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: 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).
DECLARATION
I have made use of a jointly prepared response statement, as I either do not have a computer or I find the response process too difficult and onerous to undertake without assistance. Nevertheless, I consider this to be my personal response and I fully endorse and support the comments and opinions expressed herein.
Q1 - Do you agree with the content of the Vision? Is anything missing? What are the priorities?
No.The Vision is largely marketing guff. It belongs in a property developer’s brochure!It is deliberately misleading because it portrays a Utopian future that, quite simply, will not happen.Two specific things are missing:
- 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.
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. 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.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 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.
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.
Q4 - Do you support the emerging approach to integrated and sustainable transport?
No. This section contains some laudable objectives, but it is largely fantasy or misinformation.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.
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.
Q5 - Do you support the emerging approach to employment opportunity?
No. This section lacks credibility and is no more than a wish list. The employment opportunities described are totally speculative and unsubstantiated.Q6 - Do you support the emerging approach to the living environment?
No. This section contains some laudable objectives but once again is short on detail. A lot of it seems to be wishful thinking.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 in places will be somewhat different.
Within this section there is no mention of how rented housing will be accommodated.
There is also no mention of sheltered accommodation for the elderly or of retirement housing.
Each of the two neighbourhoods should contain its own District Centre, which should be located in the physical centre of the neighbourhood for shortest access for all residents. The northern neighbourhood 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 is talk of corner shops and street cafés. However, these have been in decline nationwide for many years. What makes you think they would flourish here? Without a large supermarket in the development, everyone will drive to other supermarkets. Inevitably this will mean extra traffic along Clingoe Hill. Expecting residents to use public transport for their weekly shop is a fantasy. It simply will not happen.
There is no mention of any kind of buildings of worship, cemeteries, community buildings, libraries, sports and fitness venues,childrens 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.
Q7 - Do you support the emerging approach to smart and sustainable living?
Yes. There are some good ideas here. However, it still reads like a “wish list” of trendy topics.One problem is that many of these ideas are not economically viable at this time. Perhaps they will be in the future. This will lead to an old/new divide where the early houses do not benefit but the newer ones do. Hardly the best approach to social cohesion.
A second problem is that suggestions for power generation and waste hubs do not appear elsewhere in the consultation and that no space appears to be allocated for them in the plans. Again, is it just wishful thinking?
A third issue is that for solar power to be effective the panels have to be on a (roughly) South-facing roof. This effectively dictates the street layouts and therefore needs to be planned in from the outset.
Credible sustainability is an expensive, but a good long-term investment. Unless there are local regulations brought in to mandate it, the developers will attempt to wriggle out of implementing sustainability features and it will become yet another misleading sales pitch of this document.
Q8 - Do you support the emerging approach to good design?
No. While it contains some good thoughts, it is fundamentally flawed.There is no mention of minimum building standards and energy efficiency standards or of provision of adequate off-road parking. Without these, developers will do the bare minimum to comply with building regulations. The result will be another low quality estate with congested streets, of which there are already too many in Colchester.
The assertion that the development should be characterised by continuous and connected streets in questionable. Many families like living in cul-de-sacs. The absence of through traffic makes them quieter and less polluted places. They are also safer places for their children to play in.
The assertion that development blocks should be outward facing onto the streets is also questionable. Blocks should be outward facing onto private front gardens or parking areas that in turn face onto the streets.
The preference should be for traditional detached, semi-detached and terraced houses rather than blocks of houses. This is in keeping with the traditional character of the area.
Expansion of the University of Essex should be confined to within its existing boundary of Wivenhoe Park and the land between Boundary Road and the railway line or north of the A133. Expansion south of Boundary Road or east of the existing B1028 route is not acceptable.
What do you intend to do to protect the identity and Quality of Life in the existing neighbouring communities? The Garden Community residents are bound to take advantage of existing infrastructure and other local community facilities, especially when they are missing from their own development.
Q9 - Do you support the emerging approach to community engagement?
No.Your commitment to engage or take any notice at all of the existing local communities is unproven. There is a widely held suspicion that all you want to do is conduct a “box ticking exercise” to comply with legal requirements.The best way to engage with the local community over the longer term is to fix all the existing broken promises and to put in place a legally binding contract to ensure that you actually deliver in the future what you promise now.
In order to give local communities a voice in the development process, each Parish Council from the neighbouring communities should be allowed to nominate a director to NEGC Ltd or whatever development vehicle is formed to oversee the development.
Q10 - Do you support the emerging approach to active local stewardship?
No.It is difficult to support the emerging approach to active local stewardship because this section contains little of substance.The best way to address this issue is to establish Parish Councils (along the lines of Wivenhoe Town Council or Elmstead Market Parish Council) in each of the two proposed neighbourhoods and to give them the duty of stewardship. This leads on to parish councillors and the creation of new wards in CBC and TDC.
As an aside, it makes no sense to have the local authority boundary bisecting the southern neighbourhood (see Figure 5.1 on p35 of the consultation document). The boundary should be moved so that the southern neighbourhood is entirely within Colchester and the northern neighbourhood is entirely within Tendring.
Q11 - Do you support the emerging approach to corporate and political leadership?
No.The statement that “Strong, cross-party, political support will drive the project forward over several Local Plan periods and political cycles” is unrealistic, and is one of the fundamental reasons why public money gets wasted on large projects like this.Projects such as this need a must more robust financial model than the fundamentally flawed one that currently exists; and they need leadership by professionals having relevant industry experience and who are accountable.
Q12 - Do you support the emerging approach to innovative delivery structure?
No.The proposed delivery structure lacks democratic accountability. It is essential that the Parish Councils of the neighbouring communities have board level representation on NEGC Ltd or any other delivery vehicle. Indirect representation via CBC or TDC is not acceptable.The consultation document states on p33 that a local Development Corporation would be locally accountable. More detail is needed. What legislation will govern it and to whom will it be accountable?
The consultation document states on p33 that the strategy will “have regard to national guidance and emerging legislation relating to the delivery of ‘New Towns’ to include the consideration of devolved powers”. It is not enough to have regard for something as this is not legally binding and is therefore totally unacceptable.
In principle, public funds being used to secure infrastructure in advance of development is sound. However, far more detail is required before any assessment can be given. Also, there must be a cast iron guarantee that in the event of the development failing or exceeding budget, that local residents do not end up footing the bill through increased taxation or cuts to local services.
Q13 - Do you support the emerging Concept Framework for the site?
No.Figure 5.1 on p35 shows a new road extending south of the A133 from the junction with the link road to the B1027 by Wivenhoe Football Club. It then continues down Elmstead Road, runs behind Feedhams Close and joins onto the B1028. This new road would severely increase traffic noise and air pollution for the residents of northern Wivenhoe. It would destroy a pleasant view over fields. This is not acceptable. Any new road must be located well away from the existing properties.
The new road goes through land allocated for housing and a new cemetery in the Wivenhoe Neighbourhood Plan. This is not acceptable. The new road, if built, must go elsewhere.
It is not clear in Figure 5.1 if the junction of the A133 and B1028 will continue to exist. Clarification is needed. Also if the road were removed would a cycle path or walkway still remain? The suspicion is that this is being done to facilitate University expansion east of the B1028. If this were the case, then the new road mentioned above would become the primary route in and out of Wivenhoe. This would significantly lengthen journeys between Wivenhoe and Colchester, which is not acceptable. The existing route of the B1028 and itsjunction with the A133 on Clingoe Hill must be maintained.
The suspicion also exists that the new road to the B1028 is really intended as the first stage of a southern relief road for Colchester. A simple straight-line extension would take it down to the river. After crossing the river it could join up with Old Heath Road. The logic of doing this is not disputed. It would greatly reduce the traffic volume down Clingoe Hill and in the Hythe area. However, it would also result in a massive increase in traffic noise and air pollution for the residents of north Wivenhoe. Again, this is not acceptable. Any new road to (and beyond) the B1028 must be located away from the existing main development area of Wivenhoe.
Rail commuters from the proposed development are likely to treat Elmstead Road as a rat-run to get to Wivenhoe Station. This will not be acceptable. Elmstead Road should have a weight restriction placed on it, should be signed as No Through Road Access Only and should have speed management at each end.
Figure 5.1 shows a park and ride adjacent to the A133. However, no space is allocated for the parking area. If it is to succeed in reducing traffic entering Colchester from the east, it will need to have a considerable capacity.
The non-specific University expansion is likely to be student accommodation at best, but could easily be housing to generate money for the University in the future. Any development south of the A133 and East of the B1028 is not acceptable.
The existing wooded copse to the east of the B1028 must be maintained as it provides an attractive ‘green’ entrance to Wivenhoe. Likewise, the triangular area to the north of Wivenhoe provides an essential green buffer and must be retained.
As has been stated earlier, it makes no sense for the local authority boundary to bisect the southern neighbourhood of the proposed development. The boundary should be re-aligned so that the neighbourhoodis entirely within Colchester.
Table 1 on p36 of the consultation document states that 7 ha are allocated for park and ride(s). Scaling pro-rata from the proposed park and ride in Spring Lane, Colchester (600 cars over 36 acres) suggests a total capacity of about 290 cars. It is considered unlikely that this will be sufficient to make a meaningful difference to traffic levels.
Table 1 does not break down the proportions of low-density, medium-density and high-density housing. Are the figures for mixed-use centres there to hide the real housing densities? If so, this is dishonest.
The consultation document states on p37 that people will have real choice about where to send their kids to school. This is simply not true. ECC will only pay for transport to the nearest school. Have the planners considered that the new secondary school will be nearer to Wivenhoe and Elmstead Market than the existing Colchester Academy and Colne schools? This new secondary school will therefore be the prime option for the 3,200 dwellings in Wivenhoe and the 1,000 or so dwellings in and around Elmstead Market. Will the school be large enough to cater for this? Have ECC agreed to fund a school of this size? Will the allocated site of 8 ha be large enough?
The third paragraph on p37 of the consultation document is extremely worrying. It suggests that development south of the A133 is necessary to make the scheme viable. This would seem to contradict any assurances or promises given by councillors.
The seventh paragraph on p37 of the consultation document suggests that the “master plan” will change over time to reflect changes in market conditions and priorities. Will such changes be subject to democratic accountability at the time or are the planners trying to give themselves a “blank cheque”?
The fifth bullet point on p39 of the consultation document describes changing the form and character of the A133 on Clingoe Hill. While improving walking and cycling provision and public transport (i.e. bus lanes) is laudable, this must not be at the expense of vehicular traffic. The two-lane highway for normal traffic must be maintained, as must the existing speed limit.
Q14 - Are there any other considerations relevant to the delivery of Garden Communities, in general or in relation to this site in particular, that have not been identified or discussed in this document?