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