Stage Colchester Tendring Braintree Call for Sites On going Completed August- October December 2016 December February 2017

Transcription

1 COLCHESTER METRO PLANNING REPORT January Introduction CAUSE has commissioned this report to highlight the key planning considerations to be taken into account in developing and testing the Colchester Metro Town Concept as the basis for taking forward an alternative option for accommodating strategic housing requirements in Colchester, Tendring and Braintree. 2. Background 2.1 Timetable for Local Plan preparation Local Plans are currently being prepared for Colchester, Tendring and Braintree. The timescales for preparation are roughly aligned and this should assist in ensuring alignment of the respective growth strategies and the potential for collaborative working. The new Local Plans will cover the period to 2032 (note: the Braintree and Tendring Local Plans cover the period to 2033). The current programmes for plan preparation and adoption (as at January 2016) are set out below. Work on the Preferred Options will be progressed by all three authorities over the next 6 months with the next round of public consultation currently scheduled to commence in June Local Plan Sub- Committees will meet during this period to consider draft policies and potential development sites during this period and to feed inti preparation of the Preferred Options. These committee meetings are public meetings and agendas, minutes and pod casts are available on the Councils web sites. Examinations of all three Local Plans are currently expected to take place in May-June Table 1: Local Plans- Key Dates Stage Colchester Tendring Braintree Call for Sites On going Completed August- October 2014 Consultation on Issues January- September-October January-March 2015 and Options Document February Consultation on June-July 2016 June-August 2016 June-July 2016 Preferred Options Approval of Submission November 2016 November- December November 2016 Local Plan 2016 Consultation on Submission Local Plan December 2016 December February 2017 November-December 2016 Submission of Local March 2017 March 2017 February 2017 Plan Examination June 2017 May- June 2017 May 2017 Adoption Late 2017 October 2017 September 2017

2 2.2 Duty to Cooperate Through the legal Duty to Cooperate, Councils are required to work in partnership with adjoining authorities in preparation of their Local Plans. It is will therefore be essential that the Councils work with neighbouring authorities and other public bodies throughout the plan making process in order to ensure the duty to cooperate is satisfied and that Local Plans can be drawn to a successful conclusion. Any cross-boundary development identified as part of a preferred growth option will only come forward with the support and cooperation of the relevant neighbouring authority and will need to accommodate the joint requirements of both authorities. To aid coordination and the legal requirements of the Duty to Cooperate, Colchester, Braintree and Tendring Councils have an agreed Memorandum of Understanding and a joint approach to strategic planning. Under the duty to cooperate, Colchester Borough Council has engaged with Tendring District Council and Braintree District Council and the authorities have agreed to work cooperatively in respect of any potential crossboundary developments. This will include the consideration of larger sites and exploring the concept of garden communities to meet the combined housing need of the authorities in a sustainable way within the plan period and beyond. The three Councils working in partnership with Essex County Council, the University of Essex and other stakeholders have been exploring the potential for large cross-boundary developments to west and east of Colchester and have received assistance from the ATLAS team at the Homes and Communities Agency (specialising in major development proposals). The authorities have jointly commissioned Garden City Developments CIC, a not for profit community interest company, to promote and establish partnerships with local landowners and option holders to investigate the feasibility of the proposed Garden Settlements. Garden Cities Ltd CIC has been advising Councils on how to apply Garden City principles (in particular land value uplift to deliver essential infrastructure) in accommodating growth requirements. The Company describes their remit as follows: The key to our role is to help build the confidence of local authorities and others that the Garden City principles of land value uplift contributing to infrastructure and high quality development, and the long term local stewardship of places are possible, and that asserting the local responsibility for what happens locally is crucial to successful communities. We are not attempting to plan Garden City developments but to help those responsible for planning to see how creating places rather than housing estates can be done. In our discussions with the three Councils for whom we are currently working, we are encouraging the Councils to take a strategic approach - clarifying their vision, being willing to show leadership, investing in their projects, creating credible development agencies and long term governance structures through a Community Trust. On their behalf, we will be discussing their plans and aspirations with local land owners, with whom we hope to agree terms on which their land will be made available, ensuring that land value can be ploughed into infrastructure and facilities. We are equally happy to support the Council s officers where they can lead such negotiations. The position is stronger whilst the Councils are at an early stage in the local planning process and have not yet determined the preferred locations for major growth. In

3 parallel we have encouraged ATLAS (an Agency of CLG) to become involved, not only in the process of developing the approach in the specific locations, but also in developing a financial model that will allow plans to be tested for viability under various assumptions about scale, pace, funding and standards. Garden Cities Developments has met Members from each Council, has held numerous meetings with key landowners, and is understood to be undertaking discussions with landowners and option holders. The intention of these discussions is to develop the Councils options around applying land value capture and long term stewardship arrangements, and to specifically explore landowners appetites for engaging with the councils on these issues and willingness to enter legally binding agreements with the respective councils to such effect. A Steering Group consisting of Council Leaders, Planning Portfolio Holders, Chief Executives and other Senior Officers, Essex County Council and the University of Essex has been established a project manager has been employed to coordinate this work. The work is at an early stage, but it is clear that all three authorities with the support of Essex County Council are actively seeking to evolve the policy process to further endorse the emerging concepts the result being that all three Councils may decide to identify a Garden Settlement as a broad location for growth in their Local Plan Preferred Options. A joint bid for 953,000 of government funding was submitted to government in October 2015 in response to the Locally Led Garden Cities prospectus to procure further specialist advice in advancing the garden settlement proposals in an efficient manner. DCLG announced on 7 December 2015 that 1.1 million funding had been approved to fund initial work on the Greater Didcot Garden Town (15,000 new homes) and new Garden Communities in North Essex with upto 35,000 new homes. The funding for North Essex amounts to 640,000 and will enable the authorities to explore the feasibility of garden communities. The funding has been welcomed by all three authorities. Cllr Paul Smith, Leader of Colchester Borough Council has said: The Councils are under pressure to deliver more homes now than ever before. Historically homes have been built first, straining the existing infrastructure. This funding allows us to see if the Garden Communities can be built with the infrastructure first, so schools and other essential structures and facilities are ready before residents move in. It would provide a more sustainable approach. Essex County Council s Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning and Environment, Cllr Roger Hirst has stated: We are very pleased to be working in partnership with the three local authorities to find ways to deliver the homes we need and the jobs and infrastructure which must come with them. The advantage of Garden Community development is that we can ensure the right provision of schools, healthcare and transport infrastructure will be in place from the start, and we welcome the opportunity to explore this fully.

4 It should be noted that the award of this funding does not commit Councils to including garden settlement options in Local Plans but will enable further feasibility work to be undertaken which will inform Local Plan preparation. Unlike Greater Didcot Garden Town which has been awarded garden town status (the third town after Ebbsfleet and Bicester), the location of new garden communities in North Essex has not been specified. This is reiterated by Cllr Graham Butland Leader of Braintree District Council who has said: We welcome this money to explore the possibility of one or more new garden settlements but it is important to stress that no decisions have been made as to whether Garden Communities is a suitable option for us. Of particular note is the resolution of Tendring DC to support the principle of development crossing the Colchester/Tendring boundary as a means of delivering housing and economic growth and for both Councils to work together, in line with the legal duty to cooperate, to draw up the plans in more detail. Tendring Council has made it clear that if proposals were to be progressed in the Local Plan for a new garden settlement on the Colchester/ Tendring border, a separate East Colchester/West Tendring Development Plan Document should be jointly prepared to guide future development. 2.3 What are Garden Cities? It is important to put the potential contribution of Garden City development into context in considering its potential contribution to meeting the growth requirements of North Essex. Whilst there is significant Government support for Garden Cities and consideration of new Garden Settlements is at the forefront of current strategic planning thinking, it is recognised that significant work is still required to address issues of delivery, in particular land value capture for the benefit of the community and infrastructure delivery. Confirmation of significant funding for further feasibility work does, however, indicate in principle Government support for this type of larger scale strategic development as a means of addressing housing growth requirements in North Essex. Garden Cities are described by the Town & Country Planning Association (TCPA) as holistically planned new settlements which enhance the natural environment and offer high-quality affordable housing and locally accessible work in beautiful, healthy and sociable communities. In terms of scale, the Government has indicated that Garden Cities should comprise approximately 15,000 dwellings and above, as well as associated employment, green space and infrastructure, with the expectation that it would take longer than one plan period to deliver these new communities. However, there is clearly scope to apply Garden City Principles including land value capture to smaller settlements and the reference to Garden Communities rather than Garden Cities or Towns in North Essex in the recent DCLG announcement is of particular relevance when considering the scale of new development. A Garden Community does, however, need to be viable and development is likely to extend throughout and beyond the emerging Local Plans.

5 3. Accommodating Growth requirements 3.1 Growth Requirements The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Councils to boost significantly the supply of housing by: using their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area. The Government s latest good practice guidance on assessing future housing need recommends that such studies be undertaken over a housing market area across more than one authority rather than for one authority in isolation. This will ensure that cross-border relationships, along with housing market and economic factors, are properly taken into account. A Joint Objectively Assessed Housing Needs Study has been prepared for Braintree, Chelmsford, Colchester and Tendring (Peter Brett Associates, July 2015). From looking at migration and commuting data, the study has concluded that the inter-relationship between Tendring, Colchester, Braintree and Chelmsford is sufficiently strong for the combined area to be considered as a housing market area. This report will form part of this evidence base and will help determine how many new homes the Councils need to plan for through their new Local Plans. The Objectively Assessed Housing Needs Study starts with official government population and household projections and makes adjustments to take into account a range of factors including the economy, migration patterns, census figures and the housing market. Having taken those factors into account, the study had recommended both an upper and lower housing growth figure for each Council to consider as the basis for allocating land for housing in their Local Plans. The recommended housing growth figures are summarised in the following table. Table 2 Housing Targets- Suggested Ranges High Low Requirement over Local Plan period ( ) Colchester ,545-13,800 Tendring ,955-10,575 Braintree ,895-12,675 Chelmsford ,040-11,625 Housing Market Area (HMA) 3,029 3,245 45,435-48,675 Source: OAHNS Report (Peter Brett Associates, July 2015) The study recommends that it would be sensible for Braintree, Chelmsford and Colchester to apply the higher figures but for Tendring, lower economic projections and adjustments for unattributable population change would justify applying the lower figure. For Tendring, this would mean 597 homes a year would be needed to meet projected needs and the new Local Plan would have to identify enough land to accommodate around 10,000 homes between now and 2032 (a reduction from the previously estimated figure of 12,000 homes). The recommended figure for Colchester is 920 homes a year and the figure for Braintree is 845 homes a year.

6 The Colchester Issues and Options Document was published before the report had been completed and assumed the objectively assessed need would be in the region of 1000 or more dwellings per annum. The figure in the OAHNS Report is lower than the figure included in the Issues and Options Report and implies a reduction in the requirement over the plan period from the figure of 15,000 as quoted in the report to around 13,800. The Issues and Options Document concludes that taking into account the existing supply of allocated land which will contribute towards meeting this growth, there will be a need to identify sufficient land to accommodate in the region of 10,000 dwellings to meet the OAHN over the plan period ( ). This figure would be in the region of 8,800 dwellings based on the upper figure in the OAHNS (July 2015). The Braintree Issues and Options Scoping Report assumed a requirement for new homes per annum over the plan period upto The range in the OAHNS report is lower at which implies a reduction in the overall growth requirement to be planned for in the plan period. Colchester Borough Council and Braintree District Council have accepted the recommendations of the OAHNS Report. It is significant to note, however, that Tendring members took the view that even by adopting the lower figure, the housing requirement in the OAHNS Report was too high for Tendring District and at the meeting on 17 September, the Local Plan Committee instructed Planning Officers to go back to the consultants to address these concerns. In doing so, the Committee expressed the hope that the figures could be revised downwards to no greater than 479 homes a year (albeit this could have implications for housing needs in other Districts in the HMA). Officers reported back to the Local Plan Committee at the meeting on 12 November that the authors of the study had advised against a reduction in the numbers as suggested by the Committee unless this could be secured through agreement with other Councils within the housing market area. This would need to be done through the Local Plan process and the legal duty to cooperate, in order to address any unmet need. Having considered the author s advice, Officers recommended that the study should be endorsed as part of the Local Plan evidence base. In representations to the recent Issues and Options consultation, Braintree and Colchester Councils have clearly stated that Tendring should as a minimum plan for 597 dwellings per year. Significantly, however, Essex County Council considers that Tendring should plan for the higher growth scenario of 705 dwellings per year. If Tendring adopts a figure lower than 597 dwellings per year without sound evidence, these authorities can be expected to submit to government that Tendring has not complied with the duty to co-operate. In such a circumstance Tendring s Local Plan could be found to be unsound. At the Local Plan Sub- Committee meeting in November 2015, Tendring members requested that further work be undertaken on housing numbers and in the light of this work, officers have recommended that members agree that the range of Objectively Assessed Needs for Tendring District Council is dwellings per annum; that the mid-point of 550 dwellings per annum is used as the Council s provisional housing target for the Local Plan and that officers consider options up to 600 dwellings per annum as the Local Plan refines through its next consultation stage and new data is assessed. A

7 report was presented to the Local Plan Sub-committee on 21 January Housing numbers, therefore, clearly remain a significant political issue in Tendring. Further work is now being carried out by consultants on behalf of Tendring, Colchester, Braintree and Chelmsford Councils (Strategic Housing Market Assessment Part 2) in order to assess, in more detail, the likely requirements for affordable housing and housing to meet the needs of particular groups in the community including, but not limited to, families with children, older people and people wishing to build their own homes. This further work will inform planning policies on housing type, mix and tenure and is expected to be completed in early Housing Land Availability Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments form an important part of the evidence base for Local Plans. Their purpose is to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and likely economic viability of land to meet identified requirements for housing. Colchester Colchester faces the greatest challenge in accommodating growth requirements within its boundaries. As part of the preparation of the new Local Plan, the Council carried out a Call for Sites and invited developers, land owners and other interested parties to submit potential sites for future allocation in the Plan. The Call for Sites ran over summer 2014 and during January and February However as part of the new Local Plan preparation the Council is still accepting site submissions after these periods. The Council will consider the suitability of these sites against agreed Strategic Land Availability Assessment criteria and through the Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal. Sites identified in the call for sites are shown on the following plans: A total of 695 ha have been identified in East Colchester-West Tendring in the Call for Sites comprising: Site 089X- 132 ha; Site 089Y ha and Site 089Z ha as indicated on the following plan. A total of ha have been identified in Mark Tey and Great Tey in the Call for Sites comprising Site ha and Site ha as shown on the following plan. A total of 52 ha have been identified in separate sites in Wivenhoe. The sites identified through the call for sites are indicated on the following plans.

8 Figure 1: Colchester Eastern Fringe- Call for Sites Figure 2: Marks Tey and Great Tey- Call for Sites

9 Figure 3: Wivenhoe- Call for Sites Tendring The Tendring SHLAA (October 2014) indicates that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate in excess of objectively assessed needs in the period to However, the SHLAA takes a very conservative view on deliverability due to infrastructure capacity and concludes that infrastructure capacity in rural service centres such as Great Bentley, Arlesford and Elmstead Market (in particular, primary school capacity) will limit growth over the plan period due to the requirement for new provision. The SHLAA identifies a capacity for 10,004 new homes in urban extensions including east of Colchester and Weeley. It is concluded that the area around the eastern fringe could deliver upto 3,200 new homes in the plan period with the potential for an additional 2,700 in the longer term and an estimated 1,462 could be accommodated on the periphery of Weeley if the principle of major settlement expansion in this location is accepted. Braintree The Call for Sites was held from August to October Further sites were accepted during the Issues and Scoping consultation held in early No new submissions will be considered prior to the publication of the Draft Local Plan. 300 sites have been submitted with a further 30 sites submitted during the Issues and Scoping Consultation. A Draft SHLAA has been prepared.

10 4. Accommodating Growth requirements Colchester, Braintree and Tendring have all published Issues and Options consultations which have included the potential for new settlements as one of the options for accommodating growth requirements. 4.1 Colchester The Issues and Options Document published for consultation purposes in January 2015 sets out a number of growth options. With cross-boundary allocations, the total number of homes being planned for is higher than Colchester s own target. The Council may also allocate land to accommodate a higher number of homes than the level of housing need identified in order to plan comprehensively for the longer term post Infrastructure provision The Council has consulted with providers of key infrastructure to identify major constraints or issues to be considered in the generation of growth options including providers of rail network, rail and bus services. Key constraints may be summarised as follows: Water and sewerage- requirement for network upgrades Electricity- Some reinforcement required and work may be more difficult in east than elsewhere in Borough. However, constraints can be overcome and this does not pose a threat to the deliverability of any particular site or growth location. Gas- requirement for reinforcement of low pressure infrastructure to provide sufficient spare capacity to accommodate growth. Sufficient capacity in medium pressure infrastructure to meet needs of level of growth required. Education- Limited existing spare capacity in primary and secondary schools. Growth will require new provision. In terms of the provision of new school places, the education authority advise that it is easier to meet the required need on larger sites (at least 700 dwellings) than on smaller sites which do not generate sufficient numbers to warrant a new school. The location of school provision needs to be incorporated into the masterplanning of new sites. Health- limited information available in relation to provision of health infrastructure to service growth but need to ensure provision is accounted for. Infrastructure for non-motorised users- importance placed on encouraging modal shift to walking and cycling in delivering sustainable growth options. Public transport- Current network of public transport is based around serving the town centre which is constrained by limited capacity, congestion and air quality issues. It is recognised that greater innovation is required so that developments incorporate a public transport infrastructure from the outset. Colchester recognise that bus operation needs to be given greater priority and the network needs upgrading.

11 Road Infrastructure- significant constraints on development with much of strategic road network at capacity. The road network around the urban area also suffers from congestion. This congestion is perceived to restrict the economic performance of Colchester and to deter the use of alternative forms of transport. Type of land identified for Growth Most of land identified in the growth options is greenfield land due to the limited supply of brownfield sites that can contribute to the accommodation of growth requirements. All of the growth options include new settlements, given significant constraints around the edge of Colchester which will limit opportunities for urban expansion. The Council states that the development of any new settlement should be as sustainable and as high quality as possible and based on Garden City principles including integrated and accessible local transport systems with a series of settlements linked by rapid transport providing a full range of employment opportunities. A detailed assessment of sites will be included in the Preferred Options Paper at the next stage of Local Plan preparation. Growth Options The following growth options have been identified. Due to limited land availability within the urban area, all growth options are dependent on the development of one or two new settlements to the east and/or west of Colchester. It should be noted that the number of houses identified under each option are estimates and will be subject to further analysis and testing at the preferred options stage. However, the issues and Options Paper states that the Council has already concluded that due to land constraints, development of a new settlement to the west is likely to be larger than development to the east. The Issues and Options Paper highlights the opportunity provided by the railway station at Marks Tey and proposes that this should be a focal point for growth. Additional capacity improvements would be required at the station to allow for growth and to create an improved passenger transport interchange. Capacity and journey time improvements have been identified for the Great Western Mainline in the Anglia Rail Study. It is proposed that a new bus network would be required for a new settlement on the west together with access to a new park and ride facility in West Colchester. It is recognised that the rail line from Clacton/Walton-on-the-Naze to Colchester has capacity to accommodate growth. However, the Issues and Options Report also states that access to the rail line is difficult, with the nearest stations at Wivenhoe and the Hythe. It is proposed that larger scale sustainable development in the east would provide a good opportunity to create a new public transport system linking the development area, the University and the existing urban area of Colchester which could combine a high frequency quality rapid transit system, linking into new and/or improved rail stations, an improved transport interchange and an eastern park and ride. In relation to Rural District Centres, it is recognised that bus service improvements linking new development to the town centre and key services would be needed. In terms of access to rail, Marks Tey and Wivenhoe are on the rail line and improved

12 access to the station would be important at these locations, along with improvements to the level of service and the availability of car parking. Any new development to the west would be heavily dependent on improvements to the A12 and A120. The A120 is currently a single carriage trunk road carrying 23,000 vehicles per day between Marks Tey and Braintree. It has been identified for further investigation in the Highways Agency Route Based Strategy and will require substantial investment to perform its role as a trunk road and to support economic growth. Any growth to the west would require capacity improvements to the A12 which is already at capacity with 90,000 vehicles per day using the section to the east of Marks Tey. Growth would also require improvements to the A120 between the A12 and Braintree and to the A120 junction with the A12. This would allow for improved access to marks Tey train station and would help alleviate through traffic from the existing village. Development to the east is considered likely to impact on the section of the A120 east of Colchester which carries 34,200 vehicles per day and on the A12 Junction 29 Crown Interchange. Development will also impact on the local road network. A package of public transport measures associated with new development would help to control traffic impact. A new road may be required to link the A120 and the A133. Options 1A and 1B Development to the East and West

13 This option includes: A separate settlement to the west of Colchester town- 15,000 homes in the longer term ie: beyond the current plan period (7,500 to contribute towards Colchester s housing supply and the same to Braintree s) A separate settlement to the east of Colchester town- 6,000 homes (3,000 to contribute towards Colchester s housing supply and the same for Tendring) Urban development on sites in and around the existing urban area Proportional expansion of the Rural District centres- Wivenhoe, Tiptree and West Mersea Option 1B also includes a proportional element of rural growth across the Borough s villages. Options 2A and 2B Development to West This option includes: A separate settlement to the west of Colchester town- 15,000 homes in the longer term (7,500 to contribute towards Colchester s housing supply and the same to Braintree s) Urban development on sites in and around the existing urban area Proportional expansion of the Rural District centres- Wivenhoe, Tiptree and West Mersea

14 Option 2B also includes a proportional element of rural growth across the Borough s villages. Colchester recognise that under Options 2A and 2B, with such a large proportion of the total land supply being tied up in one new settlement, there could be a significant risk that the Council could struggle to maintain a 5 year land supply. Objections were raised through the consultation process to the large scale of development proposed at West Tey on grounds of the lack of infrastructure; the need for infrastructure to be provided up-front in advance of development; impact on the character of villages and loss of countryside and open space. ECC as Highway Authority would require a new A120 between Marks Tey and Braintree and also consider that the development of a new settlement may require a new station on the mainline. Concerns expressed that Council could not be reliant on delivery in early stages of plan period due to infrastructure requirements. Options 3A and 3B Development to East

15 This option includes: A separate settlement to the east of Colchester town- 6,000 homes (3,000 to contribute towards Colchester s housing supply and the same for Tendring) A significant urban extension to the north of Colchester town Urban development on sites in and around the existing urban area Proportional expansion of the Rural District centres- Wivenhoe, Tiptree and West Mersea Option 3B also includes a proportional element of rural growth across the Borough s villages. In the north, existing bus services are limited and would need to be enhanced. With the construction of the NAR busway, new rapid services could be developed to serve this area through to the hospital, railway station and town centre. Access to Colchester station would be by bus. Objections were raised to development to east of Colchester on the grounds of the impacts on Salary Brook. If development is proposed to the east, respondents to consultation requested a buffer of 1.5 km to the Salary Brook Valley. Colchester BC has concluded that Options 1A and 1 B are most likely to satisfy the duty to cooperate as they allow for cross-boundary development to the east and west and can contribute to the growth requirements of Colchester, Tendring and Braintree. Tendring District Council supports the proposal for a sustainable settlement to the east of Colchester town which crosses the Tendring/Colchester border. Options 1A or 1B are Tendring s preferred options, followed by Options 3A or 3B. Tendring does not support Option 2A or 2B. Tendring s Economic Development Strategy advocates this approach as a means of facilitating growth of the University of Essex and supporting the creation of new employment opportunities in higher paid employment sectors. Tendring have expressed the preference for development to the east of Colchester to be planned jointly by both Councils through a separate Local Plan/DPD for that specific area. Tendring would envisage any major development to the west of Colchester crossing the Colchester/Braintree border being a much longer term project than growth east of Colchester and suggest that greater priority is given to delivering the East Colchester/ West Tendring project within the plan period to realise the opportunities arising from growth at and around the University as soon as practical. Essex CC and Braintree District Council did not express an opinion on Options but stated their willingness to work with Colchester on a joint approach to strategic development. In response to consultation on the Issues and Options Paper, Highways England commented that Options 1A and 1B and Options 2A and 2B would result in significant impact on the A12 and A120. Their view was that it may be better to focus growth in the earlier part of the plan period to the east of Colchester until the position regarding the future improvement of the A120 is clearer.

16 4.2 Tendring The Issues and Options consultation document published in September 2015 communicates a possible vision for Tendring in 2032 but the vision statement omits the Colchester Fringe stating that a separate vision is to developed for this key strategic area. The future of the Colchester Fringe is critical to the growth strategy for Tendring and Colchester and should be considered as an integral part of the local plan options assessment. The document states that it is reasonable to assume that a large proportion of the housing development which is expected to be required could be delivered as follows. This implies that decisions on the location of development are being taken in advance of the Local Plan process: Around 2,400 homes will be built on sites that already have planning permission for housing development of which around 500 are in Clacton, 500 are in Harwich, 200 are in Frinton and Walton, 500 between Manningtree, Brightlingsea and the edge of Colchester and 700 in and around our rural villages. These developments include the remaining phases of the Blenheim Gate development in Clacton; the Harwich Valley development off the A120 in Dovercourt and development off Cox s Hill currently under construction in Lawford. Another 1,500 homes will be built on other sites within our built up areas including brownfield sites and other small windfall sites that are yet to obtain planning permission. These include the Martello site in Walton, the Delfords site in Harwich and the waterworks sites in Clacton and Manningtree along with a range of other smaller development sites across the district. Around 3,100 homes will be built on greenfield sites around the edge of Clacton and Harwich that are yet to gain planning permission. These include land off Jaywick Lane, Thorpe Road, Centenary Way in Clacton which will be accompanied by new schools, medical facilities and open spaces. For the Harwich area, it includes land off Ramsey Road and Low Road. An additional 900 homes will be built on greenfield sites around the edge of Tendring s smaller towns of Frinton and Walton, Manningtree and Brightlingsea including land off Elm Tree Avenue in Frinton; Halstead Road in Kirby Cross; Bromley Road in Lawford; Stourview Close in Mistley; and Robinson Road in Brightlingsea. Around 300 homes would be built through proportionate expansion around some of the district s larger villages including Elmstead Market, Great Bentley, Little Clacton, St. Osyth and Thorpe-le-Soken. A new settlement will be built on land crossing the Colchester/Tendring border planned for jointly by Tendring District Council and Colchester Borough Council (duty to cooperate) which will deliver approximately 2,000 new homes between now and 2032 of which 1,000 would count towards Tendring s housing requirements and 1,000 would could towards Colchester s with the potential for further phases of development in the longer-term beyond The development would be accompanied by new schools, medical facilities, a link road between the A120 and A133 and rapid bus services into Colchester town

17 centre. The development would maintain a countryside gap around the valley of Salary Brook on the edge of Colchester and around the village of Elmstead Market. The issues and Options document envisages that development in these areas would deliver most of the homes that the Local Plan needs to make provision for the period up to 2033 and would result in a distribution of 3,500 new homes in Clacton, 1,400 in Harwich, 1,100 in the Frinton and Walton area; 800 in the Manningtree area, 2,000 in the new settlement east of Colchester (of which half would count towards Tendring s requirement), 300 in Brightlingsea and 1,000 across Tendring s rural villages. To deliver the remaining new homes expected to be needed between now and 2032, comments were invited on four alternative options, some of which would involve the creation of new settlements with the potential for further phases of development in the longer-term beyond The four options are: Option 1: Hartley Garden Suburb: A major development on greenfield land in north-west Clacton; Option 2: Weeley Garden Village: A new settlement to be built on greenfield land around the A133 at Weeley; Option 3: Tendring Central Garden Village: A new settlement to be built on greenfield land around the A120 at Frating; and Option 4: Higher Urban Densities: House building at a higher density in and around our towns to reduce the amount of greenfield land needed for development in other locations. Option 1: Hartley Garden Suburb

18 This option involves a major new suburb being built on greenfield land to the north-west of Clacton that would be accessed through the construction of a new road between the Bovill s Roundabout on the A133 and the roundabout junction of St. John s Road and Jaywick Lane that would also help to relieve traffic on the existing road network. This would be a long-term development project that would deliver around 800 new homes between now and 2032 with further phases of development likely to take place after 2032 which could deliver a further 1,700 homes up to The development would be accompanied by a new school, new community facilities, new sewerage treatment facility and open space built on the opposite side of the A133 from Brook Retail Park on the gateway into Clacton. If this option is agreed, more than 5,000 of the district s new homes could be built in Clacton. Tendring DC has expressed concerns about the deliverability of this proposal because of: The level of upfront infrastructure investment that would be required to deliver this scale of housing development in this location, in particular the new road and the provision of sewage treatment facilities, which might not be deliverable in the current economic climate and because viability is more of an issue in this part of the district where house prices are lower. Development is not likely to come forward until the latter stages of the plan period and so will have little impact on the Council s five year supply of housing; Development in this location is not supported by the local community; and Development of this scale could create housing market saturation in Clacton given the proposed strategic housing growth already being proposed for the west and north of the town. The site is not served by the Clacton-Colchester rail line. Option 2: Weeley Garden Village This option involves establishing a new settlement on greenfield land off the A133 at Weeley. It would be a long-term project that would deliver around 800 new homes between now and 2032 (more than doubling the population of the parish) with the potential to expand even further west along the A133 beyond 2032 to deliver a further 2,000 homes and associated facilities up to The development would need to be carefully planned to ensure it integrates with and respects the character of the existing village, is accompanied with the necessary infrastructure which would include a new primary school, medical centre and improvements to the transport network including the A133 between Weeley and Frating and the services and facilities at Weeley rail station. Residents have expressed concerns about continual development around the edge of Clacton and Tendring s other seaside towns and that the Council should focus more development further inland or land in the centre of the district with good connections to the transport network, particularly the A120. The proposed development at Weeley has attracted a considerable amount of public objection with a petition of more than 700 names being submitted to the Council in objection to the proposal with many people concerned about the impact of the development on the character of Weeley village and the local infrastructure.

19 However, Weeley is considered by Tendring DC to be the location best placed to accommodate development of a scale that, with some investment in new and improved infrastructure, can be made sustainable. Weeley is identified as a Strategic Rural Service Centre in recognition of its existing services and facilities including, critically, rail services, its good connections to the road network and surrounding towns and villages. Weeley is also well located to meet the need for family housing for younger people and commuters in the Clacton sub-area if the focus for development in Clacton itself is likely to be more for older and active retired residents. Key advantages may be summarised as follows; The existing and planned local communities will benefit from the direct provision of key facilities and services, including; a primary school, medical centre, shops and community facilities in a new local centre; Weeley has good links to the A133 between Clacton and Colchester (and the A120 further west) and the B1027 to Frinton and Walton; Weeley has a railway station with direct links to Colchester and beyond to London Liverpool Street, however, it is accepted that the frequency of services needs to be improved; The site is not covered by any local or national policy designation and the vast majority of the site is located in flood zone 1 (low risk); A strategic development in this location has the potential for further phases of development that could deliver a further 2,000+ homes and other facilities beyond 2032; and There would be potential to create new employment opportunities and jobs taking advantage of close links with Colchester.

20 Tendring DC has identified the following potential disadvantages: A development of this scale would significantly increase the size of Weeley affecting its character as a small village; Development in this location is not supported by the local community; and Strategic housing growth in Weeley could divert investment in regeneration opportunities away from other areas in the district such as Clacton. Option 3: Tendring Central Garden Village The option involves establishing a new settlement on land off the A133 and A120 at Frating. It would be a long-term project that would deliver around 800 new homes and business premises between now and 2032 with the potential for further phases of development that could deliver a further 2,000+ homes and other facilities beyond The development would be carefully planned to ensure it is accompanied with the necessary infrastructure which would include a new primary school, medical centre and other community facilities. In 2005 the Council identified, land east of the A120 slip road for a major business park to be accompanied by a new multi-directional junction on the A120 to allow cars and lorries to travel between the southern parts of Tendring and Harwich without having to navigate some of Tendring s narrow and winding rural roads. In response to this, a consortium of landowners put forward a proposal for a large number of houses on adjoining land which attracted a significant level of local objection with thousands of representations submitted to the Council as part of the Local Plan process. Following a Public Inquiry in 2006, the Planning Inspector decided to remove the business park proposal from the Local Plan and subsequently rejected the scheme on the basis that,

21 following government planning policy in place at the time, Frating would not be a sustainable location for such a large development. However, in 2014, a new consortium of landowners is promoting a major development in the Frating area and they are calling it Tendring Central Garden Village and it was presented to the Local Plan Committee as an alternative to creating a new settlement at either Weeley or to the east of Colchester. Principal advantages may be summarised as follows: There would be potential to create new employment opportunities and jobs through a commercial business park taking advantage of the sites close proximity to Colchester; The site is in a strategically important location at the junction of the two main roads through the district (the A120 and A133) and this development proposes a new multi-directional road link between the A120 and A133; The existing and planned local communities will benefit from the direct provision of key facilities and services, including; new bus links, education and medical facilities, shops and community facilities in a new local centre; and The site is not covered by any local or national policy designation and the vast majority of the site is located in flood zone 1 (low risk). Tendring DC have highlighted the following principal disadvantages: This proposal would result in the coalescence of the three existing smaller rural communities of Frating, Balls Green and Hare Green; This proposal would result in the loss of grade 1 and 2 agricultural land; This location is not as sustainable as other areas due to the lack of shops, services, facilities and essential infrastructure, in particular a railway station and it is unlikely that such a facility would be able to be created in the future and this is likely to generate a high number of vehicular movements to and from Colchester by those who will choose to work in Colchester and use its greater range of shops, services and facilities; Because such a developments infrastructure would need to be delivered upfront and will be costly, development is not likely to come forward until the latter stages of the plan period and so will have little impact on improving the Council s position with regard to identifying a five year supply of housing land. Option 4: Higher Urban Densities This option involves encouraging housing developments of a higher density on sites in and around Tendring s towns. For most sites, the Council has assumed relatively modest densities of between 20 and 30 dwellings per hectare, but this approach would allow for higher densities nearer to 30 dwellings per hectare and above. Whilst this approach would result in the construction of smaller properties with smaller gardens than many people might wish to see in Tendring but it would also reduce the overall amount of greenfield agricultural land being lost to development so that none of the

22 major developments being suggested for north-west Clacton, Weeley or Frating would be needed, at least for the period between now and The higher density approach would have implications for the amount of housing being built in and around the district s larger towns with around 3,800 homes for Clacton, 1,600 for Harwich and 1,200 for the Frinton and Walton area. Key advantages may be summarised as follows: High-density housing can encourage local retail development and help improve the vitality and viability of our districts town centre; Higher density developments can help promote and sustain public transport and offer safer routes for walking and cycling; Higher density development offers greater efficiency in use of public services and infrastructure; High-density developments also help protect our districts natural areas, as well as minimise the encroachment of development on agricultural land, woodland and other ecologically sensitive environments; Higher density developments can help stimulate regeneration in our urban centres; and In areas with lower land values, providing more homes can ensure that new developments are viable which can deliver the required infrastructure such as medical facilities, new school and road improvements.

23 Tendring DC has highlighted the potential disadvantages of this option as follows: Higher density developments whilst promoting a mix of dwelling types and tenure could promote smaller house and garden sizes; Higher density developments are perceived as being overcrowded and promoting, anti-social behaviour and crime; and Higher density development will increase the total volume of new homes being built in and around certain towns, particularly Clacton, Harwich and Frinton/Walton. The East Colchester/West Tendring development opportunity is critical to Tendring s strategy for housing delivery. There is significant opposition from local communities to any significant development in villages due to impact of the development on settlement character and the local infrastructure. Local action groups have been established in Great Bentley and Weeley to oppose development. An initial review of the key issues raised during consultation was reported to the Local Plan Committee on 12 November. Key findings may be summarised as follows: The most significant concern expressed by other Councils was to ensure that Tendring adopts the recommended annualised housing target of at least 597 new dwellings each year. Essex County Council suggests that Tendring should plan for the higher economic growth scenario which has an annualised housing target of 705 new dwellings each year. Environmental submissions include the need to protect and enhance the most sensitive habitats and to ensure the provision of appropriately networked Green Infrastructure. Few technical stakeholders commented specifically in regard to locations for growth although ECC suggests that the potential allocation of East Colchester/West Tendring needs further housing trajectory work to see if more homes could be delivered in the plan period. It suggests that Option 1: Hartley Gardens Suburb and Option 4: Higher Urban Densities are the most sustainable, Option 2: Weeley Garden Village is sustainable if secondary school travel is by train and Option 3: Tendring Central Garden Village is not sustainable. The majority of representations for landowners and developers proposed sites which could accommodate between dwellings. Other representations suggested revisions to settlement development boundaries to enable smaller residential developments to take place. There were also two representations from developers and landowners promoting large, mixed use development in support of Option 2: Weeley Garden Village The comments received from community representatives were wide- ranging and generally dealt with issues specific to the area being represented. Options 1: Hartley Gardens Suburb and 2: Weeley Garden Village were generally preferred with Option 3: Tendring Central Garden Village being least preferred. The lack of healthcare, transport, education and employment were common concerns. Traffic and congestion issues were also often raised as an area of concern. A number of representatives raised the need for a new town within the District and a number questioned the need for new housing growth in their particular areas.