Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)

As the A120-A133 Link Road is such a fundamental enabler for the GC, this radical change of approach (currently with no certainty re it’s outcome) must be developed to a level of confidence in the approach (and in its impact on traffic congestion) and then included within, or linked to, the Development Plan Document .

In addition the detail of the feasibility of the new Road plan must be independently examined, under the direction of the Inspector. The plan and its examination must include the time frame for the completion of the complete Link Road, details of the total funding mechanism, the impact on traffic flows/congestion over the full construction period, the maximum number of dwellings to be occupied prior to the full road opening, and the contingencies included in the plan to ensure that this plan WILL deliver.

As this new Road Plan represents a fundamental change to the infrastructure first concept of the TCBGC, arguably this radically revised plan should also be subject to public consultation.

The Section 1 Examination of the TCBGC Plan emphasised an “infrastructure first” delivery approach in advance of any housing occupancy. This was most heavily emphasised for the A120-A133 Link Road due to the existing high traffic congestion particularly on the A133 approach road into Colchester. Now the A120-A133 Link Road Memorandum of Understanding document (non-binding) dated 24th February 2023, between ECC, CCC, TDC and Latimer Development Ltd envisages a first step to build a first portion of the Link Road to be constructed from the A133 to allow access to the Garden Community, this being caused by insufficient HIF funding being achieved. A second step is envisaged to complete the Link Road to its A120 junction.This second step could well be funded by the house builders via s.106 agreements at an undefined future date. After many years of planning, this non-binding MOU document (lacking any certainty and any detail)clearly represents a totally unsound plan at this stage for a major element of the GC.

Noting that the Colchester and Tendring shared Section 1 Local Plan requires funding of the Link Road to be secured prior to the approval of planning applications related to the TCBGC and noting the existing high traffic congestion on the A133 through Colchester (and particularly in the Clingoe Hill area) , the Plan outlined in the MoU may also not be viable. If the missing funding for the Link Road is paid by the house builders after (currently an undisclosed) number of houses are sold and occupied (under s.106 agreements), it is possible that the overload of traffic on the A133 from all the construction traffic and from new home owners could become unacceptably high before the Link Road is completed. This would render the current Garden Community project non-viable. This can only be established by the Councils being far more open on their revised Link Road plan with the public and the Section 19 Inspector, by developing a committed and detailed revised total Link Road plan within (or alongside) the Development Plan Document ie delivering to the Inspector a committed financial and time plan and, the related traffic density analyses to allow the Inspector to undertake an independent examination to establish whether this revised overall Link Road plan is sound and viable.

As examples, I will concentrate my comments on para 9 and para 6 of the Monitoring List, although a similar process should be applied to all the paras listed in the DPD:

- as currently stated in para 9 the conservation of historic and cultural heritage is to be recorded only if Grade1 and 11+ buildings ,nationally important assets ,and assets on the Colchester Local List are lost.The list must clearly be expanded to include harm as well as loss and, to those assets from the Tendring and Essex County Council lists . For example, the ECC list includes the protected lane that is Turnip Lodge Lane. As defined by the National Planning Policy Framework loss or harm to all designated or non-designated assets and their settings should be recorded and importantly avoided wherever possible.
The Councils should list all these assets and set a target of retaining all (as the list is small) and they should also commit to take all reasonable steps to minimise the detrimental effect on those assets whose setting is affected

- as the DPD has emphasised the importance of the current existing green infrastructure within the GC area, para 6 should set targets for a high percentage of existing hedgerows to be retained; similarly targets should be set for the percentage of existing trees to be retained and; the proclaimed “quiet lanes” should be stated to be retained. Separate green percentage area targets should be identified for the GC overall, for each of the housing development areas, and for the percentage of their accessibility by all.

Monitoring is a powerful tool in assessing the effectiveness of this DPD if the target for every important parameter (that can positively differentiate the outcome of this GC from previous housing developments)is numerically specified from the outset. Only a proportion of the relevant parameters are listed in this DPD and there are no numerically specified targets. The latter is important to inform the Inspector of the expectation for the GC and can later be used by the Councils in their controls to achieve successful outcomes throughout the delivery process. This Monitoring plan as currently stated is not a sound approach.