Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)
Search representations
Results for Latimer (Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community) Developments Limited search
New searchObject
Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)
GC POLICY 1: LAND USES AND SPATIAL APPROACH
Representation ID: 225
Received: 26/06/2023
Respondent: Latimer (Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community) Developments Limited
Agent: Lichfields
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Latimer is generally supportive of GC Policy 1 ‘Land Uses and Spatial Approach’ but seeks some amendments to allow for greater flexibility with respect of the land use and spatial approach, to allow the precise detail of the development to be subject to further master planning and evidence.
Overall, Latimer is generally supportive of Chapter 3 and Policy 1, but seeks some critical amendments to allow for greater flexibility with respect of the land use and spatial approach to make the DPD more effective in terms of deliverability. This will allow the detail of the development to be subject to further master planning through agreement with the Councils and stakeholders, via future planning applications.
Request Changes to Part A, Part F and Part J (see attached document).
See attachment
Object
Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)
FIG. 2 POLICIES MAP
Representation ID: 226
Received: 26/06/2023
Respondent: Latimer (Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community) Developments Limited
Agent: Lichfields
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Concern that the University of Essex growth cannot be fully met within the neighbourhoods and that greater flexibility be provided for university expansion south of the A133.
The key of the Policies Map should be amended to ensure consistency in approach and refer more generally to ‘University of Essex expansion’ (see Appendix 2 of these representations). This flexibility is needed to ensure the DPD is effective and deliverable.
See attachment
Object
Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)
GC POLICY 2: NATURE
Representation ID: 227
Received: 26/06/2023
Respondent: Latimer (Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community) Developments Limited
Agent: Lichfields
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Latimer is supportive of the GC Policy 2 approach to 'Nature’ overall and is aligned to the vision that the outdoor and natural environment of the Garden Community will be its biggest asset. To achieve this, some amendments are proposed in this section to ensure a future masterplan, informed by the DPD can deliver all the required ambitions and supporting infrastructure.
Clarity in GC Policy 2 ‘Nature’ regarding which Green Infrastructure features the Council would and would not accept as contributing to Biodiversity Net Gain (‘BNG’) and how ‘stacking’ could be demonstrated.
Amendments suggested to Part D and supporting policy justification.
See attachment
Object
Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)
GC POLICY 3: PLACE SHAPING PRINCIPLES
Representation ID: 228
Received: 26/06/2023
Respondent: Latimer (Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community) Developments Limited
Agent: Lichfields
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Latimer is supportive of the approach to GC Policy 3 ‘Place Shaping Principles’ overall and broadly. However, Latimer requests greater flexibility to be added to some of the wording and also provides some comments on the historic environment to ensure the approach is consistent with national planning policy.
Changes to wording of Parts B, C, D, E and H. See attached document.
See attachment
Object
Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)
POLICY 5: ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND EMPLOYMENT
Representation ID: 229
Received: 26/06/2023
Respondent: Latimer (Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community) Developments Limited
Agent: Lichfields
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Latimer is supportive of the approach to this policy in general. However, there will be a need for detailed master planning and need based evidence to inform future planning applications, and suggestions are made to ensure there is flexibility to do so.
Greater clarity should be provided with regard to Part A along with amendment to wording to provide flexibility.
Clarity over quantum of employment land specified in Part B to allow greater flexibility and clarity.
See attachment
Object
Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)
GC POLICY 6: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Representation ID: 230
Received: 26/06/2023
Respondent: Latimer (Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community) Developments Limited
Agent: Lichfields
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Latimer is supportive overall of the approach in Chapter 7 and the overall approach in GC Policy 6 ‘Community and Social Infrastructure’ with only a few focused amendments suggested.
- More clarity is needed on deliverables and timescale expectations in regard to the DPD.
- Flexibility under Part C required to ensure that the number of schools is evidence led, based on need and demographic studies.
- Supporting text should have a recognition that an estate charge will be required and payable by future households.
See attachment
Object
Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)
GC Policy 7. Movement and Connections
Representation ID: 231
Received: 26/06/2023
Respondent: Latimer (Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community) Developments Limited
Agent: Lichfields
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Supports the principle of Chapter 8 which includes GC Policy 7, welcome the changes in language introduced since the Regulation 18 response across a number of key areas which provide flexibility as the design process evolves. Some objections remain, principally to assist with seeking to achieve the aims and objectives for the Garden Community through the planning application process, so that it is designed and built in a way that reduces the need to travel, especially by car; promotes sustainable travel modes and can adapt and respond to future transport challenges and emerging technologies such as connected and autonomous vehicles.
The DPD and accompanying evidence base is unclear on the vehicular access for the Crockleford Neighbourhood, including the approach stated in GC Policy 1 and GC Policy 7, Part A. It is unclear from reading these policies alongside the transport evidence base (para 1 and 2) whether the Crockleford Neighbourhood is expected to have vehicular access to the new A120 – A133 Link Road and/or the Bromley Road. Parts of the Crockleford Neighbourhood to the north of Bromley Road will require vehicular access from Bromley Road, however there are some references in the DPD to Bromley Road being a sustainable movement / active travel corridor only, which could restrict the use of Bromley Road and have an impact on existing homes and businesses as well as homes further north of the A120. It is important that the evidence base and policy wording across the DPD is clear and consistent on this point to identify a feasible strategy for movement to, from and within Crockleford and Bromley Road in the DPD. This will also enable the sustainable transport strategy required to support the Crockleford Community to be developed through the planning application.
Recommended detailed wording changes to the draft DPD text are provided at Appendix 3 of the attached document.
See attachment
Object
Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)
GC POLICY 8: SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Representation ID: 234
Received: 26/06/2023
Respondent: Latimer (Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community) Developments Limited
Agent: Lichfields
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Generally, Latimer support the Councils’ aspirations and expectations for creating a community fit for the future and which embraces Garden Community principles and incorporates measures aimed at tackling climate change, minimising carbon emissions and climate change adaptation. However, a few points of clarification and wording amendments are suggested within the representations, relating to Net Zero Carbon, Design and Construction.
- Part A of GC Policy 8 has been expanded upon, and requirements are now more detailed. As such, the wording should make it clear that this is because the Garden Community will be ‘aspirational’ in achieving net zero carbon and make reference to advances in Building Regulations.
- Recommend the removal of reference to a District Heating Network.
- Latimer fully supports the potential that renewable energy could be provided in the Strategic Green Gaps (‘SGG’). However, there is different language used to describe allowable development in the SGGs. The Wivenhoe SGG refers to “renewable energy”’ whereas the Elmstead SGG refers to “low carbon energy generation”. Renewable energy generation will be critical to supporting a resilient community but there should be an aligned approach to terminology to provide a consistent strategy for future planning applications to follow.
See attachment
Object
Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)
GC POLICY 9: INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY AND IMPACT MITIGATION
Representation ID: 238
Received: 26/06/2023
Respondent: Latimer (Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community) Developments Limited
Agent: Lichfields
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Generally, the principle of Chapter 9, including GC Policy 9 ‘Infrastructure delivery and Impact Mitigation’ of the DPD is supported. The Chapter seeks to ensure the Garden Community delivers the required infrastructure to support the development in a timely manner, but also recognition that where appropriate, infrastructure may need to be phased.
- Part A, point 1, amendment proposed to S106 and CIL references.
- Part B, removal of requirement for a Viability Assessment is parties are in agreement regarding planning gain provisions (not including HIF recovery).
See attachment
