Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)

I want this plan to be honest and tell the truth and not lies. Those people should live in the real world and take into consideration: 1) the actual land space available for the housing development, The area of search established for the project (2017) for the local plan defined a broad range of housing provision between 7000 – 9000 dwellings. It should be noted this is substantially less than the combined housing requirement of 29,400 dwellings for Colchester and Tendring as established in policy 4 of the shared strategic plan, which is only for the period until 2033. A significant majority of these houses must still be placed on the edges of existing towns and villages, bringing the project’s justification into question. While somewhat arbitrary the project’s housing provision range of seven to nine thousand dwellings was only a starting point, intended to develop as evidence was gathered and planning commenced, but this was not told by our representatives. The area of search represents approximately 740 hectares of land. The settlement development boundary proposed in a draft DPD (2022) reduced this area as needed by the link road (A133 to A120) allocation, protection of ancient woodland and dedicated strategic green gaps, and some other smaller necessary concessions, a woodland remains within this settlement development boundary, and this is a real concern as it reduces immensely the developable area of land to place those houses. After the 2022 draft DPD was published, further concessions were made to expand areas dedicated to Salary Brook country park as well as Knowledge Gateway (university) for additional sporting facilities. This has therefore reduced the land for housing development quite considerately. Add to this the development for businesses and keeping in mind the significant number of existing residential properties within the area, which are rural homes with considerable gardens and other outdoor spaces, the land they are going to develop the project on is very small, therefore will push either to a high density development or to very high storey houses, and these facts will be in serious contrast with the character of the surrounding communities . Many of these homes in the Crockleford Heath are area of special character which is recognised (policy 1B) as requiring a substantially lower housing density than the rest of the area. These combined effects further reduce the available developable land allocation. I am not aware that there is a mention of all the real facts that make the developable land so small, or the quantity of land allocated for the development of those houses in the DPD or its evidence base. Their commitment to retain existing trees and hedgerows is wonderful, but I do not think that they will keep it. I believe that this brings further pressures on land use when we take into consideration town planning. Combining this policy, with the necessary allocation for school land of the 6 schools proposed in chapter 5 this continues to reduce the land that can be developed residentially and makes it harder to deliver satisfactorily and efficiently.
2) We need a strong distinction between the TCBGC and the communities of Elmstead Market, Alresford, Wivenhoe and Colchester. This is important in order to constrain urban sprawl, retain separate identities and prevent coalescence between towns and villages that have already experienced substantial development over the last 3 years.
The original TCBGC scope was to create a new town bordered by the A120 to the north, the A133 to the south and a new link road between both to form the Eastern boundary. Development outside these boundaries is unacceptable urban sprawl and not in keeping with the original Garden Community concept.

This project's an over-ambitious development, not thought -through with no solution should it encounters any trouble and becomes in danger to go burst., It's inconceivable to have such a high housing density within a mile of Elmstead Market, a rural Parish, the infrastructure is a real problem for the existing local residents. where a density of only half this figure would be considered too high for suitable development, and is highly detrimental. This directly contradicts the DPDs justification of preventing developments that alter a communities’ character. It's also the loss of excellent fields, ancient hedgerows, an image and a culture.

THERE ARE NO NET BIODIVERSITY GAINS, as it states in the DPD! the only way that biodiversity can continue is by not destroying the area and covering it with concrete and pollutants. The farmland should be protected and encouraged as the Mondial situation is very precarious, and the future is uncertain. Unless we want to push the people to cannibalism for their survival, may it be due very high food prices or unavailability of food supply, the farmland should be protected and not turned into some pie in the sky project.

The language used makes believe that it will be all roses and sweet. But they are for this destroying an existing ecosystem that works, excellent fields (grade1), ancient hedgerows, trees, grove, protected lane, and the rural aspect of the countryside. Fauna and flora are the true victims of a lack of understand what they are doing. There are so many discrepancies between the illustrative plan and policies map. The maps are difficult to read as there are too often nothing clear to recognise. For example: the inclusion of Strawberry Grove – an area of ancient woodland in Elmstead Parish and the project area of search that has astonishingly been discussed, has potentially been removed and used as a construction compound. It is very concerning that this is shown on the illustrative plan, but deliberately excluded from the definitive policies.
Elmstead Parish has already suffered from a decade of speculative development. It had as a result that the number of dwellings to double, losing so much of its countryside. main concern until last year was the devastating loss of wildlife habitats that we already know are under severe threat. It has become vital with the uncertainty of the precarious international situation impacting on our food import and food prices , it is common sense and intelligence to keep farmland and it should be should be given extra protection to bolster our means of food production here in the UK. To build these 7,000 homes on green space while proudly promoting a "new" Country Park is arrogant, self-congratulatory and it is my feeling that it is totally hypocritical.

To create this project where it truly belongs to. It is urban, it is modern, it is supposed to have everything at hand. Therefore why pushing it in a rural community, why letting the developers free to toy with us? They haven't thought of places of worship, of hospitals, of police station, of fire station, of ambulance station, of disposal of rubbish, of pubs, of cinema... This project is a pie in the sky waiting to prove its true worth of blot on the landscape. A building development is incomplete until it has a proper /suitable infrastructure, a planted and thriving landscape.

In a fairy tale, this project is a perfect world. But in the real world it will be a nightmare.. Nothing is defined at all. If built wrongly they will be 3 different neighbourhoods. Money will change what is planned, as they will be cutting corners to save money, Nothing has been refined, nothing has really been planned. It is left to the developers who do not care for the damages they cause, for the errors they make. It is left to the local people to deal with. Everything is general, so open to be abused by the developers.

Find a true place for such a project that size. Not build it in a countryside using fields grade 1 and destroying so many assets of the community. (ancient hedgerows, woodland, trees, a hamlet that is a natural place of beauty, protected lane, a grove, fauna and flora living in this area). Replacing it by a system that will need years to prove its effectiveness when we have a fully integrated and functional ecosystem in place is pure folly in my opinion.

The density is not proportionate for the area and the desire to build multi storey buildings is in disaccord with the local design of the Parish. The business park will have a negative impact on a listed building (Church and cemetery) and damage to architectural value of listed grade 1 Church. This site is an over development, that has not been thought through at all. It is an excessive bulk of a big number of houses making it a high density. The area of search established for the project (2017) for the local plan defined a broad range of housing provision between 7000 – 9000 dwellings. It should be noted this is substantially less than the combined housing requirement of 29,400 dwellings for Colchester and Tendring as established in policy 4 of the shared strategic plan, which is only for the period until 2033. A significant majority of these houses must still be placed on the edges of existing towns and villages, bringing the project’s justification into question. While somewhat arbitrary the project’s housing provision range of seven to nine thousand dwellings was only a starting point, intended to develop as evidence was gathered and planning commenced, but this was not told by our representatives. The area of search represents approximately 740 hectares of land. The settlement development boundary proposed in a draft DPD (2022) reduced this area as needed by the link road (A133 to A120) allocation, protection of ancient woodland and dedicated strategic green gaps, and some other smaller necessary concessions, a woodland remains within this settlement development boundary, and this is a real concern as it reduces immensely the developable area of land to place those houses. After the 2022 draft DPD was published, further concessions were made to expand areas dedicated to Salary Brook country park as well as Knowledge Gateway (university) for additional sporting facilities. This has therefore reduced the land for housing development quite considerately. Add to this the development for businesses and keeping in mind the significant number of existing residential properties within the area, which are rural homes with considerable gardens and other outdoor spaces, the land they are going to develop the project on is very small, therefore will push either to a high density development or to very high storey houses, and these facts will be in serious contrast with the character of the surrounding communities . Many of these homes in the Crockleford Heath are area of special character which is recognised (policy 1B) as requiring a substantially lower housing density than the rest of the area. These combined effects further reduce the available developable land allocation. I am not aware that there is a mention of all the real facts that make the developable land so small, or the quantity of land allocated for the development of those houses in the DPD or its evidence base. Their commitment to retain existing trees and hedgerows is wonderful, but I do not think that they will keep it. I believe that this brings further pressures on land use when we take into consideration town planning. Combining this policy, with the necessary allocation for school land of the 6 schools proposed in chapter 5 this continues to reduce the land that can be developed residentially and makes it harder to deliver satisfactorily and efficiently.

The business park needs to be built where it is needed in any urban area, but not in a rural community.

The business park will have a negative impact on a listed building (Church and cemetery) and damage to architectural value of listed grade 1 Church. It is coming very close and the report shows that it will be damaging to it.
A business park will increase the traffic on the roads, steal the peaceful settings of the area, increase air and noise pollution while being built, increase air pollution In a world becoming increasingly aware that we need to encourage and protect the environment we have, why destroying it to bring more problems to the locals? There are many businesses already in the parish. We need to encourage food growing, animal farming as these will save the people in a near future. We do not need more businesses increasing the demand for transport and the demand for electricity production, for rubbish disposal, for uses of sewers and water supplies. By always taking and destroying the same things that help us to live, we are pushing to the destruction of our world, already blinded by such projects that are not needed and forced upon the locals.

too many to be put right.

They say things, but I fear I do not believe them any more. They told us that link road was first, then infrastructure, then the housing development. Alas, when we ask questions they are always vague, When I pointed out what was the meaning of an empty school because of a lack of teachers? Or an hospital because of a lack of doctors and surgeons... they stay vague and imagine that all those posts will be filled.

What is worrying is that the local residents have children with no places at the local schools.school, or beds in hospital, and they are not prepared to help. But they can take our money and pay for a new project,