SOUTH WOODHAM FERRERS NORTHERN GROWTH AREA an Introduction to the Masterplan Presentation for Workshop Sessions Wednesday 29 January 2020 the MASTERPLAN PROCESS

Home , Bicknacre, Chelmsford, Rettendon, Runwell, South Woodham Ferrers, West Hanningfield

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

List of stakeholders invited to Stage 1 workshops and attendance

TOWN COUNCIL SESSION – 10:00 – 12:00

Name Capacity Attended

a Chelmsford City Councillor for Chetwood and Collingwood ward and Essex County Councillor and Y Councillor Bob Massey Mayor of Chelmsford

Councilllor Malcolm Sismey a Chelmsford City Councillor for Chetwood and Collingwood ward and SWF Town Councillor

Councillor Ashley John a Chelmsford City Councillor for Chetwood and Collingwood ward and SWF Town Councillor Y Councillor Ian Roberts a Chelmsford City Councillor for Elmwood and Woodville ward and SWF Town Councillor

Councillor Keith Bentley a Chelmsford City Councillor for Elmwood and Woodville ward and SWF Town Councillor Y Councillor Jackie Birch SWF Town Councillor and deputy Mayor

Councillor Lisa Kelly SWF Town Councillor

Councillor Martyn Lobar SWF Town Councillor Y Councillor Murrough O’Brien SWF Town Councillor

Councillor Peter Wyatt SWF Town Councillor

Councillor Russ Crosbie SWF Town Councillor Y Councillor Ian Hammond SWF Town Councillor Y Councillor Peter Ferry SWF Town Councillor

Councillor Anne Humphrey SWF Town Councillor

Councillor John Miller SWF Town Councillor

Councillor John Burman SWF Town Councillor Y Mr Jon Herbert Director of Troy Planning

POLITICAL STAKEHOLDERS – 13:00 – 15:00

Attended Name Capacity

Councilllor Malcolm Sismey a Chelmsford City Councillor for Chetwood and Collingwood ward

Councillor Ashley John a Chelmsford City Councillor for Chetwood and Collingwood ward Y Councillor Ian Roberts a Chelmsford City Councillor for Elmwood and Woodville ward Y Councillor Keith Bentley a Chelmsford City Councillor for Elmwood and Woodville ward Y Councillor Ms Patricia Hughes a Chelmsford City Councillor for Elmwood and Woodville ward

Councillor Ian Grundy Essex County Councillor for Stock electoral division

Councillor Mrs Penny Channer Essex County Councillor for Maldon electoral division

Mr John Whittingdale MP Member of Parliament for Maldon Y Councillor Simon Hollington Chairman of Stow Maries Parish Council

Councillor Neil Gilmore Vice-Chair of Stow Maries Parish Council

Councillor Ms June Saltmarsh Chairman of Woodham Ferrers and Bicknacre Parish Council

Councillor Ms Lucy White Vice-Chairman of Woodham Ferrers and Bicknacre Parish Council

Ms Karen Kuderovitch Clerk of Woodham Ferrers and Bicknacre Parish Council

Councillor Mark Fleming Chairman of Rettendon Parish Council Y Councillor Jim Knight Vice-Chairman of Rettendon Parish Council Y Councillor Ms Sue Dobson a Chelmsford City Councillor for Bicknacre and East and West Hanningfield ward Y Councillor Richard Poulter a Chelmsford City Councillor for Bicknacre and East and West Hanningfield ward

Councillor Lance Millane a Chelmsford City Councillor for Rettendon and Runwell ward Y Councillor Paul Clark a Chelmsford City Councillor for Rettendon and Runwell ward

Councillor Mrs Jane Fleming a Maldon District Councillor for Purleigh ward Y Councillor Miss Sue White a Maldon District Councillor for Purleigh ward

Councillor Chris Davidson Cabinet Member for Fairer Chelmsford at Chelmsford City Council Y Councillor Mike Mackrory Cabinet Member for Greener Chelmsford at Chelmsford City Council

Councillor David Finch Leader of Essex County Council and interim Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Housing

Councillor Kevin Bentley Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Infrastructure Y Councillor Ms Anne Nunn Chair of North Fambridge Parish Council

Councillor Graham Rayner Chairman of Purleigh Parish Council

Councillor Steve Bardwell Vice-Chairman of Purleigh Parish Council

Councillor Philip Wakeling Chairman of Cold Norton Parish Council Y Councillor Jeremy Richardson Member of Cold Norton Parish Council Y Councillor Brian Haydon Vice-Chairman of Cold Norton Parish Council Y Councillor Alan Shearring SWF Town Councillor and Mayor of SWF Y Councillor Murrough O’Brien SWF Town Councillor Y Amber Nyoni CCC Public Health Practitioner

COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS – 16:00 – 18:00

Name Capacity Attended

Ms Sian Turner Practice Manager at Greenwood Surgery

Ms Janice Nightingale Practice Manager at Kingsway Surgery

Mrs Heather Tovey Practice Manager at Brickfields Surgery

Mr Mike Applewhite MA NPQH Headteacher at William de Ferrers School Y

Mrs S Newby Business Manager at William de Ferrers School

Mrs Helen Shaw Headteacher at Elmwood Primary School

Mrs Sarah Ginzler-Maher Executive Headteacher at St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School

Mrs Elizabeth Chapman Finance Officer at St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School

Mr Mike Williams Headteacher at Trinity St Mary’s Primary School Y Mrs Sandra Stamp School Business Manager at Trinity St Mary’s Primary School

Miss J Phillips Headteacher at Woodville Primary School

Mrs Fewtrell School Business Manager at Woodville Primary School

Mrs A Buckland-Garnett Headteacher at Collingwood Primary School

Mr Shaun Gadsby Sainsbury's Store Manager

The Manager Manager at South Woodham Ferrers Leisure Centre

Station Commander Station Commander at Essex County Fire & Rescue Service

Area Commander Area Commander at South Woodham Ferrers Police Station

Station Manager Station Manager at Essex Ambulance Services

Reverend Carol Ball Vicar of Holy Trinity Church

Mr Paul Gilham Communications and Engagement Manager at NHS Mid Essex Clinical Commissioning Group Y Ms Kerry Harding Director of Estates for CCG’s in Mid and South Essex Y Mr Julian Elliott Nick Parker Network Manager at First Group Essex

Representative Representative for Arriva

Representative Representative for Natural England

Mr Andrew Impey Chief Executive at Essex Wildlife Trust

Ms Annie Gordon Conservation Planning Coordinator at Essex Wildlife Trust

Mr Richard Lyon Senior Growth Planning Engineer at Anglian Water

Mr Rob Morris Growth Liaison Manager at Anglian Water

Ms Alison Bennett Essex County Council Archaeologist

Ms Laura Taylor-Green Head of Wellbeing and Public Health at Essex County Council

Ms Claire Tomalin Principal Planning Officer Minerals & Waste at Essex County Council

Mr Roy Warren Planning Manager at Sport England

Mr David Gillies Crime Prevention Advisor at Essex Police Y Councillor Donna Eley SWF Town Councillor Y Councillor Murrough O’Brien SWF Town Councillor Y Linda Denson PPG

Barbara Wood PPG David Birch PPG Y Y Peter Blackman SWF Health & Social Care Group

APPENDIX B

Workshop presentation slides and prompt

SOUTH WOODHAM FERRERS NORTHERN GROWTH AREA An introduction to the Masterplan Presentation for workshop sessions Wednesday 29 January 2020 THE MASTERPLAN PROCESS

Chelmsford City Council (the Council) has established a four-stage masterplanning procedure:

• Stage 0 – Developer / promoter provides background technical information on site characteristics to CCC and prepares a 1st draft Masterplan proposals. • Stage 1 – Masterplan pre-application and stakeholder consultation on 1st draft proposals. • Stage 2 – Masterplan is reviewed and updated/amended. Masterplan formally submitted to CCC as a Masterplan application and public consultation. • Stage 3 – Consultation feedback and, subject to any further changes, Masterplan approved by Council. LANDOWNERSHIP SITE ANALYSIS THE MASTERPLAN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SWF NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

• A number of key considerations have been explored that overlap with those outlined in the draft Neighbourhood Plan

• Consideration has been given to these areas and this is reflected in the masterplan

• There is the opportunity for further, ongoing collaboration with the Town Council as the masterplan moves ahead and planning applications come forward THE MASTERPLAN NEXT STEPS

• A report of the feedback received today will be submitted alongside the Masterplan to Chelmsford City Council (CCC) for consideration, this will end Stage 1 consultation

• Subject to final agreement from CCC, we intend to launch a comprehensive public consultation in spring 2020

• Feedback from these consultation exercises will help to evolve the final strategic Masterplan, that will then be subject to approval by CCC

• It will also inform a future outline planning application for the first phase to be brought forward by Countryside and Essex County Council in the coming months

• EIA Scoping Opinion will be submitted to CCC, in the coming weeks ANY QUESTIONS?

ANY QUESTIONS?

Contact: [email protected] / 01296 678320 BUILDING THE MASTERPLAN DRAINAGE STRATEGY ECOLOGY STRATEGY LANDSCAPE STRATEGY THE ‘GREEN GRID’ PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE ROUTES

SOUTH WOODHAM FERRERS Prompt for presentation for Stakeholder workshops Wednesday 29 January 2020

Slide 1 – Introductions and session format – Paul Vicary, DevComms

Welcome and introductions – brief introduction to the consultants and technical consultees in the room

- Clarify the format for the session / clarify feedback mechanisms:

There will be four themed tables for discussion– with twenty minutes per discussion on each table and the relevant consultant on each table to answer questions. You will visit the tables in your assigned group. The table topics are as follows:

- Movement Strategy

- Drainage and utilities

- Landscape, ecology and open space

- Land use, layout and design (this would cover Allotments / travelling showpeople provision and sustainability)

The format for the sessions is as follows:

o 15 min introduction presentation

o 20 minutes per topic discussion – with the attendee groups rotating around the tables every 20 mins

o Then 25 min round up and Q+A – opportunity to raise any additional questions

Lauren will alert the room when there is 5 minutes remaining at each table to provide time to wrap up and then again at the 20 minute mark that it is time to move on.

Feedback mechanisms:

- a member of the team (Countryside – Kathryn and Emily / DevComms – Lauren and Paul) will write down the comments made at the table they are sat at onto a large note pad as the conversation progresses.

- A comments form is provided with space for comments on each topic. This can be used to provide more detail on points raised or anything that you think of for that topic throughout the session. These can then be posted into the box at the end of the session. Alternatively you can provide comments via email / over the phone – provide business cards. Comments need to be provided by Monday 3 February.

- We understand that the Town Council will provide its formal response through the Masterplan Committee, so comments made today will be attributed to individual members and not the Town Council as a whole.

Slide 2 - Clarify Masterplan process – Paul Vicary, DevComms

Chelmsford City Council (the Council) has established a four-stage masterplanning procedure [New Slide 1]:

o Stage 0 – Developer / promoter provides background technical information on site characteristics to CCC and prepares a 1st draft Masterplan proposals.

o Stage 1 – Masterplan pre-application and stakeholder consultation on 1st draft proposals.

o Stage 2 – Masterplan is reviewed and updated/amended. Masterplan formally submitted to CCC as a Masterplan application and public consultation

o Stage 3 – Consultation feedback and, subject to any further changes, Masterplan approved by Council.

The workshop sessions are part of Stage 1 of this process. The intention is for this to be a collaborative two-way process to help develop the best masterplan.

Slide 3 – Landownership – Countryside

- Masterplan is being jointly prepared and promoted by Countryside, Essex County Council Property and the Speakman family with their partners, Catesby.

- The Masterplan area is the same as the allocated area in the Submission Chelmsford Local Plan.

- Orange area – under option by Countryside / Blue – ECC Property / Purple – Speakman Family with partners Catesby Estates.

Slide 4 – Site analysis – Countryside

- We have carried out a detailed site analysis and carefully considered a number of areas, including; o Access and movement

o Topography

o Natural environment

o Flooding and surface water drainage

o Utilities

The constraints plan reflects all of the site constraints arising from this detailed analysis, which have instructed the strategy taken to develop the Masterplan. These topics will be covered in more detail at the topic tables.

The plans showing the individual constraints layers are displayed around the room.

Slide 5 – The masterplan – Countryside

Various strategies have helped to inform the current masterplan. These strategies will be discussed in more detail at the specific subject tables.

The current iteration of the Masterplan is shown on the screen with the proposed location for the formal recreational facilities, open space provision, residential development areas, access and movement routes, Local Centre and Primary School, allotments, employment area and travelling showpeople plots.

The Masterplan document has been built up by looking at the wider context first, and then looking at the site itself in greater detail. The plans shown around the room help to demonstrate some of the analysis undertaken and how the constraints and opportunities come together to make a potential development framework and ‘reveal’ the potential development parcels.

N.B - Plans showing the potential alternate locations for formal rec, Local Centre, Primary School, employment and Travelling Showpeople plots will be tabled at the relevant topic table.

- following previous meetings with the Masterplan Committee, we issued a drainage strategy note in advance of these sessions. We hope that this has been helpful, and any questions can be answered comprehensively by the relevant consultants at the relevant topic table.

Slide 6 – Relationship with the SWF Neighbourhood Plan – Countryside

In light of informal dialogue with SWF Town Council to understand the emerging themes and policies of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan, a number of key considerations were explored, recognising that both the Neighbourhood Plan and the strategic masterplan need to conform with the strategic site policy in the Local Plan.

- Protecting sensitive areas such as Bushy Hill / Radar Hill

- Providing a Green necklace of open space around SWF

- The importance of integration between the existing town and the new growth area

Consideration has been given to these areas and this is reflected in the Masterplan.

Additional issues raised by the Town Council, which are matters that go beyond the scope of the strategic Masterplan but which could be relevant in future planning applications for the site include:

- Housing types – proposed that a range of housing types be provided, with potential for provision of smaller homes, bungalows and housing for older people

- Housing design considerations – design is a key policy area in the Neighbourhood Plan, so there is an opportunity for close collaboration on this issue

- The opportunity to incorporate the use of ‘Play Streets’ and ‘Home Zones’

- Sustainability and green infrastructure

I would like to now invite you to head to your first topic table.

Slide 7 shown on screen as Stakeholders then head to the tables to enter into discussions on how each of the strategies has been reached.

Following the round table discussions, complete the last sections of the presentation

o Highways and transport - (Ian Mitchell)

o Overarching strategy plan

o Note on preferred options

o SOCG highways plans

o Plan of the wider junction improvements / plans showing their locations

o Noise / air quality

o Drainage and utilities - (Anne Farmer)

o Drainage note (that will be sent to Town Council ahead of workshop. Currently in draft)

o Drainage plan

o Flood risk plans

o Landscape, ecology and open space - (Paul Gibbs, Katie, Richard)

o Landscape plan

o Northern boundary growth study

o Allotments – reasons for their proposed locations

o Woodland in the northern section

o Land use, layout and design (this would cover travelling showpeople provision / sustainability) - (Jeff & Matt, Paul White)

o land use plan

o TSP – reasons for their proposed locations

o potential plan of what the TSP site might look like – raised by the TC in previous discussions

o sustainability - design measures

DevComms to monitor time allowance and announce when time is coming to and end / time to move tables

Slide 8 – Next steps – Lauren Whipp, DevComms

Following today’s workshop sessions, we will prepare a report of the feedback received and this will be submitted alongside the Masterplan to CCC for consideration, this will end Stage 1 consultation. Chelmsford will then launch Stage 2 consultation, which is comprehensive public consultation on the masterplan. This will comprise two manned exhibition dates, alongside an unmanned exhibition display for the full three week consultation period. This will be located in the foyer of Champions Manor Hall. Everyone present today will be invited to the public consultation events, so there will be further opportunity to comment on the Masterplan.

A consultation website will also be launched, containing the full masterplan document for residents to download, as well as the exhibition materials. Feedback will be provided to Chelmsford City Council through the planning portal on its website.

The feedback from this consultation exercise will inform and help evolve the final strategic masterplan, that will then be subject to approval by CCC. It will also inform a future planning application for the first phase to be brought forward by Countryside and ECC Property in the coming months.

We would also like to take this opportunity to inform you that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Opinion will be submitted to Chelmsford City Council (CCC), in the coming weeks.

Although it will be publicly accessible on CCC’s Planning Portal, this is not a planning application. The purpose of the EIA scoping is to obtain a clear view from CCC on what is required to form part of the Environmental Statement, which will be submitted as part of a future planning application and is standard procedure in progressing schemes of this nature.

Slide 9 – questions, future updates and contact details – Lauren Whipp, DevComms

Thank you for coming and any questions.

Provide details on mechanism for future updates and contact details for further questions or information requests. Business cards are available

APPENDIX C

Log of responses from workshop sessions

SOUTH WOODHAM FERRERS

Record of feedback received throughout the Stage 1 Stakeholder workshop sessions

Session 1 – Movement strategy

Record of comment from A1 feedback sheet CCC SPD’s – ‘making spaces’ and ‘planning obligations, could change matters

Town has gridlock from current roadworks

Line of cars back to Maldon District. Plan will create extra traffic. How will congestion be avoided? Were camera surveys done before Sainsbury’s roundabout open?

Confident in Countryside, but concerned about traffic from 7,000 homes in Maldon. More congestion from Dengie. Burnham Rd is small - has a stream of traffic.

No facilities in Maldon new growth

Talk of bridges over Burnham Rd – a ‘no-no’. Crossings should be surface crossings. People take risks with bridges – ignore them. Also overlooking into gardens. Left in - left out junction reduces congestion

Eastern link not suitable as a cycle route.

Possible cycle way on Burnham Rd.

Buses don’t serve east side of town well. People have to walk east across the town.

How long is bus service supported? (guaranteed for at least five years)

Hulbridge Rd cycling – limited opportunities. More cycling around town.

Cycle parking at railway station.

Buses to Chelmsford are unreliable (36)

Beaulieu bus services are good and this should be the model for SWF.

Provision for electric buses in the future.

How will Burnham Rd cope with additional traffic?

Road going out of Town west is collapsing.

If it’s more than 100m people will drive.

Most houses have 3-5 cars (family homes).

Need a car – town is isolated.

Bus non-existent.

Radical solution – Shaw Farm – gateway of new development - X40 (Bas – Chelmsford) – could take commuter traffic. First agreed to work on bus strategy

Self supporting? – (would need to assess this)

Need to take a lot of people off the roads through new bus service

Railway station – problem as new stock won’t fit at Wickford Station.

Not enough space at stations to fit additional stock – particularly when you consider Beaulieu. All trains will be full at Wickford. A lot work in Basildon and the other way.

All development off Dengie goes A414 – M25, through the A132.

Along the A127 50mph is common.

Thames crossing is coming – 7 – 8:30am and 4 – 6pm – traffic issues.

Presume new homes will commute to London – no mortgage paying jobs in SWF or nearby. Direct route needed – people don’t want to travel on the bus “around the houses” to get to work. Problem getting to Maldon – 30 + 36 service. 12 buses in use to Maldon – those same 12 buses working in a clockwise and anti-clockwise direction could improve the service to Maldon – half hourly service. Need to define bus strategy – helpful for their to be a meeting with Countryside, Mayer Brown, Broadway Malyan and Murrough O’Brien.

Need to avoid people looping to avoid Burnham Rd.

How we will approach Burnham Rd and integrate road network with new development? What is the purpose of the crossing where the existing bridle path is?

Concerns too many crossings across the Burnham road will lead to grid lock.

How will we deal with local’s perceptions on the need for a bypass?

Concerns around bus route and being stuck in traffic.

How will the traffic problems be improved alongside the new development?

Session 1 – Drainage and utilities

Record of comment from A1 feedback sheet Code What flow does water come out of low flow channel.

Maintenance of SUDS.

Concerns regarding Wickford Road community and flooding (EA).

EA maintains water course under permissive rights SU site.

Tide locking event in 2012 caused flooding.

EA suggest potential use of fisheries pond north of Catesby land.

Potential use of land on southside of Burnham Rd as up stream storage.

Meeting to be arranged with EA and Essex Suds team.

Rain water harvesting consideration.

Town Council has written to Met Office re volume of rain.

Aecom using special flood software.

Review where the run off figures come from.

SW corner 1:5 year flood event. Suggested 6.4m tide at point of major issue.

Any ingress to Fen Brook needs to consideration as site of SSI

Electric considerations and total capacity coming in with gas boiler ban and car chargers. Sewage capacity and potential off site reinforcement.

Opening up of flood gates is manned and done manually by the EA each day just before high tide. Lack of green space and landscape strips in existing SWF town – doesn’t help with flooding issues. New development not to replicate this. How wide will central green route be?

Concerns about child play spaces, provision of dog bins etc.

Sustainability of development. Charging points etc.

Open space maintenance.

‘Making Places 2018’ SPD being refreshed. Reference to sustainability measures (no gas, solar panels). ‘Planning obligations’ SPD being prepared. How do we manage developments given climate emergency? Sewerage strategy (in dialogue with Anglian Water; some network improvements may be needed). Drainage: pipe runs down Hulbridge Rd – used to be a ditch. Will need to check sewer records for its route. Some existing flows into this [Hulbridge Rd pipe] pipe will be moved to west

Will the retention basins retain water? Opportunity to enhance wetland habitat. Existing ponds fill up at high tide.

Far east parcel = no development on this? Seek transfer for allotments.

Are 1-in-1 / 1-in-100 rainfall events changing due to climate change?

Sea wall at SWF over topped twice this winter. This is a change. At corner, near sailing club. Railway is below sea level.

Burial ground needs to be considered due to lack of capacity.

Session 1 – Landscape, Ecology and Open Space

Record of comment from A1 feedback sheet Code

Links with open space

Maintenance of Bushey Hill

Connections between existing town and new development (green routes)

Maintenance of landscape in long term. City Council preference to adopt open spaces themselves.

Allotments.

Any future use for land next to Garden of Remembrance.

Two SPSs ‘making spaces’ + ‘planning obligations’ being rewritten/refreshed

ECC potentially declaring a climate emergency

People want a gas-free site

Radar Hill a key asset; future plans not certain. Brownfield site – does CCC have policies to prevent development?

Keep development below the top of the hills. Don’t want to see houses travelling south from WF on B1418.

Water ponds part of landscape and habitat. Will they be permanently filled? Has an impact on habitat.

SWF Only Parish with coastal designation SPA (RAMS); consultation response provided to ECC. How will this scheme impact on this?

TSP site location could impact on this. Potential contamination to groundwater.

Land to north of development – what will this be? Any tree planting?

CCC has policy of one tree planted for every resident, so c.2,000 trees?

Oak trees currently stunted by agricultural use

Mill Hill not currently accessible

13HA of greenspace within site

Sports provision to serve new community

Footpath on west to create link to Ilgar’s Manor

Very little space for allotments

City council minded to adopt the open space on site

Linking with the park ranger

CCC also maintain PROWs

Purple footpath – linking to Sainsbury’s and near old railway, linking into town

Most direct route needs to be provided

Sports hub retained – new sports provision for development

Pitches will need to serve whole town – used to have to play elsewhere as pitches in town out of action for most of the year – flooding.

Little park space in the town – informal play areas lacking

Can school space be made open space until needed? Many buildings lying empty – need for the space. It could be made clear in the beginning that the space is earmarked for education provision

CCC would be securing open space – ongoing management – conversations still to take place

Eco town has caused issues - badgers have undermined stability of bridges

Cats have wiped out rabbits

Session 1 – Land use, Layout and Design

Record of comment from A1 feedback sheet Code Footpath near Holly's tree - very steep. more informal route – would need to be paved - need to make it an ”effective route” Link into town would need to be a Purple route

ECC parcel of land near GoR - development parcel?

Raised concerns over plans leaking following the workshop session

Fastest route from Sainsbury's needs to be provided

Proximity of travelling showpeople site to Garden of Rememberance.

Travelling Showpeople location in terms of transport network and access

Form and structure of development parcels and Boundary Treatments (Far west specifically). Character of South Woodham maintained.

Retaining landscape features within development parcels.

TC seeking to acquire ECC Land next to G of R

TSP site: will arrive from the west, so should site be located to the west end?

A site (TSP) near Writtle; uses traction engines.

Existing water main corridor provides an opportunity to screen TSP site.

GoR site was historically considered to be a TSP site.

Cycleway down Hullbridge Rd – improvements by SSL via S106 route is not wide enough to deliver improvements; cycle route should be reconsidered. Some spare land at north end of Hullbridge Road. Can get cycle route via link from the west. Runwell Centre: Not been open soon enough. Public Art not popular. (Rettendon Parish) Travelling showpeople location opposite Garden of Remembrance

If buffered with trees then it’s less concerning

Intermittent uses could screen travelling showpeople.

Splitting, or co-locating the allotments

Management of the travelling showpeople

Development could be more resilient

Session 2 – Movement strategy

Record of comment from A1 feedback sheet Code Concerns on Burnham Rd.

Access on/off B1418.

Rettendon Turnpike.

Traffic to / from Dengie to A130.

Lots of other developments in Maldon.

Traffic “going through a funnel”.

Has dual carriageway on A130 been considered?

Cultural thing, living in a rural area. Also difficult for older people not to drive.

Is there a strategic view on traffic impact on the wider area

Traffic on B1418 going north – what are mitigation measures?

Can traffic mitigation measures be considered on B1418 – can’t really accommodate more traffic. Traffic coming south from B1418 onto Burnham Rd gives big existing congestion problems. Does traffic modelling take account of traffic growth from Maldon / Dengie and future growth? B1418 / Burnham Road will become a bottleneck.

Traffic bunches up at GoR junction.

Will model take account of Sainsbury’s / surgery developments?

Additional ped / cycle access points will worsen ‘bunching’ issue.

Movement is “biggest fear”

Can we understand what Burnham Rd will be like in 20 years?

SWF station: cannot accommodate more trains

Buses: unreliable and no buses go through Maldon

Over reliance on cars.

SWF considered the poor relation / forgotten by Chelmsford.

Bus from Southend to Stanstead doesn’t come through SWF.

New health centre has hopper service to town centre; new development needs this. Need to have less reliance on private car.

Problem with lots of roundabouts – they need improvements, especially Rettendon Turnpike. Dual carriageways won’t work – they just move the problem on. Junction improvements are key. Past traffic surveys done at the wrong time. Don’t tie in with the local knowledge. Most people will work outside of SWF.

No. 36 bus to Chelmsford a good service, when it runs.

We need real time passenger information.

Station car parking also an issue. Hopper to station the way forward.

Will workspace be manual or technical?

Traffic at Rettendon Turnpike – plans to be redeveloped?

Main route is A132 which primarily dissects SWF.

There will be a significant increase in traffic.

Rettendon Turnpike mitigation measures.

Army and Navy – hot cross bun crossing.

Every 20min bus from Runwell – very few people on it.

Bus irregularity in the town is appalling.

Burnham Rd – fast traffic. Clarification sought on plans for this speed limit.

KFC pulled out due to cost of crossing.

Why 40mph along Burnham Road and not 30mph?

Unsignalised crossing in the town is not safe.

20mph zones in development, therefore more sense for Burnham Rd to be 30mph. Controlled crossing to be provided – not just about speed limit. Needs to be safe to cross. The fact that people do not stick to speed limits is not a reason to not set 30mph speed limit on Burnham Rd. How do commuters’ impact on trains and Woodham station?

Anxious about the impact of the development on commuters.

What crossings will be provided?

How will you incorporate Burnham Rd and ensure it foes not act as a barrier between existing and new development? Bridleways to north of development – how will we encourage use of these and enhance existing routes? Off road links from the north (existing town) to facilities within new development. Concerns around new roundabouts and potential grid lock.

Rush hour traffic – linked to new developments occupiers going to work elsewhere. How will roundabouts improve what is already a road at ‘max capacity’? How will you alleviate A132 traffic?

Has anyone spoken to Network Rail about an increased service, as it is already over capacity?

Session 2 – Drainage and utilities

Record of comment from A1 feedback sheet Code Explanation into general topography of the site.

Management of fluvial flooding into the Brook.

Brook is being made into a landscape feature.

Concern water is going into Fenn Creek

Concern of flooding down to Burnham Rd from eastern field on ECC land (run-off). Maintenance of existing ditch system needs reviewing.

Road dips by Garden of Remembrance.

Reliant on Aecoms professional advice to provide comfort that the scheme is not going to further cause any issues with flooding. Like the central corridor for connectivity.

Explanation of how the detention basins hold back the water.

Concerns with modelling and climate change and impacts it would have on pond designs. Tidal issues and climate emergency going out at one point.

Concerned with basins staying dry long enough to be used as public open spaces. Solar panel installation considerations

Reliance on electric demands.

Neighbourhood plan more reliance on passive solutions and not just technology. Gas reliance is going to be reduced.

Breaches have happened recently on sea wall.

What surface treatments will be used?

Where is sewage going?

How will houses be supplied. Will there be any gas?

Will there be a ‘knock on’ effect on SWF from the development’s drainage?

How will we deal with the topography of the land?

Will any sewage need to be pumped?

Questions on fibre being brought to site.

Installation of a wet pond as a feature.

Foul connections and is there sufficient capacity?

Attention basins being dry low flow channel

Location and installation of new Essex & Suffolk Water Main

Car charging points?

Gas boilers and their reliance.

Start building 22ish.

Session 2 - Landscape, Ecology and Open space

Record of comment from A1 feedback sheet Code

Will green space be multifunctional?

Are existing public rights of way going to be improved + maintained? (including bridle paths)

Will access routes to north of development be provided?

How will eastern end of site boundaries be landscaped/screened?

Concerns around how high/far up hill will be developed + visual impact this may have.

Tree planting locations + quantum

Bats using hedgerows

Great Crested Newts in north

Enhancement

Is there water in there permanently? (the stream)

How far north is development going?

Cycle paths and footpaths

Impact of new facilities on the existing

Are the water basins wet?

Need some permanent wet features

Footpaths – slopes

Oak trees within the development

Wild flower meadows

Vision is to walk around SWF, without using a road

Northern boundary area: would be good to create a proper woodland, with paths. A recreational area.

Trees around Edwin’s Hall. Must have been wooded historically

How do you incorporate Radar Hill into wider area? Brownfield and separate to NGA.

Woodland at Radar Hill still accessible, but delicate. How do we plan around it? Do we allow access or seek to protect it?

Ensure provision for dog walkers (bins, on-lead areas), to keep away from protected sites.

Concern that whole Radar Hill site surrounded by ancient oaks

People at Beaulieu say it’s windy. Need to consider this in detailed design.

CCC will look to adopt open spaces in due course. Make sports provision open for hire.

Is there a plan for everything that isn’t beige?

Any other sports interests other than these mentioned i.e. football + rugby

These proposals will satisfy a need for sports facilities.

Allotments – waiting list of 80+ in the town

People in development are going to want access to allotments as well, is this going to be sufficient to soak up need?

Existing sites managed by allotment management company. Town Council own existing site.

If Chelmsford manage this – TC would request that allotments are transferred to them to manage

Northern boundary – will this count as open space as part of the allocation!

- Suggested that this could be provided in a Land Trust to the TC to manage, rather than this being left to agricultural use.

Any species need to be relocated?

Open space on site constrained – if you don’t include the attenuation (drainage). So, in winter this is out of use

Want whole area to north as open space

Sports provision land? Could accommodate 4/5 pitches

Session 2 - Land use, Layout and Design

Record of comment from A1 feedback sheet Code What will the community facility be?

Parking?

Want access to community facilities to be by foot and cycle rather than by car Secure cycle storage in centre

Problem elsewhere in the town is that access to schools is via car

Site area?

Dangerous basins

Rewilding of northern boundary and green necklace

TC would take land on (north of boundary) as community land trust. Land is only farmed to a limited level.

Public access to land north of boundary needs to be enhanced

Going into NP that north of boundary is open space. Feeling that they are being “stitched up” There isn’t any access to public open space to the north as its arable land

What will be in the Local Centre and how will it connect to existing centre?

Far East Parcel of development isolated from any retail facility

School land if not developed – can this be park space?

Will northern land be opened to public use?

Easement of power lines?

Is there a road next to Sainsbury’s?

The spine road in the site will be a rat run

Will it be 20mph within the site?

Funneling people to one crossing point

Access to health centre for elderly

Management of the travelling showpeople

Make sure that the travelling showpeople is suitably conditioned

Access into the showpeople site

Land next to Garden of Remembrance for allotments

What will environment be in central area along the stream?

What will drainage/open areas look like?

What surface will footpaths be?

How safe will public open space be at night?

Alleyways/paths in SWF not used due to crime fear. Crime level low. Want to avoid this with new development. What size will roads be? Use of different design treatments.

Parking requirements. Need to change/guide people’s habits.

Will cycle infrastructure be provided

Developers can deliver on lots of these details

New approach to urban design, compared with how of SWF was built

Session 3 – Movement strategy

Record of comment from A1 feedback sheet Code Roadworks causing extreme congestion.

Dengie “completely blocked”.

What will be done about A132?

The best way to deal with issues is to put in a ring road.

Is there anything to show how these connection and route will work?

Is there a way of ensuring that mitigation measures will help with connectivity to Sainsbury’s and health centre site? Gridlock at rush hour risks lives – in traffic emergency services can’t get through. Evidence over the last 12 months shows that safety isn’t a concern

No trust at all in ECC / highways mitigation.

Bus routes – are they going to be handled? – had to arrange themselves for the town centre. Need to think more innovatively re public transport Can we look at continuing the bus service for the health centre? – only enough funding for a year – don’t want a gap. Where are the accesses and how will these work?

Where will the school go?

Six roundabouts will be disruptive.

Burnham Rd is a priority.

Session 3 – Drainage and utilities

Record of comment from A1 feedback sheet Code Liaise with Barry Smith – SWF Safety Forum. Expert on flooding in the town.

Is there an environmental figure that shows impact is ‘X or Y’?

How is water released?

Will houses have soakways?

Session 3 – Landscape, Ecology and Open space

Record of comment from A1 feedback sheet Code

Hyde Hall and RHS have done a lot of work for live well

Essex Wildlife Trust just down the road

Any allotments – consideration to ongoing management

Any plans for formal environmental/conservation centre? Primary schools could capitalize on the edition of this

Session 3 – Land use, Layout and Design

Record of comment from A1 feedback sheet Code Consideration for Essex Design guide to be taken

School location sensible – will use same bus service and pedestrian routes as Health Centre site Parking? – bear this in mind

Health Centre site – send across Health Centre

WDF School? – parking – requirement needed to handle additional children and drop off + pick up points Admirable that you want people to walk + cycle. Too dangerous across Burnham Rd. So people won’t do it. Slowing down Burnham Rd is terrible idea

Not wide enough for two lorries on Hulbridge Rd

Open space – formal, informal? Open to everyone?

Walking route starting + ending at health centre – has been done elsewhere and is a nice idea Active place guide?

Double up uses for local centre site

Are pedestrian accesses a priority?

Cycle route from new dev to WDF?

Ped bridge would be great – for cycles or well

No parent will let their child go along a cycle route

Plans for care homes + assisted living/elderly care?

Proposed primary school at Collingwood – pavements put in place to link?

Other questions raised in Session three

Record of comment from A1 feedback sheet Code Housing numbers?

Will Countryside be the only developer on site?

Have we considered the parcel of land near the Garden of Remembrance?

APPENDIX D

Images of the workshop feedback sheets

APPENDIX E

Categorised log of stage 1 feedback

South Woodham Ferrers Drainage and Utilities - Feedback from Stage 1 Stakeholder workshops – categorised February 2020

DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES

Existing flooding issues

Concerns regarding Wickford Road community and flooding (EA).

Tide locking event in 2012 caused flooding.

Sea wall at SWF over topped twice this winter. This is a challenge. At corner, near sailing club. Maintenance of existing ditch system needs reviewing.

Reliant on Aecom’s professional advice to provide comfort that the scheme is not going to further cause any issues with flooding. SW corner 1:5 year flood event. Suggested 6.4m tide at point of major issue.

Breaches have happened recently on sea wall.

Aecom using special flood software.

Concern of flooding down to Burnham Rd from eastern field on ECC land (run-off).

Liaise with Barry Smith – SWF Safety Forum. Expert on flooding in the town.

Attenuation basins / SUDS Maintenance of SUDS.

Will the retention basins retain water? Opportunity to enhance wetland habitat.

Explanation of how the detention basins hold back the water.

Attention basins being dry low flow channel

Gas mains / sewage / existing pipework Sewage capacity and potential off site reinforcement.

Sewerage strategy (in dialogue with Anglian Water; some network improvements may be needed). Drainage: pipe runs down Hulbridge Rd – used to be a ditch. Will need to check sewer records for its route.

Some existing flows into this [Hulbridge Rd pipe] pipe will be moved to west

Where is sewage going?

How will houses be supplied. Will there be any gas?

Will any sewage need to be pumped?

Foul connections and is there sufficient capacity?

Locations and installations of new Essex and Suffolk Water Main

Gas boilers and their reliance.

Climate change / sustainability Electric considerations and total capacity coming in with gas boiler ban and car chargers. Sustainability of development. Charging points etc.

Are 1-in-1 / 1-in-100 rainfall events changing due to climate change?

Concerns with modelling and climate change and impacts it would have on pond designs. Tidal issues and climate emergency going out at one point.

Solar panel installation considerations

Reliance on electric demands.

Neighbourhood plan more reliance on passive solutions and not just technology.

Gas reliance is going to be reduced.

Car charging points?

Central corridor / open space How wide will central green route be?

Concerns about child play spaces, provision of dog bins etc.

Open space maintenance.

Like the central corridor for connectivity.

Concerned with basins staying dry long enough to be used as public open spaces.

Installation of a wet pond as a feature.

Fenn Creek / Brook Any ingress to Fen Brook needs consideration as site of SSI

Management of fluvial flooding into the Brook.

Brook is being made into a landscape feature.

Concern water is going into Fenn Creek

Miscellaneous What flow does water come out of low flow channel.

EA maintains water course under permissive rights SU site.

EA suggest potential use of fisheries pond north of Catesby land.

Potential use of land on southside of Burnham Rd as up stream storage.

Meeting to be arranged with EA and Essex Suds team.

Rain water harvesting consideration.

Town Council has written to Met Office re volume of rain.

Review where the run off figures come from.

Far east parcel = no development on this? Seek transfer for allotments.

Railway is below sea level.

Burial ground needs to be considered due to lack of capacity.

Explanation into general topography of the site.

Road dips by Garden of Remembrance.

What surface treatments will be used?

Will there be a ‘knock on’ effect on SWF from the development’s drainage?

How will we deal with the topography of the land?

Questions on fibre being brought to site.

Start building 22ish.

Is there an environmental figure that shows impact is ‘X or Y’?

How is water released?

Will houses have soakways?

SOUTH WOODHAM FERRERS Land use, layout and design - Feedback from Stage 1 Stakeholder workshops – categorised February 2020

LAND USE, LAYOUT AND DESIGN

Travelling Showpeople plots Proximity of travelling showpeople site to Garden of Remembrance (GoR)

Travelling Showpeople location in terms of transport network and access

TSP site: will arrive from the west, so should site be located to the west end?

A site (TSP) near Writtle; uses traction engines.

Existing water main corridor provides an opportunity to screen TSP site.

GoR site was historically considered to be a TSP site.

Travelling showpeople location opposite GoR

If buffered with trees then it’s less concerning

Intermittent uses could screen travelling showpeople.

Management of the travelling showpeople

Make sure that the travelling showpeople is suitably conditioned

Access into the showpeople site

Allotments Splitting, or co-locating the allotments

Land next to GoR for allotments

Connectivity Footpath near Holly's tree - very steep. more informal route – would need to be paved - need to make it an ”effective route”

Link into town would need to be a Purple route

Fastest route from Sainsbury's needs to be provided

Cycleway down Hullbridge Rd – improvements by SSL via S106 route is not wide enough to deliver improvements; cycle route should be reconsidered. Some spare land at north end of Hullbridge Road. Can get cycle route via link from the west. Want access to community facilities to be by foot and cycle rather than by car

Secure cycle storage in centre

Problem elsewhere in the town is that access to schools is via car

Funneling people to one crossing point

Access to health centre for elderly

What surface will footpaths be?

Alleyways/paths in SWF not used due to crime fear. Crime level low. Want to avoid this with new development. Will cycle infrastructure be provided?

Developers can deliver on lots of these details

Admirable that you want people to walk + cycle. Too dangerous across Burnham Rd. So people won’t do it. Walking route starting + ending at health centre – has been done elsewhere and is a nice idea Are pedestrian accesses a priority?

Cycle route from new dev to WDF?

Ped bridge would be great – for cycles or well

No parent will let their child go along a cycle route

Proposed primary school at Collingwood – pavements put in place to link?

Development Parcels Form and structure of development parcels and Boundary Treatments (Far west specifically). Retaining landscape features within development parcels.

Far East Parcel of development isolated from any retail facility

Other uses – e.g. School / sports provision / local centre facilities What will the community facility be?

What will be in the Local Centre and how will it connect to existing centre?

School land if not developed – can this be park space?

School location sensible – will use same bus service and pedestrian routes as Health Centre site Double up uses for local centre site

Open spaces Rewilding of northern boundary and green necklace

TC would take land on (north of boundary) as community land trust. Land is only farmed to a limited level. Public access to land north of boundary needs to be enhanced

Going into NP that north of boundary is open space. Feeling that they are being “stitched up” There isn’t any access to public open space to the north as its arable land

Will northern land be opened to public use?

How safe will public open space be at night?

What will drainage/open areas look like?

Open space – formal, informal? Open to everyone?

Miscellaneous ECC parcel of land near GoR - development parcel?

Raised concerns over plans leaking following the workshop session

TC seeking to acquire ECC Land next to G of R

Character of South Woodham maintained.

Runwell Centre: Not been open soon enough. Public Art not popular.

Development could be more resilient

Parking?

Site area?

Dangerous basins

Easement of power lines?

Is there a road next to Sainsbury’s?

The spine road in the site will be a rat run

Will it be 20mph within the site?

What will environment be in central area along the stream?

What size will roads be? Use of different design treatments.

Parking requirements. Need to change/guide people’s habits.

New approach to urban design, compared with how of SWF was built

Consideration for Essex Design guide to be taken

Parking? – bear this in mind

Health Centre site – send across Health Centre

WDF School? – parking – requirement needed to handle additional children and drop off + pick up points Slowing down Burnham Rd is terrible idea

Not wide enough for two lorries on Hulbridge Rd

Active place guide?

Plans for care homes + assisted living/elderly care?

SOUTH WOODHAM FERRERS Landscape, Ecology and Open Space - Feedback from Stage 1 Stakeholder workshops – categorised February 2020

LANDSCAPE, ECOLOGY AND OPEN SPACE

Existing landscape features

Maintenance of Bushey Hill

Radar Hill a key asset; future plans not certain. Brownfield site – does CCC have policies to prevent development?

Mill Hill not currently accessible

Is there water in there permanently? (the stream)

Trees around Edwin’s Hall. Must have been wooded historically

How do you incorporate Radar Hill into wider area? Brownfield and separate to NGA.

Woodland at Radar Hill still accessible, but delicate. How do we plan around it? Do we allow access or seek to protect it? Ensure provision for dog walkers (bins, on-lead areas), to keep away from protected sites. Concern that whole Radar Hill site surrounded by ancient oaks

Garden of Remembrance / allotments Allotments.

Any future use for land next to Garden of Remembrance.

Very little space for allotments

Allotments – waiting list of 80+ in the town

People in development are going to want access to allotments as well, is this going to be sufficient to soak up need? Existing sites managed by allotment management company. Town Council own existing site. If Chelmsford manage this – TC would request that allotments are transferred to them to manage Any allotments – consideration to ongoing management

Travelling showpeople TSP site location could impact on coastal designation SPA (RAMS). Potential contamination to groundwater.

Connectivity Links with open space

Connections between existing town and new development (green routes)

Footpath on west to create link to Ilgar’s Manor

Purple footpath – linking to Sainsbury’s and near old railway, linking into town

Most direct route needs to be provided

Are existing public rights of way going to be improved + maintained? (including bridle paths) Will access routes to north of development be provided?

Cycle paths and footpaths

Footpaths – slopes

Vision is to walk around SWF, without using a road

Land north of red line boundary Land to north of development – what will this be? Any tree planting?

Northern boundary area: would be good to create a proper woodland, with paths. A recreational area. Northern boundary – will this count as open space as part of the allocation!

Suggested that this could be provided in a Land Trust to the TC to manage, rather than this being left to agricultural use. Want whole area to north as open space

Quantity / future management of open spaces Maintenance of landscape in long term. City Council preference to adopt open spaces themselves. 13HA of green space within site

City Council minded to adopt the open space on site

Linking with the park ranger

CCC also maintain PROWs

CCC would be securing open space – ongoing management – conversations still to take place CCC will look to adopt open spaces in due course.

Sports provision Sports provision to serve new community

Sports hub retained – new sports provision for development

Pitches will need to serve whole town – used to have to play elsewhere as pitches in town out of action for most of the year – flooding. Little park space in the town – informal play areas lacking

Make sports provision open for hire.

Any other sports interests other than these mentioned i.e. football + rugby

These proposals will satisfy a need for sports facilities.

Sports provision land? Could accommodate 4/5 pitches

Ecology Water ponds part of landscape and habitat. Will they be permanently filled? Has an impact on habitat Bats using hedgerows

Great Crested Newts in north

Enhancement?

Any species need to be relocated?

Any plans for formal environmental/conservation centre? Primary schools could capitalize on the edition of this Oak trees currently stunted by agricultural use

Cats have wiped out rabbits

Tree planting locations + quantum

Wildflower meadows

Miscellaneous Two SPSs ‘making spaces’ + ‘planning obligations’ being rewritten/refreshed

ECC potentially declaring a climate emergency

People want a gas-free site

Keep development below the top of the hills. Don’t want to see houses travelling south from WF on B1418. SWF Only Parish with coastal designation SPA (RAMS); consultation response provided to ECC. How will this scheme impact on this? CCC has policy of one tree planted for every resident, so c.2,000 trees?

Can school space be made open space until needed? Many buildings lying empty – need for the space. It could be made clear in the beginning that the space is earmarked for education provision Eco town has caused issues - badgers have undermined stability of bridges

Will green space be multifunctional?

How will eastern end of site boundaries be landscaped/screened?

Concerns around how high/far up hill will be developed + visual impact this may have.

How far north is development going?

Cycle paths and footpaths

Impact of new facilities on the existing

Are the water basins wet?

Need some permanent wet features

Oak trees within the development

People at Beaulieu say it’s windy. Need to consider this in detailed design.

Is there a plan for everything that isn’t beige?

Open space on site constrained – if you don’t include the attenuation (drainage). So, in winter this is out of use Hyde Hall and RHS have done a lot of work for live well

Essex Wildlife Trust just down the road

APPENDIX F

Stage 1 response from South Woodham Ferrers Town Council

South Woodham Ferrers Town Council Champions Manor Hall Hullbridge Road South Woodham Ferrers Essex CM3 5LJ 31st January 2020

Dear Paul and Lauren

Please find below the agreed comments from the Town Council from the Workshop sessions held at Champions Manor Hall on 29th January 2020.

Point Raised Discussion Information provided Concerns that the information provided at each table differed from each workshop session, dependant on questions asked resulted in different information and plans being shared. Would have been beneficial if all information at the start of the session was shared, this would then have enabled all members to have received the same information. Rettendon Turnpike Members noted from the infrastructure and highways session that it is clear that junction improvements are required at Rettendon Turnpike this would ease current traffic congestion leaving South Woodham Ferrers. Infrastructure Mitigation Concerns that traffic flow from Maldon / Dengie Concerns when approaching the roundabout at the Garden of Remembrance will turn left onto Ferrers Road and drive through the Town instead of turning right onto Burnham Road which used to be the preferred route, members concerns are that with additional crossings commuters could avoid Burnham Road which would increase the traffic through the Town.

Councillors would welcome initiatives which would ensure commuters through the town are made to use Burnham Road and not go through the Town. Without the proposed development the Town is gridlocked if there is a slight issue on the nearby road network, there are concerns what the implications are on the current infrastructure as it is already beyond capacity. Sustainable transport As indicated the development needs sustainable transport methods. Members would welcome a possible hopper bus throughout the Town linking the new development to the existing development. In addition to this a possible X Bus service would be welcomed, it is appreciated that the whole of South Woodham could not be serviced but a bus to service the Shaw Farm bus stop and then continue to Chelmsford would alleviate rush hour congestion.

Committee agree for Councillor O’Brien to liaise with the bus company regarding the initiatives. Burnham Road Committee would be supportive of a 30mph speed limit with light controlled crossings. Cycle track Committee would be supportive of a defined cycle path separate from the road. Members would not be supportive of a cycle path incorporated within the road as there are concerns that this would not be used and would not encourage sustainable transport methods. Bridges and Underpasses Whilst it has not been presented in the draft to cross Burnham Road Masterplan, Committee would like to reiterate that underpasses and bridges to cross Burnham Road should not be provided due to flooding and security risk with underpasses and there is not sufficient land for the installation of a footbridge due to the gradients and the overlooking into existing homes. Drainage Councillors are concerned that previous local knowledge regarding the ingress of water into Fenn Creek has not been fully considered when the surface water management system has been designed. There are concerns that the surface water management system may support the Countryside development, but it appeared that that the other developer still had concerns about the drainage of the site. Local Centre within the Very minimal information provided as to what this new centre would consist of. Travelling Show Persons The Town Council are not supportive of the site in Site the proposed location opposite the Garden of Remembrance. Due to the nature of the Garden of Remembrance any development should be appropriate to the nature of the garden which is an area of quiet reflection. The site daily has interments and scattering of ashes and emotions are understandably high and development of any kind which could cause noise disturbance is not appropriate. It should be noted that the concern is not that it’s a travelling show people site the concerns would be the same for any development within that area that could cause noise pollution. Members state that a location closer to the Shaw Farm roundabout would be more suitable to ease transport issues with their large caravans and associated equipment. Land use and Open Space As stated in previous communication the Town Council would welcome a belt of trees at the furthest point of the site to mark the end of the development, this is also a welcomed initiative which supports the Town Council and City Councils declared Climate and ecology emergency.

Members would welcome an appropriately sized park for the development for general use to include informal games such as rounders, football, dog walking and picnics. Whilst the sporting grounds are welcomed it is vital that areas are provided that are for occasional / recreational play not organised through sports clubs.

Radar Hill and the associated wood needs protecting, this area is a nature and wildlife habitat and members would welcome this area protected for the wildlife but not necessarily encouraging regular visitors.

The area identified with the cross, what is planned for the area? Not identified during the session.

Land Trust and Members were informed at the tour that the open management of the open spaces would be managed by the Land Trust spaces whereas at the workshops Chelmsford City Council stated that they would me maintaining and managing the area. Could clarification be provided on this item and could the Town Council be involved with discussions particularly regarding the management of the allotments. Allotments Councillors are supportive of allotments within the development sites but in addition to this would welcome development of a serviced allotment site adjacent to the Garden of Remembrance for the provision of allotments. Aspirations The Town Council discussed items which they feel could be addressed within the existing / new development: • Toilet at the riverside, South Woodham is a riverside Town and Committee would welcome signage to the river from the new development and support the installation of toilet facilities at the river to encourage visitors • 4G pitch due to the soil conditions football training areas can often be unusable during wetter months, 4G training facility would ensure that children / adults could still train; • Large adventure play area within the development suitable for a wide age group; • 1,000 capacity small theatre / meeting hall • turning circle within the Sainsbury site to enable buses to turnaround within the site which would encourage residents to use the bus to attend the Crouch Vale Medical Centre and Sainsburys. • Town Council hopper bus

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Karen Hawkes Town Clerk South Woodham Ferrers Town Council DDI: 01245 429441 E: [email protected]

APPENDIX G

Stage 1 response from Essex County Council

Essex County Council County Planning County Hall Chelmsford Essex CM1 1QH

Kathryn Waldon / Steve Price Countryside Properties By email only Our ref: NH/CCC/SGS7/DMF Date: 6 February 2020

Dear Kathryn / Steve

RE: North of South Woodham Ferrers Draft Masterplan Framework (August 2019) – ECC informal single response

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft masterplan framework document for land to the north of South Woodham Ferrers, and respond informally. We have reviewed the draft masterplan and have the following comments to make.

1. Planning (Growth and Development)

Chelmsford’s draft Local Plan – Main Modifications Moving forward masterplanning should consider the policy requirements, as amended by Main Modification 56 to Chelmsford’s draft Local Plan. The Inspectors Report to the Local Plan examination is expected imminently. At present the draft policy requirements, on page 6, refer to Policy SGS7 as submitted. The suggested Main Modifications, provide the latest policy position of Chelmsford City Council, and to which ECC provided no objection. The draft masterplan also makes reference to the need for EYCC provision but, as currently proposed on pages 65 and 69, this is not considered to be consistent with ECC requirements.

Land Ownership The draft Local Plan allocation is currently in multiple ownership (page 27), however it is positive that Countryside is giving consideration to the constraints, context, connectivity and infrastructure requirements for the whole allocation to ensure it is comprehensively planned.

Design Guidance It is clear that consideration has been given to on-site constraints, as well as elements of the immediate setting and wider context of the site, in developing the draft masterplan. Ensuring that the site is appropriately outward facing, in terms of its interface and connectivity to the existing built form of South Woodham Ferrers to the south. Reference to the existing local character on page 18 is positive. We would

1 recommend that relevant guidance is given due consideration, where appropriate; including the Essex Design Guide, which provides thematic guidance on a range of principles (such as active design and an aging population), and the ECC Developers’ Guide to Infrastructure Contributions. These could have an influence on design and the potential siting of infrastructure, services and facilities.

Key Location Principles The identification of key location principles is welcomed; specific comments have been made within the relevant thematic area.

Proposed Scale and Densities We consider it would be helpful to have an indication of the potential mix of densities and building heights across the site to better understand the proposed scale and setting across the development. Densities are particularly important in giving an indication of how this translates into actual dwelling numbers. The potential heights of non-residential buildings such as the proposed school, neighbourhood centre, and employment land would also be helpful.

Indicative Phasing We consider it would be helpful to understand the potential phasing across the site and how this could impact on demand for services and facilities, and infrastructure delivery across the site for example EYCC provision.

Stewardship Commitment, and approach, to the long-term management and maintenance of facilities on-site would be welcomed, such as SUDS and the ‘community-led neighbourhood centre’ among other things. Given the current land ownership arrangement on this site, it is important that management and maintenance across the site is clear and agreed by all interested parties.

2. Highways and Transportation

N/A – Hilary Gore and Emma Robinson attended the masterplan workshop on 29th January.

3. Education and Learning

Early Years and Childcare (EYCC) ECC has a statutory duty under the Childcare Act 2006 to ensure that there is sufficient and accessible high quality EYCC provision to meet local demand.

Based on the development of 1,000 homes, this would generate demand for 90 EYCC places in this location. Chelmsford’s draft Local Plan (policy SGS7) identifies the need

2 for an EYCC facility co-located with the proposed primary school and another standalone facility, or two stand alone facilities should the primary school not be progressed on this site. Whilst the draft masterplan seeks to identify a possible location for the co-located facility on page 65, which is welcomed, it does not identify a location for the second, standalone, facility (0.13ha) required to support this development.

Demand for EYCC provision is also generated by levels of local employment. People often prefer to arrange care for their pre-school age children close to where they work so that they can respond quickly in an emergency. It may be worthwhile considering allocation to the east of the site in the `mixed use/employment’ area, near the existing Hamberts Road employment estate for the second standalone facility. We would however welcome discussions on the potential location of this facility.

Primary and Secondary Mainstream Schools ECC has a statutory responsibility under section 14 of the 1996 Education Act to secure sufficient school places (primary and secondary education) to serve their area. The available schools must be sufficient in number, character and equipment to provide all pupils with the opportunity of an appropriate education. Section 2 of the 2006 Education and Inspections Act further places ECC, as the appropriate local authority, under a duty to secure diversity in the provision of schools and increase opportunities for parental choice.

The preferred general location for the primary school identified in the draft masterplan on page 65 looks acceptable in principle. However, we are concerned about the preferred primary school site itself as illustrated on page 71. The ‘focal square’ the proposed school abuts on to appears to be a shared road space rather than traffic free. The ‘spine street’ meets the square at its northern end and dotted lines are shown moving southwards towards the school, and eastwards out of the square, which we assume indicates traffic moving through the space. This is not acceptable. The focal square must be traffic free and designed in such a way to encourage active travel and discourage inappropriate drop-off.

We appreciate that this is a draft masterplan with a limited amount of detail at this stage, neither the extent of the primary school land, nor access to it, is shown. The site needs to be appropriately outward-facing, and we will therefore also need details of how walking and cycling routes to the town’s other schools link up to the site.

In addition, we need a full Land Compliance Study Report to support the proposed primary school as per section 4.3 (page 23) of the current Developers’ Guide (March 2016).

Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Provision ECC has a statutory responsibility to plan for and deliver SEND facilities. In general the preferred approach is to deliver integrated SEND provision onsite to support need generated from a development of this scale.

The development of around 1,000 homes in this location is likely to generate a need for 7 pupils of primary school age and 4 pupils of secondary school age with SEND requirements whose needs could be met within mainstream education and are supported by an Education, Health and Care Plan.

It would also likely generate a need for 4 pupils of primary school age and 2 pupils of secondary school age who would require a special needs place (either co-located within a mainstream school or in a suitable special school). Where these needs cannot be met onsite through appropriate co-located facilities, then financial contributions will therefore be sought at the planning application stage to enable expansion appropriate schools, as required, to meet SEND demand generated as a result of this proposed development. Further guidance on this will be provided in ECC’s revised Developers’ Guide to Infrastructure Contributions in due course.

4. Employment & Skills

Economic infrastructure observations The Chelmsford draft Local Plan (as amended) states that land north of South Woodham Ferrers should provide “1,000 sqm of business floorspace of a “flexible neighbourhood scale”.

In line with the draft Local Plan growth allocation, the draft masterplan includes the provision of 1,000 sqm of business floorspace, which could include a range of unit sizes and types. This is welcomed. However, the proposals currently envisage locating this space at some distance from the neighbourhood centre (page 66). Whilst it is acknowledged that this would be in proximity to the existing Hamberts Road employment area, it would mean the employment uses would: • be less integrated with the rest of the development, being located at the very south-eastern edge • fail to make a contribution to the vibrancy of the neighbourhood centre, and significantly reducing the contribution that could be made to the success of retail uses through casual usage by employees • be located further away from the rail station than the neighbourhood centre, in a location that would appear to favour car-based movement

A wide range of employment uses could be successfully located in a neighbourhood centre in proximity to residential uses without causing a ‘bad neighbour effect’, with careful consideration to configuration and use types provided.

Consideration should therefore be given to whether some or all of the proposed employment uses could be located within the neighbourhood centre, perhaps in location ‘A3’ as referred to in the draft masterplan (page 66). The proposed/preferred location of the neighbourhood centre (as set out on page 64 of the draft masterplan) would appear to be appropriate, being located towards the centre of the development and in close proximity to the existing town and railway station.

As part of the mix of employment spaces provided (and subject to an up-to-date assessment of needs and demand in the area), ECC would welcome the provision of grow on space as there is an identified shortage of such provision in the county, as has been highlighted by the Essex Economic Commission (2018).

Employment and skills observations Skills levels are a key determinant of a sustainable local economy, but they also have an impact on employment opportunities and thus an individual’s economic prosperity. Improving the skills of the local labour force will be key to maintaining its economic competitiveness.

Securing obligations for employment training of local people will help to ensure that residents are given access to the right skills training so they can take advantage of opportunities created by new development.

It should be noted that ECC is in the process of refreshing its Developer’s Guide, which is in the advanced stages of production. Under this new guidance, this application would be expected to prepare an Employment and Skills Plan (ESP) and make a financial contribution towards skills (both of which measures would be secured as Section 106 obligations). In order to provide an indication of contributions and obligations expected, ECC requires an accurate break-down of the unit mix of the proposed 1,000sqm units and estimated build value. A contribution of £2,000 is expected for every 1,000sqm of development. Contributions and obligations relating to the commercial developments are calculated on the basis of an assumption about the level of net additional employment generated by a development. In order to model this ECC requires a table outlining the use classes/type against estimated sqm.

The developer should be made aware of these potential obligations and we would request that Chelmsford City Council seeks to secure them should the Developer’s Guide be adopted in reasonable time before the application is determined.

5. Public Health and Wellbeing

We are keen to ensure that the benefits to the wider, social determinants of health that can be influenced by this development are optimised and any unintended consequences identified and mitigated against. We would, therefore, encourage the applicant to engage with relevant health and wellbeing stakeholders including

Chelmsford Health and Wellbeing team, Sport England, Mid and South Essex NHS estates partners and social care at ECC to further discuss the proposal and draft masterplan. We would also encourage the applicant to undertake a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) as per guidance from Chelmsford City Council and would wish to be engaged in the scoping of this. It is beneficial that an HIA is carried out at an early stage of the proposal so that issues can be identified and engagement with relevant stakeholders can occur. Methodology, key strategies and priorities, local evidence base and signposting to relevant stakeholders can also be carried out during the scoping phase of the HIA.

We are keen to ensure that the benefits from this development are broadened out to those within the existing community and ensure that community development is part of this scheme. It is also important that those within the population who are impacted upon by health inequalities are considered and details of groups within the population who are more at risk of unintended consequences of development can be found within the Wales Health Impact Assessment Support Unit ‘A Practical Guide’. In addition, the cumulative impact of development within the local area and impact on health and care services should be addressed and we encourage conversations with the relevant stakeholders on this especially NHS colleagues.

We promote the use of Sport England and Public Health England Active Design Principles and would wish to see how these design elements have been considered as part of this development. We will engage with Sport England on any HIA that is produced and would advise that the Sport England Active Design Checklist is part of any assessment that occurs.

We look forward to further engagement with our partners on this project as it progresses and will liaise with Chelmsford Health and Wellbeing team on our future responses.

6. Adult Social Care

From an adult social care perspective, ECC only manages those individuals who need our support and have a care package. It must be ensured that the needs of vulnerable people are reflected in line with our duty under the Care Act 2014 and the wider prevention and maximising independence agendas. This includes reviewing both mainstream/general needs housing, and any specialist housing provision such as supported living, extra care, sheltered housing and residential/nursing care. As part of any development, it needs to be ensured that housing and communities are accessible and inclusive over the life course and enable people to age in place and age well.

The need to consider Specialist Residential Accommodation on sites of 100+ dwellings in Chelmsford’s draft Local Plan policy HO1 is noted. However at this time, we do not consider there to be any specific requirements for supported housing and/or

6 independent living units in this location. Should any demand arise in future, this can/should be accommodated within the affordable housing stock, wherever possible, to promote integration within the wider community. There is also no demand currently for residential/nursing care provision in this location. Flexible and adaptable homes to support the needs of an aging and changing population are preferable. In this context, we would expect this site to deliver at least, and where possible exceed, Chelmsford’s Local Plan requirements for accessible and adaptable homes set out in draft Policy HO1 to ensure the needs of all residents can be met. At the planning application stage, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss this requirement further.

Planning for an aging population should be considered through the design of this proposed development. This need is integrated into the Essex Design Guide for older people, and the principles explored are transferable to all types of care.

7. Travelling Showpeople

We note the draft policy requirement for 5 travelling showpeople plots as part of this development. The rationale for the key location principles is understood, however it would also need to be ensured that there is suitable walking and cycling access from this location to local services and facilities, including healthcare provision, schools etc.

8. Flood Risk & Drainage

N/A – Lee Sencier attended the masterplan workshop on 29th January.

9. Bradwell B – Overhead Power Line Connectivity

We note the reference to utilities provision on pages 40 and 41. We would recommend that reference is made to the emerging Bradwell B Development Consent Order (DCO) process, and the need to connect the electricity generated to the National Grid into the transmission network. The draft masterplan notes that there are existing pylons, as indicated on page 41, but it is likely that these will need to be replaced and upgraded to transmit the electricity from Bradwell to elsewhere, such as Rayleigh substation.

10. Heritage Assets

ECC notes reference to the Chelmsford Local Plan Heritage Assessments Technical Note (March 2017) on page 18, which has been used to inform the consideration of development options to ensure that heritage significance is considered. Reference is made to Edwins Hall, Shaws Farmhouse, Ilgars and Hamberts Farm, and is welcomed. Modification 56, in relation to the historic and natural environment, also makes reference to Tabrums, Wellington Farmhouse and Barns, with regards the need to preserve and where appropriate enhance their setting.

11. Environment

Green infrastructure (GI) is valued for its multifunctionality and the connectedness of the individual features to each other, and the surrounding natural and urban environment. The draft masterplan proposes how it will protect and enhance existing GI features, as well as create new features that contribute positively to the wider network within the development boundary and beyond.

The GI framework seeks to respond to the existing landscape character, qualities and challenges through for example the corridors, edges and topography. This will have a positive impact on local distinctiveness and setting of the development, as well as reducing habitat fragmentation across the GI network. It is positive that the existing PRoW are proposed to be retained and enhanced.

GI should be designed to respond to local GI needs and priorities relating to: - Climate change adaptation and mitigation; - Nature conservation and biodiversity; - Environmental quality; - Health and wellbeing; - Sustainable transport/active travel; - Design of the built and natural environment There appears to be no reference to climate change adaption and mitigation within the draft masterplan however. This is an important theme which we would recommend is drawn out to highlight how this has been considered.

GI should be multifunctional. The reference to natural play areas is welcomed; and would positively contribute to environmental education opportunities. Opportunities for food production such as community orchards and/or community gardens are explored if possible

We would recommend that opportunities for biodiversity enhancements are considered wherever possible, for example through replacing lower value habitats with higher value ones. GI could also be used improve the quality of built features (such as roofs, terraces, facades) and in turn optimises the provision for additional wildlife habitat. At more detailed planning stages, consideration can also be given to local biodiversity enhancement opportunities and landscape-scale conservation priorities, through integral building features (or at appropriate locations) such as bird bricks, bat roost opportunities and insect boxes, to reflect the requirements of species within the area.

With regard to indicative phasing, we would recommend that proposed GI to allow it to mature throughout the construction phase, wherever possible, and provide an established landscape structure for the built form to fit into.

12. Minerals and Waste

ECC in its capacity as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority does not consider there to be any outstanding minerals and waste issues with regard to this site, and therefore has no comment to make at this stage.

13. Conclusion

The response within this letter is in addition to any comments provided by ECC highways and flood risk officers at the recent masterplan workshop on 29th January 2020; and forms an initial, informal view of the Council in relation to its other statutory and non-statutory functions. ECC would welcome opportunities to discuss the points raised within this letter further, particularly with regard to its statutory functions as an infrastructure and service provider.

I hope the above is of assistance – if you require further information on the contents of this single response to the draft masterplan framework for this site, please contact Natalie Hayward (Principal Planner) as detailed below.

Yours sincerely

Graham Thomas Head of Planning and Development

Enquiries to: Natalie Hayward (Principal Planner – Major Development and New Communities) Telephone: 03330322458 Email: [email protected]