Policy SP10: West of Braintree Garden Community

As long as Infrastructure is improved prior to housing development

Policy SP10 is not sound.
Section E Community Infrastructure 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."

Reference is made to an improvements to waste water treatment and off-site improvements to the foul sewerage network which is welcomed.

It would be helpful to refer to the phasing of improvements to align the scale and timing of the proposed garden community given that development is expected to come forward after 2033.

The size and scale of the development is disproportionate to the rural nature of the area, A significant amount of Grade 2 agricultural land would be used for the final stages of this development.
The current infrastructure does not support this planned development. It will have a significant impact on additional traffic/rail travel.

Point 20 only seeks the "Protection and/or enhancement of heritage and biodiversity assets". This is not consistent with the NPPF (para 156) or Policy SP7.

West Braintree benefits from and supports the strategic employment zones of Skyline 120 and Panfield Lane, and being located to the west of town, is well placed for employment at Stansted, where sustainable transport solutions are proposed. However, the integrity of existing settlements, such as, Rayne and Stebbing would be under great threat from the proximity of the proposals for large scale housing developments on their borders.

To commit to the NGCs at this early stage would be premature and likely to put at risk the soundness of the Local Plan to deliver in the Plan period to 2033. If at a later date any one or more of the three NGCs proves to be deliverable and viable at a given scale that exceeds the 2500 in the current Plan then this should be brought forward with supporting evidence in a separate DPD at some point in the future, but preferably before development is commenced on any initial phase.

Re: SP10 and West of Braintree Garden Community

Finance Considerations

The national debt is at an all time high and still increasing. Wages have stagnated for the last 10 years and average family debt is at record levels. Surely we should acknowledge our situation and plan future large developments carefully and in the most appropriate manner to minimise waste and inefficiency going forward? What is preventing us learning from past mistakes? e.g. Private Finance Initiative for NHS Hospitals and the National Program for IT in NHS- both examples of failure on a spectacular scale costing the public purse £billions. Now we are embarking on yet another centrally pushed out Government initiative without the serious consideration it requires.

Financial inducements can easily distort rational process with the result the project ends up costing way beyond what was originally planned. Where is the evidence that building garden and communities offers most cost-effective solution to a housing needs?

"The reason the banking system got into trouble was that as they expanded, they did so with borrowed money rather than raising new capital."

Mervyn King August 2017 BBC News

Are we using public money to facilitate housing supply in the most cost effective way by building 'Garden Communities' when there is no clear identified need to do so and better options to supply housing in a more cost efficient, faster and more appropriate way already exist? Why has this route been chosen and where is the evidence?

Has this come about by the Government's misguided attempt to encourage Councils to build large development's under the guise of 'Garden Communities' even though this cannot be considered an appropriate local solution as measured from the complete lack of any community support.

When considering the location for the Garden Community at West of Braintree clear advice was provided to the Government from commissioned reports. A report by Westminster University (*2015) gives clear such guidance on this issue. It advises for reasons of viability and sustainability NOT to choose to place a garden community on an isolated location, without good access to public transport and away from sources of employment as this would non viable and not sustainable. Why then has Braintree district Council chosen to completely ignore this advice?

We currently have insufficient capacity in the health service to manage our demand and there is an ongoing review within Mid Essex Hospitals to make savings of £200 million. At a time when our public services are overstretched and underfunded it would reckless to undertake projects which require unnecessary large infrastructure and capital costs which will be paid for by even more borrowing from the public purse. This is not sustainable and would be unfair by loading the debt onto the younger generation.

There has been no open disclosure of land values. Clearly if the purchase price is not known or agreed at the start it is not possible to work out whether the project is viable. Also if the agreed land purchase price is not agreed at the start of planning it will inevitably increase as dependency on the project increases after alternative options are discarded.

From researching the expected land price appears to be around the £150k to £170k per acre mark. I understand this is about a factor of ten times the price the land would fetch as agricultural land. Therefore the landowners would enjoy an enormous uplift in profit on the back of providing infrastructure paid for by the state and the housing provided in turn would not be affordable due to the additional high infrastructure cost. This places the development at extreme risk of becoming insolvent unless further public money was accessible.

I can find no comparative analysis regarding location and overall cost benefits of building garden communities versus developments using the huge amount of land currently available to BDC which is spread over approximately 300 sites around the district. BDC appear to have simply made subjective assessments without any clear rationale other than the sites are too small to support a five year building program. Clearly this is being done to fit in with Government incentives rather than any rational reason. However this translates to wanton destruction of our countryside and amenities, to meet housing targets for political reasons only. This is clearly not acceptable. We need to build for the future but we must make the maximum use of all the expertise and experience at our disposal to design and build appropriately with high efficiency and avoiding causing problems for future generations. The fact is we have more than enough land to build on to cater for all areas of the population but by restricting development to just a few large greenfield sites we risk delays in delivery, unaffordable housing and un-imaginable traffic congestion. It is not difficult to visualise the problems of several thousand cars trying to leave or return to an isolated site with only two points of access.

Public involvement in assessing locations has not taken place. Why has there not been a public consultation over the location of these huge projects? There is a public consultation on the route of the A120 but there does not appear to have been one for the 'Garden Communities'. How can this be legal?

At each stage BDC appear to be acting as if this plan has already been agreed and the deal has been done. I note that North Essex Garden Communities Ltd was set up in advance of the BDC Council vote on 5 June 2017. Why did this happen before a decision to proceed was taken? I expected the meeting on 5 June to be preoccupied with discussion of the 'Garden Communities' however only a small fraction of the meeting was allocated to the Draft Plan -the Vote to go ahead with West of Braintree Garden Community took approximately 20 mins out of a meeting lasting 3+ hours. How can building a new town be delivered successfully with this level of consideration and engagement?

I have spoken directly to Patrick Owen at the DCLG and he has confirmed personally that the DCLG are actively supporting BDC with funding for this which creates a clear 'bias' in decision making. This cannot be by any standard a fair and legal process. BDC need to disclose ALL their funding support as this actively discriminates against using brownfield sites which might be smaller but perfectly usable, but do not attract funding support. Furthermore the sites may require a lot less capital investment for infrastructure and hold much less risk for public borrowing. From the call for sites scoping report it is clear that BDC have a huge reserve of available land to build on. By using all the brownfield sites first we would have a faster supply of housing with much greater choice and much less car dependency as per NPPF policy. More housing = lower costs and greater affordability.

Where is the assessment of reasonable alternatives? Lord Kerslake report on Essex Garden Communities: 'Peak debt could reach £481million with building starting in 2022 and no net positive position until 2053'. We recommend that the councils explore alternative models and funding options'
Why has this not been undertaken?

The planned housing numbers for North Essex contain uplifts which do not appear to have any sensible justification. They are out of context when compared to development in other counties. The councils are wholly focused on housing numbers regardless of community engagement. Why is public engagement being ignored while at the same time the public are being fed a message which is both misleading and false. The argument is not about the need for housing, (we all know this!) it is about where it is most effective, beneficial and appropriate for local needs.

As an index measure of engagement how much of the £640,000 given to BDC by the DCLG has been spent on publicity for purposes of getting engagement from the public and the local community. I have not seen even just one poster in the local village shops for example.

The population demographics are figures based more on migration rather than direct local increase in population. We are in effect trying to cater for housing needs outside of the county's direct needs. As a result the estimate for jobs and growth in the area will be seriously flawed as the main use of the housing will be for migratory workers and not local workers. In turn we create unnecessary traffic, pollution, accidents and overwhelm local hospitals-all against sustainable living and improving lives for future generations as per NPPF policy.
However the government's main interest in promoting the Garden Communities will be in the pace of the delivery. Ironically this is likely to be slower with Garden Communities rather than multiple smaller developments.
Furthermore restricting development will only serve developers interests and maintain unaffordable house prices for the younger generation. BDC have deliberately chosen to label traditional developments as 'inappropriate infill housing' -Where is the evidence for this? What do they mean by this and can they provide examples? Why have they suddenly changed direction with their very aggressive pursuit of Garden Communities to the exclusion of other perfectly rational, sensible but perhaps smaller developments?
There has been little if any stated conservative considerations of amenities or natural assets from the outset. This has arisen from 'blobs on map' approach to planning. This is despite the process to be 'plan led' according to the NPPF. How can you pass major development projects without a plan at the start?


'Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. To this end, they should be consistent with the principles and policies set out in this Framework, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development.'


'Identify land where development would be inappropriate, for instance because of its
environmental or historic significance; and contain a clear strategy for enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, and
supporting Nature Improvement Areas where they have been identified'

West of Braintree Garden Community is sited on an active and historic airfield which holds a very high reputation for pilot training. The airfield holds high amenity value, is a local asset to the community and plays a vital role in both training and maintaining a vital network for general aviation in the U.K.

I have made several enquiries to BDC over the safeguarding of the airfield. However BDC each time have simply stated there is no legal protection and dismissed the issue. As such I remain very concerned over the cavalier approach by BDC in looking after the local community and safeguarding valuable assets for future generations. Their focus is simply housing numbers without considered thought or active engagement with their local community. Clearly this is a recipe for disaster and is the reason why I have actively raised my concerns here.

For all of the above reasons SP10 Garden Community at West of Braintree is neither sound, justified or sustainable. The SP10 is aspirational and promises much but it does not address key issues in an open and transparent way.


Dr Michael Frost

Garden Cities, Garden Suburbs and Urban Extensions. University of Westminster. Highbury Group Feedback on TCPA Report: Creating Garden Cities and Garden Suburbs Today

Key Conclusions:
That urban extensions and new settlements with proximate connections to existing towns and cities are more likely to achieve sustainable communities and housing growth than new stand alone garden cities. They are more likely to have access to employment opportunities and to existing transport and social infrastructure. As the Government is not in a position to direct the location of new employment provision, residential communities should be developed where there is good public transport access to existing employment opportunities, in areas which are economically strong and which are likely to see employment growth in the future.

This is in 100% direct contravention of BDC's WoB Proposal for a 'Garden Community'

Policy SP7 (v) has an absolute target of 30% affordable housing. However, Policies SP8 Part B, SP9 and SP10 states 'including a minimum of 30% affordable housing'. Persimmon Homes object to Policies SP8 Part B, SP9 and SP10 reference to the affordable housing target being a 'minimum'. The Local Plan must set out clearly the target it is seeking to achieve and, in line with Para 173 of the NPPF, assess the implications for development viability having regard to the scale of obligations and policy burdens of the development plan as a whole.

It is considered that an uncapped target does not provide certainty and could place a policy burden that would threaten viability. The market and purchasing decisions factor in policy requirements and not having clarity would give rise to significant uncertainty that would not assist delivery.

The site illustrated in Map 10.2A of the Braintree Publication Draft Local Plan but not published in the Colchester Publication Draft Local Plan contains a number of listed buildings including groups of listed buildings in clusters of development within the area. It also verges on the Registered Park and Garden at Salling Grove. The proposed garden community could have a significant detrimental impact on the setting of these heritage assets. Part F (para 20) should be strengthened and amended to include reference to the heritage assets and the need to have regard to their setting when preparing more detailed planning frameworks for the site.

The policy contains no indication as to how the extent of the garden communities will be determined. It states that the garden communities will deliver a certain number of homes signalling 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 SP9, to define appropriate safeguarding buffers around heritage assets such as registered 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.

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

Yours faithfully,
DC McNab
Douglas McNab MRTPI
Forward Planning Manager

Part 3 of SP8, SP9 and SP10 are unsound as they are not consistent with national policy

We welcome the identification of three new settlements across the North Essex HMA. This shows not only a commitment to delivering housing not only for this plan period but beyond 2033. However, we do have a point of consistency to raise about the target for affordable housing in each new settlement. In SP7 the target of 30% is clearly set out in part v. However, in Policy SP8 and Policy SP9 these targets are set out is minimums.
An essential part of the local plan is to provide certainty to the applicants and to decision makers with regard to new development. Placing a minimum on the affordable housing requirement suggests that a higher proportion may be applicable and is purely a starting point for negotiation. The local plan must be clear as to the target it is seeking provide a clear signal to the market that can be factored in by developers when acquiring land. To make these policies sound the affordable housing requirement in SP8, SP9 and SP10 should not be set as minimums.

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.

see attached statement

Maldon District Council Comments

Section 1
Transport
The sections on improved road infrastructure and strategic highway connections and improved junctions on the A12 and other main roads are supported.

However, the A12 junction improvements at Marks Tey must be designed and built to accommodate the total proposed 24,000 homes in the Garden Community not just that planned for this plan period.

Due to the expected increase in leisure & recreation pressure on adjoining Districts (in particular the Dedham Vale AONB and the River Blackwater), arising from the strategic growth and Garden Communities planned in North Essex, S106/CIL contributions from these developments should include contributions towards cycle and footpath routes to enable non-car access to leisure and recreation destinations in adjoining districts.

Education
School pupils are shared across district boundaries. S106 agreements must take into account the impact on schools in Maldon District. Funding should be directed to the schools affected by the strategic growth in North Essex, even if the schools concerned are in adjacent districts.
[Effective]

Paragraph seems to have a repeated sentence/ or missing text. This paragraph needs to be revised.
[Effective]

Recreational Avoidance and Mitigation Strategies (RAMS) must cover the relevant designated sites in adjoining districts, as the recreation & leisure impacts of the strategic growth and Garden Communities will extend beyond the Borough's borders.

The supporting text needs to be revised to acknowledge that recreational and leisure impacts will be cross-boundary, and that the RAMS should also be cross-boundary, not solely focused on designated sites within the three council areas.

The impact of the Marks Tey Garden Community, in particular, on the Blackwater Estuary must be included within the scope of the Strategy.

Maldon District Council would wish to be involved in the development of the RAMS for the Braintree and Colchester Local Plans and Garden Communities.
[Effective]

The employment allocations for the Garden Communities should be explicitly stated in policy SP7 alongside the housing allocations. Without sufficient employment land being allocated and developed, the Garden Communities will become commuter settlements, not functional, sustainable communities.
[Effective]

Garden Communities - the policies map only shows 'strategic areas for development'. As the planning of the Garden Communities has been delegated down to a Strategic Growth DPD, the strategic areas as shown on the policies maps can be indicative only. It is insufficient to allocate 7,500 homes to these Garden Communities in this plan period, based on an indicative area. To provide more certainty, these areas should be defined more clearly on the Local Plan policies maps.

The employment allocation for the Garden Community should be explicitly stated in this policy alongside the housing allocations. Without sufficient employment land being allocated and developed, the Garden Communities will become commuter settlements, not functional, sustainable communities.
[Effective]

Garden Communities - the policies map only shows 'strategic areas for development'. As the planning of the Garden Communities has been delegated down to a Strategic Growth DPD, the strategic areas as shown on the policies maps can be indicative only. It is insufficient to allocate 7,500 homes to these Garden Communities in this plan period, based on an indicative area alone. To provide more certainty, these areas should be defined more clearly on the Local Plan policies maps.

The employment allocation for the Garden Community should be explicitly stated in this policy alongside the housing allocations. Without sufficient employment land being allocated and developed, the Garden Communities will become commuter settlements, not functional, sustainable communities.

The impact of a 24,000 home development at Marks Tey, on leisure and recreational facilities and infrastructure in adjoining districts needs to be calculated and planned for. For example, contributions to cycle and footpath routes to the coast and other recreational facilities should be sought, to enable non-car access to recreational and leisure destinations.

The roads infrastructure, including any A12 junction improvements must be designed to accommodate the traffic from the full 24,000 home Marks Tey Garden Community, not just the first phase of development as identified in this Plan.
[Effective]

Garden Communities - the policies map only shows 'strategic areas for development'. As the planning of the Garden Communities has been delegated down to a Strategic Growth DPD, the strategic areas as shown on the policies maps can be indicative only. It is insufficient to allocate 7,500 homes to these Garden Communities in this plan period, based on an indicative area. To provide more certainty, these areas should be defined more clearly on the Local Plan policies maps.

The employment allocation for the Garden Community should be explicitly stated in this policy alongside the housing allocations. Without sufficient employment land being allocated and developed, the Garden Communities will become commuter settlements, not functional, sustainable communities.
[Effective]

Section 2 Colchester Borough Policies
Only 4.5 ha of employment land is expected to come forward within Colchester Borough in the Garden Communities, which are intended to deliver 2,600 homes in Colchester's Housing Trajectory in this plan period. Without sufficient employment land being allocated and developed, the Garden Communities will become commuter settlements, not functional, sustainable communities.

The expected delivery of over 126,000 sqm of B1 office space is ambitious. It is unclear as to whether there is sufficient market demand for this level of allocation outside of Greater London. The ELNA Executive Summary (14th bullet) states that :
'In light of the quantitative surplus of office land to meet future business needs over the plan period, there would appear to be limited scope for identifying/allocating new land for office development over the next few years in Colchester based on current levels of business demand and rental values/viability, particularly outside of key employment areas such as Colchester Business Park and town centre'

It is not clear in the draft Plan, whether there has been any analysis of employment land requirements against housing provision. The approach to employment provision within the Garden Communities, suggests not.

It is not clear how the allocation of existing mixed-use employment areas (eg Hythe Quay, Magdalen Street and Hawkins Road, policies EC2, EC3,) for housing has been taken into account in the calculation for employment land.
[Effective]

Tiptree expansion - The Neighbourhood Plan allocation for 600 homes is in addition to the existing commitments for 400 homes in the village.

The B1022 through Tiptree is a through route to/from Colchester and Maldon District, and provides a vital alternative route when the A12 is closed. The B1023 (Inworth Road) provides access to/from the A12 via Feering and Kelvedon for the north of Maldon District. To the south of Tiptree, Braxted Park Road gives access to/from the A12 at Rivenhall End, via the grade II listed Appleford Bridge. This provides a direct route to/from the A12, however the bridge creates a major pinch point along this route. Off Braxted Park Road, Maldon Road provides access to/from Kelvedon and from there, the A12, via a narrow, single-track Grade II listed bridge. The proposed 600 new dwellings in the village, to be brought forward in the Neighbourhood Plan, along with the existing commitments for 400 homes, must not compromise these transport routes. Improvements should be made to these feeder routes to/from the A12, to ensure that the additional traffic generated by the planned 1,000 home expansion of Tiptree does not detrimentally impact these important routes.

Increased traffic movements on Braxted Park Road to/from Rivenhall and Maldon Road to/from Kelvedon, as a result of the expansion of Tiptree, must not cause harm to either of the listed bridges over the River Blackwater (Appleford Bridge on Braxted Park Road and the bridge on Maldon Road at the junction with Ewell Hall Chase).

Further, the policy states that:
'in cases where a Neighbourhood Plan fails at any time prior to being made, responsibility for all planning policy matters within that plan area will revert back to the Local Planning Authority.'
For the villages where the Neighbourhood Plan will be bringing forward significant levels of development, should this statement have a set date, to ensure that the proposed development comes forward in the expected timeframe? The Plan should be clear on how the LPA will bring forward this development in the event of a Neighbourhood Plan failure, whether through a DPD or a review of the Local Plan, including whether the proposed allocation will be redistributed if the NP allocations prove unachievable.
[Effective]

The housing trajectory and the housing provision table on pg 72 of the draft Local Plan are not as transparent or as clearly explained as they could be, and give rise to uncertainty over the delivery of housing in the plan. This could result in additional land being allocated elsewhere in the Borough that could have an impact on Maldon District.

It is not possible to reconcile the data in the table on pg 72 with the published housing trajectory.

The housing trajectory 'existing commitments' includes 802 units coming from 'applications pending.' This term needs explanation. If this means that the applications are pending consideration, then including these sites in the housing trajectory would appear to prejudice the lawful decision making process on these applications. Alternatively, if 'application pending' means that no planning application has been received, but is expected, then the site should be allocated in the plan, rather than be included within the existing commitments, and again would suggest that the applications have been predetermined. Either scenario increases the uncertainty regarding the delivery of these sites. Without these 802 units, the housing provision in the table on pg72 falls to 14,261 units, which is below the OAN of 14,720 units.

The 'existing commitments' figure includes existing allocations from the 2010 Site Allocations DPD. The majority of these are existing mixed-use employment areas (eg Hythe Quay, Magdalen Street and Hawkins Road, policies EC2, EC3). Many of these sites are not expected to deliver housing until 2027/28, meaning that they will have been allocated for over 17 years by the time they are redeveloped. It is particularly noticeable that the housing trajectory predicts that the Garden Communities will start to deliver housing before all but one of the existing allocations. This approach of allocating sites that are unavailable in the long term is questionable. This uncertainty puts further pressure on the housing delivery target, as these allocations have a capacity of 1,314 dwellings. If these sites do not come forward, the Local Plan will not be able to meet its OAN.

The housing provision table pg 72 does not include a rural exceptions site for 15 units at Layer de la Haye. As a result, the table does not add up. The table should have a footnote to this effect.

The 5YHLS supply does not include a slippage/non-implementation rate. There is no evidence in the 5YHLS or the AMR 2016 on historic expiry rates for planning permissions in the Borough. The implication is that no planning permissions in Colchester Borough ever expire.
[Justified/Effective]

The draft Local Plan does not include a review mechanism or trigger for a whole or partial review of the Plan. As a significant portion of the housing development in this plan is reliant on a number of large sites, if these sites do not come forward as expected, the delivery of the Plan could be impacted. Therefore, a review mechanism should be included in the Plan. For example:

If the Authority Monitoring Report demonstrates that the Garden Communities and the allocations deliver less than 75% of their projected housing completions in three consecutive years (based on the trajectory set out in this Plan), the Council will undertake a partial review of this Plan.
[Effective]

Maldon District Council has no comments to make on the SA/SEA.