Q1 Do You Agree with the Content of the Vision

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

It is our opinion that what is proposed more closely resembles a property developer’s brochure than a realistic plan for a robust, sustainable community. Especially one as large as that proposed.

Careful study of the documentation suggests that there are some potentially fatal flaws. In particular;

• The proposal for employment is unrealistic. There is insufficient provision for establishments that are likely to provide the work necessary for those that live in such a development, which is likely to make the development into what amounts to little more than a dormitory for a remote workforce.
• With increasing pressure on roads and major issues with the impact that they have on health in terms of the space that they require, (noise pollution, air pollution and the fact that every vehicle requires considerable space in terms of somewhere to park when at rest, space whilst traveling, and space at its eventual destination), we so no indication of a commitment to make the sort of bold forward thinking gesture that we would expect. At the very least, we would expect to see a transport infrastructure that is predicated on the reduction of the impact of personal transport unless it is sustainable.
• The existing rail system is demonstrably not fit for purpose, and in any case services a very small number of destinations along a tightly defined and equally badly served route so at best, the issues that already exist will be exacerbated and spread along the Colchester - London route with little thought for the provision of any other potential centres. The main line and Liverpool Street is currently at capacity. New time tables will not be able to facilitate additional trains or platform lengths predict carriage number. These incurable factors make several additional issues more likely. Any workforce that cannot find work within easy traveling distance by traffic friendly means, e.g. public transport, cycling or walking is going to resort to traveling by car, if only to gain access to a station thereby creating considerably more congestion than already exists and that in turn is likely to lead to a negative impact on the quality of life, air pollution and viability of the proposal.
• A remote workforce that treats the development as little more than somewhere to sleep does not lead to the creation of a strong sustainable community - rather it tends to develop into a community populated by people whose lives are bereft of all the benefits that come from being part of a lively community leading in turn to an impact on health and well being as well as an increase in crime and anti-social behavior.
• There is no clear indication of the intention to provide an adequate infrastructure to support such a large number of people and the myriad various requirements that will arise from the introduction of such a large number of people. The lack of intent to recognise that the existing infrastructure from the prosaic (drains and sewers for example) to the most esoteric (cultural and life enriching) is already abundantly evident. Those facilities that do exist are grossly over -stretched and do not meet the requirements of the existing population. In short, it is our view that it seems to be the blue-print for a soulless settlement.

Q2 Is there anything missing from the NEGC Charter Principles?

It is our view that the plans as they stand do not fulfill the NEGC Charter principles. There are some nice ideas, and some aspects of the plan that show a blatant disregard for both the input to date by Wivenhoe stakeholders and what should be obvious the residents would either want to or not want to see. Wivenhoe is both physically and culturally very distinct from Colchester and both are interwoven. The residents of Wivenhoe have no desire to become a suburb of Colchester or indeed to additionally endure the burden on our already insufficient infrastructure of supporting a new community of 9000 houses.

What is missing is any structure to deliver the project with the woefully overinflated expectations that the document sets out; the finances to pay for it; or the expertise to prevent the project failing in either of these two areas.

If expansion of the University of Essex is supported, then this expansion should be located within the existing University site or be north of the A133. Though discussion with the university we are clear that they have no preference as to where this expansion space is sited and also that the allocation currently identified creates a separation issue with the current campus because of a main road and the park land. As for the park and ride – there is no justification whatsoever this being totally detached from the settlement the other side of a trunk road.

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. As yet scheme time scales and funding are all yet to be confirmed and greater reassurance is needed that it can be provided on time, if at all.

What is missing from the principles includes:-

In the Community theme, there should be the addition of strong local democracy. The proposed development 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.

A commitment to protect the interests and Quality of Life of neighbouring communities, particularly Wivenhoe.

A commitment to reduce traffic congestion on Clingoe Hill and in the Hythe area.

Q3 Do you support the emerging approach to Green Infrastructure?

No. This section contains much misinformation. For example Bullock Wood is referenced as a valuable green asset, but it does not lie within the area of the development or connect to it. Any such amenities should be easily accessible and not isolated by busy streets or made inaccessible to the communities that should take advantage of them - simply claiming that nearby patches that have not yet been developed does not constitute carefully considered green assets and in any case, any such asset should be properly managed to ensure that it is an asset, not simply a token gesture.

What parts of the site should be protected?

The existing proposal is planned to destroy some of the best quality farming land in Essex. This land should be protected as it is irreplaceable!

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 minimize the visual impact of the new development. The existing trees and hedgerows should be maintained and new ones planted where necessary.

Access to the new development should make use of the existing minor roads off the north side of the A133.

The land to the south and east 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. 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.

We have considerable reservations about the proposal in that it is our opinion that there is a high risk of disenfranchisement and anti social behavior leading to slum like conditions. The creation of private spaces where the population is able to express themselves through gardening and simply enjoy a degree of privacy and seclusion from the outside world goes a long way to fostering pride in the surroundings and a sense of community.

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

No. This section contains some laudable objectives, but we are not at all convinced it will be delivered.

The picture of the tram is deliberately misleading. It is simply not a feasible option and you should not in the light of the latest transport reports from Jacob Ringways try to deceive the public in such a manner. References to walking and cycling are commendable, but we do not support the notion that a modal shift in behavior will lead to this making up 70% of all journeys. This principle can not be supported by evidence and so remains an aspiration rather than reality.

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 recognized 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 subsidies it.

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 trees and hedgerows on the north side of the A133 and 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 or leaves Colchester from or to the East.

Q5 Do you support the emerging approach to employment opportunities?

No. We do not believe that the proposal is credible. The employment opportunities that are described seem to us tobe speculative and unsubstantiated;

• Businesses that can grow with the new Garden Community - There is no evidence for any businesses that will grow with the community, indeed Colchester Town centre is currently in decline and much the same would appear to be true of a significant number of the businesses that have existed in the past. We see no provision for any infrastructure that is likely to attract, support of encourage the level of employment that such a large community will require.
• Attracting employment that complements existing employment - There is no evidence ofamassive shortfall in available skills and talented workers that will draw people into the area to live and work so we have to conclude that unless any such workforce is planned to operate at a purely service level that it is highly unlikely that this is a realistic aspiration.
• Jobs for a wide range of different people - There is currently not a shortage of a wide range of people or skills in the area, certainly not within an area that can be easily travelled to and the proposal has neither the facilities, the infrastructure or the intention to create the facilities that will provide such jobs.
• Changing technology and business needs - Technology and business needs are constantly evolving but there is no clear plan to accommodate any such changes or to meet those needs of any indication that any provision has been made to anticipate such changes by making provision for them. Typically if such a provision were to be made, we would expect to see facilities that provided facilities for remote working and had highly efficient and effective infrastructure that included data and physical communications, a support infrastructure to support such centres and incentives for them to exist such as desirable and attractive locations.
• Sustainable journeys to work -The very size of the proposed development and configuration of it as well as the lack of a practical public transport system, or provision for personal transport systems such as highly organized and integrated cycleways with charging points for large numbers of electric bicycles demonstrate that it is assumed that because there will potentially be a large workforce available and because people prefer not to commute that businesses will move in, and workers will somehow find their way to and from those establishments.

In our opinion, there is noemerging approach to employment opportunity or any clear evidence of a strategy.

Q6 Do you support the emerging approach to living environments?

No, whilst this section contains some laudable objectives it is once again is short on detail.In our view, it is aspirational but fails to demonstrate exactly how it will deliver an attractive living environment based on the delivery of a good mix of land uses that promotes social interaction and integration, fostering a sense of place and community. We cannot see anything that we feel represents a future strategy that will make the Garden Community a celebrated place to live, work and spend time, with a strong sense of identity, or even that it will be a garden community.

The photograph on p24 is deliberately misleading. It suggests a semi-rural development with a low housing density. The reality, with up to 100 dph (dwellings per hectare) in places will be somewhat different and gives us very real concerns about the risk of the development turning into a slum with all the attendant issues that come with that situation.

Within this section there is no mention of how rented housing will be accommodated and there is also no mention of sheltered accommodation for the elderly or of any retirement housing.

Each of the two neighborhoods should contain its own District Centre, which should be located in the physical centre of the neighborhood for shortest access for all residents. The northern neighborhood will be the larger of the two and hence will support a larger and more diverse District Centre possibly including a medium/large supermarket.

There isreference tocorner shops and street cafés. However, these have been in decline nationwide for many years. Nothing in what is presented gives us any confidence that they would flourish in the proposed environment.The absence of a large supermarket in the development will lead to considerable traffic issues as everyone will drive to other supermarkets. Inevitably this will mean extra traffic along Clingoe Hill. Expecting residents to use public transport for their weekly shopis completely unrealistic and demonstrates that no thought has been given to creating anything other than a series of soul-less dormitory developments punctuated by large frequently partially occupied shopping malls that simply attract anti social behavior.

There is no mention of any kind of buildings of worship, cemeteries, community buildings, libraries, sports and fitness venues, children's play areas, social clubs, pubs or restaurants. The spirit of a community is held within all these establishments and in their absence will be missing from the development.

It is quite likely that the early residents will not enjoy the benefits of the quoted infrastructure, as it will only become viable when the majority of the houses are occupied. This does nothing for social cohesion.