TENDRING DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT … · 2. The District Housing Requirement 2.1 The housing requirement for the Tendring District, as set out in the emerging East of England

TENDRING DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

Planning Services

Identifying Broad Areas for Potential Settlement Expansion

October 2008

2

3

Contents

1

Introduction 4

2

The District Housing Requirement 5

3

Settlements Likely to Accommodate Housing Growth 6

4

Potential Levels of Housing Growth 7

5 General Principles for Identifying Land

9

6 Localised Material Considerations

11

7 Initial Sieving Exercise and Identification of Possible Growth Areas

13

8 Discounting and Refinement of Potential Growth Areas 49

4

1. Introduction 1.1 As part of the Local Development Framework (LDF), the Council is required

to produce a ‘Site Allocations/Delivery’ Development Plan Document (DPD) that will identify the specific parcels of land that will be developed for housing (and other uses) in the period 2011 to 2026 to meet the housing requirements for the district set out in the emerging East of England Plan.

1.2 The sites that will be allocated for housing will need to be able to deliver the

required number of dwellings in accordance with the Council’s ‘Spatial Strategy’ contained within the LDF Core Strategy which will set out the broad distribution of growth throughout the district.

1.3 At the time of writing, the Council was yet to consult on options for the spatial

strategy neither had it made any decisions on what the preferred strategy would be. However, whatever spatial strategy the Council chooses, it will have to demonstrate, through robust evidence, that sufficient sites could be made available within each of the sub-areas to deliver the number of homes required.

1.4 Key to this will be the ‘Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment’

(SHLAA) which is a requirement of Government planning policy contained in PPS3 – “Housing”. That assessment will look at the availability, suitability and deliverability of sites to inform the Council’s choice of housing allocations for the LDF and to help the annual monitoring of housing land supply.

1.5 From initial work that has been undertaken in preparing the emerging SHLAA

and work on the recently adopted Local Plan (which expires in 2011), it is evident that the supply of previously developed land within the built-up area of the district’s towns and villages will not be sufficient to deliver the housing numbers required in the period 2011-2026. It is highly probable that a significant proportion of housing development will need to take place in the form of settlement expansion in selected locations, most of which is likely to be on greenfield land.

1.6 Until the Council agrees what the distribution of growth in Tendring will be

through the LDF Core Strategy, it will not be possible to indicate exactly how much greenfield land will need to be released for housing in different parts of the district. However, to assess potential spatial strategy options, the Council must at least consider where, if greenfield development is required, the broad areas of potential growth might be located. This is supported in the Government’s Practice Guidance on SHLAA which recommends that Local Authorities do consider the potential of broad areas where there is expected to be pressure for growth.

1.7 This study is designed to identify broadly and sensibly, where there might be

pressure for settlement expansion. This is so that any early technical assessments such as transport modelling, landscape impact assessment, sustainability appraisal and SHLAA assessment needed as evidence in support of the LDF Core Strategy and/or Allocations Document to be undertaken in an effective way avoiding unnecessary and potentially costly technical analysis of sites that are clearly unsuitable for settlement expansion.

5

2. The District Housing Requirement 2.1 The housing requirement for the Tendring District, as set out in the emerging

East of England Plan (RSS14), is a minimum net dwelling stock increase of 8,500 dwellings in the period 2001-2021, i.e. 425 dwellings per annum.

2.2 To date (2008), the delivery of housing has been slightly above the 425

dwellings per annum requirement and it is expected that by 2011, the housing policies and allocations in the current 2007 Local Plan would have enabled the delivery of at least a significant proportion, if not all, the first ten years worth of housing required by the RSS. It is expected that the residual housing requirement for the period 2011-2021 will be in the region of 4,250 dwellings. Projecting 425 dwellings per year to 2026 i.e. the time horizon for the LDF, it is expected that the Council will need to plan for approximately 6,500 new homes in the period 2011-2026 (subject, naturally, to any review of the RSS in the meantime).

2.3 In recent years, the Council has been able to minimise the amount of

greenfield land used for housing development; mainly thanks to a healthy supply of small infill sites within built up areas coming forward as windfalls and the redevelopment of vacant land and buildings identified in an Urban Capacity Study from 2001. However, in the 2007 Local Plan, the Council needed to concede one modest greenfield urban extension site (on the periphery of Clacton-on-Sea) to meet the district’s housing requirements to 2011, a sign that the supply of brownfield sites, even then, could only go so far.

2.4 With an additional 6,500 dwellings required, it is obvious that by 2011,

brownfield sites within built-up areas will not be sufficient in number nor size to deliver this level of growth in the period 2026. Consequently, the Council will need to be prepared that significant releases of greenfield land will be required to deliver the required numbers.

6

3. Settlements Likely to Accommodate Housing Growth 3.1 The Tendring district contains a large number of settlements of varying size

and character of which only a limited number, due to their range of existing services and facilities, might be expected to accommodate housing development. The Council’s technical documents entitled “Establishing a Settlement Hierarchy” and “Approach to Housing Development within the Settlement Hierarchy” look closely at the issue of which settlements, if required, could receive an allocation of housing.

3.2 Those studies looked at the range of existing services and facilities available,

settlement size and national and regional planning policy (namely policies SS3 and SS4 of RSS14) to recommend that, within any ‘sub-area’ of the district (see technical document entitled “Defining District Sub-Areas”), depending on the broad distribution of growth proposed in the Core Strategy, the majority of housing development should be directed towards the following ‘Urban Settlements’:

Clacton-on-Sea & Jaywick; Frinton, Walton & Kirby Cross; Harwich & Dovercourt; Lawford, Manningtree & Mistley; Brightlingsea; and The Colchester Fringe

3.3 It was also recommended that more limited housing development should also

be planned for in and around the following ‘Key Rural Service Centres’ mainly for local needs:

Little Clacton; St. Osyth; Thorpe-le-Soken; Alresford; Great Bentley; and Elmstead Market.

3.4 ‘Other Rural Settlements’ comprising those smaller rural villages with a more

limited range of jobs, shops, services and facilities will only receive housing development in the form of infill development within sensibly defined settlement boundaries and affordable housing permitted through a rural exception policy.

7

4 Potential Levels of Housing Growth 4.1 How much housing each of the Urban Settlements and Key Rural Service

Centres will be expected to accommodate depends entirely on what the Spatial Strategy for the district will look like. In anticipation of consultation on spatial options, this study can only make assumptions as to the maximum amount of development that any one settlement might be expected to accommodate in order to identify broad areas where that growth might sensibly take place.

4.2 In doing this, the Council has made the following crude assumptions based

on initial preparation work undertaken on the technical document entitled “Spatial Strategy” and “Approach to Housing Development within the Settlement Hierarchy”. Whilst, at this stage, these assumptions are crude, it allows a flexible approach to identifying broad areas that can be refined once the district’s Spatial Strategy is clearer. The assumptions are:

No single sub-area of the district will be expected to accommodate all

of the district’s housing growth; No one sub-area of the district will be expected to accommodate more

than 60% of the district’s housing growth (just under 4,000 dwellings); If a significant proportion of the growth (say 2,000 homes or more) is

going to take place in any one sub-area, it can only take place in the sub-areas of Clacton, Harwich or West Tendring (which includes the Fringe of Colchester)*;

The Frinton sub-area cannot be expected to accommodate any more

than 30% of the growth (around 2000 dwellings).

The sub-areas of Manningtree or Brightlingsea which contain much smaller urban areas, cannot be expected to accommodate larger proportions of growth than Clacton, Frinton or Harwich so a maximum of 1.000 dwellings (15% of growth) could be expected in each of these areas.

Because the Mid-Tendring sub-area does not contain an Urban

Settlement, it cannot be expected to accommodate a significant proportion of the required housing;

Key Rural Service Centres will probably not be required to

accommodate any more than 300 dwellings.

A strategy that directs a large proportion of growth in the west of the district might be considered as an option if justified by evidence contained within the employment study that, at the time of writing, work under preparation.

4.3 If we take the 6,500 dwellings likely to be required in the period 2011-2026 and apply the above principles we can refine the assumptions to give the maximum amount of housing land that any single sub-area might have to accommodate. Based on an assumption of 30 dwellings per hectare, the minimum dwelling density endorsed by PPS3, the maximum amount of housing land potentially required for each settlement will be:

8

Maximum housing land expectation in Urban Settlements: Clacton & Jaywick – 135 ha Frinton & Walton – 70ha Harwich & Dovercourt – 135ha Lawford, Manningtree & Mistley – 35ha Brightlingsea – 35ha Colchester Fringe – 135ha

Maximum housing land expectation in Key Rural Service Centres:

Little Clacton – 10ha St. Osyth – 10ha Thorpe-le-Soken – 10ha Alresford – 10ha Great Bentley – 10ha Elmstead Market – 10ha

4.4 In essence, this assessment has sought to identify much larger areas of land

on the periphery of Clacton, Harwich and the Colchester Fringe than for Frinton & Walton; smaller areas of land for Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley and Brightlingsea than for Frinton & Walton and even smaller areas of land for the Key Rural Service Centres.

9

5 General Planning Principles for Identifying Land 5.1 When identifying potential areas for settlement expansion, the search for

possible sites needs to be underpinned by some basic planning principles to avoid having to assess, in any detail, a plethora of sites that are clearly unsuitable options. To do so would not be an efficient use of Council resources and could bring about unnecessary speculation from third parties.

5.2 This chapter looks at the general principles that have been applied in the

search for sensible development options.

The periphery of settlements

5.3 Only sites that adjoin the built-up area of a settlement are included within the search. Isolated developments in the middle of the open countryside conflict with sound planning and sustainability principles and should be discounted as a matter of principle. Furthermore, there is no justification through regional policy in RSS14 for there to be a new settlement in Tendring so only greenfield development on the periphery of existing settlements should be considered.

‘Absolute’ Constraints

5.4 Greenfield Sites affected by any of the following designations should be discounted from the search as a matter of principle:

Flood Zones 2 or 3 (see PPS25); Ancient Woodland; Registered Park or Garden; Safeguarded or Proposed Recreational Open Space (see Local Plan); Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); Existing or proposed Country Parks; Sites if International Importance (RAMSAR, SAC, SPA); and County Wildlife Sites.

5.5 In addition to the formally protected areas, any wooded areas not necessarily

covered by environmental designations are excluded from the search on the basis that such sites will have some form of biodiversity value and would more than likely fail to accord with the Council’s generic policies on biodiversity as contained in the current Local Plan.

Strong Defensible Boundaries

5.6 Where strong defensible boundaries separate a built up area from the countryside, for example a road or a railway line, sites on the ‘countryside side’ of that boundary should be excluded from the search. There are good examples of defensible boundaries in our district such as Bypass Road, north of St. Osyth and the Railway Line south of Kirby Cross.

5.7 Only in cases where a settlement might be expected to accommodate a

significantly large number of homes would the breach of a strong defensible boundary be considered as a growth option. Such examples are cited in the assessment.

10

Ribbon Development 5.8 Some settlements have areas of development that have sprawled along main

roads over a number of years with development getting increasingly further from the centre of the settlement in question. Classic examples of ribbon development include most of Lower Kirby Cross, virtually the whole of Little Clacton and the western parts of Lawford.

5.9 Sites that add to ribbon development along a main road are excluded from

the search in order to encourage a more compact form of development as close as possible to the centre of a settlement both to reduce the impact of development on the open countryside and to reduce the need to travel.

Obvious Access Problems

5.10 Where an area of greenfield land is physically inaccessible and there does

not appear to be any scope for obtaining access without significant land acquisitions, those sites are excluded from the search unless no other alternatives are available.

‘Rounding off’

5.11 Where development provides the opportunity to ‘round off’ an obvious gap in

the settlement shape, subject to other considerations, it is generally considered to be a strong option because it will contribute towards a more compact settlement form.

11

6 Localised Material Considerations 6.1 As well as the general principles set out above, there will also be more locally

significant factors than need to be taken into consideration when identifying broad locations for possible settlement expansion.

Local Green Gap/Coastal Protection Belt

6.2 Many of Tendring’s settlements are affected, on their periphery, by the local

designations of Local Green Gap or Coastal Protection Belt. In preparation of the recently adopted Local Plan, there was insufficient pressure for housing for the very short plan period (less than 4 years at the point of adoption) to warrant the consideration of housing development on sites affected by these designations. Any site affected by Local Green Gaps or Coastal Protection Belt was consequently discounted from detailed consideration as a housing site.

6.3 For the longer-term planning to 2026, the Council does not have the luxury of

being able to automatically discount sites within Local Green Gaps or the Coastal Protection Belt due to the much greater number of homes to be planned for through the LDF. In some (but not all) areas, there may be justification for development within these areas and consequently where there is an overriding pressure for new housing, the presence of a Local Green Gap or the Coastal Protection Belt will not be an automatic constraint to development.

6.4 Following the identification of broad areas, there will of course be a more

detailed assessment of the likely impacts of development on either the landscape character or the function of a green gap that will feed into the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.

6.5 For the purposes of this exercise, where there might be pressure for a

significant amount of housing (e.g. Clacton), broad areas of land within Local Green Gaps have been identified as possible growth options but with an emphasis on retaining the function of the gap and, where possible, rationalising it.

Residential Environment

6.6 Where a location is likely to offer a poor residential environment, perhaps

because it needs to be accessed via an industrial estate, it is close to an area or installation that poses a potential hazard e.g. an oil refinery or power station, such locations are discounted from consideration.

Land with obvious potential for employment uses

6.7 Where land, such as that adjoining an industrial estate, would appear to be

the logical location for future growth in employment uses, it is discounted on the basis that residential development would scupper employment growth in that area. A good example is the land north of Crusader Business Park and Gorse Lane Industrial Estate, Clacton.

12

Omission Sites Promoted as Objections to the Local Plan

6.8 During consultation on the Local Plan, a significant number of representations

were received that promoted alternative sites for residential development, most of which were rejected in the Local Plan on the basis that sufficient land had already been identified to meet the district’s housing requirements to 2011.

6.9 Many of the sites were on the periphery of Urban Settlements and Key Rural

Service Centres and the submissions made provide useful intelligence into the ownership of land and willingness of landowners and developers to release sites for development, if required.

6.10 Where there is likely to be a relatively small requirement (i.e. in Key Rural

Service Centres) such sites, where appropriate, are given priority for consideration because, with a known willing landowner, they are more likely to demonstrate delivery.

Other local factors

6.11 Other factors may include a busy main road, the presence of a locally

significant landmark or issues raised by Parish Councils or local people during consultation on the Local Plan that are of particular concern.

6.12 Such factors may give priority to certain locations over others. For example, if

there is concern about the volume of traffic on a local road, locations that are likely to lead to a minimal increase in traffic will generally be preferable to locations that will achieve the opposite – although for most examples, a detailed traffic assessment might be required.

13

7 Initial Sieving Exercise and Identification of Possible Growth Areas

7.1 This section goes through each of the Urban Settlements and Key Rural

Service Centres and investigates potential broad locations for peripheral housing growth. For each settlement, a ‘Sieve Map Analysis’ is included which provides a crude (but effective) graphical rational behind identifying some of the recommended broad areas, drawing upon the principles in Chapters 5 and 6 above.

Clacton-on-Sea & Jaywick

7.2 The Clacton-on-Sea & Jaywick Urban Area is the district’s largest settlement

and, in recent years, has been the location of, by far, the greatest proportion of the district’s housing development. Consequently, Clacton is no stranger to peripheral expansion and in fact the only residential urban extension planned for through the current Local Plan is on the periphery of Clacton.

7.3 Possible Land Required: The exercise in Chapter 4 above suggests that,

subject (naturally) to full consideration of spatial strategy options as part of the LDF Core Strategy, there could be a potential requirement to identify around 120ha of land to deliver no more than 4,000 new dwellings in the period 2011-2026; about 60% of the district’s total housing requirement.

7.4 Whilst the potential of sites within the built up area is beginning to diminish,

being such a large urban area, there is no reason (other than sustained depression in the housing market) why a reasonable number of small windfall sites (with a capacity of 14 dwellings or fewer) might not continue to come forward for development post 2011 in Clacton. PPS3 does not allow windfall sites to be considered in the first ten years of the LDF’s housing supply although any housing delivered on such sites will have reduced the residual dwelling requirement for the last five years and thus, in reality, there is a reasonable chance that, if Clacton is expected to accommodate about 4,000 dwellings, the full 135ha of greenfield land will probably not be required. This would, in any case be the subject of rigorous monitoring.

7.5 Figure 1 below provides a crude (yet effective) sieve map analysis of the

Clacton and Jaywick Urban Area and identifies (within orange circles) 5 initial broad areas that could have the potential to accommodate some of the housing growth required in the period 2011-2026. The following sections explain, in detail, how these 5 areas have been derived through the ‘sieving out’ of other sensitive or inappropriate areas.

14

Fig 1 – Sieve map analysis of Clacton & Jaywick

Tendring District Council. License No. 100018684

7.6 Absolute Constraints: Being a coastal town, significant areas of land around

the periphery of Clacton and Jaywick are affected by flood risk (mainly Flood Zone 3), particularly Jaywick, the gap between Jaywick and Clacton and parts of Martello Bay in the south-west Clacton. The land around Pickers Ditch and Holland Brook in the east of Clacton is also at risk of flooding, particularly along the northern edge of Holland-on-Sea.

7.7 As well as being at risk of flooding, the gap between Jaywick and Clacton is

also dominated by areas of protected recreational open space incorporating the golf club, driving range and airstrip. The Country Parks north of Brook Retail Park and at Holland Haven also affect the periphery of the settlement. Much of the area around Holland Brook to the east of Holland-on-Sea is also a designated SSSI.

7.8 Elsewhere, the periphery of this urban settlement is relatively unconstrained. 7.9 The areas that are affected by absolute constraints are shaded black on the

above sieve map. 7.10 Strong Defensible Boundaries: With the exception of the coast itself, there are

no obviously strong defensible boundaries around the periphery of Clacton and Jaywick that would act as a logical inland edge to the settlement that, as a matter of principle should be retained at all costs; particularly as this area might need to accommodate a significant proportion of the district’s overall growth.

15

7.11 If the Council’s preferred spatial strategy only allocates a modest proportion

of the district’s growth to the Clacton sub-area, say 2,000 units as opposed to 3,600, then there may be an opportunity to attach more significance to the need to retain those settlement edges that provide some strong definition.

7.12 The examples of well defined settlements edges that exist include the railway

line which provides a strong defensible edge to the urban area to the east beyond which there is the ‘wedge’ of open countryside between Clacton and Holland-on-Sea.

7.13 Another logical settlement edge is Centenary Way to the north of the town

which provides a strong physical break between the urban edge (incorporating the Morrison’s Superstore and the proposed business and industrial development at Foots Farm) and the open countryside between Clacton and Little Clacton.

7.14 Elsewhere, the gap between Clacton and Jaywick has relatively well defined

boundaries east and west at Cherry Tree Avenue and Jaywick Lane (more so) respectively. The few areas where a strong settlement edge exists are delineated with a red line in Fig 1 above.

7.15 Of the well defined settlement edges that have been identified, it is suggested

that the north of Centenary Way is so close to the edge of the village of Little Clacton that even a modest level of housing development will lead to settlement coalescence; consequently that edge should be a priority for protection. Also, the eastern edge of Jaywick is affected by a variety of absolute constraints including flooding and recreational open space and the small area of unconstrained land that does exist could not, in terms of shape, accommodate a logical settlement form that relates well to the existing settlement form; therefore this edge should also be a priority for protection.

7.16 The strong settlement edges at the railway line and Cherry Tree Avenue

could be maintained depending on the amount of land required for housing development and the consideration of other factors (including the suitability of alternatives) but in this initial sieving exercise, it is suggested that the land abutting those settlement edges be considered as development options at this stage.

7.17 Ribbon Development: Clacton & Jaywick is a settlement that has grown

almost in concentric circles from its historic centre and is consequently a relatively compact settlement as opposed to a linear one like Little Clacton or Bradfield.

7.18 The only areas where ribbon development is evident are along the northern

side of St. John’s Road to the west of Clacton and, to a lesser extent, along London Road in the vicinity of Highfields Holiday Park.

7.19 A key principle of any option for settlement expansion would be to avoid any

further development on those roads beyond the current extent of the existing ribbon development, as defined by a blue spot in Fig 1.

7.20 Obvious Access Problems: Generally all parts of the periphery of the urban

area could obtain vehicular access to serve new development if required. One area where achieving a sufficient access could be an issue is the gap

16

between Holland-on-Sea and the railway line where the only access points are provided by Sladbury’s Lane and Burrs Road. These roads would need significant upgrading if significant housing development were to be allowed in this area; something that would need further detailed consideration when assessing option 5.

7.21 The greenfield land west of the Tudor Estate in Jaywick also appears difficult

to access with no obvious route through from the existing built-up area. This area is very remote from the main built-up concentration of Clacton and would consequently not be a logical option in any case.

7.22 Rounding off: The only obvious opportunity for ‘rounding off’ the settlement

would be to develop in the gap between the railway line and the northern edge of Holland-on-Sea (Option 5). However, given the site’s location within a Local Green Gap and other detailed issues including partial flood risk, vehicular access and landscape impact needing further consideration, it is by no means the obvious preferred option.

7.23 Local Green Gap/Coastal Protection Belt: Large parts of the periphery of

Clacton & Jaywick not affecting by any of the ‘absolute constraints’ are affected by the Local Green Gap and/or Coastal Protection Belt designations (shown in pale green on the sieve map). The exception to the rule is the periphery of north-west Clacton around St. Johns Road, Little Clacton Road and Jaywick Lane where the only urban extension proposed in the current Local Plan is located.

7.24 The Local Green Gaps that do exist are primarily designed to retain open

breaks between Clacton and Little Clacton; Clacton and Jaywick; and the Burrsville area of Clacton and Holland-on-Sea.

7.25 Due to the limited number of new homes required to meet the district’s

housing requirements to 2011 through the existing Local Plan, it was possible to avoid the allocation of sites within Local Green Gaps for housing as a point of principle. However, with the possibility of a significant proportion of the district’s proposed residential growth being directed towards Clacton, the Council may need to reconsider the potential of sites within the green gaps, aiming where possible to at least retain the function of those gaps and/or rationalise their boundaries.

7.26 From a desk-top exercise it can be seen that the gap between Clacton and

Little Clacton in the area around the Morrissons Superstore and Highfields Holiday Park (shown roughly in a green circle on the sieve map) is quite small; a gap that should be retained for the Local Green Gap Policy to continue to fulfil its function. In comparison however, the distance between Little Clacton and the edge of Clacton north of the Cann Hall Estate is substantial. There may be an opportunity, if the housing numbers justify it, to develop in this area without significantly harming the function of the gap (see option 4). In fact there may be an opportunity to strengthen the settlement edge and provide a more logical Green Gap boundary.

7.27 The gap between the northern edge of Jaywick around Sacketts Grove

Caravan Park and housing in Jaywick Lane north of Wick Lodge has been eroded significantly by the development of 53 homes adjacent Wick Lodge and new Bishops Park College, bringing the logic of that gap into question. The land immediately opposite Bishops Park College, on the other side of

17

Jaywick Lane might be considered for mixed-use and residential as part of a wider development off Jaywick Lane still leaving a logically defined, albeit much reduced, Local Green Gap (see sieve map) between the north of Jaywick and any new development which could be formalised with some kind of recreational use.

7.28 The opportunities for development within the gap between Clacton and

Jaywick are few due to the concentration of recreational activities in the area (which include the airstrip) and the flood risk; both treated as absolute constraints. This area is also affected by the Coastal Protection Belt in recognition of the openness of the countryside sloping towards the coast. Any sensible development in this gap would need to be immediately adjoining Cherry Tree Avenue (option 1) although, because this gap is almost a perfect square with strongly defined boundaries the function of the gap would be eroded.

7.29 The ‘wedge’ of open land between the railway line and the northern edge of

Holland-on-Sea is constrained by flood-risk around Pickers Ditch, so even if development took place in this area (option 5), a thinner wedge would need to be retained around the floodplain. That wedge would be significantly thinner however and the gap would effectively become no more than a green corridor. The views over open countryside for people on both sides of the gap would be lost entirely if this area were developed.

7.30 Residential Environment: Factors to bear in consideration are that housing

development to the north of the Oakwood & Crusador Business Park and Gorse Land Industrial Estates would not offer a good residential environment, needing to be accessed through the busy industrial area. Furthermore, this location would provide the most logical opportunity for growth in the industrial and business sector and therefore if housing development were to be allowed, that opportunity would be lost forever. The area highlighted in lavender blue on the sieve map shows the area best retained for future employment use.

7.31 Elsewhere, locations on the periphery of the settlement would provide a good

residential environment although the impact on residential amenity from proposed wind-turbines at Earls Hall Farm to the north west of the town, if approved on appeal following the refusal of planning permission, will need to be a material factor in the detailed consideration of this location (option 3) as a broad area for growth.

7.32 Omission Sites: Alternative sites were submitted in objection to the Local Plan

that promoted land in the following locations:

Land within the gap between Clacton and Jaywick; West of Jaywick Lane; North of St. Johns Road; North of the Cann Hall Estate (including one option that provides a

bypass road between St. Johns Road and the Brook Retail Park); North of the Oakwood and Gorse Lane Industrial Estate; and Land between the railway line and Holland-on-Sea.

18

7.33 These submissions effectively covered the entire periphery of the urban area and demonstrate a willingness of landowners to release sites for housing effectively anywhere.

7.34 Other Local Factors: Bishops Park College, the new secondary school built in

Jaywick Lane on the western edge of Clacton has a large surplus of places and there may be pressure for significant housing growth in the vicinity of the school to help sustain it in the medium to long-term future.

Frinton & Walton 7.35 The Frinton & Walton Urban Area, like Clacton is no stranger to peripheral

expansion, the most recent major examples being around Turpins Farm and Homelands, although that growth mainly took place in the 1980s and 90s. This millennium, greenfield expansion has been minimised through a policy of constraint.


subject to full consideration of spatial strategy options as part of the LDF Core Strategy, there could be a potential requirement to identify around 70ha of land to deliver no more than 2,000 new dwellings in the period 2011-2026.

7.37 The potential of sites within the built up area at the time of writing is limited,

with only three modest sites allocated in the Local Plan. There may be further brownfield opportunities arising as part of the proposed Walton Masterplan exercise that could reduce any greenfield residual housing requirement in this area.

Fig 2 – Sieve map analysis of Frinton & Walton


19


7.38 Figure 1 above provides a crude (yet effective) sieve map analysis of the

Frinton & Walton Urban Area and identifies (within orange circles) 4 initial broad areas that could have the potential to accommodate some of the housing growth required in the period 2011-2026. The following sections explain, in detail, how these 4 areas have been derived through the ‘sieving out’ of other sensitive or inappropriate areas.

7.39 Absolute Constraints: Much of the periphery of Frinton & Walton in the coastal

areas is affected by flood risk, particularly the western edge of Frinton, and parts of Walton around the backwaters. The backwaters themselves flow into Hamford Water which is designated as a National Nature Reserve (NNR), a Ramsar Site, a Special Protection Area (SPA) and a SSSI. Absolute constraints are marked in black on the above sieve map.

7.40 Consequently, there is clearly only so much growth that this urban area could

physically take before it reached its environmental capacity unlike Clacton which, relatively speaking is fairly unconstrained.

7.41 Strong Defensible Boundaries: Along with the coast, the most obvious strong

defensible boundary in this area (shown with a red line in Fig 2) is the railway line running along the southern edge of Kirby Cross. This creates a strong physical line between the countryside and the built-up area and a logical edge to the Local Green Gap that affects that area. This, combined with the limited opportunities for access to land west of Frinton-on-Sea, flood risk effecting Frinton’s periphery and the relatively modest level of new housing that is expected to take place (compared with a larger urban settlement like Clacton), rules out the wisdom of considering any area south of the railway line as an development option.

7.42 Ribbon Development: Kirby Cross, particularly towards the western

extremities is effectively one large area of ribbon development extending from the main bulk of the built-up area, a significant distance from the town centres at Frinton and Walton. Any option for expansion that would involve further westward expansion towards Thorpe-le-Soken (beyond the blue spot marked on the sieve map) are discounted on a point of principle.

7.43 There is also a ribbon of development up Halstead Road travelling towards

Kirby-le-Soken which should also be prevented from extending any further. 7.44 Obvious Access Problems: There are no parts of the settlement’s periphery

that are obviously landlocked or constrained by having no points of access. In fact, generally throughout the urban area, existing developments have been careful to leave opportunities for future access into adjoining land.

7.45 The only areas that may be problematic due to the inadequacy of the existing

road network and the ribbon nature of development are the western parts of Kirby Cross, west of Halstead Road; areas where development might be discouraged as a matter of principle in any case for reasons of accessibility and encouraging a compact settlement form. This area is shown with a red ‘X’ on the sieve map.

20

7.46 Rounding Off: Opportunities for ‘rounding off’ are mainly found to the north of Kirby Cross where the settlement edge is very irregular, particularly either side of the ribbon development in Halstead Road (option 2 in particular). Elsewhere, the settlement edge is generally well defined.

7.47 Local Green Gap/Coastal Protection Belt: Much of the periphery is affected by

the Local Green Gap and/or Coastal Protection Belt designations (shown in pale green on Fig 2). Whilst the Local Green Gap that separates Kirby Cross, Frinton and Great Holland is relatively well defined by the railway line, the gap that separates Kirby Cross and Kirby-le-Soken is not so strongly defined and if pressure for development justifies it, there may be a need to rationalise that gap.

7.48 First and foremost, it should still be a priority to retain separation between

Kirby Cross and Kirby-le-Soken not only to protect the countryside gap, but also because in the Council’s technical document entitled ‘Establishing a Settlement Hierarchy’, it is recommended that Kirby-le-Soken be classified as an ‘Other Rural Settlement’ (marked with a purple line on the sieve map) as opposed to a Key Rural Service Centre. It would therefore not be the Council’s intention to promote planned greenfield expansion of Kirby-le-Soken. The sieve map shows, with green ellipses, the areas that should be retained as a matter of principle.

7.49 Furthermore, the landscape around Kirby-le-Soken is particularly sensitive,

sloping towards Hamford Water and if any development were to be allowed in the Green Gap, it should be of as low sensitivity as possible.

7.50 The Coastal Protection Belt effectively covers everything south of the railway

line, everything north of Walton Road (north of the important ridgeline) and north of the area of Walton east of Naze Marine Holiday Park.

7.51 Because a lot of the areas affected by the Coastal Protection Bely to the north

of the town are also affected by flood risk, there is an assumption that for the Frinton & Walton urban area, the Coastal Protection Belt can remain protected from development and that 60 hectares (maximum) of land could be identified in less sensitive areas on the settlement’s periphery.

7.52 Residential Environment: It is considered that any location on the periphery of

the Frinton and Walton urban area would provide a good residential environment.



East of Chapel Lane, Kirby Cross; East of the cemetery, Kirby Cross; West of Halstead Road; Between Halstead Road and Woburn Avenue, Kirby Cross; Land at Turpins Farm, west of Elm Tree Avenue; East of the Avenues, Frinton; Old Hall Lane, Walton

21

7.54 These submissions covered key locations on the periphery of the urban area and demonstrate a willingness of landowners to release sites for housing in those locations.

7.55 Other Local Factors: The need for housing land will need to be balanced with

the need for employment growth. Unlike Clacton, which has land north of Oakwood and Gorse Lane Industrial areas, Frinton and Walton has no obvious locations in or on the periphery of the built-up area where employment related development in the B classes (business, industrial & warehousing) could be accommodated. Clearly, a large allocation of housing must not conflict with any land requirements for employment so this needs to be given careful consideration.

7.56 Furthermore, as mentioned previously, the housing growth that could be

accommodated within the Walton Master Plan area may significantly reduce the residual greenfield requirement and, depending on the Council’s preferred spatial strategy, there may in the end be a very negligible level of greenfield development required.

7.57 Another local factor is the landscape quality of land north of Walton Road

which slopes quickly away from the ridge (shown with a green line on the sieve map) into the amphitheatre that is Hamford Water and, even without a detailed landscape assessment, it is obvious that development in this area would be particularly sensitive. As a matter of principle land north of Walton Road is not considered as a development option.

Harwich & Dovercourt 7.58 Harwich & Dovercourt has been designated as a growth point as part of the

Haven Gateway. It has received a significant amount of development on brownfield sites in recent years with a large number of dwellings still expected to come forward on outstanding brownfield sites before 2011.

7.59 Proposed port expansion in the area at Bathside Bay is expected to bring

about an increased demand in land for business wishing to locate near to the port for logistical reasons involving warehousing and transportation which need to be weighed up against the need for housing land.



7.61 The potential of sites within the built up area is beginning to diminish as the

last few brownfield sites begin delivering new dwellings in the period to 2011. To a lesser extent perhaps than Clacton, there will probably continue to be a number of small windfall sites within the built up area after 2011. PPS3 does not allow windfall sites to be considered in the first ten years of an LDF period although any housing delivered on such sites will have reduced the residual dwelling requirement for the last five years and thus, in reality, there is a reasonable chance that the full 135ha of greenfield land will not be required.

7.62 The Harwich Master Plan is also expected to deliver a significant number of

new dwellings on Navyard Wharf and other key sites in and around Harwich

22

Old Town. Consequently, if the Harwich Master Plan is implemented post 2011, there is a strong likelihood that the residual greenfield requirement could be substantially less than 135ha. The extent will of course depend on the preferred spatial strategy which may not distribute such a large requirement to the Harwich area in any case.

Fig 3 – Sieve map analysis of Harwich & Dovercourt



Harwich and Dovercourt Urban Area and identifies (within orange circles) 4 initial broad areas that could have the potential to accommodate some of the housing growth required in the period 2011-2026. The following sections explain, in detail, how these 4 areas have been derived through the ‘sieving out’ of other sensitive or inappropriate areas.

7.64 Absolute Constraints: Being on the north eastern ‘point’ of the district, much

of the periphery of the Harwich & Dovercourt Urban Area is affected by the sea and consequently flood risk, particularly the areas to the north and east around Old Harwich, Dovercourt Bay, Bathside Bay and Parkeston. Parkeston is also heavily constrained by the Ramsey Creek County Wildlife Site and the Golf Course.

7.65 The areas of least constraint are the inland areas around Low Road, Oakley

Road and Harwich Road (Dovercourt), Ramsey and Little Oakley although a

23

significant area of land around Michaestowe Hall, Ramsey, is either heavily wooded or designated as a proposed Country Park on land at Pond Hall Farm.

7.66 The land immediately east of Harwich Road, Little Oakley is the Little Oakley

Channel Deposit, designated as a SSSI. 7.67 As well as the formally designated areas of constraint, there are some areas

of non-designated woodland that need to be recognised as an absolute constraint. These include the wooded areas around Michaelstowe Hall and Whinny Grove on Church Hill. All absolute constraints are shown in black on the sieve map.

7.68 Strong Defensible Boundaries: A strong physical boundary is provided by the

A120 although most of the land either side of the A120 is at risk of flooding and should not be developed for housing anyway. Other strong boundaries are provided by Low Road and Oakley Road although with Harwich being so heavily constrained it is considered that these boundaries should be given limited weight at this stage or else Harwich’s growth options could very limited, particularly if the LDF spatial strategy does allocate a large proportion of the district’s growth to the Harwich sub-area.

7.69 Ribbon Development: The only real area of concern in terms of ribbon

development is Little Oakley and the general direction of growth westwards in recent years particularly following the redevelopment of the Transit Camp and the provision of the new Two Villages Primary School. However, given the high level of constraint in and around the eastern parts of the urban area, there may be little option but to further expand Harwich westwards around Ramsey and Little Oakley (options 2 or 3). Certainly any expansion of the settlement beyond the western extremities (marked with a blue spot), as they exist, is not considered as a development option.

7.70 Obvious Access Problems: The areas of land south of the A120 around Pond

Hall Farm, Vicarage Farm and Greenfield Farm carry potential access problems unless access could be obtained via Stour Close or Michaelstowe Drive which, in themselves, are not ideal routes of access if large numbers of dwellings are proposed. Furthermore, the Highways Agency would be unlikely to accept the provision of a further junction on the A120 to access an area of new housing. Neither will it be possible to obtain access through Greenfields Farm on Main Road which would require reconfiguration of a protected green.

7.71 There is also the issue that 27ha of land in this area are allocated for

employment development which, subject to funding, could obtain access via the A120 although accessing housing via a industrial estate would not be a preferable solution to the access problem.

7.72 Elsewhere around the settlement, access should be achieved quite easily. 7.73 Rounding Off: The land around Low Road and Oakley Road provides an

opportunity for rounding off, or indeed squaring off the urban area but elsewhere the urban area is so constrained that opportunities for rounding off are few.

7.74 Local Green Gap/Coastal Protection Belt: Almost every inch of the

unconstrained periphery of the urban area is affected by the Local Green Gap

24

and/or Coastal Protection Belt policy (both shown in pale green on the sieve map). The only part of the periphery that is not affected is the western extremity of Little Oakley which, to avoid ribbon development, should not be considered as an area for growth; and the 27ha allocated for employment use south of the A120 (from which the Local Green Gap and Coastal Protection Belt was removed deliberately in order to make way for his important strategic allocation).

7.75 The area of land off Low Road and Oakley Road is affected by the Coastal

Protection Belt; not surprising given the way the land slopes away towards Hamford Water offering views over towards Walton-on-the-Naze.

7.76 Residential Environment: The small area of unconstrained land to the west of

Parkeston should be discounted as a potential development option purely due to its proximity to Carless Refinery. Not only would the refinery make a poor residential neighbour, there are also risks attached to being so close in the event of a fire or explosion. Much debate has been had already about the proximity brickfield site off Una Road, Parkeston to the refinery which, at the time of writing, had an outstanding consent for housing development. It would therefore be inappropriate to consider a site that is in fact even nearer to the refinery and consequently at greater risk.

7.77 If the 27ha of employment land south of the A120 is developed, clearly there

will be issues of compatibility of housing being built adjacent to that site and the residential environment that will be offered; although not as much of a concern as land around the refinery.

7.78 Elsewhere, the locations on the periphery of the urban area will offer a good

residential environment. 7.79 Omission Sites: Alternative sites were submitted in objection to the Local Plan


Land at Greenfields Farm off Main Road; Land south of Ramsey Road opposite Michaelstowe Hall Land between Ramsey and Little Oakley; and Land west of Low Road.

7.80 These submissions effectively covered significant lengths of the urban area’s

periphery and demonstrate a willingness of landowners to release sites for housing in these locations. Interestingly no sites were promoted off Oakley Road, which subject to the number of homes required and the potential landscape impact, might need to be considered as a possible growth option (see option 4).

7.81 Other Local Factors: If the proposed port expansion at Bathside Bay

materialises, there will be an expectation that Harwich will become an area of significant employment growth, not only from the port itself, but also from the ‘spin off’ businesses (particularly transport and distribution) that will seek to locate close to the port to reduce transportation costs this side of the North Sea.

7.82 Consequently, the need for housing land will need to be balanced with the

need for employment land. Locations around the A120 will undoubtedly be

25

the most desirable areas for employment potentially restricting the options for housing growth to the southern parts of the urban area.

7.83 Furthermore, as mentioned previously, the housing growth that could be

accommodated within the Harwich Masterplan area may significantly reduce the residual greenfield requirement and, depending on the Council’s preferred spatial strategy, there may in the end be a very negligible level of greenfield development required.

Lawford, Manningtree & Mistley 7.84 Lawford, Manningtree and Mistley together form the district’s most north-

westerly urban area close to the border of Suffolk. Development in recent years has been concentrated in Mistley where there have been numerous conversions of redundant maltings buildings into apartments. The majority of recent greenfield estate development took place around the Lawford end of the settlement but certainly this millennium, greenfield expansion has been minimised through a policy of constraint.



7.86 The potential of sites within the built up area is beginning to diminish although

the redevelopment of EDME Maltings for mixed use as proposed through the Local Plan may slip into the post 2011 period. This is due to the complexity of the site and the likely costs involved. However, that site is only expected to deliver 100 dwellings, so if the spatial strategy allocates a significant amount of housing to the Manningtree sub-area, there is no doubt that greenfield sites will be required to deliver those numbers.

Fig 4 – Sieve map analysis of Lawford, Manningtree & Mistley

26



LAwford, Manningtree & Mistley Urban Area and identifies (within orange circles) 3 initial broad areas that could have the potential to accommodate some of the housing growth required in the period 2011-2026. The following sections explain, in detail, how these 3 areas have been derived through the ‘sieving out’ of other sensitive or inappropriate areas.

7.88 Absolute Constraints: The major constraint affecting this urban area is the

Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) that affects Lawford and effectively rules out any significant westward expansion.

7.89 A significant area of land affecting, in particular, Manningtree and Mistley is

also designated as a proposed extension to the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB. This is also treated as an absolute constraint and effectively limits greenfield development options to a small number of locations.

7.90 The main areas of non-designated woodland are either safeguarded for their

recreational use or included within the proposed AONB extension. The areas of woodland around the secret bunker in Mistley are particular examples.

7.91 There are also significant areas of recreational open space particularly in the

gap between the two parts of Mistley, Mistley Playing Fields, and Dale Hall, Lawford which should also be safeguarded from development.

7.92 All absolute constraints are shown in black on the sieve map. 7.93 Strong Defensible Boundaries: Other than the coast, the most obvious strong

defensible boundary is Cox’s Hill that runs along the edge of the AONB (shown with a red line on the sieve map). Whilst it has been breached to an extent by the recent enabling development at Lawford Place, the principle should still be to prevent development taking place to the west of that road.

7.94 Also, the railway line provides a clear physical boundary beyond which

development would not be appropriate; particularly adjoining the sewerage works.

7.95 Ribbon Development: The western extremities of Lawford (shown with blue

spots) provide the main area of ribbon development, elsewhere the settlement is fairly compact. In the interest of controlling ribbon development and encouraging a more compact settlement form, there is an assumption against peripheral growth anywhere west of Lawford Place.

7.96 Obvious Access Problems: There are no areas of unconstrained land on the

periphery of the urban area that appear to have obvious access problems. 7.97 Rounding Off: The area around Dale Hall (option 1) and north of Long Road

(northern part of option 2) are the two obvious areas that could be rounded off although as explained next, both areas are covered by Local Green Gap designation.

27

7.98 Local Green Gap/Coastal Protection Belt: The majority of Mistley is affected by Local Green Gap and/or Coastal Protection Belt designation (highlighted in pale green on the sieve map). Many of these areas are also affected by one or more of the overriding ‘absolute constraints’ but others are not and therefore need some careful consideration.

7.99 The southern periphery of New Mistley off Harwich Road (option 3) is within

the Coastal Protection Belt but not within the proposed AONB extension, this brings into question the genuine landscape value of that location – something that will need more detailed consideration.

7.100 There is also a Local Green Gap separating Mistley and Lawford north of

Long Road, one in the area that contains Manningtree High School and Dale Hall (much of which is also protected as recreational open space); and another smaller one east of Bromley Road to the rear of the Garden Centre in Wignall Street.

7.101 The largest area affected by Local Green Gap and Coastal Protection Belt is

the gap between the two parts of Mistley south of ‘The Walls’ however this also includes large areas of safeguarded open space and is included within the wider proposed extension to the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB.

7.102 In general with regard to Local Green Gaps, due to their small size when

compared with the gaps around Clacton, Frinton/Walton and Harwich, there will be limited opportunities for rationalising those gaps through limited development. Affectively any major development that takes place within those gaps will undoubtedly result in their loss.

7.103 Residential Environment: Of the unconstrained areas around the periphery of

the urban area, all would offer a good residential environment. 7.104 Omission Sites: Alternative sites were submitted in objection to the Local Plan


Dale Hall; South of Long Road; Either end of the Green Gap north of Long Road; and East of Mistley (within proposed AONB area).

7.105 These submissions covered key locations on the periphery of the urban area

and demonstrate a willingness of landowners to release sites for housing in those locations. Of the three options identified by the sieve map, only option 3 was not the subject of representations to the Local Plan.

7.106 Other Local Factors: The Lawford Dale Industrial Estate is heavily

constrained, physically, by the railway line and the estuary so there is limited scope for significant further industrial growth in that locality. If the Council’s preferred spatial strategy seeks to allocate a significant number of new homes to the Manningtree sub-area, there will need to be a related amount of job growth, a proportion of which might need to be in the B classes (business, industry & warehousing). The need to identify housing as well as employment land will need therefore to be given careful consideration.

28

7.107 Another local factor is the presence of the Acorn Village and its surrounding grounds east of Clacton Road. The Acorn Village provides residential support for people with learning difficulties and large-scale development in the vicinity of the village would undoubtedly transform the tranquil environment that is required for the effective care of its residents. For this reason, it is considered that the land east of Clacton Road in the vicinity of the Acorn village should not be considered as a development option. Furthermore, development on this site would lead to expansion that defies the principle of having logically defined compact settlements. The area in question is shown by a green circle on the sieve map.

Brightlingsea 7.108 Brightlingsea is the district’s most south-westerly urban area on the River

Colne. Development in recent years has mainly been in the form of flatted development on the waterfront. There has been a significant amount of greenfield estate development outside of the town’s historic core in the past but certainly this millennium, greenfield expansion has been minimised through a policy of constraint.



7.110 The potential of sites within the built up area is beginning to diminish although

the redevelopment of the wharf at Brightlingsea shipyard for mixed use as proposed through the Local Plan is more than likely to slip into the post 2011 period. This is due to the complexity of the site and its current operational requirements. However, that site is only expected to deliver 100 dwellings, so if the spatial strategy allocates a significant amount of housing to the Brightlingsea sub-area, there is no doubt that greenfield sites will be required to deliver those numbers.


Brightlingsea Urban Area and identifies (within orange circles) 3 initial broad areas that could have the potential to accommodate some of the housing growth required in the period 2011-2026. The following sections explain, in detail, how these 3 areas have been derived through the ‘sieving out’ of other sensitive or inappropriate areas.

29

Fig 5 – Sieve map analysis of Brightlingsea


7.112 Absolute Constraints: Brightlingsea effectively lies upon an island and is

surrounded by areas at risk of flooding. There are clear limits within which Brightlingsea could ever be expected to expand and these are defined by the Colne Estuary to the south and the surrounding creeks that separate the town from the ‘mainland’ of Tendring.

7.113 The southern periphery of the town is constrained, not only by flood risk, but

by the estuary’s designation as a Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC), National Nature Reserve (NNR) and a Ramsar site. The southern tip of Brightlingsea, apart from the shipyard site which is already established mixed-use allocation, is effectively a ‘no-go’ area when it comes to peripheral housing growth.

7.114 Elsewhere, the actual periphery of the settlement is relatively unconstrained.

The Ancient woodlands of Wick’s Wood and Lodge Wood to the west of Brightlingsea lie some distance from the settlement edge and could, if required, provide a defensible edge to the settlement if it were to expand in a westerly direction.

7.115 To the east of the town, Robinson Road Lakes are designated as a County

Wildlife Site and limits options for settlement expansion to the east. 7.116 There are also a number of small to medium sized wooded areas on or close

to the periphery of Brightlingsea that are not formally designated as such.

30

One lies immediately north of Robinson Road Lakes and another surrounding a property named ‘Oakwood’ just north of the Fiveways Superstore in Samson’s Road.

7.117 All absolute constraints are marked in black on the sieve map. 7.118 Strong Defensible Boundaries: With the exception of the riverside itself, the

fringe of Brightlingsea, particularly to the east, consists of patchwork of small fields, areas of scrubland, wooded areas, large curtilages of residential dwellings and areas used for open storage. Consequently, there are few locations on the periphery of Brightlingsea that are defined by a strong defensible boundary.

7.119 One area that is reasonably well defined is around the northern parts of

Samson Road where, to avoid northward sprawl, development would not be encouraged. Also, the land to the west of the town at Lodge Farm (shown as option 1) which has a strong edge defined by the track Lodge Lane but that conversely also has good potential access from Park Drive and Marennes Crescent and logical extents (created by Wick’s Wood and Lodge Wood) to which development could take place which make it a potentially strong development option.

7.120 Ribbon Development: Ribbon development is not a major issue for

Brightlingsea itself, being quite a compact settlement, but further north along the B1029 there is a significant stretch of ribbon development running from Rook Wood all the way to Thorrington Cross. Clearly therefore, any option that expands Brightlingsea northwards towards All Saints Church should be avoided and a more compact settlement form sought.

7.121 Obvious Access Problems: Most parts of Brightlingsea’s periphery should be

accessible however significant road widening would need to take place to gain suitable access to some of the land east of Brightlingsea, particularly around Folkards Lane and Robinson Road.

7.122 Rounding Off: From looking at a map of Brightlingsea, the only obvious

opportunity for rounding off exists on the square of land south of Robinson Road to bring the settlement edge flush with the dwellings in Greenhurst Road.

7.123 Local Green Gap/Coastal Protection Belt: The entire periphery of

Brightlingsea lies within the Coastal Protection Belt. The visual landscape impact of any development option generated will therefore need to be carefully considered.

7.124 There are no Local Green Gaps in or around Brightlingsea. 7.125 Residential Environment: Of the unconstrained areas around the periphery of

the urban area, the only area where there would be concern over residential environment is the land off Morses Lane which goes through the industrial estate. It would be prudent to discount this area as a potential housing option in any case on the basis that if further business and industrial growth is required in Brightlingsea, that land is the obvious broad location.



31

Between Robinson Road and Mill Street; and Samson Road

7.127 Only the Robinson Road/Mill Street submissions constitute a real expansion

option with the Samson Road submission looking for a small development on land surrounded by the wooded area identified as an absolute constraint.

7.128 Other Local Factors: The land in the vicinity of Folkards Lane is divided up

into small parcels and, if identified as a housing growth option, might prove complicated to deliver. Combined with the access problems and the fact that 800 dwellings (maximum) is a relatively modest requirement that could be accommodated in more logical locations, this area is not considered to be a suitable option.

The Colchester Fringe 7.129 A small part of Colchester falls within the Tendring District Boundary and such

the periphery of Colchester and may provide a good location for some of the district’s housing growth. This part of Colchester has received no residential growth for many years although the area has seen a number of car show rooms built along Ipswich Road along with a restaurant and hotel.

7.130 On the Colchester Fringe, Plains Farm Close is the only residential street that

actually falls within Tendring. 7.131 Possible Land Required: The exercise in Chapter 4 above suggests that,


7.132 However, this is based on a rather crude assumption that one spatial strategy

option could have a housing distribution weighted towards the west of the district. At the time of writing, there was no evidence to justify such an option.

7.133 The Council’s employment study, yet to commence at the time of writing, is

expected to suggest that there is a strong demand for business premises in and around Colchester. This on its own might not justify directing a large proportion of growth towards the Colchester Fringe, but for the purpose of this exercise it will be useful to see just how much land could be made available on the Colchester Fringe if required.


Colchester Fringe and identifies just one initial broad area that could have the potential to accommodate some of the housing growth required in the period 2011-2026. The following sections explain, in detail, how this area has been derived through the ‘sieving out’ of other sensitive or inappropriate areas.

32

Fig 6 – Sieve map analysis of the Colchester Fringe


7.135 Absolute Constraints: Bullock Wood to the rear of the Betts Factory (the front

of which is in Colchester Borough and the back of which is in Tendring) is an ancient woodland and a SSSI and therefore an overriding constraint to development shown in black on the sieve map. Other than Bullock Wood itself, there are no other undesignated areas of woodland on the fringe. However, the only fields in the area are, in fact, orchards and will need to be checked against any tree preservation records.

7.136 Strong Defensible Boundaries: The A120 provides the most obvious

defensible boundary. No housing development should be encouraged north of the A120 because it would be isolated from the rest of the settlement. Bullock Wood provides a clear physical boundary to the south.

7.137 Ribbon Development: Ribbon development is not an issue in this area. 7.138 Obvious Access Problems: The Colchester Fringe does have an obvious

access problem. Unless a wide enough access can be obtained through property acquisition in Plains Farm Close, the only access to the land rear of Plains Farm Close would be via the Betts Factory site. That site is protected for employment use in the Local Plan but, at the time of writing, consideration was being given to a mixed-use redevelopment of the site on the Colchester Borough side of the district boundary. If that mixed-use development were to take place, it may provide the opportunity for access to wider areas of land.

7.139 Ipswich Road, onto which Plains Farm Close and the Betts Factory feed,

suffers from significant congestion particularly during the rush-hour period.

33

The impact of further residential development in this area on traffic would need to be carefully assessed, particularly as public transport provision in this area is limited.

7.140 Rounding Off: Any development in this area would result in a protraction of

the built-up area eastwards so ‘rounding off’, in any sense, would not be possible.

7.141 Local Green Gap/Coastal Protection Belt: This area is not affected by Local

Green Gap or Coastal Protection Belt policy. 7.142 Residential Environment: This area has the potential to offer a good

residential environment if the noise from the A120 and Ipswich Road can be mitigated against.

7.143 Omission Sites: An alternative site was submitted in objection to the Local

Plan that promoted land in the following location:

Land at and adjoining the Betts Factory. 7.144 This site (excluding the Factory itself) is effectively the only option available

for urban extension to the Colchester Fringe within Tendring. 7.145 Other Local Factors: The land in questions is covered by the ‘Ardleigh

Reservoir Catchment Area’ policy in the Local Plan. That policy seeks to ensure that development does not reduce the quality of water draining into Ardleigh Reservoir. Development of this size would need a Flood Risk Assessment which would look closely at surface run-off in relation the reservoir.

7.146 Another factor is the need to match housing with employment. If the preferred

spatial option is to direct development towards the west of the district on the basis that it provides the best opportunity for employment growth, the Colchester Fringe being close to the A120/A12 interchange could be a good location for B-class employment uses such as business, industry and warehousing.

7.147 Due to the difficulty in finding suitable and deliverable employment sites, there

would a greater priority attached to the provision of premises for employment use in this area if required, so the opportunity to identify suitable housing land in the area would probably be limited; bringing the practicality of such a ‘West-Tendring’ focussed development strategy into doubt.

Little Clacton 7.148 Little Clacton is a Key Rural Service Centre within the Clacton sub-area just

north of the main urban area. 7.149 Possible Land Required: The exercise in Chapter 4 above suggests that,

subject to full consideration of spatial strategy options as part of the LDF Core Strategy, Little Clacton could be expected to accommodate no more than 300 new dwellings in the period 2011-2026. Consequently, the maximum land requirement is likely to be in the region of 10ha.

34

7.150 The potential of sites within the built up area is very limited and is expected to be negligible by the time we get to 2011. Settlements like Little Clacton, which are linear in their form tend to offer few opportunities for significant levels of infill.

7.151 A review of settlement development boundaries may provide opportunities for

further infill post 2011 but it is expected that if a large number of dwellings are required, the majority of growth will need to be on greenfield sites.

Fig 7 – Sieve map analysis of Little Clacton


7.152 Figure 7 above provides a crude (yet effective) sieve map analysis of Little

Clacton and identifies just four initial broad areas that could have the potential to accommodate some of the housing growth required in the period 2011-2026. The following sections explain, in detail, how these areas have been derived through the ‘sieving out’ of other sensitive or inappropriate areas.

7.153 Absolute Constraints: The southern parts of the village in places are affected

by flood risk associated with ditches but elsewhere the village is fairly unconstrained. There are a handful of woodland pockets around the periphery of Little Clacton mainly in the vicinity of Holland Road to the south and Grove Road to the north and the playing fields at Plough corner need also to be protected against development as a matter of principle.

7.154 All absolute constraints are shown in black on the sieve map. 7.155 Strong Defensible Boundaries: The A133 lies some distance west of the

village but would provide a strong defensible boundary if the village were to be expanded westwards over a longer term period than the LDF. However, within the emerging LDF period to 2026, the amount of growth anticipated is unlikely to warrant significant westward expansion.

35

7.156 To the south of the village, Progress Way and Centenary Way, the link road

from the A133 through to Oakwood & Crusader Business Park and the Gorse Lane Industrial Estate would also provide a strong defensible boundary and a logical settlement edge if the village were to expand southwards.

7.157 It is not considered that any stretch of the settlement’s current periphery

constitutes a strong defensible boundary in its own right. 7.158 Ribbon Development: The whole village is effectively ribbon development so

certainly any development that extends the ‘fingers’ of the village further from the centre should be avoided in favour of a more compact settlement form.

7.159 In addition, it would not be sensible to encourage ribbon development east of

110 Harwich Road towards Tan Lane. Any development in this area would represent a consolidation of ribbon development a considerable distance from the defined centre of the village.

7.160 Locations beyond which further development are discouraged are marked

with a blue spot on the sieve map. 7.161 Obvious Access Problems: Being a linear settlement, a lot of the village

consists of long rows of dwellings along the roads offering few gaps of sufficient size from which access to land to the rear can be obtained without significant dwelling acquisition. The main potential problem areas are north and south of Holland Road and east of the Street, shown with red ‘X’s and a large red circle on the sieve map.

7.162 Rounding Off: There are clear opportunities for rounding off the settlement

and providing a more compact settlement form. Filling the gap between Feverills Road and Grove Road (option 1) in the northern part of the village is an obvious opportunity, so is land around Clapgate Farm and Greenlawns Caravan Park (option 3). Filling in the gap between the edge of the village and Progress Way (option 4) could also be seen as an opportunity to rationalise the settlement edge.

7.163 Local Green Gap/Coastal Protection Belt: The southern periphery of the

village is affected by the Local Green Gap designed to maintain separation between Little Clacton and the edge of Clacton urban area. There may be an opportunity to rationalise the green gap boundary through some development north of Progress Way which would then provide a strong logical edge to the green gap.

7.164 There is also a smaller Local Green Gap between the two ‘halves’ of the

village designed to keep those two areas separate and to safeguard a countryside gap of good landscape quality although it is understood that the Parish Council may be supportive of limited development in this gap (option 2) based on submissions that were made to the Local Plan.


Little Clacton would provide a good residential environment. 7.166 Omission Sites: A large number of alternative sites were submitted in

objection to the Local Plan that promoted land in the following locations:

36

Land West of The Street; Between A133 and Greenlawns Caravan Park; Harwich Road/Tan Lane Land North East of Montana Roundabout; Land west of Weeley Road around Batemans Road and Talbot Road; Land north east of Montana Roundabout, Progress Way; Land east of Amerells Road between Feverills Road and Grove Road;

and Numerous sites on the edge of the village that would involve further

ribbon development. 7.167 All proposals were rejected by the Council because sufficient land had been

identified in more sustainable locations to meet the district’s housing requirements to 2011. These proposals cover most of the options identified on the sieve map although option 4 was not subject of a submission.

7.168 Other Local Factors: None

St. Osyth 7.169 St. Osyth is a Key Rural Service Centre within the Clacton sub-area west of

the main urban area that has seen a reasonably high amount of housing development compared with other rural settlements, most recently the Priory Meadows development at Rochford Road.


subject to full consideration of spatial strategy options as part of the LDF Core St. Osyth could be expected to accommodate a maximum of 300 new dwellings in the period 2011-2026. Consequently, the maximum land requirement is likely to be in the region of 10ha.

7.171 The potential of sites within the built up area is very limited and is expected to

be negligible by the time we get to 2011. The village is nuclear in its form and reasonably well defined within logical settlement development boundaries. Consequently, even a review of settlement development boundaries is unlikely to release any more brownfield capacity and it is expected that the majority of growth would need to be on greenfield sites.

7.172 Figure 8 below provides a crude (yet effective) sieve map analysis of St.

Osyth and identifies two initial broad areas that could have the potential to accommodate some of the housing growth required in the period 2011-2026. The following sections explain, in detail, how these areas has been derived through the ‘sieving out’ of other sensitive or inappropriate areas.

37

Fig 8 – Sieve map analysis of St. Osyth


7.173 Absolute Constraints: St. Osyth Priory, west of Colchester Road is a

registered park and garden and, as such, is considered to be an absolute constraint to planned residential development which virtually rules out westward expansion (unless enabling development associated with the restoration of the priory). There are also a number of open spaces that are protected against development affecting the periphery of the settlement, mainly in the vicinity of the Priory but also south of the recent Priory Meadows development off Rochford Road.

7.174 The brook south of St. Osyth is lined by trees along with the eastern boundary

of the Priory further emphasising their respective roles as a strong defensible boundaries. The land immediately surrounding the brook is also at risk of flooding, further limiting potential growth options.

7.175 All absolute constraints are shown in black on the sieve map. 7.176 Strong Defensible Boundaries: The main part of the village is well contained

within strong defensible boundaries i.e. Colchester Road and the Priory to the West, Bypass Road to the north and a brook to the south (both shown with a red line).

7.177 Ribbon Development: Ribbon development exists west of the priory along Mill

Street leading to Point Clear. The absolute constraints to the west of St. Osyth rule out most westward expansion so further ribbon development along Mill Lane has not been considered as an option. The blue spot on the

38

sieve map indicates the extent to which the main concentration of built form should extend westwards.

7.178 Obvious Access Problems: Of the unconstrained areas on the periphery of St.

Osyth, the only area that appears to have potential access problems is the area west of Spring Road off Kings Close and surrounding Warren Farm.

7.179 Rounding Off: Being a well-defined nuclear settlement, there are no obvious

areas that could benefit from being ‘rounded off’ although the triangle of land between Bypass Road and Clacton Road could provide the opportunity for one medium sized development well defined by those two roads with access needing to be taken from Clacton Road.

7.180 Local Green Gap/Coastal Protection Belt: The Priory and land south of Mill

Street, Spring Road and Daltes Lane are affected by the Coastal Protection Belt. There are no Local Green Gaps in the vicinity of St. Osyth.


St. Osyth would provide a good residential environment. 7.182 Omission Sites: Alternative sites were submitted in objection to the Local Plan


Land rear of Spring Lane; and Land south of Daltes Lane.

7.183 Of these, only land rear of Spring Lane is immediately adjoining the built-up

settlement and could be considered as an option but, for the reasons below, it has not been identified on the sieve map.

7.184 Other Local Factors: There is an acceptance, in the Local Plan, that to restore

St. Osyth Priory, there may be a case for some enabling development in the vicinity of the Priory to finance the restoration. However, this can only be justified as an exception to normal housing policy through robust evidence of the likely costs of restoration and cannot be ‘planned’ for in the traditional sense.

7.185 If residential enabling development takes place in association with the priory,

it will reduce the longer-term residual housing requirements for the village and consequently, depending on the Council’s preferred spatial strategy, the full 10 hectares of land may not be required.

7.186 Another factor is the historic and narrow road layout in the village centre

which suffers badly from congestion. The crossroads not only feeds the residential and holiday accommodation at Point Clear to the west, it also feeds the major holiday parks at Seawick to the south. Clearly any development that takes place to the south or west of that junction is going to exacerbate that problem as it will increase car movements through the junction to exit the village.

39

Thorpe-le-Soken 7.187 Thorpe-le-Soken is a Key Rural Service Centre within the Frinton sub-area

west of the main urban area along the B1033. 7.188 Possible Land Required: The exercise in Chapter 4 above suggests that,

subject to full consideration of spatial strategy options as part of the LDF Core Strategy, Thorpe might be expected to accommodate no more than 300 new dwellings in the period 2011-2026. Consequently, the maximum land requirement is likely to be in the region of 10ha.


be negligible by the time we get to 2011. Settlements like Thorpe, which are generally linear in their form, tend to offer few opportunities for significant levels of infill.


further infill post 2011 but it is expected that the majority of growth would need to be on greenfield sites. In addition, if the Council were to approve an appropriate enabling development scheme for the restoration of Thorpe Maltings, any residential development that would take place would further reduce the residual.

7.191 Figure 9 below provides a crude (yet effective) sieve map analysis of Thorpe

and identifies three initial broad areas that could have the potential to accommodate some of the housing growth required in the period 2011-2026. The following sections explain, in detail, how these areas have been derived through the ‘sieving out’ of other sensitive or inappropriate areas.

Fig 9 – Sieve map analysis of Thorpe-le-Soken


40

7.192 Absolute Constraints: The only absolute constraints affecting the periphery of

Thorpe are the Registered Park and Garden of Thorpe Hall east of Station Road, the playing fields off New Town Road, the County Wildlife Site around St. Michael’s Church and areas of open space at Rolph Close and west of Station Road.

7.193 There are also areas of non-designated woodland around the periphery of

Thorpe most notably in the grounds of Comorques and to the south of St. Michael’s Church.

7.194 Absolute constraints are shown in black on the sieve map. 7.195 Strong Defensible Boundaries: One reasonably defensible boundary is

provided by Frinton Road in the eastern part of the village (south of the housing Byng Crescent), separating the built development on the north of the road to the countryside on the south.

7.196 Another is formed by the distinctive brick wall and the trees beyond it fronting

the grounds around ‘Comarques’ south of Colchester Road at the western end of the village.

7.197 These boundaries are shown with a red line on the sieve map. 7.198 Ribbon Development: Ribbon development exists on all routes out of the

village (Colchester Road, Frinton Road, Landermere Road and Station Road). Any growth option should aim to avoid extending the sprawl beyond the existing extent of development (marked with blue spots on the sieve map) and aim for a more compact settlement form.

7.199 Obvious Access Problems: The B1033 is particularly busy and suffers

congestion during the rush hour period, particularly in the High Street where the shops and pubs are. There is a distinct lack of opportunities to obtain access to the land south of the High Street. Given the current level of traffic, even if an opportunity could be found, there would be major concerns over the safety of providing a junction directly onto the busiest stretch of the road. This effectively rules out an expansion of the village south of the High Street.

7.200 Rounding Off: There is a clear opportunity to infill the gap between the two

separate parts of the village. This area is not designated as a Local Green Gap so there is no strong planning reason, in principle for ensuring that gap is retained.

7.201 Local Green Gap/Coastal Protection Belt: None of the land surrounding

Thorpe is affected by the Local Green Gap or Coastal Protection Belt policies. 7.202 Residential Environment: It is considered that any location on the periphery of

Thorpe would provide a good residential environment. 7.203 Omission Sites: Alternative sites were submitted in objection to the Local Plan


St. Michaels Road; The gap north of Frinton Road;

41

South of Frinton Road; East of Landermere Road; and Rear of The Olive Branch, High Street.

7.204 Only parts of ‘option 3’ were submitted as omission sites in response to the

Local Plan. A number of the proposals that were received, including land south of Frinton Road, would be in conflict with the principles set out above.

7.205 Other Local Factors: If a major enabling development scheme materialises for

Thorpe Maltings, it could significantly reduce the residual greenfield requirement for Thorpe depending, naturally, on the overall spatial strategy for the district.

Alresford 7.206 Alresford is a Key Rural Service Centre within the Brightlingsea sub-area

north-west of the main urban area. 7.207 Possible Land Required: The exercise in Chapter 4 above suggests that,

subject to full consideration of spatial strategy options as part of the LDF Core Strategy, no Alresford might be expected to accommodate a maximum 300 new dwellings in the period 2011-2026. Consequently, the maximum land requirement is likely to be in the region of 10ha.


be negligible by the time we get to 2011. A review of settlement development boundaries may provide opportunities for further infill post 2011 but it is expected that the majority of growth would need to be on greenfield sites.

42

Fig 10 – Sieve map analysis of Alresford


7.209 Figure 10 above provides a crude (yet effective) sieve map analysis of

Alresford and identifies two initial broad areas that could have the potential to accommodate some of the housing growth required in the period 2011-2026. The following sections explain, in detail, how these areas have been derived through the ‘sieving out’ of other sensitive or inappropriate areas.

7.210 Absolute Constraints: The absolute constraints (shown in black) affecting the

edge of Alresford are the recreation ground and the ancient Crestland Wood on the southern periphery of the village. The primary school playing field in Church Road is also an overriding constraint to development.

7.211 Strong Defensible Boundaries: Whilst there is some built form north of the

B1027, the vast majority of Alresford (along with all it’s services and facilities) is to the south. The road effectively defines the northern edge of the village. Given that the B1027 is a busy secondary distributor road, it would not be prudent to encourage further pedestrian movement across that road by considering northward expansion of the village; particularly given the relatively modest numbers likely to be required.

7.212 Ribbon Development: Ribbon development is primary an issue along

Wivenhoe Road to the west of the village and the B1027, again to the west. Any peripheral growth that would expand the village further westwards along those two road should be avoided in the interest of encouraging a more compact form of settlement form. In addition, any eastward expansion along the B1027 should be avoided.

43

7.213 The extents are identified with a blue spot on the sieve map. 7.214 Obvious Access Problems: Obtaining vehicular access to the land east of

Crestland Wood could prove difficult without dwelling acquisition or providing an access very close to the B1027/Wivenhoe Road junction. Access to land south of Wivenhoe Road on the eastern side of the village could also be problematic without dwelling acquisition of property in Wivenhoe Road itself or Church Road. These areas are identified with red circles and ‘X’s on the sieve map.

7.215 Access to land either side of Cockaynes Lane (option 1) is probably

achievable albeit with some upgrading. 7.216 Rounding Off: The village is relatively compact but development around

Cockaynes Lane might provide an opportunity to create a more rounded settlement surrounding the village centre; although a significant number of dwellings (probably more than is likely to be required) would be needed to round off the village completely.

7.217 Local Green Gap/Coastal Protection Belt: The whole southern periphery of

the village is affected by the Coastal Protection Belt. However, of these areas, land south of St. Andrews Close, which was promoted as an omission site in objection to the Local Plan, is well sheltered by trees and the impact of development on the coastal landscape is likely to be a lot less than elsewhere.

7.218 There are no designated Local Green Gaps in or around Alresford. 7.219 Residential Environment: It is considered that any location on the periphery of

Alresford would provide a good residential environment. 7.220 Omission Sites: Alternative sites were submitted in objection to the Local Plan


Cockaynes Lane; St. Andrew Road; and Wivenhoe Road (mainly minor amendments to the settlement

boundary). 7.221 The first two of these areas are identified as potential locations for peripheral

expansion for Alresford and form the basis for the options presented below. The third will be given consideration as part of a comprehensive settlement boundary review.

7.222 Other Local Factors: The land south of Wivenhoe Road has no strong field

boundaries meaning that development meaning that any development is likely to be prominent on in the Coastal Protection Belt with no natural landscaping; another reason (apart from access) why this area is not considered to be a growth option.

44

Great Bentley

7.223 Great Bentley is the Key Rural Service Centre within the Mid-Tendring sub-

area, the only sub-area with no corresponding urban settlement and consequently the only settlement in that sub-area expected to accommodate planned growth if the spatial strategy requires it.


subject to full consideration of spatial strategy options as part of the LDF Core Strategy, Great Bentley could be expected to accommodate a maximum of 300 new dwellings in the period 2011-2026. Consequently, the maximum land requirement is likely to be in the region of 10ha. In reality, in considering the capacity of local infrastructure, the number of homes expected to be built in the area is likely be significantly less, but by identifying 10ha of land, it at least provides options for consideration.

7.225 The potential of sites within the built up area is very limited although there is

some vacant land adjoining the railway line that, if developed, would significantly reduce any residual greenfield housing requirement.

7.226 Figure 11 below provides a crude (yet effective) sieve map analysis of Great

Bentley and identifies three initial broad areas that could have the potential to accommodate some of the housing growth required in the period 2011-2026. The following sections explain, in detail, how these areas have been derived through the ‘sieving out’ of other sensitive or inappropriate areas.

Fig 11 – Sieve map analysis of Great Bentley


7.227 Absolute Constraints: The periphery of Great Bentley is relatively

unconstrained by such overriding designations but land west of the Plough Road area is affected by the school playing field and allotments, which are

45

well used. The Village Green in the centre of the village must also be protected from development. All these areas are shown in black on the sieve map.

7.228 Strong Defensible Boundaries: There are no obviously strong defensible

boundaries other than perhaps the railway line but even that has been significantly breached by development along Plough Road.

7.229 Ribbon Development: Ribbon development exists at the west, east and

southern peripheries of the settlement in Thorrington Road, Weeley Road and Plough Road respectively. Clearly any development option should avoid further extension of this ribbon development beyond the blue spots marked on the sieve map.

7.230 Obvious Access Problems: Access does not appear to be achievable to the

west of Plough Road in the area north of the railway line around the church unless it was taken from Thorrington Road. The topography of this area does not favour development as it slopes steeply from the valley up to towards the chruch.

7.231 There are also no obvious points of access, without significant dwelling

acquisition, to the land rear of the properties in Weeley Road to the north-east of the village. Another area is land north of Thorrington Road, west of the De Vere Estate.

7.232 Rounding Off: There are no obvious opportunities for rounding off the

settlement as it is relatively compact. 7.233 Local Green Gap/Coastal Protection Belt: None of the land surrounding Great

Bentley is affected by the Local Green Gap or Coastal Protection Belt policies.


Great Bentley would provide a good residential environment with perhaps the exception of land south east of the railway station adjoining the Plough Road Industrial Estate (shown in lavender blue on the sieve map) because access would have to be through the industrial area or through significant dwelling acquisition. In any case, this would be the obvious location for industrial expansion if required.

7.235 Omission Sites: The only site promoted for development in objection to the

Local Plan was the land east of the village, south of Weeley Road indicating a willingness of that landowner to sell the land for development if allocated.

7.236 Other Local Factors: None

Elmstead Market 7.237 Elmstead Market is a Key Rural Service Centre within the West-Tendring sub-

area to the east of Colchester through which the busy A133 passes. 7.238 Possible Land Required: The exercise in Chapter 4 above suggests that,

subject to full consideration of spatial strategy options as part of the LDF Core Strategy, no single Key Rural Service Centre could be expected to

46

accommodate any more than 300 new dwellings in the period 2011-2026. Consequently, the maximum land requirement is likely to be in the region of 10ha.

7.239 A number of medium-sized developments have taken place in recent years

within existing development boundaries but the potential of sites within the built up area is now very limited and is expected to be negligible by the time we get to 2011.


further infill post 2011 but it is expected that the majority of growth will need to be on greenfield sites depending, naturally, on the overall spatial strategy for the district.

7.241 Figure 12 below provides a crude (yet effective) sieve map analysis of

Elmstead Market and identifies two initial broad areas that could have the potential to accommodate some of the housing growth required in the period 2011-2026. The following sections explain, in detail, how these areas have been derived through the ‘sieving out’ of other sensitive or inappropriate areas.

Fig 12 – Sieve map analysis of Elmstead Market


7.242 Absolute Constraints: The only absolute constraints affecting the periphery of

Elmstead Market are protected playing fields to the north of the village in Church Road and at the school and to the south of the village east of School Road.

7.243 Strong Defensible Boundaries: The village has no obviously strong defensible

boundaries.

47

7.244 Ribbon Development: Ribbon development exists at the western edge of the

village in Clacton Road (A133) and Bromley Road and options that would involve settlement expansion being the extent of existing development (marked with a blue spot on the sieve map have been discounted.

7.245 Obvious Access Problems: The only obvious problems exist, again, on the

eastern side of the village (shown with X’s on the sieve map) where significant dwelling acquisition would be required.

7.246 Rounding Off: The land between Alfels Road and School Road, south of the

village provides the only opportunity for effective rounding off of the village. 7.247 Local Green Gap/Coastal Protection Belt: None of the land surrounding

Elmstead Market is affected by the Local Green Gap or Coastal Protection Belt policies.


Elmstead Market would provide a good residential environment. 7.249 Omission Sites: Alternative sites were submitted in objection to the Local Plan


Between Bromley Road and Clacton Road; Between Alfels Road and School Road; and Land off Meadow Close and Holly Way.

7.250 The latter two are reflected in the two options shown on the sieve map. 7.251 Other Local Factors: The A133 is a busy road taking traffic through the district

from the Clacton the Frinton areas into the heart of Colchester. During the course of preparing the current Local Plan, the Parish Council and local residents raised real concerns about the amount of traffic travelling through the village and how that would increase if further housing development were to take place.

7.252 Taking these concerns into account, it is suggested that, if there is a need to

provide new housing on the periphery of Elmstead Market, sites on the east of the village that are likely to generate further car movements through the centre of the village (to go to Colchester, which Elmstead Market residents do more often than travel towards Clacton) should not be considered as options. The two options shown on the sieve map would involve access and egress via the western end of the village thus minimising the need for addition car movements through the village centre.

48

Initial List of Possible Growth Areas

Clacton-on-Sea & Jaywick Urban Area Option 1 West of Cherry Tree Avenue, Clacton Option 2 West of Jaywick Lane, Clacton Option 3 North of St. John’s Road, Clacton Option 4 North of Cann Hall Estate, Clacton Option 5 North of Sladbury’s Lane, Clacton

Frinton & Walton Urban Area Option 1 West of Chapel Lane, Kirby Cross Option 2 East of Halstead Road, Kirby Cross Option 3 West of Elm Tree Avenue, Frinton Option 4 East of Old Hall Lane, Walton

Harwich & Dovercourt Urban Area Option 1 South of A120, Dovercourt Option 2 Vicinity of Michaelstowe Hall, Ramsey Option 3 South of Ramsey Road, Ramsey/Little Oakley Option 4 West of Low Road, Dovercourt/Little Oakley

Lawford, Manningtree & Mistley Urban Area Option 1 Land at Dale Hall, Lawford Option 2 Long Road, Lawford/Mistley Option 3 South of Harwich Road, Mistley

Brightlingsea Urban Area Option 1 West of Lodge Lane, Brightlingsea Option 2 West of Robinson Road, Brightlingsea Option 3 South of Mill Street, Brightlingsea

Colchester Fringe Option 1 East of Plains Farm Close, Ardleigh

Little Clacton Option 1 West of Grove Road, Little Clacton Option 2 South of Thorrington Road, Little Clacton Option 3 South of Elm Road, Little Clacton Option 4 North of Progress Way/Centenary Way, Little Clacton

St. Osyth Option 1 East of Rochford Road, St. Osyth Option 2 Between Bypass Road and Clacton Road, St. Osyth

Thorpe-le-Soken Option 1 East of St. Michael’s Road, Thorpe Option 2 North of Spencer Road, Thorpe Option 3 East of Oak Close, Thorpe

Alresford Option 1 Cockaynes Lane, Alresford Option 2 South of St. Andrew’s Close, Alresford

Great Bentley Option 1 East of Sturricks Lane, Great Bentley Option 2 West of Plough Road, Great Bentley Option 3 South of Weeley Road, Great Bentley

Elmstead Market Option 1 North of Meadow Close, Elmstead Option 2 West of School Road, Elmstead

49

8. Discounting & Refinement of Potential Growth Areas 8.1 Following the initial consideration of broad areas that may have potential for

future housing growth, based on a desk-top exercise and the local knowledge of officers involved, further consideration was required to determine whether any of the options identified could be discounted from further technical analysis by looking in more detail at other intelligence and observations from site visits.

8.2 Desktop analysis on its own cannot provide an entirely accurate account of

the issues affecting a particular site or broad area so, for each potential growth area, a site visit was undertaken. Site visits are particularly useful to gauge the topography of the land, an initial view as to whether development is likely to be sensitive or otherwise in landscape terms, an initial assessment of potential access points and generally a feel for the character of the area and how new development might affect the characteristics of the locality.

8.3 Following the series of site visits, it is recommended that the following broad

areas be discounted for further detailed consideration:

Option Reason for discounting from further consideration West of Chapel Lane, Kirby Cross Chapel Lane provides an entirely unsuitable means of access via a narrow

unmade road with very poor visibility and no obvious way of physically improving the access without significant land acquisition. The site is also poorly located in relation to any form of community facilities compared with other options identified on the periphery of the Frinton & Walton Urban Area.

East of Old Hall Lane, Walton This land is actually on ‘the Naze’ at Walton and is consequently isolated from the main bulk of the urban settlement separated by and accessed via Princes Esplanade on a narrow area of low-lying land at risk of flooding meaning potential emergency access issues. The area is also at long-term risk of coastal erosion from the east and, with other options available on the edge of the Frinton & Walton Urban Area, it would be prudent to locate development away from this area as a metter of principle. Furthermore, the land is very exposed overlooking Hamford Water and sloping downwards from Old Hall Lane towards the water’s edge and, with few natural features that could provide any form of enclosure, the impact on the natural landscape is likely to be highly detrimental. In addition, access to the site itself would have to be via a private road at the very extreme northern edge of the urban area.

East of St. Michael’s Road, Thorpe On visiting the site, it is clear that the only realistic means of access from the High Street (the busy main road running through the centre of the village) is via either the Crescent or New Town Road which are both entirely unsuitable in terms of visibility to take on any additional traffic that might be generated by a major development scheme both during and after construction.

8.4 In terms of refining the options that are recommended for further technical

analysis, the following factors have been taken into consideration:

The division of parcels of land; The size of land parcels in comparison with likely maximum housing

requirement for that settlement; Clear natural and/or physical barriers that would create a logical site

boundary; and

50

Intelligence obtained from submissions made in objection to the Local Plan and discussions at the Local Plan Inquiry.

West of Cherry Tree Avenue, Clacton

8.5 This broad area, which contains six identifiable parcels of land, is well defined

by the uses that surround it including Clacton Aero Club and the Golf Courses that constitute the recreational elements of the Local Green Gap.

Parcel 1 – 11.8ha Parcel 2 - 2ha Parcel 3 – 2.7ha Parcel 4 – 2.4ha Parcel 5 – 11.8ha Parcel 6 - 12ha TOTAL – 42.7ha

8.6 Parcels 1, 2 and 6 were promoted as omission sites in objection to the draft

Local Plan but rejected at that time on the basis that sufficient land could be identified to meet the modest housing requirement to 2011 without the need to consider sites within Local Green Gaps.

51

West of Jaywick Lane, Clacton

8.7 This broad area, which contains eight identifiable parcels of land has its

western limit defined by Rouses Lane to prevent uncontrollable sprawl in a westerly direction towards the village of St. Osyth and beyond the existing western extremities of the urban area at Jaywick’s Tudor Estate to the south.

Parcel 1 – 2.7ha Parcel 2 – 14.5ha Parcel 3 – 0.9ha Parcel 4 – 0.9ha Parcel 5 – 0.5ha Parcel 6 – 0.9ha Parcel 7 – 5.2ha Parcel 8 – 16.5ha TOTAL – 41.2ha

8.8 Parcels 1 and 2 were allocated for housing in 2004 First Deposit Draft Local

Plan but were deleted in the 2005 revised draft following a review of housing land supply which did not justify such a large green field requirement. Parcels 2, 4, 5, 7 and part of 8 were then the subject of an omission site submission to the Local Plan Inquiry that whilst unsuccessful, demonstrated the ability to deliver a suitable scheme.

8.9 Parcel 8 forms part of the Local Green Gap but lies directly opposite the new Bishops Park College which has altered the nature of the gap considerably.

52

North of St. John’s Road, Clacton

8.10 This broad area contains four identifiable parcels of land that, if allocated or

developed for housing, would effectively constitute a second phase of growth in this part of the urban area over and above the land at St. John’s Road/Little Clacton Road already allocated for residential and mixed-use development in the current Local Plan and expected to commence in 2009.

8.11 The extremities of the area defined on the above aerial photograph are based on the principle of a logical ‘squaring off’ the settlement edge between the western extent of development along St. John’s Road and the northern extent of development along Little Clacton Road.

Parcel 1 – 5.5ha Parcel 2 – 15.4ha Parcel 3 – 2.5ha Parcel 4 – 25.4ha TOTAL – 48.8ha

8.12 The southern part of parcel 4 was allocated for housing in 2004 First Deposit

Draft Local Plan but deleted in the 2005 revised draft following a review of housing land supply which did not justify such a large green field requirement.

8.13 Parcel 3 was the subject of an omission site submission to the Local Plan Inquiry which was withdrawn on acceptance of the modest housing figures.

8.14 One omission site submission in objection to the 2004 First Deposit Draft Local Plan proposed a link road between the Brook Retail Park on the A133 around the north of the town and connecting with St. John’s Road through the

53

site already allocated in the Local Plan with housing and mixed-use development filling in the gap between the road and the urban area. Whilst this was rejected on the basis that sufficient land had already been identified to meet the modest housing requirement to 2011, and the land north of Clacton formed part of the Local Green Gap, the principle idea of a road linking St. John’s Road to Little Clacton Road and then Little Clacton Road to Brook Retail Park is worthy of careful consideration as part of the LDF to 2026 and could provide a means of better re-defining the urban edge as opposed to simply allocating sites on the basis of their field boundaries.

8.15 As part of detailed preparation of the proposed residential and mixed-use development already allocated in the Local Plan, the Council does not consider a link road through the existing allocated site will be possible in terms of creating an appropriate road junction into St. John’s Road. However, a junction at the end of Jaywick Lane, where St. John’s Road is much straighter and provides better visibility, could be appropriate and would be more logical in providing a direct link to neighbourhoods in west Clacton and Jaywick.

8.16 The indicative route of a possible link route shown on the aerial photograph above is purely diagrammatic and is not justified by any detailed highway assessment but provides a rough indication of what such a link road might seek to achieve and how it could be used to redefine the settlement edge if this area were to be identified for settlement expansion through the LDF.

54

North of Cann Hall Estate, Clacton

8.17 This broad area, which contains five identifiable parcels of land falls within the

Local Green Gap designated in the current Local Plan to retain separation between Clacton urban area and the village of Little Clacton to the north. However, if justified through the housing requirement as a potential area for settlement expansion, there will need to be a conscious effort to retain a countryside gap and, where possible, rationalise that gap through the definition of a strong urban edge. For this reason only the five parcels of land which immediately abut the northern edge of Clacton have been identified on the aerial photograph above for consideration.

Parcel 1 – 3.1ha Parcel 2 – 6.3ha Parcel 3 – 7.6ha Parcel 4 – 22.2ha Parcel 5 – 28.2 ha TOTAL – 67.4ha

8.18 Parcel 5 is a particular large parcel of land which extends northwards beyond

a point which is considered acceptable for northward settlement expansion if a strong countryside gap between Clacton and Little Clacton is to be maintained through the LDF. To an extent, the development of Brook Retail Park on the opposite site of the A133 and the country park that has been created to the north of that have set a precedent for the extent to when the Local Green Gap could be reduced whilst still retaining a sensible degree of separation. In this regard consideration of this area for potential urban expansion should be with a degree of acceptance that not all of parcel 5 will be suitable for development and, to a lesser extent, parcel 4.

55

8.19 The idea of a link road to redefine the urban edge north of the Cann Hall Estate, promoted as part of a housing omission site representation in objection to the First Deposit Draft Local Plan in 2004 consequently has some merits in ensuring a gap is retained along with the added benefit of a bypass to the north of the town. That proposal was rejected by the Council on the basis that sufficient land could be identified to meet the modest housing requirement to 2011 without the need to consider sites within Local Green Gaps and was withdrawn by the landowner on acceptance that such a low housing requirement would not justify such a scheme.

8.20 The indicative route of a possible link route between Brook Retail Park and

the roundabout on A133 (which incidentally is large enough to take a fourth arm to serve such a bypass) and Little Clacton road (and potentially beyond) shown on the aerial photograph above is purely diagrammatic and is not justified by any detailed highway assessment but provides a rough indication of what such a link road might seek to achieve and how it could be used to redefine the settlement edge if this area were to be identified for settlement expansion through the LDF.

56

North of Sladbury’s Lane, Clacton

8.21 This broad area, which contains four identifiable parcels of land falls within

the Local Green Gap designated in the current Local Plan to retain separation between two distinct parts of Clacton urban area; Burrsville and Holland-on-Sea. However, if justified through the housing requirement as a potential area for settlement expansion, there will need to be a conscious effort to retain a countryside gap and, where possible, rationalise that gap through the definition of a strong urban edge. For this reason only the four parcels of land contained within Sladbury’s Lane and Burrs Road have been identified, those two roads providing a logical extent to which development might reasonably be considered.


8.22 This whole area was promoted as an omission site in objection to the draft

Local Plan but rejected at that time on the basis that sufficient land could be identified to meet the modest housing requirement to 2011 without the need to consider sites within Local Green Gaps.

8.23 Part of parcel 1 is affected by flood risk around Pickers Ditch and is consequently only partially developable and the presence of the ditch is key to ensuring a countryside gap south of Slandbury’s Lane as part of this land is affected by flood risk and cannot be developed as a matter of principle.

57

8.24 If the Council were to give favourable consideration to this area as a potential urban expansion, there is an opportunity to formalise the countryside gap south of Sladbury’s Lane as open space/country park as part of a wider comprehensive scheme that might help to complete the formulation of the Pickers Ditch Walkway north of Holland-on-Sea.

East of Halstead Road, Kirby Cross

8.25 This broad area can be neatly defined within one 30.2ha parcel of land which

was promoted an as omission sites in objection to the draft Local Plan but rejected at that time on the basis that the Plan’s spatial strategy sought to concentrate growth on Clacton and Harwich in accordance with the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan which has now been superseded by RSS14.

8.26 The site falls within the Local Green Gap designed to retain separation between the Frinton & Walton Urban Area (which includes Kirby Cross) and the satellite village of Kirby-le-Soken. If development in this area were to be justified by the size of the dwelling requirement, there is a clear need to retain some form of countryside gap between Kirby Cross and Kirby-le-Soken and, where possible, rationalise that gap through the definition of a logical strong urban edge.

8.27 The promoter of this site at the Local Plan Inquiry quite correctly identified that development of the whole site would significantly reduce the countryside gap to little more than a narrow green corridor and suggested that a line be drawn through the centre of the site to ensure that development would not sprawl any further north that the existing extents to which it already has in Halstead Road and Buckfast Avenue. The northern half of the site could then be formalised as open space, ensuring retention of the green gap.

58

West of Elm Tree Avenue, Frinton

8.28 This broad area can be neatly defined within one 11.7ha parcel of land which

was promoted an as omission sites in objection to the draft Local Plan but rejected at that time on the basis that the Plan’s spatial strategy sought to concentrate growth on Clacton and Harwich in accordance with the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan which has now been superseded by RSS14.

8.29 The site falls within the Local Green Gap designed to retain separation between the Frinton & Walton Urban Area and the satellite village of Kirby-le-Soken. If development in this area were to be justified by the size of the dwelling requirement, there is a clear need to retain some form of countryside gap between Kirby Cross and Kirby-le-Soken and, where possible, rationalise that gap through the definition of a logical strong urban edge.

8.30 By restricting potential development to this parcel of land alone, it would be

possible to retain a clear countryside gap between the two areas. The site is clearly defined south of Kirby Road which forms a ridge beyond which the land slopes down towards Hamford Water; and west of Turpins Lane which serves the Farm House.

59

South of A120, Dovercourt

8.31 This broad area, which contains seven identifiable parcels of land lies

between the A120 Trunk Road which serves the Port of Harwich and north of the existing built up area of Dovercourt. The identified area is defined by the uses that surround it including the cemetery to the east, the proposed Country Park to the west and, to the north, the area is defined by either flood risk areas or the A120.

Parcel 1 – 10ha Parcel 2 – 1.6ha Parcel 3 – 6.8ha Parcel 4 – 0.7ha Parcel 5 – 3.4ha Parcel 6 – 1.5ha Parcel 7 – 1.6ha TOTAL – 25.6ha

8.32 Parcels of land that are entirely within the flood risk area (e.g. the three fields

north of parcel 1) are excluded from the defined area but parcels that are only partly affected (e.g. 5 & 7) are included, but with an understanding the parts of the site at risk will not be appropriate for development as a matter of principle.

8.33 Parcels 1 and 3 together form part of a wider 27ha Strategic Employment

Land allocation in the current Local Plan that, if carried forward as an allocation in the LDF for the period to 2026 would limit any housing potential to capacity to parcels 5, 6 and 7 which form part of a Local Green Gap between Dovercourt and Parkeston; a gap that will be of little significance if the Strategic Employment site were to be implemented.

60

8.34 Parcels 5 and 7 are affected by flooding risk on the lower-lying parts and were

the subject of employment omission site representations in objection to the Local Plan but were rejected on the grounds of deliverability and parcel 6 was promoted as a potential housing site. This was rejected by the Council on the basis that sufficient land could be identified to meet the modest housing requirement to 2011 without the need to consider sites within Local Green Gaps.

Vicinity of Michaelstowe Hall, Ramsey

8.35 This broad area, which contains six identifiable parcels of land is tightly defined by the surrounding uses and proposals. Mayes Lane defines the western extent of the area with Ramsey Road forming the northern boundary of the area containing parcels 1 to 4. Parcels 5 and 6 are separate from the main group south of the proposed country park and the east of Michaelstowe Hall.

Parcel 1 – 2.6ha Parcel 2 – 1.9ha Parcel 3 – 0.7ha Parcel 4 - 1ha Parcel 5 – 2.5ha Parcel 6 – 0.4ha TOTAL – 9.1ha

8.36 Parcels 1 and 2 were allocated for housing in 2004 First Deposit Draft Local

Plan but were deleted in the 2005 revised draft following a review of housing land supply which did not justify such a large green field requirement.

61

South of Ramsey Road, Ramsey/Little Oakley

8.37 This broad area, which contains ten identifiable parcels of land effectively

constitutes the open countryside between Ramsey village to the north and Little Oakley (which forms part of the contiguous urban area) to the south not sprawling any further west that the western extents of those two villages.

Parcel 1 – 3ha Parcel 2 – 0.6ha Parcel 3 – 13ha Parcel 4 – 4.6ha Parcel 5 – 0.8ha Parcel 6 – 31.9ha Parcel 7 – 1ha Parcel 8 – 0.6ha Parcel 9 – 4.1ha Parcel 10 – 1.6ha TOTAL – 61.2ha

8.38 The whole area falls within the Local Green Gap designed to maintain

separation between Ramsey and Little Oakley. Development of this whole area would lead to the loss of the gap and would only be justified by a significant proportion of district growth being directed to Harwich in the LDF Core Strategy; otherwise the parcels immediately adjoining the built up area e.g. 1, 4, 7 & 8 around the new primary school or 9 & 10 at Little Oakley might have the potential to be developed and maintain or even help rationalise the countryside gap.

62

8.39 The whole area was the subject of an omission site representation in objection to the Local Plan but was rejected on the basis that sufficient land could be identified to meet the modest housing requirement to 2011 without the need to consider sites within the Local Green Gap.

West of Low Road, Dovercourt/Little Oakley

8.40 This broad area, which contains nine identifiable parcels of land is defined by

the extent to which development has sprawled southwards in the past i.e. Low Road to the east and Little Oakley to the west. The parcels of land immediately south of the area defined on the aerial photograph above is affected, to a great extent, by flood risk so this is a logical area to consider for potential settlement expansion.

Parcel 1 – 13.8ha Parcel 2 – 6.8ha Parcel 3 – 3.5ha Parcel 4 – 1ha Parcel 5 – 11ha Parcel 6 – 17.9ha Parcel 7 – 5.6ha Parcel 8 – 1.4ha Parcel 9 – 9.8ha TOTAL – 70.8ha

8.41 The whole area falls within the Coastal Protection Belt and the western part of

parcel 9 is designated as a SSSI.

8.42 Parcel 1 was the subject of an omission site representation in objection to the Local Plan but was rejected on the basis that sufficient land could be

63

identified to meet the modest housing requirement to 2011 without the need to consider sites within the Coastal Protection Belt.

Land at Dale Hall, Lawford

8.43 This broad area, which contains three identifiable parcels of land is tightly

defined by the Cox’s Hill and the AONB to the west, Manningtree High School to the east and the grounds of Dale Hall itself.

Parcel 1 – 4.4ha Parcel 2 – 1.5ha Parcel 3 – 3.6ha TOTAL – 9.5ha

8.44 The whole area falls within the Local Green Gap designed to retain an open

break between the two large housing estates to the north and south.

8.45 The whole area was the subject of omission site representations in objection to the Local Plan from the landowner at Dale Hall but was rejected at that time on the basis that the Plan’s spatial strategy sought to concentrate growth on Clacton and Harwich in accordance with the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan which has now been superseded by RSS14.

8.46 A green gap could be retained in any development scheme by concentrating development to the south of Dale Hall on parcels 2 and 3 and the southern part of 1, setting aside the northern part of parcel 1 for recreational open space, as allocated in the current Local Plan.

64

Long Road, Lawford/Mistley

8.47 This broad area, which contains nine identifiable parcels of land is defined

within Clacton Road to the east and Dead Lane to the south. North of Long Road, the land (parcels 2 and 3) is designated as a Local Green Gap in the current Local Plan designed to retain an open break between Lawford and Mistley in the area south of Manningtree.

Parcel 1 – 1.1ha Parcel 2 – 4ha Parcel 3 – 4.3ha Parcel 4 – 5.9ha Parcel 5 – 7ha Parcel 6 – 2.1ha Parcel 7 – 10.2ha Parcel 8 – 6.5ha Parcel 9 – 6.5ha TOTAL – 47.6ha

8.48 The whole area was the subject of omission site representations in objection

to the Local Plan from three different land owners but all were rejected at that time on the basis that the Plan’s spatial strategy sought to concentrate growth on Clacton and Harwich in accordance with the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan which has now been superseded by RSS14.

65

South of Harwich Road, Mistley

8.49 This broad area contains three identifiable parcels of land that immediately

adjoin the built up area of Mistley.

Parcel 1 – 3.6ha Parcel 2 – 5.6ha Parcel 3 – 9.8ha TOTAL – 19ha

8.50 All these parcels of land fall within the Coastal Protection Belt and parcel 1 is

also within the Local Green Gap designed to retain separation between the two distinct parts of Mistley.

66

West of Lodge Lane, Brightlingsea

8.51 This broad area, which contains eight identifiable parcels of land enclosed by

two areas of protected woodland to the west and the areas of high environmental sensitivity to the south.

Parcel 1 – 0.4ha Parcel 2 – 0.3ha Parcel 3 – 0.5ha Parcel 4 – 2ha Parcel 5 – 1.5ha Parcel 6 – 4.8ha Parcel 7 – 3.6ha Parcel 8 – 6.6ha TOTAL – 19.7ha

8.52 All these parcels of land fall within the Coastal Protection Belt which affects

the entire periphery of Brightlingsea.

67

West of Robinson Road, Brightlingsea

8.53 This broad area, which contains nine identifiable parcels of land enclosed by

Robinson Road to the east and Mill Street to the south.

Parcel 1 – 3ha Parcel 2 – 0.8ha Parcel 3 – 6ha Parcel 4 – 0.6ha Parcel 5 – 1.8ha Parcel 6 – 0.8ha Parcel 7 – 1.4ha Parcel 8 – 1.1ha Parcel 9 – 0.9ha TOTAL – 16.4ha


the entire periphery of Brightlingsea. 8.55 Parcels 1 and 3 were the subject of omission site representations in objection

to the Local Plan but both were rejected at that time on the basis that the Plan’s spatial strategy sought to concentrate growth on Clacton and Harwich in accordance with the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan which has now been superseded by RSS14.

68

South of Mill Street, Brightlingsea

8.56 This broad area, which contains five identifiable parcels of land south of Mill

Street that are either partly or wholly directly unaffected by overriding constraints such as flood risk.

Parcel 1 – 0.7ha Parcel 2 – 0.7ha Parcel 3 – 1.5ha Parcel 4 – 0.8ha Parcel 5 – 6.5ha TOTAL – 10.2ha


the entire periphery of Brightlingsea. 8.58 A significant proportion of parcels 2, 3 and 4 and, to a lesser extent, parcel 5

falls within the flood risk area and development on these parts will not be acceptable on a point of principle.

69

East of Plains Farm Close, Ardleigh

8.59 This broad area, which contains twenty-four identifiable parcels of land

between the A120 to the north and Bullock Wood to the south extending no further than the eastern extremities of Bullock Wood.

Parcel 1 – 0.7ha Parcel 2 – 0.5ha Parcel 3 – 1.2ha Parcel 4 – 0.8ha Parcel 5 – 2.5ha Parcel 6 – 2.4ha Parcel 7 – 2.1ha Parcel 8 – 1.8ha Parcel 9 – 2.4ha Parcel 10 – 2.7ha Parcel 11 – 1.5ha Parcel 12 – 1.3ha

Parcel 13 – 1.5ha Parcel 14 – 0.4ha Parcel 15 – 1ha Parcel 16 – 0.9ha Parcel 17 – 2.7ha Parcel 18 – 3.3ha Parcel 19 – 1.8ha Parcel 20 – 3.4ha Parcel 21 – 3.9ha Parcel 22 – 2ha Parcel 23 – 7.9ha Parcel 24 – 2ha TOTAL – 50.7ha

8.60 Parcel 24 and the southern half of Parcel 23 actually fall within Colchester

Borough, but if this were selected as a broad area for residential growth, Tendring District and Colchester Borough Councils would have to work in partnership to deliver such a scheme and there could be logic in allocating land on the Colchester side of the boundary.

8.61 At just over 50 hectares, which crudely at a density of 30 dwellings per

hectare could accommodate in the region of 1,500 dwellings; less than one quarter of the likely total housing requirement to 2026. This suggests strongly that if an option concentrating the majority of growth on the Colchester Fringe

70

would require a significantly greater area of land that could lead to the tiny hamlet of Fox Street being engulfed by Colchester Urban Area and a joint approach with Colchester to potentially release land south of Bullock Wood; something that Colchester Borough Council has not planned for in their LDF Core Strategy.

West of Grove Road, Little Clacton

8.62 This broad area can be neatly defined within one 4.5ha parcel of land west of

Grove Road and north of Feverills Road. It was promoted as an omission site in objection to the draft Local Plan but rejected at that time on the basis that the Plan’s spatial strategy sought to concentrate growth on Clacton and Harwich in accordance with the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan which has now been superseded by RSS14.

71

South of Thorrington Road, Little Clacton

8.63 This broad area contains three identifiable parcels of land south of

Thorrington Road extending no further west than existing properties in the road and no further south than the business units at Swain’s Farm.


8.64 Development in this broad area (mainly concentrated around parcels 1 and 2)

including an on-site health care facility was promoted as an omission site in objection to the Local Plan and supported by the Parish Council. However, that proposal, which was the subject of debate at the Local Plan Inquiry, was rejected by the district Council on the basis that the Plan’s spatial strategy sought to concentrate growth on Clacton and Harwich in accordance with the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan which has now been superseded by RSS14.

8.65 The site falls within the Local Green Gap designed to maintain separation

between the two distinct halves of the village but if this area was selected for development, there might be scope to retain a smaller gap or even formalise that gap as open space.

72

South of Elm Road, Little Clacton

8.66 This broad area contains six identifiable parcels of land south of Elm Road

and East of the A133.

Parcel 1 – 1.1ha Parcel 2 – 3.1ha Parcel 3 – 6.9ha Parcel 4 – 5.4ha Parcel 5 – 2.3ha Parcel 6 – 3.6ha TOTAL – 22.4ha

8.67 This is a large area which will not all be required to accommodate any modest

housing allocation for this village if this area were to be selected. The southern parts of parcels 4 and 6 are affected by flood risk and this will reduce their capacity.

8.68 This are was the subject of an omission site representation in objection to the

Local Plan but was rejected on the basis that the Plan’s spatial strategy sought to concentrate growth on Clacton and Harwich in accordance with the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan which has now been superseded by RSS14.

73

North of Progress Way/Centenary Way, Little Clacton

8.69 This broad area contains two identifiable parcels of land north of Progress

Way and East of the A133 and two parcels north-east of the ‘Montana Roundabout’.


8.70 All these parcels of land fall within the Local Green Gap designed to provide

separation between Little Clacton and Clacton Urban Area although Progress Way and Centenary Way provide an opportunity for a strong defensible settlement edge of this area were selected for development.

8.71 Parcels 3 and 4 were the subject of an omission site representation in

objection to the Local Plan but were rejected on the basis that the Plan’s spatial strategy sought to concentrate growth on Clacton and Harwich in accordance with the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan which has now been superseded by RSS14.

74

East of Rochford Road, St. Osyth

8.72 This broad area contains three identifiable parcels of land that extend to the

brook to the south and eastwards to match the eastern extent of development in Clacton Road.

Parcel 1 – 5.4ha Parcel 2 – 5.1ha Parcel 3 – 3.5ha TOTAL – 14ha

75

Between Bypass Road and Clacton Road, St. Osyth

This broad area can be neatly defined within one 1ha triangle of land south of Bypass Road and north of Clacton Road.

76

North of Spencer Road, Thorpe

8.73 This broad area can be neatly defined within one 11.8ha parcel of land that if

identified as a potential housing site in the LDF in reality would only need to be partly developed.

77

East of Oak Close, Thorpe

8.74 This broad area contains two identifiable parcels of land between the two

separate parts of the village.

Parcel 1 – 2.4ha Parcel 2 – 3.9ha TOTAL – 6.3ha

8.75 Parcel 1 is currently protected as an allotment in the Local Plan but is not

currently in use and, if the Council were to not continue with its protection through the LDF, it might be a potential housing site. It was the subject of an omission site representation in objection to the Local Plan but was rejected on the basis of its protection for allotment use and the Plan’s spatial strategy sought to concentrate growth on Clacton and Harwich in accordance with the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan which has now been superseded by RSS14.

8.76 Parcel 2, if developed in its entirety, would infill the gap between the two

separate parts of the village. Land south of parcel 2 has the benefit of planning permission for 32 caravans as an extension to Elm Farm Caravan Park.

78

Cockaynes Lane, Alresford

8.77 This broad area contains three identifiable parcels of land either side of

Cockaynes Lane that, if developed, would round off the western edge of the settlement extending no further than the former gravel pits to the west of the village and the westward extent of development along St. Osyth Road at the northern tip of the village.


8.78 Land in this area was the subject of an omission site representation in at

Local Plan 2000 Issues Report but was not including as an allocation in the Local Plan on the basis that the Plan’s spatial strategy sought to concentrate growth on Clacton and Harwich in accordance with the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan which has now been superseded by RSS14.

79

South of St. Andrew’s Close, Alresford

8.79 This broad area can be neatly defined within one 2.2ha parcel of land that lies

within the Coastal Protection Belt but that is well enclosed by its surrounding uses and by woodland on its southern and eastern boundaries.

8.80 This site was the subject of an omission site representation in objection to the


80

East of Sturrick’s Lane, Great Bentley

8.81 This broad area contains two identifiable parcels of land between Sturricks

Farm and Heckfords Road that extend no further north than the buildings at Sturick’s Farm.

Parcel 1 – 1.9ha Parcel 2 – 2.3ha TOTAL – 4.2ha

81

West of Plough Road, Great Bentley

8.82 This broad area contains three identifiable parcels of land, two of which are

small parcels to the rear of existing housing development and the third larger parcel is not clearly defined within any existing natural boundary but extends no further south than existing development on the other side of Plough Road and no further west than parcels 1 and 2.

Parcel 1 – 0.4ha Parcel 2 – 0.2ha Parcel 3 – 3ha TOTAL – 3.6ha

82

South of Weeley Road, Great Bentley

8.83 This broad area can be neatly defined within one large 13ha parcel of land

that north of the railway line and south of Weeley Road. If identified as a potential housing site in the LDF, in reality only part of the site would need to be developed minimising eastward sprawl beyond the existing extent of development in Weeley Road.

8.84 This site was the subject of an omission site representation in objection to the


83

North of Meadow Close, Elmstead

8.85 This broad area can be neatly defined within one 4.5ha parcel of land that

extends no further west than the existing development in Meadow Close. 8.86 This site was the subject of an omission site representation in objection to the


84

West of School Road, Elmstead

8.87 This broad area can be neatly defined within one 6.1ha parcel of land that

extends no further west than the existing development in Meadow Close that was the subject of discussion at the Local Plan Inquiry where the landowner promoting the site suggested that only the northern part of the site be developed to round square off the settlement edge in line with existing development in Alfels Road to the west and Market Field School to the east. The remaining part of the site would be used as recreational open space.

8.88 The omission site proposal was however rejected on the basis that the Plan’s

spatial strategy sought to concentrate growth on Clacton and Harwich in accordance with the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan which has now been superseded by RSS14.

Documents

TENDRING DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT … · 2. The District Housing Requirement 2.1 The housing requirement for the Tendring District, as set out in the emerging East of England