Policy SP7: Development and Delivery of New Garden Communities in North Essex

I do not believe that sufficient Infrastructure will be provided to relieve existing congestion and provide for these new communities

We have no particular view on the merits of this policy or otherwise but we are very conscious of the timescales involved in actual delivery of housing via new communities such as those being proposed. This raises questions over the likely housing contribution during the remaining Local Plan period (2017-33) and the Local Plan as a whole, and Policy SP7, should acknowledge this and offer a mechanism to ensure that overall housing supply is maintained throughout the plan period (see also Policy SP3 response above).

Whilst the Borough Council, working in partnership with Tendring and Braintree District Councils, is best placed to assess and determine the quantum of housing and employment land needed to meet local needs, together with the overall strategy for meeting that requirement, the University supports the provision of a new cross-border garden community on the east side of Colchester, situated between the A120 and A133.

The University, however, considers that it is imperative the Council secures, as part of this proposal, the early completion of a link road (preferably a dual carriageway) between the A120 and the A133. If this is not achieved, it will exacerbate existing transport issues on the east side of town, as well as within central Colchester.

The University supports the 'principles' set out in Policy SP7 and, in particular, the need to ensure that development and infrastructure is 'sequenced', with the latter being provided ahead of, or in tandem with, new development.

Policy SP7 is not sound
Policy SP7 (viii) is not compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework because it does not mention places of worship. Section 70 of the NPPF states: "To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should: plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments."

I support the statement in SP7 "The design, development and phased delivery of each new garden community will conform with the following principles (i) Community and stakeholder empowerment in the design and delivery of each garden community from the outset and a long-term engagement and activation strategy".
I would like the following members of the local community for each new garden community to the included in early discussions about the Strategic Growth DPD of the new communities and all subsequent discussions leading to the development of more detailed masterplans for the new garden communities. These people are all leaders in their communities and I believe they will make an important contribution:

Tendring/Colchester Borders Garden Community

Revd Pauline Scott, The Rectory, St Andrew's Close, Alresford, Colchester CO7 8BL
Tel: 01206 823163 Email: paulinecms@btinternet.com

Revd Andy Sachs, St John's Vicarage, Evergreen Drive, Colchester CO4 0HU
Tel: 01206 843232 (parish office) Email: andy.sachs@stjohnscolchester.org.uk

Colchester/Braintree Borders Garden Community

Revd Ian Scott-Thompson, The Rectory, Church Lane, Marks Tey, Colchester CO6 1LW
Tel: 01206 215772 Email: ian.scott-thompson@virgin.net

West of Braintree Garden Community

Revd Tim Goodbody, The Vicarage, 7 Ruffels Place, Stebbing, Dunmow CM6 3TJ
Tel: 01371 856080 Email: the.goodbodies@btinternet.com

With reference to 'Establishment of the North Essex Garden Communities Local Delivery Vehicles and funding requirements' document, it is clear that the financial model for these three developments is unsound. The current delivery mechanism is dangerously ambiguous, unresolved and naive. Furthermore, of all the three sites the one east of Colchester is by far the greatest financial risk (Tendring borders estimates to make a 1.6% surplus Braintree borders 4.6% and West Braintree 17.2%).
North Essex Garden Communities Limited (NEGCL) are currently unrestricted by any statutory powers or regulations. This means the only scrutiny of the system they will be operating within will come from the Local Plan examination. There currently isn't the depth of detail available to do this effectively. Again with reference to above document, North Essex Garden Communities Limited have allocated 103k per hectare for land acquisition. If they can't get the land for below this price there are no contingencies in place, therefore the overall scheme viability is at best a gamble that land owners don't get too greedy. Colchester Borough Council (CBC) have stated that 'Surveyors often use a figure of 10X agricultural land value as a notional guide figure'. Working on the basis that an average agricultural land value is 18857 per hectare and using the factor of 10; this would imply it could be brought for 188k per hectare as building land. Which is higher than the 103k allocated.
The report also acknowledges there is a conflict of Interest - 'between the Council's role as planning authority and its role with respect to the local delivery vehicle.' But it doesn't put a workable plan in place to combat this. No procedures are in place to scrutinize or monitor this. It is totally unsound to have councillors, (with little or no experience of planning a development of this scale), sign off the scheme. Also of great concern is what experience does any of the partners have projects of this nature? The Kerslake Review provides doubt as to whether the correct expertise exists or will be brought in at the right time.
A detailed financial model has been created to assess the costs, income and overall viability of the Tendring Colchester Borders proposal. The modeling has been based upon Option 1 of the AECOM Concept Feasibility work, which delivers circa 6,600 residential units together with employment space, social infrastructure (including 4 new primary schools and 1 new secondary school, health and community facilities), local retail, and generous amounts of open space to accord to Garden City principles. The total site area is circa 300 hectares, located between the A133 to the south, Bromley Road to the north and the A120 to the east.' But when asked what guarantees there are that the infrastructure would be as detailed, CBC have stated that 'There cannot be guarantees at this stage,' and 'what is planned now will not actually be what is delivered in thirty years time. Circumstances and needs will change and plans will need to be modified over the life time of any new Community.'
The overall borrowing implications for Colchester are high. It does not seem likely that projects with such a delayed pay back and pretty unquantifiable risks would prove attractive to private investors. The schemes imply that Colchester would be in debt for many years to come. Should the project fail or exceed the wholly inadequate contingency no doubt it will be the public that have to bail the company out, yet they have no real say in what is being proposed. This is a key point for us as we have been hugely under-represented and our concerns continually fall on deaf ears. There is no part of this plan that meets with local favour. This whole process is undemocratic and the lack of transparency from the Masterplan group is of deep concern. This consultation is a case in point as it is far too complex for the majority of the public to engage with.
The report mentions inflation but seems to think this would help the financial situation as it could imply higher prices for sale of the land as it is developed but inflation can also mean interest rate rises.
Additional areas of concern of this policy include : - Part (iii) where it states that environments will 'promote health, happiness and well-being.' With densities of 100 per hectare being proposed by David Lock Associates, with no private amenity space available, this is hard to believe.
(iv) describes 'Sequencing of development' but gives no detail to the timing of the delivery of infrastructure or what is meant in terms of off-site provision. Where do people go to school and visit the doctors before these elements arrive on site? Or are these potential areas that will be pushed off site so the surrounding area will take the burden? Without a definitive statement the policy can not be judged either sound or unsound, just incomplete.
(ix) alludes to 'parking approaches and standards', but does not even a guarantee national minimum parking standards will be met.
(xi) talks of building standards, making claims about using the 'highest standards of energy efficiency'. This is totally unbelievable when you look at the low standards CBC set for their own social housing. By the time a developer is involved in the mix and planning law can do nothing to make demands of the design, it will be back to the basics of building standards and not even a nod to current technology.
(vii) is concerned with promoting Sustainable Transport and Changing Behavior.For many years now CBC has pushed through massive housing developments on the basis that they were acceptable because of the 'policy' that the extra traffic generated would be minimised by the new residents being encouraged by travel plans to make a far greater % of journeys by foot / bicycle / bus than the existing Colchester population. This being a total fantasy, it is not surprising that CBC have shown little interest in post-occupation surveys to see what really happens! Observation suggests that these new estates are actually occupied by people who live far more car-dependent lives than the established population. Most of them will not travel by other means themselves (the only significant developer-funded bus service that ever actually materialised, serving the Garrison developments and New Braiswick Park, ran every 20 minutes for a long period with low usage and could not be taken over commercially at the expiry of the s.106 money). And secondly they make every effort to ensure that their fellow residents cannot use buses either (the service on the pre-identified bus route through the last portion of Highwoods, Gavin Way, was stopped by resident obstruction, and the residents of the new housing west of the NAR, who are happy to endure all-day car traffic noise, successfully opposed the provision of bus stops to serve their own housing area on the NAR busway (should that ever materialise).
If surveys were done, they would most likely show an absence of older (over-50) people and a predominance of 'family' people aged 25-50 who have lives especially dependent on the daily use of multiple scattered peripheral facilities (e.g. driving to work via schools). This postulation on the age distribution of new-development residents is in fact confirmed, for each of the garden developments, by the 'population pyramids' in the recently-published Employment & Demographic Studies, which show a massive predominance of children and 25-44 year olds in the 2031 population, not altering to a normal age distribution until several decades later. The very people whose lifestyle might be more amenable to public transport use will, by the councils' own admission, simply not be living here.
For many years also CBC has been promoting 'travel plans' for large employers, similar to those for new developments. There is no published evidence to show that these business travel plans, either, have ever actually achieved anything of substance to switch people from car use to 'sustainable' modes.
Thanks to local authority 'planning', a large % of jobs (previously in inner urban areas close to the workers' housing) are now in peripheral locations like the massively-traffic-generating Severalls Park where any journey by public transport is likely to take 2-3 times as long as by car (with most having to use two buses), and it is scarcely realistic to expect changed habits in such circumstances.
** Note that CBC themselves enthuse (6.27) about the fact that the Northern Gateway land is especially suitable for employment use because it is next to the A12 (i.e. easily accessible by car but poorly by public transport). And similarly re the north side of the East garden development being ideal for employers because it is next to the A120.
Again, whilst CBC in principle has a policy that retail and leisure facilities should be located in town centres (the only place with good access for all), and that car-dependent developments should not be accepted, they completely lose their morals on this as soon as they have the opportunity to get money for themselves from developments on peripheral lands that CBC owns! This has recently been most blatantly demonstrated by the 2,000-seat Northern Gateway cinema scheme, drawn up quite openly (in full collaboration with CBC) on the assumptions that nobody would travel to it by public transport, and that generating extra car mileage would be an achievement because it was 'bringing business to Colchester'.
Even if 'rapid transit' did materialise, a large proportion of work etc destinations would not be accessible by it.
The whole psychology of most North Essex people is in any case to assume that public transport = going by train to London, and all other travel = car. This has not been altered by years of pious local authority waffling and is never likely to be (only major increase in perceived car journey costs could alter it). The North Essex male is especially in-extractable from his car; the P&R has a 2/3rds female usage, and only 3 out of the 114 users questioned in the C-BUS survey were males under 60 who had previously driven into Colchester.
The massive spending on extra road capacity proposed in the Local Plan will of course only further encourage people to live car-dependent lifestyles.
There already is one garden community in North Essex, Great Notley, built in the late 1990s on the same basis of local facilities being provided on-site to reduce car travel. This has been a success in the sense that people like living there, but the % of journeys made by car is no different from the local average! - and the half-hourly bus service provided from the start has recently been withdrawn leaving only a minimal ECC-supported service, making this a highly risky place for anyone without a car to settle in.
Unless CBC can produce evidence that work and estate travel plans, 'changing attitudes' policies, etc, have ever actually achieved anything of substance, and are likely to achieve anything in the garden settlements given the age profile situation and other factors discussed above, the whole of this content in the Local Plan should be rejected as unsound through non-feasibility.

Finally at the end of the policy the 'Memorandum of Understanding' between the councils is mentioned. This has to be the real juncture for deciding if the proposition is sound or unsound. When the speculation and wishful thinking is over and the real detail of what can or can't be achieved is set into a legally binding policy.
The general theme of the draft plan is a wish list without substance. Add to this, that so far all community engagement has merely been an expensive tick box exercise, it is hard to believe any of the unsubstantiated claims will come to fruition. To date all significant recommendations made by local stakeholders have been ignored by David Lock Associates. CBC are also suitable vague about where their brief came from or what changes are being made to bring their proposals inline with stakeholder feedback.
Also Wivenhoe Town Council support and agree with the statement by Wivenhoe Society below.
'The North Essex Garden Communities Peer Review (Appendix A) contains the following statements "The proposed garden communities in North Essex will add over 80,000 to the existing population- that is equivalent to the City of Bath. The narrative should explain how this increase will be successfully integrated with existing places". Particular queries raised are
(i) "Why is major housing growth being considered in North Essex"
(ii) "Why have the three sites been chosen?"
(iii) "Can growth help tackle the area's challenges such as
coastal deprivation".

The Plan does not adequately address question (i) posed in the Peer Review. Focussing on the Tendring/Colchester settlement and the Colchester/Braintree proposal both of which are effectively extensions to Colchester the potential number of new dwellings post 2032 is between 17,000 and 28,000. Assuming these were built over a 15 year period this gives between 1133 and 1867 dwellings per year assuming zero development elsewhere. No evidence is provided that there will be a housing need on this scale in the future in the Colchester area. The DCLG household projections for England (July 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data.../live-tables-on-household-projections) only go up to 2039 and are in case trend projections. House prices are one possible indicator of potential housing demand and Colchester house prices are below the national average.
In respect of query (ii) there is little evidence that alternative sites were considered.
In respect of query (iii) the choice of the site on the Colchester/ Tendring border will do little to boost growth in the more deprived parts of Tendring. Residents will look to Colchester for their services. This is evidenced by the fact that all the discussions on rapid transport focus on links to Colchester and not to Clacton.
There is no discussion as to whether it is sensible to progress all three proposed garden settlements simultaneously. For the two predominantly Colchester sites a more sensible strategy might be to develop just one of them at a faster rate and put the other on hold. There will be problems in the initial stages of development that the communities would be too small to support an adequate range of services - schools, recreational facilities and viable public transport. With a faster build rate a community could become more self sufficient sooner. Consideration should be given to phasing them, possibly starting with the one that performs best in viability and sustainability terms.'

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 close working between the private and public sectors including the timely provision of on and off-site infrastructure.

However we have some detailed comments relating to water efficiency within the garden communities. The Anglian Water company area is defined as an area of serious water stress in the Environment Agency's Water Stress Classification document. Therefore Anglian Water is supportive of the inclusion of the optional higher water efficiency standard for residential development in the Colchester and Tendring Part 2 Publication Draft Local Plans. We have also sought its inclusion in the Part 2 Braintree Publication Draft Local Plan based upon the available evidence relating to this issue. Please see comments relating to Policy LPP 75 'Energy Efficiency' of Part 2 Braintree Local Plan for further details,

Reference is made to an objective to achieving water neutrality as part of proposed garden communities which is strongly supported. Policy SP7 does not specify a standard for water efficiency for development on these sites which is expected to be achieved. It is assumed that the intention is that the garden communities would achieve a greater level of water efficiency than that required for residential developments in the Colchester and Tendring Council areas as a whole.

Anglian Water would wish to work closely with Braintree, Colchester and Tendring Councils and the relevant site promoters/developers to discuss and to bring forward specific proposals for the use of innovative water use re-use technology as part of these developments.

To be effective it is suggested that wording of Policy SP7 to clarify what is intended in relation to water efficiency and how it relates to the relevant policies in the Part 2 Local Plans.

The North Essex Garden Communities Peer Review (Appendix A) contains the following statements "The proposed garden communities in North Essex will add over 80,000 to the existing population- that is equivalent to the City of Bath. The narrative should explain how this increase will be successfully integrated with existing places". Particular queries raised are
(i) "Why is major housing growth being considered in North Essex"
(ii) "Why have the three sites been chosen?"
(iii) "Can growth help tackle the area's challenges such as
coastal deprivation".

The Plan does not adequately address question (i) posed in the Peer Review. Focussing on the Tendring/Colchester settlement and the Colchester/Braintree proposal the potential number of new dwellings post 2032 is between 17,000 and 28,000. Assuming these were built over a 15 year period this gives between 1133 and 1867 dwellings per year assuming zero development elsewhere. No evidence is provided that there will be a housing need on this scale in the future in the Colchester area. The DCLG household projections for England (July 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data.../live-tables-on-household-projections) only go up to 2039 and are in case trend projections. House prices are one possible indicator of potential housing demand and Colchester house prices are below the national average.
In respect of queries (ii) and (iii) there is little evidence that alternative sites were considered. The sites appear to have been dictated by what large parcels of land were put forward in the call for sites. The East Colchester/West Tendring proposed garden settlement, while mainly lying in Tendring District will effectively be an urban extension of Colchester. Is it unlikely to have any high degree of self containment and will result in the loss of agricultural land rated as excellent. Residents will look to Colchester for their services. This is evidenced by the fact that all the discussions on rapid transport focus on links to Colchester and not to Clacton. It will do little to boost growth in the more deprived parts of Tendring . There does not appear to have been any proactive investigation of the possibility of putting together enough land to provide for a garden settlement further to the east in Tendring, possibly on a less ambitious scale. Residents would look to Clacton for some of their services which would help the local economy. While the current residents would not like it, Weeley would seem an obvious location. It has a station providing rapid transit to Clacton and Colchester and has trains to London. There is a link to the A120 close by. It is only 15 minutes by car from the University of Essex. It would have a nucleus of services in place which would make the earlier stages of development more sustainable.
Assuming it is accepted that there is a need for any garden settlements there is no discussion as to whether it is sensible to progress all three proposed garden settlements simultaneously. For the two predominantly Colchester sites a more sensible strategy might be to develop just one of them at a faster rate and put the other on hold. There will be problems in the initial stages of development as the communities would be too small to support an adequate range of services - schools, recreational facilities and viable public transport. With a faster build rate a community could become more self sufficient sooner. Consideration should be given to phasing them, possibly starting with the one that performs best in viability and sustainability terms.
Policy clauses: clause (vii) speaks of "a step change in integrated and sustainable transport systems for the North Essex area". No evidence is provided to demonstrate such a step change is feasible.
Clause ((ix) talks of developing specific garden community parking approaches and standards that help promote the use of sustainable transport and make efficient use of land. It is not clear what is meant by this. If it means limiting available residential parking in the hopes of reducing car ownership this strategy has not worked in the past and is a recipe for on street parking.
Relationship to Part 2 policies: There is no discussion of how the policies in the part 2 of the various local plans will apply to the garden community settlements, particularly with respect to amenity space and, as mentioned above, parking standards.

I am writing to express my observations and concerns regarding the proposals for a new settlement at West Tey (Policy SP9 of Section 1). Whilst I do not object to the principle of some development at Marks Tey, I believe the proposals (based on the limited information provided) are ill-thought out and not supported by the necessary infrastructure improvements that would be required for this level of growth. My specific comments, some of which were provided at the preferred options stage, are set out below.

Although Policy SP9 proposes a total of 2,500 dwellings during this plan period, it envisages between 15,000 and 24,000 as part of a wider vision for West Tey. I work in the development industry (as a planner) and therefore I appreciate the pressure on housing and the need to build new, albeit probably not as great as Colchester Borough Council are advocating. I am not an expert on calculating Objectively Assessed Need and I know there are others who are better placed to make an assessment on this. I also know that local residents are mostly likely to oppose any increase in the number of homes, especially where they are to be built on greenfield sites. I like to think that I am pragmatic about development and recognise there is some need in this area, but this needs to be at the right scale and in the right place, with a clear plan for delivery and committed funds for the infrastructure works to take place before the impact of development is felt. It also needs to be the best design possible, with space to breathe and decent community and shopping facilities for residents.

I am not adverse to an extension to Marks Tey Tey and consider that the area between the trunk roads (the A12 and existing A120) offer some opportunity to do this. However, I am deeply concerned at the numbers proposed here in the longer term and the likely quality of that development. Although described as a 'garden community', this suggests a relatively modest settlement and disguises the scale of the development proposed. To put this in context, Ebbsfleet is described as a Garden City with just over 10,000 homes. The scale proposed at West Tey is comparable to more than two Ebbsfleets over the next 20 to 30 years. If the proposals for Wivenhoe (Policy SP8) for 7,000 to 9,000 homes are taken into account, this would require Colchester Borough Council to deliver three Ebbsfleets around a town with a population of 75,000 households already, with little or no early infrastructure or any commitment to improve existing services such as the hospital. There is at this stage no need to commit to this level of development. Indeed, to enshrine it in a Local Plan which provides absolutely no information on where this settlement will be beyond a vague search area or information on the form it will take, and with no real explanation on how infrastructure will be delivered and when, is simply wrong.

I agree that Marks Tey could in theory take some further development without damaging the character of the place in a way Coggeshall and other smaller villages in the borough couldn't. However, this must include appropriate infrastructure put in place at the start of development to address the almost continuous traffic jam on the A120 and provide enhanced facilities for residents, including schools, surgeries, shops and the expansion/redevelopment of Colchester General Hospital. In order to support any expansion at Marks Tey, I would want to see a specific commitment to this in policies SP7 and SP9, such that no development takes place until funding and works are secured and programmed to coincide with completion of the relevant phase. The dualling of the A120 should be referenced as a key priority which forms a precondition to any development.

In terms of deliverabililty, I am not convinced the Council has the ability to deliver a scheme of this scale, let alone two alongside each other. Its ability to meet its housing target through sites in and around the edge of the town over the last plan period is to be applauded. However, the quality of these homes and the surrounding environment is not. The Council does not have a good track record in design and landscaping and in my view have been poor at giving direction to developers and enforcing its own policies to achieve the best schemes. They have had every opportunity to apply garden village principles on the new developments around the northern approach road and Tollgate and demonstrate their abilities to work with developers and push them to create something innovative. Arguably with the exception of the Rosewood development which at least tries to do something different, we have bland estates of densely packed, 'anywhere' homes. Even those around the established setting of the former Severalls Hospital are generic estate housing, albeit set amongst mature trees and a small number of retained listed buildings which have no architectural reference to the new houses which have consumed them. There is nothing special or high quality about the design of these 'places'. I use that term loosely, as many seem to omit the fundamental component parts for good placemaking, replacing public spaces and shopping streets/village centres with drive-throughs and car dominated precincts. One only has to look again at the development taking place around Tollgate to see the Council's inability to create great places for its residents. An out-of-town shopping centre or a community hall do not constitute a district or local centre. There is no emphasis of sustainable transport modes and the idea that anyone would want to walk around in this emerging environment is laughable. I wonder if the Council realises that new settlements will require some authentic places for people to go. Despite the Council's opposition to development that would jeopardise Colchester's town centre (a position I tend to agree with given what the alternative is), they seem to fail to realise that a town the size of Witham or Braintree will need its own town centre. The policy makes no reference to what is meant by District Centre and I fear that it will follow the path of the other examples already built out in the town; a soulless, car-dominated hub of chain shops and restaurants to serve the big-box retail and supermarket that sits at the centre of it.

Landscaping is similarly unambitious. The 'Country Park' in Tollgate for example, has little in the way of dense planting and what trees it does have are largely dying or dead (I counted at least 16 dead trees when I last drive past). They remain in place a significant time after completion, despite conditions in the outline permission requiring their replacement. It does not bode well for a garden settlement premised largely on the quality of its design and landscaping. The Council needs to build trust if it is to embark on such ambitious plans. We need to be part of the conversation and they need to demonstrate collaboration with organisations and architectural/masterplanning practices, rather than just the large housebuilders.

Reiterating my earlier comments from the Preferred Options consultation, I also have concerns around the evidence base which has been used to justify the development at West Tey and the quantum of dwellings. The Opportunities and Constraints document (Volume 2) by Aecom acknowledges that the Great Eastern Mainline is constrained in terms of its current and future capacity. As a regular commuter on this line, I can certainly agree with that statement. The trains are regularly full, certainly by Witham, and the car parks at Marks Tey and Kelvedon are regularly at capacity by mid morning. However, I do not see any opportunity or plans to enhance capacity significantly on the line, such that it could accommodate the numbers of people likely to use it following development of West Tey. It strikes me that the proposals to develop a garden community on the east Colchester/Tendring border is inherently more sustainable given the extra capacity on the line to Clacton. The suggestion in paragraph 7 of Policy SP9 and the Aecom document that they would look at opportunities to relocate the station to a more central location is also wholly unrealistic given the vital connection Marks Tey currently offers with the Gainsborough Line to Sudbury and it would not provide the necessary increase in capacity. Although infrequent, the Gainsborough Line is a well-used commuter line, with many residents in and around Wakes Colne/Chappel, Bures and Sudbury buying homes on the basis of the London rail connection, or indeed lines north to Colchester and Ipswich. In this respect, it also takes significant numbers of cars off the road by encouraging rail travel and thus supports the council's sustainability objectives. The notion that a tram or rapid transit system could link the existing line with a new station seems like a pipe dream that could only be effected with significant buy in from Networks Rail and the community beyond Colchester (i.e. users of the line in Suffolk). Anything which would make connections longer or more convoluted would inevitably put people off using the system. I am surprised that this suggestion has been allowed to gain any traction and form part of the proposals given the extensive planning and consultation it would require. From my reading of the documents, Aecom has made significant assumptions on the part of users and Network Rail which would not in reality be achievable given the complexities surrounding existing junction arrangements and asset protection issues, and certainly not in the timescales required to accommodate the growth proposed. If the proposals for a larger development at West Tey are premised on this change, I suggest that they are flawed. However, if the Council is minded to proceed with the West Tey community, I would urge them to consider a second new station rather than the relocation of the existing station at Marks Tey.

The area of search also comes very close to the Roman River (Colne) Valley, which although not protected by AONB status in the same way as the Stour Valley, should be afforded protection to maintain the important landscape and rural setting of the river. Simply defining the area in the evidence base as "raised farmland plateau with medium to large field patterns and mature hedgerows creating a degree of landscape enclosure" is misplaced and reflects a misunderstanding of the wider area and its important contribution to the rural landscape. To conclude that whilst "the landscape change will be significant, the impact is likely to be acceptable overall, especially if the network of existing hedgerows and associated veteran trees can be retained wherever possible" is hugely over simplistic and would result in irreparable harm to the Colne Valley. The notion that the landscape would be protected by existing hedgerows seems ludicrous in the context of such largescale development and reflects the lack of thinking behind how this masterplan could or should work (see comments below re timing of the Masterplan Framework). I have never seen any housing estate carved up by established hedgerows or indeed that uses hedgerows to define the development and protect the landscape. If this is indeed the intention, it strikes me as a naïve and a compromised approach to development.

As noted above, there remains no information on the form that the development might take in the short or long term and therefore it is impossible for residents to make an informed judgement on the benefits of schools, healthcare and landscaping for example. I attended a local consultation event in the hope that there might be information on this but it was scant to say the least. Colchester does not need any more sprawling, characterless housing estates with box-ticking 'community hubs', particularly outside the town. Unlike the proposals for the east of Colchester which offer a natural extension to the town, West Tey would add to the sprawl already extending to the west, ultimately resulting in an unattractive corridor of development between Stanway, Copford and Marks Tey and losing the identity of the existing settlements. Together with the proposals for Andrewsfield and extensions to Great Notley, the A120 corridor will become an almost continuous ribbon of large settlements, reaching from the west of Colchester to Braintree. Despite suggestions in the evidence base and Local Plan that 'buffers' will be created to separate existing villages and towns, the reality can already be seen from a visit to Stanway and Copford, which in turn merges into Marks Tey. West Tey, will then fill the gap between this continuous development to Coggeshall and Feering, both important historic villages. Policy SP9 provides no explanation on what is meant by a 'clear separation' with the historic village of Coggeshall and no mention at all of the neighbouring village of Great Tey, which features a number of listed buildings in both rural and village settings and which would be significantly affected by a sizeable community emerging next to it. Based on their approach in Stanway, I have no confidence that the Council will create any meaningful separation or that the setting of these important settlements will be protected. If, however, the Inspector agrees with the Council on the development of West Tey, I would urge them/the Council to add Great Tey to the list of settlements which would benefit from some form of separation in SP9 before the plan goes to the EiP stage.

I would add that I write this with little hope of achieving much of a shift in direction by the Council. Indeed, I was told by an officer a one of the local consultation events I attended that it was rare that the proposals set out in the plan will change. This has certainly been my observation given the representations made at the Preferred Options stage and the poor level of engagement for both drafts. Having experienced consultation processes in other boroughs, Colchester has done the absolute bare minimum, with no attempt to engage the public. There is no evidence of the plan being 'positively prepared' where interaction with the public is concerned. The timing of both consultations over busy holiday periods, the lack of information at the consultation event on the extent, form and timing of development at West Tey, the confusing reference to a smaller number of homes in this plan period and the apparent requirement to register to make comments makes it particularly inaccessible to people who do not have an understanding of the plan making process. It is unacceptable to expect local residents to form a view on a scheme with such a huge long-term impact based solely on an indicative area of search. Worse, Braintree and Colchester Councils do not appear to have even bothered to amalgamate their plans to indicate to residents what the overall area of search will be. They rely on residents to be able to find the two plans independently and piece them together with their own imagination. It is unnecessarily confusing and indicates a lack of understanding (or effort) on how to engage with local people.

To me, the Council has missed a unique opportunity to bring the community with them on this. They appear to have started on the premise that everyone will object without giving credit for some understanding on the need to provide additional homes and the benefits this could bring to Colchester and the wider area. I suspect there would be far more support for some development to the east and west of the town if the Council demonstrates that infrastructure can be provided in a timely fashion and what that development might start to look like. Active workshops with communities on what would make this accessible or to identify areas that people want to protect or indeed develop have worked successfully in other communities and on large scale projects. At the very least, an indicative masterplan should have been provided, perhaps for each option, so that residents could visualise the proposals and the extent of the area affected. Specific policy setting out the basic scope of the development (scale, location, residential accommodation, facilities etc) should be accompanying this consultation for the whole scheme rather than deferring it to a Masterplan Framework with no date set for adoption and after consultation on the Preferred Options when the principle of the development has effectively been accepted by the Council. There is simply not enough information for residents to judge how this would come forward and to make an informed decision, hence the natural reaction is to object to the whole scheme.

To summarise, a new settlement of anything from 15,000 to 24,000 is not justified and the process to reach those figures and identify the sites does not represent positive plan making. It has not been assessed against reasonable alternatives and from what I can see, is not based on a proportionate, robust and credible evidence base. On the contrary, the evidence points to a decision being made long ago by Members. The development company has already been set up and I have seen adverts for staff appointments in the industry press for planners and policy makers to manage the process. I suspect these are already in place. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Council intends to listen to residents, either now or in the future. I would urge the Council to revisit their consultation practices, to make them more inclusive and encourage meaningful debate. I hope the Inspector agrees that the plan is unsound, allowing the Council to take the time to consider the responses, look at the alternatives, engage properly and work up an appropriate level of information. This is a hugely significant proposal which will affect thousands of existing and future residents. It is therefore imperative that the Council listens to its residents and gets it right.

Whilst we recognise these are long term proposals they are dependent upon improvements to the A12 and A120 coming forward and the comments about the need for jobs, housing services, facilities and infrastructure coming ahead as the need develops is critical if a sustainable development is to be delivered. There is a strong interdependence between these proposals and the improvements to the A12 and A120 and it will be essential that we work together to achieve our strategic objectives and ensure the evidence base is robust..

We set out our concerns in full in the CAUSE representation:
http://www.cause4livingessex.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CAUSE-2017-Part-1-Consultation-response.pdf

This report explains why the decision to include three new garden settlements in the Local Plan is unsound, with papers as follows:
1. Detailed amendments required
2. Comments on Sustainability Appraisal
3. New towns: learning from the past
4. Positive vision for north Essex
5. OAN - unnecessary uplifts applied
6. Providing for employment
7. Rail constraints
8. Connectivity & infrastructure
9. Viability: West Tey's business case
10. West Tey: Costs & Risks
11. The deal for land-owners
12. Community engagement

CPRE Colchester Group are concerned that the Council is proposing major new settlements without the necessary mechanism for delivering those developments being in place. In our view, it is essential that before either East Colchester or West Tey is included in the plan, the necessary delivery vehicle, which should be led by the local authorities involved and in which all the proposed development land should be vested, is established.
It is not certain that at this stage this can be achieved.
In addition, it is not certain that the Council can ensure the necessary improvements to the A12, A120, or main line railway can be in place before development commences. Indeed we doubt that there is scope to improve the railway line sufficiently.

The RSPB supports the principle outlined in point x), in particular the reference to "enhancing biodiversity", which is consistent with national policy.

The principle of the development of new Garden Communities in order to meet objectively assessed need for housing in North Essex is sound, but specific objection is raised in respect of emerging proposals for their delivery. The officers' report to the Local Plan Committee recommending approval of the Publication Draft Local Plan and their advice to members at the meeting warned of the consequences of not delivering Garden Communities as part of the spatial strategy for growth. Without these the Council would struggle to meet its needs and not be able to maintain its historic track record of meeting its housing target. The report emphasised that the decision to consolidate longer term growth in large scale new communities will avoid the need to scatter a significant number of houses elsewhere in the borough in a piecemeal fashion. Even though the smaller sites when taken together would provide the same total of new homes, it would be more difficult to plan for infrastructure.

Policy SP7 refers briefly to principles of delivery as set out in the North Essex Garden Communities Charter. We submit that very little progress has been made on developing a Local Delivery Vehicle (LDV) for the proposed Colchester/Braintree Borders Garden Community. The text at paragraph 8.11 of the joint Plan confirms that the format for a delivery model remains very much in the early stages of discussion. Although promoters/landowners involved have expressed interest in principle to negotiate with the Council, a lack of detail on the delivery mechanism and the unrealistic values indicated to date have not been of sufficient attraction to secure the land or allow matters to progress.

With regard to principle (ii), support is extended to the pro-active and collaborative working between public and private sectors and to the promotion of (a) securing high quality place-making; (b) ensuring the timely delivery of both on-site and off-site infrastructure; and (c) providing and funding a mechanism for future stewardship, management, maintenance and renewal of community infrastructure and assets. However, such objectives can be achieved through traditional means of public/private partnership working and does not require the complications of a setting up a separate, ad-hoc local delivery vehicle. For example, Chelmsford City Council has experience of setting up a very successful delivery model at North East Chelmsford in the developments at Beaulieu and Channels, where 4,350 homes are being built with a full range of employment, retail, education and open space/green infrastructure together with major strategic transport and other infrastructure including a new station. This model is proposed to be extended in the emerging Local Plan in the proposed North East Chelmsford Garden Village for up to a further 5,500 homes and associated community and transport infrastructure. This is all being achieved without the need for a local delivery vehicle, which Chelmsford City Council considers to be unnecessary.

The Lord Kerslake Peer Review of the North Essex Authorities proposals for the 3 new Garden Communities, recognised the excellent example of cooperation between the Councils and progress made on an initiative of strategic national importance. However, it highlighted concerns with specific reference to LDVs. Delays to delivery and increasing debt levels were attributed in part to the consequence of a delivery model where the Councils take on the lead delivery role. As such the Review recommended that the Councils explore alternative models and funding options and consider a collaborative venture with a strategic partner who supports the principles that the Councils want to promote. The Review advised that a partnership with a developer or strategic finance partner would reduce the Councils' exposure and increase the capacity and resource available to the project.

It is accepted that a new Garden Community to deliver potentially up to 24,000 new homes will have a long lead-in time. This strategic proposal will need to be the subject of a separate site specific Development Plan Document, that will further delay delivery. In the light of this uncertainty and to avoid the long term planning blight of the area, a first phase of growth should be brought forward as an allocation on the Proposals Map and should be included within the housing trajectory in Section 2 of the Local Plan for Colchester. Land at East Marks Tey forms part of all four options for growth that have been tested by AECOM - the Council's consultants - for a new Garden Community at this location.

Technical assessments that form part of the Local Plan evidence base and those commissioned by Crest, indicate that there are no overriding obstacles to large scale growth at this location. Indeed there are many benefits to be had from early development on the site that will address opportunities and constraints identified by the Parish Council for Marks Tey and reflected in the emerging Plan. This early phase of growth can be served from the existing road network, will contribute towards the five year housing land requirement and enable the restoration of an important group of listed buildings centred on Marks Tey Hall, within the site. These represent an important group of buildings in need of urgent major repair and restoration.

Other local benefits resulting from all early phase of growth include:

* Improved public transport services.
* Walking and cycling facilities and links to be improved to bring about greater connectivity and reduce congestion.
* New homes to support the retail uses along London Road, adjoining the site.
* Opportunity to address parking and loading difficulties along London Road as well as traffic/pedestrian conflicts. Traffic calming proposals will help create an enhanced public realm.

Crest is a national housebuilder of considerable repute. It has a proven track record of delivering high quality places and sustainable new communities in accordance with Garden City Principles. Crest approaches strategic planning in a positive way and is totally committed to engagement with local planning authorities, local communities and other key stakeholders. It prides itself on the delivery of infrastructure and homes, within excellent timescales.

At the same time as progressing a first phase of growth on land at East Marks Tey it will be important to engage with the Council to ensure that this early development dovetails with the longer term growth of the wider Garden Community on the borders of Colchester and Braintree.

We support the proposed LDV and believe that a model, owned and led by a consortium of local authorities rather than traditional developers, allows for tighter control over development and the phasing of proposals for new communities across north Essex. However, the sheer scale of these proposals for three concurrent garden communities raises real concern about the ability and capacity of the new development company to manage and deliver all that is proposed in Section One of the Plan. As such, the effectiveness of the Plan is immediately called into doubt.

The Councils are proposing new delivery models which involve new Council controlled companies acquiring the necessary land and undertaking the planning application process. However, the policy does not make it clear what happens if this objective fails. For example, would policy allow the projects to be completed by the private sector? Whilst supporting the Councils' proposal for new delivery models this matter is of pivotal importance as it deals with the prospect of under delivery of new development over the next plan period or the viability of the plan itself and needs to be resolved at the Examination in Public.

In addition to adopting Garden Community Charter this bold new delivery agenda will also need to consider other factors relating to the speed of social and economic change. For example, dramatic changes in social media will facilitate much greater public involvement which will reduce dependence on traditional and allow greater public participation in what is delivered.

We understand the Councils' concerns with controlling what is delivered in the public interest, but this should not make the plan rigid, inflexible and potentially less sustainable regarding its social dimension. Emerging planning theory supports adaptive planning based on process rather than just the product. In order to facilitate a more natural urban landscape which has reacted to social and economic change, Garden Communities should be both resilient and adaptive. Because master plans cover long periods of time it is unrealistic to expect a scheme drawn up at the start of the process to remain unaltered. It would be more logical for the initial master plan to set a direction of travel which provides the foundation upon which future alterations can be made.

The Policy seeks to set out the mechanism for the Development and Delivery of the Garden Communities. In this regard it largely fails to achieve that objective. While there are some specific requirements such as cost sharing (xii), the rest of the Policy is a series of statements of intent rather than clear benchmarks by which to measure and assess each application. The Policy signally fails to refer to the question of viability and the relative importance of each of the principles. The Policy states that the design, development and delivery of each new garden Community will conform to the following principles with no reference to how to balance these with the inevitable issue of viability and infrastructure constraints. As such this is just one more example of the Authorities failure to come to terms with realities of the task they face in delivering the three Communities contrary to the NPPF(Paras 154 and 182)

See the attached Letter

See the attached Letter

see attached

The Council proposes to increase the percentage of affordable housing from 20% to 30% which is a significant step change and, we believe, not supported by
objective evidence.

A report is attached prepared by Thomas Hegan MRICS., Turner Morum Chartered Surveyors. It concludes: "I believe there are a number of insufficient cost inputs adopted within the 3-Dragon viability analysis which have a serious bearing on respective viability conclusions..... As a result I believe that
the 30% should therefore be reduced to 25%."

As this is the main policy setting out the guiding principles for the Garden Communities, it should include the 'Garden City Principles' if not already set out elsewhere (policy SP2 to which it should refer). The wording of the more detailed section on the requirements for each community and the design, development and delivery principles which it is expected to incorporate need to be more clearly and succinctly worded. The criteria set out in (i) to (xiv) are lengthy and repetitive and would benefit from clear headings and greater clarity. In respect of the necessary infrastructure provision, it should be made much clearer that this is a fundamental part of the early consideration of each proposed community and that a clear infrastructure phasing / implementation plan will be required to support their delivery. This phasing / implementation plan should commit to each phase being self sustaining and improving what exists to guard against the Garden Community stalling or taking longer than envisaged, it should be a clear requirement criteria rather than 'lost' in the second paragraph of the policy. There is little / no reference to considerations of existing communities, the impact on which should be assessed and appropriate mitigation and integration provided. This policy should also set criteria for the determination of the planned size of the Garden Communities. Size ranges are included in the proposals but no criteria that will determine their final size.

Neither of the two key decisions in this policy have been justified. 1) Proper justification is needed for the choice of garden communities as a development format which will deliver more infrastructure. 2) The choice of location for the communities takes no account of economic viability, infrastructure or jobs.

I support CAUSE's response.

Whilst we welcome the principles within this policy regarding the natural environment, we advise that green infrastructure should be delivered according to a set of defined standards, and we previously advised the use of our Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards (ANGSt). Whilst "net gain in local biodiversity" is mentioned, it is not identified how this might be achieved. We re-state our advice that the Local Plan policies should seek to achieve net-gain and deliver some of the priorities / targets in the Essex Biodiversity Action Plan, consistent with the NPPF paragraph 109. This could be achieved through enhancement and incorporation of biodiversity into the masterplan and detailed design of the Garden Communities, whilst avoiding any adverse impacts to nearby designates sites. Please also see our comments in Other Advice below on the Strategic Growth DPD, and our advice on paragraph 8.5 regarding policy commitment to a RAMS.

In terms of SP7, Persimmon Homes supports the creation of three new garden communities.

Given the emerging Local Plan is specific to Colchester Borough and the reliance upon two new garden community to deliver a sizable element of the housing and employment growth within the plan period (deliver 5000 dwellings during the Colchester Local Plan to 2033) it is considered that the consultation draft lacks sufficient detail regarding the preferred options for the Garden Communities.

Cross boundary new settlements require significant degrees of co‐operation and joint delivery arrangements. Whilst acknowledging the work done to date, there remains a significant risk that the scale and complexity of the planning and the delivery of the Garden Communities will delay their anticipated delivery.

It will be important that the Council appropriately resources and facilitates the timely delivery of the Development Plan Document for the Garden Community.

Persimmon Homes are promoting land at Buildings Farm for residential development, either as a stand along allocation for inclusion within the Tendring/Colchester Borders Garden Community.

Garden Communities
Our concerns raised in the July 2016 consultation remain. As far as we can see, there has not been a demonstrable consideration of the impact of any such policy on the historic environment. Whilst the local plan sets out that the proposed developments will follow TCPA Garden City Principles, there is no specific consideration for the historic environment within these principles. The Draft Sustainability Appraisal (SA): Environmental Report - June 2017 (page 180) acknowledges that "it can be expected that Garden Communities and New Towns will have a greater possibility of impacting on a larger number of assets due to their scale." For this reason, it is essential that the local plan should contain a framework to guide how the boundaries and extent of the garden communities are determined in the subsequent development plan documents. Historic Impact Assessments should be undertaken in accordance with our advice note 3 Site Allocations in Local Plans for each of the proposed broad locations to determine the appropriateness or otherwise of the locations for development, the extent of the development and therefore potential capacity of the sites, the impacts upon the historic environment (considering each asset and its setting and its significance), impacts of development upon the asset and any potential mitigation measures necessary to accompany the proposals. Appropriate criteria for the protection of heritage assets and their settings need to be included in each of the policies and supporting text for the Garden Communities.

Paras 8.11 and 8.14
The first sentence of each of these paragraphs are the same.

Paras 8.2 to 8.6
These paragraphs do not refer to the potential for detrimental impacts on heritage assets. Given the presence of heritage assets within or in the vicinity of the identified areas for garden communities it is considered that reference should be made in these paragraphs of the Plan to the need to have appropriate regard to the existence of heritage assets in the areas and the need for proposals to have no unacceptable impact on them. It is considered that the location and design of garden communities should be informed in the first place by the potential to assimilate the proposals into the landscape without unacceptable detrimental impacts on designated historic and natural assets. See our comments regarding HIA for Garden Communities above.

Policy SP7 - Development and Delivery of New Garden Communities in Essex
The policy contains nothing about how the extent of the garden communities will be determined. It states that the garden communities will deliver a certain number of homes signaling that the new settlements will be housing led rather than considering the landscape and heritage assets and delivering development that has regard to these assets and which would not allow development in certain constrained areas. As such the development plan documents for each settlement should be required, through inclusion of an additional criterion in Policy SP7, to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment in accordance with our advice note 3 Site Allocations in Local Plans in order to assess impact of the proposed allocation upon the historic environment, to inform the appropriate extent of the development and establish any mitigation measures necessary. This might include appropriate safeguarding buffers around heritage assets such as historic parks and gardens, scheduled monuments, conservation areas and listed buildings and identify how the historic environment and heritage assets can form part of the development of successful schemes. See our comments regarding HIA for Garden Communities above.

We are naturally concerned at the likely impact of the extra traffic generated by the housing developments, especially given the unlikeliness of 'rapid transit' and the unprecedently low 30% of journeys by car claim.

Currently such work as has been done on the traffic impact of the developments is hidden away in supporting documents unintelligible to non-traffic-engineers, and only available in low-res form with the vital details blurred.

If the hearing process is to be able to establish the practicability of these developments in traffic terms, the Councils must be made to produce an evidence document of an intelligible nature showing traffic impacts under both the normal 60-70% level of car use and the 30% split* claimed for these developments. And not just for the 2,500-house situations as done so far, but also for the full 30,000+ houses situation.

Or is intended to just ignore now what will happen after the 2033 house numbers and leave it to the next generation to sort out the mess? (including the possibility of having to halt the developments at well below the intended numbers, because of intolerable traffic impacts, in which case many of the local facilities would no doubt not appear either).

* The model has in fact already been run for both these situations for 2033 (2,500 houses in each community).

1. I do not think the documents and consultation process represents a true consultation, since in volume and complexity it is inaccessible to most residents.
2. I do not think housing need has been properly assessed. Most housing need comes in the form of affordability, particularly in the coming period. We are about to enter a time when there will be some decades of economic instability. Future forecasting has not been considered in this document. We have examples nationwide of housing estates being unsellable. The problems of housing need also emerge when considering the scale of the development. I agree that density is a good idea, and properly done could be a real asset, but density isn't the same as 4000-9000 houses being built on the edge of Colchester. The hideous example of housing development in the Hythe is an example of what shouldn't be done.
3. I question whether legal loopholes in ensuring infrastructure will be delivered has been properly assessed.
4. I do not think sufficient attention has been paid to sustainable and innovative design. This is partly a product of working with particular developers churning out standard North Essex design rather than considering smaller and more innovative housing providers. Another option could be self-build, various housing options with low construction costs, shared facilities, live/work spaces and so on. Housing, in other words, that has the potential to build economically sustainable communities and contribute to growth too.

Essex Chamber of Commerce are happy to support in principle much of what is contained in the draft local plans and in particular for section one relating to the north Essex strategic Section One.

We recognise that the proposed garden communities are a response to the Government's desire to see growth in new housing coupled with the desire by the three local authorities to continue grow their local economies.

Given the long term nature of these developments we believe that it is important for these proposed developments to include suitable provision for employment, healthcare and education and that sites for these should be developed early in the early in the construction and not after many of the proposed dwellings have been occupied.

We also believe that construction of infrastructure needs to be undertaken at the earliest opportunity in these developments especially with regard to road access. The existing networks in the areas of these schemes already suffer from congestion, especially at peak times , and would be unlikely to cope with increased traffic from the developments. We would expect also expect that given the increasing growth in homeworking that high speed broadband is installed throughout the communities at the start of their construction.