Colchester Borough Council Local Plan Publication Draft Consultation

Representations on behalf of Mr Hutley, Mrs Molyneux and Mrs Went

These representations to the Publication Draft Local Plan Consultation are made on behalf of Mr Hutley, Mrs Molyneux and Mrs Went in respect of their land at:

 Lower Road, Peldon;  Wigborough Road, Peldon; and  Colchester Road, West Mersea

Submissions were made on behalf of our clients to the 2014 Call for Sites, the Local Plan Issues and Options Early Stage Public Consultation in January 2015 as well as the Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation in September 2016 in relation to these sites.

Land at Lower Road, Peldon is an irregular shaped parcel of land located to the north of Lower Road. The site is set back from the highway, with an existing access from Lower Road. The site is located centrally between the three main roads of the village, Lower Road, Church Road and St Ives Road. Whilst the site is currently vacant, a dwelling and greenhouses were previously located on the site and indeed used to accommodate the village post office.

Land at Old Hostel Farm, Wigborough Road, Peldon is a rectangular parcel of previously developed land located on the northern side of Wigborough Road, to the south-east of the village of Peldon. The site is a derelict farm and is surrounded by agricultural land. There are detached residential properties opposite the site on the southern side of Wigborough Road. The site is vacant with a number of derelict buildings and overgrown planting.

Land at Colchester Road, West Mersea is a broadly rectangular shaped area of paddock land located to the north of Colchester Road. The site is located on the northern edge of the settlement, positioned to the east of the residential property of no. 10 Colchester Road. The site is let for horticultural use with associated storage of equipment.

Our representations on the Local Plan Publication Draft document are set out below:

PART TWO: LOCAL PLAN FOR COLCHESTER

Vision: Colchester in 2033 and Objectives

We broadly support the vision that the ‘Borough will enable the provision of a wide range of new housing that addresses the need for affordable, well designed and adaptable homes that meet the needs of a diverse market…’ and the sustainable growth objectives particularly to provide high quality housing at accessible locations to accommodate the growing community.

Policy SG1: Colchester’s Spatial Strategy and Table SG1: Spatial Hierarchy

It is supported that growth will be located at the most accessible and sustainable locations.

We support that West Mersea is identified as a sustainable settlement and this reflects the sustainable location of the village and access to facilities and services locally available. It is accepted that ‘Other villages’ such as Peldon will accommodate a more limited amount of development, nonetheless the Local Plan should ensure that it enables sufficient development to come forward in order to provide for the local housing need and to enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Paragraph 12.13 sets out how the Plan continues to define other villages by tightly drawn settlement boundaries, however there is some concern this is overly restrictive and could prevent suitable small scale development coming forward. This is discussed further below under Policy OV1.

Policy SG2: Housing Delivery and Table SG2: Colchester’s Housing Provision

It is supported that the Borough Council will plan to deliver at least 14,720 new homes in Colchester Borough between 2017 and 2033.

We support the recognition that the Borough has a limited and diminishing supply of brownfield sites that can contribute to accommodating new growth and as such new greenfield sites which have been selected on the basis of their sustainable location and deliverability are required.

We support an appropriate level of new development in Sustainable Settlements to maintain the vitality and viability of the Borough’s smaller towns. However, we object that this is restricted to Sustainable Settlements only in Policy SG2 and there is no reference to housing delivery within the ‘Other Villages’. This does not reflect the Spatial Strategy or Spatial hierarchy. In addition, omitting ‘Other Villages’ is contrary to paragraph 55 of the NPPF as there is no differentiation between different rural areas, it refers to rural communities. Villages, such as Peldon, are rural communities and therefore reference to ‘Other Villages’ should be included.

We support that West Mersea has been identified in table SG2 for an estimated minimum housing provision of 200 units; we note this has been reduced from 350 provided within the Preferred Options consultation. It is understood this is to better reflect proportionate growth in the settlement. However, it is suggested there are further sites available around the settlement that would be able to assist with the provision of higher levels of housing to meet the need in the area. This is discussed further against Policy SS12a. As highlighted above, ‘Other Villages’ should also be included in the table.

Policy ENV2: Coastal Areas

It is noted that the policy takes a precautionary approach to restrict development to within the built up areas of the coast. We understand the need for protecting the character of the Coastal Protection Belt (CPB), however we do consider there is some potential for development adjoining the built up areas of the coast, whilst still protecting the unique character. This also reflects the approach taken elsewhere in the Local Plan which suggests potential allocations in West Mersea within the CPB. As such we request that the policy is amended as follows:

‘(i) Requires a coastal location and is located within or adjoining the developed area of the coast;…’

Our client’s land is located in West Mersea and this is discussed further below. However development of the site would provide a housing development that could meet the remaining requirements of Policy ENV2 including:

 it would be safe from flooding and coastal change;  it would not be significantly detrimental to conserving important nature conservation, historic environment assets, maritime uses and the landscape character of the coast;  it would deliver social and economic sustainability benefits through the provision of housing;  opportunities for adaption to climate change would be considered as part of any proposals; and  it would not hinder the potential future creation and maintenance of a continuous signed and managed coastal access route.

Policy SS12a: West Mersea

As referred to above, it is supported that West Mersea is considered to be a sustainable location for some housing growth.

The Plan allocates two sites at West Mersea, Land at Dawes Lane and Land at Brierley Paddock. Both are to provide 100 dwellings. These dwelling numbers are reduced from the Preferred Options Draft and the Sustainability Assessment (SA) informs us the larger “scale of development has been rejected to better reflect proportionate growth in the settlement in consideration of the current number of dwellings in West Mersea and the range of available facilities on the Island.” It is considered that West Mersea has a good range of services and facilities and could accommodate further growth. However, large scale allocations may not be the best approach for the settlement and it is suggested that smaller sites should be considered to assist in meeting the housing need. It is noted that some alternatives sites are considered within the SA however sites located to the north of the settlement should also be considered.

It is noted the Settlement Boundary Review (SBR) outlines that as West Mersea is heavily constrained by its coastal boundaries and the associated wildlife and landscape designations, future expansion is only possible to the east of the town. However we do not agree that future expansion should be restricted to the east and the SBR takes a blanket approach by taking the view that further development would be inappropriate to the north given its prominent location. With suitable mitigation it is considered there is some scope along the northern boundary for development within our client’s land, either on its own or in conjunction with neighbouring sites also put forward.

The SLAA Appendix 3 provides the SLAA site list with the RAG rating but it does not provide the factors the council have specifically based their conclusion on for each site. Whilst the methodology is provided in section 5 of the main body of the report, it is not clear the specifics of how each site was assessed. Our client’s land is identified in the SLAA, reference MER07, and it was discounted at the 1a sieve stage. However we do not know specifically the reasons for it being discounted. As such, we have considered the site against the assessment criteria outlined in section 5 of the SLAA for stage 1a and outline the following:

 The site is greenfield, but not within flood zone 3  It is suitable for more than 5 dwellings and the site is larger than 0.25ha  The site is not physically separate from the existing development boundary or outside a vicinity of potential growth – the site’s southern boundary adjoins the West Mersea settlement boundary.  The site is within the Coastal Protection Belt, but it is not considered that development would have a significant negative effect on a designated site. Furthermore it is not clear from the Council’s perspective how they would determine whether a site would cause a significant negative effect or not. In this case, the site is approx. 0.5 miles from the Blackwater Estuary SSSI and SPA, and there is mature boundary treatment screening the site from wider viewpoints.  The site can be accessed from the public highway.

As such using the SLAA’s own methodology there is no reason for the site to fail the Stage 1a first sieve.

For further clarity we have also applied the second sieve at stage 1b to our client’s site, the following is relevant:

 The site is not allocated  The site is not protected for another use  There is no other reason, such as an issue with the site’s deliverability, that would indicate a full site assessment would not be necessary

Therefore, we are of the view that the site passes both the stage 1a and stage 1b sieving processes. The SLAA rating appears inconsistent in comparison with similarly located sites. For example the neighbouring site at MER03 passes the 1a sieve but fails the 1b sieve. It is not clear what differences the site at MER03 has to pass stage 1a, yet our client’s site is discounted.

Looking more closely at the site proposed for allocation at Dawes Lane, it is also in the Coastal Protection Belt and has a similar relationship in terms of its position along the northern boundary of the settlement, yet it passes the 1a and 1b sieve to be fully considered for its suitability, availability and achievability. Our client’s site should have been considered fully for its suitability, availability and achievability as part of the SLAA. Each of these factors are considered below:

 Suitability: Overall the site is well located adjoining the existing settlement boundary to the south. Due to the well-established hedgerows and planting the site is screened from public vantage points along Colchester Road or the public footpath running along the north boundary of the site. Additional screening could be incorporated through landscaping and boundary treatment. It is recognised the site is within the CPB, however it would be in accordance with Policy ENV2 and the design, layout and landscaping would seek to minimise the impact on the surrounding landscape, protecting the character of the area and the Coastal Belt. The site has access to transport options and local services and facilities available in West Mersea. The client has instructed highway consultants to undertake a feasibility review of the site. This found, subject to more detailed investigations as the site progresses, there would be development potential to provide a suitable access from Colchester Road and it is unlikely there would be any significant highway constraints.

 Availability: the site is promoted for development and there are no issues in relation to site ownership. The site is not intensively used and therefore would not prevent development on the site coming forward based on existing use value considerations.

 Achievability: There are no viability constraints known; there is no ransom strip that would restrict development; the land is not protected for an alternative use; there is no known contamination; any necessary infrastructure would come forward with the development; the site does not have a history of unimplemented permissions; and there are no other known reasons why the development would have a significant effect on the deliverability of the site.

The site is therefore suitable, available and deliverable for sustainable development of housing and should be considered as part of the Local Plan.

Policy OV1: Development in Other Villages

It is welcomed that the policy supports a level of new development in ‘Other Villages’, however it is considered this is overly restricted, particularly within Peldon. The settlement boundary is such that there is very little opportunity for development to come forward, given that it mainly consists of the existing residential provision in the village. Whilst it is not suggested that large amounts of land should be released in rural parts of the Borough, allocating some small areas of land would support the vitality of these communities and would not conflict with the objectives for sustainable development.

Our client’s site at Lower Road, Peldon is identified in the SLAA reference RSE21. It is given an overall amber rating, but suitability is rated red. It is not clear why the SLAA indicates a red rating.

The site is primarily located to the rear of the existing dwellings fronting Lower Road and it is accessed directly from Lower Road. It is noted the Settlement Boundary Review refers to the settlement pattern as being characterised by established frontages and suggesting that backland development would be discouraged. However whilst the site is currently vacant, it’s historic use previously consisted of a bungalow and greenhouses and a post office therefore development in this location formed part of the characteristics of the village. The site itself is of historic importance to the village as the post office was used to house the crew of the German Zeppelin after it crashed at Little Wigborough in 1916. The additional benefit of development in this location is that it would not significantly encroach on the countryside around the village and would not extend beyond the triangular area of the village defined by Lower Road, Church Road and Mersea Road. The trees could be retained as much as possible and incorporated into the scheme. The trees would also provide screening to integrate the development and it would be respectful of the amenities of occupiers of existing residential properties. The site is well located relative to the existing facilities in the area, including the play area, public house, church and village hall. There are bus connections to the wider area.

Overall there are no significant constraints to development at the site, it is considered suitable, available and deliverable for the provision of housing.

Policy DM5: Tourism, Leisure, Culture and Heritage

Policy DM5 of the draft Local Plan is welcomed in respect of the support this provides to the tourism sector in Colchester and the recognition given to the importance of this industry to the Borough’s economy.

It is recognised that para 15.21 outlines that for rural areas ‘in order to maximise the benefits of tourism to rural economies it is important to locate new tourism development in locations where visitors can help to support local shops, pubs and other rural services’. Whilst this is important, consideration should also be given to reusing land that has been previously developed. This would accord with the objectives of the NPPF and also paragraph 28 of the NPPF to support sustainable rural tourism that benefits businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside.

Consideration is being given to the progression of proposals for creation of a scheme of holiday lodges on the previously developed former piggeries site owned by our clients at Old Hostel Farm, Wigborough Road, Peldon. The site is well located to support the villages within Winstred Hundred Parish (Peldon, Salcott cum Virley and Wigboroughs (Great and Little)), along with the nearby areas including Mersea Island, Maldon, Colchester and the North Essex Coast. Given the previous use on the land, the topography of the site and the well-established boundary hedgerows, it is not considered that development of the site would have a significant impact on the character of the local environment.

It is recognised that the site is located outside the settlement boundary. It is included in the SLAA site reference RSE22 and it was given a red rating at the 1a sieve stage. As per our comments above, we request the full assessment for the SLAA sites as it is not clear if the previously developed use of the site has been taken into consideration and its location to Peldon and the wider area. The feasibility review carried out by the highways consultants instructed by our client confirms there is unlikely to be any restriction in providing an access to accord with highway standards. As such, new opportunities for the delivery of rural economic growth on brownfield land, in a location such as our client’s site, should be a key consideration within the policy.

Overall it is important that the Local Plan enables sufficient development to come forward in order to provide for the local housing need and rural economy, and to ensure it is not overly restrictive to enable the enhancement or maintenance of the vitality of rural communities. Our clients’ sites, as detailed above, are suitable, available and achievable for development during the Plan period and would support the rural communities of Peldon and West Mersea, along with the wider area.

Boyer August 2017