Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Issues and Options Consultation

Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Issues and Options Consultation

13th November 2017 – 22nd January 2018

Email and postal response form

If you are able to access the internet, please respond to the consultation online at: http://braintree-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/negc. If you have any issues taking part in this consultation please contact or .

Once completed, please post this response form to: Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Consultation, Planning Policy, Rowan House, Colchester, Essex, CO3 3WG. Alternatively please send the completed form to either of the email addresses above.

Please ensure this form is received by the Councils before 5pm on 22nd January 2018 otherwise your submission may not be considered. If you require additional space to make your responses, feel free to add additional pages to your submission.

Your name and title

Your organisation/company name (if applicable)

Your address (including post code)

Your email address (this is the most efficient way for the Councils to contact you)

Your telephone number

If you are acting as an agent on behalf of an organisation or an individual (e.g. a client, or residents’ gorup) please provide the following information:

Contact name

Organisation/company name

Address (including post code)

Email address (this is the most efficient way for the Councils to contact you)

Telephone number

Please tick this box if you would like to be added to the Councils’ stakeholder databases (the Councils will use your contact information to keep you informed of updates to the Garden Community planning process).

I wish to make the following comments on the consultation document:

Have Your Say (p4):

I am unconvinced of the sincerity of the public consultation process. To date, there is no evidence of CBC incorporating feedback from Wivenhoe residents.

Introduction (p5):

There is no justification of why this site is suitable for the proposed Garden Community or why it is preferable to other sites. What other sites have been considered and why were they rejected? The site contains some of the best quality agricultural land in Essex. How can it be right to build on such land when National food security is a serious concern? Other sites in North East Essex are better candidates for this development.

Figure 1.1 (p6):

This figure shows the Strategic Area of Development spreading south of the A133 to Brightlingsea Road (B1027) and Elmstead Road. Figure 5.1 on p35 of the consultation document shows this land being part of the green buffer. It cannot be both simultaneously.

Flowchart (p9):

The flowchart shows adoption of the plan and delivery as the only outcome of the Examination in Public. If this is so, then the consultation is a sham. What happens if the Examiner rejects the plan? Will CBC and TDC abandon the plan or will they modify it and resubmit it?

Section 1 Introduction, A National Agenda… (p10):

To build infrastructure alongside housing is not good enough. The plan for 2.500 dwellings by 2033 equates to about 180 dwellings per year. At this rate it will be many years before local demand justifies a primary school or GP surgery. In the meantime the demand will fall on infrastructure in adjacent communities. This is not acceptable.

The delivery options do not give adequate voice to the concerns of existing adjacent communities. The parish councils of those communities should each be allowed to nominate a director to NEGC Ltd or the relevant New Town Development Corporation or other delivery vehicle.

Section 2 Background and Evidence (p12):

The submitted plan does not adhere to many of the key design principles of Garden Communities. It is in direct contravention of all the following:

#2. The important role of green buffers…

Small parts of the green buffer are earmarked for development both in CBC’s Local Plan and WTC’s Neighbourhood Plan. This is acceptable in isolation. However, when taken together with Garden Community development south of the A133, the green buffer to the north of Wivenhoe will be severely compromised.

#3. Ensure the area feels separate…

At one point Wivenhoe and the proposed development are separated by a matter of yards. To make Wivenhoe ‘feel’ separate the ‘green’ entrance to the town from the A133 onto Colchester Road (B1028) would need to be retained.

#4. Avoid coalescence…

University expansion south of the A133 should not be allowed as it reduces the depth of the green buffer between Wivenhoe and the proposed development.

#5. Protection of the separate identities…

The comments on principle #3 above also apply here.

#6. Protection of the rural character…

The proposed housing densities of up to 100 dph in the proposed development do not accord with a rural character, but are those of an inner city development. The relative densities of housing in Wivenhoe is approx 24 dph. Which especially towards the river can feel overbearing; but it can visually be considered a rural community. Whereas this new community will be 38 dph; which will never come close to this aspiration.

The interests of residents in existing adjacent communities are not adequately represented in the Key Design Principles. The following Principles should be added:

·  Protection of the Quality of Life in existing adjacent communities.

·  Avoid overloading the infrastructure in existing adjacent communities.

Figure 4.1 (p17):

The Figure shows development south of the A133 and to the east of the B1028. It is not acceptable to the residents of Wivenhoe for there to be any University academic buildings or student housing in this area.

University expansion should be limited to the western edge of Wivenhoe Park, i.e. in the area of Parkside Village and on the land between Boundary Road and the railway line or to the north of the A133.

Q1 - Do you agree with the content of the Vision? Is anything missing? What are the priorities?

No, do not agree with the content of the Vision.
The Vision is largely marketing guff. It would not be out of place in a property developer’s brochure.
The objectives in the Vision are largely laudable, but are they realisable? The Vision is deliberately misleading because it portrays a Utopian future that, quite simply, will not happen.
Four specific things are missing:
·  A commitment to protect the interests and Quality of Life of neighbouring communities, particularly Wivenhoe.
·  A commitment that car owners within the Garden Community will not be penalised. Public transport, no matter how good, will not cater for all journeys. There should be adequate, dedicated, off-road parking for all houses. This is to avoid the streets being congested with on street parking, as is the case with other recent developments in Colchester.
·  A commitment to reduce traffic congestion on Clingoe Hill and in the Hythe area.
·  Exploit synergy wherever possible. I.e. structure the proposed development so that it can be used as a means of alleviating problem issues within Colchester.
If expansion of the University of Essex is supported, and this should not be taken as a given, then said expansion should be located within the existing University site or be north of the A133.
The priorities should be infrastructure and transportation. There should be a commitment that infrastructure will be provided in the same timescale as the first batch of houses.

Q2 - Is there anything missing from the NEGC Charter Principles?

Yes. In the Community theme add Strong Local Democracy.
The proposed development will be larger than the existing neighbouring communities. Containing it within existing wards is not good enough. Arguably, it should have its own parish council(s), wards and councillors. How this is to be structured should be determined before house building takes place. How it is divided between CBC and TDC should also be agreed in advance of building.

Q3 - Do you support the emerging approach to green infrastructure?

No.
What parts of the site should be protected?
·  To start, the best quality farming land in Essex!
·  Local stakeholders have already clearly and strongly stated that land south of the A133 should not be built upon.
·  A green corridor along the southern boundary of the development on the northern side of the A133 is essential to minimise the visual impact of the new development.
·  The land to the south of the University.
The importance of gardens and other private outside spaces?
It is essential that the houses have ‘traditional’ front and rear private gardens. The front garden spaces could be used for off-road parking as noted earlier. This is in keeping with the traditional format of rural housing in this area. Front garden-less houses directly facing the pavement may be appropriate to an inner town or city development but are out of keeping in a rural environment. They also lead to congested streets and an unattractive visual appearance.

Q4 - Do you support the emerging approach to integrated and sustainable transport?

No. This section contains some laudable objectives, but once again it descends into fantasy or plain misinformation. As such it cannot be supported.
To show a tram on p20 is deliberately misleading. It is simply not a feasible option. References to walking and cycling are commendable, but it is either a fantasy or more misinformation to suggest that they will account for 70% of all journeys. There is not a single example in the UK where this principle works and there is no way it can be enforced.
The talk of local jobs within the proposed development is also wishful thinking. Existing businesses will not relocate to the development. What is there to encourage new businesses to set up there as opposed to setting up in one of the established business parks? This means that the main source of jobs will be at the existing employment areas in Colchester and the surrounding area. Good, frequent bus links from the proposed development to the town centre and main employment areas will help but cannot realistically be expected to cover all destinations. This means that many residents in the proposed development will need to use their cars to get to and from work.
London could also be a significant source of jobs. Colchester is being promoted as an attractive and affordable place for commuters to live given rising house prices in Brentwood and Chelmsford (Sunday Express article on 10 September 2017). Marketing the new dwellings to commuters does nothing to ease local housing needs, but there is no way it can be prevented. A large commuter community is inevitable.
It is difficult to see how the proposed rapid transit service will connect to Colchester North station without getting caught up in the rush hour traffic congestion. A new rail station west of the University is needed together with a good, frequent bus service from the proposed development to the new station.
Encouraging people to walk, cycle and use public transport makes sense. A bike-sharing scheme is mentioned. Has any study been made to see it this would be viable? Given the steepness of Clingoe Hill, perhaps electric bikes should be considered as well as manual ones.
The use of electric and plug-in hybrid cars should be encouraged. To this end all homes and parking areas in the proposed development should be provided with electric car charging points.
Public transport must be available in the same timescale as the first batch of houses. If it is not, residents will be forced to use cars and traffic congestion on Clingoe Hill will get worse. It must be recognised that the public transport will not be economically viable in the early years (because the limited number of new homes will not create sufficient demand) and therefore the councils must be prepared to subsidise it.
Although it is not stated in the consultation document, are the rapid transit busses (together with the existing busses from Wivenhoe) going to travel along Boundary Road and enter the Hythe area from Elmstead Road at the roundabout by the Tesco supermarket? Traffic management such as bus-activated peak hour traffic lights should be considered to give the busses priority en route to Hythe rail station and St Andrews Avenue.
The best ways to accommodate cars so they don’t dominate the environment are:
·  Provide off-road parking for all homes so the streets do not become cluttered with parked cars. Private parking areas are preferable to shared ones.
·  Provide the link road to the A120 (and then A12) so that vehicles making those journeys do not have to go into Colchester.
The existing road capacity of the A133 must be maintained. It is not acceptable to take one of the existing two lanes and dedicate it to busses. Like wise, there is no need for speed reductions on the A133. The central green section of the A133 and its trees etc. must also be maintained as they create a very attractive vista as one approaches Colchester from the East.

Q5 - Do you support the emerging approach to employment opportunity?

No. It is not possible to support the emerging approach described in the consultation document.
This section lacks credibility and is no more than a wish list. The employment opportunities are totally speculative and unsubstantiated.
Some examples of this muddled thinking are:
·  Nuclear supply chain maintenance? What experience does the University or local companies have in this area?
·  Expansion of port-related activities? If so, then this is the wrong site. A location near Harwich (the largest local port) would be far more suitable.
The consultation document states a need for an additional 100 large companies in Essex and suggests that some of these could be located in the proposed development. There is simply not enough space allocated to employment uses to do this. To suggest otherwise is wishful thinking.

Q6 - Do you support the emerging approach to the living environment?