Policy SP6: Place Shaping Principles

Perhaps a completely different view should be considered. Colchester Town Centre has deteriorated over the past 10 years, with many empty units (notably loss of the Co-Op complex). Why not let the town die / replace shop units with housing (brown field development) and allow natural expansion in retail units at edge of town (Stanway, Hythe, Northern Gateway). Chelmsfor and Ipswich provide far better retail experience for customers

We support the broad objectives of this policy and believe that additional criteria could be reflected in the policy wording. For example, emphasizing the need to create local connections and also, where appropriate, taking local opportunities for environmental enhancements to an area through for example, removing traffic congestion spots, removing eyesores, establishing new open spaces and so forth.

SP6 is good, especially in prioritising pedestrians etc. (who are currently at risk around Marks Tey). But local Marks Tey people are horrified at the prospect of losing vast swathes of countryside to housing development. If development proposals could include attractive public parks, green and blue spaces, and protection of natural assets (eg Colliers clay quarry area), that would help.

Anglian Water is generally supportive of this policy which sets out the general principles which will be applied to the North Essex Garden Communities. In particular we welcome the references made to the need for water efficiency measures and wastewater infrastructure provision.

However it would be helpful if Policy SP6 also includes reference to water supply provision particularly given the scale of the proposed developments.

We object strongly to this aspect of the plan as this modern dormitory fails on each of the following accounts. We have taken each point in turn to allow for ease of context.
Respond positively to local character and context to preserve and enhance the quality of existing communities and their environs;
Building 9,000 dwellings across 4 villages does not - at any imaginable level - respond to local character. If the aim of this plan is to preserve the quality of local communities then the simple option is not to build at this scale. Our "environs" are of a rural aspect which will be devastated by this plan. In addition, it is this kind of empty rhetoric and complete lack of understanding of existing communities that causes so much ire. This plan is in no way interested in existing local communities or local environs and bland statements such as this are disingenuous, discourteous and demonstrate the absence of community involvement. This statement needs to be removed from this plan as it is falsehood.
Provide buildings that exhibit individual architectural quality within well-considered public and private realms;
We cannot comment on this as this information is not publicly available. We will take this opportunity to stress the importance of minimum room sizes, adequate parking and gardens. Fundamentally there must be provision of homes of a scale that is fit for purpose. We would dearly wish to see an aspirational community with homes that people would seek to live in and this would form a strong element of our engagement should it ever be sought.
Protect and enhance assets of historical or natural value;
This should be amended to allow for other values such as the provision of (Grade A) agricultural land and the protection of existing communities.
Create well-connected places that prioritise the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport services above use of the private car; as anything else will NOT work.
Where possible, provide a mix of land uses, services and densities with well-defined public and private spaces to create sustainable well-designed neighbourhoods;
Mixed land uses should include agricultural, leisure, cemeteries, allotments and business provision beyond the small and clearly inadequate amount proposed. Density should not exceed 60 units per hectare. In addition, the higher density areas should be built to the north of the site and away from existing communities.
Enhance the public realm through additional landscaping, street furniture and other distinctive features that help to create a sense of place;
We cannot comment on this as this information is not publicly available. We will take this opportunity to stress the importance of creating a unique separate place able to function independently without suffocating the limited resources off the already stretched to breaking point local infrastructure assets.
Provide streets and spaces that are overlooked and active and promote inclusive access;
We cannot comment on this as this information is not publicly available.
Include parking facilities that are well integrated as part of the overall design and are adaptable if levels of private car ownership fall;
There should be sufficient space left to mitigate for the much more realistic outcome that private car ownership will increase. This plan must exhibit a degree of 'common-sense' or else it will fail to be accepted by local communities. It will also fail its future residents.
Provide an integrated network of multi-functional public open space and green and blue infrastructure that connects with existing green infrastructure where possible;
We would wish to see greater detail before we can comment on this.
Include measures to promote environmental sustainability including addressing energy and water efficiency, and provision of appropriate wastewater and flood mitigation measures; and
There are known issues with the current sewage system that is already operating above capacity. These issues must be addressed before any development commences.
Protect the amenity of existing and future residents and users with regard to noise, vibration, smell, loss of light and overlooking.
This is very important and we would welcome the opportunity to engage in a meaningful manner with the masterplan process to ensure that protecting the amenity of existing communities is a real priority for the local plan - currently it is not.

Place Shaping principles cannot be applied without first locating housing in the right location. This Local Plan is not sound because it is not positively prepared to ensure that the most sustainable, viable and deliverable options are chosen. The Colchester/Braintree borders site was dismissed by Colchester in 2008 on the basis that it was undesirable and unsustainable for significant development. Nothing has changed in the meantime and the problems associated with the location mean that place-shaping principles will be difficult to apply. The entire site is severed by the GEML, the Sudbury line, the A12, the current A120 and by three of the possible routes for the A120. The inability of the location to be self-contained, plus its location adjacent to a mainline station to London mean that a sense of community will be difficult to achieve, and the high level of out-commuting by car and rail will place pressure on the transport network. In addition, the mismatch between the infrastructure promises and the budget and financial model are likely to result in short-cuts in delivering the principles set out in SP6. These concerns, and more, are set out in our full response: http://www.cause4livingessex.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CAUSE-2017-Part-1-Consultation-response.pdf

*Officer Note - CAUSE represents 1125 individuals and the supporting document is attached to this representation.

The RSPB welcomes the environmental aspirations of this policy to conserve and enhance assets..of natural value and to seek an integrated network of green and blue infrastructure across new developments.

Support is extended to this Policy and its purpose that all new development must meet the highest standards of urban and architectural design. Support is also given to encourage the use of development frameworks, masterplans and other design guidance documents and design guides where appropriate for strategic scale developments. The principles set out in the bullet points are also supported.

West Bergholt PC supports this policy in that our Neighbourhood Plan will require all new development to meet the highest standards of urban and architectural design standards possible.

Support is extended for the objective to meet the highest standards of urban and architectural design in all new development. It is recognised that strategic scale developments may require the use of development frameworks, masterplans and design codes to guide new development. Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd would, in the course of preparing a planning application package for land at East Marks Tey, engage with the Council and its advisors on matters of design. Consideration has already been given to matters of landscaping and open space and the likely visual impact of the development. This work is summarised in a Promotion Document attached to representations to Section 2 of the Plan. 14 - Place Policies.

The first sentence of this policy makes use of the superlative adjective 'highest', this description has been commonly used in planning policy and by its definition has little meaning. There can be only one 'highest' and that is the 'most high' of all options. In consequence, it is evident that use of 'highest' in policy' has had little effect on the actual quality of outcomes and is impossible to manage at the development control level; a scheme cannot be refused because it is not best amongst all others. Nevertheless, good design is a worthy outcome. The use of the superlative adjective also clashes with Colchester Borough Council's part 2 plan which uses 'well designed'.

The second sentence refers to the use of design codes. Whilst popular towns and villages are often composed of decidedly ordinary architecture, their high quality of place shaping has been achieved by many factors including diversity, adaptation over time and local involvement. They are places which have been created by a process. A more successful approach to creating the quality of places that everybody wants would be to follow the concept of being 'good design' which can be described as appropriate, inclusive and the result of a thorough understanding of context. Being 'well designed' is a concept which is familiar to the public and capable of being assessed at a planning application stage. Good urban design should be a process not the pursuit of a predetermined end product over dependant of prescriptive codes. These techniques focus more on the process than a fixed outcome and reflect how successful traditional towns have emerged over time. These issues have great relevance for the North Essex Garden Communities because of their large scale and extended development periods. Social, technical and economic circumstances are changing at an unprecedented rate within human history. Emerging Garden Communities need the flexibility to reflect these changes as development progresses. The vision for all new development is to facilitate better places which can easily adapt to changing social, technical and economic circumstances. Masterplans can create a framework for infrastructure, green spaces and movement which can adapt to future needs.

The section entitled "all new development should reflect the following principles" is rather generalised and from the perspective of encouraging well designed places it is surpassed by the Part 2 plan's policy DN15: Design and Amenity. It is unhelpful to have two sources of design guidance policy especially as they are different and this situation will cause ongoing confusion.

West of Braintree, the integrity of existing settlements, such as, Rayne and Stebbing is under great threat from the proximity of the proposals for large scale developments on their borders. The West Tey GC proposal would lead to the virtual merging of Marks Tey with Coggeshall and Feering.

Under this scenario, there needs to be greater emphasis placed on the importance of recognising and protecting the integrity of existing places.

These principles will clearly be of particular importance for Garden Communities and should be developed through masterplanning, design codes etc. It should be made clear, as noted above, that each phase of any development needs to be sustainable in its own right and add and improve what exists to guard against the development proposals stalling before full completion.

We are concerned that the policy starts by requiring that all new development "must meet the highest standards of urban and architectural design". The use of the superlative is inappropriate bearing in mind, for instance, paragraphs 50 and 57 of the NPPF requires "high quality" and paragraph 56 refers to "good design". Whilst our client always strives to ensure that development that is carried out is of such quality, the Development Plan must reflect National Policy i.e. in terms of consistency.

We note that the Vision for the Strategic Area refers only to "residents will live in high quality...homes..." and that in the garden communities there is a recognition that and in what we understand to be Policy SP8 (Tendring/Colchester Borders Garden Community) the "placemaking and design quality policy refers also to, "...high standards of design and layout". The policy should be amended to replace 'highest' with 'high'.

SP6 Place Shaping Principles - not consistent with the NPPF. We still advise that "the policy should be strengthened to ensure that new development also incorporates biodiversity creation and enhancement into its design". The aspiration of net gain in biodiversity is clearly presented in paragraph 109 of the NPPF, yet is only described in Policy SP 7.

It is our view that the policies for open space in Policy SP 6 needs to be strengthened, to mirror the safeguards in the Section 2 plans. This is recommended at paragraph 6.98 of the Appropriate Assessment (AA) Section 1 Report (HRA Report for North Essex Authorities Shared Strategic Part 1 for Local Plans Pre-submission (Regulation 19) by Land Use Consultants, v3.1 dated 11 May 2017). Section 1 policy safeguards are needed to ensure that well designed and managed spaces are able to meet local requirements and divert additional recreational pressure from designated sites. On 28

June 2017 (our ref: 215973) we advised on the AA Section 1 Report "that open space can play an important role in helping mitigate effects from recreational disturbance" several components of this were required. These included high-quality natural and semi-natural informal open space of suitable quality to provide attractive alternatives to designated sites, particularly but not exclusively with respect of dog walking. The open space policies should work in tandem with a RAMS.

Paragraph 8.5 Cross Boundary Garden Communities - not consistent with the NPPF. We support the decision of Colchester, Tendring and Braintree Councils to work together to implement a RAMS. We draw you attention to our advice on the Appropriate Assessment of 28 June 2017 (our ref 215973) regarding the development of a single cross-authority RAMS and a Policy commitment to the production of a RAMS. Natural England has also provided advice on three Section 2 Appropriate Assessments1.

It is our view that a RAMS is a delivery mechanism to mitigate recreational impacts identified through the HRA process from Local Plans as a whole, and not only those arising from the Garden Communities elements of the Plans. Therefore a policy commitment to a RAMS should be made. This might usefully be included under Policy SP 6 and would be in accordance with NPPF paragraphs 114 and 118. This would demonstrate the application of the avoid-mitigate- compensate hierarchy, and ensure that there is sufficient certainty of delivery of mitigation. This is essential if the Plan is to be considered sound in terms of the Habitats Regulations. Without the policy commitment to a RAMS, it is our view that the Plan would fail legal and procedural compliance. This is because identified impacts have no mechanism for mitigation and the Plan would not comply with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.
NOTE: For clarity we recommend that at paragraph 8.5 those European sites in scope are described correctly, thus "Blackwater Estuary, Colne Estuary, Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Areas (SPA's) and Ramsar sites, and the Essex Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC)".

The NPPF (para 8) recognises that 'well‐designed buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities'. The NPPF Core Planning Principles (para 17) is to 'always seek to secure high quality design'. Para 57 refers to 'It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development'.

The draft Policy SP6 requires 'All new development must meet the highest standards of urban and architectural design'. This requires every development to achieve the 'highest standard', which would require the achievement of a constant escalation of standards to be the 'highest'. The 'highest' is a more onerous test than 'high quality and inclusive design' within the NPPF. It is considered that this constant escalation to achieve the 'highest' possible standard would be unduly onerous and could threaten development viability. In light of this, SP6 should be amended to read;

'All new development must be of a high standard of urban and architectural design.'




It is considered that not all of the 'principles' stated would be applicable to every development. For instance;
‐ 'Where possible, provide a mix of land uses, services and densities...'. It may be possible but not desirable to provide a mix of uses in a development.
‐ 'Provide an integrated network of multi‐functional public open space' - a development may not be of a scale to achieve this or functionally require it in the event of existing adequate provision.
In light of the above, SP6 should be amended to read;

'All new development should, where applicable, reflect the following principles;

Historic England welcomes the reference to protecting and enhancing the historic assets. Our comments on Policy SP6 of the June 2016 draft local plan suggested that the first bullet point of the policy is clarified to read: "...enhance the quality of existing places" rather than "communities." This bullet point has not been amended and we repeat our comment in this respect.

In relation to the principle to "enhance the public realm....through additional street furniture...." there will need to be some caution in implementing the policy as worded to guard against the unmanaged and indiscriminate use of street furniture such as signs, benches, bins etc in the historic environment. Without careful control, there can be a detrimental impact on the setting of historic buildings and the character of conservation areas.

1. Introduction

1.1. Andrew Granger & Co. Ltd specialises in the promotion of strategic land for residential development, commercial and employment uses through the Local Plan process.

1.2. On behalf of the Trustees of the S A Meller Estate we are seeking to work with Colchester Borough Council in promoting Land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road, Colchester (Appendix
1) for residential and employment development uses.

1.3. This document provides a written submission to the Colchester Borough Local Plan 2017- 2033 Publication Draft Consultation and is framed in the context of the requirement for the Local Plan to be considered legally compliant and sound. The tests of soundness are set out at Paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF], which state that for a development plan to be considered sound it must be:

- Positively prepared - the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;

- Justified - the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;

- Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and

- Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

1.4. This submission supports the proposed allocations at Land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road, Colchester for employment and residential uses as identified in the Proposals Plan and also promotes additional adjacent land for residential development.




















P/300/15.1 - Land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road, Colchester 4

2. Site Appraisal & Context

2.1. The proposed development site has a total site area of approximately 5.97 ha (14.7 acres) and is located on the south-eastern edge of Colchester and accessed off Rowhedge Road, as shown outlined in red in Appendix 1.

2.2. The site consists of a single field of pasture land with clearly defined boundaries marked by mature hedgerow to the north, south, east and west. The site is bordered to the north and east by the Whitehall Industrial Estate (including the Colchester Sewerage Treatment Works), to the west by residential properties and to the south by further agricultural land.

2.3. The site is located in close proximity to a number of services and amenities, which are located approximately 0.4 miles from the site entrance on Old Heath Road which is identified as a Local Centre in the Plan. Services include Old Heath Congregational Chapel, Old Heath Community Primary School, Co-Op Food Store and a number of small, independent coffee shops and retailers. The Whitehall Industrial Estate, which is located adjacent to the proposed development site, also provides a number of employment opportunities. Businesses located at the estate include Gallery Bathrooms, Nash Bathrooms, Maple Tree Cars and Colchester Dairy.

2.4. There are further services and employment opportunities available in close proximity to the site in Colchester Town Centre (approx. 1.9 miles), Rowhedge (approx. 1.2 miles), Fingringhoe (approx. 2.1 miles), Wivenhoe (approx. 2.3 miles) and Abberton (approx. 3.7 miles).

2.5. In addition, the site is well served in respect of public transport links with the nearest bus stop located next to the site entrance on Rowhedge Road. This stop is served by the 66(A/B) bus service which runs between West Bergholt and Rowhedge via Colchester with services stopping at Rowhedge Road approximately once an hour between 7am and 7pm from Monday to Saturday.

2.6. We consider that the site has the capacity to accommodate a mix of residential and employment land uses, as follows:

2.6.1. It is considered that the allocated site, identified red on the Proposals Plan and blocked red at Appendix 2, and the adjacent land (blocked green at Appendix 2) could facilitate the development of approximately 100 dwellings including pedestrian links, public open space, car parking, landscaping and drainage. Any proposed development scheme would provide a range of property types and sizes, including a proportion of affordable housing, subject to viability.

2.6.2. The site also has the capacity to accommodate approximately 2.3 ha of employment land (shown blocked purple at Appendix 2), which could provide up to 9,200 square metres of new floor space, associated car parking, facilities and landscaping, which would complement the existing Use Class B employment land uses at Whitehall Industrial Estate.



P/300/15.1 - Land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road, Colchester 5

2.7. Any development of the site could be sensitively designed to protect the residential amenity of the neighbouring residents to the west of the site, by retaining the existing hedgerows and matures trees around the site boundary, and enhancing those boundaries with significant additional planting. Furthermore, any development scheme would give consideration to balancing the demands of the proposed residential land use in comparison to the existing and proposed employment land uses; to ensure that all land users enjoy an appropriate level of amenity.

2.8. Therefore, we consider the site to be in a sustainable location, close to a number of services and facilities and highly accessible. It provides a good opportunity to make a valuable contribution towards meeting the Borough's development needs.













































P/300/15.1 - Land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road, Colchester 6

3. Comments on the Colchester Local Plan Publication Draft Document
3.1. On behalf of the Trustees of the S A Meller Estate we wish to make the following observations on the Colchester Local Plan Publication Draft Consultation. Overall, we agree with the vision and objectives set out in the Draft Local Plan, however, to ensure that the plan is robust and provides for flexibility, we make the following comments.

Section 1: Shared Strategic Plan

3.2. In respect of Policy SP1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development, we strongly support the inclusion of this policy in the Colchester Local Plan in line with Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF]. We are encouraged by the Council's desire to positively consider proposals that contribute to the sustainable development of Colchester and North Essex.

3.3. We support the proposed spatial strategy for growth set out in Policy SP2: Spatial Strategy for North Essex. The NPPF and the Draft Local Plan are underpinned by a 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'. It is therefore considered rational to direct development towards locations that are accessible and are within close proximity to a wide range of employment opportunities and local services and facilities.

3.4. With regards to Policy SP3: Meeting Housing Needs, we fully support the flexibility provided by the recognition that the development requirements outlined in this policy are a minimum and the positive approach to development proposals outside of the Local Plan allocations, where they support the overall spatial strategy. We consider that the land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road has sufficient capacity to deliver up to 30 dwellings, which would provide a range of dwelling types and sizes and contribute towards meeting the identified housing needs for the Colchester Borough.

3.5. We fully support the flexible approach to employment and retail development shown in Policy SP4: Providing Employment and Retail. In particular, we support the flexibility demonstrated in relation to the quantum of development across the plan period through the use of baseline and higher growth scenarios. However, in order to ensure the plan has a robust approach towards the provision of employment and retail land, we believe that it is important for the policy to clarify that the baseline development levels are a minimum requirement. This will ensure that the Borough provides the level of employment and retail development that is necessary to deliver the jobs required to sustain the anticipated population growth. As previously stated, we consider that the land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road has sufficient capacity to deliver up to 2.3 ha of employment land which would contribute towards meeting the identified needs for the Colchester Borough.

3.6. In respect of Policy SP6: Place Shaping Principles we fully support the recognition that good planning and good design are inseparable in line with Paragraph 56 of the NPPF. The proposed development scheme for the subject site could be designed with consideration



P/300/15.1 - Land at Place Farm, Rowhedge Road, Colchester 7

for all of the criteria contained within the policy; the proposed development site could be designed in a manner that respects local character and context and ensures that it enhances the quality of the street scene, any scheme would seek to retain a significant proportion of the trees and hedgerows that bound the site and a large amount of additional planting could also be provided to ensure that the residential amenity of neighbouring properties to the west and future residents of the site is not adversely impacted. Furthermore, sufficient space would be provided on-site to allow for off-street car parking for all proposed dwellings.

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)

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.

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 that are unjustified and inconsistent with national policy. The concerns raised are as follows:
* The second bullet point requires all new development to exhibit individual architectural quality. This is a vague statement that fails to provide clarity to a development and 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 in all cases - or even possible - 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 schemes in highly accessible locations or those already adequately served by parking.
X
X
Policy SP6 - Placing Shaping Principles
* The ninth 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 this is an unjustified requirement.
As currently drafted, the policy is considered to be unjustified, inconsistent with national policy and prejudicial to the effectiveness of the Plan