TA must be integrated and supported

agree

Draft Policy E5 of the POLP recognises the significant importance of Colchester Zoo as a major visitor attraction and its ongoing need to update and refresh its offer. Colchester Zoo welcomes the objectives of the policy in supporting its aspirations for sustainable growth, including the safeguarding of land for potential future expansion, having regard to the Zoo’s environmentally sensitive location. Policy E5 would replace the existing allocation under the adopted Policy WC3 of the Colchester Borough Local Plan 2017–2033.
It is noted that the area allocated under Policy E5 of the POLP has been reduced compared with the previous allocation under adopted Local Plan Policy WC3, with sections along the southern boundary of Colchester Zoo’s ownership omitted from the proposed allocation. While these omitted areas have associated environmental sensitivities, including areas of higher flood risk, and an Area of Particular Importance for Biodiversity, as identified within The Essex Local Nature Recovery Strategy, there appears to be no clear justification provided for the reduction in the site allocation.
As the Council will be aware, Colchester Zoo is progressing a masterplan for its future expansion and associated facilities, which is already well advanced. The proposed reduction in the site allocation cuts across the Zoo’s ownership boundaries and could constrain its ability to deliver the aspirations, including potential ecological enhancements, as set out in the emerging masterplan, and contrary to the requirements the policy. We therefore recommend that the boundary of the proposed Policy E5 of the POLP be realigned to match that of the current adopted Policy WC3, which in turn would better align with existing land ownership boundaries shown on the accompanying plan (Colchester Zoo - Ownership & Masterplan Extents (Drwg. No. P21225-00-GIL-0800) appended to these comments. This provides maximum flexibility for incorporating biodiversity enhancements into any proposals that come forward. It also ensures these areas are properly safeguarded from other forms of development.
The policy states:
'The area shown on the policies map defined as the core zoo and expansion area will be safeguarded for potential further expansion of Colchester Zoo to provide additional facilities associated with the Zoo’s vision for growth. Development for zoo purposes outside of the area defined will not be supported'.
While the future expansion and development of the zoo is likely to come forward over a number of years, the suggestion that 'development for zoo purposes outside of the area defined will not be supported' is overly restrictive and not consistent with the positive approach and presumption in favour of sustainable development advocated within national policy guidance (NPPF Dec. 2024, Section 2). Colchester Zoo’s land ownership extends well beyond the area currently allocated, and development proposals should be assessed on their individual merits. The fact that a proposal may lie outside the defined allocation should not, in itself, preclude support. Instead, such proposals should be determined in accordance with the policies of the development plan as a whole, taking into account all relevant material considerations, as would apply to development proposals by any other applicant or development not associated with purposes of the zoo.
We therefore recommend that the wording 'Development for zoo purposes outside of the area defined will not be supported' is either deleted or amended to better reflect national policy and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Otherwise, Colchester Zoo will have development constraints that do not apply to other sites in the District. Outside of the allocation, Colchester Zoo should be treated equally with other landowners.
The policy requires a comprehensive, master-planned approach to the growth of the Zoo to ensure that development can be delivered with appropriate consideration and mitigation in relation to a number of key criteria (a–h) addressing various issues. Considering these criteria, we provide the following responses:
a) Appropriate control over development affecting Scheduled Ancient Monuments and archaeological resource within the site would be achieved under Policies EN6 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) and EN7 (Archaeology). This criterion therefore appears to apply unnecessary duplication of policy control, contrary to the tests set out within the NPPF (paragraph 16).
b) Potential impacts on landscape character and setting are separately addressed under Policy LC1 (Landscape). While the policy text includes reference to more local considerations, requiring proposals to conserve and restore the wooded river valley landscape through the management and protection of ancient woodland, the promotion of natural regeneration to extend woodland cover where appropriate, and the protection and enhancement of lowland meadow on the valley floor, this criterion largely duplicates existing policy requirements and is therefore considered unnecessary.
c) Appropriate control over development and potential impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity, including Local Wildlife Sites, would be achieved under Policies EN1 (Nature Conservation Designated Sites), EN2 (Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and Environmental Net Gain) and EN3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity). This criterion therefore appears to apply unnecessary duplication of policy control.
d) Impacts on the Highway network including the wider strategic and local network are separately addressed Policy PC2 (Active and Sustainable Travel) and the criterion appears to again duplicate policy control in this regard.
We note that policy criterion also requires contributions towards improvements at the Maldon Road/Warren Lane junction. This appears somewhat broad reaching and would appear to apply to development types that may not necessarily intensify the use of the site or increase traffic such that it would have impact on Maldon Road/Warren Lane junction, such as development of improved ancillary facilities. In such circumstances we would consider that such contributions would not be justified. We would therefore recommend that the statement is caveated to allow for instances of minor development or development that does not have implications for highways impacts
e) Criterion e) in relation to provision for safe access to the site, appears wholly unnecessary as it would either be covered under criterion d) or Policy PC2 (Active and Sustainable Travel).
f) While the provision of a linked off-road cycle route connecting the Zoo with Gosbecks Archaeological Park to facilitate sustainable modes of travel is noted, this criterion should be amended so as not to preclude or unduly limit the consideration of other sustainable transport measures that may support future development proposals.
g) Appropriate control over development and the requirement for appropriate SuDS for managing surface water runoff within the overall design and layout of the site, would be achieved through Policy EN8 (Flood Risk and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)). This criterion therefore appears to apply unnecessary duplication of policy control.
h) The wording of criterion h) is ambiguous in relation to development proposals needing to be proportionate and related to the function of the zoo. Greater clarity is required as to the scale of development that would be considered proportionate to the function of the zoo. Further that the criterion appears to replicate control that would be achieved under POLP policy CS5 (Tourism, Leisure, Arts, Culture and Heritage).
As discussed above, several of the criteria set out within Policy E5 appear to duplicate requirements already addressed elsewhere in the development plan, contrary to the tests in the NPPF (paragraph 16), which seek to avoid unnecessary repetition of policy. While the intention to provide greater clarity regarding the requirements associated with the allocation is welcomed, good practice would be to clearly cross-reference the relevant policies rather than replicate policy controls, thereby avoiding perceived duplication and ensuring internal consistency within the plan.
Within the fourth paragraph the policy also states that: 'Any proposals must comply with and not prejudice the delivery of the agreed masterplan'. We would suggest flexibility in the proposed wording i.e. '…the delivery of any agreed masterplan', as a masterplan is yet to be agreed.
The policy states that:
'It will need to be demonstrated that any proposals, when considered both alone and in combination with other planned development for the Zoo (whether such proposals currently benefit from planning consent or not), will not give rise to unacceptable impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to, the key considerations outlined above'.
Each planning application should be determined on its own merits. It is unclear what justification there is for requiring the assessment of cumulative impacts arising from development that does not benefit from planning permission and which, although potentially envisaged for the future, may never in fact be realised. It is also unclear how cumulative impacts can reasonably be assessed for development proposals that have yet to be subject to the planning process.
That said, we recognise that there are circumstances where other existing or approved development may be relevant in determining whether significant effects are likely to arise from a proposed development. In such cases, local planning authorities should have regard to potential cumulative effects arising from existing or approved development, consistent with the approach set out in national guidance, including the National Planning Practice Guidance in relation to Environmental Impact Assessment screening (NPPG, Paragraph: 024 Reference ID: 4-024-20170728).
We therefore recommend that the wording 'whether such proposals currently benefit from planning consent or not', is either deleted or amended to better reflect national policy guidance in relation to consideration of potential cumulative impacts arising from development.
In relation the above the policy goes on to further state that:
'Where possible adverse impacts are identified when considering any proposal, either alone or in combination with other planned development for the Zoo, adequate mitigation will need to be provided'.
This statement provides little clarity to developers and appears largely redundant, duplicating existing policy controls. Where specific issues are identified, it would be expected that any adverse impacts, whatever their nature, would be addressed through the application of the relevant policies of the development plan, thereby ensuring that appropriate mitigation is secured.
The final paragraph requires wintering bird surveys to be undertaken at the appropriate time of year to identify any offsite functional habitat before planning consent is granted. While appropriate assessment of potential impacts should be required where development proposals would either have a direct impact on habitats suitable for wintering birds or development of a nature that might impact on such areas of habitat, this requirement appears overly onerous if applied to all forms of proposed development. The requirement for wintering bird surveys should be amended to provide a proportionate and flexible approach, ensuring that surveys are not required where development proposals would clearly have no significant impact on habitats suitable for wintering birds.
Amendments recommended:
• The area of the site allocation should be updated to reflect the ownership boundaries of Colchester Zoo.
• The wording 'Development for zoo purposes outside of the area defined will not be supported' should either deleted or amended to better reflect national policy and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and to bring planning controls in line with other landowners outside of the allocation.
• Criterion a) should be removed as this is covered under Policies EN6 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) and EN7 (Archaeology).
• Criterion b) should also be removed as this is covered under Policy LC1 (Landscape).
• Criterion c) should also be removed as this is covered under Policy Policies EN1 (Nature Conservation Designated Sites), EN2 (Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and Environmental Net Gain) and EN3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity).
• Criterion d) should be updated impacts on the Highway network including the wider strategic and local network are separately addressed Policy PC2 (Active and Sustainable Travel) and the criterion appears to again duplicate policy control in this regard. Further that the requirement for contributions towards improvements at the Maldon Road/Warren Lane junction should be caveated to allow for instances of minor development or development that does not have implications for highways impacts.
• Criterion e) should be removed as this is covered under Policy PC2 (Active and Sustainable Travel).
• Criterion f) should be amended so as also to not exclude out other modes of sustainable transport to support future development.
• Criterion g) should be removed as this is covered under Policy EN8 (Flood Risk and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)).
• Criterion h) should be removed as this is covered under Policy CS5 (Tourism, Leisure, Arts, Culture and Heritage).
• The fourth paragraph of the policy should be reviewed to provide a degree of flexibility in the proposed wording i.e. '…the delivery of any agreed masterplan'; the wording 'whether such proposals currently benefit from planning consent or not', is either deleted or amended; and the text 'Where possible adverse impacts are identified when considering any proposal, either alone or in combination with other planned development for the Zoo, adequate mitigation will need to be provided' be deleted.
• The final paragraph relating to the requirement for wintering bird surveys should be amended to provide a proportionate and flexible approach, ensuring that surveys are not required where development proposals would clearly have no significant impact on habitats suitable for wintering birds.

see attached

see attached

Officer summary of full submission. See attachment with detailed comments on numerous policies:
The overall message is one of support for CCC undertaking a review of the adopted Local Plan to ensure an up to date plan prepared in accordance with the NPPF is in place. ECC will continue the on-going engagement with CCC, through the Duty (or any replacement), to assist progress of the Plan to Regulation 19 (the Pre-Submission Plan), particularly with regards the strategic and cross boundary implications, including cumulative issues and opportunities arising from growth to ensure that the infrastructure requirements are identified, quantified, costed and phased where appropriate. ECC service areas have clearly outlined where further collaborative work/assessment needs to be undertaken (e.g. education provision and ongoing transportation modelling) to refine and resolve an issue; and ECC will continue to be engaged, alongside NH, on the proposals which have an impact on the A12 strategic transport corridor, in particular A12 junctions 25 to 28, A12 widening and junction improvements, and the A120 Corridor Maks Tey to Braintree.

There is support for the Draft Plan’s vision which covers environmental, social and economic needs and emphasises healthy living environments and green networks, environmental protection and economic growth. There is support that the mandatory housing target will be met in full and exceeded over the Plan period in accordance with the NPPF, and that future employment needs will be met (noting that some clarifications are sought) by providing a range in scale of additional employment land supply. ECC provides strong support for policies related to net zero carbon (in operation and embodied), water efficiency, health and well-being, and the environment (green and blue infrastructure and BNG. Recommendations are made throughout the response on policy wording (including policy omissions) and justification to strengthen clarity, effectiveness and delivery.

There is strong support for the inclusion of site-specific Place Policies and references to infrastructure requirements, but these will need to be reviewed and confirmed with ECC following this consultation and the agreement of a final spatial strategy by CCC. It is noted there are some omissions in the Draft Plan such as the allocation of a new secondary school. On this issue, ECC acknowledges the requirement is stated in the Infrastructure Assessment Delivery Plan (Stage 3) for site allocation PP18 Land North of A120 Marks Tey; and in the Infrastructure Topic Paper prepared by CCC, where Appendix A lists the infrastructure requirements for the preferred options site allocations (including those for education). Land for the secondary school (and all education requirements) will need to be allocated in the Pre-Submission Plan.

The review of the IDP and full plan viability assessment are key documents for ECC engagement and input following this round of consultation. The Viability Assessment will need to be reviewed following consultation to ensure it can align with the most up to date evidence relating to the EPOA net zero development policies and its viability evidence. Mention is also made in the response to specific localities and sites – notably Marks Tey and Langham – where discussion needs to take place and recommendations are made to ensure effective delivery if these proposed allocations are taken forward to the Pre-Submission Plan.