Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)

Object

Representation ID: 180

Received: 25/06/2023

Respondent: Elmstead Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

- Policy is inward looking – doesn’t address impact on nearby communities.
Part A
- Number of new homes is ambiguous
- Wivenhoe Strategic Green Gap is in parish of Elmstead.
Part B
- Statements about phasing are unclear/ineffective.
- Neighbourhoods having distinctive character could lead to segregated communities
- Density too high.
- Transport links gives greater connectivity to Colchester than Tendring.
- Incompatible with GC principles
- Unclear how RTS will interact with the link road.
- Infrastructure required before neighbourhood centres are complete.
- Neighbourhoods too close to ancient woodland.
- Policy for Crockleford doesn’t protect residents of the wider area.
Part C
- Salary Brook Country Park biases Colchester’s benefit
- Existing new development on Bromley Road already causes coalescence with Colchester
Part D
- Wivenhoe SGG is important to Elmstead.
Part E
- Location of business park will harm Grade 1 listed building
- Elmstead SGG isn’t big enough.
Part F
- Sports facilities unsuitable for SGG
Part G
- Site too small for transition to countryside
- Impact on ancient woodland
Part H
- Employment area will harm setting of listed building.
- Shouldn’t be on eastern side of link road.
Part J
- Need additional park and choose facility to north of site.
Part K
- EPC want to be more involved with masterplanning.
Justification
- Concern over density.

Object

Representation ID: 181

Received: 25/06/2023

Respondent: Elmstead Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

- Question the use of the word beautiful in official planning policy.
Intro
- Respecting existing character should not be secondary to creating unique/distinctive neighbourhoods.
Part B
- Concern that re-prioritising parking will be detrimental in the mid-term.
Part C
- Design quality requirements is too brief and ambiguous.
Part D
- Street lighting should be directional to avoid light pollution.
- Designing out crime in GC will push crime into Elmstead.
Part G
- High housing density in conflict with adequate private amenity space.
Part H
- Impact of employment area will harm setting of Elmstead church.
- Non-listed heritage assets need extra protection.
Part I
- Heritage assets should be within an expanded Strategic Green Gap.
- Need further explanation around GC being ‘self sufficient’
Justification
- HIA is insufficient.

Object

Representation ID: 182

Received: 25/06/2023

Respondent: Elmstead Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Part D
- Repeats concerns around density and viability.
Part E
- Self-build should be provided elsewhere in the GC where there won’t be such stringent design code requirements.
Part H
- Concerned about 2,000 units of student accommodation in addition to 7,500 homes.
Justification
- High density is not justified other than by figures carried forward from earlier stages.

Object

Representation ID: 183

Received: 25/06/2023

Respondent: Elmstead Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

- Higher target of jobs per household is required.
Part A
- Concerned phasing of business accommodation is tied to occupation of housing, but education and healthcare are not.
Part C
- Employment land should be available to public services if necessary in short to mid term.
Justification
- Although employment land must be near A120 link road, it does not have to be East of it.

Object

Representation ID: 184

Received: 25/06/2023

Respondent: Elmstead Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Principles
- Concerns that existing communities who steward the land are being excluded from long-term stewardship considerations.
- Governance and future is too uncertain.
- Concerns over consultation process.
- A neighbourhood can only have one ‘centre’.
Part C
- Concern that Elmstead Primary School has not engaged in plan making process.
- Concerns around phasing of education provision, and pressure on existing facilities in the short term.
- Additional capacity needed to ease existing pressures.
- ‘up to five new primary schools’ is imprecise, and a definite link to phasing is required whereas ‘at least five new… early years and childcare facilities’ is better.
- A single secondary school is more efficient and suitable.
Part E
- Single health hub doesn’t accord with 20-minute neighbourhood principle
- Details are imprecise, need greater emphasis on healthcare provision.
- Need provision for other healthcare facilities such as dentists and pharmacies.
Part F
- More robust and conclusive approach to stewardship is required at an early stage.
Part G
- Developers should not be proposing phasing – LPAs should take the lead.
- Assessing need for healthcare provision separately for each proposal is inefficient and can lead to inequality and poor supply.

Object

Representation ID: 185

Received: 25/06/2023

Respondent: Elmstead Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

- Existing congestion in Elmstead village will be made worse. NO proposal to improve A133 in this location.
- Should make sustainable travel easier, not private car journeys harder.
- Streets should be primarily for travel, not play.
- Travel connections biased towards Colchester.
- Only connection to Tendring is by car.
- Concerns around illustrative plan, irregularities around access to southern neighbourhood and dead end connections, pedestrian connections over A133, indirect route of cycle route in north east.
Part A
- Unclear language and meaning.
- Modal share targets should be stronger and more aspirational.
Part B
- Concerned that parking control in GC will lead to problems elsewhere.
Part C
- Concerned over how convenient public transport will be.
- Greater distinction needed between RTS and other bus operators.
Part D
- Concerns regarding wider connectivity and effectiveness of RTS due to congested roads.
Part E
- Electric vehicle charging ranks will increase pressure on land use and density.
Part F
- Park and choose without direct access to A120 is ineffective.
Part G
- Concerned about moving parking problems elsewhere.
- No provision for HGV parking.
Part I
- Object to direct junction from A133 to GC. All access should be from the link road.
- Restricting car journeys between link road and Bromley Road will negatively impact existing residents of Bromley Road who have links to Elmstead.
- Horse riding shouldn’t be a high priority.
Justification
- A single healthcare hub can’t be accessible within 20-minutes from all neighbourhoods.
- Link road will lead to high to severe impact on breathable air quality in Elmstead (and GC site)
- Planning has been biased to Colchester’s benefit.

Object

Representation ID: 186

Received: 25/06/2023

Respondent: Elmstead Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

- Question intention behind the illustrative plan
Part A
- Need to assess how homes will continue to met standards for a set period of time after construction.
- Schools and business premises must also have energy efficiency requirements.
- Ineffective language.
Part B
- ‘Encouraging’ is imprecise language that means policy is ineffective.
Part C
- ‘where feasible’ makes policy is too weak.
Part D
- Poor wording about water efficiency calculator report.
Justification
- 1.5C target is expected to be broken in 2027 – not a valid justification for policy.

Object

Representation ID: 187

Received: 25/06/2023

Respondent: Elmstead Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

- Timely requires clarification, too ambiguous.
Part A
- Off-site capacity improvements supports rumours of temporary school classrooms, and compromises infrastructure first principles.

Object

Representation ID: 270

Received: 28/06/2023

Respondent: Elmstead Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Introduction
- Garden community site isn’t natural, it’s intensely farmed. Truly natural areas are very few.
- New homes will not contribute to nature recovery.
- Policy is unrealistically optimistic and will be ineffective in practice.
- Natural preservation and effective development are in direct contrast to each other.
- Only viable form of carbon capture for the GC is vegetation, and the site already does this without development. Any meaningful carbon capture would rely on yet to be invented technology.
- Concerned about misleading discrepancies between illustrative plans and policies map.
Policy intro
- Elmstead church will be harmed by proposals.
Part A
- Using Salary Brook as a SANG will harm the native habitat here.
Part B
- Development will take away natural and historic environment, not celebrate it.
Part C
- Policy wording is not robust enough.
- Information for new residents isn’t enough to protect sensitive sites.
Part D
- Delivering BNG on site too resource intensive.
Part E
- Farming landscape isn’t conducive to planning a settlement.
- Language isn’t precise enough.
Part F
- Policy is commendable but insufficient evidence is presented to support using so much land without compromising other land uses.
- Allotments are not acceptable within green gaps.
Part G
- Disagree with evidence base around groundwater conditions and the suitability of SuDS.
Part H
- Link road mitigation needs more certainty.
Part I
- 30-year commitment for BNG isn’t long enough for such a long term scheme.
Justification
- Concerned about public being excluded from natural spaces to protect biodiversity.