Developing a Settlement Hierarchy of Rural Settlements

Home , Settlement hierarchy, Weeley Heath

TENDRING DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

Planning Services

Establishing a Settlement Hierarchy

April 2008

2 Contents

1 Introduction 4

2 Defining Settlements 5

3 Reviewing the Local Plan Settlement Hierarchy 8

4 Settlement Hierarchy as envisaged through RSS14 15

5 Applying the settlement hierarchy on a district sub-area basis 23

6 Conclusions and recommendations 25

APPENDIX 1 – Methodology For Accessibility Assessment

APPENDIX 2 – Accessibility Assessment: Rural Settlements

APPENDIX 3 – Accessibility Assessment: Colchester Fringe

APPENDIX 4 – Scoring Matrix for Accessibility Assessment

APPENDIX 5 – Policies SS3 & SS4 of emerging RSS14

3 1. Introduction

1.1 As part of the Local Development Framework (LDF), the Council is required to produce a Core Strategy that will set out the vision for the longer term development of the District, establishing the key principles which will underpin the content of more detailed planning documents. Among other elements, the Core Strategy will need to establish a ‘Spatial Strategy’ for the distribution of housing (and other uses) in accordance with the Government’s guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPG) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and the requirements of the East of England Plan (RSS14).

1.2 Within the Spatial Strategy, it will be important to identify the settlements that have the potential to accommodate some of the housing growth required by the East of England Plan, whether that be infill development within tightly drawn settlement development boundaries or peripheral expansion outside of those boundaries.

1.3 This study has three core objectives:

• Set out minimum criteria for settlements to be included in the Spatial Strategy;

• Establish a hierarchy of settlements looking at the size of settlement and their relative accessibility to jobs, shops, services and public and taking into account the requirements of the East of England Plan which talks about urban areas, market towns and rural service centres; and

• Explain how the settlement hierarchy fits into the district sub-area approach that has been developed as a strategic framework for housing distribution (see document entitled “Defining District Sub-Areas”).

1.4 This study will not determine the amount of development that each settlement should receive as part of the LDF; that will be a job for the Core Strategy and housing allocations DPD taking into account the findings of this study, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and other technical studies; and the results of public consultation on various options.

4 2. Defining Settlements

2.1 The new Local Plan (adopted in December 2007) includes a spatial strategy (Policy QL1) which identifies the settlements where development can, in theory, take place. To be included in that policy, a settlement had to contain a compact group of 30 or more dwellings and contain one key facility (primary school, convenience goods food shop (often including post office) or village hall) either within it, or within 800m of the settlement edge.

2.2 The spatial strategy was heavily criticised by some objectors at the Local Plan Inquiry in 2006 because they felt that the minimum criteria were somewhat crude and that it led to the exclusion of a number of smaller villages from having settlement development boundaries, bringing into question the role and existence of those communities. Whilst the Council did not accept these criticisms at the time, for sound sustainability reasons, the LDF does provide an opportunity to revisit that approach.

2.3 In the Tendring District, there is a large rural hinterland which contains settlements of varying size and character, for example nuclear settlements such as Great Bentley and Elmstead Market and more linear settlements such as Bradfield and Little Clacton to much smaller settlements such as Tendring and Great Bromley. There are also some areas of road-side ribbon development that often due to their remoteness and lack of facilities could not constitute a settlement in planning terms in their own right, but where local people consider that small group of dwellings to be a separate community.

2.4 The Council must be very careful not to include settlements in the spatial strategy that are inappropriate for additional growth, whether it be infill, peripheral expansion or affordable housing through the rural exception policy.

2.5 Some settlements are so small that even a modest development of new housing would represent a significant net percentage increase in dwellings and population. Some are so poorly accessible to jobs, shops, services and public transport that new inhabitants will be entirely reliant on the use of a private car, which in terms of promoting sustainable travel patterns (in accordance with PPS1 – “Sustainable Development” and PPG13 – “Transport”) is entirely inappropriate. For some families on lower incomes, or individuals who are disabled, a private car can be an unaffordable or impractical luxury, the absence of which could lead to social exclusion if living in a remote rural area.

2.6 However, in rural areas, we must recognise that communities can only thrive if there is a balanced demographic structure that can support local amenities and businesses. The risk is that with an ageing population and a strong housing market, many younger people are priced out of living in the village where they grew up or now work. Without the right balance of older and younger people, rural villages can become economically unviable and local businesses can move out of the area.

2.7 To strike the right balance between reducing the need to travel by private car and the need to sustain local communities, it is recommended that settlements be included in the spatial strategy following these broad principles:

5 • Each of the district’s urban settlements (population of 3,000 or more) be included in the spatial strategy including the Colchester Fringe (the small part of Colchester that falls within the Tendring District);

• At least one settlement from each rural parish should be included in the spatial strategy as being representative of that local community;

• Poor accessibility to jobs, shops, services and public transport should not necessarily justify the exclusion of a settlement from the spatial strategy, but it should influence the decision as to whether that settlement be earmarked for peripheral expansion for either market or affordable housing; and

• Settlements, as set out in the 2007 Local Plan, must contain a compact group of at least 30 dwellings that can be identified as the core of a rural community. I.e. random areas of ribbon development within a rural parish with no identifiable centre should not be included.

2.8 The main consequences of the above approach is that Little Bentley and Little Bromley which were deleted from the spatial strategy of the Local Plan should be reinstated in recognition that they are the core centre of development in their respective rural parishes. In addition, Hare Green should be reinstated in recognition of its size.

2.9 Small hamlets such as Stones Green, Mistley Heath, Fox Street and St. Osyth Heath (among others) should remain excluded from the spatial strategy on the grounds that firstly they fail to meet the recommended criteria above and that secondly they each fall within a rural parish where the parent settlement (e.g. Great Oakley, Mistley, Ardleigh, St. Osyth etc) performs a much stronger core community function and to where, if any growth is required, any new housing should be directed.

2.10 Following the above principles, it is recommended that the following settlements be included in the spatial strategy for the LDF:

Urban Settlements (population greater than 3,000): • Clacton-on-Sea & Jaywick (including Holland-on-Sea) • Frinton, Walton & Kirby Cross • Harwich & Dovercourt (including Little Oakley, Parkeston and part of Ramsey Parish) • Lawford, Manningtree & Mistley • Brightlingsea • Colchester Fringe

Rural Settlements (population less than 3,000): • Aingers Green • Great Holland • Tendring • Alresford • Great Oakley • Tendring Green • Ardleigh • Hare Green • Thorpe-le-Soken • Beaumont-Cum-Moze • Kirby-le-Soken • Thorrington • Bradfield • Little Bentley • Weeley • Elmstead Market • Little Bromley • Weeley Heath • Frating Green and • Little Clacton • Wix Balls Green • Ramsey • Wrabness • Great Bentley • St. Osyth • Great Bromley • Point Clear

2.11 It is recommended that each of the listed settlements should be defined within a Settlement Development Boundary on the LDF Proposals Map, within which there will be a presumption, in principle, in favour of development. Those boundaries will be expanded, if necessary, to accommodate any peripheral growth proposed through the allocations document following consultation on options for both the Core Strategy and site allocations.

7 3. Reviewing the Local Plan Settlement Hierarchy

3.1 Urban settlements, thanks to their size and the way they have grown over the years tend to have the biggest range of jobs, shops, services and access to public transport and consequently tend be the most sustainable areas for new housing development.

3.2 Rural settlements tend to have a more limited offer and, in comparison with their urban neighbours are generally considered to be unsustainable locations for new development, particularly as many people travel by car from rural to urban locations for work, schooling or shopping. However, where there is a need for some housing development in a rural location perhaps to support the local community or because there is insufficient capacity in and around urban settlements, it is important to ensure it is a level that reflects the size and relative accessibility of that village. For example, a village with a school, some shops and a bus or train service linking it to a nearby urban area is likely to sustain a much greater level of new housing than a village with few facilities and poor access to public transport.

3.3 Equally, a large bustling village is more likely to sustain higher levels of growth and continue to retain its character compared than a small sleepy rural village where even a modest contribution of new housing could double its population and destroy its character.

3.4 The Tendring District Local Plan, in Policy RA4 sets out a village hierarchy which is designed to control the level of development that can take place in certain villages depending on where they feature within three categories of rural settlements (‘principal’, ‘secondary’ and ‘other’). That hierarchy is as follows:

Principal Defined Villages and Rural Settlements • Alresford • Great Bentley • Little Clacton • St. Osyth • Thorpe-le-Soken • Weeley

Secondary Defined Villages and Rural Settlements • Ardleigh • Bradfield • Elmstead Market • Great Bromley • Great Oakley • Kirby-le-Soken • Ramsey • Thorrington • Wix

Other Defined Villages and Rural Settlements • Aingers Green Beaumont Cum-Moze • Frating Green and Balls Green • Great Holland • Point Clear • Tendring • Tendring Green

8 • Weeley Heath • Wrabness

3.5 The rural settlements in the Local Plan’s spatial strategy were categorised on rather simple facility-based criteria. Some objectors to the then emerging Local Plan were very critical of the way the hierarchy was developed on the grounds that it failed to recognise the relationship between different settlements and the fact that the proximity of a small village to a neighbouring urban area could make it a fairly sustainable location for development.

3.6 Because the Local Plan was only required to identify a modest level of housing development to meet the then Structure Plan requirement without the need for any new housing in the rural areas, it was felt that the hierarchy in the Local Plan was adequate.

3.7 However, with more pressure for new housing coming through the East of England Plan and more emphasis through PPS3 on meeting the housing requirements of both urban and rural areas, the LDF should include a settlement hierarchy that does fully reflect accessibility, character and the relationship between settlements.

Accessibility to Jobs, Shops, Services and Public Transport

3.8 As part of the 2004 Housing Comparative Site Assessment Study designed to assess the sustainability of potential housing sites in the urban areas for allocation in the Local Plan, the Council developed a sophisticated model for calculating the relative accessibility of sites to jobs, shops, services and public transport by foot, bus, train and cycle.

3.9 Instead of relying on a crude facility-based approach that does not appreciate the relationships between groups of settlements, in this study the Council has assessed each of the district’s settlements to provide a percentage score that reflects their relative accessibility.

3.10 The methodology for the accessibility assessment are included as Appendix 1 to this paper and the detailed results for the rural settlements are included in Appendix 2.

3.11 For the district’s five urban areas (not including the Colchester Fringe), the best site scores from the Comparative Site Assessment Study were taken giving the following results:

89%: Clacton-on-Sea & Jaywick 88%: Harwich & Dovercourt 78%: Frinton, Walton & Kirby Cross 74%: Lawford, Manningtree & Mistley 69%: Brightlingsea

3.12 Sites in the Colchester Fringe were not assessed in the 2004 Comparative Site Assessment Study, so an accessibility assessment was undertaken especially as part of this study centred on Plains Farm Close (see Appendix 3). The Colchester Fringe scored 30%; a relatively low score mainly attributable to the distance from the edge of Colchester to the centre.

9 3.13 For the rural settlements, the accessibility assessment has been undertaken from the edge of built up area rather than the centre to recognise that some services and facilities do lie outside of the village but sometimes within reasonable walking or cycling distance. The results of the assessment of rural settlements, in order of score, are as follows:

60%: Thorpe-le-Soken 52%: Great Holland 47%: Little Clacton 39%: Alresford 38%: Weeley 37%: Kirby-le-Soken 34%: Weeley Heath 32%: Bradfield 28%: St. Osyth 27%: Ramsey 26%: Great Bentley 24%: Ardleigh 24%: Great Oakley 24%: Point Clear 24%: Wrabness 20%: Elmstead Market 17%: Frating Green & Balls Green 16%: Beaumont-cum-Moze 16%: Thorrington 11%: Aingers Green 11%: Little Bromley 11%: Wix 9%: Great Bromley 9%: Hare Green 8%: Little Bentley 7%: Tendring 7%: Tendring Green

3.14 Thorpe came out as the most accessible rural settlement, only nine percentage points lower than the lowest scoring whole urban area, Brightlingsea. Not surprisingly perhaps, the smaller, more isolated settlements in the centre of the district away from urban settlements such as Great Bromley, Hare Green, Little Bentley, Tendring and Tendring Green scored particularly poor in the accessibility assessment.

3.15 The results above are roughly consistent with the Local Plan hierarchy of rural settlements with a handful of notable exceptions, Great Holland and Kirby-le- Soken scoring particularly well thanks to their close proximity to the Frinton & Walton Urban area and frequent bus services between Clacton and Walton. Frating and Elmstead Market scored surprising poorly, particularly Elmstead, mainly due to the fact that although within close proximity to Colchester, they are not particularly well served by public transport and therefore people are more likely to drive into Colchester from this part of the district than take a bus.

Settlement Size

3.16 Whilst the above assessment provides a potential basis for setting out a village hierarchy, it does not take into account the relative size of the settlements and their individual character which will have a major influence on how much growth they could be expected to accommodate.

3.17 The size of rural settlements in terms of approximate number of dwellings within the definable built up area is set out below (rounded to the nearest 10):

1000: St. Osyth 940: Little Clacton 770: Alresford 680: Elmstead Market 670: Great Bentley 630: Thorpe-le-Soken 590: Point Clear 560: Kirby-le-Soken 430: Weeley 350: Bradfield 300: Great Holland 300: Thorrington 290: Great Oakley 280: Ardleigh 170: Aingers Green 170: Frating Green and Balls Green 170: Weeley Heath 170: Wix 130: Hare Green 110: Ramsey 80: Wrabness 60: Tendring 50: Great Bromley 50: Little Bromley 40: Beaumont-Cum-Moze 40: Little Bentley 40: Tendring Green

3.18 There are some general consistencies between the two sets of results that suggest, unsurprisingly that there is a relationship between the size of a settlement and its relative accessibility. However, if you look at Great Holland, although it scored incredibly well in the accessibility assessment, at 300 dwellings, it would be hard to imagine such a small settlement could be expected to accommodate significant residential growth. This is why any settlement hierarchy must be developed following consideration of both accessibility and size.

Comparing accessibility and size.

3.19 To combine the results of the accessibility assessment with the relative size of the rural settlements, the number of dwellings had to be converted into a percentage score to make them directly comparable. To do this, the percentage score for size was based on 1,250 dwellings representing 100% i.e. the number of dwellings at 2.4 persons per dwelling you would expect to see in a village with a population of exactly 3,000; the level at which it would become an urban area as far as planning in Tendring is concerned. The calculation was as follows:

11 Number of dwellings 1,250 x 100 = Percentage (%) score for settlement size

3.20 The score for settlement size was then compared to the score for accessibility and the two results were combined to give an overall percentage score using the following simple calculation:

Percentage score for settlement size + Percentage score for accessibility = Overall percentage score

3.21 The results of the above calculation are as follows:

61%: Little Clacton 55%: Thorpe-le-Soken 54%: St. Osyth 51%: Alresford 41%: Great Bentley 41%: Kirby-le-Soken 38%: Great Holland 37%: Elmstead Market 36%: Point Clear 36%: Weeley 30%: Bradfield 24%: Great Oakley 24%: Weeley Heath 23%: Ardleigh 20%: Thorrington 18%: Ramsey 16%: Frating Green & Balls Green 15%: Wrabness 13%: Aingers Green 13%: Wix 10%: Beaumont-Cum-Moze 10%: Hare Green 8%: Little Bromley 7%: Great Bromley 6%: Tendring 6%: Little Bentley 5%: Tendring Green

3.22 It is considered that the scores above provide a much more robust basis for defining settlement categories than the facility-based approach in Policy RA4 of the Local Plan. The results were studied in order to identify any obvious gaps in the scores that would constitute an appropriate division between different categories. The main gaps were a six point gap between Little Clacton and all other rural settlements, a ten point gap between Alresford and Great Bentley and a six point gap between Weeley, Bradfield and Great Oakley.

3.23 To avoid having one village as a category on its own, it was considered that the settlements scoring 50% or more (of which there are four) were obvious contenders for the highest category, scoring much higher than other villages. The gap in scores between the highest and lowest scoring villages in that group of four, Little Clacton and Alresford, is a mere 10%.

3.24 If we apply a similar 10% or so rule to the second highest category starting with Great Bentley (41%) and finishing with Bradfield (30%), that group contains seven villages and there is a convenient 6-pont gap between Bradfield and the next village down in the scoring.

3.25 The sixteen remaining villages with the lowest scores run from Great Oakley (24%) through to Tendring Green (5%) with no obvious gaps in the scoring between those sixteen villages to clearly justify an obvious division. On that basis, if we were to carry forward a 4-tier settlement hierarchy similar to that in the 2007 Local Plan it might be that the settlement hierarchy for the LDF could be as shown in the next list.

Comparing the accessibility/size hierarchy with that set out in the Local Plan

3.26 The next table shows the hierarchy as set out in policies QL1 and RA4 of the 2007 Local Plan alongside the hierarchy that would come about as a result of the above exercise that looked at accessibility and size. As can be seen, there are some notable differences, particularly in the ‘secondary’ and ‘smaller’ rural settlement categories where, as well as the re-introduction of Hare Green, Little Bentley and Little Bromley, there are fewer settlements qualifying as principle and secondary rural settlements under the accessibility/size approach than under the Local Plan approach. The differences are shown as underlined in the second column.

Comparison of Local Plan settlement hierarch with that suggested through the accessibility/size assessment

Hierarchy in Policy QL1 & RA4 of the Hierarchy as suggested by the 2007 Local Plan accessibility/size assessment above:

Urban Settlements: Urban Settlements: • Clacton-on-Sea & Jaywick • Clacton-on-Sea & Jaywick • Frinton, Walton & Kirby Cross • Frinton, Walton & Kirby Cross • Harwich & Dovercourt • Harwich & Dovercourt • Lawford, Manningtree & Mistley • Lawford, Manningtree & Mistley • Brightlingsea • Brightlingsea • Colchester Fringe • Colchester Fringe

Principal Rural Settlements: Principal Rural Settlements: • Alresford • Alresford • Great Bentley • Little Clacton • Little Clacton • St. Osyth • St. Osyth • Thorpe-le-Soken • Thorpe-le-Soken • Weeley

Secondary Rural Settlements: Secondary Rural Settlements: • Ardleigh • Bradfield • Bradfield • Elmstead Market • Elmstead Market • Great Bentley • Great Bromley • Great Holland • Great Oakley • Kirby-le-Soken • Kirby-le-Soken • Point Clear • Ramsey • Weeley

13 • Thorrington • Wix

Smaller Rural Settlements: Smaller Rural Settlements: • Aingers Green • Aingers Green • Beaumont-Cum-Moze • Ardleigh • Frating Green & Balls Green • Beaumont-Cum-Moze • Great Holland • Frating Green & Balls Green • Point Clear • Great Bromley • Tendring • Great Oakley • Tendring Green • Hare Green • Weeley Heath • Little Bentley • Wrabness • Little Bromley • Weeley Heath • Tendring • Tendring Green • Thorrington • Ramsey • Wrabness • Wix

14 4. Settlement Hierarchy as envisaged through RSS14

4.1 Policies SS3 and SS4 of the East of England Plan (RSS14) (yet to be adopted at the time of writing) provides some guidelines in terms of how development should be distributed between different settlements. As one of the ‘tests of soundness’ that the LDF will be judged on relates to conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy, it is important that we try and follow this approach if possible. This section therefore compares the 4-tier approach in Chapter 3 above to what is envisaged in the East of England Plan.

4.2 Policy SS3 requires development to be concentrated at ‘Key Centres for Development and Change’ through the Eastern Region, the nearest of which to Tendring is Colchester. None of Tendring’s own ‘whole’ settlements are classed as ‘Key Centres for Development and Change’, although the Colchester Fringe forms a small peripheral part of Colchester, which is defined as a Key Centre for Development and Change.

4.3 If the Council were to take this policy to the word, it could be argued that the district housing requirement should be concentrated on the Colchester Fringe as part of the LDF as opposed to any other settlement. However, this presumption would not appreciate the geography of our district with 5 coastal urban settlements and a number of villages set in a large rural hinterland where the presence of the Colchester Fringe within the district boundary is somewhat anomalous. Policy SS3 of the East of the England Plan does not anticipate, nor should it try to in the interest of being concise, the anomalies that occur on the borders between districts. Therefore, this study recommends that the Colchester Fringe should not be considered as a Key Centre for Development or Change in its own right but that it should still be considered as urban as opposed to rural.

4.4 With that in mind, Policy SS4 which is entitled ‘Development in Towns other than Key Centres and in Rural Areas’ is considered more relevant to Tendring.

4.5 Policy SS4 requires Local Development Documents to define the approach to development in towns other than those listed in Policy SS3 and in rural areas. It talks about ‘market towns’ and ‘other towns’ but also goes on to refer to ‘key service centres’, in rural areas and ‘other rural settlements’.

Market Towns and Other Towns

4.6 The East of England Plan definition of a ‘market town’ is a contiguous settlement of between 3,000 and 25,000 population of which Harwich, Frinton/Walton, Brightlingsea and Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley are; leaving only Clacton as an ‘other town’.

4.7 With the above in mind, and the fact that the district is diverse and unusual in its geography (i.e. 5 urban settlements on the edge of the district with a large rural hinterland), it would not be sensible to try and create a category just for Clacton alone, which could pre-judge the Spatial Strategy for the Local Development Framework.

4.8 It is considered therefore that the five urban settlements and the Colchester Fringe, as proposed in the last chapter, should continue to be categorised as

15 such in the Local Development Framework with no differentiation, in strategic terms, between them to enable the opportunity for a spatial strategy that is not biased towards the largest settlement and that appreciates the diverse geography of our district.

4.9 Consequently, taking the East of England Plan approach as set out in policies SS3 and SS4, it is still considered that the following settlements be defined as urban settlements through the LDF:

• Clacton-on-Sea & Jaywick • Frinton, Walton & Kirby Cross • Harwich & Dovercourt • Lawford, Manningtree & Mistley • Brightlingsea • Colchester Fringe

Key Service Centres

4.10 The East of England Plan definition of a ‘key service centre’ is a large village with a good level of services, which include:

• A primary school within the settlement and a secondary school within the settlement or easily accessible by public transport; • Primary health care facilities; • A range of retail and service provision capable of meeting day-to-day needs, in particular for convenience shopping; • Local employment opportunities; and • Frequent public transport to higher order settlements.

4.11 It could be argued that the East of England Plan’s criteria are somewhat vague and open to interpretation, going back to the crude approach adopted in the 2007 Local Plan. So, to expand on these criteria, it is proposed that the criteria be interpreted as follows. To qualify as a Key Service Centre, a rural settlement should have:

• a primary school inside or within 800m walking distance of its settlement development boundary; • a secondary school inside or within 800m walking distance of its settlement development boundary or at least accessible via public transport; • a primary care facility i.e. a GP surgery inside or within 800m walking distance of its Settlement Development Boundary; • one of the defined town, district or local centres; • local employment opportunities in the form of a ‘large employment area’ (employ 200 or more people) either inside its settlement boundary, within 800m walking distance from the settlement development boundary or within 5km via a good level of bus service or 10km by train; and • either a railway station or a good level of public transport by bus.

4.12 The following exercise takes our 27 rural settlements as categorised following the accessibility/size assessment in Chapter 3 and simply compares them with the above six criteria.

Principal Rural Settlements (following accessibility/size exercise)

P School S School GP Services Jobs Transport Alresford Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Little Clacton Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes St. Osyth Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Thorpe Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Secondary Rural Settlements (following accessibility/size exercise)

P School S School GP Services Jobs Transport Bradfield Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Elmstead Mt Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Gt. Bentley Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Gt. Holland No Yes No No Yes Yes Kirby-l-s Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Point Clear No Yes No No No Yes Weeley Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

Smaller Rural Settlements (following accessibility/size exercise)

P School S School GP Services Jobs Transport Aingers Grn No Yes No No No No Ardleigh Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Beaumont No Yes No No No No Frating No Yes No No Yes No Gt. Bromley Yes Yes Yes No No No Gt. Oakley Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Hare Green No Yes No No No No Lt. Bentley No Yes No No No No Lt. Bromley No Yes No No No No Ramsey Yes No No No No No Tendring Yes Yes No No No No Tendring Grn No No No No No No Thorrington No Yes No No No No Weeley Hth Yes No No No Yes Yes Wix Yes Yes Yes No No No Wrabness No Yes No No Yes Yes

4.13 If we were to take the East of England Plan’s criteria (as interpreted above) for a rural service centre, we would see that only Thorpe-le-Soken, St. Osyth and Alresford would qualify, i.e. three of the four principal rural settlements indentified in the previous chapter. In the interest of having a spatial strategy that allows for a reasonable distribution of housing, it would be sensible to take a closer look at these results rather than simply accept them.

4.14 From the above results, it is easier at this stage to ‘discount’ any settlement that performs particularly poorly against the RSS criteria from being a potential Key Service Centre. It is therefore suggested that any settlement that fulfils three or fewer of the criteria should not, as a matter of course, be considered as a key rural service centre. Those settlements are as follows

17 and constitute a large number (14 out of 16) of the ‘smaller rural settlements’ identified in the accessibility/size exercise from the previous chapter but also

Rural Settlements fulfilling three or fewer of the RSS14 criteria

Secondary rural settlements (2 of the 7) • Great Holland (3) • Point Clear (2)

Smaller rural settlements (14 of the 16) • Aingers Green (1) • Beaumont (1) • Frating Green and Balls Green (2) • Great Bromley (3) • Hare Green (1) • Little Bentley (1) • Little Bromley (1) • Ramsey (1) • Tendring (2) • Tendring Green (0) • Thorrington (1) • Weeley Heath (3) • Wix (3) • Wrabness (3)

4.15 If we are to recommend that the above settlements should definitely not be classified as key service centres, this just leaves a ‘midfield pack’ to consider. These settlements fulfilled four or five of the six criteria, which contains one of the four principal rural settlement, five of the seven secondary rural settlements and two of the smaller rural settlements.

Rural Settlements fulfilling four or five of the RSS14 criteria

Principal rural settlements (1 of the 4) • Little Clacton (5)

Secondary rural settlements (5 of the 7) • Bradfield (5) • Great Bentley (5) • Elmstead Market (4) • Kirby-le-Soken (4) • Weeley (4)

Smaller rural settlements (2 of the 16) • Great Oakley (4) • Ardleigh (4)

4.16 If we look closely at the deficiencies of these settlements, we can at least determine how far a settlement is from achieving the East of England Plan’s criteria and make a judgement, on a qualitative basis, as to whether any of these settlements should be categorised as a key service centre.

18 Settlement Deficiency

Little Clacton Primary Healthcare

Great Bentley Access to a range of job opportunities

Kirby-le-Soken Primary Healthcare and a range of shops and services

Elmstead Market Access to a range of job opportunities and good level of public transport Weeley Primary Healthcare and a range of shops and services

Bradfield Range of shops and services

Great Oakley Range of shops and services and access to a range of job opportunities

Ardleigh Range of shops and services and access to a range of job opportunities

4.17 In Little Clacton the lack of primary healthcare facilities could be rectified through the provision of such facilities through NHS funding either as a stand- alone facility, as part of a larger mixed-use development or through improved public transport links to surgeries in Clacton. It is considered that a lack of primary healthcare on its own is not sufficient reason, given Little Clacton’s proximity to Clacton urban area, its size and its range of local services, to exclude the settlement from being a key service centre.

4.18 For Great Bentley, the issue is range of jobs. Whilst there are some employment opportunity in the local shops and the Plough Road Industrial Estate, it doesn’t really constitute the kind of range that is going to significantly affect commuter patterns in the locality. The train service from Great Bentley does provide connection with Colchester and Clacton although the distance needing to be travelled is in excess of 10km. However, there is scope for the range of local employment to improve through extension of the Plough Road Industrial Estate and other rural diversification in the area so it is considered that a limited range of job opportunities alone should not prevent Great Bentley from being a Key Service Centre.

4.19 Kirby-le-Soken lacks primary healthcare facilities and a range of shops and services so it is very much reliant on nearby urban centres such as Frinton and Walton for everyday services. Even the local primary school lies in Kirby Cross to the south. Whilst it plays an important satellite roll to the Frinton & Walton Urban Area and is well located for jobs, shops, services and facilities in Frinton & Walton, as a settlement in its own right, it could only be considered as a sustainable location for development if sites in or around the Frinton/Walton Urban Area were insufficient to meet local housing requirements. As such, it is recommended that Kirby-le-Soken not be considered as a key service centre.

4.20 Elmstead Market suffers at the hands of an ‘intermediate’ bus service that is an hourly service rather than a half-hourly service and thus does not meet the ‘good level of service’ criteria. This has implications for a range of job

19 opportunities accessible to the local population. There are a range of job opportunities available in nearby Colchester and Frating, but not accessible by train; only accessible either by cycle (although a significant distance), car or an hourly bus. An improvement in the frequency of buses would solve this issue and, considering the role of Elmstead Market’s size, its range of local services and its strategic location in the west of Tendring, it is recommended that Elmstead Market should be regarded as a key service centre.

4.21 Weeley, despite its size and the fact it has a railway station, has no primary healthcare facilities and no defined centre containing a significant range of shops and services, much in the same way as Kirby-le-Soken. Therefore Weeley has little prospect of being entirely self contained, particularly with convenience shopping being limited to the local post-office and a petrol filling station on the A133 some distance to the west. It is therefore recommended that Weeley could not be defined as a key service centre.

4.22 Bradfield lacks only a range of shops and services, which are available in nearby Manningtree and easily accessible by bus. Like Kirby-le-Soken however, it is very much reliant on the opportunities provided by a nearby urban settlement and, as a settlement in its own right, has little to offer in the way of jobs, shops, services and facilities although it does contain primary healthcare facilities. Furthermore, it is a linear settlement with no obvious ‘centre’ and it would be difficult therefore to envisage Bradfield as a key service centre where any significant level of growth could take place. For these reasons, it is recommended that Bradfield could not be defined as a key service centre.

4.23 Great Oakley, like Bradfield is another linear settlement with no obvious centre, nor any range of shops and services. Furthermore, there is poor access to a range of job opportunities and therefore Great Oakley is heavily reliant on other nearby urban settlements, such as Harwich for everyday services. It is recommended that Great Oakley could not be defined as a key service centre.

4.24 Ardleigh, like Great Oakley lacks good access to a range of jobs, shops and services. Unlike Great Oakley, it is a nuclear settlement with a physical centre based around the crossroads of two important strategic routes. However, that centre does not provide a range of shops and services and Ardleigh, it is fair to say must have a strong reliance on Colchester and possible Manningtree for jobs and services, although it does have primary healthcare. As a settlement in its own right, it is considered Ardleigh does not offer enough in the way of local jobs and services to be considered as a key service centre.

4.25 From the above qualitative exercise, can see that all of the rural settlements with defined centres (as listed in Policy ER31 of the Local Plan) would qualify as key service centres. This is no coincidence, as clearly a settlement without a range of services (normally concentrated in a defined centre) could not, by definition, be considered as a service centre.

Comparing the RRS14 approach with the accessibility/size hierarchy

4.26 Taking the East of England Plan approach explained above, there would effectively by a 3-tier settlement hierarchy as opposed to the 4-tier hierarchy set out in the Local Plan and investigated as part of the accessibility/size

20 assessment in chapter 3 of this study. The following table does a comparison of the accessibility/size-based hierarchy and compares it with the hierarchy envisaged if we were to follow policy SS4 of the East of England Plan.

Hierarchy as suggested by the Hierarchy suggested by the RSS14 accessibility/size assessment in chapter approach above 3

Principal Rural Settlements: Key Rural Service Centres: • Alresford • Alresford • Little Clacton • Elmstead Market • St. Osyth • Great Bentley • Thorpe-le-Soken • Little Clacton • St. Osyth • Thorpe-le-Soken

Secondary Rural Settlements: Other rural settlements: • Bradfield • Aingers Green • Elmstead Market • Ardleigh • Great Bentley • Beaumont-Cum-Moze • Great Holland • Bradfield • Kirby-le-Soken • Frating Green & Balls Green • Point Clear • Great Bromley • Weeley • Great Holland • Great Oakley Smaller Rural Settlements: • Hare Green • Aingers Green • Kirby-le-Soken • Ardleigh • Little Bromley • Beaumont-Cum-Moze • Little Bentley • Frating Green & Balls Green • Point Clear • Great Bromley • Ramsey • Great Oakley • Tendring • Hare Green • Tendring Green • Little Bentley • Thorrington • Little Bromley • Weeley • Weeley Heath • Weeley Heath • Tendring • Wix • Tendring Green • Wrabness • Thorrington • Ramsey • Wix • Wrabness

4.27 Following the above exercise, it can be seen that there in grouping secondary and smaller rural settlements together as other rural settlements, with the exception of Elmstead Market and Great Bentley which are promoted to the

21 top tier of villages thanks mainly to their ‘service centre’ role, there are few inconsistencies between the two approaches.

4.28 Furthermore, Policy SS4 of the East of England Plan clearly does not envisage two tiers of ‘other rural settlements’ as we currently have in the Local Plan. To be in conformity with the East of England Plan which envisages a consistent approach for ‘other rural settlements’ therefore, it could be that a three-tier settlement hierarchy is sufficient.

The function of a 3-tier settlement hierarchy

4.29 If we were to adopt a 3-tier settlement hierarchy in accordance with the East of England Plan, our interpretation of Policy SS4 is that settlements would be expected to play the following roles depending on their position in the hierarchy:

In ‘Urban Settlements’, development will be expected to: • support urban renaissance; • secure appropriate amounts of new housing (market & affordable); • secure local employment; and • secure other facilities

In ‘Key Rural Service Centres’, development will be expected to: • be sympathetic to local character; • be of an appropriate scale and nature in relation to local housing needs; and • be of an appropriate scale and nature in relation to local employment needs.

In ‘Other Rural Settlements’, development will be expected to: • support the continued viability of agriculture and other economic activities (such as tourism); • support the provision of housing for local needs; and • support the provision of housing for the sustainability of local services.

22 5. Applying the Settlement Hierarchy on a District Sub- Area Basis

5.1 To develop an affective spatial strategy that is not too site specific but allows new housing to be distributed across the district in broad terms, taking into account issues of housing demand and need and the availability and suitability of land, it is proposed that the district be sub-divided into a number of ‘sub-areas’ that reflect the fact that different settlements, whilst each having their individual characteristics and communities, tend to have strong associations and relationships with other nearby settlements for a variety of reasons, be that shopping, work or education etc.

5.2 Accordingly, It is proposed that the district be divided into seven sub-areas as follows:

• Sub Area 1: Clacton • Sub-Area 2: Harwich • Sub-Area 3: Frinton • Sub-Area 4: Brightlingsea • Sub-Area 5: Manningtree • Sub-Area 6: Mid-Tendring • Sub-Area 7: West Tendring

Fig 1 – the sub-area model

5.3 Each sub-area contains a handful of parishes that in turn contain settlements with an affinity with each other. The detailed justification for this approach is set out in a separate Council document entitled “Establishing District Sub- Areas”. Looking at each sub-area, the settlement hierarchy would be:

Fig 2 – The 3-tier Settlement Hierarchy within the sub-area context

Sub-Area 5: Manningtree

Urban Settlements Sub-Area 2: Harwich Lawford, Manningtree & Mistley Urban Settlements Key Rural Service Centres Harwich & Dovercourt None Key Rural Service Centres Other Rural Settlements None Bradfield Little Bromley Other Rural Settlements Great Oakley Ramsey Wrabness Sub-Area 7: West Tendring

Urban Settlements Colchester Fringe Sub-Area 6: Mid-Tendring Key Rural Service Centres Elmstead Market Urban Settlements None Other Rural Settlements Ardleigh Key Rural Service Centres Frating Green & Balls Green Great Bentley Hare Green Sub-Area 3: Frinton Great Bromley Other Rural Settlements Aingers Green Urban Settlements Wix Frinton, Walton & Kirby Cross Tendring Little Bentley Key Rural Service Centres Tendring Green Thorpe-le-Soken

Other Rural Settlements Kirby-le-Soken Great Holland Beaumont-Cum-Moze Sub-Area 4: Brightlingsea Sub-Area 1: Clacton Urban Settlements Brightlingsea Urban Settlements Clacton-on-Sea & Jaywick Key Rural Service Centres Alresford Key Rural Service Centres Little Clacton Other Rural Settlements St. Osyth Thorrington Other Rural Settlements Point Clear Weeley Weeley Heath

24 6. Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 The settlement hierarchy, combined with the district sub-area approach, will be key to the spatial strategy for Tendring’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

6.2 The 4-tier hierarchy contained in the Council’s Local Plan was fit for purpose and provided a sound framework to plan for the modest amount of growth required between 2007 and 2011. That hierarchy came under intense scrutiny at the Local Plan Inquiry and whilst the Inspector recommended no changes to the Local Plan, there was an acceptance by the Council that this approach would have to be revisited in preparing the next Local Development Framework.

6.3 This study looks closely, not only at local facilities, but at the relative accessibility of settlements to jobs, shops, services and facilities and their size. It concludes that, considering the crude nature of the facility-based criteria applied, the Local Plan settlement hierarchy was fairly robust but that there could be some changes that would better reflect accessibility, settlement size and, in particular, the criteria set out in the emerging East of England Plan (RSS14).

6.4 It is consequently recommended that there be a 3-tier settlement hierarchy that includes urban settlements, key rural service centres and other rural settlements. In accordance with the East of England Plan policy SS4, the Core Strategy should set out the approach to development that will be taken to settlements within each of the three tiers.

6.5 It is recommended that the distribution of growth will, at a strategic level be based on the sub-area model but within each sub-area, the 3-tier settlement hierarchy will inform the search sequence for identifying development sites.

25 Appendix 1: Methodology for Accessibility Assessment

In this Accessibility Assessment, the location and accessibility of a site by the non- car modes of walking, cycling, rail and by bus have been considered from the edge of the village being assessed to various existing or proposed facilities providing employment, shops, services or interchange with public transport as follows:

Jobs

“Strategic” and “large” employment areas have been defined for the purposes of this assessment as those existing and proposed employment areas each estimated to accommodate more than 2,000 and between 200 and 2,000 jobs respectively. These are listed below and are based on intelligence compiled by the Council’s Regeneration Team. Whilst those areas include all of the District’s town centres, one has to bear in mind that such centres perform an important local employment role in addition to their separate function as shopping and service centres in this accessibility assessment.

STRATEGIC EMPLOYMENT AREAS [+2,000 jobs]

Clacton Clacton Town Centre North Clacton [Gorse Lane, Oakwood & Crusader Business Parks & Clacton FOC]

Harwich Harwich International Port [inc adjacent employment areas and Bathside Bay potential]

Elsewhere in District Nil

Outside of District Colchester Town Centre Severalls Industrial Estate

LARGE EMPLOYMENT AREAS [+200 jobs]

Clacton Valleybridge Road Oxford Road Old Road Waterglade Centre Great Clacton Centre Clacton Hospital Ford Road Brook Park Retail Park

Harwich Dovercourt Town Centre Valley Road, Upper Dovercourt Pelcombe, Main Rd, Upper Dovercourt Harwich Dock Co, Harwich [inc adjacent employment uses]

Frinton /Walton Frinton Town Centre Walton Town Centre Triangle Centre / Tendring Technology College

Brightlingsea North Brightlingsea [ Morses Lane Indust. Estate, Astrolux, Fiveways, Colne Community School] Brightlingsea Town Centre Shipyard Industrial Estate

Lawford / Manningtree / Mistley Lawford Industrial Estate / Manningtree Town Centre Mistley Quay / High Street

Elsewhere in District Frating

Outside of District Essex University The Hythe

The smaller an employment area is, in terms of numbers of jobs, the less likelihood generally of working residents from a nearby housing scheme working there. That is why the minimum threshold for location to jobs was set reasonably high as employment areas providing more than 200 jobs to provide more meaningful synergy.

Shops & Services

In this assessment, shopping centres reflect the hierarchy set out under Step C above which in turn reflects the hierarchy of the 2007 Local Plan. However, an additional distinction is made within the “Town Centre” category between “Principal” Town Centres (Clacton, Dovercourt and Frinton) and “Smaller” Town Centres (Walton, Brightlingsea, Manningtree and Harwich). Also, for the purpose of this assessment, Colchester is defined as a “Sub-Regional Town Centre” which, although outside of the Tendring District, still exerts considerable influence on the district in accessibility terms, particularly the western part.

In addition, two further categories have been added as follows:

• Other Large Shopping Areas • Local Convenience Store or Post Office

The inclusion of “other large shopping areas” is because retail parks are clearly also very relevant in terms of accessibility to shops. Outside of centres only large individual freestanding stores comprising over 1,000 sq. metres of net sales floorspace have also been included in this category. As a further category, small local convenience stores and post offices outside of centres often provide the only local facility in some areas and accordingly it was felt that some account needed to be taken of accessibility to such facilities. The assessment has been careful not to double count such stores.

In relation to educational establishments, accessibility to both secondary and primary schools has been considered.

Public Transport

In relation to accessibility to public transport, the criteria used in the 2004 Housing Comparative Site Assessment Study (based on a 1996 SERPLAN Housing Capability Study) is still considered to be an appropriate measure for use in this assessment; that is:

a) Services providing Good Accessibility – those comprising at least one bus or train service of at least two journeys an hour in each direction throughout the working day on Mondays to Saturdays, which was defined as between 07.00 and 19.00 hours. Services during the morning and evening peaks will of course be more frequent than those in the off-peak periods.

b) Services providing Intermediate Accessibility – those comprising at least one bus or train service of one journey an hour in each direction throughout the working day on Mondays to Saturdays; and

c) Services providing Poor Accessibility – those comprising less frequent bus or train services.

In this assessment, the above public transport accessibility criteria were applied using the May 2007 Bus & Train Timetable for North-East Essex, published by Essex County Council. No train service in the District provided “poor accessibility” though, conversely, few provided “good accessibility” (Thorpe & Manningtree in the district, Wivenhoe and Colchester outside of the district).

In considering accessibility to rail and bus services as facilities by the four modes of walking, cycling, rail or by bus, that part of the assessment was considering accessibility to those public transport services as an interchange from the four modes, e.g walking to a bus route, cycling to a railway station, or bus to bus or rail interchange. In that context, in relation to bus services, what has been assessed is route accessibility rather than individual bus services. A route providing good accessibility may involve one bus service but most often is the combined frequency of more than one service.

Bus Mode: In contrast, the frequency of individual bus services had to be considered in assessing accessibility by bus as a mode from the site to various facilities. This is because, for example, one service may serve a district centre or employment area, whilst another may not but instead may connect to the local secondary school. However, where there was more than one location within an urban area for certain facilities, [e.g primary schools], if two bus services on a bus route nearby the site being assessed diverged to connect to different primary schools their combined frequency would nevertheless be assessed, as indeed would services going to the same location, such as to the local town centre.

Specifically, the bus mode was only considered in relation to bus routes within 400 metres walking distance of the site being considered, and then to facilities within that walking distance of the bus route at the destination end. [See “Walking” mode below]. Also facilities that could only be reached by non-car modes by interchange from bus to rail or a second bus service were not counted. This was firstly because public transport interchange was already being scored as a facility. That scoring could effectively be considered as a surrogate for more distant facilities only accessible through that interchange. Secondly, in general terms, propensity to travel falls the more complex a journey becomes in terms of interchanges and travel time. Thirdly, the journey permutations make such an exercise impractical to incorporate in this study.

To achieve some consistency with the 800 metre walking and 2 kilometre cycling distances to facilities, [see below], for approximate travel time equivalence a distance of 5 kilometres was adopted for bus journeys to facilities, with a lower score for access to facilities beyond that distance. Strictly this does not take account of the time to walk to the bus route, or from it to the facility, nor the difference between urban and rural routes, i.e the fact that urban bus routes have more frequent stops, achieving lower average speeds than rural routes. However, taking a balanced view of these facts, the propensity of bus travellers to accept longer journeys, but the emphasis of Government policy in favour of urban locations for development and shorter journeys, 5 kilometres was considered to be a reasonable “rule of thumb” equivalence.

Importantly, It was felt wrong not to introduce a distance/travel-time factor into the bus mode else it would mean, for example, that a site in a fairly remote small village that just happened to be on a bus route could score the same on that mode in accessibility to facilities as an urban site on the same bus route but much closer to those facilities.

Rail Mode: The rail mode was scored where a railway station was located within 800 metres walking distance of the edge of the site being considered and then to facilities within that walking distance from railway stations along the line. This is based on the acceptance that people are prepared to walk further to use a railway station than they are to use a bus stop; a measure used in the 2004 Comparative Study and still considered robust for this assessment.

Both for practical reasons and because the emphasis of Government policy is in favour of shorter journeys, facilities further than Colchester have not been considered. Also, for the same reasons as for the bus mode, facilities that could only be reached by interchange from rail to bus or to a second train were not considered. Again the public transport interchange facility score could be regarded as a surrogate for facilities accessible only through such interchange.

Following the bus mode approach on distance/travel time equivalence, 10 kilometres by rail within the District was considered a “rule of thumb” equivalent to the 5 kilometres by bus and pro-rata to the scoring thresholds used in the other modes in the Accessibility Appraisal Scoring Matrix. This followed an examination of travel times in the bus and rail timetable.

Walking

Reasonable walking distance was defined as up to 800 metres by the most direct, identifiable routes to all facilities, including railway stations, except in relation to bus services where up to 400 metres of a bus route was chosen, the metric equivalent of the SERPLAN Housing Capability Study quarter of a mile criterion (used in the 2004 Comparative Study and still considered to be a robust measure for this assessment). Sites where bus routes were beyond that distance registered a nil score in relation to the Bus mode.

Cycling

Cycling as a mode of transport from an assessed site to facilities has been defined by type of route as follows:

MDR - Mostly by Defined Route [Existing or Conceptual Cycle Route] PDR - Partly by Defined Route [Existing or Conceptual Cycle Route] ODR - Other Direct Route [Existing]

The defined routes are from the Sustrans website www.sustrans.org.uk and the unpublished Tendring District Conceptual Cycle Network, Tendring District Council, August 2002, comprising both operational and conceptual cycle routes. Other direct routes are simply the most direct routes from a site to facilities using the public highway but not involving any sections of defined cycle routes.

In preparation of the 2004 Housing Comparative Site Assessment Study, the national organisation the Cyclist Touring Club was contacted regarding trip lengths. From their data sources, the DTLR (as it was then) produced a newssheet in 2000 “Focus on Personal Travel” which gave average cycle trip length as 2.4 miles [3.8kms]. Accordingly, for this assessment 4 kilometres was judged to be a reasonable cycling distance to facilities by all three route types for the purposes of scoring. The intermediate distance of 2 kilometres was also included in the assessment as the approximately equivalent travel time distance to the 800 metre “ped sheds” for walking. These measures are still considered robust for this assessment.

Potential for Improving Accessibility

The potential for improving accessibility is taken into account primarily by assessing sites not simply against existing facilities but additionally against proposed facilities such as new schools, shopping and employment areas. Also conceptual as well as operational cycle routes have been considered.

Principles Underlying the Assessment Scoring

In developing a scoring system for assessing the location and accessibility of potential housing sites to jobs, shops and services by modes other than the car, a common sense approach rather a sophisticated methodology has been employed based upon the following principles:

Weighting of Modes a) In terms of a sustainable approach, greater weight should be attached to walking and cycling than by bus as the first two modes do not generate traffic emissions or contribute noticeably to road congestion, but contribute to healthy living. b) Slightly greater weight should be attached to walking than cycling, [by travel time equivalent: 800 metres walking to 2 kilometres cycling], as not everyone has a bicycle, the abilities, skills or confidence to cycle. c) Whilst greater weight should be attached to cycling than by bus, for the reasons given above, the difference should not be large for the most accessible routes as bus services are available to the community as a whole, including the elderly and people with disabilities. d) The maximum accessibility achieved by cycling and rail modes should be accorded the same weighting, for whilst cycling contributes to healthy living and does not generate traffic emissions, rail travel is available to the community as a whole and does not contribute directly to road congestion. e) As the difference between each of the defined accessibility categories for rail and bus services was, on average, effectively of the order of a doubling of frequency of service, this should be equally reflected in the scoring. f) Some small score differences were warranted in the cycling mode to give slightly greater weight to the use of routes to facilities mostly or partly by defined existing or proposed cycle routes as the use of such routes are to be encouraged to make cycling easier and safer.

5.1 The sophisticated ‘scoring matrix’ is attached as Appendix 3 to this document.

Appendix 2 Accessibility Assessment of Rural Settlements

Location Mode Location to Location to Shops & Services Access/Interchange to Public Transport Jobs Existing or Proposed Facilities

Employment Town Centre Other Defined School Rail Service Bus Service Area Centre Accessibility Route Accessibility Local Large Store or PO Other Large District Smaller Poor Primary Inter- Inter- Good Good Principal Strategic Shopping Area Secondary Mediate Mediate Local Convenience Sub-Reg-ional On Foot 99999 9 Score: 10 n/a 10 3 20 10 Bus I>5k I>5k P>5k I>5k I>5k I I>5k II II I Score: 3 1.5 3 4.5 3 1 6 6 Thorpe-le-Soken Rail G G G>10k G I I I G G G G G Score: 16 8 16 24 6 2.5 16 16 Cycle OR OR OR OR OR OR Score: 6 2.5 6 1.75 12 12 225.75 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 60 of maximum = 32% of maximum = 52of maximum = 102 On Foot 999 Score: 41020 Bus G>5k G P>5k G G G GGGG GG Score: 6 6 18 12 6 1.75 6 12 Great Holland Rail I I I>10k I I I I I I I I I Score: 8 4 8 12 4 1.25 3 8 Cycle OR2-4k OR2-4k OR2-4k OR OR OR OR OR OR Score: 3 9 6 6 1.75 6 12 193.75 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 52 of maximum = 31% of maximum = 47of maximum = 80 On Foot 99 9 9 9 Score: 10 10 3 20 Bus GIG>5k G G GG G I G IG Score: 12 3 12 18 3 1.75 6 12 Little Clacton Rail Score: Cycle PD PD2-4k PD2-4k PD2-4k OR PD OR PD2-4k OR OR OR Score: 14 3.5 10.5 7 3.5 1.75 12 12 175 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 47 of maximum = 37% of maximum = 42of maximum = 65 On Foot 99 99 9 Score: 10 n/a 3 10 10 Bus I>5k I I>5k I>5k I I I I>5k I I I>5k Score: 3 3 12 4.5 1.5 1 3 3 Arlesford Rail I I I I>10k I>10k I I I I II Score: 8 4 16 12 1.25 8 8 Cycle OR OR OR PD2-4k OR Score: 6 n/a 1.75 7 12 148 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 39 of maximum = 17 % of maximum = 36of maximum = 64 On Foot 9999 Score: 4 3 10 10 Bus I>5k I I>5k I>5k P>5k I>5k I>5k I I I>5k I I I Score: 3 3 6 9 1.5 1 3 6 Weeley Rail I I I>10k I I I I>10k I I I I I Score: 8 4 8 12 4 1.25 8 8 Cycle OR2-4k OR2-4k OR OR2-4k OR OR OR2-4k Score: 6 3 2.5 3 1.75 6 6 141 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 38 of maximum = 27% of maximum = 31of maximum = 59 On Foot 99 9 Score: 43 20 Bus G>5k G P>5k G G G GGGG GG Score: 6 6 18 12 6 1.75 6 12 Kirby-le-Soken Rail Score: Cycle OR2-4k OR2-4k OR2-4k OR OR OR OR OR OR Score: 3 9 6 6 1.75 6 12 138.5 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 37 of maximum = 17% of maximum = 35of maximum = 58

Appendix 2 1 Appendix 2 Accessibility Assessment of Rural Settlements

Location Mode Location to Location to Shops & Services Access/Interchange to Public Transport Existing or Proposed Facilities Employment Town Centre Other Defined School Rail Service Bus Service Area Centre Accessibility Route Accessibility ional Local Large Store or PO Other Large District Smaller Poor Primary Inter- Inter- Good Good Principal Strategic Sub-Reg- Shopping Area Secondary Mediate Mediate Local Convenience On Foot 99 9 Score: 31010 Bus I>5k I I>5k I>5k P>5k I>5k I>5k I I I>5k I I I Score: 3 3 6 9 1.5 1 3 6 Weeley Heath Rail I I I>10k I I I I>10k I I I I I Score: 8 4 8 12 n/a n/a n/a 4 1.25 8 8 Cycle PD2-4k OD OR OR OR2-4k Score: 3.5 2.5 1.75 6 6 128.5 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 34 of maximum = 20% of maximum = 28of maximum = 59 On Foot 99 9 Score: 43 20 Bus G>5k G G>5k G>5k G G>5k G>5k G G G G G Score: 6 6 12 12 n/a 6 1.75 6 12 Bradfield Rail Score: Cycle OR2-4k OR2-4k OR OR OR OR Score: 3 6 2.5 1.75 6 12 120 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 32 of maximum = 17% of maximum = 26of maximum = 58 On Foot 999 Score: 10 3 20 Bus G>5k G I>5k G>5k G G G G G G>5k G Score: 6 6 6 9 6 1.75 3 12 St. Osyth Rail Score: Cycle OR OR OR OR Score: 6 2.5 1.75 12 105 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 28 of maximum = 14% of maximum = 24of maximum = 49 On Foot 99 9 Score: 43 10 Bus III>5k IIIIIIII Score: 6 3 6 9 3 1 3 6 Ramsey Rail Score: Cycle PD2-4K OR PD2-4K MD MD2-4K OR PD2-4K OR MD2-4K OR2-4K Score: 7 7 10.5 8 3.5 1.75 4 6 101.75 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 27 of maximum = 26% of maximum = 26of maximum = 30 On Foot 99 99 9 Score: 10 n/a 3 10 5 Bus P>5k P P>5k P>5k P P P>5k P P P>5k Score: 1.5 1.5 3 0.75 0.75 0.5 1.5 1.5 Great Bentley Rail I>10k I>10k I>10k I>10k I I>10k I I>10k I I I>10k Score: 4 2 8 6 n/a n/a n/a 2 1.25 8 4 Cycle OR2-4k OR OR OR OR OR Score: 3 6 2.5 1.75 6 3 96.5 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 26 of maximum = 14% of maximum = 24of maximum = 41 On Foot 99 9 Score: 43 20 Bus G>5k G>5k G>5k G>5k G>5k G>5k G>5k G G G>5k G Score: 6 3 12 9 1.75 3 12 Ardleigh Rail Score: Cycle OR OR OR Score: 2.5 1.75 12 90 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 24 of maximum = 10% of maximum = 18of maximum = 49

Appendix 2 2 Appendix 2 Accessibility Assessment of Rural Settlements

Location Mode Location to Location to Shops & Services Access/Interchange to Public Transport Existing or Proposed Facilities Employment Town Centre Other Defined School Rail Service Bus Service Area Centre Accessibility Route Accessibility Area Local Large Store or PO District Smaller Poor Primary Good Good Principal Strategic Secondary Local Convenience Sub-Reg-ional Inter-Mediate Inter- Mediate Other Large Shopping On Foot 99 9 Score: 43 20 Bus G>5k G>5k I>5k G>5k I>5k G>5k G G>5k G G>5k G G>5k G Score: 6 3 9 6 3 1.75 3 12 Great Oakley Rail Score: Cycle OR MD MD Score: 2.5 2.5 16 91.75 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 24 of maximum = 10% of maximum = 17of maximum = 53 On Foot 99 Score: 420 Bus G>5k G>5k G>5k G G>5k G G>5k G G>5k G Score: 6 3 9 6 n/a 3 1.75 3 12 Point Clear Rail Score: Cycle OR OR OR OR Score: 6 2.5 1.75 12 90 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 24 of maximum = 10% of maximum = 18of maximum = 49 On Foot 999 Score: 4105 Bus P>5k P>5k P>5k P>5k P>5k P>5k P>5k P P>5k P>5k P P>5k Score: 1.5 0.75 3 2.25 0.75 0.25 1.5 1.5 Wrabness Rail I I I>10k I I I I I I I Score: 8 4 8 12 1.25 3 8 Cycle OR OR OR Score: 2.5 6 6 89.25 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 24 of maximum = 16% of maximum = 18of maximum = 43 On Foot 999 Score: 10 3 10 Bus I>5k I I>5k I>5k I>5k I I I I>5k I I I>5k Score: 3 3 6 4.5 1.5 1 3 3 Elmstead Market Rail Score: Cycle OR2-4k MD OR2-4k MD MD MD2-4k MD Score: 3 8 3 2.5 4 8 76.5 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 20 of maximum = 10% of maximum = 21of maximum = 29 On Foot 9 9 Score: 10 10 Bus I>5k I I>5k I>5k I>5k I I>5k I I>5k I I>5k I>5k Score: 3 3 6 4.5 1.5 1 2 3 Frating Rail Score: Cycle OR PD2-4k OR2-4k PD2-4k OR2-4k OR Score: 6 3.5 1.25 1 3 6 64.75 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 17 of maximum = 25% of maximum = 10of maximum = 25 On Foot 9 Score: 10 Bus I>5k I>5k I>5k I>5k I I>5k I I I I I>5k Score: 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 1 6 3 Beaumont Rail Score: Cycle OR2-4k OR2-4k OR2-4k OR2-4k OR Score: 3 3 1 6 12 60 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 16 of maximum = 51039% of maximum = of maximum =

Appendix 2 3 Appendix 2 Accessibility Assessment of Rural Settlements

Location Mode Location to Location to Shops & Services Access/Interchange to Public Transport Existing or Proposed Facilities Employment Town Centre Other Defined School Rail Service Bus Service Accessibility Route Accessibility Local ional Local Large District Smaller Primary Poor Inter- Inter- Good Good Principal Strategic Store or PO Other Large Sub-Reg- Convenience Secondary Mediate Mediate Shopping Area On Foot 99 Score: 410 Bus I>5k I>5k I>5k I>5k I I>5k I III I I>5k Score: 3 1.5 6 6 3 1 3 3 Thorrington Rail Score: Cycle OR2-4k OR2-4k OR OR2-4k OR2-4k OR2-4k OD2-4k Score: 3 3 3 1 3 6 59.5 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 16 of maximum = 51626% of maximum = of maximum = On Foot 99 Score: 45 Bus P>5k P>5k P P P P P>5k Score: 0.75 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 Aingers Green Rail Score: Cycle OR2-4k OR OR OR OR P Score: 3 9 2.5 1.75 6 3 42 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 11 of maximum = 4 % of maximum = 11of maximum = 18 On Foot 99 Score: 45 Bus P P>5k P P>5k P>5k P>5k P P>5k P>5k P P>5k Score: 1.5 2.25 4.5 0.75 0.25 3 1.5 Little Bromley Rail Score: Cycle OR2-4k OR OR2-4k OR2-4k OR Score: 3 2.5 3 6 3 40.25 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 11 of maximum = 5919% of maximum = of maximum = On Foot 99 9 Score: 43 10 Bus I>5k I>5k I>5k I>5k I>5k I>5k I I>5k I I>5k I>5k Score: 1.5 6 4.5 1.5 1 1.5 3 Wix Rail Score: Cycle OR OR Score: 2.5 1.75 40.25 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 11 of maximum = 21315% of maximum = of maximum = On Foot 99 9 Score: 43 5 Bus P>5k P>5k P>5k P>5k P>5k P P>5k P P>5k P P>5k P>5k Score: 1.5 0.75 3 2.25 0.75 0.25 0.75 1.5 Great Bromley Rail Score: Cycle OR2-4k OR OR OR Score: 3 2.5 1.75 3 33 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 9 of maximum = 6911% of maximum = of maximum = On Foot 9 Score: 5 Bus P>5k P>5k P>5k P>5k P>5k P P>5k P P>5k P P>5k P>5k Score: 1.5 0.75 3 2.25 0.75 0.25 0.75 1.5 Hare Green Rail Score: Cycle OR MD2-4k MD2-4k MD2-4k OR Score: 6 4 1.5 1.25 6 34.5 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 9 of maximum = 9714% of maximum = of maximum = On Foot 9 Score: 5 Bus P>5k P>5k P>5k P>5k P>5k P P>5k P P>5k P P>5k P>5k Score: 1.5 0.75 3 2.25 0.75 0.25 0.75 1.5 Little Bentley Rail Score: Cycle OR2-4k OR OR2-4k OR Score: 3 2.5 1 6 28.25 % of Maximum Location to Jobs % Location to Shops & Services Access to Public Transport % Possible = 8 of maximum = 6514% of maximum = of maximum =

Appendix 2 4 Appendix 2 Accessibility Assessment of Rural Settlements

KEY: On foot 9 Facility within 10 minutes walking distance (800m) of the settlement edge. For bus routes, a 5 minute walking distance (400m) applies.

By Bus G Facility accessible, from the edge of the settlement, by a good bus service (at least 2 buses per hour in each direction between 0700 and 1900 hours). I Facility accessible, from the edge of the settlement, by an intermediate bus service (1 bus per hour in each direction between 0700 and 1900 hours). P Facility accessible, from the edge of the settlement, by a poor bus service (less frequent sevices).

G>5k Facility accessible by a good bus service, but further from the edge of the settlement, by bus, than 5 kilometers. I>5k Facility accessible by an intermediate bus service, but further from the egde of the settlement, by bus, than 5 kilometers. P>5k Facility accessible by a poor bus service, but further from the edge of the settlement, by bus, than 5 kilometers.

Cycling MD Facility is accessible from a settlement mostly via a designated cycle route (operational and conceptual) and within 2 kilometers. PD Facility is accessible from a settlement partly via a designated cycle route (operational and conceptual) and within 2 kilometers. OR Facility is accessible from a settlement via an other direct route not incorporating a designated cycle route (operational and conceptual) and within 2 kilometers MD2-4k Facility is accessible from a settlement mostly via a designated cycle route (operational and conceptual) and between 2 and 4 kilometers. PD2-4k Facility is accessible from a settlement partly via a designated cycle route (operational and conceptual), and between 2 and 4 kilometers. OR2-4k Facility is accessible from a settlement via an other direct route not incorporating a designated cycle route (operational and conceptual) and between 2 and 4 kilometers.

Appendix 2 5 Appendix 3 Accessibility Assessment of Colchester Fringe

Location Mode Location to Location to Shops & Services Access/Interchange to Public Transport Jobs Existing or Proposed Facilities

KEY: On foot 9 Facility within 10 minutes walking distance (800m) of the settlement edge. For bus routes, a 5 minute walking distance (400m) applies.

Appendix3 1

Appendix 4 – Accessibility Appraisal Scoring Matrix and Template Accessibility / Location to Jobs Location to Shops & Services Interchange to Public Transport Route Type to Existing or Proposed Facilities Facility Employment Town Centre Other Other Local Schools Rail Service Bus Service Area[s] Defined Large Conven- Centre[s] Shop- ience Strategic Large Sub- Principal Smaller District Local ping Store or Secon- Primary Accessibility Route Accessibility Reg- Area[s] PO dary ional Good Inter- Good Inter- Poor Mediate Mediate On Foot Facility within 800m 20 10 na 30 20 15 10 10 4 10 3 20 10 20 10 5 [except 400m to bus route] Bus Facility within 5kms: Good [G] 12 6 na 18 12 9 6 6 2.5 6 1.75 12 6 12 6 3 Intermediate [I] 6 3 na 9 6 4.5 3 3 1.25 3 1 6 3 6 3 1.5 Poor [P] 3 1.5 na 4.5 3 2.25 1.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 3 1.5 3 1.5 0.75 Facility over 5kms away: Good [G>5k] 6 3 12 9 6 4.5 3 3 1.25 3 1 6 3 6 3 1.5 Intermediate [I>5k] 3 1.5 6 4.5 3 2.25 1.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 3 1.5 3 1.5 0.75 Poor [P>5k] 1.5 0.75 3 2.25 1.5 1.25 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.25 1.5 0.75 1.5 0.75 0.5 Rail Facility within 10kms: Good [G] na 8 na 24 na na na na 3.25 na na na 8 16 8 4 Intermediate [I] 8 4 16 12 8 6 4 4 1.5 4 1.25 8 4 8 4 2 Facility over 10kms away: Good [G>10k] 8 4 na na na na 4 4 1.5 4 1.25 8 4 8 4 2 Intermediate [I>10k 4 2 8 6 4 3 2 2 0.75 2 0.5 4 2 4 2 1 Cycle Facility within 2kms: MD 16 8 na 24 16 12 8 8 3.25 8 2.5 16 8 16 8 4 PD 14 7 na 21 14 10.5 7 7 2.75 7 2 14 7 14 7 3.5 OR 12 6 na 18 12 9 6 6 2.5 6 1.75 12 6 12 6 3 Facility 2-4 kms away: MD 2-4k 8 4 na 12 8 6 4 4 1.5 4 1.25 8 4 8 4 2 PD 2-4k 7 3.5 na 10.5 7 5 3.5 3.5 1.5 3.5 1 7 3.5 7 3.5 1.75 OR 2-4k 6 3 na 9 6 4.5 3 3 1.25 3 1 6 3 6 3 1.5 Notes: MD = Mostly by Defined Route [Existing or Conceptual Cycle Route] PD = Partly by Defined Route [Existing or Conceptual Cycle Route] OR = Other Direct Route Bus mode requires a bus route within 400 metres of the development site. Scores have been rounded to the nearest 0.25 where necessary. na = Not applicable For other information / explanation see elsewhere in the report.

1 APPENDIX 5 - Policies SS3 & SS4 of emerging RSS14

Taken from The Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes and Further Proposed Changes to the Draft Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England – October 2007.

Policy SS 3

Key Centres for Development and Change

To achieve sustainable development and the aims of policies Policy SS 1 ‘Achieving Sustainable Development’ and Policy SS 2 ‘Overall Spatial Strategy’ new development should be concentrated at the following locations:

Basildon Bedford/Kempston/Northern Bury St Edmunds Marston Vale Chelmsford Cambridge Great Yarmouth Colchester Hatfield and Welwyn GC Harlow Ipswich Hemel Hempstead Lowestoft King’s Lynn Linslade Luton/Dunstable/Houghton Regis Norwich & Leighton Southend-on-Sea Peterborough Thetford Stevenage Watford Thurrock urban area

Policy SS 4

Development in Towns other than Key Centres and in Rural Areas

Local development documents should define the approach to development in towns other than those listed in policy Policy SS 3 ‘Key Centres for Development and Change’, and in rural areas.

Such towns will include selected market towns and other towns with the potential to increase their economic and social sustainability through measures to:

• support urban and rural renaissance; • secure appropriate amounts of new housing, including affordable housing, and local employment and other facilities; and • improve the town’s accessibility, especially by public transport.

They should also consider the potential of other key service centres to accommodate development which is sympathetic to local character and of an appropriate scale and nature in relation to local housing and employment needs.

For other rural settlements they should seek to support the continued viability of agriculture and other economic activities such as tourism, the diversification of the economy, the provision of housing for local needs and the sustainability of local services.