Garden Community Development Consultation - 13th November 2017 to 22nd January 2018 (extended to 2nd February 2018)

Post updates:
28th January 2018 - Update of deadline from 22nd January to 2nd February 2018

Deadline: 5pm, 2nd February 2018.

There is currently a public consultation on the details of the new Garden Community planned to the East of Colchester.

To quote from the consultation document, “Your feedback to this consultation will directly influence the strategies, policies and proposals in the final Development Plan for the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community.”

Important issues, including the position and size of green buffers are covered.

See here for the details of the consultation:

Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Issues and Options Consultation

The consultation asks a number of questions. Please respond as you see fit, however, some suggested responses are below, which you are free to use. (I have prepared these by reading the consultation document and discussion with others.)

If you use the answers below, it might help if you highlight any changes you have made, so that the planners don't assume your answers are the same as these.

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

a) It is not clear what the following statement means:

“Regardless of which delivery model is applied, capturing the uplift in development land value will be critical to ensuring that the long-term aspirations of community stewardship of public assets and infrastructure are delivered.”

b) On page 12, ‘Key design principles identified at the TCBGC Concept Framework Workshop’

I think this should read ‘The importance of Salary Brook and its wider environment, including hill slopes up to the skyline visible from Greenstead and Longridge Park’, and ‘Avoiding coalescence with other settlements in particular Greenstead, Longridge Park, Wivenhoe and Elmstead Market.’
(Colchester East Action Group attended these workshops.)

c) On page 12 ‘A new Country Park’

The size of this Country Park is crucial – all new development should be over the brow of the hill and out-of-sight of existing residents of Greenstead and Longridge Park.

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

a) Maintaining a separation between the new community and Greenstead and Longridge Park should be mentioned, as well as between the new community and Wivenhoe and Elmstead Market.

b) The size of the Country Park is crucial - all new development should be over the brow of the hill and out-of-sight of existing residents of Greenstead and Longridge Park.

c) There is a natural buffer between the new community and Greenstead and Longridge park – the hill slope to the East side of Salary Brook, which should not be developed.

d) The Greenstead Ward councillors support a green, undeveloped buffer of 1.5km to the East of Colchester between existing and new development. This would mean an extension of the green space shown on the map, and the removal of the parcel of isolated residential/Knowledge Gateway land shown in Figure 5.1 (in Section 5).

e) All new development should be to the East of the ridgeline shown on the map in Figure 4.1, probably further away from Greenstead and Longridge Park. See d) above.

f) There should be a height restriction on buildings, so that they will not be visible from Greenstead and Longridge Park.

g) The Country Park around Salary Brook and its nearby slopes should be a natural place, similar to the natural areas in Highwoods Country Park in Colchester.

h) The Country Park around Salary Brook should be owned and maintained by Colchester Council. If there are not funds for this initially, the area can be protected from development and reserved as green space and to maintain the rural views from Greenstead and Longridge Park.

i) The boundaries of the Country Park around Salary Brook should be clearly defined, and these should be shown on the maps in Figures 4.1 and 5.1.

j) Small ad-hoc developments, like that proposed by Gladman Developments off Bromley Road, should always be refused.

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

a) In the future, private car ownership might be less necessary due to fleets of self-driving taxis which might be easily available.

b) Hythe station is an important asset for local people in the Hythe area of Colchester, and in Greenstead and Longridge Park.

Q8 - Do you support the emerging approach to good design?

a) Continuously-connected streets rather than dead-ends could lead to racing of cars. Maybe the roads should be dead-ends, but there should be pedestrian/cycle access between them.

Q13 - Do you support the emerging Concept Framework for the site?

a) The development to the South of the A133 which was resisted by local stakeholders seems to have been replaced with an inappropriate development parcel to the North of the A133 – the isolated parcel which is half residential and half Knowledge Gateway to the North of Wivenhoe House in Figure 5.1. This will spoil the illusion of a rural area which would be created if all new development is out of sight from Greenstead. If development has to go ahead here, it must be completely screened so it is invisible from Greenstead. Maybe this development could be partly split, with some South of the A133?

b) If the spatial layouts need amending in the case where 9,000 houses are needed, then the Country Park around Salary Brook and its slopes should still be protected, because it will serve as an important amenity to residents of Greenstead and Longridge Park. The boundaries of this country park therefore need to be very clearly defined and added to Figure 5.1. Any additional parcels of land that might be needed could be shown on the map.

c) See my answers to Q3 about the size and layout, and boundaries of the Country Park around Salary Brook and its slopes.

Regards
James
Colchester East Action Group (CHEAG)
Blog: http://cheag.blogspot.co.uk/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/colchestereastactiongroup

'Salary Brook' and other Terms

A few points on wording:

Salary Brook Nature Reserve

The ‘Salary Brook Nature Reserve’ only covers a narrow strip of land, see the map from here:

Salary Brook NR

So we need to argue for an extension of the Salary Brook Nature Reserve to create a green buffer/country park, not just its protection, see below.

Salary Brook

‘Salary Brook’, taken literally, is only the brook itself. This is the interpretation of Gladman Developments in their submission to upcoming Local Plan hearings.

Salary Brook Valley

‘Valley’ is ‘low area between hills’ so is only the green space at the bottom of the area CHEAG is aiming to protect.

Proposed Wording

“Any new development to the East of Colchester should be over the brow of the hill and out-of-sight of existing residents of Greenstead and Longridge Park. There should be a 1.5km green, undeveloped buffer between current housing and any new development. This idea is supported by the Greenstead Ward councillors.”

Regards
James
Colchester East Action Group (CHEAG)
Blog: http://cheag.blogspot.co.uk/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/colchestereastactiongroup

June-August 2017 Colchester Local Plan Consultation Responses

Responses to the June-August 2017 Colchester Local Plan consultation are available online and can be seen here:

Policy SP8: Tendring/Colchester Borders Garden Community

Cllr Julie Young, Cllr Tim Young, Cllr Tina Bourne, Sir Bob Russell and many others commented, I won't list everyone here to avoid missing someone!

Thanks to those mentioned above and everyone else.

The next round of consultation starts soon, I plan to write about it in due course.

Regards
James
Colchester East Action Group (CHEAG)
Blog: http://cheag.blogspot.co.uk/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/colchestereastactiongroup

Colchester Local Plan Consultation

Deadline: 11 August 2017, 5pm.

Please respond as below, to help preserve green space between Greenstead, Longridge Park and the new development.

The following linked page makes sending comments look complicated, but it isn't really!

Colchester Council - Local Plan Consultation

1) Go to the above web page. If you find the rest of the process below difficult, please see the end of the main text on the web page which gives an email address and phone number.

2) Click the link under Point 2) on the page, to go to the dedicated consultation portal.

3) Click on 'register now' and provide your details, or login if you have already registered.
(Please note that this login is not the same as the login for the Colchester Council website - you can only use it to login to the consultation portal. This is confusing because there can be two login links on the council webpage - one near the top for the council website, one near the centre for the consultation - you need the one near the centre when you want to login or out of the consultation portal.)

4) Click to go back to the consultation section.

5) Click on 'Section 1 - Publication Draft Local Plan'.

6) Click on 'Policy SP8: Tendring/Colchester Borders Garden Community'.

7) Click on the green pencil symbol to the left of the title 'Policy SP8 - Tendring/Colchester Borders Garden Community'.

8) Complete the displayed form, ideas below. You have to answer all the questions, I think.

9) Check back after 1 business day or so that your submission appears next to the policy - click the magnifying glass symbol next to the title 'Policy SP8 - Tendring/Colchester Borders Garden Community'.

Ideas for your submission

The section to comment on is 'Policy SP8: Tendring/Colchester Borders Garden Community'.

Use your words where possible, but include the following text if you agree, which accurately describes CHEAG's goals.

- Any new development to the East of Colchester in the Tendring/Colchester Borders should be over the brow of the hill and out-of-sight of existing residents of Greenstead and Longridge Park. Ideally, there should be a 1.5km green, undeveloped buffer between current housing and any new development. This idea is supported by the Greenstead Ward councillors.

- The green, undeveloped area between current and new housing should ideally be dedicated as a 'Country Park', for the enjoyment of the occupants of the up to 9,000 new houses and the existing residents of Greenstead and Longridge Park.

- Any new road in the area should incorporate noise shielding to prevent disturbance to residents from traffic noise.

- The Strategic Growth Development Plan Document for the area should be the subject of public consultation regarding the position of new development and green space.

Also include these if you agree:

- Housing design in the new development should be comparable with the best in Colchester, photos of which have been sent to planners. Please contact Colchester East Action Group for more details.

- The new development should include references to historical Colchester, in the design of buildings and street names.

Regards
James
Colchester East Action Group (CHEAG)
Blog: http://cheag.blogspot.co.uk/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/colchestereastactiongroup

Gladman Land Objection Reasons So Far

(Updated: 17th June 2017 - Added info about Colchester Council's objection. 24 June 2017 - Clarification re views vs landscapes.)

Here is a summary of objection reasons to the Gladman Land proposal, that we have so far.

These are taken from my chat with Councillor Mike Lilley (see 1 June 2017 post, below) and other discussions.

Please remember that your own objections are best, written in your own words. Use the ideas below as you see fit, including copying if you want! (If you do copy, make clear where you have changed any standard text below.)

Here is the link to the planning application, where you can comment:

Tendring District Council - Planning Reference 17/00859/OUT

Colchester Council's response to the planning application can be seen under 'Documents' on the above planning application page. This can be used for objection ideas.

Also, the following ideas can be used.

Please see later in this post regarding views vs landscapes - destruction of a view is not a valid objection reason, but landscapes are an important planning consideration.

Landscape damage:

This development would destroy a sensitive landscape transition from semi-urban Longridge Park in Colchester to the countryside beyond. It would sit on fields sloping up from Salary Brook, which are visible going along Bromley Road and from Longridge Park opposite in Colchester. These fields form a gradual, natural break between the two environments.
The proposed site is not allocated for housing in the local plan, and very likely won't be in the emerging local plan. It is countryside.
The new housing would be impossible to effectively screen, because it would be on rising land. Even a 20 metre tree buffer would not screen it.
This particular site has more landscape sensitivity than others. The development would have significant landscape impact and visibility.
There are other sites in Tendring District where housing can go which won't cause this level of landscape harm.
Tendring are currently pro-actively planning, and putting together a new local plan, in accordance with the NPPF and this application is clearly premature.
This is a piecemeal, ad-hoc planning application. Please reject this application.

From Councillor Mike Lilley (copied from earlier post):

• Any reasons you can think of yourself, using your local knowledge.
• Lack of green space, over-development.
• Look at schools - how much capacity? Developers offered to give £500,000 in Rowhedge.
• Local dentists, doctors, schools - how many free places do they have? Ask them. Do they have physical room to expand?
• Objection: destroy green space and buffer.
• Proposed Garden city will supply housing in this area.
• In Rowhedge, someone else offered an alternative piece of land - so they supported that instead for local plan.
• Farmhouses on land were quite old in Rowhedge - historical expert looked at - should be listed. Developer could still build around them, though.
• Look at hedgerows, would have to destroy to build road to enter site? Historic hedgerows?
• Ask for properly-built housing, green housing, plugs for electric cars, etc.
• Will this impact the proposed garden city and its schools and highways provision?
• What is land currently used for? Farming - valuable agricultural land cannot always be used. There are grades and lifetimes of land. In Rowhedge, land was split between beneficiaries in inheritance, so they wanted to sell it.
• If they propose a transport plan - e.g. bus passes - who will pay for it? Who will enforce any proposed parking restrictions?
• Needs an expert in planning to look at the application.
• What is an affordable house? Can be high cost. Who will it be affordable by?
• Tendring will get council tax, Colchester will pay for services?
• 135 homes proposed, so, say, 300 cars - maybe 300-500 cars extra on Bromley Road and Harwich Road. Put pressure on highways about this.
• Object to lack of infrastructure. Infrastructure that will go in in garden city - to combat current lack of infrastructure, would be needed for this too.
• Object about destruction of countryside. [A view, for example a sea view from a resident's house, cannot be protected. A landscape can be protected, and is an important planning consideration.] Concentrate on planning matters only.
• Gladman have said they would build pumping station to prevent flooding - check everything about this. (With building of houses - rain has nowhere to go.)
• Over-development and loss of green space. Watch out for objecting on basis of lack of affordable housing - developer can counter by supplying.

Regards
James
Colchester East Action Group (CHEAG)
Blog: http://cheag.blogspot.co.uk/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/colchestereastactiongroup

Colchester Local Plan Meeting - 12 June 2017

The next Colchester Local Plan meeting is on 12th June 2017. (Check here before you travel, in case there are any changes to the meeting details.)

The new draft Local Plan has been published and will be discussed, see the agenda.

Some notes from a look at the documents:

1) There are 3 small/medium areas of new housing allocated to the North of Clingoe Hill/A133. These can be seen by zooming-in to the 'Colchester Borough' map which is linked from the agenda.

2) In the 'Local Plan Submission Part 1' document, I found this:

Policy SP8 - Tendring/Colchester Borders Garden Community
The adopted policies map identifies the broad location for the development of a new garden community of which the details and final number of homes will be set out in a Strategic Growth Development Plan Document to be prepared jointly between Colchester BC and Tendring DC and which will incorporate around 2,500 dwellings within the Plan period (as part of an overall total of between 7,000-9,000 homes) and provision for Gypsy and Travellers. 

The Strategic Growth DPD will set out the nature, form and boundary of the new community. The document will be produced in consultation with stakeholders and will include a concept plan showing the disposition and quantity of future land-uses, and give a three dimensional indication of the urban design and landscape parameters which will be incorporated into any future planning applications; together with a phasing and implementation strategy which sets out how the rate of development will be linked to the provision of the necessary social,physical and environmental infrastructure to ensure that the respective phases of the development do not come forward until the necessary infrastructure has been secured. The DPD will provide the framework for the subsequent development of more detailed masterplans and other design and planning guidance for the Tendring / Colchester Borders Garden Community.

If you find anything else of interest, let me know!

Regards
James
Colchester East Action Group (CHEAG)
Blog: http://cheag.blogspot.co.uk/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/colchestereastactiongroup

Gladman Land - Bromley Road Development

Updated: 15 June 2017 - added clarification about landscapes and views.

1. Introduction

Gladman Land have now submitted their planning application for 'up to 145 dwellings' on 'Land to The South of Bromley Road'.

Their application can be found here:

Tendring District Council - Planning Reference 17/00859/OUT

or search for 'Bromley Road' on the Tendring Council Planning Portal.

Gladman Land are a housing company who sometimes submit planning applications on land that is not allocated for housing. When they receive refusals from councils, they take them through to appeal, where in the past they have been successful.

To help oppose this:

• Submit your personal objections to Tendring Council, as described on their website. Individually-written objections with your own thoughts are best, although there are some ideas below. I have been told that petitions don't add value. Check with the planning department if you need clarification.
• Consider volunteering as described below. (Commissioning of a planning consultants' report would be urgent if it is to be done.)

2. Project

I had a very useful chat with Councillor Michael Lilley of Old Heath and The Hythe ward, who was involved in their organised opposition to a Gladman Land development proposal. My notes from that chat are below, in section 3. Thanks to Councillor Tim Young for arranging the chat.

For an organised objection, someone is needed to co-ordinate the following work.

Possible strategy:

a) Assess the risk of this development being approved. Tendring Council are likely to refuse it. However, assuming Gladman appeal to the government planning inspector, will the inspector need to follow 'the letter of the law' and allow 'sustainable development'? Or will they be able to use their judgement with respect to the emerging local plan? What is the risk?

b) Organise work on the items below, where relevant to this case.

If volunteers come forward, I can put people in contact with each other. There is an email button available from the 'View my complete profile' link under 'About Me' on this Internet page.

3. Notes from chat with Councillor Michael Lilley on 30 April 2017

3.1 Actions suggested

One or more people are needed to work on/co-ordinate any of the following items:

• East Donyland Parish Council paid for a report by planning consultants on the Gladman application at Battleswick Farm. (Cost was £500?) This was really good. Look this up - will be on CBC planning website as Parish Council’s objection to the Battleswick Farm, Rowhedge Road development. To contact the parish council: East Donyland Parish Council, Parish Clerk is Nicki Matthews, see the East Donyland Parish Council website.
• Use ward councillors’ locality budget to pay for our own report by planning consultants?
• Do comment on developer’s web page - otherwise they might say to council that no-one bothered responding.
• Speak to Colchester and Tendring MPs - go to hustings for June 2017 elections.
• Call open, public meeting - MPs (Colchester and Tendring), borough councillors invited.
• Councillors are there to defend resident’s rights. Get them on board.
• Parson’s Heath - get their borough councillors on board, too.
• Talk to Tendring planning officers.
• Make residents aware, build-up support. Get loads of people together. Publicity.  
• Poster campaign to raise awareness. Leaflet drops - try to get everyone to object to council.
• Put up posters - mention overdevelopment of green space.
• Rosie at CAUSE - might be able to help.
• Members of public should go to local plan meetings in Tendring and Colchester.
• Make sure land not accepted into new Local Plan by Tendring District Council, Colchester Borough Council.
• Ask for meeting with Gladman Land? Rowhedge team asked for a meeting with Gladman Land.
• Get county councillors on board. When find out who new county councillors are in May 2017, get them on board. Julie Young is currently our county councillor for Greenstead Ward.
• Look at results of county council elections in May 2017 - get meeting with new councillors - schools and roads - they can look at.
• Petition - councils like paper petitions. Sways planning committee, can be better than online.
• Respond to any appeal by the developers to the Planning Inspector.

3.2 Objection reasons

• Any reasons you can think of yourself, using your local knowledge.
• Lack of green space, over-development.
• Look at schools - how much capacity? Developers offered to give £500,000 in Rowhedge.
• Local dentists, doctors, schools - how many free places do they have? Ask them. Do they have physical room to expand?
• Objection: destroy green space and buffer.
• Proposed Garden city will supply housing in this area.
• In Rowhedge, someone else offered an alternative piece of land - so they supported that instead for local plan.
• Farmhouses on land were quite old in Rowhedge - historical expert looked at - should be listed. Developer could still build around them, though.
• Look at hedgerows, would have to destroy to build road to enter site? Historic hedgerows?
• Ask for properly-built housing, green housing, plugs for electric cars, etc.
• Will this impact the proposed garden city and its schools and highways provision?
• What is land currently used for? Farming - valuable agricultural land cannot always be used. There are grades and lifetimes of land. In Rowhedge, land was split between beneficiaries in inheritance, so they wanted to sell it.
• If they propose a transport plan - e.g. bus passes - who will pay for it? Who will enforce any proposed parking restrictions?
• Needs an expert in planning to look at the application.
• What is an affordable house? Can be high cost. Who will it be affordable by?
• Tendring will get council tax, Colchester will pay for services?
• 135 homes proposed, so, say, 300 cars - maybe 300-500 cars extra on Bromley Road and Harwich Road. Put pressure on highways about this.
• Object to lack of infrastructure. Infrastructure that will go in in garden city - to combat current lack of infrastructure, would be needed for this too.
• Object about destruction of countryside. [A view, for example a sea view from a resident's house, cannot be protected. A landscape can be protected, and is an important planning consideration.] Concentrate on planning matters only.
• Gladman have said they would build pumping station to prevent flooding - check everything about this. (With building of houses - rain has nowhere to go.)
• Over-development and loss of green space. Watch out for objecting on basis of lack of affordable housing - developer can counter by supplying.

3.3 General notes

• Mike Lilley used to be on planning committee.
• Rowhedge Residents Association, an action group, was set up.
• They had a public meeting, 130 people attended.
• Gladman have money and solicitors.
• Gladman have won a few appeals to the planning inspector in Tendring.
• In Rowhedge, residents were lucky because the application was: a) rejected by local plan b) rejected by planning officers. Appeal may still be made to government planning inspector, though.
• Council planning officers don’t always know all the rules - planning consultants can assist with objections.
• Gladman Land often propose small developments.
• Kevin Bentley - their county councillor in Rowhedge. He was very helpful and worked across party lines.
• Government planning inspectors have been instructed to find in favour of developers more often than previously.
• Tendring are behind - unfortunate, they don’t have a local plan.

Regards
James
Colchester East Action Group (CHEAG)
Blog: http://cheag.blogspot.co.uk/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/colchestereastactiongroup