Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)

Policy GC1 – Land Use
I have three comments:

Clinghoe Hill
I’m worried that the knowledge-based employment land is too close to Clinghoe Hill. Part G needs to require that the buildings are set back, limited in height and landscaped to ensure that the area has a rural or “garden” feel. The objective should be to make the buildings scarcely visible from the road once the surrounding trees reach maturity. My suggestion is consistent with policy SP6 which requires appropriate buffers along strategic roads.

Growing Food
Garden Communities are meant to have opportunities for growing food. Land needs to be set aside for allotments or bigger gardens and the viability numbers adjusted accordingly.

Severance of employment land
The new Business Park is to be located to the East of the site, separated by the link road. I worry that the severance will force people unnecessarily into their cars. While this is necessary for heavy B8 type uses, many jobs are now in offices and workshops which do not need to be severed from housing. The proposed segregation of the Business Park is not justified.

Policy GC1 – Land Use
I have three comments:

Clinghoe Hill: I’m worried that the knowledge-based employment land is too close to Clinghoe Hill. Part G needs to require that the buildings are set back, limited in height and landscaped to ensure that the area has a rural or “garden” feel. The objective should be to make the buildings scarcely visible from the road once the surrounding trees reach maturity. My suggestion is consistent with policy SP6 which requires appropriate buffers along strategic roads.

Growing Food: Garden Communities are meant to have opportunities for growing food. Land needs to be set aside for allotments or bigger gardens and the viability numbers adjusted accordingly.

Severance of employment land
The new Business Park is to be located to the East of the site, separated by the link road. I worry that the severance will force people unnecessarily into their cars. While this is necessary for heavy B8 type uses, many jobs are now in offices and workshops which do not need to be severed from housing. The proposed segregation of the Business Park is not justified.

I suggest that the key diagram in the DPD be changed to
• integrate some of the B1 employment land better with residential to the West of the link road
• relocate the A120 service station into the employment land on the link road, a solution that would work better providing access to the existing service station along a service road
• indicate how the Knowledge Based Employment site alongside the A133 will be accessed by road

The DEFRA Metric should be prepared and included in the Evidence base
The viability appraisal will need to be changed if offsite mitigation is needed

Policy GC2 – Nature
Biodiversity net gain: it isn’t clear how 10% BNG will be achieved on site and I suspect it can’t be done.
• The Salary Brook country park will be on the attractive slopes to the Brook which already has high value: so BNG points will be lost when it is open to the public – a key promise in the DPD. There is conflict between the use of Salary Brook as a Nature Reserve and as a Country Park
• Much of the remainder of the site will put farmland and hedgerows under concrete and I would expect a net BNG loss there too.

The evidence base needs a proper BNG assessment using the latest DEFRA metric. If 10% is unachievable then the plan should be changed, or budget included for the purchase of offsite BNG units. It is important that the assumptions in the BNG assessment align with the assumptions in the viability appraisal. Also that 10% BNG is achieved for each phase not as a distant promise.

More work is needed to identify the compromises needed to make the plan deliverable. The cost of compliance with the heavy regulatory burden needs to be considered and more detail is needed on the 10% addition to build cost.

Policy GC3: Buildings, Places and Character
Naming: the Garden Community urgently needs a name if it is to have its own recognisable identity. Scarcely anyone has heard about Colchester’s biggest development and TCBGC is a mouthful to explain on the doorstep. I suggest that a shortlist be prepared and put out to consultation with the public.

Design requirements: there has been no proper consideration of the high costs created by the regulations in GC3. The financial appraisal adds 10% to the build cost to allow for "Part L&F" which costs the project £94m and contributes to the financial viability problem.

Words should be added to make it clear that B1/E employment uses are permitted within residential areas.

Policy GC5: Economic Activity and Employment
The business park should be better integrated with the garden community. It is severed from the GC by a road, and is likely to draw in employees using the A120 rather than the GC. Some heavy uses need to be segregated but many of the B1/E uses could be sensibly integrated with the housing.

Part E (health) needs specific targets and commitment from the NHS as well as the developer. The NHS should commit at plan stage - application stage is too late.

The Infrastructure delivery phasing and funding plan (IDPFP) needs to be legally tied in to the DPD. If the IDPFP is to be changed the developer must produce evidence that residents will not be disadvantaged.

I’m concerned that GC Policy 6 is too vague.
• Parts A, B and C are strong and clear, but they need to commit to the phasing in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
• Part D could be more place specific
• Part E (health) needs to be much more specific. We need a plan including timings from the NHS

I fear that health provision will fall far behind population growth, and that surrounding communities will be adversely affected.

Two new restrictions are needed in addition to those in the Section 1 plan:
i) No new housing can be started until both phases of the A120-A133 link road are started on site, and
ii) no dwellings can be occupied before the link road is completed and operational.

Colchester needs reassurance that it won't be forced to accept further compromises on infrastructure provision without proper discussion. The duty to co-operate was tested by the last minute phasing of the link road, and the City Council's frustration was expressed in the formal resolution passed (see my appendix 3).

Road capacity: The RTS is to run along the already congested Clinghoe Hill route. I’m concerned that it will cause further tailbacks for cars, and believe that the circular route suggested by the Community Liaison Group should be considered as an alternative.

Traffic modelling: I was very concerned to hear that the traffic modelling didn’t need to be changed for the phasing of the link road. It undermines the credibility of the modelling: clearly the link road is fundamental to TCBGC’s sustainability and any delay in its delivery will cause major traffic problems.

Modal shift: Progress has been made on planning the rapid transit system, but the modal shift assumptions are too optimistic. I cannot see how the proposed RTS will attract sufficient usage unless it can be competitive in terms of cost, time and convenience. The only way to achieve material modal shift without deliberately creating traffic jams is to bring in congestion charging, something not remotely on the political agenda.

The A120/A133 Link Road: Colchester was forced to accept the phased approach to the link road at the last minute, too late to consider alternative solutions. The developer is only promising to complete the second (and more complex) phase “when it is practically and financially possible to do so”.

At present Colchester’s only protection comes from the Section 1 Plan which states that “Before any planning approval is granted for development ….. the following strategic transport infrastructure must have secured planning consent and funding approval
a) A120-A133 link road: and
b) Route 1 of the RTS ….”

Planning consent has already been granted, and the developer may well argue that it has received funding approval from its parent. But it could be years before anything is actually delivered.

The IDPFP needs to be legally integrated into the plan - particularly important for Colchester.

We need a phase 1 financial appraisal which shows how the first 10 years can be delivered and monitored.

We need further MOUs with Latimer and Tendring and an agreed procedure for negotiating s106.

Compromises will be needed. There are three possible areas for cut backs i) external transport infrastructure (currently costing £110m including £21m for the link road) ii) sustainable infrastructure (currently costing £94m) or iii) social housing (currently costing £410m).

Please read my full submission and appendices which are available in the following dropbox https://www.dropbox.com/sh/skhjwuf7iswy8ej/AAA-lhfL-Wa67zIw_wbRQHu-a?dl=0 I will also send them by e-mail

Some specific points are listed here:

Phasing of infrastructure delivery:
The wording of Policy GC9 needs to be tightened if it is to provide adequate control, and the Infrastructure Delivery, Phasing and Funding Plan (IDPFP) needs to be legally tied to the Plan.

For example:
• it says that infrastructure will be delivered in a “timely and phased manner” (page 128).
• It should refer specifically to the IDPFP and require compliance with all its timings.
• If the developer wishes to deviate from IDPFP it should produce evidence showing that local residents will not be disadvantaged.
• Policy GC9 should be supported by a memorandum of understanding with Latimer acknowledging the IDPFP, the need to share land value uplift and the viability methodology.
• Policy GC9 should also be supported by a Phase 1 appraisal. Leaving it until planning application stage is too late in practice and in law (See the Viability PPG).

Reliance on a conventional planning application process is inappropriate given the scale of the project and the monopoly position of the applicant. The key commercial issues need to be resolved at plan stage, as per the Viability PPG : not left to a last minute s106 negotiation.

Community Infrastructure Levy: GC9 says that “the Councils will consider introducing a Community Infrastructure Levy” (page 129). £300m of cash infrastructure contributions are at stake (appendix 5), and it is a major weakness that the mechanism for collecting it is still so vague. If there is to be a CIL we should be know how it would work by now – who would collect it, how much per square metre, how it would cope with changing legislation, whether the housebuilder would pay or the master developer? Introducing it is a long process involving consultation and inspection and it needs to be planned. The idea either needs to be dropped or brought properly to life.

Definition of infrastructure to be paid for under s106: GC9 says that the “widest reasonable definition of infrastructure and infrastructure providers will be applied” page 129 and refers to the glossary. This is too vague and the developer’s s106 consultants will make hay. They will argue that much of the promised infrastructure isn’t directly needed to support the GC..

It is particularly important because most of the offsite transport infrastructure items listed in the IDFP are remote from the GC: the total is £110m including £21m contribution to the link road.

We clearly need a memorandum of understanding which ties Latimer into the scope of the project as defined in the IDFP and Gerald Eve appraisal.

Health provision: GC6 is vague and GC9 provides no further comfort. Well defined targets are needed, as with education where there is a well-established formula for the number of school places required . The developer needs to be committed to providing new surgery buildings, and we need something in writing from the NHS about funding for new staffing. At the Section 1 Inspection we heard high level strategic statements from the NHS about new models for primary care delivery but there was no practical commitment to delivery.

We can’t expect communities to support development if their existing over-stretched health facilities are to be further diluted.

HIF Agreement: GC9 requires applicants to comply with the conditions of the Housing Infrastructure Fund, but these are laid out in a secret document to which Colchester’s Councillors have no access. It isn’t clear how a sound plan can incorporate secret requirements such as this.

Homes England have refused a Freedom of Information request for the HIF agreement, arguing that publication is against the public interest, a position that should be challenged: if it must remain secret then the plan must refer to each relevant requirement rather than the document as a whole.

Contributions to the link road: the cost over-runs on the link road and Rapid Transit System are also secret and fundamental to the plan. Their disclosure is in the public interest and the Inspector will need to understand them. I suggest that the details be published, with some redactions for commercially sensitive negotiations, eg for current land acquisition negotiations.

Monitoring: the DPD suggests that this 35 year project can be monitored through 15 worthy social objectives (page 132). Many will be difficult to measure in practice and responsibility will be hard to allocate: for example who is responsible if crime rates don’t fall? And there can be no sanction if they are not achieved.

I suggest more tangible targets focussed mainly on practical infrastructure delivery. If these are achieved the social objectives will follow.

Infrastructure monitoring can best be done by breaking the project into phases, as with every other new town development I can find (see appendix 1). The Councils can retain some control by insisting that the promised infrastructure for each phase is delivered before the next phase is permissioned.

Compromises: my appendix 2 shows that the scheme isn’t financially viable at present – it was always marginal and recent increases in build costs and interest rates together with lower house prices put it clearly under water. So compromises will be needed. It may be that the offsite transport schemes are funded from elsewhere or that the social housing numbers are moderated. It is clear that the plan isn’t compliant with national planning policy (the Viability PPG) until the situation is resolved.

A phase 1 appraisal is needed to show how the plan can be delivered over the next 10 years, and to identify any compromises needed and resultant changes to the plan.

Policy GC4: Meeting housing needs
Social housing: Part B requires 30% social housing, but the viability evidence presented suggests that it isn’t achievable, especially when up to date house prices, build costs and interest rates are used (see appendix 2 to my report).

Precedent sites at Alconbury and Welborne (Fareham) achieved 12.5% and 10% respectively in their early phases (see appendix 7 to my report).

The compromises needed should be identified and incorporated within the plan as per the Viability PPG, otherwise it cannot be found sound. The Viability PPG makes it clear that viability issues should be resolved at plan making stage, not left to the planning applications.

Further agreement is needed between Colchester and Tendring if their Duty to Co-operate is to be fulfilled. The present memorandum of understanding on equal social housing nomination rights expires at the end of the Section 1 plan period and needs to be extended in perpetuity.

It may be necessary to review GC8 and make compromises to reduce build cost which is currently in the model at £94m.

A costed and phased plan for Colchester Wastewater Recycling Centre upgrade should be included in the financial appraisal.

Policy GC8 – Sustainable infrastructure
Part L and F build costs: 10% has been added for extra Part L and F build costs in the Gerald Eve Housebuilder appraisal (page 34). I am pleased that there is some recognition of the cost burden of GC Policy 8 but the figure needs better justification. It is at the heart of the Garden Community concept and will have a major impact on viability. Gerald Eve themselves state that “this is an area that requires further clarity”.

Wastewater Treatment: it is clear (from the Integrated Water Management Plan supporting this DPD) that an upgrade to the Colchester Wastewater Recycling Centre is required for the garden community. It appears that Anglian Water have no plans to do the work and that there is no specific plan or funding for the work to be done from TCBGC s106 contributions (I can’t find anything specific in the IDPFP or in the viability appraisal). Instead there is mention of negotiating increased discharges, a matter of significant concern to residents.