Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD)

- Clarity should be provided on the scope of sports facilities that may be accommodated in the sports and leisure park i.e. will indoor facilities and floodlit facilities be permitted.
- The preparation of a masterplan for the Sports and Leisure Park should be an explicit requirement of the policy

• The requirement for proposals to contribute positively to the health, wellbeing and resilience of communities and the natural environment is welcomed as this would be consistent with Government policy in paragraph 92(c) of the NPPF and Sport England’s Active Design guidance;
• The principle of providing a new ‘Salary Brook’ country park within the development is welcomed as this will provide a strategic informal recreation space that would encourage physical activity associated with walking and cycling;
• The principle of providing a Sports and Leisure Park to serve the local community and the expansion of the University of Essex’s sports facilities is welcomed as the concept of a hub site is needed to support the scale of sports facilities required to support the Garden Community and it would be appropriate to co-locate this with facilities needed to support the University’s expansion so that shared use of the facilities can be facilitated. However, it is requested that the policy should address the following matters:
- Clarity should be provided on the scope of sports facilities that may be accommodated in the sports and leisure park i.e. will indoor facilities and floodlit facilities be permitted. This would help avoid potential misinterpretations of the scope of what would be considered acceptable in this location especially as many of the facilities required to support the community needs and potentially the University’s needs will be indoor or floodlit. This is pertinent if this location is considered to be environmentally sensitive. If the location is not considered to be suitable for indoor or floodlit facilities then the location of the Sports and Leisure Park should be reviewed as a site which is only suitable for outdoor facilities that are not floodlit would not be responsive to the community’s needs identified in the evidence base.
- The preparation of a masterplan for the Sports and Leisure Park should be an explicit requirement of the policy in order to ensure that a co-ordinated approach is taken to meeting the sports facility needs of the community and the University, the possible accommodation of a ‘Park and Choose’ facility and meeting the policy’s environmental objectives. A scenario where the Sports and Leisure Park is developed on an incremental basis (e.g. the Park and Choose facility first) in the absence of a masterplan framework should be avoided as this may compromise the delivery of the policy objectives. A masterplan is also required to demonstrate that the site has the capacity to meet all of the needs that is proposed to accommodate. While part K of the policy requires Area Specific Masterplans to be prepared, the policy should make it explicit that a masterplan is specifically required for the Sports and Leisure Park given the importance of a co-ordinated approach and to avoid disputes over the scope of the detailed Area Specific Masterplans;

• The requirements for a multi-functional green-blue infrastructure network is welcomed as this would offer opportunities for active recreation by a range of different users;
• The proposal in part A for the ‘Nature Layer’ to be co-ordinated with active travel networks to maximise the potential for routes through green infrastructure is welcomed as this will encourage physical activity
• The enhancement of the Colchester Orbital is supported as this would encourage walking and cycling for leisure purposes beyond the development;
• The requirement in part G for SuDS to create high quality public open space and landscaped public realm by providing viewpoints, footpaths, seating and signage is welcomed as this will support SuDS becoming a recreational destination that will encourage physical activity to access them.
• The requirement in part I for proposals to demonstrate how the scheme reflects and complies with the Colchester Tendring Open Space Strategy requirements and the Healthy Living and Play Strategy is welcomed as this will help demonstrate how nature and recreational objectives will be delivered in practice.

It is requested that Part I of the policy (or the policy justification) is amended to explain how Active Design can be achieved by developers in practice. For example, Active Design criteria have been incorporated into the new Health Impact Assessment guidance prepared by the EPOA so therefore Active Design could be assessed as part of a HIA. Alternatively, a Design and Access Statement or a specific Active Design assessment could assess how Active Design opportunities have been considered through completing the checklist in the Active Design guidance.

• The reference to the development achieving Active Design in part A of the policy is welcomed as this will contribute to delivering the wider vision for the Garden Community and would accord with Government policy in the NPPF. However, for accuracy it should refer to and ‘accord with Active Design principles’. To support the delivery of this requirement, it is requested that Part I of the policy (or the policy justification) is amended to explain how this should be considered by developers in practice. For example, Active Design criteria have been incorporated into the new Health Impact Assessment guidance prepared by the EPOA so therefore Active Design could be assessed as part of a HIA. Alternatively, a Design and Access Statement or a specific Active Design assessment could assess how Active Design opportunities have been considered through completing the checklist in the Active Design guidance.
• The requirement in part B of the policy to provide for places which promote health and well-being is welcomed as this is consistent with the Active Design guidance.

- It is requested that part C expects schools to be designed to encourage health and wellbeing, especially physical activity, by the design and layout of the schools (e.g. storage facilities to support cycling and designing the school grounds to promote informal physical activity as well as providing the conventional sport and play facilities);
- It is requested that part C or D refers to the opportunities to provide community facilities in new schools through the shared use of sports, arts etc facilities and that this should be fully explored as part of the masterplanning. There should also be a requirement for the community use of school facilities to be secured through formal community use agreements.
- It is requested that part D details the expected minimum community sports facility requirements to be provided within the Garden Community
- It is requested that Part D acknowledges the potential role of the University’s existing or future sports facilities in meeting the needs of the development
- It is requested that part G clarify that the Healthy Living and Play strategy be informed by the recommendations of the 2022 Colchester and Tendring Open Space Strategy. and be co-ordinated with other relevant strategies for the development such as the Green Infrastructure Strategy and the Active Travel Strategy
- It is requested that part G of the policy or the reasoned justification make it clear that the proposed community use of school facilities would be secured in practice through the completion of formal community use agreements secured as part of any planning permission


-

• The principles of this theme especially those relating to ‘A Place Where It’s Easy to be Healthy and Happy’ and ‘A Place to Play and have Fun’ are welcomed as they would support encouraging physical activity. The focus on the creation of environments that promote healthy living rather than just healthcare facilities is particularly welcomed as this would be consistent with Sport England’s Active Design guidance which is promoted in the plan’s policies;
• Support is offered for community and social infrastructure needs being determined in accordance with detailed assessments and strategies as this would be the appropriate approach to addressing community sport and physical activity facility needs generated by the development;
• Support is offered for part A of the policy as requiring neighbourhood centres to be accessible by a sustainable travel network and having community meeting places which can provide for a range of community uses and needs would accord with Active Design principles.
• The requirement in part B for multi-functional community buildings and spaces to be provided is supported as this offers potential to meet a variety of needs in close proximity to where people live which would include sport and physical activity needs;
• The vehicle free ‘school zones’ approach combined with schools being connected by safe and direct walking/cycling routes is welcomed as it would be consistent with Active Design principles. It is requested that the policy goes further by expecting schools to be designed to encourage health and wellbeing, especially physical activity, by the design and layout of the schools (e.g. storage facilities to support cycling and designing the school grounds to promote informal physical activity as well as providing the conventional sport and play facilities);
• Opportunities to provide community facilities in new schools through the shared use of sports, arts etc facilities should be fully explored as part of the masterplanning of the development as this would avoid the potential duplication of facilities within the development and provide facilities in close proximity to where people live. This is pertinent as the KKP ‘Open Space, Playing Pitch, Outdoor Sports and Built Facility – Overarching Strategy’ identifies that the potential that a secondary school in particular offers for meeting the needs for facilities such as 3G artificial grass pitches, tennis/netball courts and indoor sports facilities. The potential land take implications of providing shared use sports facilities on school sites should be accounted for in the masterplanning process as well as the need for developers to fund the uplift required to deliver dual use facilities that are suitable for meeting community needs. This should be referenced in part C or D of the policy together with a requirement for the community use of school facilities to be secured through formal community use agreements;
• The broad approach to sport, recreation and open space provision in part D of the policy is welcomed. However, as the Colchester and Tendring Sports Recreation and Open Space Strategy is now at an advanced stage and the abovementioned Overarching Strategy has been completed the policy should provide details of the expected minimum facility requirements to be provided within the Garden Community to provide clarity to developers and the community about what is expected based on the evidence base although this could be caveated to address potential changes in facility needs in the interim of the development being delivered given the expected long lead in time. This would be consistent with the approach taken in the policy to education facilities for instance where minimum school facility requirements are outlined.
• Part D should acknowledge the potential role of the University’s existing or future sports facilities in meeting the needs of the development in view of the close proximity of the University site and the strategic shared use facilities that are or could be provided to help meet the needs of residents of the development;
• The requirement in part E of the policy for developments to account for healthy new towns principles and Active Design principles is welcomed. The requirement for a HIA to be prepared and for this to be prepared in accordance with EPOA’s latest guidance is supported as this guidance incorporates Active Design principles which in turn would support the policy’s requirement to account for these principles;
• The requirement in Part F of the policy for developer contributions to fund the initial set up and running costs of community development is welcomed. The reference in the justification to the stewardship strategy including an activation programme to include community development delivery is also welcomed as well as the examples given that relate to the establishment of community walking/cycling/running activities and sports club establishment.
• The requirement in part G of the policy for development to be supported by a Healthy Living and Play Strategy is welcomed as this would provide a strategic framework for informing and justifying the approach to sport and physical activity provision. Part G of the policy should clarify that this strategy should be informed by the recommendations of the 2022 Colchester and Tendring Open Space Strategy. This strategy should also be co-ordinated with other relevant strategies for the development such as the Green Infrastructure Strategy and the Active Travel Strategy given the inter-relationship between them. As well as through the provision of sites and facilities the strategy should demonstrate how the broader design of the development has encouraged active lifestyles (e.g. through the use of the Active Design principles).
• While the requirement in part G of the policy for educational proposals to be accompanied by a Community Use Statement/Plan is supported, the policy or its justification should make it clear that the proposed community use would be secured in practice through the completion of formal community use agreements secured as part of any planning permission. A formal community use agreement is required to secure the community use of educational facilities in practice over a long term period and is the conventional approach to securing proposals for community use in practice as an agreement has legal status and can be monitored and enforced if required outside of planning enforcement. Without such a requirement it is unclear how the proposals in a Community Use Statement/Plan would be secured if planning permission was granted.

• The principles supporting this policy are welcomed as they would support encouraging physical activity through prioritising people over the car and promoting active travel. The reference in part A of the policy requiring proposals to have regard to Active Design principles and the Building for a Healthy Life process when designing the public realm and streets is also welcomed.
• Part B of the policy is particularly welcomed due to its detailed guidance on promoting active and healthy travel.
• Part G of the policy in relation to cycle parking is supported especially in relation to the expectation that cycle parking should be located in prominent and accessible locations a part of the design of new homes. This would be consistent with Sport England’s Active Design principles relating to ‘Providing Activity Infrastructure’ and ‘Active Buildings Inside and Out’.

The policy is supported in relation to its approach to requiring developers to make provision for infrastructure which will include sport as provision is made for both on-site and off-site provision to be made which is likely to be necessary for sport.