Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.
If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.
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.
COMMENT R F West Ltd represented by Andrew Martin Planning (Mr Andrew Martin)
Policy recognises the need for supporting infrastructure to serve the needs of development and importance of focusing growth in sustainable locations in the urban areas to take advantage of existing provision.
Land to the west of Stanway has good access to a range of services and facilities via different modes of transport and is within walking distance of many. It lies adjacent to existing bus stops and will justify an extension/enhancement to established routes. A proposed mixed use scheme would complement the existing mix of residential, commercial and employment uses and provide a primary school for new and existing residents.
More details about Rep ID: 3211
COMMENT Gladman Development (Mr P Isherwood)
See submission for full text. Summary of points raised:
Gladman recognise that there is a need for new development to provide the new infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the needs of the area. However, any policy including specific requirements for infrastructure should be tested, alongside other policies in the Plan, through the whole plan viability assessment to ensure that the cumulative impacts of all proposed local standards and policy requirements do not put the implementation of the Plan as a whole at risk (paragraph 174 of the Framework) To date, it does not appear that this assessment has been undertaken.
More details about Rep ID: 3136
OBJECT Marks Tey Parish Council (Mr. Allan Walker)
The Local Plan should commit to exploring in conjunction with the imminent
A12 upgrade, and the decision on a route for an improved A120, for early
options to release the effects of the A120 on Marks Tey (and Coggeshall
and Kelvedon/Feering) and should not commit to any occupation of new
dwellings before the existing infrastructure deficits have been overcome.
Again, clear and unambiguous statements should be included within the
Local Plan to this effect.
More details about Rep ID: 3109
OBJECT CAUSE (ROSIE PEARSON)
More appreciation of rail constraints, particularly towards London where there are significant doubts about line capacity. No comfort given that adequate healthcare facilities will be provided in advance of development. Add wording to provide net betterment for existing residents whose lives are affect. Add extra bullet point providing for link road between A133 and A120 near Elmstead Market to be constructed before dwellings occupied in East Garden Settlement. Add paragraph - No planning permission within garden settlements until development can demonstrate infrastructure can be delivered before or alongside housing and standards will exceed national average.
More details about Rep ID: 3065
COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Martin Barrell)
Policy SP4 - Infrastructure and Connectivity
Whilst we acknowledge that this policy currently focuses principally on transport and broadband, we would highlight that there is no similar overarching policy that addresses other 'environmental' infrastructure requirements. For example, there is no reference to the need to provide further waste water or flood risk infrastructure to help accommodate the proposed growth. We suggest that the need for similar overarching policy references are considered.
More details about Rep ID: 3054
OBJECT Churchmanor Estates Compnay PLC (Martin Robeson) represented by Martin Robeson Planning Practice (Mr Martin Robeson)
An IDP is noted but this is only now being developed. We hope that such documentation is available in advance of this plan being published at its pre-submission stage.
Whilst it is welcome the A12 is to have major improvements there needs to be a co-ordinated understanding of how these improvements can lever out the release of land for suitable development purposes nearby.
The policy is generally welcomed, the critical issue is concerned with how its priorities will be delivered.
More details about Rep ID: 3034
OBJECT Mr Mike Lambert
Unless or until there is certainty that major improvements to the A120 can be funded and implemented there can be no formal commitment through the Local Plan to a scale of growth proposed under any of the four options in the Aecom report - the Local Plan would be undeliverable.
More details about Rep ID: 2871
COMMENT Historic England -East of England (Ms N Gates)
We note the aspiration set out in paragraphs 3.58-3.60 and policy SP4 for dualling the A120 between Braintree and the A12. We have been invited to be part of the Highways England Environmental Forum. We would note that the A120 is a historic route through Essex and as such there is great archaeological potential, alongside the potential impacts on heritage assets, which may vary, depending on the options developed.
In respect of broadband we would expect to see reference, though not a hyperlink, (paragraphs 3.72 and 3.73) to the Cabinet Siting and Pole Siting Code of Practice
More details about Rep ID: 2635
COMMENT Myland Community Council (Mrs Harris)
Recognition of the emerging trend for working from homes should be a consideration across all developments not just rural areas, e.g. this could reduce commuting pressures but reliable high speed broadband would be key.
MCC recognises the vital need to 'ensure adequate provision of healthcare facilities' and urges this to action both physical and mental health.
More details about Rep ID: 2485
OBJECT Myland Community Council (Mrs Harris)
The recognition of education needs should be expanded to highlight 'early years' and 'adult education'.
The need for 'sustainable forms of transport, including walking and cycling' would be assisted if it was ensured that accessibility routes were suitably and effectively linked across neighbourhoods and to prime destinations.
The listed strategic objectives should include ensuring the protection of natural and historic assets.
More details about Rep ID: 2484
OBJECT Hopkins Homes represented by Pegasus Group (Nicky Parsons)
My client objects to the wording of the first paragraph of this policy, which states that development must be supported by infrastructure, services and facilities identified to serve the needs arising from the development. A developer is rarely the provider of infrastructure. A good example of this is healthcare provision. A developer can reasonably be required to contribute towards healthcare (in the absence of CIL) but cannot be responsible for delivering the healthcare facility.
These same concerns are relevant to the wording of paragraph 2.70. Revised wording suggested in full response.
More details about Rep ID: 2425
COMMENT R F West, Livelands & David G Sherwood represented by Andrew Martin Planning (Mr Andrew Martin)
The emerging plan confirms in particular that growth promoted will need to be supported by appropriate transport infrastructure. Early publication of an IDP is vital to confirm detail about phasing and costing of infrastructure requirements.
More details about Rep ID: 2278
COMMENT Essex County Council (Matthew Jericho)
Minor wording changes to clarify infrastructure issues in relation to transport and proposed. On education - policy requiring sufficient school places supported, but this should include early years and childcare places.
More details about Rep ID: 2266
COMMENT North East Essex Clinical Commissioning Group (Jane Mower)
Ensure policies will not have adverse impact on healthcare provision. appropriate mitigation will be sought in instances where development is in areas where healthcare service capacity is insufficient. LPA should have reference to the most up-to-date health strategy documents. Policy should be included indicating a supportive approach from the LPA to the improvement, reconfiguration, extension or relocation of existing medical facilities. Workforce health needs should be taken into consideration. Healthcare implications of Severalls and Mile End developments - contributions required.
More details about Rep ID: 2251
OBJECT Colchester Green Party represented by Ms Susan Allen
Object to the vast tranche of new development of residential areas without appropriate levels of infrastructure. Local Plan needs clarification and a clear definition of sustainable development.
More details about Rep ID: 2227
COMMENT Mr Tony Bland
SP4 does not advocate or support priorities which may be decided in Local Plans to improve urban road infrastructure in principle towns in the region.
Without support for this how can it be said that 'infrastructure' has been improved sufficiently to allow for new housing growth?
Not every journey can be made on public transport, walking or cycling and however low the percentage of car journeys made by new housing residents there will be new car journeys made...
More details about Rep ID: 2026
SUPPORT Cllr rosalind scott
All of these provisions are essential, the concern is that they are in place before development of new communities. All communities should have access to the improved services before planned new developments are serviced
More details about Rep ID: 2023
OBJECT Mr Andy Cartmell
Whilst the plan highlights many new schemes for housing and developments, there is little mention of infrastructure to support increased numbers of residents.
Schools are of specific concern for many. Colchester is known across the UK for having some of the best schools. However, most of these are over-subscribed. Given that an aspiration of the local plan is to enhance the future appeal of the town and economic enhancement of the area - provision of adequate, quality schools is required to attract people to the town (especially families). The local plan could emphasise how infrastructure could deliver.
More details about Rep ID: 1984
COMMENT Mr Mike Daniels
These are all laudable and essential improvements whatever happens. One vital improvement that is missing is the provision of at least one, preferably two, means of building road access from the north to south of Colchester either over or under the railway line.
These improvements need to be finished BEFORE starting on the building of any more new homes, otherwise the quality of li8fe for everyone concerned will suffer very seriously.
More details about Rep ID: 1938
COMMENT Mr. William Sunnucks
This part of the plan should be strengthened to recognise the constraints by the Great Eastern Mainline.
I support the other changes to this section proposed by CAUSE (the Campaign Against Urban Sprawl in Essex)
More details about Rep ID: 1633
OBJECT The Wivenhoe Society (secretary
Para 2.61 and policy SP4 mentions the A133. The residents of Wivenhoe are concerned about the current levels of congestion on this route on Clingoe Hill and routes westwards from the Greenstead roundabout. The policy talks of improved road infrastructure to reduce congestion and to provide more reliable journey times. No details are given as to how this might be achieved for the A 133.
More details about Rep ID: 1624
SUPPORT The University of Essex represented by The JTS Partnership LLP (Mr Nick Davey)
The University supports improved and enhanced transport links throughout the borough and, in particular, within and around East Colchester, and notes the Council's commitment to producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
Most importantly, the University considers that any proposal for major new development on the east side of Colchester must include a new direct road link (preferably of dual carriageway standard) between the A120 and A133. Without major new infrastructure provision, including new highway links, any significant development on this side of the town will exacerbate existing traffic congestion issues.
More details about Rep ID: 1616
COMMENT Mr Ian Melrose represented by Fenn Wright (Mr Roger Hayward)
Objection to elements of this Policy by reason of the Council's failure to require a cohesive cross-district strategic infrastructure plan in advance of the proposed housing growth
More details about Rep ID: 1596
COMMENT Ms Susanna Harrison represented by Fenn Wright (Mr Roger Hayward)
Objection to elements of this Policy by reason of the lack of detail in the Garden Community proposal and the Plan's failure to require a strategic infrastructure delivery plan in advance of housing growth
More details about Rep ID: 1467
COMMENT Robbie Spence
I support the new Colchester Orbital route. see www.walkcolchester.org.uk/projects/the-colchester-orbital for more info
More details about Rep ID: 1459
Please make bylaw to enshrine Norman Way as a bridlepath to stop Philip Morant School's plan to close it and build a road.
More details about Rep ID: 1454
COMMENT William Bramhill
Road design/road building
More details about Rep ID: 1413
COMMENT Mr Leslie Bell
This paragraph does not spell out that if the Garden Settlement to the East of Colchester is to go ahead there really must be a new link road made between the A120 and the A133 to prevent even more gridlock from cars on Clingoe Hill.
More details about Rep ID: 1085
OBJECT William Bramhill
Transport section needs to be far more robust.
More details about Rep ID: 1079
COMMENT Mr Phil Coleman
Broadband is absolutely key. We must ensure all new developments deliver Superfast Broadband as a mandatory feature from day 1 of any development. It is now as important as gas/electric/tv aerials.It is totally unacceptable to approve housing development without Superfast Broadband being a mandatory requirement.
Proposed site allocations:
The following sites should be removed from the proposed site allocations for the reasons outlined below:
More details about Rep ID: 1022
Infrastructure is absolutely key to the success of this plan. Infrastructure is not just about building new roads. This will include health facilities, primary and secondary school places, open spaces for recreation and sport, rail services, adequate and well designed cycling links as well as decent pedestrian links.
The road infrastructure is currently inadequate around Colchester and includes major links such as the A12 and A120. The A12 and A120 upgrades are key. Without these absolutely no housing expansion can go-ahead. These upgrades need to be agreed.
If this isn't the case then no major housing growth.
More details about Rep ID: 1020
COMMENT Dedham Vale Society (Mr J R Drury)
Policy SP4: Infrastructure and Connectivity sets out a number of considerations to improve the current largely ineffective transport system. The DVS feels that the impact of the two large communities set out above will impact across the whole of the area - "rat runs" through the northern villages is already a problem, and will only increase with the employment opportunities in the "greater" Colchester area. DVS most concerned about any plans to improve the two major roads which pass through the AONB, the A12 and A134, unless extensive action to limit pollution - noise and lighting.
More details about Rep ID: 938
COMMENT Colchester Cycling Campaign (William Branhill)
We understand that in many European countries, local councils are permitted to take out loans which fund and provide the infrastructure before a development starts; the money is then paid back as property is sold. This seems a far more sensible way than we have in the UK -- perhaps we should press Whitehall to allow us to move to such a system.
More details about Rep ID: 864
New roads, congestion in towns, climate change and the experts' view.
More details about Rep ID: 856
OBJECT mr ian horn
Nowhere are you planning to provide additional roads or extra lanes on already overloaded roads. It actually looks as if you are going to actually remove one lane of Clingoe hill to provide a bus lane ( public transit rapid transit system). This is a road that already has significant traffic issues. Adding extra commuters, businesses, families and support transport will cripple this road.
The "maximising of the local rail network" will lead to extra demand. Where, exactly, are these passengers and commuters going to park? Wivenhoe station has very poor access and parking, even for current users.
More details about Rep ID: 829
COMMENT Mr John Dyson
primary and secondary education is mentioned but do not forget 6th form capacity - as there is now full time education to 17 + - not all secondary schools supply to this level and there is insufficient capacity for future demands.
the road infrastructure noted is all major route orientated - consideration is required to feeder routes - if new development is placed at the end of very busy B roads or single routes into Colchester then traffic congestion will be exacerbated.
More details about Rep ID: 541
SUPPORT Mr Mark Lee
Subject to additional of encouraging tram network in Colchester
More details about Rep ID: 342
OBJECT Mr Dennis Dungey
The current facilities struggle to cope with the existing demand. Where is the foreseen employment of this additional population? There is no apparent increase in commercial/industrial development and Colchester has numerous empty shops, in fact it is fast becoming an unappealing town centre
More details about Rep ID: 190