Annex 1

MALDON DISTRICT PRE SUBMISSION LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 2014- 2029 – ECC RESPONSE

Introduction

Maldon District Council has published for public consultation its Pre-Submission Local Development Plan, 2014-2029 between 22 January and 12 March 2014. The Local Plan sets out the planning strategy for the future growth in Maldon District over the next 15 years. The spatial strategy seeks to deliver the required future employment, homes, retail, community facilities and infrastructure provision over this period. The pre-submission consultation is the formal consultation stage prior to submission to the Secretary of State for examination, and any representations can only refer to the soundness of the plan and legal matters. In order to demonstrate the plan is `sound’ an inspector will need to be satisfied that the Local Plan is:

i. Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development; ii. Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence; iii. Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and iv) Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery

The response of ECC to the Pre-Submission Local Plan consultation is set out under the following sections, which comment respectively on,

A) ECC involvement under Duty to Cooperate requirements B) Identification of key infrastructure C) North Heybridge and South Maldon Strategic Drainage D) Clarification of the role of `Reserve Sites (Policy S2 – Strategic Growth) E) Consistency with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)  Policy N2 - Natural Environment, Geodiversity and Biodiversity  Appendix 5 – Site Designations/Proposals Map  Policy I1 – Infrastructure and Services F) Suggested Amendments to Supporting text

A) ECC involvement under Duty to Cooperate requirements

ECC supports paragraph 1.10 of the Local Plan and has been actively involved in the preparation of all iterations of the emerging Local Plan.

ECC has undertaken numerous highway and education assessments (see section B below), participated in duty to cooperate meetings with neighbouring districts (officer and member level), with in particular (BDC) and City Council (CCC). These have highlighted cross boundary issues at stages in the Plan’s preparation, and resulted in potential solutions being identified. ECC is keen to agree a `Statement of Common Ground’ on Duty to Cooperate (highway issues) with Maldon DC, Chelmsford City and Braintree District prior to submission of the Plan.

Cross boundary issues identified by neighbouring authorities included the following:

1. The potential impact of 300 dwellings at (Preferred Option Plan) on the B1012 and Rettendon Turnpike (A130/A132 junction, near (issue raised by CCC) 2. Potential impact of additional secondary school pupils attending secondary schools in Chelmsford City (issue raised by CCC) 3. Impact of additional trips from Maldon on the proposed North East Chelmsford Rail Station, Boreham (issue raised by CCC) 4. Congestion on the A414 between Maldon and Chelmsford, particularly in relation to congestion at Danbury – Eves Corner (issue raised by CCC and ECC) 5. Congestion on the B1019 / B1137 junction at Hatfield Peverel (issue raised by BDC and ECC)

Following an assessment of primary school capacity at neighbouring primary schools, and a review of the spatial strategy by Maldon DC the housing allocation in North Fambridge was reduced from 300 to 75 dwellings. This has alleviated concerns of CCC. The catchment of The Plume is relatively self contained, with limited pupils travelling outside of the catchment to secondary schools in Chelmsford.

ECC considered the impact of new development on the NE Chelmsford Rail Station (Wider Highway Network Report, December 2013), and concluded there would be a negligible impact on commuter movements, and any additional traffic could be accommodated within the committed improvements at Boreham Interchange.

The Technical Note titled `Impact of Proposed Development Sites in Heybridge and South Maldon on Wider Highway Network (December, 2013)’ identified and costed potential mitigation at Eves Corner, in the form of `pre-signals’, which would help maintain the free flow of traffic along the A414 strategic highway route. ECC supports the reference to this issue in paragraph 2.66, page 32)

With regards the B1019/B1137 junction at Hatfield Peverel the same report noted that the junction is already a concern at peak periods, and the planned growth will exacerbate this situation. A number of options have been considered by ECC but are not considered a viable short term solution, largely due to a lack of physical space.

ECC will work with MDC to raise the profile of the requirement for a new junction on the A12 with neighbouring authorities, the Highways Agency, the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP), and Central Government. Due to the significant costs associated with the implementation of a new junction, strategic improvements to the A12 are beyond the scope of the LDP at this current time. ECC supports the reference to this issue in paragraph 2.67 and 2.68)

B) Identification of Key Infrastructure

ECC has undertaken a considerable amount of work to identify the necessary infrastructure required to deliver the planned growth in Maldon District (ie highway/education). This is a key requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), as indicated in paragraph 7 (to support economic role of sustainable development); paragraph 21 (to address any lack of infrastructure); paragraph 177 (district wide development costs); and paragraph 179 (wider infrastructure impacts). The wider impacts have been considered under Duty to Cooperate (see section A).

ECC provided information regarding the infrastructure baseline position of ECC services, as outlined in the `Maldon District Infrastructure Delivery Plan – Baseline Report, June 2012’

The Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP) has been published to consider the need, location, costs, and delivery of infrastructure to support the production of the LDP and meet the requirements of the NPPF.

To support the production of the emerging and Pre Submission Local Plan the following studies have been undertaken, in partnership with Maldon DC, to consider the impact of planned growth on the local and wider highways network.

 Impact of Potential Core Strategy Sites on Existing Junctions Report (2010)  Assessment of Impact of Proposed Development Sites in Heybridge, South Maldon and Burnham on Crouch (May 2013)  Assessment of Alternative Growth Options (July, 2013)  Further Assessment of the impact of Proposed Development Sites in Heybridge and South Maldon on Highway Network, (November, 2013)  Technical Note – Impact of Proposed Development Sites in Heybridge and South Maldon on Wider Highway Network (December, 2013)  Reallocation of 335 Dwellings from South Maldon to Heybridge (December 2013)

ECC has also undertaken comprehensive assessments of iterations of the Local Plan, and in particular the Pre Submission Local Plan with regards the impact on early years and childcare; primary and secondary education. Particular emphasis has been placed on the capacity of the Plume Academy to accommodate the pupil product arising from development.

The necessary highway and education infrastructure to deliver the planned growth is identified in the following sections of the Local Plan:

Policy S4 – Maldon and Heybridge Strategic Growth (page 26), and paragraphs 2.54, 2.64 and 2.66 Policy S6 – Burnham on Crouch Strategic Growth (page 38) , and paragraphs 2.84, 2.87

ECC has provided necessary mitigation at key highway junctions, new North Heybridge Relief Road; new A414/Wycke Hill By Pass, need for additional education facilities; reconfiguration/expansion of The Plume, and new early years and childcare and primary schools. County Council has provided estimated costs of the above, and which have been considered as part of the Viability Study 2013 (and Update), which in turn has informed the Infrastructure Delivery Plan Update (Dec 2013).

C) North Heybridge and South Maldon Strategic Drainage

ECC welcomes reference in Policy S4 to the need to provide a strategic flood alleviation scheme as part of the North Heybridge Garden Suburb. References restricting development north of the Relief Road to strategic flood alleviation measures is welcomed.

The area presently identified at North Heybridge is presently subject to strategic drainage issues, which in turn lead to more local surface water flooding issues along Holloway Road. Paragraph 100, NPPF refers to the opportunity of `using opportunities offered by new development to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding’’. The development of this site would provide an opportunity to change how the land to the north of Heybridge is drained, and therefore reduce the risk of flooding to the Holloway Road area.

In order to accommodate the level of planned housing ECC has undertaken highway modelling, which has identified the need for a new North Heybridge Relief Road between Broad Street Green Road and Langford Road to provide `nil detriment’ at two key junctions in North Heybridge.

The development of this site and the new Relief Road would provide an opportunity to change how the land to the north of Heybridge is drained, and therefore reduce the risk of flooding to the existing urban area. The construction of new attenuation basins north of the new link road could provide an opportunity to prevent surface water immediately draining into ditches downstream, and detention basins could act as temporary storage for water north of the Relief Road.

ECC, Environment Agency, Maldon District Council and the developer are committed to working in partnership to deliver the most appropriate scheme. This will partly be progressed as part of the masterplanning process of the new Garden Suburb

The same approach and considerations should also be given to the proposals for the South Garden Suburb in terms of strategic surface water management, with particular consideration of the predicted risks and preferred surface water management strategy identified within the Maldon & Heybridge Surface Water Management Plan 2012.

D) Clarification of the role of `Reserve Sites (Policy S2 – Strategic Growth)

ECC has undertaken a detailed assessment of the impact of growth identified at North Heybridge and South Maldon on the ability of The Plume to accommodate this growth on site. This is further complicated due to the split site nature of The Plume. Policy S4 and supporting text 2.54 indicate that some reconfiguration, expansion and enhancement will be necessary at The Plume.

ECC has assessed the impact using the latest `Commissioning for Places’ document, and housing mix agreed with the local authority and developers. The Plume Academy is forecast to be at capacity for admissions to Year 7 in September 2016 without any additional growth resulting from new housing in the Local Plan. However, with pressure easing in subsequent years it is considered possible to accommodate the identified growth through projects at both the lower and upper school sites.

However, it is considered unlikely that any additional growth above that identified in the Pre Submission Plan could be able to be accommodated on site.

Policy S2 includes reference to `reserve sites’ at Maldon (800 dwellings) and Burnham on Crouch (100 dwellings) to provide additional flexibility to the strategy, and which will be monitored with regards the need for their release. Paragraph 2.34 outlines the factors to be considered in reviewing the need to release these sites and emphasises that their release will not `prejudice the delivery of the Plan as a whole’. ECC has indicated that it is considered unlikely that The Plume will be able to accommodate any additional growth, above that identified, on site.

In order to provide clarification to the role of these sites ECC would welcome the inclusion of the thrust of paragraph 2.34 into Policy S2. Consequently, ECC seeks an additional sentence be added to Policy S2 stating:

`In the event of the need to release reserve sites the Council will ensure that their release will not prejudice the delivery and viability of the Plan as a whole’’

E) Consistency with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Policy N2 – Natural Environment, Geodiversity and Biodiversity

The County Council recommends that the wording should be amended to more accurately reflect current national biodiversity conservation policy as expressed in the Governments Natural Environment White Paper and Biodiversity Strategy for ('Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services'). The NPPF incorporates many of the key points from these publications that are relevant to the local planning system and encourages Local Planning Authorities to address them when developing Local Plans.

A greater focus should be given to Local Sites, Biodiversity Offsetting, Priority Habitats and Priority Species. To assist the District Council ensure greater conformity with the biodiversity elements of the NPPF, a short paper which has recently been produced by Place Service Ecologists with support from Natural England has been attached to this representation. It sets-out recommended policy wording encompassing a number of biodiversity matters that are capable of being a material consideration.

Finally, the interrelationship between Priority Habitats and Species; the Natural Environmental Rural Communities Act 2006 and the UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plans could be clearer in the proposed Local Plan text. This is a common issue, and the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management have provided the following guidance below to assist policy planners.

In recent years there has been some confusion and uncertainty over the use of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) list as a material planning consideration in England. The uncertainty has arisen as a consequence of the publication of Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services (2011) to replace the previous England Biodiversity Strategy, coupled with the replacement of the UK BAP itself with the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (2012). Biodiversity issues are now devolved. These new strategies and framework resulted in changes in the terminology used to describe priority habitats and species in England.

Previous planning policy (and some supporting guidance which is still current, eg ODPM Circular 06/2005, now under revision), refers to UK BAP species as being a material consideration in the planning process. Equally many local plans refer to BAP priority habitats and species. Both remain as material considerations in the planning process but such habitats and species are now described as Species and Habitats of Principal Importance for Conservation in England, or simply priority habitats and priority species. The list of habitats and species remains unchanged and is still derived from Section 41 list of the Natural Environmental and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. As was previously the case when it was a BAP priority species hen harrier continues to be regarded as a priority species although it does not appear on the Section 41 list. So the same species and habitats are of material consideration for planning purposes as previously was the case, they are just referenced using different terminology.

Given the relatively recent nature of these changes you will still see references in local plans and some Government or Government agency documents and circulars to BAP habitats and species. As stated above these same habitats and species remain material considerations in planning albeit they are now referred to either as habitats and species of principal importance or simply priority habitats and priority species.

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectan dmanage/habsandspeciesimportance.aspx

ECC recommends the following changes to be consistent with the NPPF.

Paragraph 2, sentence 2 – amend to read

`Any development which could have an adverse effect on sites with designated features, priority habitats and/or protected or priority species, either individually or cumulatively, will require an assessment as required by the relevant legislation or national planning guidance’

Mitigation Measures – amend last sentence to read

`Any compensatory habitat created should be ecologically functional in advance of the loss, and located to ensure a positive contribution to the local ecological network.’

Amend 2nd paragraph to read

`If any protected species and/or priority habitats/species or…….’

Amend Point 1 to read

1) There is no net loss of habitats in terms of quantity, quality and connectivity to the local ecological network; and

Appendix 5 – Site Designations and Proposals Map

The NPPF requires Minerals Planning Authorities to define Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) within their Local Plans so that known locations of specific minerals are not needlessly sterilised by other forms of development, whilst not creating a presumption that the defined resources will ever be worked. The County Council has done this through Policy S8 (Safeguarding mineral resources and mineral reserves) in the Replacement Minerals Plan Pre-Submission Draft January 2013, which was submitted for examination in July 2013, and a hearing held in November 2013. It is necessary to safeguard existing mineral workings and Preferred Sites to prevent the possibility of new incompatible neighbours being established and ultimately restricting extraction activities. Mineral Consultation Areas (MCAs) apply to the safeguarded site itself and extend for a distance of 250 metres outwards from the site boundary of each of these safeguarded sites.

The following are defined in the Minerals Plan as ‘safeguarded sites’ for the purposes of protecting mineral workings and existing mineral reserves (MCAs):  mineral extraction sites and their associated facilities with planning permission that are currently in active mineral use,  mineral extraction sites with unimplemented planning permission for minerals extraction (including ‘dormant’ sites with extant planning permission for mineral extraction that have remained unimplemented for some years)  Preferred Sites proposed in the Replacement Minerals Local Plan for future mineral extraction

There are 5 active quarries in Maldon which are associated with MCAs, these are , Royal Oak, , Cobbs Farm and Curry Farm. The Mineral Safeguarding Areas should be identified on the Local Plan Policies Map.

Policy I1 – Infrastructure and Services

ECC welcomes the general thrust of this policy in relation to criteria 1 -4, and in particular the willingness;  to protect and/or improve existing infrastructure to meet existing and future needs of the District; and  to maximise opportunities for reconfiguration, expansion and co location of facilities to improve capacity, accessibility and viability

However, ECC would like to see more positive support given in policy terms for the improvement and expansion of existing schools, regarded as `social infrastructure’. Schools evolve over time to reflect changes in educational practice and operational requirements that better meet, and improve, future educational quality and standards. This results in proposals for remodelling and reconfiguration of school sites that are likely to require extension of buildings beyond the existing built footprint on school sites. It may not be possible to obtain the required educational outcomes without using parts of school playing fields.

NPPF (Paragraph 72) attaches great importance to ensuring sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities, and to ensure a wide choice in education. ECC considers that an additional bullet should be added to Policy I1to read,

 `The re-modelling and expansion of education and childcare facilities, including necessary development on school playing fields will be supported where it is proven that such expansion is the most appropriate way to meet local need.'’

With supporting text, to read,

'There are 18 existing primary schools and 2 secondary Academies (July 2012) in the District. There is a need for these important facilities to continue to be fit for purpose to deliver high standard educational provision. Where schools are retained in education use the Council will support their re-modelling and expansion to meet local need, where appropriate.'

Policy S3 – Place Shaping

ECC would welcome amendment to part of this policy to provide clarification with regards the definition of `landscape character’. It should be noted that the historic environment refers to both the landscape and the built form. Reference to `landscape character’ ignores the importance of the built form with regards the character of an area.

ECC would seek an amendment to point 4 to ensure `landscape character’ refers to both the built and non built environment.

4. The historic environment is instrumental in establishing landscape and built form character and providing….

F) Suggested Amendments to Supporting text

Paragraph 1.29 – in order to provide the appropriate representation of the Historic Environment reference should be made to the 3154 sites of archaeological interest, as recorded in the Historic Environment Record, and referred to in Policy D3 – Conservation and Heritage Assets

Paragraph 2.55 – ECC seeks an amendment to paragraph 2.55 to more appropriately reflect the impact of planned growth in the Pre Submission Plan, and to provide flexibility once the detailed housing mix is known.

`The planned growth will generate the need for two new primary schools, one in Maldon and Heybridge. The school site in Heybridge will require a site area of approximately 1.1 ha, whilst the school in Maldon will require a site area of approximately 2.1 ha. This will enable both school sites to accommodate early years and childcare provision. An additional early years and childcare facility is required in both Maldon and Heybridge. The school sites will need to be located with good access to the existing urban area, and within the garden suburb, and be served by safe and direct walking and cycling routes.’

Paragraph 2.57 – ECC welcomes reference to the requirement to deliver a strategic flood alleviation scheme at North Heybridge by the relevant developers.

Paragraph 2.83 – ECC seeks an amendment to paragraph 2.83 to appropriately reflect up to date evidence.

`The pupil roll for the Ormiston Academy is forecast to remain relatively stable at around 700 – 800 pupils’

Paragraph 2.84 – ECC considers the 2nd and 3rd sentences should be amended to provide some clarification.

`There is some surplus primary school capacity that could be accommodate the pupil yield from the planned growth located within the priority admissions areas for the two schools. There would, however, be a need to replace any existing temporary accommodation with permanent accommodation.’

Paragraphs 3.5 (page 47), 3.9 (page 48), 3.60 (page 60) and Appendix 2 (page 131) should refer to the current edition of the Essex Design Guide which was adopted in 2005.

Paragraph 3.8 – the design approach is outlined in Policy D1 and S3. NPPF, paragraph 62 recommends that local design review arrangements are in place to provide assessment and support high standards of design. Some wording could read:

`A design review will be undertaken by a suitably trained design specialist on major schemes and by a panel of experts on strategically important schemes’

Paragraph 3.53 – Consideration should also be given to encouraging rainwater harvesting, grey water recycling on new development.

Paragraph 3.55 – reference should also be made to the following key evidence base documents:  Flood and Water Management Act 2010  CIRA SuDS Manual (C697)  Draft Sustainable Drainage Systems – Design and Adoption Guide (ECC, July 2012)

Paragraph 8.12 – ECC considers 3rd sentence should be amended to provide additional clarification concerning the Commissioning school places document.

`Examples….., the Commissioning School Places in Essex document produced annually by ECC to provide information on the current location and supply of school places, forecasts of future pupil numbers and identify where expansions in school capacity are likely to be required to accommodate growth in pupil numbers, including growth generated by new housing development’.