Local Plan

Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on Preferred Options Local Plan - Garden Communities

Representation ID: 3225

OBJECT R F West Ltd represented by Andrew Martin Planning (Mr Andrew Martin)

Summary:

This text confirms the importance of the proposed Garden Communities to the spatial strategy for growth in the new Local Plan. Paragraph 6.94 refers to the 'broad locations' that have been selected and "made on the basis of their levels of sustainability and deliverability, using evidence gathered on environmental constraints, infrastructure requirements, development capacity, and viability". It is submitted that the Plan is not supported by a plan indicating these broad locations. Identification of the new communities is shown on a key diagram that is not on an Ordnance Survey base.

More details about Rep ID: 3225

Representation ID: 3099

OBJECT CAUSE (ROSIE PEARSON)

Summary:

Object - see response to part one - insufficient evidence to support the selection of sites. No infrastructure plan, external costs ignored, no appropriate traffic modelling and no acceptable viability study. Sustainability Appraisal conclusions flawed.

More details about Rep ID: 3099

Representation ID: 2660

COMMENT Historic England -East of England (Ms N Gates)

Summary:

Garden Communities

We would refer you to our comments made above in Chapter 2 and our previous comments made in our letter dated 27 February 2015.

More details about Rep ID: 2660

Representation ID: 2297

SUPPORT R F West, Livelands & David G Sherwood represented by Andrew Martin Planning (Mr Andrew Martin)

Summary:

We support the emphasis in the paragraphs under this heading that refer to the importance of new communities within the wider spatial strategy for growth.

More details about Rep ID: 2297

Representation ID: 1501

COMMENT Mr Nigel Sagar

Summary:

The need for more housing is not in question. Garden villages have major potential drawbacks. The modern context is different from that of the original garden cities . Communities grow organically along with changing demands and density, making their design problematic. While Colchester is being re-imagined e.g garrison area, there remains huge potential to master plan further density to enhance heritage sites around St Botolphs, St Mary', New Town and many other areas. Garden villages risk being isolated, placing high loads on roads and infrastructure. Any building outside the town MUST be premised on improved roads before housing

More details about Rep ID: 1501

Representation ID: 1478

SUPPORT Cllr Tim Young

Summary:

As the Portfolio Holder with responsibility for the Local Plan I have to be circumspect in my comments but rest assured that all reasonable comments will be taken on board by me and the administration. As a ward councillor for Greenstead I do support the comments made by my fellow ward councillors.

More details about Rep ID: 1478

Representation ID: 1167

OBJECT Mr Derek Marriott

Summary:

I write regarding the housing development proposed to the west of Marks Tey. The plan at the moment is a draft, so details are vague, but various reports suggest as many as 28,000 homes may be built which would change the character of the area immensely.

Infrastructure provision is inadequate or non-existent. A120 improvements, additional rail service provision, healthcare provision and employment considerations need to be specified and made part of an integrated plan for the area. Purely building houses is not a viable option since all local facilities are already oversubscribed or inadequate.

More details about Rep ID: 1167

Representation ID: 188

COMMENT Cllr Peter Chillingworth

Summary:

As one of the ward councillors for Rural North taking in Great Tey, I am aware of the concern of residents that such a large development is proposed for the area permanently changing the landscape and social structure.

However, I also recognise the need for new homes and accept that the Marks Tey area is potentially one of the most sustainable in the Borough.

I do strongly propose that no development is started at West Tey until the proposed new A120 route in decided on and work commences. No houses must be occupied until the new route is open.

More details about Rep ID: 188

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult

Related Articles