GC POLICY 1: LAND USES AND SPATIAL APPROACH

I support the general spatial approach, but would note that in reality, this development will be a suburb of Colchester, and the residents will be more likely to use services provided in Colchester than in the more distant town centres of the Tendring district. As such either a redrawing of the local authority boundaries, or an ongoing financial agreement between the two authorities, should be agreed, since the residents of this development will be paying council taxes to Tendring DC but using many services provided by Colchester CC.

Improve roads and basic infrastructure before development to account for all the previous development.
Reduce scope of development by 25% and allow at least one clear mile between development and Elmstead.
Develop new junction on A120 first so that site traffic does not have to travel through Elmstead village.
Scrap industrial park to preserve integrity of church and surroundings and to reduce impact on noise and air quality

The scope of the development is too large and does not sufficiently protect the integrity and identity of Elmstead. There is already a lack of basic infrastructure, traffic has already increased and there are often delays on Clingoe Hill, this plan will add significantly to these issues. I have lived in the village over 2 years and am unable to register at the local doctors surgery this plan does not provide necessary services ahead of development it just adds to the problems. The air quality and noise pollution will increase to an unacceptable level. I fully object to the plan.

Reduce the number of houses. Invest in local services for every X number of houses built, put in a doctors, police, school, fire service etc.

Far too many houses for infrastructure. Local hospital can’t cope, GP surgeries are stretched to breaking point, schools are full with competition for any spaces. Traffic is building and dangerous, no speed limit enforcement with cameras in place. Impossible to pull out of side roads onto main road safely. Air pollution building to health impacting levels. 1000+ houses with no investment in local services is a catastrophic burden on an already exhausted and depleted community and local services that cannot cope now. This development will break those services and people will be impacted negatively.

Elmstead does not need 7500 new homes as that is 15000 cars. Need new schools and doctors. I wish I was not so old as I would move are out of ELMSTEAD it was nice when 9 moved here 50yr ago.
We need new Roads now not in 2 years, the Hospital can not cope now, 15000 more people how CAN THEY cope, will they try and cope or not look after us as we would like.

To say I'm shocked is a total understatement! How anyone could think building SO many homes so close to Elmstead Market when we've already had so many developments built or under construction right now, already. I understand the country need more homes but Elmstead is/was a small village with few amenities.
We have done our bit!!

I moved to Elmstead Market nine years ago because I wanted to live in the countryside. I wanted to walk with my dogs IN THE COUNTRYSIDE!! If this development goes ahead there will be no countryside. If Elmstead Market gets swallowed up, because that is what is happening, I will have to move house. Exactly why should I be forced to do that?

And something else why do the amenities, of which many will be needed with this size development, go in last! Why will people have to struggle with overcrowded/full nurseries and schools? What about our health services struggling as it is to serve the village of Elmstead?

These plans must have been drawn up by people supposedly claiming to be intelligent. BUT WHO IN THERE RIGHT MIND, COULD POSSIBLY THINK, THIS EVEN COMES CLOSE !!! TO BEING GOOD IDEA!!
Oh a great money making opportunity silly me.

comments re new development

The New development has been prepared with out thought on how the infrastructure is going to be available, we are struggling at the moment to live and get medical treatment as the hospitals and doctors are over whelmed with no capacity to treat the population as it is.
The village of Elmstead which has nothing but one shop and over subscribed doctors and not much else.
This project has been badly thought up it does not help normal people with housing ,just greedy builders who are jumping on the band wagon to build houses that the majority cannot afford. No thought has gone into how our village can manage with the volume of traffic when most local people have to travel to gat any medical treatment shopping and other important essentials availability to better their lives. The village has already grown to twice its size with new homes.

Elmstead will become out cast from all these things that are necessary to survive. The air pollution will become intolerable to many of our village with medical problems. No thought has gone into our villages, infrastructure for roads crossings and just to maintain quality of life. The increased traffic will cause more accidents and people not being able to access medical help via ambulances re the traffic which is going to cause delays . people will die.

Elmstead will become isolated with no way of getting to Colchester for the essentials to maintain a quality of life that we expect.

These buildings are not for the local populous but for out siders who have no empathy with the way of life that we have all struggled to achieve in our small village good quality of life and a peaceful existence., good air quality. We are aware that things need change but Colchester has built so many house without any more hospitals schools dentists and doctors as it is we have to wait 5/6 weeks for a doctors appointment and with what is proposed now with out realistic management for all is abominable, no thought of how our village can cope with this distraction of our way of life.

Education will not be available to all children as there are no places for them as no extra schools are being built this again is unacceptable the impact of the population is not possible as no thought has gone into the extra land available for the infrastructure it is madness to continue in this unthought out plan. Colchester will spread making us an urban jungle.

This can not be allowed to continue with no thought on how people can survive with out adequate hospitals doctors schools etc this cannot be allowed to go on without some sensible input and constructive thinking ,councillors can not just do as they please forgetting the people that have paid their taxes supported the councils all these years to be brushed aside.
This is insane thinking without a proper constructive plan to help all without out destroying our way of life.
Government have no idea as to what they want regarding more homes no thought about quality of life. It will cause over crowding and no infrastructure to cope with the rise in the populous. The health of the area will become impossible with no health care available as there will be no capacity in the one hospital that is suppose to serve all.

There should be better connectivity of the neighbourhoods whilst still encouraging active and public transport movement between them. It should be clear where University expansion is to be located.

Consultation response from the Wivenhoe Society

The comments below relate mainly to Policy 1 and the Policies map but also include matters addressed in other policies as the Plan needs to be considered as a whole. Also there are omissions in what is covered in the Plan.

1) Conformity with the Local Plan
The adopted section 1 of the Local Plan sets out various conditions that the Development Plan Document should meet in policies S6, S8 and S9. To be legally compliant the DPD needs to conform to these requirements.
SP9 of the Local Plan requires that ‘the DPD..... will include a concept plan showing the disposition and quantity of future land-uses, and give a three dimensional indication of the urban design and landscape parameters which will be incorporated into any future planning applications; together with a phasing and implementation strategy which sets out how the rate of development will be linked to the provision of the necessary social, physical and environmental infrastructure to ensure that the respective phases of the development do not come forward until the necessary infrastructure has been secured. For the A133-A120 link road there is the requirement in SP6 that before any planning approval is granted for development forming part of the Tendring /Colchester Borders Garden Community the A120-A133 link road must have
secured planning consent and funding approval.

HIF was secured towards the link road but increased costs mean that the amount is not adequate to fund the full link road. The three Councils, Colchester, Tendring and Essex have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Latimer, the developer, that the link road will be built out in two phases. Nowhere in the DPD is this detailed. The Memorandum of Understanding is not included in the list of evidence documents. The MOU can be viewed as one of the agenda documents on the following site https://colchester.cmis.uk.com/colchester/MeetingCalendar/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/397/Meeting/1201/Committee/30/Default.aspx
It sets out a phased delivery approach to the Link Road. Phase 1 will be the construction of the A133 roundabout plus a partial Link Road with multiple access arrangements to the Garden Community, terminating at a roundabout south of Allen’s Farm. Phase 2 will include the completion of the Link Road with a new junction to the A120. Under the MOU a section 106 or other legally binding agreement to fund the second phase must be agreed before any planning permission is granted. However the text says ‘Latimer as master developer of TCBGC, confirms its commitment to fund the delivery of the second phase of the Link Road as soon as is practically and financially possible to do so in accordance with the emerging Development Plan Document and the general ‘infrastructure first’ ethos and garden community principles that TCBGC is being planned upon.’ There is no indication of how many dwellings etc might be built before the completion of the link road nor is there any guarantee that it will be ‘practically and financially possible’ for Latimer to fund it. This does not accord with the requirement that the DPD sets out phasing details or that it ‘secures funding’ for the Link Road as required in policy SP6 of the Local Plan. It is not clear that a binding section 106 agreement to fund an un-costed, inflation proofed, second phase of the Link Road would be feasible.

The soundness implications of a phased delivery of the link road are discussed in section 2 below

In policy SP6 it is stated the DPD must include details of the design and delivery of Route 1 of the rapid transit system and that before any planning permission for development is granted Route 1 of the rapid transit system as defined in the North Essex Rapid Transit System:.From Vision to Plan document (July 2019) must have secured planning consent and funding approval before planning applications are approved. Nowhere in the submission version itself are details of the design and delivery of the RTS apart from the routes within the Garden Community shown on the Policies map nor is there any evidence that planning consent and funding have been secured. There is a very sketchy report available for the July 2022 meeting of the Garden Community joint committee but this has not been put in the evidence base. The Transport Evidence Base Part 2 does show a route for the RTS running with dedicated lanes adjacent to the A133. Does this map form part of the DPD? There is no document discussing the merits of this proposal relative to the other alternatives suggested in the 2019 Vision to Plan document.

The soundness of the RTS system is discussed below in section 3.

2) Issues relating to the link road phasing
For Wivenhoe and other communities to the east the A133 is the only major route to Colchester. It is possible at present to use a diversionary route on country lanes via Slough Lane connecting to Bromley Road, or via Tye Road (more convenient for those living in Elmstead Market). The only other alternative is to go east to join the connection to the A120 east of Frating Green, a very long diversion. Boundary Road which runs through the University is not open as a through route for general traffic. The A133 already experiences high levels of congestion and delays. This is not solely a peak hour problem. In the following document (2017) produced by Essex Highways (EXD/071)
https://www.braintree.gov.uk/downloads/file/750/exd071-presentations-to-cbc-councillors-on-a-future-transport-strategy-for-colchester Clingoe Hill is shown as having the highest volume of daily traffic flows (34,146) of any of the radial routes into Colchester. There may be more up to date evidence on traffic flows but the two transport evidence base documents do not quantify current or potential flows. The two transport evidence base documents focus on the sustainable transport mitigation measures. These do not discuss the impact of phasing the delivery of the full link road. All the additional traffic from the first stage of development will need to use the A133. Even with the most optimistic predictions about modal split this will inevitably lead to increases traffic volume. The modelling of likely journey times and frequency of delays presented in the evidence base for the Part 1 Hearings assumed that the link road would be in place. An analysis of the number of likely trips based on destination in the absence of a full link and the impact on congestion is required and should not be left to the planning application stage.

The Quod Economic and Employment report states ‘the prospects for a business park (B2/B8 logistics, industrial and ancillary office) with direct access to the A120 are strong in the short term’. It also suggests the northern employment site might be used for a modular house construction plant. Without a link to the A120 it is unlikely there would be demand for the site.

3) RTS issues
The RTS route will have implications for the A133, Clingoe Hill section. The 2019 Vision to Plan document gave various options for the RTS route. Judging from the Transport Evidence Base Part 2 the proposals appear to be that this should run on dedicated lanes adjacent to the A133. There is no discussion of the alternatives. Soundness requires that reasonable alternatives are considered. In the Vision to Plan document the possibility of the RTS entering the University Campus at West Lodge, connecting to Nessfield Road and then Capon Road was suggested, though it is not clear if this was intended to provide a separate leg for some of the buses or whether this would continue via Elmstead Road to join Colne Causeway. The current buses from Wivenhoe and Brightlingsea use Boundary Road and then Capon Road and Elmstead Road. The section from Capon Road westbound is reasonably fast except for delays at the junction with Colne Causeway. If the section of Elmstead Road which is currently closed to traffic was made available for the RTS with controlled lights at the Colne Causeway junction then this delay could be mitigated. If this route were followed then the RTS system could enter the Garden Community opposite West Lodge with no need to use the A133 at all. There seem various advantages to this.

Firstly it is not clear to the lay person that there is sufficient space on the approach to the Greenstead roundabout to construct dedicated RTS lanes. If this is not possible then this would give a pinch point at the roundabout affecting traffic flows.
Secondly it would avoid the severe disruption costs from adding the segregated lanes to the A133. It is easy to draw lines on a map but to the lay person it is not clear that additional lanes could be built without closing one side of the dual carriageway while they were installed. There is no discussion of the likely need to fell trees on the central reservation. The report to the joint committee mentioned above gave a fifteen month build out for construction. With only one side of the dual carriageway functioning, the traffic delays would be very severe given the volume of traffic on Clingoe Hill. This would be likely to cause queuing to connect with this stretch of the A133 both at the Greenstead roundabout and at the junction of the B1027 and the A133. The B1027 and the B1028, which leads to Wivenhoe, are not dual carriageways. Delays at the junction with the A133 can cause tailbacks which if they reach as far as back as the Boundary Road/B1028 junction can impact on the journey time for buses from Wivenhoe and Brightlingsea which use Boundary Road.
Thirdly if the buses used Capon Road the bus stops serving it would be on average nearer to offices and academic buildings on the Campus and there would be no need for RTS users to cross the A133 to access a bus stop. It would also give better connectivity with the local buses from Wivenhoe and Brightlingsea as passengers using these could interchange to the RTS if they so wished. Similarly travellers from the Garden Community could interchange to the local bus (currently the S1) which gives access to the industrial/commercial buildings at Whitehall allowing a commute by public transport. It would give an, admittedly circuitous, public transport link from the Garden Community to Wivenhoe.

4) Roundabouts and crossings on the A133
Much of the DPD seems to be illustrative rather than definitive. The Policies Map does however show an access point at the junction of the A133 and the B1027 for the RTS, a Park and Choose site, access to Knowledge based employment land and adjoining uses (whatever that means). On one of the illustrative maps pedestrian/cycle crossings are also shown at this junction. It is difficult to see the logic of locating this access point at the junction which is crucial for access to and from roads leading to Wivenhoe and the communities on the Brightlingsea Road. This junction works reasonably efficiently at present, though there can be delays and tailbacks. Relatively recently there was an experiment when the timings of the traffic lights was altered but they had to be changed back because of delays caused. Reconfiguration works of this intersection would make Wivenhoe virtually a no go location while the works were being done. Locating the entry point further to the west would seem to give fewer problems, maybe opposite West Lodge if the RTS system were to use the route suggested in section 3) above but the suggestion of a more western entry point does not depend on altering the entire RTS route outside the Garden Community. With increased traffic levels the junction layout as shown on the Policies Map must be demonstrated to be workable.

The University favours having a bridge to link the current Knowledge based employment land with any new provision rather than a pedestrian/cycle crossing. If the proposed cycle route into Colchester ran on the north side of the A133 within the boundaries of the Garden Community and then on the south side of the A133 it too could use this bridge.
Other ‘tiger’ crossings are shown on the illustrative map. These will slow down traffic flows on the A133. It would be better to provide two bridges, the one to the west suggested above and one to link the proposed sports facilities on the land to the south of the A133. This would be better for traffic flow and would be safer; particularly as some of the users of the sports fields are likely to be children. The Policies Map shows a potential park and choose site to the south of the A133. Having to cross a dual carriageway using a pedestrian crossing to access the RTS buses would not make it a very attractive proposition.

5) Park and Choose
An estimate of the likely demand for the Park and Choose should be provided. Wivenhoe is currently fortunate in having a good bus service, admittedly not very fast but it would seem unlikely that Wivenhoe residents would use the Park and Choose as there would be potential traffic delays reaching it and time costs of switching from one mode to another.

6) Location of Knowledge based employment, University needs
It is not clear what the merit is of stringing the employment development along the north side of the A133 rather than focussing on land opposite the current Knowledge Gateway. There appears to be some land to the southwest which is proposed for housing. How is this to be accessed? If this housing is itself connected by roads to the rest of the southern neighbourhood then it cannot be accessed directly from the A133 as this would mean other southern neighbourhood traffic would use the A133 access point. It would seem sensible for the southwest corner to be used for employment land and possibly student accommodation with only active travel mode connections to the southern neighbourhood. If a bridge across the A133 were provided as suggested above the student accommodation would be fairly well connected with the Campus.

The Local Plan specifies in SP9 para 25 that there should be an allocation of additional land within the garden community, to accommodate University expansion, which is at least equivalent in size to the allocation in the Colchester Local Development Framework Site Allocations document October 2010. It is not clear that this condition is met unless the land allocated for University sports facilities is included as part of University expansion. The DPD does not specify how much student accommodation is proposed, nor does it make clear if dwellings equivalent of any student housing is included in the overall housing provision totals (the usual formula is 2.5 student rooms equals one dwelling, though depending on the nature of the accommodation a lower figure than 2.5 is sometimes used).

7) Land South of the A133
The Society welcomes the fact that the latest proposals do not include any Knowledge based employment land at this location and agree that it is a suitable location for additional University sports grounds (though the ecological impact of any floodlighting needs to be examined given its proximity to Wivenhoe Park). It is less clear that this is a good site for providing sports provision for the new community. It is appreciated that there are overall land constraints if a target of 7,500 dwellings is to be achieved but the land south of the A133 is remote from much of the future development and a location more central to the new community would be desirable. A potential Park and Choose site is also shown on the map. This would entail crossing the A133 to access the RTS route which could well deter people from using it.

8) Neighbourhoods and connectivity
The layout is being left to future Master Plan proposals. However it is not clear whether one garden community or three small ones is being proposed. To encourage sustainable and active travel modes the suggestion appears to be that there will be no routes between the neighbourhoods for private vehicular transport. A policy of no private car travel between neighbourhoods, except by using the link road will create problems for access to the health hub and the secondary school. It is not feasible to provide one for each of the neighbourhoods. A connected community of 7,500 could support a supermarket, a post office, library,a relatively large community building and possibly other shared facilities and specialist shops. Active travel is certainly to be encouraged and neighbourhood facilities need to be provided but the synergies of a larger community should not be overlooked. If it is very difficult to access one neighbourhood from another by car this could well reduce total car journeys but the total distance travelled by car could increase if drivers have to make journeys via the link road. There is also a proposal that there should be no direct connection for private vehicular travel from the Bromley Road to the A133/A120 link road. Given land to the north of the Bromley Road is shown for housing use it is difficult to see how residents on this land could access say the health hub or the secondary school by car which on occasion could be necessary. Would they have to use the Bromley Road to connect to the Greenstead roundabout, then use the A133 and the link road connections?

9) Stewardship and ownership
Greater clarity is needed about the ownership of community assets and ultimate financial responsibility for these. There is discussion of stewardship in part F of Policy 6 of the DPD. To quote:
A detailed Stewardship Strategy, supported by a (independently reviewed) business case, will need to be prepared and agreed in writing with the Councils which will need to establish the scope of
the stewardship and community governance arrangements, how it will evolve and develop over time, and the long-term financial sustainability of the model. This strategy will need to show how the
arrangements proposed will successfully interact with and work alongside existing local governance arrangements including town/parish councils.
Consider open spaces and take the example of the proposed new countryside park at Salary Brook. This falls almost entirely in Colchester and will to some extent benefit Greenstead residents as well as those in the new community. What body would actually own it and who would pay for the maintenance costs? Similarly the proposed sports area south of the A133 falls within Tendring. This might be considered an asset of value to the general area as well as the Garden Community. Who would own and who would be responsible for managing this? It is difficult to believe that an endowment fund sufficient to meet costs in perpetuity could be provided by the developers.

10) Main Conclusions
i) The Wivenhoe Society recognises that the Local Plan specifies a Garden Community in the area of search shown in the Plan and we would hope that it could be successful. However the link road from the A133 to the A120 was recognised as essential for the development. The DPD does not make it clear that the entire link road will not be provided from the outset and no timing for its full delivery is given nor the implications of this discussed. Traffic issues on the A133 will not only affect existing local communities but also Garden Community residents.
ii) There is no discussion of the RTS route outside of the Garden Community in the DPD itself nor is justification given for the route implied in the supporting Transport evidence. The disruption costs of building the RTS and reconfiguring the junction of the B1027/A133 are not discussed at all and there is no consideration of how these could be minimised.
iii) There is insufficient discussion of the justification of the location of various activities/facilities. In particular it is not explained why the Knowledge based employment is strung out along the A133, why the south of the A133 could be a good location for a Park and Choose site and why the proposed main sports facilities are so far from the majority of the future housing
iv) The suggested neighbourhood structure for the Community does not seem designed to exploit the potential synergies of a development on the scale proposed.

Drastically reduce the proposed housing development of Crockleford to bare minimum to keep its recognised rural characteristics but increase public access through larger country park and local food production in this area of the Garden Community.
The local road network will simply not accommodate any increase in housing and it is unlikely that should 1200 houses be built in Crockleford that people would access the transport provided further afield.

The Draft Plan identified an ‘Area of Special Character’ at and around the settlement of Crockleford Heath, aimed at safeguarding its distinctive rural character. This will be destroyed by the development of up to 1200 houses. The Parish of Ardleigh has less than1000 households. Concentrate on extending the county park aspect further, within Crockleford, to maintain its rural characteristics. Compensate the land lost to recent large housing development along the Salary Brook. Extension of a country park would mitigate this loss. Local food production for the whole community could be provided in the existing agricultural/horticultural land. Keep it rural.

Number of houses and the size of the area used need to be reduced at least 50% . new link roads should connect A133 and A120 after bottlenecks not through new roundabouts.

plan has given no thought about the harm this is going to do to the environment and population already living in surrounding areas.
At present it takes min 25 mins to pass Greenstead roundabout every morning and 45mins in the evening to get cowdary avenue. children take 30mins in the morning and 45 mins to home to school (Elmstead Market - Colchester)
on the assumption 50% vehicle ownership of all new households this will add min 3750 new vehicles to roads in the surrounding area adding massive amount of pressure to road users and pollution.

The green links should have a defined width no less than 100m and should have specified tree preservation and woodland/nature conservation management specifications.

The green links indicated in this section are not defined in terms of a width, and I understand that the width will be left to the discretion of the developers. These green links are the only internal green boundaries between the three communities, and as such should be defined in terms of a width of at least 100m. In particular the Crockleford community, the only existing community within the broad development area, is only been granted an unspecified 'green link', separating it from the northern community. This is far below the green buffers being afforded to Wivenhoe and Elmstead, communities outside the broad search area.

The area within the proposed 100m wide green links should also have specified tree preservation and woodland/nature conservation management specifications.

To whom this may concern

I am writing this email to give my opinions and objections as to why I feel and many other Elmstead residents are against the new Development planned on the Colchester/Tendering boarder.

1. This would cause a huge amount of traffic influx in a small village community this would Cause more congestion as well as pollution this would then also cause back log of traffic that would build up along the A133 which is busy enough during rush hour both am & Pm this would cause more traffic coming into Elmstead making this road more of a danger than it already is. I have young children who attend the local school in Elmstead and crossing the road of the A133 can sometimes take up to 6-7 minutes due to no crossing that has been promised for many years. This causes danger for small children the roads are busy enough without adding more oncoming and outgoing traffic.

2. Myself and many new residents of Elmstead have moved here for the country peaceful life where its a community everyone is friendly its peaceful easy access into town however far enough away for families to feel safe. I am happy to let my children play outside and I live in a small close where they do feel safe this development would change Elmstead for the worst.

3. The noise and building traffic this development would cause in such a beautiful area there is so many new housing developments going up everywhere there is too many as it is the noise and dust is not acceptable for residents to have to live with.

4. Elmstead has many elderly residents who have lived here for many years its a beautiful picturess village when entering in either direction, the drive into Elmstead from the direction of Colchester is lovely and green why do you feel you need to change this??? Why do you have to join Tendering with Colchester?? Making Greenstaed part of the village?? Greenstead has a very high crime rate this will spread further and further into the suburbs. Causing run down parts of the area bringing the wrong type of people into such a well loved area.

5. Traveller site??? Why there is no reason this has to be here they are known to cause lots of rubbish and destruction to their own living environment as well as again I mention attracting more crime to areas of elderly and families this seems like a really un thought about idea which needs to be re considered.

6. 9000 new homes not 7,500 as previously mentioned where on earth are these families going to register with a doctors, dentists??? Schools???? this is a very large number of homes for such a small area is this necessary?

7. An industrial site placed next a village church that has been there since the 18th would completely change the beauty of this church that looks out into the most beautiful country side of all green.

8. Colchester is a busy enough town to have any more property developments everywhere you go you sit in traffic upon traffic its absolute chaos, this will just over populate the areas surrounding. Elmstead and surrounding villages should be left alone and kept how they have been over centuries these developments cause upset and heart ache to local people whom have seen the changes over the years loss of wildlife and woodland.

9. Loss of homes for wildlife has been a major worry over the years with all the new homes being built everywhere it just seems today's world all is thought about is money and no consideration for local people and their families this is a huge concern as I believe the local residents should have their say and this should be listened too.

10. Elmstead is a well loved community with residents having lived here the majority of their lives. Money should be put into areas to improve them for example a zebra crossing across the A133 from Affells road to make it safer and easier to access the local school. A speed camara at the start of the village to slow down incoming vehicles that speed through the village there is lots of children in Elmstaed and is a major worry to parents. Resurfacing roads reducing the pot holes this list is endless.


I hope these are taking in to consideration, and looked into my objections as well as many others. KEEP ELMSTEAD A VILLAGE KEEP IT SEPERATE FROM COLCHESTER.

Thankyou myself and Elmstead look forward to your reply.

Miss R Lockwood

The plan needs far more detail on it's eastern edge where the buffer zone between it and Elmstead Market is being shown. As a recent resident of Elmstead Market I have read the "local plan" before I moved here and it clearly states a significant buffer zone would be in place between the eastern boundary of the new garden community involving woodlands, other new planted areas and landscaping - none of this is clear on the current plan.

The plan is currently posted as "Broad" and needs to be more focused and complete before people can really see how it will impact them and their communities. I need to see roads named on plans, routes for new roads fully agreed and boundaries finalized before any really constructive comments can be submitted, particularly those for the buffer zone between the new development and the western edge of Elmstead Market. The proposal for the new A133 to A120 link road needs to be firmed up and built before any housing is started or Elmstead Market will be come a no go zone because of traffic levels and have a serious detrimental impact on the local population. The rush hour delays into Colchester on Clingoe Hill are already a headache for locals and any further negative impact on traffic will have a serious impact on Elmstead. The very significant level of daily lorry movements throughout the whole of the plans lifecycle needs to be published along with an agreement that weekend lorry movements will not be used to provide some respite to locals using the local road network.

The plan is too vague and has not addressed issues raised by groups and individual members of the public.

I oppose the building of the Garden Village on the Colchester / Tendering borders on the grounds listed below.
1. Infrastructure
2. Water Treatment
3. Salary Brook boundary
4. Rapid Transport System
5. Housing
6. Gypsy / Traveller site

1) Concerns have been raised that no infrastructure being in place during the first stages of the development. There is not enough social, health or education provision initially planned. The report says these views have been taken on board but the consultation document does not address the concerns raised in any depth.
Within the Community and Social infrastructure assets at the earliest stage of development, (for each development) there should be essential requirements for:
* Early years and nursery provision
*Primary school(s)
*Secondary school
*Dentist, GP surgery, Pharmacy and clinical facilities offering out-patient support that cannot be provisioned at Colchester General Hospital
*A Community multi-use building with sufficient self-contained spaces within it to accommodate use by different faith groups, clubs and societies, including youth clubs
The suggestion that an initial 100+ houses may be required to begin funding the project before any infrastructure begins is alarming and directly in contradiction to the local plan.

2) There is a gap in terms of lacking a policy on grey and black water treatment specifically. This being of particular concern because of the odour emitted from the sewage works by The Hythe.
The problems of water and air pollution for the local residents of Elmstead and Crockleford Heath caused by the building of up to 9,000 accommodation units. There is the importance of identifying the means and method for the treatment of these waste water types at DPD stage, so they can be properly costed and prepared in advance before the commencement of any building.
Currently any policy as to how sewage and water will be dealt with is missing; in view of the final size of the garden community development, surely there is a vital need to deal with this essential part of the infrastructure right at the start.
There is the problem of major road disruption, in an already heavily traffic congested area, for the whole of the East of Colchester during the pipe-work installation to link to at the groundwork stage.

3) In the area of the suggested Knowledge Gateway / Industrial expansion, there is a concern that the proposed development could end up spilling halfway down the Salary Brook slopes designated as country park area, which is at best a meagre offering of habitat for the size of the area to be desecrated. This would be a contradiction of two other agreed principles based on community and public input into the engagement process.
Building on the ridgeline would cause buildings, not in character with a country park, to dominate these slopes and the whole surrounding landscape. The buildings would have a detrimental effect and be viewable from great distances, ie The University Towers.

4) The description of the route of the Rapid Transit System (RTS) connecting the Garden Community with the rest of Colchester is too vague in stating “it will be in place to connect the Garden Community with the University of Essex, Colchester Town Centre, Colchester Railway Stations, Colchester Hospital, Community Stadium, Colchester Sports Park and the existing Park and Ride site in north Colchester”. Prospectively, the buses will always be in traffic struggling through bottlenecks at railway and river crossings from the East of Colchester right into the town. In the documents, there are no plans to address these points by building new bridges or underpasses.
There is no current map provided to indicate the exact route, therefore leaving the developers open opportunity to place the road at their discretion. We need a clear definition of the route and identification of the bottlenecks and costings for resolving them. There is no current indication of how the RTS will actually be paid for; except for the developer stating a (non binding) certain amount of houses will have to be sold first, to allow for the building of the RTS.
The RTS will be built in stages according to the sale of properties to fund each part. This means years of increased traffic, starting with Heavy Goods Vehicles, leading onto trade vans and domestic cars passing through the village of Elmstead and the adjoining back-roads for many years.
5) Affordable Housing Phasing: The public should have a definitive statement stipulating that the 30% affordable housing rule should apply at all stages of the development. Planning permission stage, housing starts and housing occupation. Otherwise the developers would use an “Affordable Housing Phasing Strategy” to justify the late delivery, or diminished quantity of affordable housing.
Accordingly, all ‘Affordable Housing’ should be first offered to locally living residents affected by the development; followed by Front line / Blue Light workers.
6) Within the guidelines of Gypsy and Traveller needs: the size of the gypsy and traveller provision is to be determined as part of Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessment.
How are the developers and council going to deal with this issue?
Where is this site to be placed as it has not been shown in the context of the planners outline permission. The site needed would be very big in relation to the GC; and at what stage would this ‘mini development’ take place.

- Clarity should be provided on the scope of sports facilities that may be accommodated in the sports and leisure park i.e. will indoor facilities and floodlit facilities be permitted.
- The preparation of a masterplan for the Sports and Leisure Park should be an explicit requirement of the policy

• The requirement for proposals to contribute positively to the health, wellbeing and resilience of communities and the natural environment is welcomed as this would be consistent with Government policy in paragraph 92(c) of the NPPF and Sport England’s Active Design guidance;
• The principle of providing a new ‘Salary Brook’ country park within the development is welcomed as this will provide a strategic informal recreation space that would encourage physical activity associated with walking and cycling;
• The principle of providing a Sports and Leisure Park to serve the local community and the expansion of the University of Essex’s sports facilities is welcomed as the concept of a hub site is needed to support the scale of sports facilities required to support the Garden Community and it would be appropriate to co-locate this with facilities needed to support the University’s expansion so that shared use of the facilities can be facilitated. However, it is requested that the policy should address the following matters:
- Clarity should be provided on the scope of sports facilities that may be accommodated in the sports and leisure park i.e. will indoor facilities and floodlit facilities be permitted. This would help avoid potential misinterpretations of the scope of what would be considered acceptable in this location especially as many of the facilities required to support the community needs and potentially the University’s needs will be indoor or floodlit. This is pertinent if this location is considered to be environmentally sensitive. If the location is not considered to be suitable for indoor or floodlit facilities then the location of the Sports and Leisure Park should be reviewed as a site which is only suitable for outdoor facilities that are not floodlit would not be responsive to the community’s needs identified in the evidence base.
- The preparation of a masterplan for the Sports and Leisure Park should be an explicit requirement of the policy in order to ensure that a co-ordinated approach is taken to meeting the sports facility needs of the community and the University, the possible accommodation of a ‘Park and Choose’ facility and meeting the policy’s environmental objectives. A scenario where the Sports and Leisure Park is developed on an incremental basis (e.g. the Park and Choose facility first) in the absence of a masterplan framework should be avoided as this may compromise the delivery of the policy objectives. A masterplan is also required to demonstrate that the site has the capacity to meet all of the needs that is proposed to accommodate. While part K of the policy requires Area Specific Masterplans to be prepared, the policy should make it explicit that a masterplan is specifically required for the Sports and Leisure Park given the importance of a co-ordinated approach and to avoid disputes over the scope of the detailed Area Specific Masterplans;

Having lived in Colchester for 46 years, the roads cannot cope with the increased number of cars already seen, adding more will make it impossible. I'm guessing the people who designed this garden community, do not actually use the roads in this area on a daily basis. Far less housing and improvements to existing roads through Colchester is whats needed. There is no way the town can cope with this development.

The plan states: Garden Community.......to avoid housing developments that can overwhelm existing facilities and infrastructure. There is no way this can be carefully managed with thousands of additional homes! The majority of people will always take the quickest and easiest transport/route in their hectic lives ie a car will more likely be chosen over a bus or walking. Clingo Hill will become completely gridlocked and the road through Elmstead will become dangerous especially the junctions in the village, where accidents are already happening.

I use Salary Brook path constantly and consider it an essential part of my everyday life. I enjoy the many mature trees and the bird life within them. Also the Brook area is a peaceful place to rest and relax. Many people use the Brook for walking and dog walking. The pandemic showed how important it is that the population have access to a quiet and peaceful area close to their homes.
I feel that this area must be kept as it is and would hope that a definite promise to keep and care for the Brook area is made.

Be a lot firmer in the commitment to the RTS.

This is a consultation heavily focused on those with specialist knowledge. The documentation seems to be deliberately opaque, bombarding the reader with details. The maps/images are far too small and not legible even when enlarged on a monitor screen.
The wording on the Rapid Transit System is vague, so as to only signal a broad intention rather than a firm plan.

Compliance:
I consider that the Development Plan Document is Legally compliant.
It is not sound for the reasons stated below.
I consider that the document complies with the statutory duty to co-operate, but the consultation process using the engagement website is overly complex and biased. It seems likely that many people will have been deterred from participation in the consultation by these arrangements.

I would be pleased to participate in the oral part of the examination if this would be of assistance.

GC Policy 1: Land Use and Spatial Approach.

• The Garden Community Principles unproven. The GC vision overly aspirational and adopts a naive perception of the way in which communities are established and of human behaviour. The latter is not simply determined by environment.
• The GC is unlikely to address a local housing need, unless a greater proportion of rented housing is included. The present proposed approach will encourage further migration from the London suburbs, by the property wealthy whose pattern of work has changed post Covid-19.
• Many prospective residents of the GC will not be seeking local jobs, they will be occasionally commuting to London and working from home.
• Unrealistic assumptions are made in relation to the extent to which private car usage will be reduced by the RTS and other more sustainable transport initiatives.
• The practicalities of community ownership are unclear.
• Shared ownership and rented housing should be included in the DPD as separate categories and the possibility of transferring from rent to shared ownership should be included.
• I was told at a consultation event that environmental requirements for new homes cannot exceed current building regulations, this is not clear from the DPD, which suggests the environmental requirements will be much higher.
• The neighbourhood map does not clearly distinguish between the North and Crockleford neighbourhoods.
• The development of the TCBGC does not justify the concreting over of a large part of rural northeast Essex.
• It does not seem logical that two proposed garden communities in north Essex were not considered to be viable, while the TCBGC is considered viable.

Policies Map:

• The need for 7,500 new homes in north Essex is not clearly established.
• A development on the Bromley Road has recently been curtailed because the developer’s expectation of potential sales has been reduced. Properties have also been sold to a London Borough to house homeless families.
• 1,000 to 1,500 new homes on Crockleford Heath will adversely impact on the special character of the area.
• The need for Knowledge Based Employment Land is not established, many the existing units at the University for Knowledge Based Employment remain vacant.
• The need for provision for Gypsies and Travellers is not supported by evidence.
• The term Green Links is not clearly defined. Are these for wildlife or walkers and cyclists? How wide are these corridors? A minimum of 100m may be appropriate.
• While Wivenhoe and Elmstead are provided with Strategic Green Gaps, why is no Green Gap provided for Crockleford Heath to preserve the special character of the area?
• The present proposals suggest that housing development to the south of the Bromley Road will encroach on Crockleford Heath. A Green Gap of at least 100m may be appropriate. Alternatively, given the high volume of traffic it may be appropriate not to develop any housing to the immediate south of the Bromley Road.

Policy 2: Nature.

• Nature and biodiversity are likely to be enhanced if housing development does not proceed.
• It is not clear how the safety of public spaces will be assured, and anti-social behaviour managed.
• Churn Wood is shown on the Framework Plan, but it is not made clear this is privately owned and does not have public access.
• What is an edible walkway – a licence to steal apples?
• How will community gardens be managed and maintained? If this is not clear these areas could become a focus for anti-social behaviour.
• This chapter of the DPD demonstrates an idealised and unrealistic approach to the relationship between people and nature. Many of the prospective residents of the GC may have little experience and knowledge of nature and little desire to develop such knowledge.

Policy 3: Place Shaping Principles.

• This chapter is commendable, but highly aspirational. It is not clear how quality of life, livability, equitable prosperity, and social cohesion are to be achieved in practice.
• Communities are not created by distinctive buildings. It is difficult to envisage that the TCBGC will not simply be another large housing development.
• There is a limit to which environment can have a positive impact on societal behaviour and crime can be designed out. Crime is a variable feature of human behaviour. It also reflects the quality and level of policing and other factors.

Policy 4: Meeting Housing Needs.

• There has been significant housing development around Colchester in recent years. Predominantly this has not met a local housing need, but has fuelled movement of people from other areas, particularly London It is difficult to imagine that if it proceeds the TCBGC will not have a similar pattern of home ownership.
• Residents on low income are likely to seek rented housing, from a provider of social housing and in this respect the chosen developer may be well placed to meet this need.
• To conflate shared ownership and rented housing in 30% figure for affordable housing is misleading. A greater proportion of rented housing may be necessary to meet local need.




Policy 5: Economic Activity and Employment.

• The objective of achieving one job per household in or near the garden community may be ambitious and will be dependent on factors such as the overall economic picture.
• It seems likely that a significant proportion of prospective residents will be employed in London and working remotely from home some of the time.

Policy 6: Community and Social Infrastructure.

• This section of the DPD is highly aspirational. Dependent upon the level of stewardship and management, what may emerge in practice could be very different.
• It is not clear whether multifunctional community buildings include the provision of healthcare services. This may be difficult to achieve in practice, given specialist medical needs.
• Management and longer-term stewardship of community provision of this nature could be clearer in DPD.

Policy 7: Movement and Connections.

• This policy section assumes that residents of the GC will adopt significantly reduced use of personal private cars. This may not be a realistic assumption.
• Similarly, neighbourhood delivery hubs will not be viable if residents choose to do their shopping outside of the neighbourhood centres by car in local supermarkets.
• The RTS will be operating on roads into Colchester City and will be subject to the same traffic delays as exist currently.

Policy 8: Sustainable Infrastructure.

• This policy is commendable but does not seem to be reflected in in the design requirements for buildings in the GC.

I wish to complain in the most strongest terms possible about the proposed development of 7,500+ new homes on our doorstep. It is the most craziest idea and whoever came up with this ludicrous idea obviously doesn't live in this area.
Can't they see the roads in this area can't already cope with the excess traffic in peak hours. Clingo Hill is
forever grid locked and what do you go and do plan another 7,500+ homes. It's all well and good planning more homes if an Infrastructure is already in place but you try getting Into work in the mornings and you will certainly see it isn't.
Plus the hospital can't cope now with the amount of patients they see let alone building all these new houses.
The same also applies the schools, doctors and dental surgeries across the whole of Colchester.
I don't like saying this but Colchester and surrounding areas like Elmstead Market used to be a lovely place to live. But the way it's going it will be totally spoilt if this proposed development is allowed to go ahead.
So please please think hard before you go any further.

Part K - Planning application requirements. Affinity Water supports the requirements for Masterplans and Design Codes. We would like to be consulted as these are developed to ensure water efficiency and water re-use is considered.

Chapel Grove should be specifically included for a select development of executive housing as per previous representations to ensure the broadest diversity of housing offer - ie executive homes for this who generate wealth and jobs for the community.

The Agricultural covenant should be removed from the property as it is unviable and uneconomical. If left with this designation / restriction, the land will become an overgrown waste-ground, dumping ground and eye-sore. With the restriction removed the land can be used for private gardens or for horses and therefore maintained in an attractive state until developed sympathetically as previous representations.

We refer back to previous representations. We now note “green route” through Crockleford and increased housing density. We object to the area being designated as area of Special Character, there are limited buildings / features of architectural interest and other similar lanes are being developed. This will result in an awkward land-locked “island” community in the middle of the overall development. The land is too small to be economical for horticulture or agriculture and should no longer be assigned as such.

I broadly support the land uses and spatial approach. It is great that the special interests of the Salary Brook area have been recognised and enhanced. Lockdown proved how valuable this is. This will provide a great space for many local people and prevent the joining up of the development to the rest of Colchester

Essex County Council (ECC) supports the preparation of a Development Plan Document (DPD) for Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community (TCBGC) and as a member of the Joint Committee will continue to work in close partnership with Colchester City and Tendring District councils to ensure the delivery of ECC’s statutory roles and responsibilities, so that TCBGC delivers a safe, green and healthy community with long term sustainable infrastructure delivery.

The content of the Draft Plan and its evidence base reflects our active involvement throughout all stages of plan preparation and ensures that the provision of ECC’s infrastructure and services for future residents and businesses are identified and can be delivered.

ECC has informed, supported and helped refine the formulation of the development strategy and policies to be delivered by the DPD. Our involvement is necessary and beneficial because ECC is:
• the Highway and Transportation Authority, including our responsibility for the delivery of the Essex Local Transport Plan; lead authority for Education including early years and childcare (EYCC), SEND, and Post 16 education; Minerals and Waste Planning Authority; Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA); lead advisors on public health; and has responsibilities for adult social care in relation to securing the right housing mix which takes account of the housing needs of older people and adults with disabilities;
• an infrastructure funding partner which seeks to ensure that development proposed is realistic and does not place an unnecessary (or unacceptable) cost burden on the public purse and, specifically, ECC’s capital programme;
• a major provider and commissioner of a wide range of local government services throughout the county (and where potential cross boundary impacts need to be considered); and
• advocate of the Essex Climate Action Commission (ECAC) report “Net Zero – Making Essex Carbon Neutral” providing advice and recommendations for action on climate change mitigation including setting planning policies which minimise carbon. This work has been tailored for use in the county of Essex.

ECC considers that Colchester City and Tendring District councils have met its obligations under Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011 regarding the duty to cooperate with regard to those statutory responsibilities of the County Council, namely highways and transportation, education, minerals, waste, Public Health, Lead Local Flood Authority and adult social care.

There is strong support for the policies provided in the Draft Plan, which align with ECC priorities and commitments contained in our corporate plan Everyone’s Essex, and relevant service plans and strategies, such as:
• proposals for growth and development to meet housing and economic needs and the policy position to create balanced well-designed places;
• policies that relate to adaptable and accessible housing, and care assisted living and other specialist housing;
• policies, evidence and provision for education requirements and the need for a demographic study to confirm school requirements;
• policies and approach to health and well-being and the requirement to undertake Health Impact Assessments;
• policies and approach to surface water management, sustainable drainage, and multifunctional green and blue infrastructure;
• policies and approach to movement and connections, and the evidence and provision of transportation infrastructure and modal share targets;
• policies and approach to net zero and wider climate change ambitions;
• policy and approach to digital infrastructure;
• policy requiring a Minerals Resource Assessment to ensure the prior extraction of minerals is coordinated through masterplanning and the planning application process; and
• policies that relate to securing developer contributions to effectively deliver the necessary infrastructure and contributions so that ECC’s role as an infrastructure provider is not jeopardised, and that this is consistent with national policy and ECC’s Developers’ Guide to Infrastructure Contributions;

ECC will contribute to the examination in public and provide support for the Councils as appropriate and where this reflects our statutory role and responsibilities.

I would like to support the option C with land use south of A133 restricted to sports use e.g. University plus open to community, possibly parking and sports pavilions, set in green planting to make a clear distinction from housing development north of the A133. This is a huge improvement to the previous proposal set out in the first consultation.
I am also pleased and relieved to see that now there is no plan of spilling over down the slopes of Salary Brook but instead a plan for a country park, vital to preserve the ridge skyline seen from Greenstead.

Braintree District Council shares a joint strategic Section 1 Local Plan with Colchester City Council and Tendring District Council. The Council is pleased to see the progress that is being made with the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community and are of the view that the proposed DPD broadly complies with the relevant policies in the Section 1 Local Plan and is considered legally complaint and sound.

Anglian Water welcomes the strategic aims of the policy in addressing the reduction of operational and embodied carbon across the new Garden Community, including through ensuring resource efficiency and prioritisation of renewable energy.

Anglian Water’s own long-term ambition to become net zero business by 2030 and reduce capital (embodied) carbon by 70% against a 2010 baseline, through innovative and optimised designs and material efficiencies, means that we encourage a quantitative approach to assessing growth options. This includes utilising available capacity at our Water Recycling Centres to accommodate future growth at locations informed by a Water Cycle Study or Integrated Water Management Study (IWMS). Anglian Water recognises that the Garden Community exemplifies this approach to utilise existing infrastructure capacity to reduce emissions from building new infrastructure to support growth. Furthermore, the Garden Community represents a quantum of growth that means investment in new infrastructure provides the greatest carbon efficiencies in relation to embodied/capital carbon in water supply and water recycling infrastructure. Our calculations show that developments that represent 5,000 population equivalent (more than 2,000 dwellings) will provide four times the carbon efficiencies than smaller developments.

The strategic masterplan identifying the Salary Brook Country Park as an important corridor for wildlife conservation, informal recreation, and education, with connections to the wider network of green and blue infrastructure is welcomed. Anglian Water considers that good design and on-site green and blue infrastructure can facilitate high quality developments that provide health and wellbeing benefits, manage surface water run-off through effective integration of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and deliver biodiversity net gain.

Part K: Planning application requirements

Anglian Water supports the requirement for a comprehensive site wide Garden Community Masterplan, detailed Area Specific Masterplans and Design Codes for relevant phases of development to be prepared by the developers.

Whilst site wide enabling costs and phasing of provision have been considered in the Infrastructure Delivery, Funding and Phasing Plan, Anglian Water would welcome further engagement on masterplans and design codes to ensure that rainwater/stormwater harvesting and greywater recycling opportunities are included as a key component of the strategic infrastructure provision to ensure the garden community demonstrates the fundamental principle of building climate resilient large-scale new communities in terms of utilising water resources sustainably through integrated water management systems.

Anglian Water is part of an innovative project, Enabling Water Smart Communities (www.ewsc.org), which was awarded £5.5 million by Ofwat as part of its Water and Breakthrough Challenge. Anglian Water is working with a range of partners including other water companies, universities, several developers and housing associations to deliver a project that will address the current barriers to integrated water management in residential development. The project would welcome the opportunity to engage with the masterplan and design code process and support implementation of integrated water management solutions for the benefit of the community, wider water resources and supply, and environmental sustainability.

Securing a new Country Park at Salary Brook is a wonderful idea. I'm a frequent visitor to the area and am keen to see the cycle path improved to take out the blind corners and segregate cyclists from walkers with room made for all. The land in the present Nature Reserve is in the Colchester City boundary but I'd like to see expansion to create a substantial buffer zone between Greenstead and the Garden Community. The policy doesn't explain which authority will have responsibility for long term maintenance or how this will be funded in perpetuity.

I am generally in favour and impressed with the improved new proposal and how views and comments of the public have been taken into account, e.g. use of the land south of the A133. However, I still have some reservations and concerns, especially around the RTS and link road, and getting infrastructure in place before starting to build houses, see submission from the CLG of which I am a member.

I think the often competing desires to protect certain areas have been listened to and considerable effort put into getting as much evidence as possible as to the best way forward. I think this plan will work well in protecting the Salary Brook area and avoiding the development spreading into Elmstead or Wivenhoe. Planting of buffer zones with woodland would certainly help there alongside, of course, being a positive move for the climate.

Simply abandon the project!

I cannot support this development simply because it is to be sited on Grade 1 Agricultural land. In fact one of the few areas of land in the Eastern region that is designated so.
See the following link...
https://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/127056?category=5954148537204736

Why on earth chose a vast area of our precious, prime growing land to build thousands of houses on, unbelievable!