 so the proposed development would only magnify the problem.
With regard to the adequacy of rail links, I would like to point out that Marks Tey station's car parking falls so far short of existing needs that cars are parked along the approach road. The proposed development makes no provision for increased demand. Villagers like myself needing to travel by rail outside rush hour usually drive to Kelvedon station where there is a better chance of finding a parking space - which adds to the congestion on the A12.
Such a large deveopment would also put increase pressure on the A12 which is already described as the "one of the worst major roads in Britain". Having driven to work in Chelmsford for 33 yearsI would concur as it was a subject of comment amongst colleagues if there had NOT been an accident or major delay on our journeys. Since retirement I have used the A12 several times a week to look after elderly relatives in South Ockendon and have experienced massive congestion at various times outside rush hours.

The garden communities need massive investment in road, rail and MRT systems if they are to be sustainable. But the Hyas viability study, the only evidence we have that these items are fundable, contains a material error and shows exactly the opposite.

We advise that transport infrastructure provides an opportunity to achieve net gain in nature as detailed in paragraph 9 of the NPPF through biodiversity enhancement and through the creation and linkage of habitat corridors. See our advice on the dualling of the A120 and Marks Tey Brickpit SSSI in Policy SP9.

Whilst it is agreed that development must be supported by the provision of infrastructure, services and facilities, a significant amount of the items identified rely upon third parties (including public and statutory bodies) or wider investment decisions (such as those made by Network Rail, Highways Agency, Broadband Providers). Policy SP5 should be amended to recognise the role the Council's has in terms of influencing, co‐ordinating and delivering infrastructure and connectivity. Policy SP5 should also be amended to recognise the role that obligations through s106 or Cil should make in addressing infrastructure needs arising from the new development.

It is important that the totality of costs to be borne by the proposed level of development is adequately assessed. In light of Para 173 of the NPPF, 'the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened'.

We note the comments in respect of the A120 route improvements referred to in paragraphs 6.9 and 6.10 and the strategic priority for a dualled A120 between the A12 and Braintree. Historic England was invited to participate in the Highways England Environmental Forum for the A12 & A120 improvements and we reiterate that the A120 is a historic route through Essex and as such there is great archaeological potential, alongside the potential impacts on heritage assets, which may vary, depending on the options developed.

Our comments on the August 2016 consultation, in respect of broadband provision, sought reference in what are now paragraphs 6.29 and 6.30, though not a hyperlink, to the Cabinet Siting and Pole Siting Code of Practice: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/205744/Final_Cabinet_and_Pole_Siting_COP_Issue_1_2_.pdf
We reiterate that comment in respect of the pre-submission draft local plan.

C-BUS would naturally like to see improved public transport in Colchester, but this needs to be approached in a reality-based manner, and from the viewpoint of securing the provision of reliable bus services for those who are actually likely to be willing to use them. In contrast the bulk of CBC's plan is purely wishful expressions of a desire for improvements that would have to be effected and paid for by other parties, without the existence of any undertakings from those parties of their willingness or ability to carry out the work, and in some cases requiring an unlikely reversal of their past and present de facto policies. It is a listing of what would be necessary to avoid CBC's massive housing schemes causing traffic disaster, without respect to whether what is necessary is achievable. The last sentence of 1.61 might more realistically be written as 'Funding for these improvements is in no way guaranteed, and CBC would have to badger providers in a wishful hope that some of them might materialise in time for the proposed growth'.

In 1.58ff major new interurban road schemes appear to be included as part of 'sustainable transport'. The same unadmitted conflict between 'more big roads for economic development' and 'fewer people using private transport, to secure sustainability', underlies the whole of CBC's 'thinking'.

The massive 'Garden Developments' (1.77, 1.78, 1.81) are promoted as tolerable only on the basis of stepchanging 'rapid transit' and an unprecedentedly low % of journeys being made by car. Accordingly they cannot logically be approved until such time as both these things are proved viable, yet CBC seem to be seeking approval for them now in the basis of details of the 'rapid transit' being unmentioned until two years time. The reality is that for the one garden development, East, on which detailed studies of 'rapid transit' have already been done over many years, the outcome (in the Jacobs reports**) is a recognition that the only scheme possible is an ordinary bus service from North Station via East Hill that masquerades as 'guided bus' because there might be a short section of guided busway on the University - East settlement section! (or possibly a guided busway from St Botolphs to Hyrhe that is only achievable in the unlikely event of permission being received to close the railway line). This scarcely holds out much hope of avoiding worsening traffic problems that would disrupt bus services in the corridor.

** These have been done in a fairly realistic basis, hence the contrast between their very limited offering and the continued protestations by CBC itself of genuine 'rapid transit' being forthcoming.

'Travel planning' (1.72) could indeed be carried out, but many years experience of this already, for both workplace and new residential developments, has shown very little in the way of actual achievements. To continue to speak of it as if it were a major weapon in reducing future car usage is very reality-phobic.

Is 1.73, in using the word 'new', referring to the current ECC passenger transport strategy, or something yet to come? What is meant by ECC 'creating viable public transport routes'?

SP5 itself refers to a bus network that is 'high quality, reliable, simple to use, integrated with other modes....' For planning purposes it is the weekday daytime bus services that matter most. These being 90% commercial and entirely under the control of the bus operators, ECC and CBC can have no control over what 'network' exists. The changes made by operators are as often angled at damaging a rival operator as they are at providing a better service to the public. It is also illegal for the bus operators to attempt to plan a 'network' in combination with each other. Again the quality is entirely up to the operators.

Reliability is very important but the Plan conspicuously sticks to generic talk and avoids mentioning the principal factors that cause bus service disruption in Colchester. It is not so much the moderate delays in the peak periods that occur on a daily basis that would soon put off anybody who had accepted the councils' invitations to exchange car for bus, as these are largely crawling traffic similar to what is experienced by the motorist. It is rather the too numerous 'bad' days caused by specific factors / events, where major congestion is created that affects bus users much worse than it does motorists, because the former have to wait an abnormally long time before a bus appears, whereas the latter merely experience the delays en route.
Rain is the most frequent of these problems. Obviously it is neither abolishable nor under the control of CBC/ECC! However some effort might be made to recognise the situation and try to discover what exactly it is that causes so much more congestion delays when there is significant rain. It means that the days when people have long waits at bus stops are usually days of unpleasant weather, which would soon turn off any converted motorist!
Major roadworks cause the worst problems, especially those involving single lane working with temporary signals, on main routes. Where possible these should be done nighttime only, but CBC and ECC consider the convenience of the contractors to be more important than that of the other 99.99% of the population. The most prolonged period of near-daily bus service disruption in Colchester in recent years was caused over several weeks by the contractors for the Magistrates Court roadworks being allowed to do the work in the daytime with single lane working. CBC and ECC can impose conditions for no daytime work in planning consents but are not usually interested.
The shutting of roads for shorter-term planned roadworks is also regularly done without the bus operators being given correct information in advance, and with passengers being ditched at bus stops with no knowledge of where the bus is going.
RTAs also cause bus service collapse to a greater degree than is necessary, because the police now insist on shutting the road afterwards for far longer than would have been done in the past, even in cases where there is no clearing up work needed.
Events that generate massive extra car traffic, pre-opening and post-finishing, destroy bus services.
Town centre road closures implemented by CBC for its own events or purely to assist commercial events are a major cause of disruption for bus users, not just because they have to walk further to another bus stop, but also because the closure creates traffic congestion on the routes still open. No other town in Essex suffers from such closures to the same extent, partly because other towns usually have a pedestrianised main street where the events can be held, and partly because CBC considers it 'prestigious' to inconvenience bus users by shutting the High St for events. CBC are adamant that they will not reduce these closures, which create great 'badwill' towards bus services (the public normally blames the bus operaters not CBC). The number of people using buses on the affected routes on these days is but a fraction of the normal numbers. Weekday closures cause disorder in the already-inadequate 'bus station'. If CBC were not seeking to increase bus usage, they could reasonably argue that 'bus users must suffer for the benefit of the people who like the events'. To act as they do whilst claiming that they want motorists to convert to buses is absurd.
The fact is that whilst ECC CBC etc enjoy telling the public they should use cars less and buses more, once somebody actually becomes a bus user they quickly realise that the councils do not care at all about what happens to them!

Turning to bus priority, the Councils have now had two decades of talking about this, yet they are still not beyond speaking of it as something that might be introduced in unspecified places! The type of bus priority most common elsewhere, the provision of a separate inner lane for buses on the approach to major congested junctions, requires roads to be wide enough for three lanes in total, and there are few points in Colchester where that is the case (at least in those places where major tailbacks exist).
CBC and ECC are often at loggerheads over what should be done on this front. When CBC and ECC finally agreed on daytime closure of the High St to general traffic, after years of talking, the scheme was terminated in a huff after a few weeks by the arrival of a new ECC Portfolio Holder. Again in 2016 ECC drew up an extraordinarily irrelevant scheme for an inwards bus lane in Lexden Rd even though buses suffer no traffic delays there for which this would be an appropriate remedy. This, a manifestation of the great ignorance of ECC Highways now that they refuse to consult Colchester stakeholders until after a scheme is fully designed, was (correctly) opposed by CBC and virtually everybody else too). Any notion that CBC and ECC can be relied upon to work in harmony is fallacious.
(See also the reference to CBC and ECC supporting the blockage of main roads by parked residents' cars under DM20).

1.75 refers to a 'people oriented transport hierarchy'. Is this something that has been agreed with ECC? And if so can ECC demonstrate that their recalcitrant Highways staff will actually be implementing it rather than continuing in their established line?
It certainly bears no relation to the de facto policies currently adopted by ECC Highways, which, to take examples from 2015-17, include:
- Proposed large 1960s/70s style roundabout at the Ipswich Rd / Cowdray Ave junction, eliminating one of the current pedestrian routes.
- Refusing to provide pedestrian crossings at the Tollgate roundabouts on the grounds that it would slow up traffic. (Also insisting that the roundabouts must be enlarged with faster traffic if any further development is to take place).
- Imposing (in conflict with national policy) their 'shared spaces' with pedestrians at risk from cyclists riding on the pavement. These are unwanted by cyclists themselves.
- Taking out pedestrian crossings in the town centre so that traffic can move faster.

SP5 itself refers to 'urban transport packages to increase transport choice'. There is no previous reference to such a term in the text, and it is not in the glossary at the end. It must therefore be deemed to be as meaningless as it initially sounds.

Transport - with regard to the section pertaining to transport:
Proposals are all well and good but public transport is too expensive (particularly bus and train fares and children should travel free to enable more people to access this service. The proposed plots for new houses do not offer adequate parking which in turn will make these estates extremely congested. Another example of this is Northfields development (5bedroom homes 1 parking space).
A further junction in Mill Rd does not comply with current plans for traffic calming measures.
Education: Where are the proposed forecasts for the increased places (particularly with regard to 16+). If there is no provision for those wishing to study A-levels will these students be expected to study apprenticeships even if this is not their choice.

Healthcare: Again where are the proposed forecasts for the extra patients at local surgeries and the increase on demand for an already overburdened hospital. As I am sure you are aware the local hospital is continually on black alerts as there are currently not enough beds for the population and I still no definitive plans to meet their current need, let alone future need. Again the public need to see forecasts for this.

Officer NB: Extract in relation to SP7-

The level of retail or other supporting floor space is not rehearsed in either Section 8 or in Policy SP7 and this needs to be addressed, as does their potential impact on surrounding town centres if they are to fulfill a role anything beyond consuming only that expenditure of the residents of the new settlements. Even if this is the anticipated outcome, we would urge caution that residents are still likely to spend a significant percentage of their comparison / non food income at higher order centres, such as Colchester Town centre, and as a consequence it is vital that any additional retail floor space at these locations is not overstated.

We look forward to discussing this matter with the Council in greater detail.

End of Extract
----


Cushman and Wakefield act on behalf of CBREGI and have been asked to respond the Council's Publication Draft Local Plan (June 2017); representations for which are due by 11th August 2017.

CBREGI are key stakeholders and manage significant assets within Colchester Town Centre, which include:

* Lion Walk Shopping Centre;
* Red Lion Yard; and
* The Odeon Cinema and attached restaurant units

CBREGI have also been working jointly with Sovereign Centros and Colchester Borough Council to bring forward Vineyard Gate, the key town centre development site in Colchester, for a mixed use retail-led development.

We support overall Colchester Borough Council in its aspiration for Colchester Town Centre. Notably, we support the Council in seeking to maintain Colchester as the key retail destination within the area, to protect and enhance its vitality and viability and as the key location to meet the needs of current and future generations in Colchester's diverse and growing borough.

We also support the assertion of Colchester town centre as the key retail destination, not only for Colchester as the major settlement in the district, but also for the Colchester / Braintree / Tendring Districts. We agree it is important that the town centre continues to act as the apex attractor for new town centre uses.

Strategic Objectives

The Plan, at page16, sets out some strategic objectives for the wider strategic area, including Braintree and Tendring Boroughs. It is our view, given the importance of the principal Town Centres in this wider area, and particularly the importance of Colchester Town Centre as the apex location, that a strategic objective for a strong, vital and viable Colchester Town Centre should be included with the Plan's strategic priorities.

We note some of this is rehearsed in the Strategic Objectives (Section 11) in Part 2 of the Plan, but we consider that this issue is sufficiently important to have this rehearsed also in Part 1 Strategic Objectives.

Policy SP1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

The approach to the presumption in favour of sustainable development is that set out in the NPPF. However, we consider the council should make clear in the preceding paragraph to SP1 (ie para 2.1) that in accordance with S38(6) of the Act, and the guidance of the NPPF, that development decision should be carried out in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations to indicate otherwise. One such consideration is the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is rehearsed in SP1.

Policy SP4 - Providing for Employment and Retail

We note that Policy SP$ seeks to identify base positions for identifying the need to provide for employment and Retail, However all of the statistics / requirements relate principally to 'B' Class uses. We suggest that the Policy / supporting paragraphs are extended to include anticipated retail growth or that retail is deleted from this Policy heading and dealt with elsewhere.

Section 6 - Infrastructure and Connectivity

We welcome the Council's position in seeking to align development with accessible locations, alongside promoting greater use of alternatives to the private car. However this section does not mention Colchester Town Centre as being a highly accessible location, nor as a preferred location for development given its high accessibility index and this should be addressed.

Section 8 - Cross Boundary Garden Communities / Policy SP7

Whilst we appreciate that there is ongoing work on the nature and form of the proposed garden communities, it is not clear from the local plan, nor indeed Policy SP7, of the supporting non residential infrastructure which will be considered appropriate as part of the wider delivery of new homes. It is reasonable to presume that these garden communities, in providing a 'holistically and comprehensively planned new community' will involve the provision of ancillary facilities, including retail and leisure uses alongside food and drink development. Whilst there is mention of supporting mixes of uses in district centre / local centres, no further guidance is given.

The level of retail or other supporting floor space is not rehearsed in either Section 8 or in Policy SP7 and this needs to be addressed, as does their potential impact on surrounding town centres if they are to fulfill a role anything beyond consuming only that expenditure of the residents of the new settlements. Even if this is the anticipated outcome, we would urge caution that residents are still likely to spend a significant percentage of their comparison / non food income at higher order centres, such as Colchester Town centre, and as a consequence it is vital that any additional retail floor space at these locations is not overstated.

We look forward to discussing this matter with the Council in greater detail.




10.1 Key Diagram (Section One Maps)

We consider it would not be unreasonable to identify the existing key town centres, including Colchester, on this diagram.


Section 2: Vision

We support the reference to Colchester Town Centre and the importance of ensuring its continued vitality and viability within the Section 2 Vision. For the reasons set out above we additionally consider this should form a key objective in Part 1 of the Plan.

Policy SG1 - Colchester Spatial Strategy

We support the spatial hierarchy approach which focuses growth on the urban area of Colchester, reflecting its position as the main location for jobs, housing, services, and transport.

We also support an emphasis that the Central Area of Colchester, notably (rather than just including) the Town Centre, as the most sustainable location for new development given that it can accommodate higher densities and achieve good access to public transport and a further concentrated mix of uses which will promote linked trips and further minimise the need to travel.

Retailing: Centres Hierarchy (paras 12.42 et seq) and Policy SG5 / SG5a

We support the Council's approach to defining a Centre Hierarchy, which identifies Colchester Town Centre at the top of that hierarchy, followed by District and Local Centres; in accordance with the recommendations of the 2016 Retail and Town Centre Study.

This, in our view, helps to establish the Local Planning Authority's overarching strategy for the growth and management of town centre uses and should seek to influence a 'plan -led' approach to bringing forward new development in terms of type and scale.

We also support the Council using this when planning applications are submitted in a decision taking role, in accordance with the Plan and having regard for the primary role and function of that centre within the hierarchy.

Policy SG6 and supporting Table SG6a: Retail impact and Impact Thresholds

We support the Council's approach in SG6 that proposals for new town centre uses that are not within a defined centre and are not in accordance with the Local Plan (including proposals for a change or intensification of use, or variation of a planning condition), will need to demonstrate that a sequential approach has been undertaken to site selection and that there should be additional impact tests applied above a locally defined threshold.

However, it is wholly inappropriate to require an impact assessment within Colchester Town Centre for those schemes above 2,500sqm gross comparison goods or 1,500sqm gross convenience and leisure services, given the Council's ambition to foster Colchester as a pre-eminent location for new town centre related development.

We request therefore the removal of the floor space thresholds in table SG6a in relation to Colchester Town Centre.

Policy TC1 and TC2: Town Centre Policy

We support the Council in confirming the pre-eminent position of Colchester within the area and the key location for new town centre related development.

Policy TC3: Vineyard Gate

CBREGI and Sovereign Centros have been working alongside the council to bring forward Vineyard Gate, as the key development option within the Town Centre.

We therefore support the recognition of the importance of this allocation within Colchester Town Centre; as the immediate priority to help sustain and enhance the town centre as a whole.

Policy NC1: North Colchester and Severalls Strategic Employment Area

We maintain our objection to the proposed multiplex cinema element for the proposals at Northern Gateway, given the significant adverse impact this will have on the Odeon Cinema within the town centre.

Whilst the Plan does not explicitly mention the proposition of a multiplex as part of NC1, instead referring to the area as a 'leisure / community hub', it is clear from the proposals advanced through planning applications have the intention for this to include a multiplex cinema.

Policy WC2: Stanway

We note the Council's proposed allocation of the land between Tollgate West and London Road (the former Sainsbury's Site) at Tollgate for residential development, which we support. This appears a sensible solution to the re-use of this site and will deliver valuable housing development which will further consolidate the role and function of Tollgate to its surrounding residents.

Elsewhere in the Plan, we support the Council's intention to control retail development within the Tollgate Area in order to maintain the role and vitality and viability of Colchester Town Centre.


Conclusion

Overall, we support the approach adopted in the Colchester Local Plan: Publication Draft June 2017 to further protect and enhance the vitality and viability of Colchester Town Centre and in seeking to ensure that development of key sites within Colchester town centre are prioritized above other locations.

We maintain our objection to Northern Gateway and Tollgate for additional town centre uses, and support the Council's suggestion that the former Sainsbury's site at Tollgate is allocated for residential development.

Re: Colchester Local Plan Publication Draft for Consultation
Consultation under Regulation 19 of Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012
Submission of the Education and Skills Funding Agency
1. The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the development of planning policy at the local level.
2. The ESFA launched on 1st April 2017, brings together the existing responsibilities of the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and the Skills Funding Agency (SFA), to create a single funding agency accountable for funding education and training for children, young people and adults. The ESFA are accountable for £61 billion of funding a year for the education and training sector, including support for all state-provided education for 8 million children aged 3 to 16, and 1.6 million young people aged 16 to 19.
3. Under the provisions of the Education Act 2011 and the Academies Act 2010, all new state schools are now academies/free schools and the ESFA is the delivery body for many of these, rather than local education authorities. As such, we aim to work closely with local authority education departments and planning authorities to meet the demand for new school places and new schools. In this capacity, we would like to offer the following comments in response to the planning policy framework outlined in the above consultation document.
Comments on the Strategic Approach to New Schools in North Essex
4. The ESFA notes that the strategic policies in this Local Plan are contained in the plans for Braintree, Colchester and Tendring. Comments on these strategic policies are provided in this section. Comments on the policies specific to Colchester borough are provided separately in the following section.
5. The ESFA notes that significant growth in housing stock is expected across the North Essex districts of Braintree, Colchester and Tendring; the Local Plan confirms the annual housing target of 2,186 new homes a year (43,720 in total) for this area (excluding Chelmsford) over the plan period 2013 to 2037. The specific requirement for Colchester Borough is 920 homes per year (18,400 in total). This will place significant pressure on social infrastructure such as education facilities.
6. The ESFA welcomes reference within the plan (section 6B) to adopting a coordinated approach to infrastructure planning across North Essex, including by ensuring new development provides for new and expanded schools in accordance with the details in districts' Infrastructure Delivery Plans.
7. The ESFA supports the requirement established in policy SP5 for new development to be supported by the infrastructure required to meet the needs arising from that development. We also support the strategic education infrastructure priorities identified, particularly the focus on providing sufficient school places. The policy refers to "larger developments setting aside land and/or contributing to the cost of delivering land for new schools where required". We suggest it would also be useful to refer to developer contributions to the build cost of new schools here, to make it clear that for larger sites developers should be both providing the land for new schools (to meet demand arising from the new development) and funding or contributing to the cost of their construction. As such the Policy would read "...with larger developments setting aside land and/or contributing to the cost of delivering land for new schools where required, as well as funding or contributing to the cost of building the new schools". 'Larger developments' should also be clearly defined. These amendments would ensure that the delivery requirements are clear and that the plan is 'effective'.
8. The ESFA also welcomes the focus in policy SP7 on the sequencing of development and infrastructure provision to ensure that the latter is provided ahead of or in tandem with the development it supports. Policies SP 8, 9 and 10 relate to each of the three proposed Garden Communities. Each policy requires at least one secondary school, primary schools (number and size unspecified) and early-years facilities to be provided to serve new development. The Integrated Delivery Plans for each district provide further details of the number and size of primary and secondary schools required. These details should be included in the above mentioned policies to further demonstrate that the plan has been 'positively prepared' based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed infrastructure requirements.
9. The ESFA notes that a site specific Strategic Growth DPD will be developed for the garden communities (including East Colchester) and that this will include further details of how infrastructure will be delivered and phased alongside new development, including allocating specific sites for schools.
Comments on Colchester's Policies and Site Allocations for New Schools
10. The ESFA supports the principle of Colchester Borough Council safeguarding land for the provision of new schools to meet government planning policy objectives as set out in paragraph 72 of the NPPF. Ensuring there is an adequate supply of sites for schools is essential and will ensure that Colchester Borough Council can swiftly and flexibly respond to the existing and future need for school places over the plan period.
11. The site specific policies generally highlight the need for developments to contribute to the expansion and/or improvement of existing education facilities and/or associated infrastructure (e.g. access, drop-off/pick-up areas). Policy WC2: Stanway highlights on-site requirements for a primary school at Lakelands (already allocated as part of the previous Local Plan) and a primary school as part of the 630 home development to the north of London Road (2.1ha site specified). The primary school will be secured through a S106 agreement and co-located with an early years and childcare facility. The ESFA suggest that the wording of policy WC2 should be clarified to clearly identify the size of the primary schools required (p.21 of the Integrated Development Plan indicates primary schools should be 2FE), particularly given that the Integrated Delivery Plan highlights the need to explore options for providing additional school places in the Stanway area before the site allocations are finalised (para 3.33). This would provide greater clarity for developers, based on current evidence.
12. While it is important to provide clarity to developers, retaining a degree of flexibility is also necessary given that the need for school places can vary over time due to the many variables affecting it. Policy PP1 provides some flexibility by highlighting that proposals will be required to make contributions to the cost of infrastructure improvements "...as required and supported by up-to-date evidence from appropriate sources including the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP)..." With regard to delivery of school places, it may be helpful if the council also highlighted that:
- specific requirements for developer contributions to enlargements to existing schools and the provision of new schools for any particular site will be confirmed at application stage to ensure the latest data on identified need informs delivery;
- requirements to deliver schools on some sites could change in future if it were demonstrated and agreed that the site had become surplus to requirements, and is therefore no longer required for school use.
13. The ESFA note that Policy SC2: Middlewick Ranges does not include any specific reference to school provision on this site. However, the Integrated Delivery Plan indicates that a school site of 2.8ha should be secured as part of this site allocation to deliver a primary school of at least 3FE to support growth of sites in Colchester South and South East. The school provision identified in the IDP should be carried through to the site allocation unless circumstances have changed (e.g. provision to meet the need arising from this growth has been secured elsewhere), in which case this should be explained.
14. It would be useful if a background paper could be developed setting out clearly how the forecast housing growth at allocated sites has been translated (via an evidence based pupil yield calculation) into an identified need for specific numbers of school places and new schools at different times, expanding on the information in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the site specific policies. This could also reference Essex County Council's recently published 10 year plan for meeting the demand for school places . This would help to demonstrate more clearly that the approach to the planning and delivery of education infrastructure is justified based on proportionate evidence. If required, the ESFA can assist in providing Colchester with good practice examples of background documents relevant to this stage of your emerging Plan.
15. The ESFA recommends that where sites are identified for new schools, local authorities should consider safeguarding additional land for any future expansion of these schools where demand indicates this might be necessary. For an example of this approach, see draft policy CC7 in Milton Keynes's Plan:MK Preferred Option draft from March 2017 .
16. The support for "appropriate and well-designed" applications for new schools in policy DM3 is welcomed, however it would be useful if further guidance could be provided in the supporting text on what principles will be used to judge if a school proposal is 'well-designed'. Given the requirement for all Local Plans to be consistent with national policy, the ESFA also welcomes the explicit reference in paragraph 15.11 to the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for LPAs to take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of communities, giving great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools to widen choice in education (para 72).
17. In light of the Duty to Cooperate on strategic priorities such as community infrastructure (NPPF para 156) , the ESFA encourages close working with local authorities during all stages of planning policy development to help guide the development of new school infrastructure and to meet the predicted demand for primary and secondary school places. Please add the ESFA to your list of relevant organisations with which you engage in preparing future Local Plan documents.
Developer Contributions and CIL
18. Paragraphs 12.76 to 12.82 set out the approach taken to securing the delivery of supporting infrastructure. Developers will be expected to contribute towards meeting "appropriate infrastructure costs" through section 106 planning obligations and/or community infrastructure levy (CIL). Policy SG7 states that "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." Policy PP1 provides further clarity, stating that "...all proposals will be required to make contributions to the cost of infrastructure improvements and/or community facilities as required and supported by up-to-date evidence from appropriate sources including the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), Parish Council, or specially commissioned work." It also confirms this will be via CIL or s106.
19. One of the tests of soundness is that a Local Plan is 'effective' i.e. the plan should be deliverable over its period. In this context and with specific regard to planning for schools, there is a need to ensure that education contributions made by developers are sufficient to deliver the additional school places required to meet the increase in demand generated by new developments. The ESFA note that Essex County Council has produced a Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (revised 2016) that includes an explanation of contributions towards expanding existing schools and creating new schools. It would be helpful and relevant for this document to be referenced in the Local Plan alongside policy SG7 and/or policy PP1.
20. The ESFA would be particularly interested in responding to any update to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan or review of infrastructure requirements, or any CIL proposals. As such, please add the ESFA to the database for future CIL consultations.
Forward Funding
21. In light of the level of new housing being planned for (including within the three proposed Garden Communities) and the requirements for new schools to support this, emerging ESFA proposals for forward funding schools as part of large residential developments may be of interest to the council. We would be happy to meet to discuss this opportunity at an appropriate time.
Conclusion
22. Finally, I hope the above comments are helpful in shaping Colchester's Local Plan, with specific regard to the provision of land for new schools.
23. Please notify the ESFA when the Local Plan is submitted for examination, the Inspector's report is published and the Local Plan is adopted.
24. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding this response. The ESFA looks forward to continuing to work with the Council to aid in the preparation of the Local Plan.

Yours faithfully,
DC McNab
Douglas McNab MRTPI
Forward Planning Manager

A have a number of issues with the draft plan: The plan does not have a real vision. The plan is tactical rather than strategic. Where is tbe economic generator for East Anglia akin to a 3rd runway at Heathrow or HS2 etc. Significant infrastructure development should be a key ingredient of any local plan to make it both viable and sustainable long term to create prosperous new communities that can thrive and succeed rather than create communities that would have a higher risk of dependencies on the public purse. The plan has no economic case and there is a big difference between having a genuine economic generator and economic activity that will simply derive from the local plan. The plan labours on about Harwich as a port, but Harwich is not significant in comparision to Felixstowe. Felixstowe Port is one of the biggest economic generators that East Anglia has. It also drives significant road and rail freight volumes on strategic roads in the area i.e. A12 and A120 and the Greater Anglia from Ipswich into London and vice versa, using up scarce commuter train capacity. Greater Anglia capacity is already full from Colchester to London. Standing room only on peak trains from Kelvedon to London. Where is the plan to add capacity? Rail car parks are full or close to full already and are not capable of growing in line with GDP on a sustained basis. Road networks that service local rail stations are already clogged e.g. Blue Anchor junction of B1023 with London Road at Feering is already backed up at peak times to such an extent that you have to allow considerable extra time to get to Kelvedon station. These sorts of bottlenecks need to be fully addressed as part of the local plan. In the draft, they are not considered. If A12 widening and new A120 will both involve compulsory purchase, why not purchase wider strips of land to be able to add a new train line from Marks Tey to Stansted and new additional track from Marks Tey to Shenfield to link to new Cross Rail - such ideas are visionary and strategic and would form part of an economic generator for the region. What has been Abellio Greater Anglia's contribution to the draft plan? What has been network rail's contribution to the draft plan? What has been the Department of Transport's contribution to the draft plan? How does this local plan fit and integrate with regional and UK master plans? The draft plan describes having retail within the garden cities in order to curb traffic in the area. Any retail development needs to be focused on essential services for 2 reasons 1) shopping behaviour is changing, more and more people are shopping online. Generation X and Y shop online as standard and this will become more prevalent on time. The plan should include a strategy for home deliveries and this is more important than retail development. Traffic will not be curbed because these garden cities will not support a dedicated Ikea or a B&Q, so people will travel. Retail development should be limited to haridressers, medical services, dentists, convenience stores. Any attempt to replicate high street stores within these garden cities is unlikely to be sustainable long term. The draft plan misses the opportunity to introduce new housing solutions, such as could be delivered by pension funds which would be interested to invest and match their rental charges to their long-term pension liabilities. Such an approach has been a long term and successful feature of the housing mix in The Netherlands and could both (a) offer longer term rentals and (b) afford better protection to the tenant vs. today's short-term tenancy agreements that are loaded in the landlord's favour. The finalisation of the local plans offers an opportunity to be visionary, strategic and ambitious. The draft, thus far, falls along way short of fulfilling any of these aspects and this must be remedied in the next stage.

See attached response forms

Given the similarity of the policy with the previous version, my client repeats the previous concerns raised regarding the overly prescriptive elements contained within this policy. The second bullet point requires all new development to exhibit individual architectural quality within well considered public and private realms. This is a vague statement that taken to extreme could impose an unnecessarily high level of design quality that may not be appropriate to either the scheme or the area. The design requirements of the NPPF are adequately addressed in the first bullet point of this policy. The sixth bullet point requires the enhancement of the public realm through the provision of specified measures. This may not be appropriate or possible in all cases and as such the policy is unnecessarily rigid. The eighth bullet point assumes that all development will provide parking facilities. This may not be the case. For example, some development proposals may involve sites that are already adequately served by parking. The nineth bullet point has been expanded to require all new development to provide an integrated network of multi-functional public open space and green and blue infrastructure that connects with existing green infrastructure where possible. There is no definition of the term blue infrastructure anywhere in the Plan. Furthermore, this requirement may not be appropriate or necessary for all development and as such is an unjustified requirement. As currently drafted the policy is unjustified, inconsistent with national policy and prejudicial to the effectiveness of the plan.

The previous objection to the use of the word 'must' in the first paragraph of this policy is maintained as it is retained in this latest draft. As commented previously, it is important that the wording of this policy takes into account that a developer is rarely the provider of infrastructure. A good example is healthcare provision. A developer can reasonably be required to contribute towards healthcare (in the absence of CIL) but cannot be responsible for delivering the healthcare facility. The delivery of the facility relies on the actions of NHS England not the developer. As currently worded the policy is not consistent with national policy.

It is noted that the table continues to leave the annual requirement as a fixed figure rather than a minimum target which would be consistent with the stated minimum supply across the plan period. The previous request to refer to the annual supply as a minimum target is therefore repeated. It is also noted that the Plan has not been altered to explain how the need arising from London has been addressed. The previous request to address this is also repeated. It is considered that these issues raise doubts about the extent to which the plan is positively prepared and will be effective.

Strategic Objectives - 1.31
In the context of the vision for North Essex including reference to providing leisure and recreation opportunities, the importance attached in Government planning policy (paragraph 69 of the NPPF) to promoting healthy communities and the corporate health and well-being priorities of the three local authorities it is surprising that there is not a strategic objective that specifically covers creating healthier and active communities. While one of the objectives covers addressing healthcare needs, this only represents part of what is required to create healthier communities. In particular, providing opportunities for people to be physically active through leisure and recreation opportunities will be an essential requirement to help encourage healthier lifestyles

To ensure that the plan is sound in terms of meeting the 'justified' and consistent with national policy' tests It is therefore requested than an additional strategic objective is added to those listed in paragraph 1.31 (or the 'Addressing Education and Heathcare Needs' objective is extended) which focuses on creating healthier communities through providing opportunities for physical activity in development by designing development to provide opportunities for healthy and active lifestyles, meeting leisure and recreation facilities needs (as well as providing for conventional health care needs) .

SP5 - Infrastructure and Connectivity

It is of concern that the strategic infrastructure types focused on in policy SP5 do not include leisure (including sport) and recreation facilities. Such facilities offer potential to make a major contribution to delivering the vision and strategic objectives in the shared local plan as well as delivering the wider health and well-being priorities for both existing and future communities in North Essex. This is pertinent in view of much of the planned led growth being proposed in garden communities where strategically planned leisure/sports facilities and open space will be essential for assisting in successfully delivering such communities which is recognised in the relevant policies (SP8, SP9 and SP10) for these communities.

All three authorities have recently prepared (or are preparing) evidence bases for sports facilities, playing pitches and open space (in accordance with paragraph 73 of the NPPF) and these should be used for informing strategic infrastructure needs across the North Essex area. As well as the concern about this infrastructure type not being given appropriate consideration in policy SP5, there is a potential concern that opportunities for co-ordinating strategic leisure/recreation provision with other infrastructure types (that are addressed in the policy) may be missed if they are not considered together and given a similar degree of focus. For example, new schools provide the opportunity for jointly provided leisure facilities such as leisure centres and sports halls to be delivered while health hubs can provide leisure facilities as well as health care facilities. As well as the potential benefits of co-location in terms of capital and revenue efficiencies, there are also benefits in terms of encouraging active lifestyles. Furthermore, opportunities for cross-boundary facility provision may be missed which is particularly relevant in terms of the cross-boundary garden communities that are proposed and addressing this would help meet the 'effective' soundness test.

To address this concern, it is requested that leisure and recreation is added to the infrastructure types that are covered by policy SP5 and that the policy sets out the principles of meeting needs for this infrastructure type e.g. addressing the leisure and recreation facility needs identified in the respective evidence bases including any specific facility needs that are of strategic importance across the three local authority areas, using the garden communities and other developments to maximise the opportunities for encouraging healthy and active lifestyles through the use of 'Active Design' principles, safeguarding and enhancing existing facilities that help meet existing and future needs etc. The supporting text should refer to the authorities evidence bases for sport and recreation and provide more detail about how leisure and recreation objectives will be met on a strategic basis.

This suggested amendment would improve the soundness of the plan in relation to meeting the 'justified', 'effective' and consistent with national policy' tests

SP6 - Place Shaping Principles
Sport England is supportive of the principles especially those relating to creating well connected places that prioritise the needs of pedestrians/cyclists and providing an integrated network of multi-functional public open space. These principles would help encourage healthy and active lifestyles as well as addressing other objectives. They would also be consistent with Sport England's and Public Health England's Active Design guidance principles https://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/active-design/ which seek to create the opportunities in development to encourage physical activity. The review of the Essex Design Guide which is under preparation and has been commissioned by the Essex local authorities, will be a material consideration in assessing the quality of the design of new developments. Sport England is supporting Essex County Council and the districts in the preparation of the review and its has been confirmed that the Active Design principles will be embedded into the guidance. It will therefore be important that local plan policies are consistent with the Essex Design Guide.

While the policy is broadly supported, to complement its implementation it is requested that reference is made in the policy's supporting text to the Active Design guidance as this would provide more detail about how the relevant place making principles could be applied in practice. This addition would improve the soundness of the plan both in relation to meeting the 'justified' and consistent with national policy' tests

SP7 Development and Delivery of New Garden Communities

Principles (iii), (viii), (x) and (xiv) are particularly supported as they align with the principles in Sport England's and Public Health England's Active Design guidance which seek to create environments in developments that encourage physical activity.

SP8 - Tendring/Colchester Borders Garden Community

Principle 15 is welcomed as it would provide the policy basis for ensuring that provision is made for green infrastructure (including outdoor sports facilities), that provides opportunities for residents of the new community to be active, to be a key part of the infrastructure of the development. Both Colchester and Tendring councils have prepared or are at an advanced stage of preparing an outdoor sports evidence base. The collective evidence base documents should be used for informing how this development makes provision for outdoor sport.

Principle 16 is also welcomed as it makes provision for indoor leisure and sports facilities to be provided within the new community or off-site. Colchester Borough Council has an up-to-date and robust evidence base for informing current and future facility needs for indoor sport within its area which Sport England supports. Tendring District Council also has recently prepared a similar evidence base. The collective evidence base documents should be used for informing how this development makes provision for indoor sport.

SP9 - Colchester/Braintree Borders Garden Community

Principle 16 is welcomed as it would provide the policy basis for ensuring that provision is made for green infrastructure (including outdoor sports facilities), that provides opportunities for residents of the new community to be active, to be a key part of the infrastructure of the development. Both Colchester and Braintree councils have prepared an up-to-date outdoor sports evidence base. The collective evidence base documents should be used for informing how this development makes provision for outdoor sport.

Principle 17 is also welcomed as it makes provision for indoor leisure and sports facilities to be provided within the new community or off-site. Colchester Borough Council has an up-to-date and robust evidence base for informing current and future facility needs for indoor sport within its area which Sport England supports. Braintree District Council also has recently prepared a similar evidence base. The collective evidence base documents should be used for informing how this development makes provision for indoor sport.

SP10 - West of Braintree Garden Community

Principle 15 is welcomed as it would provide the policy basis for ensuring that provision is made for green infrastructure (including outdoor sports facilities), that provides opportunities for residents of the new community to be active, to be a key part of the infrastructure of the development. Braintree District Council has recently prepared an outdoor sports evidence base which should be used for informing how this development makes provision for outdoor sport.

Principle 16 is also welcomed as it makes provision for indoor leisure and sports facilities to be provided within the new community or off-site. Braintree District Council has prepared an evidence base for informing current and future facility needs for indoor sport which should be used for informing how this development makes provision for indoor sport.

The requirement that a development must be supported by infrastructure, services and facilities identified to serve the needs arising from the development is retained and as such so too is my client's objection to this. As mentioned previously, this obligation is unreasonable and an unjustified burden on a developer. A developer can only provide the mechanisms to allow the infrastructure provider to provide the services - it cannot provide the services. For example, funding for new school places can be provided but the provision of those spaces will be down to the LEA.
The policy is not consistent with national policy.

The Trust notes the proposed growth in housing within the plan and would like to draw the Council's attention to the implications for local hospital services which are likely to arise from this.

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) outlines the development of up to 10,935 dwellings during the period of the plan, with associated population growth of 24,494. The Trust notes that several other figures for dwellings and growth are quoted throughout the plan but all are broadly in this range. There are several observations which the Trust would like to raise in relation to these figures:
* These figures are significantly lower than the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for the Borough during this period, which is stated as 18,400 dwellings. This represents a shortfall of at least 40.5%. The Councils' planned development may therefore be an underestimate of the growth over the period.
* The IDP estimate of population per dwelling seems low (2.24) compared with historical occupancy in the borough (2.34 to 2.37 per dwelling) . This would tend to underestimate population growth as stated in the IDP.
* Historical population growth in the area is higher than the growth predicted in the IDP. Between 2014 and 2015 the population increased by 1.95% (3,519 persons) compared to the IDP projection of an annual growth rate of 0.96%to 2024 (6.9% over period). This would tend to underestimate population growth as stated in the IDP.
* Mid-year 2014 ONS projections for growth in the period of the plan are 14.6% compared to 12.6% in the IDP .
* Student population growth is estimated to be approximately 10,000 by 2021 but it is not clear that this figure is included in the overall figures.
Overall, the IDP appears to be based on a low estimate of population growth during the period of the plan.

The IDP recognises some potential impacts on health services in section 4. However, it significantly underestimates the impact of population growth on these services. In particular:
* The Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP) plan, referenced in the IDP, assumes that growth in activity will be consumed within existing revenue resources. The IDP notes the need to "increase estate, or invest in buildings and infrastructure" in primary care and that "hospitals will need to be redesigned to treat the patients of the future" . However, this does not take into account the capital investment requirements in the footprint of the Borough, the revenue consequences of this and the service infrastructure impact of such changes.
* The STP plan only covers the period to 2021. Extrapolation of this revenue-neutral position cannot be assumed beyond this.
* The Trust has considered three scenarios, based on different estimates of growth (IDP estimate, ONS estimate and historical growth rate). The impact on hospital services are set out below. Note that these do not include primary care, ambulance or social care impact.

Scenario % population growth 2017-2033 Hospital infrastructure cost Hospital revenue cost
IDP growth estimate 12.26% £11.8m £18.3m
ONS growth estimate 14.60% £13.6m £21.2m
Historical growth projected forward 33.60% £31.4m £48.7m

Cost per 1% growth 1% £1.02m £1.58m
All figures are at 2017/18 costs and exclude infrastructure costs associated with travel, water and sewerage etc.
* No provision is made for these cost pressures beyond 2021.

The IDP reflects only the growth of the Colchester population. The catchment population of the hospital extends into several other District and Borough Councils, including Tendring, Braintree, Maldon and Chelmsford. Estimated growth in these populations from local plans (at East of England mid-point occupancy of 2.33 per dwelling) is an additional 77,973 persons. This is not accounted for in the figures shown above but will have a direct impact on hospital services for Colchester.

Key responses to the consultation
1. The IDP estimates of population growth appear to be at variance with other sources, including the OAN, ONS projections and recent historic data. Further, other sources of population growth, particularly the student population do not appear to be fully accounted for. The Trust has reservations about the accuracy of the estimates which appear to underestimate the need for housing in the period of the plan.
2. The Trust has provided estimates of the capital and revenue impact of estimated population growth on hospital costs. These cost pressures are not accounted for by the STP plan beyond 2021. For each 1% population growth the hospital will experience approximate capital costs of £1.02m and revenue costs of £1.58m. No provision for these cost pressures is made at this time.
3. The infrastructure transformation required by the hospital is likely to have an impact on Council infrastructure including transport (road and bus particularly), water and sewerage. These are not accounted for in the IDP.
4. The impact of growth in surrounding areas (outside Colchester Borough) which form the catchment population of the hospital is not accounted for. This is in the region of an additional 78,000 persons over the duration of the plan.

The Trust is grateful for the opportunity to respond to the consultation and would be happy to engage in further dialogue.