LOCAL PLAN COMMITTEE

27 NOVEMBER 2014

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING

A.2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES (Report prepared by Richard Matthams and Gary Ashby)

PART 1 – KEY INFORMATION

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To report, to the Local Plan Committee Officers initial assessment of the alternative development proposals put forward by landowners, developers and other interested parties at the Committee’s last meeting on 21st October 2014.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the meeting of the Local Plan Committee, Members were made aware of a number of development proposals being promited by landowners, developers and other interested parties as an alternative to the sites recommended by Officers for inclusion in the new Local Plan.

The alternative proposals included “Hartley Gardens”, a development on greenfield land in north- west Clacton of 2,500 homes with community facilities, open space and a link road between Jaywick Lane and Bovil’s roundabout/Progress Way. Another “Tendring Central”, a development on greenfield land around , Hare Green and Raven’s Green for 1,500 homes with community facilities, 40 hectares of employment land, a multi-directional road link between the A133 and the A120 and new bus services to nearby railway stations.

It was also suggested that to avoid the need for unpopular extensions to existing towns and villages, the Council should consider the possibility of a new standalone settlement to deliver the districts housing requirement in one location. Therefore, Officers have undertaken an initial scoping exercise in order to determine whether the potential for the delivery of a new settlement exists in the .

A number of alternative proposals for housing development were also put forward for smaller sites, which included:

 Land at St. Johns Nursery, Earls Hall Drive, Clacton (instead of land between London Road and Centenary Way, Clacton);

 Land at Swaine’s Farm, Little Clacton (instead of land between London Road and Centenary Way, Clacton);

 Land south of 185 Thorpe Road, Kirby Cross;

 Land at St. Andrew’s Close, Alresford;

 Land west of School Road, (instead of land north of Meadow Close and land west of Church Road); and

 Land south of Mistley Village.

None of these proposals are currently recommended for inclusion in the new Local Plan because there are concerns about high infrastructure costs, road access, and limited services and facilities in some rural areas. However, it is expected that the landowners and developers concerned will produce evidence when the plan goes out for consultation to persuade the Council, or a Planning Inspector, that these issues can be addressed.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Local Plan Committee notes Officers’ initial assessment of the alternative development proposals, as set out in this report.

PART 2 – IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION

DELIVERING PRIORITIES

Achieving affordable excellence: The way that local authorities are funded through central government has changed significantly in recent years. Councils that support growth in housing and commercial development are rewarded through the grant of ‘New Homes Bonus’ and through the ability to retain a proportion of business rates. These valuable sources of funding enable Councils to sustain existing services and improve those services in the future. The suggested ‘garden suburbs’ and ‘strategic employment sites’ will deliver the majority of the district’s growth, focussing the majority of housing development in locations which will support growth in the economy and the creation of new jobs, helping to address deprivation and further increase revenue to the Council.

Improving public perception and reputation: The policies, concept diagrams and delivery schedules presented to the Local Plan Committee in October are designed to ensure development brings maximum benefit to the economy and our communities and will provide a useful focus for community consultation when they are published as part of the new Local Plan.

Helping children and young people to achieve their full potential: Major development proposals in suitable locations will support the objectives of the Economic Development Strategy related to improving education and skills by ensuring developments achieve the critical mass required to help deliver new and improved educational facilities, and supporting growth in key sectors of the economy that will provide jobs for young people in the future.

Addressing deprivation: The Council’s Economic Development Strategy recommends facilitating population growth around Clacton, Harwich and the Colchester Fringe as a means of stimulating economic growth by generating demand for goods and services, unlocking employment opportunities and securing investment in new and improved infrastructure that will support economic opportunities and help to tackle deprivation, particularly in Clacton and Harwich. For Clacton, the proposed ‘garden suburbs’ would provide the opportunity to deliver facilities for care and assisted living which will provide local jobs and meet the needs of older and disabled residents. Continued support for the strategic employment development at Bathside Bay, Harwich Valley and Horsley Cross will support growth in port-related activities and the off-shore renewable energy sector.

Local housing for local people: Increasing the overall amount of housing development proposed in the Local Plan will increase the scope to deliver housing to meet the needs of different sectors of the population.

Coastal opportunities and protection: The expansion of the port at Bathside Bay would require the reclamation of approximately 72 hectares of inter-tidal land and part of the Harwich Valley site lies within the flood zone.

RESOURCES AND RISK

Resources: The Council’s Planning Policy Team under the leadership of the Planning Policy Manager has prepared the policies, concept diagrams and delivery schedules with a view to carrying out further more detailed work including liaison and consultation with partner organisations and infrastructure providers including County Council, Colchester Borough Council, the NHS, the Environment Agency and utility providers as well as the relevant landowners, developers and community representatives. The costs involved in this work will be met through the agreed ‘LDF Budget’.

Risks: The major garden suburbs and strategic employment sites recommended for inclusion in the new Local Plan are likely to attract a significant level of objections from residents, particularly in the areas most affected. However, any objection to the Local Plan needs to demonstrate that the plan would fail the tests of soundness in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for them to convince a Planning Inspector that the plan should not be adopted.

LEGAL

Legislation: Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 state that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the ‘development plan’ unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory ‘development plan’ for Tendring, as it stands is the 2007 Adopted Local Plan however, in accordance with the government’s National Planning Policy Framework, the policies and proposals in the Adopted Local Plan are increasingly out of date and cannot be afforded full weight. It is therefore essential to progress the emerging Local Plan through the remaining stages of the plan making process and ensure it meets the requirements of national planning policy so it can become the new statutory development plan.

Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), as amended by Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011 places a duty upon local authorities and other public bodies to cooperate on strategic matters of cross-boundary significance, which includes housing supply. Before a Planning Inspector can begin the process of examining a Local Plan, he or she needs to be satisfied, with evidence, that the local authority has done everything it can to ensure effective cooperation with neighbouring authorities and other partner organisations and has sought to resolve, as far as is possible, any cross-boundary planning issues.

Human Rights Act 1998 - The Council must have regard to the Act in all its decision making and to act in accordance with the Convention rights when devising new policies or procedures. A public authority should ensure that its policies or decisions do not interfere with individual rights and make sure that any restriction within the policy is necessary, pursues one of the recognised legitimate aims and is proportionate to that aim. Any restriction must be no greater than is needed to achieve the objective.

Human rights issues are also considered as part of the assessment of each individual planning application once the Plan is approved and adopted.

OTHER IMPLICATIONS Consideration has been given to the implications of the proposed decision in respect of the following and any significant issues are set out below. Crime and Disorder / Equality and Diversity / Health Inequalities /Area or Ward affected / Consultation/Public Engagement.

Crime and Disorder: The focus of new development is in locations where it will support economic growth and job creation (in line with the objectives of the Economic Development Strategy) which will help, alongside non-planning measures, to improve prosperity and tackle crime and disorder.

Equality and Diversity: An Equality Impact Assessment for the new version of the Local Plan will be prepared to ensure that matters relating to equality and diversity are sufficiently covered.

Health Inequalities: The development of major garden suburbs in strategic locations around Clacton and Weeley with the potential, subject to cooperation with Colchester Borough Council and other bodies, for major development around the Colchester Fringe would achieve the critical mass necessary to justify and secure the provision of new medical facilities and incorporate areas of public open space for the health and enjoyment of residents. These larger developments will also have the scope to incorporate new facilities for care and assisted living to meet the health needs of older and disabled residents.

Area or Ward affected: Ardleigh and ; Thorrington, Frating Elmstead and ; Little Clacton and Weeley; Burrsville; St. John’s; Bockings Elm; Rush Green; Harwich East; Harwich East Central; Harwich West; Ramsey and Parkeston.

Consultation/Public Engagement: Officers have sought initial views from our partner organisations and infrastructure providers including Essex County Council, Colchester Borough Council, the NHS, the Environment Agency and utility providers. Further consultation on the policies, concept diagrams and delivery schedules is proposed. Formal public consultation involving our residents and other interested parties will take place when the new version of the Local Plan, incorporating the vision and spatial strategy along with detailed policies and specific site allocations, has been agreed by the Local Plan Committee. The first of two public consultation exercises is expected to take place in early 2015.

PART 3 – SUPPORTING INFORMATION

TENDRING CENTRAL

This proposal is to create a new garden village on 237 ha of land at the heart of district close to the junction of the A120 and A133 between the settlements of Frating, Balls Green and Hare Green. The concept plan prepared by the site promoter is attached as Appendix 1. The promoters of the scheme are Hawkspur Ltd and Edward Gittins and Associates Ltd on the instructions of a principal landowner.

Key features of the proposal:

 1,500 homes,  40 ha of employment land,  community facilities,  new bus links and open space, centred on a new village centre and village green.  new multi-directional road link between the A120 and A133.

Key issues:

This proposal would effectively result in the complete coalescence and urbanisation of the three existing smaller rural communities of Frating, Balls Green and Hare Green, unlike strategic growth at Weeley, which would only affect one rural settlement. The location is not considered to be sustainable due to the lack of shops, services, facilities and essential infrastructure, in particular a railway station (or potential for one to be created) but it is acknowledged that the site is in a strategically important location at the junction of the two main roads through the district (the A120 and A133) and that the location can be made sustainable, to a degree, through the provision of new community facilities and infrastructure. However, because there is no railway station or potential for one to be created this location is not considered to be suitable for strategic housing growth, like Weeley and other locations around the main urban areas of Clacton and the Colchester Fringe. Furthermore, because this would need to be delivered upfront and will be costly, development is not likely to come forward until the latter stages of the plan period and so will have little impact on the Council’s five year supply of housing.

It is accepted that this location could be commercially attractive for development due to its proximity to Colchester and by being adjacent to the A120, but it is still likely to generate a high number of vehicular movements to and from Colchester by those who will choose to work in Colchester and use its greater range of shops, services and facilities. Whilst this is also the case for Weeley, by having a railway station and good bus links, Weeley represents a more sustainable location by offering a better choice of sustainable modes of transport.

It is also important to note that much of the agricultural land in this part of the district is of a higher grade than the agricultural land around Weeley and Clacton.

On balance, the proposal represents a serious alternative location for major housing and commercial development but the lack of a railway station (or opportunity to create one), impact the development will have on three existing rural communities and high level of upfront infrastructure investment required makes this location unsuitable compared to the strategic locations that are currently being recommended around Clacton, Weeley and the Colchester Fringe. Officers are therefore not recommending the inclusion of this proposal in the new Local Plan.

HARTLEY GARDENS, NORTH-WEST CLACTON

This proposal is a large, mixed-use urban extension on 134 ha of land to the north-west of Clacton. The concept plan prepared by the site promoter is attached as Appendix 2. This scheme is being promoted by landowners represented by Robinson and Hall LLP.

Key features of the proposal:

 2,500 homes,  employment land,  community facilities,  woodland buffer between the development and nearby Little Clacton and open space.  new relief road between the junction of St. Johns Road and Jaywick Lane and the Bovill’s Hall roundabout on the A133.

Key issues:

This proposal (albeit a slightly smaller version) was originally presented as a sensible and sustainable option for the expansion of Clacton in the Council’s 2010 Draft Core Strategy document but this was abandoned due to concerns about the deliverability of the scheme and because the proposal attracted significant local objection, which prompted the Council to rethink its approach to housing growth in favour of a fair and proportionate distribution of growth around each settlement in the district through the 2012 Draft Local Plan.

Whilst the site is recognised as being a sustainable location, there continues to be major concerns about the deliverability of this proposal because of the level of upfront infrastructure investment that would be required to deliver this scale of housing development in this location, in particular the new relief road and the provision of sewage treatment facilities, which are unlikely to be deliverable in the current economic climate and because viability is more of an issue in this part of the district where house prices are lower. Whereas the level of upfront infrastructure investment required for the strategic locations that are being recommended around Clacton and Weeley is relatively less, meaning development in these locations is capable of being delivered within the plan period.

On balance, whilst the site, in theory, represents a logical location for peripheral expansion of Clacton it is not considered to be deliverable within the plan period. However, it but could be explored as an option in the long term, should further expansion around Clacton be required. Officers are not recommending the inclusion of this proposal in the new Local Plan but the promoters of the development intend to produce evidence with a view to demonstrate the development can be delivered within the plan period.

NEW SETTLEMENT FOR TENDRING

Weeley Parish Council and some local residents have suggested that to avoid the need for unpopular extensions to existing towns and villages, the Council should plan for a new standalone settlement. With room to deliver the full requirement for 12,000 homes. Therefore, Officers have undertaken an initial scoping exercise to determine whether the potential for the delivery of a new settlement exists in the Tendring District.

Paragraph 52 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that “the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns that follow the principles of Garden Cities”. Therefore the principle of new settlements and major extensions to villages is now supported by government planning policy and there is legitimate scope to explore this option.

To justify the development of a completely new settlement in its own right, development would need to incorporate sufficient land and deliver sufficient housing numbers to deliver new jobs, shops, services and facilities and minimise the need for residents to travel to neighbouring towns and villages for work, school, shopping and other every-day activities. To deliver such a new settlement, there would need to be significant up-front investment in new schools, new medical facilities, new roads and public transport facilities and the development would need to deliver between 5,000-15,000 new homes and utilise around 300-900 hectares of greenfield agricultural land, ensuring sufficient land for commercial and community uses and green spaces. There would also need to be strong market demand for housing in one location for such a scheme to be viable and willing landowners prepared to make a long-term investment because a development of this scale could take up to 25 years to deliver.

The planning for a completely new settlement of this scale would be highly complex. There are lengthy timescales for the delivery of new settlements and the ‘lead in’ time means that in reality a new settlement may only be deliverable beyond the plan period up to 2031. With the need for Council’s to demonstrate that the strategy in their Local Plan is deliverable within the plan period, it is considered that a completely new settlement is not a suitable option for Tendring in this Local Plan.

Assumptions

It is important to identify the minimum space and size requirements of a new settlement. For the purposes of this report, Officers have made the crude assumption that a new settlement option will deliver the majority of the districts housing requirement of 12,100 new homes. In terms of identifying the land requirement to accommodate a new settlement, the National Planning Policy Framework (para 57), states that local authorities should develop their own density policies in response to local conditions. A density of 25 / 30 per hectare is assumed, given the rural location of any new settlement, and the average trajectory density used in the Tendring District Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. As such to deliver a settlement of approximately 12,000 homes, approximately 500-600 hectares of land would be required. This figure does not include space that would be required to provide non-residential uses in the new settlement, such as retail, employment as well as the health and education services discussed earlier.

Identifying land where development should be avoided

A similar approach has been used to that which informed the current recommended strategy which identified the Colchester Fringe, Weeley and Clacton as the preferred areas for strategic growth. This included identifying the following important environmental designations as ‘absolute constraints’ (shown in black on the sieve map, attached as Appendix 3) where development should be avoided as a matter of principle:

 Flood Zones 2 or 3 (as defined by the Environment Agency) to meet the ‘sequential test’ requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework;  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) – part of the Dedham Vale AONB falls within the north-western corner of the district;  Sites of International importance including RAMSAR sites, Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA);  Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI);  National Nature Reserves and Country Parks; and  Ancient Woodland.

The following local designations are also identified (in green on the sieve map) where development should ideally be avoided but it is accepted that because there is an overriding pressure for new housing in the district, the presence of these designations cannot be an automatic constraint to the identification of broad areas with development potential:

 Existing and Proposed Local Green Spaces/Green Infrastructure;  Local Wildlife Sites and Local Nature Reserves;  The proposed extension to the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB; and  Conservation Areas, Scheduled Monuments and Registered Historic Parks or Gardens.

The sieve map reveals that most of the absolute and local constraints are found around the perimeter of the district and around the district’s coastline or estuaries, leaving much of the interior of the district relatively free from any of the above constraints where a new settlement could, in theory, be located. Whilst the identification of the above constraints serves as a useful starting point, in reality, there are many other factors that would need to be taken into consideration when assessing the suitability of land for housing, including landscape character, agricultural land quality, the housing market, viability, potential for economic growth and potential for infrastructure provision and so on.

Identifying broad locations where a new settlement could be located

As a large proportion of the district’s interior is relatively free from any of the above overriding constraints and therefore has the potential to be considered as potential for a new settlement.

If a new settlement is to be identified, it should be in a location that already has good transport links rather than in an isolated location, where major upfront transport investment would be required. The logical starting point would therefore be to identify land around the key transport corridors within the district where a new settlement could be directed to, which includes the strategic road network (the A120 and A133) (shown with a solid blue line on the sieve map) and the railway line (shown with a dashed blue line on the sieve map).

A new settlement should ideally be located on the railway line close to where there is an existing railway station (shown with a red spot on the sieve map) or realistic prospect of delivery of a new station to encourage sustainable travel patterns, in accordance with the principle of sustainable development set out in the NPPF. The need for good access to the strategic road network is also important. Whilst this might encourage travel by car, it is important to recognise the unique geography and characteristics of the district which means that some travel by car will be inevitable; so if car movements are likely it is important to encourage the use of the existing strategic road network, which is designed to accommodate high levels of car movements, rather than the district’s smaller, and often rural, roads.

The sieve map shows the general extent of land around the key transport corridors where a new settlement could theoretically be directed to. The land around the railway line is shown hatched yellow on the sieve map and possible land around the strategic road network is shown hatched red. The identification of these broad areas of land is not an exact science but it would be a useful starting point to help guide the identification of possible areas of land where a new settlement would be best placed to be close to the district’s existing transport corridors. This exercise reveals clearly those parts of the districts interior where a new settlement would be relatively isolated and where significant investment in transport infrastructure would be required and so should be discounted (shown in white on the sieve map).

From the sieve map, there are the following broad locations where a new settlement could in theory be located and would be close to the strategic road network or railway line:

 Railway line Colchester to Harwich

Much of the land along this route is unlikely to be suitable as a matter of principle for a new settlement as it is affected by constraints, either due to the sensitivity of the landscape or because it is at risk of flooding. From the sieve map there are only two broad locations that would be close to both the railway line and the strategic road network (A120) – to the east near Harwich and to the west near Colchester. Whilst the land to the east near Harwich is close to the A120 and would be close to Harwich and the range of shops, jobs, and facilities it offers, land in this part of the district is high agricultural quality and the landscape is particularly sensitive around the Ramsey Valley system and would be vulnerable to major new development. A new settlement in this location would likely affect the existing communities of Wrabness, Ramsey and possibly Great and Little Oakley. The land to the west near Colchester is already recommended for possible growth and to be the subject of a more detailed plan to be prepared jointly by Tendring District Council and Colchester Borough Council, if appropriate.

 Railway line Colchester to Clacton/Frinton and Walton

Land along much of this route is lower quality agricultural land but there are areas of high landscape sensitivity, particularly where the railway passes through the district’s river valleys, where new development should be avoided. From the sieve map, a new settlement anywhere along the railway between Colchester and Weeley would also be relatively close to the A133, which makes much of this potentially suitable, in theory. Whereas east of Weeley towards Frinton and Walton there are no links to the strategic road network and so a new settlement in this location would need to be accompanied by significant upfront investment in transport infrastructure to cater for the additional traffic that is likely to be created. There is little opportunity for a new standalone settlement to be created anywhere along this route that would not have a major impact on an existing community, as there are existing settlements along much of this route, including Alresford, Thorrington, Great Bentley, Aingers Green, Weeley, Weeley Heath, Little Clacton, Thorpe-le-Soken, Great Holland and Kirby Cross.

 A120 Colchester to Harwich

Whilst this key transport corridor is an attractive location for commercial development (as demonstrated by the recent approval of the Horsley Cross employment area), a large proportion of this route runs through the centre of the District and so is located some distance from established communities. A new settlement would therefore need to deliver the full range of shops, services, facilities and new infrastructure to make it self-sufficient and sustainable, which would require significant upfront investment and time to deliver. Land along much of this route is high quality agricultural land and there are areas of high landscape sensitivity, particularly where the road passes through the district’s river valleys, where new development should be avoided. Whilst this part of the district is relatively free from development, it is clear from the sieve map that wherever a new settlement is created it is likely to have an impact on at least one existing settlement, as there are a number of small rural communities that could be affected including Elmstead Market, Great Bromley, Balls Green, Hare Green, Ravens Green, , Horsleycross Street and Wix.

 A133 Colchester to Clacton

Whilst this transport corridor is not as commercially attractive as the A120 corridor, it still provides a strategic link between the largest settlement in the District, Clacton, and nearby Colchester. Land along much of this route is high quality agricultural land and there are areas of high landscape sensitivity, particularly where the road passes through the district’s river valleys, where new development should be avoided. From the sieve map, a new settlement anywhere along this route would also be relatively close to the railway line, which makes much of this potentially suitable, in theory. However, there is little opportunity for a new standalone settlement to be created that would not have a major impact on an existing community as there are existing settlements along much of this route, including Elmstead Market, Alresford, Frating, Balls Green Hare Green, Great Bentley, Weeley, Tendring, Weeley Heath and Little Clacton.

Whilst in theory the concept of a new standalone settlement is an attractive option for many of our residents, the problems of delivering a new settlement in Tendring are set out below:

 No landowner or developer is currently promoting a new settlement. This fact would seriously bring its deliverability into question, and an Inspector is highly likely to find the plan un-sound.

 A new settlement would need a minimum of 5,000 homes to make it sustainable with its own secondary school and supporting infrastructure (this is effectively another town the size of Brightlingsea) otherwise it will be a burden on neighbouring towns and villages in terms of services and infrastructure. To deliver the districts housing requirement through a new settlement of approximately 12,000 new homes and supporting infrastructure would require approximately 500-600 ha of greenfield agricultural land, a settlement larger than Harwich and Dovercourt (which has 9000 homes).

 A new settlement would take at least 25 years to build, even with a strong housing market, and would not address the current housing shortage and would not address the existing infrastructure inadequacies in the districts other towns and would impose further infrastructure pressures itself.

 Building 200 homes a year for 25 years in one location where there is no established housing market is not likely to be deliverable.

 The evidence on housing demand shows that existing towns like Clacton, Frinton, Manningtree and Brightlinsea are where the demand for future growth will be.

 The Council would need to be 100% committed to delivering such as settlement over 25 years. If the Council decided to withdraw its support for such a strategy the result would be a partly completed, isolated settlement with limited services or facilities.

 New housing is a vital part of regenerating our existing towns. A new settlement would not support the economy of our existing towns.

 From the exercise undertaken, land around Weeley would provide the best location for a new settlement due to its strategic location and railway station. Building 12,000 new homes in this area could possibly lead to the merging of Thorpe, Little Clacton and Great Bentley.

Conclusion

This report has considered the principle of locating a new settlement of approximately 12,000 homes in Tendring District. It has taken into account environmental constraints, transport implications and land availability. This exercise has identified that there is limited scope to develop a new settlement within Tendring. This option for accommodating new housing is therefore not recommended in the new Local Plan.

ALTERNATIVE SMALLER SITES

At the 21st October meeting, some alternative options for smaller housing sites were also put forward. These are considered below:

Land at St. Johns Nursery instead of land between London Road and Centenary Way, Clacton

The land at St. John’s Nursery, Earls Hall Drive, Clacton was promoted for housing by the owner during earlier consultation periods but it has been discounted because it is currently operating as a garden centre and the site is considered to be a ‘backland site’ as it lies behind the established existing frontage of housing along St. John’s Road and is currently accessed via Earls Hall Drive, which is a long narrow drive. Development would therefore be poorly integrated with the existing residential community and would not be a logical extension to the built up area, despite it being on the edge of the large urban area of Clacton. Instead of specifically allocating the site for housing, it is included within the Clacton Settlement Development Boundary in the current draft Local Plan, which provides some flexibility for housing proposals to be considered on their merits in the future should circumstances change and the issues that are currently preventing housing being delivered on this site are overcome. It is not recommended however that this site is specifically allocated for housing.

Land at Swaine’s Farm, Little Clacton instead of land between London Road and Centenary Way, Clacton

As set out in the ‘Identifying Broad Locations for Potential Settlement Expansion’ technical paper that was presented to the Local Plan Committee in July, this site is identified as a potential broad area where Little Clacton could, in theory, expand without it affecting the overall shape and character of the village. However, there are concerns from local residents about the scale of development and the whole site being developed and joining the two halves of the village together. The Council’s SHLAA recognises the site as being suitable, available and deliverable within the plan period and Officers accept that as one of the district’s Rural Service Centres Little Clacton is not an unsustainable location; however, there is land elsewhere in more strategic locations capable of delivering the number of new homes required in Tendring with the necessary infrastructure needed to support such development. It is likely that a planning application for development on this site will soon be submitted, which will need to be considered on its merits and against the requirements of the NPPF.

Land south of Kirby Cross

As set out in the ‘Identifying Broad Locations for Potential Settlement Expansion’ technical paper that was presented to the Local Plan Committee in July, land to the south of Kirby Cross is identified as a potential broad area where the Frinton, Walton and Kirby Cross area could, in theory expand but access was identified as a potential issue and without a suitable form of access and good links with the established built up area. Whilst the site represents a logical extension to the existing built up area (in theory), it is unlikely to generate the critical mass to deliver the new infrastructure and community facilities required in the wider Frinton, Walton and Kirby Cross area that larger, better located sites in the area can deliver.

Land at St. Andrew’s Close, Alresford

This site has been allocated for housing in the Council’s emerging plan through the 2014 ‘Focussed Changes’, which amended the earlier 2012 Draft Local Plan (in which the site was not allocated for housing and was instead designated as a ‘Local Wildlife Site’). However, the proposed allocation of the site for housing and removal of the Local Wildlife Site designation attracted a significant number of representations both in objection to and in support of development, including a strong objection from the Essex Wildlife Trust questioning the process by which the Council was seeking to de-designate the Local Wildlife Site. In light of this strong objection and lack of suitable evidence to justify the removal of the Local Wildlife Site designation and acceptance that Local Wildlife Site designation can only be justified following DEFRA guidance, consideration is being given to reinstating this designation and deleting the housing allocation in the revised version of the Local Plan. Whilst Officers accept that as one of the district’s Rural Service Centres Alresford is not an unsustainable location, as mentioned above, there is land elsewhere in more strategic locations capable of delivering the number of new homes required in Tendring with the necessary infrastructure needed to support such development. It is likely that a planning application for development on this site will be submitted, which will need to be considered on its merits and against the requirements of the NPPF.

Land west of School Road, Elmstead Market instead of land north of Meadow Close and land west of Church Road

As set out in the ‘Identifying Broad Locations for Potential Settlement Expansion’ technical paper that was presented to the Local Plan Committee in July, this site is identified as a potential broad area where Elmstead Market could, in theory, expand without it affecting the overall shape and character of the village but there are concerns about development on the southern side of the busy A133, when most of the villages services and facilities, including the primary school, are located on the northern side of the A133. Whilst Officers accept that as one of the district’s Rural Service Centres Elmstead Market is not an unsustainable location, as mentioned above, there is land elsewhere in more strategic locations capable of delivering the number of new homes required in Tendring with the necessary infrastructure needed to support such development.

Land south of Mistley Village

As set out in the ‘Identifying Broad Locations for Potential Settlement Expansion’ technical paper that was presented to the Local Plan Committee in July, land to the south of Mistley village is identified as a potential broad area where Mistley could, in theory expand but access was identified as a potential issue and development in this location would result in Mistley village sprawling southwards into uncontained open countryside. Whilst the site represents a logical extension to the existing built up area (in theory), it is unlikely to generate the critical mass to deliver the new infrastructure and community facilities required in the wider Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley area that larger sites in Lawford can deliver (as set out in the Council’s SHLAA).

Conclusion

None of the alternative sites that have been suggested are recommended for inclusion as housing allocations in the revised version of the Local Plan.

APPENDICES

Appendix A.2a) – Tendring Central proposal submitted by Edward Gittins and Associates Ltd.

Appendix A.2b) – Hartley Garden, North-West Clacton submitted by Robinson Hall LLP.

Appendix A.2c) –Sieve and Constraints Map (identifying possible broad areas for a new settlement).

CHASE ROAD EAST

Bay Cottage

Cricket Ground

Path (um)

Hall

Pavilion

Hill

Cottages 1 The Spinney

2 Saracens

Issues BACK Parkfield Lea Cottage LANE WEST A120 to North Solitude Parkside Harwich

A 133

Blue Cedars

Mast

A 133

A 120 Drumnascamph Clip Hedge Farm TCB A120 to House Debeauvoir BP BP Saran A 120 Cold Hall Ash FAIRFIELD Leigh Colchester 9 Denique Pond CLOSE

43

8 Path 1 Strutt's Farm Pendil Ashwood Catherine House

The Firs FairfieldHouse Hare Green Lei Raine

B 1029

A 133

Homelands A 133 Core Boundary 9 10

4 Pond

Mulberry Winton

House 11 2 1 WymundhamThirn Las

Dairylands Alvi 2 1

Dairy Farm Cottage Prospect 14 Thicks Cottages

House Whitby Willow House

Dovetails Que Sera Sera MARY LANE SOUTH WEST

Atlantis 1 2 Serenity Brumbella Manor CHASE ROADRansom Court Sherwind Bromley House Cotts

BACK LANE EAST HARWICH ROAD GP Thicks Cottages 19 to 25 to 19 Great Bromley

Elsmere Police House 3

B1029 Hibiscus Recreation Ground 1

Harewood Gilston Wisteria House Harinda 4 Bosco House

Bradenham Llamedos White Chumleigh Avante Old Forge Main Roundabout Cottage Hare Green Hill House Pond The Red Parlinga Pumping FRATING ROAD Tyrone House Station The Two Hollies 19 Veranda Cottage Gables Field House Cob Cottage LB New White Woodpeckers Two Jays House

El 1 TCB Sub Parnassus

Sta 1 12 to 18 The Fleece Council Houses Issues Fairview Vandora

Draco Annee Dunitt HARWICH ROAD Ashfern Sept- 6 Carisbrooke Roline

25 Spring House 1 13 MEADOW CLOSE Rocky Essex House The Pines Pond Secondary Roundabout Longmead Coral The Reef Pond Chimes

Raylens 7

Council Nursery Garage Pond

Houses1 5

Pond 10 Greshams Farm Major Road Portlands Launton Kenley Croylands Bay Trees Pumping Station Primary Road

Pond Pond Feeder Road Track

Pond Elmhurst Local Access Road

Garage GP

CHAPEL LANE Little Paddocks Landscaped Buffer Elmstead Pond Market Pond

FRATING ROAD Village Green

Red Tiles

HARWICH ROAD Drain Structural Landscaping

Brampton Hall Farm

Oak House Farm Laurel Cottage Path (um) Garden Village Centre Pond

BRUNDELLS ROAD Tennis Court BRUNDELLS RD Garden Village

Raven's Fir Tree Cottage Centre Green Residential development Jessica Cottage

Ravens Gamekeepers Place Aldawin Croft Balls Green B 1029 The Wilmacott Drain Rosegarth Grove House Cottage Boulton Cottages Commercial & Business Park

1 Waneys

Harwin Cottage 4 Dearsley Place Medhurst Pond Chapel Lane (Track)

Rosewood

1 LB

Grasmere 3 Chapel Illustrative Tree Planting Thicketts

3 Row Marks Farm 1 4 5 Balls Green FRATING Methodist Church ROAD A 133 Byways

South View

Cottage 1 Jasmin Lodge

Sun Cottage Chapel

Moyland

The Cottage 3 Cottages Jasmin Cottage Drain

CHAPEL LANE Car Park

Two Trees

LB The Bungalow Track Existing development Tank within the core boundary Tank Balls Green Drain

Richmaur St Marks Parkland

FURZE LANE

Furze End

Pond Apple Lodge LB

Southerndown Risbys Cottage

Union Place Cott Crabtree Farm OS Map data Glenmead West View Ivyside Drain

Chatsworth Tanks Ruins Bedfords Lanner

A 133

The Kia Small World B 1029

The Willows The Snooty Fox (PH) The Acers Fieldside Willow Orchard

Track

Cannston Reservoirs

Balls Green

Fenhouse

Eltone

Orchards B1029 Fern Lodge Car Park

Drain FRATING ROAD Northgate Summer Breeze

Morehams Cerises Hall

Junedene

Track Mast Track Spring Farm

Pond Tanks

16

Paynes Farm Tank

Track Spring Lodge Pond 9

Lincroft Magnolia House

The Conifers Chimneys

Jaroa Clovers

Tank Cottesloe

Wulfruna St Johns Car Park Bella Vista Covelly Drain

Trollius St Edmunds Drain Chez Nous Underwood

Valetta The Paddocks Pond Freshfields Muffins A 133

Brooklyn A133 Shangri-La Wheatland COLCHESTER ROAD Spiritditch The Chimes COLCHESTER ROAD Beaulieu FB Clacton-on-Sea

BROMLEY ROAD Silver Ppg Mist Sta

Track The Copperfields Lanterns Project:- Brendons 8 Track Solna Frating Green 26 New Garden Village, Kingsway 18 Brook 30

Fieldfare Tendring Central Larkrise 44 Drain Playground 20

Bentley 9

6 2 TOKELY ROAD 4

Rainbows End

8 15 17

23 2

2 19 Crabtree Farm

25 MAIN ROAD

Disisit Karibuni 14 St

Clair 1 Description:- BARREL CL 1 1

Ballabeg

1 8 18 14 5 Hedgeley FENN CLOSE Lascelles

5 Proposed Concept Plan

11 7

15

Third Acre

Memories El Sub Sta 20

Dunroamin 24 19 HAGGARS LANE Westbury Bungalow The Chri-Mon 1 Euroclydon Scale:- Date:- The New The Bungalow Bungalow 1 / 2500 @ A0 Oct 2014

La Cala Frating Cott Oast Colwyn House Orchids Drain Riz A133Ombre Taurus Drg no:- Revision:- 0 100 200m Jatone Track

Cottage Sunnyholm The King's Arms Vine

Carron Issues GV001-CP01 B Colchester (PH) Frating Green A 133 notes:

16.6m

19.8m

22.9m

20.7m

21.9m

19.8m

Retain and extend existing woodland

new turning head

dotted line shows extent of existing road to be closed off

11.9m

8.8m

18.9m

12.5m

7.9m 13.1m

12.5m

11.3m

8.8m PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 not included as subject of

third party application for 7.9m LEISURE / RETAIL being 7.9m dotted line shows extent of considered existing road to be closed off

12.5m new turning head N

14.6m COMMUNITY / PICKERS DITCH 14.6m MEDICAL CENTRE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

11.4m

11.8m 11.8m

14.9m

12.8m

15.5m

15.5m 0m 100m 200m 300m

14.4m

15.2m

16.1m

14.7m 16.1m 15.5m

14.6m

16.8m rev: date: description:

15.2m 14.9m

16.2m A October 2014 road adjusted, hatching added

15.7m 14.6m B October 2014 woodland and open space increased

15.1m 14.0m 13.4m

13.7m 14.0m 13.7m 13.7m 14.0m

16.8m

17.0m SCHOOL 12.2m 14.0m

14.3m

16.2m 14.6m

17.1m 12.5m 14.1m 10.4m 10.4m

16.5m

16.8m 8.8m C H A R T E R E D 16.8m ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGISTS 13.1m

11.6m

16.2m 13.7m title: Potential Land uses plan

13.7m

13.1m

14.3m project: Hartley Gardens, 17.1m Land North of Bockings Elms, and West of A133

16.5m

10.4m

13.4m client: Robinson and Hall 15.2m

15.2m 13.4m date: September 2014

15.5m 14.9m

11.0m scale: 1:5000 (A1 paper) drawn: AJ

drawing: 1258-01 rev: B

A R C H I T E C T U R A L B U I L D I N G S E R V I C E S ( E S S E X ) L T D . V a l l e y B a r n s , G o l d e n L a n e , T h o r p e - l e - S o k e n , E s s e x , C O 1 6 0 L E

16.5m

16.2m 17.1m www.absessexltd.com [email protected] t: (01255) 861727

Do not scale from this drawing. All dimensions to be checked on site prior to commencement of work. Check that this

16.9m drawing is the latest revision, if in doubt ASK. This drawing is copyright, refer any discrepancy to ABS. 17.3m 17.5m THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED FROM INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT AND FROM ORDNANCE

16.9m 17.4m SURVEY PLANS AND AS SUCH CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR ACCURACY OF SITE DIMENSIONS. 17.4m The client is responsible for defining the correct boundaries and site ownership to ABS (Essex) Ltd, ABS (Essex) Ltd cannot be held responsible for any subsequent land ownership disputes. © ABS (Essex) Ltd KEY

RAILWAY STATION RAILWAY LINE STRATEGIC ROAD NETWORK (A120/A133) ABSOLUTE CONSTRAINTS LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS POTENTIAL AREA AROUND RAILWAY LINE POTENTIAL AREA AROUND STRATEGIC ROAD NETWORK EXISTING BUILT UP AREA