report of planning and licensing committee …...commissioning group (ccg) and royal haskoning...

Agenda Item no. 14 / 10

REPORT of HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES to PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE (SPECIAL MEETING) 9 JULY 2013 AND COUNCIL 11 JULY 2013

MALDON DISTRICT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPATIAL GROWTH SCENARIOS AND STRATEGIC SITE ALLOCATIONS

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To seek Member endorsement of the emerging Local Development Plan (LDP)

revised spatial growth strategy (Policy S2) and strategic site allocations.

2. AREA FOR DECISION / ACTION 2.1 Background 2.1.1 On 22 May 2013 the Council agreed a number of resolutions in respect of the LDP

draft policies and approach to progression (Minute No. 4 refers). This followed consideration of the same report and recommendations by Planning and Licensing Committee on 21 May 2013 (Minute No. 74 refers). The resolutions included the endorsement of options [with amendments] for further assessment and testing for increasing housing provision within the LDP prior to the formulation of scenarios for future Member consideration. This further assessment and testing of options is referred to within this report as ‘growth capacity testing’.

2.1.2 The LDP needs to Plan for a minimum of 4,410 dwellings over the plan period (2014-2029) based on the latest available evidence. The revised LDP policy S2 includes the following key 'baseline' components which equates to 3,727 dwellings for allocation: • Strategic allocations (2,700 dwellings):

• South Maldon – 1,250 dwellings; • North Heybridge – 1,000 dwellings; • West Burnham-on-Crouch – 450 dwellings.

• Rural allocations (300 dwellings) (to be allocated through Rural Allocations Development Plan Document) • North Fambridge – 75 dwellings; • Other rural locations – 225 dwellings.

DOC78


• Residual land supply (397 dwellings) • Sites with extant planning permission – 300 dwellings; • Policy compliant Strategic Housing Land Availability sites – 97

dwellings.

• Windfall allowance (330 dwellings)

2.1.3 In order to increase housing provision within the LDP to meet objectively assessed

needs for housing, it will be necessary for the Council to identify sufficient land to accommodate approximately a minimum of 700 additional dwellings for allocation in addition to the key components of the revised policy S2 set out above.

2.1.4 The following locations have now been subject to growth capacity testing: • Southminster; • Heybridge; • Maldon; • Burnham-on-Crouch; • Increased Rural Allocations; • Intensification of existing strategic sites (Maldon only); • West or south-west Latchingdon; and • North Fambridge.

2.2 Growth Capacity Testing

2.2.1 The growth capacity testing has been undertaken in conjunction with a range of relevant partner organisations and infrastructure providers. Detailed questions were circulated to relevant organisations including Essex County Council (ECC), Anglian Water, the Environment Agency, the National Health Services (NHS) / Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and Royal Haskoning (Sustainability Appraisal consultants) at the end of May 2013 in order to request information to inform the spatial growth scenarios for Member consideration. A sample questionnaire is provided as APPENDIX 1.

2.2.2 The early involvement of partners and infrastructure providers in the process of

establishing spatial growth scenarios for Member consideration was intended to ensure that the Council is as well informed as possible prior to finalising the draft LDP. In addition, it also assists in ensuring that the spatial growth scenarios which have been developed are considered to be deliverable, taking into account future opportunities and constraints, including land availability, infrastructure capacity, suitability, viability and sustainability.

2.2.3 The questionnaires included requests for further details in relation to infrastructure

upgrades and relative associated costs which may be required in order to accommodate growth within different potential growth locations within the District. The scale of additional infrastructure requirements associated with planned growth in different locations and cumulatively across the District has a bearing on the future viability of the Plan. Responses were requested by no later than Monday 24 June 2013.


2.2.4 The growth capacity testing supplements evidence already obtained to inform the development of the preferred spatial growth strategy within the LDP Preferred Options document (July 2012), including the Sustainability Appraisal (Royal Haskoning, 2012), LDP Preferred Growth Strategy (MDC, 2012), Infrastructure Delivery Plan (MDC, 2012) and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (URS, 2012). Details of the strategic growth options developed as part of the LDP Preferred Options in 2012 are set out in section 14 of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and section 4 of the LDP Preferred Growth Strategy report, together with details of the earlier assessment of potential strategic growth areas.

2.2.5 The development of spatial growth scenarios has also taken into account the responses

received to the LDP Preferred Options consultation. In addition, on-going discussions with infrastructure providers and delivery partners taking place as part of the LDP Developer Forum have helped to inform the development of the spatial growth scenarios.

2.2.6 The responses received to date as part of the growth capacity testing exercise are

provided as APPENDIX 2. It should be noted that responses have been provided at an Officer level due to the timescales involved and the nature of the information request, and therefore responses do not necessarily represent organisational views.

2.2.7 The majority of responses were not received by the requested date, and as a

consequence, Officers' have not had sufficient time to complete a detailed review and analysis of all the responses received in relation to the spatial growth scenarios. In addition, the respondents have not always been able to provide the degree of clarification requested, or respond to all of the questions raised by Officers. Should any subsequent responses be received, or any further significant issues emerge through further review and analysis of the responses received after the deadline which may have implications for the spatial growth scenarios, these will be provided to Members.

2.2.8 Key conclusions from the growth capacity testing are provided as APPENDIX 3.

The conclusions have been based on the information available at the time of writing and may be subject to revision.

2.3 Sustainability Appraisal 2.3.1 Paragraph 165 of the NPPF states that:

A sustainability appraisal which meets the requirements of the European Directive on strategic environmental assessment should be an integral part of the plan preparation process, and should consider all the likely significant effects on the environment, economic and social factors.

2.3.2 As stated above, a Sustainability Appraisal of the LDP Preferred Options was

undertaken in 2012. In addition, Royal Haskoning has provided an initial Sustainability Appraisal assessment of the growth capacity testing exercise, which should assist and inform Members when considering the spatial growth scenarios and strategic site allocations (please refer to APPENDIX 2). Following the selection of the preferred spatial growth scenario for inclusion within the Draft LDP as strategic site allocations, full independent Sustainability Appraisal of the Plan will be


undertaken in accordance with the European Directive, national guidance and relevant regulations. This will be published alongside the Draft LDP for public consultation later this summer.

2.4 Viability, infrastructure planning and CIL

2.4.1 An updated Viability Study has been commissioned to further inform the Draft LDP

policies. A workshop was held on 26 June 2013 as part of the Agents' Forum where a large number of invited stakeholders were consulted on the assumptions and information being used within the Study. A draft report will be provided shortly taking into account the contributions received at the workshop, and the report will be provided to Members in due course. The findings of the Study will be used to further inform and refine the draft LDP policies in order to ensure that the sites and the scale of development identified in the Plan will not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened (paragraph 173, NPPF).

2.4.2 Paragraph 174 of the NPPF goes on to state the following:

Local planning authorities should set out their policy on local standards in the Local Plan, including requirements for affordable housing. They should assess the likely cumulative impacts on development in their area of all existing and proposed local standards, supplementary planning documents and policies that support the development plan, when added to nationally required standards. In order to be appropriate, the cumulative impact of these standards and policies should not put implementation of the plan at serious risk, and should facilitate development throughout the economic cycle. Evidence supporting the assessment should be proportionate, using only appropriate available evidence.

2.4.3 The Study has started to consider the viability considerations associated with potential

LDP strategic sites. Initial draft findings in relation to the viability considerations associated with the potential strategic sites are set out below. It should be noted that the emerging conclusions presented below are subject to review and change as further information becomes available, but the emerging findings should be considered in relation to the spatial growth scenarios set out below and future strategic site allocations: • All strategic options for growth are viable where no affordable housing is

required. • Based on the information currently available and estimated infrastructure

costs, the requirements for 40% affordable housing may challenge viability. • Growth at South Maldon is likely to be viable with a requirement of 30%

affordable housing. This includes substantial education and sewerage infrastructure costs.

• The viability of growth at North Heybridge is highly dependent on costs related to schools and highways infrastructure. With the requirement of 30% affordable housing, a higher level of growth is required to ensure appropriate infrastructure can be provided. The viability of strategic growth at North Heybridge improves with the allocation of higher dwelling numbers beyond 900 units.


• Depending on the size of the future allocation, future primary school requirements at Burnham-on-Crouch may have an impact on viability. Growth at Latchingdon is unlikely to viable with the level of highways infrastructure required.

• The viability of growth at Latchingdon, Southminster, and North Heybridge is highly dependent on surface water flooding and sewerage infrastructure requirements.

2.4.4 The viability work associated with the potential LDP strategic sites is at a relatively

early stage and will be further refined following the confirmation of the strategic allocations to be included within the draft LDP. On-going discussions with infrastructure providers and delivery partners through the LDP Developer Forum in relation to the strategic allocations and future infrastructure requirements will be key to ensure that the Council can demonstrate that the LDP will be both viable and deliverable. Otherwise there is a significant risk that the LDP will not be found to be 'sound' at the Examination-in-Public.

2.4.5 Following confirmation of the Draft LDP and strategic site allocations, the Council

will need to produce an updated Infrastructure Delivery Plan setting out clearly the detailed infrastructure requirements associated with the Plan, including costs and future funding methods. This will also require decisions to be taken in relation to the scale and nature of any future Community Infrastructure Charging Levy and the future relationship with Section 106 contributions, which will be informed through the Viability Study and further subsequent work in relation to the implementation of CIL.

2.5 Spatial Growth Scenarios

2.5.1 Following the growth capacity testing and analysis of the information and evidence available, a series of spatial growth scenarios for strategic site allocations have been developed for Member consideration. The spatial growth scenarios are provided as APPENDIX 4 for Member consideration. Each of the scenarios presented is considered to be potentially robust and 'deliverable' taking into account the information and evidence available at the present time, and all of the scenarios incorporate the revised 'baseline' components of Policy S2 (see above) which seeks to retain the 'concentrated growth' spatial approach. However, concerns have been raised in relation to the potential viability and deliverability of increased growth at North Fambridge, Latchingdon and/or Southminster taking into account the known infrastructure constraints which exist, particularly in relation to surface water flooding and the future provision of sewerage infrastructure, and the need for likely requirement for additional Environment Agency flow consents at these locations. Further clarification continues to be sought from Anglian Water and the Environment Agency in relation to specific future requirements and related costs. In addition, concerns have been raised by Essex Highways in relation to the potential viability of providing a new road by-pass at Latchingdon. Please refer to APPENDICES 2 AND 3 for further relevant details.

2.5.2 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to identify a supply of

specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional 5% buffer to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Local planning authorities should also identify a


supply of specific, deliverable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and where possible, for years 11-15.

2.5.3 In response to the requirements of the NPPF, phasing requirements have been

indicated within each of the scenarios presented. It should be noted that the phasing requirements attributed to individual sites may be subject to review following the evolution of the Plan and further discussions with stakeholders, infrastructure providers and delivery partners. The LDP must plan for the delivery of a minimum of 1,544 dwellings within the first five years of the Plan period to meet the NPPF requirements. Each of the scenarios presented is considered to be potentially capable of providing a five year supply of deliverable land for housing as required by the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.5.4 It should be noted that the inclusion of a greater number of smaller sites within the

Plan (as demonstrated by Scenario 8) will enable the Council to reduce the future risk to the Plan at Examination-in-Public by exceeding the requirements by a greater margin. However, there may be a trade off in terms of the scale of future infrastructure provision associated with such a strategy. Planning for larger sites is more likely to provide greater economies of scale, and therefore provide greater potential for the delivery of more significant local infrastructure or facilities.

2.5.5 In order to ensure that the LDP provides a sufficient supply of specific deliverable

sites to meet the housing requirements and ensure choice and competition in the market for land, the Council may wish to consider identifying reserve site(s). Reserve site(s) will act as a contingency should any of the strategic allocations fail to deliver. The strategic growth scenarios presented identify potential reserve sites at Maldon and Burnham-on-Crouch where possible.

2.5.6 Should Members endorse the inclusion of reserve site(s) within the LDP, the draft

LDP will make it clear that should any of these sites need to come forward, a detailed planning document (either a Supplementary Planning Document or a masterplan) will need to be prepared and agreed by the Council to manage its release. This approach should be sufficiently robust as it is in keeping with the NPPF which states that local plans should provide ‘detail on form, scale, access and quantum of development where appropriate’ (para 157).

2.5.7 It should be noted that following the selection of the preferred scenario for

incorporation within the Draft LDP as strategic site allocations further work will be required to demonstrate the suitability and deliverability of the LDP prior to Submission of the Plan to the Secretary of State for Independent Examination. This will include full Public Consultation, Sustainability Appraisal and Viability Assessment of the Plan, and continued joint working with infrastructure providers and delivery partners through the LDP Developer Forum. Clearly, the Council will need to continue to have due regard to these elements as the plan progresses towards the Submission stage, and this could potentially include the need for further alterations to the draft LDP at a later date.

2.5.8 Members must take into consideration the responses received to the growth capacity

testing and other available evidence (including previous public consultation responses) when selecting the preferred spatial growth scenario for incorporation within the Draft LDP as strategic site allocations. Sustainability Appraisal must


ultimately be key to inform the site selection process, in addition to consideration of infrastructure requirements, viability and deliverability. In addition, it is important to consider the following core requirements of the NPPF in relation to plan-making (paragraph 182):

A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers is “sound” – namely that it is: • Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which

seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;

• Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;

• Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and

• Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

2.6 LDP next steps

2.6.1 Following Member endorsement of the preferred LDP spatial growth scenario, the

Draft LDP (including Policy S2 and strategic site allocations) will be amended accordingly. Further Sustainability Appraisal will be undertaken to inform and assess the Draft LDP, and the findings from the emerging Viability Study will be used to inform and further refine the Draft LDP policies.

2.6.2 The Draft LDP will be subject to Member consideration at Planning Policy Panel (2

August 2013), Planning and Licensing Committee (6 August 2013) and Council (8 August 2013). The provisional start date for public consultation on the Draft LDP is 28 August 2013. Further details will be provided in due course.

2.6.3 As stated above, further detailed consideration will be given to the infrastructure and

viability considerations of the Draft LDP, including detailed discussions with infrastructure providers and delivery partners through the LDP Developer Forum. A detailed updated Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be produced and published in due course following public consultation.

2.6.4 It is anticipated that the updated Local Development Scheme will be reported to

Planning and Licensing Committee in August 2013. 2.6.5 The progression of the LDP will significantly strengthen local planning policies and

local ability to protect and shape the future of the District. 2.7 LDP Communications Strategy

2.7.1 Following the resolution of the Council on 22 May 2013 (Minute No. 4 refers) a

communications strategy is to be produced in order to improve the exchange of information between the Council and the local community in relation to the LDP. This will also help to raise awareness of the process and the role of the LDP in


positively shaping the future of the District and mitigating against the future risk of speculative and uncoordinated developer led growth.

2.7.2 Further consideration has been given in relation to resources needed to produce and

implement the communications strategy and support the timely progression of the LDP. The employment of a part-time LDP Project Officer is considered to represent an appropriate solution. Further details of the project requirements are provided as APPENDIX 5.

3. IMPACT ON CORPORATE GOALS 3.1 The progression of the Local Development Plan will help to support and deliver the

following Corporate Goals for the District: • Meeting the housing needs of the District; • Protecting and shaping the District and balancing the future needs of the

community; and • Enabling, supporting and empowering communities to be safe, active and

healthy.

4. IMPLICATIONS

(i) Impact on Customers – The production of a Local Development Plan will give additional opportunities for the local community to contribute to planning for the future of the District through public consultation and engagement. The publication of the Local Development Plan Preferred Options has given greater certainty to the local community, stakeholders and service providers on the future planning strategy for the Maldon District. The endorsement of the Local Development Plan Preferred Options has enabled the document to become a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, superseding the Core Strategy Regulation 25 consultation document which was published in April 2009.

In the longer-term the adoption of the Local Development Plan will supersede the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan ‘saved policies’ as the Development Plan for the District. This will provide a clear and up to date spatial vision and policy framework for the District.

(ii) Impact on Equalities – The progression of the Local Development Plan will help to provide sustainable and well planned communities which promote social cohesion and help to provide for the future needs of the local community.

(iii) Impact on Risk – An up to date Local Development Plan is required in the District in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework in order to enable the Council to strategically plan for future needs, growth and sustainable development, and provide an adequate five year supply of deliverable land for housing.


The National Planning Policy Framework states that due weight will need to be given to adopted Local Policies contained within existing plans, including the ‘saved policies’ of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). From the day of publication decision makers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of preparation of the emerging plan. Therefore, the progression of the Local Development Plan and the publication of the Preferred Options document has started to provide a more up to date local planning framework in order to safeguard the District against speculative development. The progression of the Local Development Plan will enable the Council to take forward a plan-led approach in relation to the future provision for gypsies and travellers in the District in accordance with national policy.

(iv) Impact on Resources (financial) – A delay in plan production or any significant change in emerging policy direction would be likely to require additional work or alterations to the evidence base which may have significant financial resource implications for the Council. A supplementary estimate will be required for the proposed temporary part-time LDP Project Officer. The resource requirements are currently being evaluated through Job Evaluation.

(v) Impact on Resources (human) – The proposed temporary part-time LDP Project Officer will assist by producing and implementing the LDP Communications Strategy.

(vi) Impact on the Environment – The Local Development Plan will enable the Council to promote sustainable development and safeguard the local environment in accordance with the local priorities for the District. The Local Development Plan is being subject to Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment in accordance with the EU directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment. An additional Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment will be required on revisions and additions made to the Plan in the future.

5. CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Potential spatial growth scenarios for incorporation in the LDP as strategic site

allocations have been developed for Member consideration taking into account the growth capacity testing and evidence base.

5.2 Following Member consideration and endorsement of the preferred spatial growth

scenario the draft LDP will be amended accordingly. The draft LDP and associated evidence base will then be subject to Member consideration and endorsement in early August, prior to public consultation which is expected to commence on 28 August 2013.


5.3 The progression of the LDP will significantly strengthen local planning policies and local ability to protect and shape the future of the District.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS To the Planning and Licensing Committee (to recommend to the Council): (i) that Members consider the spatial growth scenarios identified, taking into

account national planning policy guidance, the growth capacity testing and other available evidence;

(ii) that Members endorse the preferred spatial growth scenario for incorporation into the Draft LDP as strategic site allocations;

(iii) that Members endorse the inclusion of reserve site(s) in the Draft LDP as a contingency measure;

(iv) that Members endorse the identified resource requirement in relation to the production and implementation of the LDP communications strategy, and that a supplementary estimate is requested from Finance and Corporate Services Committee.

To the Council: (i) To consider the recommendations of the Planning and Licensing Committee.

Background Papers: LDP Preferred Growth Strategy (Maldon District Council, 2012) Local Development Scheme (Maldon District Council, 2012) Maldon District Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Maldon District Council, 2012) Maldon District Local Development Plan Preferred Options Consultation Documents (MDC,

2012) Maldon District Replacement Local Plan (Maldon District Council, 2005) Maldon District Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (Maldon District Council,

2012) National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) Maldon District Local Development Plan Sustainability Appraisal (Royal Haskoning, 2012) Enquiries to: David Coleman, Strategic Planning Policy Manager, (Tel: 01621 854477).

Maldon District Local Development Plan 2014 - 2029

Growth Capacity Testing Stakeholder Consultation

1. Maldon LDP progress

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that local authorities should plan to meet the area’s full ‘objectively assessed housing needs (OAN)’. There is currently no formal guidance to define how OAN should be calculated. Nevertheless, taking advice sought from the government, the Planning Inspectorate and Counsel, a suitable methodology for calculating OAN should be based on up-to-date demographic projections. In light of the advice received, OAN for the District has been defined as 294 dwellings per annum (dpa) based on the Sub-National Population Projection / Greater Essex Demographic Projection report (phase 4) published April 2013. The Council has endorsed 294 dpa as its OAN at the Council meeting on 22 May 2013 and the emerging LDP policies are being amended to reflect this change. The resolutions of the Council meeting also provided the basis for this growth capacity testing exercise.

The OAN for Maldon District - 294 dpa represents a considerable increase from the Council’s initial preferred growth target of 200 dpa as identified in its Local Development Plan (LDP) preferred options consultation undertaken during summer 2012. In seeking to accommodate this extra growth, the Council needs to undertake further assessment and testing to gain greater understanding of the District’s infrastructure capacity, the scale of local constraints, and the cost and timescale for potential mitigation measures.

The testing of additional growth capacity is essential for the progress of the Maldon LDP and your professional comments and advice will be vital for the Council to develop a comprehensive spatial growth strategy for the District over the next 15 years. The revised strategic growth strategy and other LDP policies will be informed and influenced by the outcome of this exercise.

Given the tight timescale and the urgency for the Council to progress with the LDP, we would be grateful to receive your comments back no later than 24 June 2013.

APPENDIX 1

1/6

2. Revised LDP housing land supply

Under Policy S2 of the LDP preferred options public consultation document the Council indicated that the housing land supply should include the following elements:

2012 Requirement: 3,000 dwellings (200 per annum)

South of Maldon: 1,250 dwellings North of Heybridge: 900 dwellings West of Burnham-on-Crouch: 450 dwellings North Fambridge: 300 dwellings Existing commitments (extent planning permission): 300 dwellings

2012 Total: 3,200 dwellings

Progress have been made since the public consultation and it has been agreed that the composition of housing land supply for the LDP should be amended to allow supply from Rural Allocation, Windfall sites, SHLAA sites which are deemed in compliance with local planning policies, as well as to reflect consultation responses and subsequent discussions with Members and other stakeholders. Therefore, it is possible to construct a revised baseline housing land supply as follows:

OAN requirement: 4,410 (294 per annum)

South of Maldon: 1,250 dwellings North of Heybridge: 1000 dwellings Burnham-on-Crouch: 450 dwellings Rural Allocations: 300 dwellings (including 75 in North Fambridge) Extent planning permission: 300 dwellings (subject to annual monitoring) SHLAA site (policy compliant): 97 dwellings (subject to annual review) Windfall allowance: 330 dwellings

Revised Baseline Total: 3,727 dwellings

Shortfall 4,410 minus 3,727 = 683 dwellings

APPENDIX 1

2/6

3. Growth Capacity Testing Testing options Taking into account the Council’s endorsed OAN and the revised baseline for housing supply, the Council will need to consider all reasonable options to accommodate an extra 683 dwellings over the plan period (rounded up to 700 for testing purposes). The following section seeks to test the capacity and parameters of potential areas for further growth. In accordance with the Council’s overall strategic approach to concentrate growth around major settlements, all additional reasonable potential locations around Maldon, Heybridge and Burnham-on-Crouch have been identified through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, consultation responses, and land submission to the MDC etc. Other locations including North Fambridge, Latchingdon and Southminster are also present to reflect consultation responses and subsequent Members’ resolutions. Table 1 provides a list of potential areas for additional growth (in bold) and a list of individual sites within each of the additional growth areas which could help to deliver extra growth. The table also shows the revised baseline housing supply position for each of the additional growth areas, and the additional capacity which should be used for testing purposes. Area Ref.

Site Ref.

Additional Growth Areas Revised baseline

(dwellings)

Testing of additional capacity

(dwellings) GO1 Additional Growth – North Heybridge 1,000 700 H1 Extension to North Heybridge H4 New sites north of Goldhanger Road BS1 East of Broad Street Green (north) BS2 East of Broad Street Green (south) GO2 Additional Growth – South Maldon 1,250 700 M1 Intensification of South Maldon M2 New sites – West Maldon GO3 Additional Growth – Burnham-on-

Crouch 450 700

B1 New site – West of Southminster Road B2 New site – East of Southminster Road B4 New site – East Burnham GO4 Additional Growth – Rural allocation

(larger, smaller and other villages as indicated in Appendix 2)

225 700

GO5 North Fambridge 75 700 F3 West North Fambridge (north) F4 West North Fambridge (south) GO6 Latchingdon ~ 700 L1 West Latchingdon GO7 Southminster ~ 700 S3 Southminster Hall Farm S4 North of Queenborough Road S5 South Southminster

Table 1 Growth Options

Appendix 1 provides an indicative spatial illustration of the testing areas and the individual sites included in Table 1. The map also shows potential masterplan areas for South of Maldon, North of Heybridge, and Burnham-on-Crouch.

APPENDIX 1

3/6

Additional growth identified in the areas listed above could be delivered through various means including:

Allocation of additional sites not currently included within the masterplan areas;

Extension of existing masterplan areas;

Intensification of South Maldon Garden Suburb i.e. higher density within the proposed masterplan area;

In the case of rural allocations, a separate Development Plan Document will be produced following the LDP to identify exactly where the additional growth will be allocated within the District’s villages.

A number of ‘Growth Scenarios’ including detailed breakdown of growth distributions, phasing and site boundaries, will be developed by officers based on the outcome of the testing exercise, consultation responses, emerging evidence (including Sustainability Appraisal and Viability Assessment) and further discussions with Members and other stakeholders. The ‘Growth Scenarios’ will then be presented to Members for considerations in relation to the LDF revised growth strategy prior to public consultation on the draft LDP.

Testing questions Please note that the testing of additional capacity for each of the growth areas should be based on the revised baseline housing supply position as a whole for the District (as identified in in section 2 of this paper). It is understood that in some cases further modelling / technical assessment may be required at a later date to ascertain capacity and constraints in relation to a certain area, however, at this stage professional advice at an officer level will be sufficient.

For clarity, please also make sure your comments utilise the area / site references contained in Table 1 where necessary.

For each of the additional growth areas listed in Table 1, the Council would like to seek your professional advice on the issues listed below.

1. Are there existing identified infrastructure / environmental constraints? What will be the maximum level of additional growth that can be accommodated under existing infrastructure capacity (including projected upgrades)?

2. What are, if any, the development quantum thresholds (or trigger points) for future infrastructure delivery?

3. If a shortfall is identified in terms of infrastructure capacity, are there any realistic mitigation measures, both on a growth area level and site specific level, which may help to overcome such a constraint? Where possible please provide us with details about the measures suggested including estimated costing and delivery timescale.

4. Given potential constraints, mitigation measures and site specific issues, will certain sites within a growth area be considered more suitable / deliverable than others within each of the growth option areas? Please explain your preference.

5. Are there any other area / site specific considerations which should be considered in relation to each growth options?

APPENDIX 1

4/6

6. What technical studies may be required to further understand potential impacts andmitigation measures (including costs) for the growth options?

7. Where applicable, please validate or update on any previous advice MDC hasreceived from you (Appendix 3).

Specific Questions to ECC Highway

- For each additional growth option, please can you provide an indication as to the suggested highway mitigation measures that would be required to accommodate this level of growth including the potential for new link roads / by-pass, estimated cost, and timescale if the areas need to accommodate the estimated total growth identified?

- For each additional growth option, what are the anticipated wider highways impacts to the District and neighbouring authority areas e.g. Langford, Latchingdon, Danbury, Hatfield Peverel etc? Please indicate any associate suggested mitigation measures and estimated costs.

Specific Questions to ECC Education

- Please provide any available up-to-date information in terms of locations within Maldon District where there is existing capacity in local schools (primary and secondary) and how many houses could theoretically be provided in those areas over the plan period?

- Where projected growth is anticipated to exceed local school capacity in the future, what measures other than new school development or provision may be considered by ECC to address the situation? e.g. redrawing catchment areas, providing transportation to other schools with capacity.

Specific Questions to surface water team

- Where possible, please specify the surface water flood risk as well as potential mitigation measures and associated cost to individual sites in all of the growth options as identified in Appendix 1.

APPENDIX 1

5/6

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 1

6/6

MALDON LOCAL PLAN – GROWTH CAPACITY TESTING - EDUCATION

Background

Maldon District Council endorsed an `Objectively Assessed Housing Need’ of 4410 dwellings (294 dpa) over the period 2014 – 2029 at Full Council on 22 May 2013. Service Areas have previously considered a proposed provision of 3200 dwellings, as part of the Preferred Options Local Plan in 2012. Following a reassessment of available supply and inclusion of additional categories of supply, an additional 700 dwellings is required to be allocated.

Assessment Requirements

ECC has undertaken the following assessments in order to consider the potential impact of identified growth in Maldon on the delivery of Essex County Council key services, and in particular the capacity of primary and secondary school.

A) Revised Preferred Option (2012 Baseline)

B) An assessment of the revised baseline position at April 2013

C) To consider the potential impact of an additional 700 dwellings abovethe baseline position through a number of Options (GO1 to GO7)

The above has been considered in relation to the impact of growth on Primary and Secondary Education:

• Primary education• Secondary education

Forecasting Demand for Major Development Some properties will not generate a significant need for additional places. Such dwelling types include single bed properties, student accommodation and care homes. The updated SHMA report (2013) has indicated that a required future housing mix of new development will need to provide a minimum of 20% single bed properties. This proportion has not been considered within the assessment.

Essex County Council uses the following factors to calculate qualifying dwellings.

The factors used to calculate demand from qualifying dwellings are as follows:

Houses Flats

Primary School 0.3 0.15 Secondary School 0.2 0.1 Sixth Form 0.04 0.02

Pupil number forecasts also make use of information about historic births, current GP registrations, historic admissions, current numbers on roll and new housing trajectories.

New Provision Thresholds There are no set thresholds which require a new facility to be built. However, in the case of primary schools, Essex County Council has a policy of establishing two form entry (420 place) schools wherever possible. It also aims to avoid mixed age teaching and a school of 210 places (one form entry) is the smallest size primary that achieves this aim.

APPENDIX 2 - RESPONSE FROM ECC EDUCATIONAPPENDIX 2

1/89

With regard to secondary education, new schools are only likely to be required to serve large green field sites. Four forms of entry, or 600 pupils in the 11 to 16 age range, is the absolute minimum secondary school size recommended by the Department for Children Schools and Families. This is the number of pupils that would be generated by a development of around 3,000 houses. In the planning context for new secondary schools Essex County Council would aim to establish a school of at least six forms of entry (900 pupils in the 11 to 16 age range). The area of land that Essex County Council requires for schools and pre-schools is based on current Department for Children Schools and Families Building Bulletins and other relevant publications. Central government also encourages ‘extended schools’ that include other community services, and clearly larger sites are required if such facilities are to be co-located with a school. In order to produce a school with manageable year groups Essex County Council may require more land than indicated by a straight forward calculation of pupils from a development. The following are a guide to the likely land requirements for early years and childcare, primary and secondary education: Primary Education

• One form entry (210 pupil places) – 1.09 ha • Two form entry (420 pupil places) – 1.93 ha

Secondary Education

• Six forms of entry (900 pupil places) – 6.91 ha Commissioning School Places in Essex, 2012 - 2017 There are presently 18 primary schools in Maldon District providing a net capacity of approximately 4,800 pupil places. Over the next 5 years, without any Local Plan development, there is expected to be available capacity for approximately 730 additional places. The spare capacity is not spread evenly throughout the district, with significant spare capacity at Burnham-on-Crouch; Tolleshunt D’Arcy; Southminster; Latchingdon and Maylandsea. Most schools will have some capacity to accommodate growth but the following schools are either already over capacity or close to capacity (10 places or less): Tollesbury School; All Saints Maldon; St Francis Catholic School, Maldon; Cold Norton; Purleigh; Great Totham and Woodham Walter. There are two secondary schools, both Academies, namely The Plume , Maldon (1850 net capacity) and Ormiston Rivers, Burnham-on-Crouch (1050 net capacity) in the District. There is significant available capacity at Ormiston Rivers, but there are concerns regarding the future capacity at The Plume, especially since it operates on a split site with limited, if any, land for expansion. These comments do not consider the potential impact of any future growth to be identified in the Local Plan. A - Revised Preferred Option (2012) Baseline Background Essex County Council previously provided comments on the Preferred Options Plan (2012), which considered the following distribution of housing supply:


2/89

• Land North of Heybridge (900); • Land South of Maldon (1250) • Land west of Burnham on Crouch (450) • North Fambridge (300)

An assessment was undertaken in 2012 to consider the cumulative impact of the above on the provision of primary and secondary education. This level of development has been reviewed to identify whether there has been any significant changes on the Preferred Option distribution. This assessment has used updated actual number on roll figures using the January 2013 school census and pupil forecasts. Primary Education It is expected that this level of growth will generate approximately 870 additional pupils, of which approximately 75% will be at Maldon/Heybridge. The assessment schedule for the Preferred Option (2012) level of growth above is attached, and the main conclusions are:

• North Heybridge - expansion of Heybridge Primary School or provision of a new 1fe primary school

• Land south of Maldon – a new primary school site would be required for a minimum of up to 1.5 forms of entry

• Burnham on Crouch – Burnham on Crouch and St Mary’s Primary Schools wouls be at or over capacity. Both schools are on restricted sites with expansion considered as not feasible. St Mary’s could increase its permanent capacity by replacing a temporary classbase. Since the previous assessment Burnham on Crouch primary has had a project to replace 3 temporary classbases with permanent classbases.

• North Fambridge – it is more likely that surplus places at Latchingdon Primary School would cater for any demand from North Fambridge rather than Purleigh Community Primary School. Cold Norton Primary School has a site area of 1.10ha, which could be expanded by up to 1fe.

Secondary Education The assessment schedule for the Preferred Option (2012) level of growth above is attached, and the main conclusions are:

• The Plume – The school operates on a split site with little available land to enable expansion to accommodate the identified additional pupils from this level of development (deficit 350 places). The Plume School has indicated a willingness to explore a 2fe expansion, but there are concerns regarding the availability of additional land.

• The Ormiston Rivers Academy – The proposed level of growth would generate approximately 185 additional pupils, which could be accommodated within exisiting capacity (surplus 180 places). There may be some additional transports costs incurred depending on the actual distribution of development.

• Phasing of development – the phasing of development between North Heybridge and South Maldon is considered imperative to assist the management of future pupil intake. If both developments were brought forward simultaneously then there may be difficulties in accommodating a large intake of pupils.

• Housing Mix – more clarity in the assessment can be provided once the actual dwelling mix of developments is known


3/89

B – Revised Baseline Distribution of Housing to be assessed (April 2013) Since the Preferred Option Local Plan additional work has been undertaken regarding the proposed components of housing supply, which has resulted in the following:

• the allocation at North Fambridge has been reduced from 300 to 75 dwellings • an allocation of 225 dwellings has been allocated to rural settlements (non defined); • an allowance of 330 dwellings (22 pa) has been identified as `windfalls’ (non defined) • existing commitments has been updated to an April 2013 base; • an allowance has been identified for Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

sites (SHLAA) Essex County Council – Key Assumptions concerning the revised Maldon baseline For the purposes of this assessment Essex County Council has made the following assumptions:

• the `windfall’ allowance (330 dwellings) has not been considered due to a lack of specific sites and distribution meaning development cannot be assigned to school catchments

• the rural allocation (225 dwellings) has not been considered within the assessment due to a lack of specific sites and distribution meaning development cannot be assigned to school catchments

• only extant permissions within the catchment of the Growth Locations (North Heybridge; South Maldon and Burnham on Crouch) have been considered

• only SHLAA sites within the catchment of the Growth Locations (North Heybridge; South Maldon and Burnham on Crouch) have been considered

• any pupil will attempt to be accommodated within its nearest school to avoid incurring transport costs on the County Council (ie less than 8 years within 2 miles and 3 miles for older children)

Any future development proposed in rural locations could have significant impacts on the provision of primary education, since such locations generally offer fewer options for accommodating growth than urban locations, and often lead to financial implications for the school transport. The updated baseline position to be assessed is: Growth Location

Revised Baseline

North Heybridge

1157

South Maldon

1291

Burnham on Crouch

485

North Fambridge

75

Total 3008 The purpose in undertaking the assessment above is to provide an updated position statement of that undertaken with regards the Preferred Option Plan (2012), and incorporating the changes indicated above.


4/89

Essex County Council has considered the future capacity of education facilities in rural locations identified in the settlement hierarchy. Essex County Council has not been provided with any potential distribution of supply in rural locations. The assessment has considered whether an existing premises has potential capacity (pupil numbers) to accommodate any additional growth, and an indication has been provided with regards the level of that growth (ie dwellings). The necessary dwellings would need to be accommodated within the catchment of the primary school, which is not necessarily possible, and may lead to issues regarding pupil transportation. Primary Education It is expected that this level of growth will generate approximately 900 additional pupils, of which approximately 80% will be at Maldon/Heybridge. The assessment schedule for revised Local Plan baseline level of growth above is attached, and the main conclusions are:


• Land south of Maldon – a new primary school site would be required for a minimum of up to 1.5 forms of entry. This level of growth would enable the replacement of temporary accommodation at Maldon Primary School

• Burnham on Crouch – Both schools are on restricted sites with expansion considered as not feasible. St Mary’s could increase its permanent capacity by replacing a temporary classbase. Since the previous assessment Burnham on Crouch primary has had a project to replace 3 temporary classbases with permanent classbases.

• North Fambridge – this level of development could be accommodated within existing capacity at Latchingdon Primary School

Secondary Education The assessment schedule for the revised Local Plan baseline level of growth above is attached, and the main conclusions are:

• The Plume – The school operates on a split site with little available land to enable expansion to accommodate the identified additional pupils from this level of development (deficit 400 places). The Plume School has indicated a willingness to explore a 2fe expansion, but there are concerns regarding the availability of additional land.





5/89

C – Baseline Position with Added Growth Capacity Scenarios (GO1 – GO7) Maldon District Council has identified a need to provide an additional 700 dwellings to the baseline position, as indicated above. A number of Growth Options have been considered below with regards the potential impact on the future delivery of primary, secondary, and early years and childcare. These Growth Options are outlined below with a 20% reduction made for single bed properties: Option GO1 North Heybridge To provide some 1857 at North Heybridge with the additional 700 dwellings distributed at one or a combination of locations H1, H4, BS1 and BS2, as indicated on the attached Map. It is expected that this level of growth will generate approximately 1110 additional pupils , of which approximately 85% will be at Maldon/Heybridge. The assessment schedule for the level of growth in Option GO1 – Primary Education is attached, and the main conclusions are:



• Burnham on Crouch – Both schools are on restricted sites with expansion considered as not feasible. St Mary’s could increase its permanent capacity by 30 places by replacing temporary accommodation. Since the previous assessment Burnham on Crouch primary has had a project to replace 3 temporary classbases with permanent classbases.


Option GO2 - South Maldon To provide some 1991 at South Maldon with the additional 700 dwellings distributed at one or a combination of locations M1 and M2, as indicated on the attached Map. It is expected that this level of growth will generate approximately 1110 additional pupils , of which approximately 85% will be at Maldon/Heybridge. The assessment schedule for the level of growth in Option GO2 – Primary Education is attached, and the main conclusions are:



• Burnham on Crouch – Both schools are on restricted sites with expansion considered as not feasible. St Mary’s could increase its permanent capacity by 30 additional places by replacement of temporary accommodation. Since the previous assessment Burnham on Crouch primary has had a project to replace 3 temporary classbases with permanent classbases.



6/89

Secondary Education – Growth Option 1 and 2 An assessment has been considered with regards the catchment area of The Plume with regards an additional 700 dwellings provided within the catchment area.

• The Plume – The school operates on a split site with little available land to enable expansion to accommodate the identified additional pupils from this level of development (deficit 550 places). The Plume School has indicated a willingness to explore a 2fe expansion, but there are concerns regarding the availability of additional land. It is difficult to envisage how this level of growth could be accommodated.



Option GO3 – Burnham on Crouch To provide some 1185 at Burnham on Crouch with the additional 700 dwellings distributed at one or a combination of locations B1, B2 or B4, as indicated on the attached Map. It is expected that this level of growth will generate approximately 1110 additional pupils , of which approximately 66% will be at Maldon/Heybridge. The assessment schedule for the level of growth in Option GO3 – Primary Education is attached, and the main conclusions are:



• Burnham on Crouch – Both schools are on restricted sites with expansion considered as not feasible. St Mary’s could increase its permanent capacity by replacing a temporary classbase. This level of growth would require the provision of a new 1fe primary school as a minimum


Option GO4 – Rural Allocation A provision is being recommended throughout larger, smaller villages and other villages to provide:

• a baseline of 225 dwellings (non defined), plus • an additional 700 dwellings (non defined), plus • distribution of extant permissions, plus • distribution of SHLAA Sites

Any existing services outside of North Heybridge; South Maldon; Burnham on Crouch and North Fambridge will need to consider the impact of the rural allocation on existing services.


7/89

An assessment has been undertaken to identify the number of additional homes that could be accommodated within the catchment area of rural schools within their existing capacity. Settlement Forecast number on roll for

primary schools, 2017-2018 No of homes that could be accommodated within existing capacity

*Tolleshunt D’Arcy 100 380 Southminster 200 370 Latchingdon 20 230 Maylandsea 250 220 Bradwell 175 70 Tillingham 100 140 * within The Plumes catchment area Note: the data has been rounded Option GO5 – North Fambridge To provide some 775 at North Fambridge with the additional 700 dwellings distributed at one or a combination of locations F3 and F4, as indicated on the attached Map. It is expected that this level of growth will generate approximately 1110 additional pupils , of which approximately 66% will be at Maldon/Heybridge. The assessment schedule for the level of growth in Option GO5 – Primary Education is attached, and the main conclusions are:



• Burnham on Crouch – Both schools are on restricted sites with expansion considered as not feasible. St Mary’s could increase its permanent capacity by 30 places by replacing temporary accommodation.

• North Fambridge – this level of development would require a new 1fe primary school as a minimum to serve North Fambridge

Option GO6 - Latchingdon To provide some 700 dwellings at Latchingdon distributed at locations L1, as indicated on the attached Map. It is expected that this level of growth will generate approximately 1110 additional pupils , of which approximately 66% will be at Maldon/Heybridge. The assessment schedule for the level of growth in Option GO6 – Primary Education is attached, and the main conclusions are:




8/89


• North Fambridge/Latchingdon – this level of development at Latchingdon would also need to consider the baseline position at North Fambridge (75 dwellings). To accommodate this level of growth further examination would be required into the possible relocation and expansion of Latchingdon Primary to a 1.5fe school.

Option GO7 - Southminster To provide some 707 at Southminster with the additional 700 dwellings distributed at one or a combination of locations S3, S4 or S5, as indicated on the attached Map. It is expected that this level of growth will generate approximately 1110 additional pupils , of which approximately 66% will be at Maldon/Heybridge. The assessment schedule for the level of growth in Option GO7 - Primary Education is attached, and the main conclusions are:




• North Fambridge – this level of development could be accommodated within existing capacity at Latchingdon Primary School.

• Southminster – this level of development would require a new 2fe primary school With regards Secondary Education – a separate assessment has been undertaken to consider the impact of any additional growth on Secondary education, and in particular The Plume Academy, Maldon. Essex County Council has considered the identified growth that is known within its catchment area, along with the Growth Options, and considered alongside known growth in the next 5 year period. Secondary Education – Growth Options 3, 5,6 and 7 An assessment has been considered with regards the catchment area of The Ormiston Rivers Academy with regards an additional 700 dwellings provided within the catchment area.



9/89

Maldon Local Development Plan

Further Assessment of Impact of Proposed Development Sites in Heybridge,

South Maldon, Burnham-on-Crouch, North Fambridge, Latchingdon,

Southminster and Rural Locations on Highway Network

June 2013

Prepared by:

County Hall Market Road Chelmsford Essex CM1 1QH

For:

Maldon District Council

Council Offices Princes Road Maldon Essex CM9 5DL

APPENDIX 2 RESPONSE FROM ECC HIGHWAYSAPPENDIX 2

10/89

Maldon Local Development Plan

Assessment of Traffic Impact Report

ii

Document Control Sheet

Report Title Maldon Local Development Plan

CD Reference

Status Final

Revision 1

Control Date 26th June, 2013

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

1 Final B Johnston June ‘13 M Young June ‘13 C Aarons June ‘13

Distribution

Organisation Contact Number of Copies

Maldon District Council David Coleman 1

Essex County Council Hannah Neve 1

Essex County Council Kevin Fraser 1

Essex County Council Matthew Bradley 1

Essex Highways Brendan Johnston 1


11/89

N:\9 Trans Impr\TP\Projects\TTP1012 - Maldon LDP\(4) Reports\MaldonLDP - Further Study - June 13.docx

iii

Contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background to Study ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Report Structure ............................................................................................................... 1

2 Developments Already Considered ................................................................................... 2

2.1 Location of Already Considered Development Proposals ................................................ 2

3 Impact of Heybridge and South Maldon Developments – Baseline Scenarios ..................... 5

3.1 Junction Assessments – Heybridge and Maldon .............................................................. 5

3.2 Impact of New Baseline Housing Projection ..................................................................... 6

4 Impact of Burnham-on-Crouch Developments – Baseline Scenarios ................................... 7

4.1 Junction Assessments in Burnham-on-Crouch ................................................................. 7


5 Impact of North Fambridge and Rural Allocation ............................................................... 8


6 Location of Additional 700 Dwellings – Highways Considerations for Maldon District Area . 9

6.1 Options for New Growth Areas ........................................................................................ 9

6.2 GO1 Heybridge .................................................................................................................. 9

6.3 GO2 South Maldon ......................................................................................................... 10

6.4 GO3 Burnham-on-Crouch ............................................................................................... 12

6.5 GO4 Rural Allocation ....................................................................................................... 13

6.6 GO5 North Fambridge ..................................................................................................... 13

6.7 GO6 Latchingdon ............................................................................................................ 13

6.8 GO7 Southminster .......................................................................................................... 14

6.9 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 15

7 Wider Impacts of Maldon District Development .............................................................. 16

7.1 Neighbouring Authorities’ Concerns .............................................................................. 16

7.2 Impact of Development on A414 and B1019.................................................................. 16

7.3 Impact of Development on South Woodham Ferrers and Rettendon Turnpike ............ 17

7.4 Impact on Possible North-east Chelmsford Rail Station ................................................. 17

7.5 Impact on Links to Witham ............................................................................................. 19

8 Link Road Comments ...................................................................................................... 20

8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 20

8.2 MDC Option H1a and H1b .............................................................................................. 20


12/89


iv

8.3 MDC Option H2a and H2b .............................................................................................. 22

8.4 MDC Option H3 ............................................................................................................... 23

8.5 MDC Option H4 ............................................................................................................... 24

8.6 MDC Option M1 .............................................................................................................. 25

8.7 MDC Option M2a and M2b ............................................................................................. 26

8.8 MDC Option M3 .............................................................................................................. 27

8.9 MDC Option L1 ................................................................................................................ 28

9 Public Transport Provision .............................................................................................. 29

9.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 29

9.2 Current Bus Services in Maldon District - Overview ....................................................... 29

9.3 Passenger Transport Provision to Serve the Various Growth Options ........................... 30

10 Next Steps...................................................................................................................... 31


13/89


v

Figures Figure 1. Heybridge Development Location .............................................................................. 2 Figure 2. South Maldon Development Locations ....................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Burnham-on-Crouch Development Locations.............................................................. 3 Figure 4. Southminster Development Locations ........................................................................ 4 Figure 5: Traffic Movements from New Developments Leaving Heybridge and Maldon - AM Peak ............................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 6: MDC Option H1a...................................................................................................... 20 Figure 7: MDC Option H1b ..................................................................................................... 20 Figure 8: MDC Option H2a...................................................................................................... 22 Figure 9: MDC Option H2b ..................................................................................................... 22 Figure 10: MDC Option H3 ..................................................................................................... 23 Figure 11: MDC Option H4 ..................................................................................................... 24 Figure 12: MDC Option M1 ..................................................................................................... 25 Figure 13: MDC Option M2a and M2b .................................................................................... 26 Figure 14: MDC Option M3 ..................................................................................................... 27 Figure 15: MDC Option L1 ...................................................................................................... 28


14/89

N:\9 Trans Impr\TP\Projects\TTP1012 - Maldon LDP\(4) Reports\MaldonLDP - Further Study - June 13.docx 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background to Study

Essex County Council (ECC) and Maldon District Council (MDC) have been working together to

progress MDC’s Local Development Plan (LDP) towards the submission stage. To this end, Essex

Highways (EH) recently provided a report (May 2013) on the potential impact on the highway

network of 1,000 dwellings in Heybridge, 1,250 dwellings in South Maldon and 900 dwellings in

Burnham-on-Crouch. This followed an earlier report of December 2010 produced by Mouchel plc

which provided similar evidence. Following receipt of the latest report, MDC have requested

further assistance as they evaluate additional development proposals. This report therefore

provides an overview of the key issues raised by these most recent proposals.

1.2 Report Structure

Following this introductory section, Section 2 summarises the developments already considered in

the May 2013 and December 2010 studies, before Section 3 considers the impact of MDC’s new

baseline housing scenarios for Heybridge and South Maldon. Section 4 similarly considers the new

baseline scenario for Burnham-on-Crouch, whilst Section 5 does the same for North Fambridge

and the rural housing allocation. Section 6 then assesses the potential impact of 700 additional

dwellings across 7 locations in the district, before Section 7 looks at the impacts of such

development on the wider network and neighbouring local authority areas. Section 8 follows with

comments on proposed new link roads in the district put forward by MDC, before Section 9

provides details on public transport provision for the proposed growth areas. Lastly, Section 10

suggests the next steps.


15/89


2 Developments Already Considered

2.1 Location of Already Considered Development Proposals

The May 2013 report considered the following development sites:

1. Heybridge – 1,000 dwellings to be located in an area of land north of Holloway Road (this

is the same level of provision as the December 2010 study but, unlike previously, assumes

that all dwellings will be accessed via the proposed relief road linking Broad Street Green

Road with Holloway Road / Langford Road);

2. South Maldon – 1,250 dwellings across four separate parcels of land bordering the A414,

Limebrook Way and Park Drive; and

3. Burnham-on-Crouch – 900 dwellings, 450 to be accessed by Creeksea Lane and 450 via

the B1021 Southminster Road and Marsh Road.

The corresponding locations are shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3. NB These outlined areas have yet to

be confirmed and are therefore purely indicative at this stage.

Figure 1. Heybridge Development Location

© Crown Copyright All Rights Reserved 100019602 2013


16/89


Figure 2. South Maldon Development Locations

Figure 3. Burnham-on-Crouch Development Locations

Mouchel’s December 2010 report also considered 100 dwellings in Southminster. These were

located either side of the B1021 on the northern side of the town. Figure 4 shows the locations.




17/89


Figure 4. Southminster Development Locations



18/89


3 Impact of Heybridge and South Maldon Developments – Baseline Scenarios

3.1 Junction Assessments – Heybridge and Maldon

The previous report identified that, of those assessed, the following junctions should perform

satisfactorily in 2026 with 2,250 new dwellings in the Maldon urban area (1,000 in Heybridge and

1, in South Maldon):

B1022 Colchester Road / Scraley Road / Broad Street Green Road;

A414 / B1018 The Causeway / Fullbridge;

B1018 Limebrook Way / B1010 Fambridge Road; and

B1018 Limebrook Way / Mundon Road / Park Drive.

Mitigation measures were deemed to be necessary and identified (full details are contained in

Appendix A) at the following junctions in order to accommodate the development proposals:

A414 / B1018 Heybridge Approach;

A414 / Spital Road; and

A414 / Wycke Hill Business Park / B1018 Limebrook Way1.

The following junction was identified as likely to require mitigation measures if any more than the

2,250 dwellings in the Maldon urban area are brought forward:

B1019 Langford Road / B1018 Heybridge Approach.

The following two junctions were identified as being over capacity in 2026 post-development with

no scope for mitigation due to their spatial constraints. It should, however, be noted that a ‘nil

detriment’ at the junctions could be achieved over the 2026 Background Traffic scenario if a link

road connecting Broad Street Green Road to Holloway Road / Langford Road is provided as part of

the proposed Heybridge development.

B1018 The Causeway / The Square / B1022 The Street; and

B1022 Colchester Road / B1026 Goldhanger Road.

Lastly, the following junction is shown to be over capacity in 2026 due to traffic from the

proposed developments. Mitigation measures would therefore have to be considered at this

location:

1 It should be noted that the May 2013 report assumed an A414 bypass link would enable some traffic to

avoid this junction. Mitigation measures were, nevertheless, still deemed necessary.


19/89


A414 Chelmsford Road / A414 Maldon Road / B1010 Burnham Road / A1418 Southend

Road (Oak Corner Roundabout).

3.2 Impact of New Baseline Housing Projection

Following submission of the May 2013 report, MDC have drawn up a new baseline housing

scenario. The latest projections for the Heybridge and Maldon area are as follows:

Heybridge – 1,157 dwellings; and

South Maldon – 1,291 dwellings.

The combined total for both these areas is 2,448, an increase of almost 200 over the earlier

assessment work. South Maldon has increased by 41 dwellings and EH do not consider this to be a

material difference. In this case the findings in the May 2013 report should still apply in terms of

junction performance on the highway network.

By contrast, an increase of 157 dwellings in Heybridge is likely to have an impact on the

performance of the B1019 Langford Road / B1018 Heybridge Approach junction. In fact, the

cumulative effect of this increase in dwellings planned in the Maldon urban area (41 + 157) would,

as stated in Section 3.1, be very likely to lead to mitigation measures being required in this

location.

However, it should be acknowledged that this assessment was based on a link road being

provided between Broad Street Green Road and Holloway Road / Langford Road, i.e. east of the

current junction. If the link road is extended slightly so that it connects to the B1019 Langford

Road west of the existing junction, i.e. between the roundabout and the junction with Witham

Road further west, it may be possible to offset the need for mitigation. This is because a

proportion of development traffic would be able to bypass the junction. It should be noted that,

although any such realignment would assist in reducing demand at the Langford Road / Heybridge

Approach junction, the alignment should not be such that traffic from the B1022 Broad Street

Green Road bound for the A414 towards Danbury and Chelmsford would not switch from the

B1022 and B1018 through the already congested, central Heybridge area.


20/89


4 Impact of Burnham-on-Crouch Developments – Baseline Scenarios

4.1 Junction Assessments in Burnham-on-Crouch

The previous report identified that, of those assessed, the following junctions should perform

satisfactorily in 2026 with 900 new dwellings in Burnham-on-Crouch:

B1021 Southminster Road / Marsh Road / B1021 Church Road;

B1021 Station Road / Alexandra Road;

B1021 Station Road / Devonshire Road / Foundry Lane; and

B1010 Maldon Road / Creeksea Lane.

Mitigation measures were identified (full details contained in Appendix A) at the following

junction in order to accommodate the development proposals:

B1021 Church Road / B1010 Maldon Road.


MDC have indicated that their new baseline housing projection for Burnham-on-Crouch is 485

dwellings. Given that the May 2013 study indicated that, if mitigation measures were put in place

at the B1021 Church Road / B1010 Maldon Road, the local highway network could satisfactorily

accommodate up to 900 dwellings, the latest housing projection should not give rise to any

concern in the vicinity of the town.


21/89


5 Impact of North Fambridge and Rural Allocation


The impact of housing allocations at North Fambridge or at undefined rural locations were not

considered in either the December 2010 or May 2013 studies. However, the latest baseline

projection is that 75 dwellings will be accommodated at North Fambridge and 396 dwellings

across the undefined rural locations.

Clearly it is difficult to assess the potential impact of these developments unless their precise

location is known. However, it is evident that the busiest locations on the highway network within

Maldon district are in Heybridge and Maldon itself, so it is reasonable to conclude that any rural

development should be kept geographically separate from these congested areas in order to limit

their impact.

In respect of the 75 dwellings in North Fambridge, EH consider that such a development would be

unlikely to have a material impact on the local highway network. The presence of a rail station

also meets central government aims to encourage the use of public transport by locating

development in areas where transport modes that are more sustainable than the private car are

available.


22/89


6 Location of Additional 700 Dwellings – Highways Considerations for Maldon District Area

6.1 Options for New Growth Areas

MDC have indicated that there is a need to accommodate a further 700 dwellings in the district in

addition to the new baseline projections. They have identified the following potential locations on

a drawing entitled Growth Capacity Testing (which is included in Appendix B):

GO1 (Heybridge) – Sites H1, BS1, BS2 and H4;

GO2 (South Maldon) – Sites M1 (Masterplan site) and M2;

GO3 (Burnham-on-Crouch) – Sites B1, B2 and B4 plus Masterplan site.

GO4 (non-specific Rural allocation);

GO5 (North Fambridge) – F3 and F4;

GO6 (Latchingdon) – L1;

GO7 (Southminster) – S3, S4 and S5.

The key considerations relating to the highway network within the MDC area for each of these

locations is considered in turn in the following subsections; those relating to neighbouring

districts are considered subsequently in Section 7.

6.2 GO1 Heybridge

There is a concern about the impact of any development that exceeds the 1,000 dwellings

considered in the May 2013 study. However, as described in Section 3.2, there may be scope to

offset these concerns with a slightly extended alignment for the proposed link road. This is on the

condition that the link road does not extend to the point where traffic would not switch to the

new route from the existing route through the centre of Heybridge.

The addition of 700 dwellings to the 1,157 already put forward as the new baseline scenario

would raise very significant concerns for the highway network within Heybridge. The previous

study concluded that the introduction of a link road in Heybridge would enable both the B1018

The Causeway / The Square / B1022 The Street and B1022 Colchester Road / B1026 Goldhanger

Road junctions to operate with a ‘nil detriment’ compared to the 2026 Background traffic

scenario.

However, these junctions would experience notable congestion with only 1,000 dwellings. If this

were to be increased to 1,857 dwellings, it would lead to very severe delays in the area and

potentially also adversely affect other junctions such as the A414 / B1018 The Causeway /

Fullbridge. Moreover, any further growth in this location would result in increased westbound


23/89


traffic using the B1019 and A414 towards Hatfield Peverel, Chelmsford and the A12 (cf. Section 7

for further details).

However, if MDC wish to pursue additional housing in Heybridge, EH would offer the following

comments on the individual sites:

H1 – This would be the least problematic location for any further development from a

highways viewpoint. If the majority of the allocation is located towards the western end of

the proposed link road, this would reduce the number of trips through the middle of

Heybridge and thus lessen the impact on the junctions where mitigation is not possible.

BS1 and BS2 – These are more problematic locations for further development as trips

towards Maldon town centre would be likely to route through the already congested central

area of Heybridge. However, outbound trips from Maldon and Heybridge could route along

the proposed link road if this is in place.

H4 – This is the least suitable location for any further development. The majority of trips

would route via the congested central Heybridge area which, as indicated, is severely

constrained in terms of any possible mitigation. Furthermore, any development traffic would:

experience visibility issues at Scraley Road and Goldhanger Road; Drapers Chase is considered unsuitable for additional traffic, and footways are

currently limited in the vicinity of the site; There is, however, possible potential to mitigate safety issues at Goldhanger Road

with new highway features.

6.3 GO2 South Maldon

The December 2010 study highlighted the need for mitigation measures at the key A414 / Wycke

Hill Business Park / B1018 Limebrook Way roundabout when assessing the impact of 1,000

dwellings at Heybridge. The May 2013 report deemed that the improvements would remain

necessary at the junction with a further 1,250 dwellings at South Maldon even if a relieving

bypass linking Maldon Road and Wycke Hill on the A414 was introduced (a rough alignment is

shown in MDC’s own M1 and M3 layout drawings – see Section 8 for more detailed comment).

An additional 700 dwellings would bring the total housing allocation in South Maldon to 1,991.

Combined with the new baseline scenario of 1,157 dwellings in Heybridge, this would inevitably

lead to considerable pressure on the area around Wycke Hill, Limebrook Way and the A414

heading to / from Chelmsford (see Section 7 for further details regarding this impact).

The May 2013 report indicated that, if a suitably-sized junction was provided along the A414

Maldon Road, i.e. west of the Limebrook Way roundabout, it could cope with up to 1,250


24/89


dwellings in South Maldon. However, a significantly larger junction would be necessary at the

eastern end of the proposed bypass road where it meets Wycke Hill / Spital Road. This would

probably entail detailed negotiations to be undertaken with developers to accommodate it. Any

additional traffic in this location from an increase in housing would obviously exacerbate the

issue.

Given the above points EH advise that any additional dwellings are located away from the Wycke

Hill / Spital Road area. This may require improved infrastructure to the south and east of

Limebrook Way. MDC’s Options M2a and M2b (see Section 8 for comment) could contribute to

this aim as this could enable any additional development east of the former railway line, on site

M1, to access the A414 without routing via the Limebrook Way / Wycke Hill roundabout. It should

however be reiterated that a sizable junction would still be necessary on the A414 to

accommodate the additional 700 dwellings.

Regarding the individual sites, EH would offer the following comments:

M1 – Given that 1,250 dwellings have already been tested in this location, it would be logical

to locate any further development adjoining the existing proposals. As noted above, a new

link road running roughly parallel to Limebrook Way could serve the development and also

feed out onto the A414 west of the congested Limebrook Way / Wycke Hill area. It should,

however, be noted that, according to Census Travel to Work data, nearly a third of

departures in this location are predicted to head northbound, i.e. via Wycke Hill, in the AM

peak hour. This would inevitably lead to additional pressure in that area. For that reason, EH

consider it prudent to explore alternative sites for the extra 700 dwellings.

M2 – This site has not been specifically considered in previous studies. However, it is clear

that this location would be less preferable than M1 in terms of highway capacity, and also

safety. Full assessments of the A414 roundabout, and any other proposed accesses, would be

required. Unlike M1 which has the potential for the M2a or M2b link roads, all A414

westbound traffic (which represents the majority traffic flow in the AM peak hour) from this

site would have to route via the already sensitive area of Wycke Hill. This is likely to put

prohibitive pressure in this location and could lead to problems on the wider highway

network due to the impact of subsequent local re-routing.

Irrespective of the highway capacity issue, EH also question the suitability of the M2 site on

the grounds of safety. It borders the A414 in an area where the national speed limit applies.

It would be preferable to have a large housing development located adjacent to a lower

speed limit area unless access is carefully managed and the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and

road users can be more readily prioritised.


25/89


6.4 GO3 Burnham-on-Crouch

The May 2013 study identified that, with mitigation at the B1021 Church Road / B1010 Maldon

Road junction, up to 900 dwellings could be accommodated satisfactorily in Burnham-on-Crouch

in terms of highway capacity. Given that the new baseline housing allocation is 485 dwellings, an

additional 700 dwellings would bring the new growth option up to 1,185 dwellings. With the level

of spare capacity demonstrated in the May 2013 study, EH consider that the extra 285 dwellings

could be satisfactorily accommodated on the local highway network.

However, the May 2013 study also highlighted the concerns held locally about accident rates

along the B1010 Maldon Road. Therefore, whilst development in Burnham-on-Crouch does not

represent a problem in terms of road capacity, road safety may have to be considered in taking

forward any future housing plans for the town.

Regarding the individual sites, EH offer the following comments:

B1 and B2 – These two sites were the subject of the May 2013 study. A total of 450 dwellings

were considered across both locations. As indicated, we consider these sites to be acceptable

in terms of highway capacity. Given that they are relatively close to the town’s central area

with its associated facilities and the railway station, we consider that these two sites satisfy the

aspirations of government sustainability policy.

B4 – This site was considered in the December 2010 study, but not as part of the May 2013

work. Again, no concerns were raised with the site in terms of highway capacity. However,

appropriate access onto Marsh Road is not considered feasible due to levels issues and

associated restricted visibility, and the fact that it is a narrow route with no footway and is

subject to the National Speed Limit of 60mph. Due to current road widths and on-street

parking, some of the existing estate roads are also not considered suitable to serve the

proposed site (in particular Alexandra Road and Devonshire Road). However, as with B1 and

B2, the close proximity of B4 to the town centre and the rail station this could be considered a

reasonable location for development in terms of discouraging private car use, notwithstanding

the safety issues referred to above.

Masterplan site – This site was considered as part of both December 2010 and May 2013

studies. In both pieces of work, it was considered satisfactory in terms of highway capacity. It

is, however, slightly further away from the town centre than the other sites and above the

generally accepted walking distance thresholds. In particular, it was highlighted that the town’s

primary school is beyond the distance that children living on the site are likely to walk to

school. Consequently, this may lead to unnecessary local car trips emanating from the site. EH

therefore consider this site to be less preferable than Sites B1, B2 and B4.


26/89


6.5 GO4 Rural Allocation

Together with the 396 dwellings within the baseline scenario, the rural allocation would result in a

total of 1,096 dwellings. As indicated in Section 5.1, it is difficult to provide detailed highways

comments for the rural allocation as specific locations have not been identified. EH therefore

reiterate that it is preferable for any rural developments of any size to be kept geographically

separate from the congested areas of Maldon and Heybridge. Rural locations which already have

good bus and / or rail services and local facilities available close-by should be prioritised over less

accessible sites.

6.6 GO5 North Fambridge

With 75 dwellings included in the baseline allocation, a total of 775 dwellings are considered in

this scenario. North Fambridge has not been assessed in EH’s recent studies. As stated in Section

5.1 however, EH consider it to be a reasonable location in that the rail station provides an

alternative to private car travel. However, the main access road to the village is narrow and meets

the B1012 on a sharp bend, forward visibility is very restricted and there appears to be minimal

land available for suitable improvements. Traffic signals are not considered to be appropriate at

this location as this would restrict the free flow of traffic on a main distributor route. The village

also has limited facilities, so it may not be appropriate for significant additional development

without better services and improved access from the B1012.

F3 and F4 – These two sites border the north and south side of the railway line in the village.

For the reasons stated above, neither site is particularly suitable for major development.

However, EH would consider the F3 site (on the north side of the railway) to be marginally

preferable to the F4 site for the simple reason that traffic to and from the latter would have to

use the existing road bridge, which is relatively narrow and has limited visibility, unless a new

bridge is constructed.

6.7 GO6 Latchingdon

As with North Fambridge, Latchingdon has not been included in previous studies. Therefore, with

no baseline housing allocation for the village, the maximum number of dwellings to be considered

in this location (Site L1 on the south side of the B1018) is 700.

Although EH does not have any specific traffic data to assess the potential impact of a

development in this location, information extracted from TrafficMaster data (obtained from the

Department for Transport (DfT)) gives an indication of average peak period speeds in the area and

thus possible traffic ‘hotspots’. The only location where average speeds are shown to fall below

off-peak levels (using 2009-10 data) is near the village centre, in the vicinity of the primary school,

in the AM peak hour (TrafficMaster drawings for AM and PM peaks are contained in Appendix C).

On the remainder of the local road network, average speeds observed are typical for a 30mph


27/89


limit. Consequently, there is no strong case for the mooted bypass to relieve congestion in the

village centre if it were to accompany a development of 700 dwellings.

In local highway capacity terms, EH consider that there would be few issues arising from a

development in this location, subject to suitable access arrangements and accessibility links being

achievable. The suggested bypass, which would be expected to pass around the south side of the

village and serve the proposed development, is also likely to be acceptable on highway grounds.

Although not likely to be heavily used, it could slightly reduce journey times for through-trips from

Southminster and Burnham-on-Crouch, but it would not benefit traffic emanating from the

Bradwell-on-Sea direction. It should also be borne in mind that a bypass may adversely affect the

commercial activity of the village centre. In addition, consideration should be given to the funding

of such a bypass as 700 dwellings within Latchingdon are unlikely to support such a scheme

(although an access road to serve the development would clearly be required).

6.8 GO7 Southminster

The development of 100 new dwellings at Southminster was previously assessed as part of the

December 2010 work, but was not the subject of any further study in May 2013. Therefore, as it

has not been included in the baseline housing allocation, this study simply considers an additional

700 dwellings for Sites S3, S4 and S5.

The December 2010 study indicated that there no concerns in terms of local highway capacity.

Whilst there are notably more dwellings to consider in this scenario, EH are of the opinion that

they could be accommodated satisfactorily on the local highway network, subject to suitable

access arrangements and accessibility links being achievable. This is supported by the

aforementioned TrafficMaster data which only shows delays for a short stretch of road in the AM

peak. However, if the full 700 dwellings are to be located in Southminster, congestion could arise

in the centre of Latchingdon as the majority of peak hour trips would travel through that village.

More positively, like Burnham-on-Crouch and North Fambridge, Southminster is a more

sustainable location as it benefits from having a rail station to encourage non-car travel.

In respect of the individual sites, S3, S4 and S5, EH have identified a couple of issues relating to

site access which would require further investigation. At S3, third party land may be required to

access the site via B1021 Cripplegate. Adjacent property accesses would likely require

modification to facilitate an access into this site. In relation to S5, there are potential visibility

issues from Queenborough Road, which would require further investigation. Adjacent property

accesses would likely require modification to facilitate an access into this site. Any possible access

to the site via Hillside Road would require acquisition of third party land/ property. Although each

site is on the village periphery, their distances to the centre and rail station are relatively short.


28/89


6.9 Summary

This section has considered the possibility of 700 additional dwellings being provided over and

above the baseline scenarios discussed in Section 5. Each location has been evaluated in terms of

local highway capacity. Overall, EH recommend that MDC limit the level of new development

within existing congested areas. Both Heybridge and Maldon have been shown to have highway

capacity issues, so any further development in these areas would exacerbate these situations.

Further development in these locations would also have an impact on westbound traffic towards

Chelmsford and the A12 (via the A414 and B1019). Instead, it is considered preferable to exploit

the areas where highway capacity does not appear to be an issue and where public transport is

more readily available. Burnham-on-Crouch and Southminster meet this criteria, but it may be

advisable to spread the additional 700 dwellings over more than one location in order to dilute

their overall impact.


29/89


7 Wider Impacts of Maldon District Development

7.1 Neighbouring Authorities’ Concerns

The focus of both the December 2010 and May 2013 studies has mainly centred on the impact of

proposed developments within the MDC authority area. However, under MDC’s Duty to Co-

operate with neighbouring authorities, Chelmsford City Council (CCC) and Braintree District

Council (BDC) have raised concerns over possible adverse impacts of developments on their areas.

In particular, CCC have requested that attention is given to the potential impact on the A414 in

Danbury, the possible increased pressure in and around the proposed North-east Chelmsford rail

station, and the effects of southern Maldon district developments on South Woodham Ferrers

and the Rettendon Turnpike junction connecting to the A130. BDC, meanwhile, have expressed a

concern about the impact of Maldon district development on Hatfield Peverel, how it may affect

Witham with increased demand to the rail station, and its impact on the B1018 Maldon Road /

Blue Mills Hill junction.

7.2 Impact of Development on A414 and B1019

With Maldon and Heybridge representing an easterly extremity in Essex, a large proportion of

highway demand in the morning peak is westbound towards Chelmsford and the A12, which acts

as the main regional distributor. This demand is reversed in the evening peak period. There are

currently two main westbound routes from Maldon and Heybridge, the A414 which routes

through the village of Danbury and the B1019 which connects to the B1137 and the A12 at

Hatfield Peverel.

The May 2013 study considered the impact of the Heybridge and Maldon developments on the

A414 Oak Corner junction. The findings confirmed that the performance of the junction, which is

predicted to operate satisfactorily in the 2026 Background Traffic scenario, would be pushed over

capacity when trips from 1,000 dwellings in Heybridge and 1,250 in South Maldon are added to

the network. The report concluded, given that “the proposed developments are a key factor in

the decline of the junction’s performance, there is a strong argument that developer

contributions should be sought to assist any mitigation measures.”

The Oak Corner junction is within the Maldon district but if, as suggested, the junction is improved

to accommodate traffic from the proposed developments, there could be a ‘knock-on’

detrimental effect on the A414 in Danbury. Danbury already suffers from congestion, particularly

at the double mini-roundabout junction at Eves Corner.

Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of traffic from the Heybridge and South Maldon developments

in the AM peak hour (PM peak hour arrival figures are similar in the opposite direction). It is clear


30/89


that a large proportion of traffic would use the westbound A414 in the AM peak and a lower, but

still significant, proportion would use the B1019.

The specific impact of the trips on these routes has not been quantified. However, as the

TrafficMaster data shown in Appendix C indicates, there are existing delays at the

aforementioned Eves Corner junction in Danbury and on the approaches to the B1019 Maldon

Road / B1137 The Street junction in Hatfield Peverel. Any prospective development in Heybridge

and / or Maldon is likely to exacerbate these issues unless a significant level of attractive,

sustainable transport measures are put in place to discourage private car usage. Given the

potential capacity issues already highlighted in Section 3, EH reiterate that it may be prudent to

limit the level of additional development in the Maldon and Heybridge area.

7.3 Impact of Development on South Woodham Ferrers and Rettendon Turnpike

In the absence of more detailed traffic data for these two locations, the evidence from the

TrafficMaster data suggests that the area around South Woodham Ferrers and on the approach to

Rettendon Turnpike junction in the AM peak is less congested than in either Danbury or Hatfield

Peverel as speeds are generally higher. As vehicles using this route are likely to emanate from the

south Maldon district area, it may be preferable for MDC to balance some of the Heybridge /

Maldon developments with some or all of the additional 700 dwellings in this area given its

apparent greater capacity and rail availability.

7.4 Impact on Possible North-east Chelmsford Rail Station

In earlier correspondence, CCC indicated their concern that traffic from prospective developments

in the Maldon district area may not have been accounted for in assessing access to the proposed

North-east Chelmsford rail station.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the location of the proposed rail station, the Boreham Interchange

on the A12, is often congested under existing conditions, it is unclear how much of any proposed

development in Maldon district would impact on the area. Currently, there are two main accesses

to the A12 from Heybridge and Maldon, the A414 through Danbury and the B1019 and B1137 via

Hatfield Peverel. The former route links up with the Park and Ride facility at Sandon and is further

south than Boreham, whilst the latter route has an alternative, nearer rail station at Hatfield

Peverel (albeit with potentially fewer services than the North-east Chelmsford facility). Hence, in

both cases there are reasonable travel alternatives to a North-east Chelmsford rail station. EH

therefore consider it unlikely that significant numbers of trips would be bound for North-east

Chelmsford from Heybridge and / or Maldon.


31/89


Figure 5: Traffic Movements from New Developments Leaving Heybridge and Maldon - AM Peak


32/89


However, if there is continued concern about trip numbers to the North-east Chelmsford rail

station, a potential solution would be to include planning conditions where developers provide a

direct, frequent in peak periods, limited-stop bus service to the rail station. For example, such a

service could serve Hatfield Peverel and North-east Chelmsford rail stations, as well as the Park

and Ride site at Sandon. This could assist in limiting any unnecessary trips on the highway

network by providing links to each main public transport facility.

7.5 Impact on Links to Witham

EH has considered DfT’s TrafficMaster data for trips to / from Witham from Heybridge and

Maldon. From the average speeds, the indications are that the main route, the B1018 from

Langford, is a relatively uncongested road with any slower speeds attributable to the more windy

nature of the route. Delays also appear to be relatively insignificant at the aforementioned

junction where the B1018 meets Blue Mills Hill.

The only congested areas appear to be around the centre of Witham and the rail station. Again,

it’s not clear what material impact any development in Heybridge and / or Maldon would have on

this part of the highway network as there are alternative rail stations available. However, if it is

considered a concern, it could be similarly mitigated by a developer-funded bus service linking any

new development to both Witham town centre and the rail station.


33/89


8 Link Road Comments

8.1 Introduction

This section provides high level comments on the potential link road options, which have been

provided by MDC, in Heybridge, south of Maldon and Latchingdon. The comments are a collation

of views from officers of ECC and EH and aim to provide some understanding of the issues in

relation to each option. Any information set out below should therefore be regarded as officer

advice, and not the official Essex County Council position at this stage as further investigations

and discussions would be required. No consideration has been given to the implications of these

link road proposals on environmental, statutory undertakers equipment, land ownership etc.

8.2 MDC Option H1a and H1b

Figure 6 and Figure 7 below show MDC’s suggested alignments.

Figure 6: MDC Option H1a

Figure 7: MDC Option H1b

Options H1a and H1b show a bypass road on the outskirts of the proposed Heybridge

development. This alignment could potentially enable future growth in this area north of the

bypass options.


34/89


Given the current speed limits on adjoining roads, this road would potentially lend itself to a

higher speed limit. As the option would not have an active residential frontage, it would be

difficult to justify a lower speed limit. Also, an appropriate speed limit would be needed to make

this route attractive enough for vehicles to use it as a bypass for south and westbound journeys

(and vice-versa), instead of continuing to use the central Heybridge route.

This route is not simply a bypass for existing traffic, but an essential access road to the

development. The provision of roundabouts for access into the development would help to

‘naturally’ lower the speed limit, whereas providing left slip roads and right turning islands on a

potentially fast road could increase the risk of accidents. Consideration of access to the

development therefore needs to be given.

The alignment would probably discourage public transport routes from serving the development

as, being on the outskirts of the development, the route would limit the potential catchment area.

It would also be unattractive for pedestrians to walk to the bypass (especially when the town

centre is in the opposite direction). Bus services along it may also discourage other traffic from

using the route as a bypass if bus stops disrupt the flow of traffic.

Provision of a spine road through the development for local bus services and local development

traffic should therefore be investigated in conjunction with an outer route. This option may also

allow for a dedicated bus access to the south of the development to be investigated to allow for a

more desirable and direct bus route to the town.

Capacity issues at the Langford Road / Heybridge Approach junction have been highlighted in

Section 3.2 of this report. Option H1b would not allow these issues to be resolved. However, the

road linking B1019 Langford Road from the proposed roundabout at the western extent in

Highway Option H1a would relieve some of the pressure on the Langford Road/ Heybridge

Approach junction with all westbound trips towards Hatfield Peverel and the A12 kept separate.

This route would also be a good opportunity to provide a better alignment of the B1018 over the

old railway bridge and the old road could be closed and used as an access to the country park.


35/89


8.3 MDC Option H2a and H2b

Figure 8 and Figure 9 overleaf show MDC’s suggested alignments for this option.

Figure 8: MDC Option H2a

Figure 9: MDC Option H2b

The alignments shown in both Options H2a and H2b would not readily accommodate future

growth beyond the current proposed development unlike Options H1a and H1b, but the

roundabouts located at each end of the link may allow some potential for future development.

Alignments H2a and H2b provide a better opportunity for a lower speed limit. Public transport

services long the route would also be more attractive to operators as it better serves the adjacent

development areas. However, with all traffic following this route, it would become slightly less

attractive as a bus route without adequate bus facilities, ie offline bus stops etc.

This alignment would also be less attractive as a bypass for through traffic. It is a longer, less

direct route than alignments H1a and H1b, would have a lower speed limit and have more local

development traffic using it. Given the need to remove through traffic from the already congested

central Heybridge routes, consideration needs to be given as to the appropriateness of this spine

road for both access for development traffic and also as a bypass for through traffic.

As in option H1a, provision of the road linking B1019 Langford Road from the new proposed

roundabout at the western extent in Highway Option H2b would relieve some of the pressure at


36/89


the Langford Road/ Heybridge Approach junction and would be a good opportunity to provide a

better alignment of the B1018 over the old railway bridge. The old road could then be closed and

used as an access to the country park.

8.4 MDC Option H3

Figure 10 shows MDC’s suggested alignment for this option.

Figure 10: MDC Option H3

This alignment would also facilitate further growth beyond that currently proposed as is the case

with H1a and H1b.

The main drawback to this option is that there are too many junctions proposed for the road to

operate effectively as a bypass. Maypole Road would also probably have to be closed southwards

from the proposed junction in order to avoid traffic using it to shortcut through to the small mini-

roundabout at its junction with Langford Road. It would not be attractive to bus operators as it is

distant from the development areas.

The alignment itself, being even further away from the development, lends itself to being a

bypass road, with correspondingly higher speeds. The western junction would also help to relieve

pressure from the Langford Road/ Heybridge Approach junction.


37/89


8.5 MDC Option H4


Figure 11: MDC Option H4

EH’s study has indicated that there are likely to be capacity issues at the mini roundabout at the

western extent of the proposed alignment. There is also concern at the quality of the link to the

existing bypass road at this end of the route.

This route is not simply a bypass for existing traffic, but an essential access road to the

development. Providing roundabouts for access into the development could help to ‘naturally’

lower the speed limit, whereas the provision of left slip roads and right turning islands on a

potentially fast road could also increase the risk of accidents. Consideration of access to the

development therefore needs to be given.

This alignment would probably discourage public transport routes from serving the development

as, being on the outskirts, the route limits the catchment area and may not be attractive for

pedestrians to walk to (especially when the town centre is in the opposite direction). Public

transport using this route may also discourage those using the route as a bypass if bus stops

disrupted the flow of traffic.

Provision of a spine road through the development for local bus services and local development

traffic should therefore be investigated in conjunction with an outer route. This option may also

allow a dedicated bus access to the south of the development to be investigated to create a more

desirable and direct bus route.


38/89


8.6 MDC Option M1


Figure 12: MDC Option M1

A bypass such as M1 around the A414 / Limebrook Way roundabout junction is considered

important in order to accommodate the level of development being proposed, not just in the

South Maldon area, but also for development in Heybridge. This link provides a convenient route

for those travelling from North Heybridge and Maldon towards Chelmsford and removes traffic

from the A414 / Limebrook Way junction. However, there are probably too many roundabout

junctions in close proximity to each other along the existing A414 route to achieve a relatively

free flow. This option would also not be suitable to improve accessibility between the proposed

development site and public transport routes in the area.

A link through the old railway line to the south (as set out in Options M2a and M2b below) in

conjunction with this option would add benefit. It could potentially be a sustainable corridor for

pedestrians, cyclists and local buses, although its use as an all-vehicles route could also be

investigated.


39/89


8.7 MDC Option M2a and M2b

Figure 13 shows MDC’s suggested alignments for this option.

Figure 13: MDC Option M2a and M2b

As recognised in options M1 and M3, a bypass of the A414/ Limebrook Way roundabout junction

is considered important to accommodate the level of development being proposed in the area.

These routes would assist in alleviating the junction by enabling any additional development east

of the former railway line on site M1 to access the A414 without routing via the Limebrook Way /

Wycke Hill roundabout. It should however be reiterated that a sizable junction would still be

necessary on the A414 to accommodate the additional 700 dwellings. As the major demand for

travel is north:west (as shown in Figure 5) there may be limited benefit of these options beyond

serving the proposed eastern developments themselves, or by providing improved non-car

accessibility between the sites, for example to enable through-bus routeing. Further study would

be required to understand more fully what effect these roads would have.


40/89


8.8 MDC Option M3

Figure 14 shows MDC’s suggested alignments for this option.

Figure 14: MDC Option M3

Again, as already stated, a bypass of the A414/ Limebrook Way roundabout junction is considered

important in order to accommodate the level of development being proposed in the South

Maldon and Heybridge area. The western link shown above would provide a convenient link for

those travelling from North Heybridge and Maldon towards Chelmsford and remove this traffic

from the A414 / Limebrook Way junction.

The eastern link illustrated would provide very little benefit and would not relieve the Wycke Hill

roundabout. As with option H1, a link through the old railway line would be more beneficial than

this option as it could potentially be a sustainable corridor for pedestrians, cyclists and local

buses. Investigation into a vehicular route could also be of value.


41/89


8.9 MDC Option L1

Figure 15 shows the area where any link road / bypass would be located in Latchingdon.

Figure 15: MDC Option L1

There is no objection to the principle that a bypass could be achieved in this location. However,

average speeds observed in Latchingdon are typical of a 30mph limit. Consequently there is no

strong evidence for the requirement of a bypass in congestion terms, as the existing delays are

considered likely to be school-traffic related. An access road to serve the development in this

location would however be required, and consideration as to whether this could also act as a

bypass could be given.

A bypass may assist with reducing some journey times to / from the Southminster and Burnham-

on-Crouch direction. However, if development were located in either of these areas, the question

of whether developers would contribute to a bypass located some distance from their

development was raised as this level of development would be unlikely to fund such a link. A

bypass in this location would not, however, benefit traffic to / from the Bradwell-on-Sea direction

to the north east of Latchingdon.

Concern was also raised as to the potentially adverse impact on local businesses in the village

centre if a bypass is developed.


42/89


9 Public Transport Provision

9.1 Introduction

Essex County Council has undertaken a preliminary analysis of the impact of development in

Maldon district on the demand for bus services based on the growth identified in the Preferred

Options Plan (2012), plus other committed development. The assessment has also considered the

various options proposed by Maldon District Council to accommodate an additional 700

dwellings.

Given the limited time and data available the assessment is based on assumptions about bus use

taken from national and local travel trends and the professional judgement of ECC officers.

Any information in this note should therefore be regarded as officer advice, and not the official

Essex County Council position at this stage as further investigations and discussions would be

required.

9.2 Current Bus Services in Maldon District - Overview

The majority of bus services connect Maldon with the key transport interchanges and

employment centres at Chelmsford and Colchester with more than 10 return services per day.

Existing services to these centres generally operate on a half hourly basis. Additional half hour

services are operated to Witham. The majority of these services utilise Maldon as their origin and

operate at their greatest capacity during the peak hours (AM/PM). Burnham on Crouch is served

by a number of services linking to Chelmsford via Maldon.

The majority of services in the district are commercially operated, which by their nature are

subject to commercial pressure and changes.

Arrow Taxis, Maldon, Essex County Council and the Rural Community Council of Essex are working

in partnership to provide a Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) scheme in the Maldon and

Dengie areas. The service provides a direct link between Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford and

Maldon town centre, then from here a demand service (which has to be booked more than 90

minutes in advance) to Dengie, Asheldam, Maylandsea, Althorne, Stow Maries, Cold Norton,

Latchingdon, Mundon and Purleigh.

The following gives an outline of the main bus services serving the proposed development

locations:

Heybridge: Half hourly service (route 90) between Maldon and Witham; Hourly service to

Colchester (route 75); Service to Chelmsford via Hatfield Peveral (route 73) however this

is a two hourly service.


43/89


South Maldon: Half hourly service connecting Chelmsford to Maldon via Danbury (route

31/31X).

Burnham-on-Crouch / Southminster: Hourly service to Chelmsford via Maldon (but from

Maldon to Chelmsford every half an hour), (route 31X)

North Fambridge: Maldon DRT serves this location

Latchingdon: Hourly service to Chelmsford via Maldon (route 31X); Hourly service to

Maldon during the day (route D2)

Rural allocation – the smaller and larger villages are reasonably served by at least two

hourly services Monday to Friday linking to Maldon and wider destinations. There are

restricted services operated at weekends.

There are also a number of school bus services for transporting children to schools outside of the

district at Chelmsford, Ingatestone, Colchester, Brentwood and South Woodham Ferrers. In

addition Community Transport services are provided throughout the district.

9.3 Passenger Transport Provision to Serve the Various Growth Options

Passenger Transport officers undertook a high-level assessment to consider the potential

additional passengers per journey arising from the various Growth Options, and whether this

additional demand is sufficient to warrant the provision of any additional services.

Based on the proposed housing options (and assumptions regarding national household

occupancy rate and the current bus use based on current frequencies), it is considered that such

levels would not generate sufficient passengers to justify an additional bus service.

However, in order to mitigate the level of proposed growth, it will be necessary to work with

developers to identify contributions to extend existing services to serve the growth locations and

also to support any increase in service frequency (eg an increase from hourly to half hourly

service) which would be required to encourage increased passenger numbers to support routes

serving the development.

The advice of Passenger Transport would be to focus sufficient levels of growth at one or more

sites (or two closely linked sites) to improve the chances of a commercially viable bus service

developing in the long term.

In parallel with this, it will be essential to work with developers to ensure the promotion of these

bus services to encourage modal shift and sustainable travel options.

Further work with Passenger Transport will be required to determine the capacity on existing

routes, specifically at peak times.


44/89


10 Next Steps

Once MDC have had the opportunity to digest the comments within this report and to determine

their proposed preferred spatial strategy, ECC / EH would be happy to work with MDC officers to

undertake any further modelling work as appropriate and also to investigate some of the options

in more detail.


45/89


Appendices

Appendix A: Mitigation Measures Identified in December 2010 Report .................................. 34

Appendix B: Potential Locations of 700 Additional Dwellings .................................................. 38

Appendix C: DfT Trafficmaster Data for Maldon District – AM and PM Peak Hours .................. 42


46/89



47/89


Appendix A: Mitigation Measures Identified in December 2010 Report


48/89



49/89


B1018 Heybridge Approach / A414 Roundabout, Heybridge Mitigation Measures

A414 / Spital Road Roundabout, Maldon Mitigation Measures


50/89


A414 / B1018 Limebrook Way Roundabout, Maldon Mitigation Measures

B1021 Church Road / B1010 Maldon Road, Burnham-on-Crouch Mitigation Measures


51/89


Appendix B: Potential Locations of 700 Additional Dwellings


52/89



53/89



54/89



55/89


Appendix C: DfT TrafficMaster Data for Maldon District – AM and PM Peak Hours


56/89



57/89



58/89



59/89



60/89

MALDON DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2014-2029: GROWTH CAPACITY TESTING – HEALTHCARE INFRASTRUCTURE AND FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

SUMMARY EVIDENCE BASE OF NHS PROPERTY SERVICES LTD

Introduction

1. The purpose of this note is to provide an update to the evidence base on the healthcareinfrastructure and funding implications of the residential growth proposed within MaldonDistrict over the period 2014-2029. An evidence base was previously provided in responseto the consultation on the Maldon District Local Development Plan Preferred Optionsdocument (2012).

2. The healthcare infrastructure and funding requirements set out below are based on theproposed scale of residential growth outlined in the Council’s “Growth Capacity Testing –NHS” document.

3. Please note that the Essex arm of NHS Property Services Ltd was formerly the estatesdivision of NHS North Essex (which ceased operating as a cluster of Primary Care Trustson 31st March 2013).

4. NHSPS is responsible for advising the National Commissioning Board, known as NHSEngland (NHSE) and local Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) on all NHS estaterelated matters, including on the capacity of the existing NHS Estate to accommodate theincreased healthcare infrastructure and funding needs arising from planned and unplannedgrowth.

Planned Growth in Maldon District and Healthcare Capacity Implications

Identifying the Population Increase Arising from Proposed Growth in Maldon

5. The level of growth proposed for Maldon District, set out within the “Growth CapacityTesting – NHS” document, has been used to inform the population calculations in Table 1below.

APPENDIX 2 RESPONSE FROM NHSAPPENDIX 2

61/89

Table 1: Maldon Growth Areas and Proposed Level of Growth

Growth Area (MDC Reference) No. Houses1 Population Arising2

North Heybridge (GO1) 1,000 2,400

South Maldon (GO2) 1,250 3,000

Burnham-on-Crouch (GO3) 450 1,080

Rural Allocation (GO4) 225 540

North Fambridge (GO5) 75 180

SHLAA Sites (policy compliant) 97 233

Windfall Allowance 330 792

Additional Capacity Allowance 700 1,680

Total Without Additional Capacity Allowance

3,427 8,225

Total With Additional Capacity Allowance

4,127 9,905

Notes: 1. Taken from Section 2 of “Growth Capacity Testing – NHS” document. The number of dwellings with extant planningpermission has not been included as it would not be possible to retrospectively secure developer contributions from these developments. 2. Calculated using the Maldon average household size of 2.4 taken from Census 2011 Table “Rooms, bedrooms andcentral heating, local authorities in England and Wales”.

6. This growth is likely to have a major impact on the capacity of healthcare services, whichwould require appropriate developer-led mitigation in the form of funding for upgradedand new healthcare facilities and associated infrastructure.

Healthcare Context for Maldon District

Existing Capacity

7. In order to scope the likely healthcare impacts arising from the proposed level of growth,Table 2 provides a summary of the capacity position for the GP practices within theDistrict, noting that GP branch surgeries have not been included as they do not provideadditional capacity. A GP Plan identifying the location of these practices is attached tothese representations at Appendix 1. This plan is identical to that submitted with theNHSNE representations to the Local Development Plan Preferred Options consultation in2012.


62/89

Table 2: Maldon Existing Patient List Size and Floor space Capacity with Costs to bring GP Surgeries up to Required Standards to Meet Natural Growth in the District

Premises List Size(01.07. 2012)

No. GPs (WTE)1

Capacity2 Spare Capacity3

Existing Floorspace (GIA, m2)

Current Provision of Floor space per GP (WTE) (m2)4

Floor space Capacity (m2)5

Capital Requiredto Meet Standards (£)6

Longfield Medical Centre, Princes Rd, Maldon, CM9 5DF 14,425 7.25 12,688 -1,737 587 80.97 -283 £566,000Blackwater Medical, Princes Rd, Maldon, CM9 5NY 14,384 6.7 11,725 -2,659 360 53.73 -444 £888,000Burnham Surgery, Foundry Lane, Burnham-on-Crouch, CM0 8BL

9,581 4.75 8,313 -1,268 423 89.05 -147 £294,000

William Fisher Medical Centre, High St, Southminster, CM0 7AY

5,935 3 5,250 -685 246 82 -114 £228,000

Tillingham Medical Centre, 61 South St, Tillingham, CM0 7TH

2,776 1 1,750 -1,026 193 193 73 £146,000

Tollesbury Surgery, 25 High Street, Tollesbury, CM9 8RG 3,940 2 3,500 -440 199 99.5 -41 £82,000Maylandsea Medical Centre, Imperial Avenue, Maylandsea,CM3 6BY

1,795 1 1,750 -45 276 276 156 £312,000

Trinity Medical Centre, 1 The Drive, Maylandsea 2,551 1 1,750 -801 124 124 4 £8,000Total 55,387 26.7 46,726 -8,661 2,408 43.96 -796 £2,524,000Notes 1. Number of whole time equivalent GPs based at the practice.2. Capacity based on optimum list size of 1,750 patients per whole time equivalent GP.3. Based on current list size.4. Existing floor space divided by number of whole time equivalent GPs.5. The floor space shortfall/ surplus against the required provision of 120m2 per GP.6. The cost of providing the floor space required to meet the standard of 120m2 per GP.


63/89

8. As shown in Table 2, there is an overall capacity deficit of -8,661 patients and -796m2

floorspace. A related cost of £2,524,000 is required to bring the GP surgery premises up toa more suitable baseline standard to accommodate and manage the on-going impactsassociated with natural growth in the District.

Healthcare Needs Arising from Proposed Growth Across Maldon District

9. The capital funding implications of the revised baseline level of growth and the “Testingof Additional Capacity” growth are set out in Tables 3 and 4 (included as Appendices 2and 3 to this document). This includes the additional staffing and floorspace required tobuild in further capacity to meet the increased healthcare needs, along with an estimate ofthe costs for providing refurbished, reconfigured, new and/ or re-equipped floorspace, andrelated health facilities infrastructure.

10. The population arising from the revised baseline growth without the additional capacityallowance of 700 dwelling, set out in the “Growth Capacity Testing – NHS” document,would require provision for an additional 4.72 GPs across the District and associateddeveloper funding of £1,132,800.

11. The population arising from the revised baseline growth with the additional capacityallowance of 700 dwellings would require provision for 5.68 GPs across the District andassociated developer funding of £1,363,200.

12. The NHS investment and expenditure priorities for developer-led infrastructure fundingare to be identified as part of the NHS Primary Care Strategy for Essex. However, itshould be noted that provision of the additional healthcare facilities and services wouldneed to be consistent with current NHS procurement guidelines that favour larger surgeryformats, which are more cost effective and efficient to run. This could therefore warrantthe reconfiguration, refurbishment, re-equipping and expansion of existing surgeries tobuild in further capacity, in preference to new surgery provision.

13. The healthcare needs arising from proposed growth in individual growth locations will beset out in a supplementary evidence base, together with responses to the specific questionsto NHS Property Services Ltd posed by the Council in the “Growth Capacity Testing –NHS” document.

14. NHS Property Services Ltd welcomes the opportunity to engage in the District Council’sLocal Development Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan preparation process.

Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd, 27th June 2013 Consultant to NHS Property Services and NHS England


64/89

Appendix 1


65/89

Appendix 2

Table 3: Capital Cost Calculation for the Provision of Additional Health Services Arising from the Revised Baseline Growth in Maldon without Additional Capacity Allowance of 700 Dwellings

Premises List Size(01.07.2012)

No. GPs (WTE)1


Additional Population Growth (3,427homes)4

Additional GPs Requiredto Meet Growth5

Additional Floor Area Per GP to Meet Growth (m2)6

Capital Requiredto Create Additional Floorspace(£)7

Longfield medical Centre, Princes Rd, Maldon, CM9 5DF 14,425 7.25 12,688 -1,737 1,028 0.59 70.8 £141,600Blackwater Medical, Princes Rd, Maldon, CM9 5NY 14,384 6.7 11,725 -2,659 1,028 0.59 70.8 £141,600Burnham Surgery, Foundry Lane, Burnham-on-Crouch, CM0 8BL 9,581 4.75 8,313 -1,268 1,028 0.59 70.8 £141,600William Fisher Medical Centre, High St, Southminster, CM0 7AY 5,935 3 5,250 -685 1,028 0.59 70.8 £141,600Tillingham Medical Centre, 61 South St, Tillingham, CM0 7TH 2,776 1 1,750 -1,026 1,028 0.59 70.8 £141,600Tollesbury Surgery, 25 High Street, Tollesbury, CM9 8RG 3,940 2 3,500 -440 1,028 0.59 70.8 £141,600Maylandsea Medical Centre, Imperial Avenue, Maylandsea, CM3 6BY

1,795 1 1,750 -45 1,028 0.59 70.8 £141,600

Trinity Medical Centre, 1 The Drive, Maylandsea 2,551 1 1,750 -801 1,028 0.59 70.8 £141,600Total 55,387 26.7 46,726 -8,661 8,225 4.72 566.4 £1,132,800Notes: 1. Number of whole time equivalent GPs based at the practices.2. Capacity based on 1,750 patients per whole time equivalent GP.3. Based on current list size.4. Taken from Table 1.5. Additional growth divided by the average list size.6. Based on 120m2 floorspace per GP x additional GPs required to meet growth.7. Based on standard m2 cost multiplier for primary healthcare facilities in the East Anglia Region from the BCIS Q1 2013 Price Index, adjusted for professional fees, fit outand contingency budget (£2,000/ m2), rounded to nearest £.

The developer contribution required to mitigate the healthcare infrastructure and funding implications of residential growth is calculated in the following way: (Additional population growth ÷ Optimum Patient List Size of 1,750) x Required Floorspace Provision of 120m2 per GP x Standard m2 Cost Multiplier of £2,000/ m2).


66/89

Appendix 3

Table 4: Capital Cost Calculation for the Provision of Additional Health Services Arising from the "Testing of Additional Capacity" Growth in Maldon with Additional Capacity Allowance of 700 Dwellings

Premises List Size(01.07.2012)

No. GPs (WTE)1


Additional Population Growth (4,127homes)4

Additional GPs Requiredto Meet Growth5

Additional Floor Area Per GP to Meet Growth (m2)6

Capital Requiredto Create Additional Floorspace (£)7

Longfield medical Centre, Princes Rd, Maldon, CM9 5DF 14,425 7.25 12,688 -1,737 1,238 0.71 85.2 £170,400Blackwater Medical, Princes Rd, Maldon, CM9 5NY 14,384 6.7 11,725 -2,659 1,238 0.71 85.2 £170,400Burnham Surgery, Foundry Lane, Burnham-on-Crouch, CM0 8BL 9,581 4.75 8,313 -1,268 1,238 0.71 85.2 £170,400William Fisher Medical Centre, High St, Southminster, CM0 7AY 5,935 3 5,250 -685 1,238 0.71 85.2 £170,400Tillingham Medical Centre, 61 South St, Tillingham, CM0 7TH 2,776 1 1,750 -1,026 1,238 0.71 85.2 £170,400Tollesbury Surgery, 25 High Street, Tollesbury, CM9 8RG 3,940 2 3,500 -440 1,238 0.71 85.2 £170,400Maylandsea Medical Centre, Imperial Avenue, Maylandsea, CM3 6BY

1,795 1 1,750 -45 1,238 0.71 85.2 £170,400

Trinity Medical Centre, 1 The Drive, Maylandsea 2,551 1 1,750 -801 1,238 0.71 85.2 £170,400Total 55,387 26.7 46,726 -8,661 9,905 5.68 681.6 £1,363,200Notes: 1. Number of whole time equivalent GPs based at the practices.2. Capacity based on 1,750 patients per whole time equivalent GP.3. Based on current list size.4. Taken from Table 1.5. Additional growth divided by the average list size.6. Based on 120m2 floorspace per GP x additional GPs required to meet growth.7. Based on standard m2 cost multiplier for primary healthcare facilities in the East Anglia Region from the BCIS Q1 2013 Price Index, adjusted for professional fees, fit outand contingency budget (£2,000/ m2), rounded to nearest £.


67/89

Note

To : Tai Tsui. David Coleman From : Emma Mundy Date : 24 June 2013 Copy : Matthew Hunt Our reference : 9X1918/N00003/303653/PBor

Subject : Maldon Growth Capacity Testing Sustainability Appraisal

INTRODUCTION

This note outlines the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) undertaken for the additional target and specific growth areas identified by Maldon District Council. The total number of housings to be delivered within the District has increased and there is now a shortfall of 700 dwellings between the objectively assessed need and what is identified within the draft plan. These growth areas are to provide 700 extra dwellings to meet the revised housing land supply targets set within the Maldon District Local Plan.

A detailed assessment against the SA objectives has been undertaken for each of the 7 growth areas (G01 –G07) using information from Policy S2 to provide a baseline. This assessment is presented in Tables 1 to 7 below. Where specific issues for the sites which comprise the growth areas arise, these have also been highlighted in the summary assessment table (Table 8) and accompanying text.

The assessment and comments offered are strategic and would benefit from information on infrastructure and service provision.

The key for the assessment tables is as follows:

Symbol Meaning/Score +++ Major positive impact ++ Moderate positive impact + Minor positive impact 0 Neutral/No impact - Minor negative impact -- Moderate negative impact -- Major negative impact

HASKONINGDHV UK LIMITED

INDUSTRY, ENERGY & MINING

APPENDIX 2 RESPONSE FROM SA CONSULTANTAPPENDIX 2

68/89

Table 1: GO1 (North Heybridge)

SA/SEA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Effect Recommendations/comments

ST MT LT Social

1 To maintain and improve accessibility to services and facilities for all sectors of the community.

The provision of housing close to the District’s main settlements will ensure suitable access for all the community. Local pressures on services and facilities may occur from increased development at Heybridge.

+ ++ ++ Confirmation of sustainable levels of service provision is required.

2

To provide and maintain an adequate level of good quality affordable housing of appropriate size, tenure, mix and location to meet local needs.

The extra provision of housing in the strategic growth areas will help to meet the housing needs of the District.

+ + +

3 To promote healthier lifestyles, improve levels of health and well-being.

Overall, the option would be located in a more developed area with better access to existing formal recreational and health facilities. However development at Site H4 would result in an impact to existing recreational areas.

+ + +

4 To reduce rural isolation and social exclusion geographically and demographically through encouraging viable and vibrant communities.

Reinforces growth around Maldon and Heybridge which could increase the impression of rural isolation throughout the rest of the District. It does not actively address rural isolation.

- - -

5

To maintain and improve public transport provision, promote sustainable modes of transport and reduce journey miles undertaken by car.

The provision of extra housing near Heybridge will result in the reduction in the length of future journeys and the potential for increased usage of sustainable transport.

++ ++ ++

Environmental

6 To protect and enhance the local townscape, heritage assets and their settings. No obvious direct effects. 0 0 0


69/89


ST MT LT

7 To protect and enhance biodiversity and important wildlife habitats.

Increased development near the upper section of the Blackwater Estuary has the potential to put additional pressure on the designated sites

- - - Potential impacts considered and mitigated by ensuring appropriate infrastructure (e.g. water management).

8 To protect quality and levels of local water resources. No obvious direct effects. 0 0 0

9 To minimise the risk and hazards of flooding by adapting to the impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.

No obvious direct effects. 0 0 0

10 To ensure efficient use of land and protect geodiversity, soil quality and mineral resources.

The further development of land directly adjacent to Heybridge will ensure the efficient use of land. + + +

11 To reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

The provision of housing close to Heybridge has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport as alternative modes of transport will be readily available.

+ + +

12 To maintain air quality levels in line with national and/or WHO targets.

The increase in housing near North Heybridge that potential to cause localised air quality issues around Maldon and Heybridge.

- - -

13 To reduce natural resource consumption. No obvious direct effects. 0 0 0

14 To maintain and enhance the quality of the countryside and local landscape character.

The focus of development immediately adjacent to settlement boundaries is likely to maintain the existing landscape character.

+ + +

Economic

15

To strengthen the local economy through supporting the growth and diversification of business sectors and improving the attractiveness of the District to investment in both urban and rural areas

An increase in housing in North Heybridge may improve the local economy as it will increase the potential workforce for employers in the more urbanised areas.

+ + +


70/89


ST MT LT

16 To develop and support sustainable tourism within the District. No obvious direct effects. 0 0 0

17 To support employment diversity to create jobs that matches the skills profile for the local population.


Table 2: GO2 (South Maldon)

SA/SEA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Effect Recommendations

ST MT LT Social


The provision of housing close to the District’s main settlements will ensure suitable access for all the community. Local pressures on services and facilities may occur from increased development at Maldon.

+ ++ ++ Confirmation of sustainable levels of service provision is required.

2


The provision of additional housing in the strategic growth areas will help to meet the housing needs of the District.

+ + +


The option would be located in a more developed area with better access to formal recreational and health facilities.

+ + +


Reinforces growth around Maldon which could increase the impression of rural isolation throughout the rest of the District. It does not actively address rural isolation.

+ + +


71/89


ST MT LT

5


The provision of extra housing near Maldon will result in the reduction of journeys and the potential for increased usage of sustainable transport of working from home facilities.

++ ++ ++

Environmental

6 To protect and enhance the local townscape, heritage assets and their settings. No obvious direct effects. 0 0 0

7 To protect and enhance biodiversity and important wildlife habitats. No obvious direct effects. 0 0 0





The further development of land directly adjacent to Maldon will ensure the efficient use of land resource. + + +


The provision of housing close to Maldon has the potential to reduce transport related greenhouse gas emissions as alternative modes of transport will be readily available.

+ + +


The increase of housing near Maldon has the potential to cause localised air quality issues. - - -



The focus of development immediately adjacent to settlement boundaries is likely to maintain the existing landscape character across the District.

+ + +


72/89


ST MT LT Economic

15


An increase in housing in the main settlements may improve the local economy as it will increase the potential workforce for employers.

+ + +




Table 3: GO3 (Burnham-on-Crouch)


ST MT LT Social


The provision of housing close to the District’s main settlements will ensure suitable access for all the community. Local pressures on services and facilities may occur from increased development at Burnham-on-Crouch.

+ ++ ++

2


The provision of housing in the strategic growth areas supports meeting the housing needs of the District. + + +



+ + +


73/89


ST MT LT


The further provision of housing at Burnham-on-Crouch will help to reduce rural isolation across the District by creating a larger settlement in the south east of the District.

+ + ++

5



Environmental

6 To protect and enhance the local townscape, heritage assets and their settings.

The large expansion of Burnham-on-Crouch has the potential to impact the settlements townscape. - - -


The development of housing directly adjacent to the settlement boundary will help to maintain the important biodiversity features of the District.

+ + +

8 To protect quality and levels of local water resources.

The increase in development is likely to have some additional demand on water quality and usage. - - -




The further development of land directly adjacent to Burnham-on-Crouch will ensure the efficient use of land.

+ + +


An increase in residential development at Burnham-on-Crouch could result in increased travel associated with moving around the District and travelling to other key settlements such as Maldon and Heybridge.

- - -


74/89


ST MT LT

12 To maintain air quality levels in line with national and/or WHO targets. No obvious direct effects. 0 0 0



The focus of development within settlement boundaries is likely to maintain the existing landscape character. + + +

Economic

15


An increase in housing in the main settlements may improve the local economy as it will increase the potential workforce for employers.

+ + +





75/89

Table 4: GO4 (Rural Allocations)

SA/SEA objectives Description of Effect Scale of Effect Recommendations ST MT LT Social


The increase in housing throughout the rural settlements will maintain access to existing facilities and services.

+ + + Confirmation of sustainable levels of service provision is required.

2 To provide and maintain an adequate level of good quality affordable housing of appropriate size, tenure, mix and location to meet local needs.

The further provision of housing will help to meet the wider housing needs of the District, especially those not within the main settlements.

+ + +


The spread of development across a number of settlements is unlikely to improve healthier lifestyles through access to recreational areas.

- - -


Further development in the smaller settlements in the District could increase the sense of rural isolation across the wider area.

- - -

5 To maintain and improve public transport provision, promote sustainable modes of transport and reduce journey miles undertaken by car.


Environmental 6 To protect and enhance the local townscape,

heritage assets and their settings.

The spread of development throughout a large number of settlements will help to limit the impact on individual villages.

+ + +


The development of housing throughout the rural settlements may impact the rural features and habitats in this area.

+ + 0


The spread of development across a number of small settlements has the potential to put increased pressure on local water resources and limit the ability to upgrade infrastructure.

- - -




The further provision of housing on the boundary of existing settlements is considered to be an effective use of land.

+ + +


An increase in residential development throughout the District could result in increased travel associated with moving around the wider area and traveling to the

- - -


76/89

main settlements. 12 To maintain air quality levels in line with national

and/or WHO targets. No obvious direct effects. 0 0 0

13 To reduce natural resource consumption. No obvious direct effects. 0 0 0 14

To maintain and enhance the quality of the countryside and local landscape character.

Development within the boundaries of existing settlements and where numbers are spread throughout a large number of settlements will help to maintain existing landscape character.

+ + +

Economic 15 To strengthen the local economy through

supporting the growth and diversification of business sectors and improving the attractiveness of the District to investment in both urban and rural areas.

An increase in housing throughout the District may improve the local economy as it will increase the potential workforce for employers.

+ + +

16 To develop and support sustainable tourismwithin the District.

An increase in development throughout the District could improve the potential for District-wide tourism ventures.

+ + +

17 To support employment diversity to create jobs that match the skills profile for the local population.



77/89

Table 5: GO5 (North Fambridge)



The creation of a larger settlement will likely support the development of service provision in that area of the District over time.

+ + ++


The creation of a larger settlement will include the provision of a mix of housing to suit local needs. + + ++


The option would be located in a developed area with access to formal recreational and health facilities, although the larger increase in the population is likely to put pressure on existing facilities.

- - -


The creation of a larger settlement close to an existing area of development and near a rail line is likely to reduce rural isolation and create a viable community

+ + +




heritage assets and their settings. The larger increase in dwellings at one settlement is likely to impact on the existing townscape. - - -



The large increase in housing at one settlement has the potential to put increased pressure on local water resources.

- - -



10 To ensure efficient use of land and protectgeodiversity, soil quality and mineral resources.

The further provision of housing on the boundary of existing settlements is considered to be an effective use of land.

+ + +

11

To reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Travel will still be required to connect to the rest of the District and the main settlements. In the long term, access to the railway may help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

- - -


78/89


13 To reduce natural resource consumption. No obvious direct effects. 0 0 0 14 To maintain and enhance the quality of the

countryside and local landscape character.

By developing around the boundary of an existing settlement, the landscape character of the surrounding area will be preserved.

+ + +



An increase in housing in North Fambridge may improve the local economy as it will increase the potential workforce for employers. In addition the creation of a larger settlement in the south could in the long term also benefit the local economy.

+ + ++





79/89

Table 6: GO6 (Latchingdon)

SA/SEA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Effect

Recommendations / comments ST MT LT

Social


The large expansion of Latchingdon could have either a positive or negative impacts on accessibility to services depending on whether new development includes the provision of new facilities.

++/-- ++/-- ++/--


The creation of a larger settlement will ensure the provision of a mix of housing to suit local needs.

+ + +


The large expansion of Latchingdon could have either a positive or negative impacts on the promotion of healthier lifestyles depending on whether new development includes the provision of new facilities.

++/-- ++/-- ++/--


The creation of a larger settlement in the middle of the District will help to reduce rural isolation. The associated public transport improvements which might be expected, will help connect the rest of the District to the main settlements

++ ++ ++


The creation of a large development around an existing settlement will enable the expansion of existing public transport and reduce reliance on cars, although travel will be required to the rest of the District.

+ + +

Environmental

6 To protect and enhance the local townscape, heritage assets and their settings.

The large expansion of an existing small settlement is anticipated to significantly change the existing townscape.

-- -- --



80/89





Development at Latchingdon will be located outside of flood zones. + + +


The expansion of Latchingdon using directly adjacent land is considered to be an efficient use of land.

+ + +


Travel will still be required to connect to the rest of the District and the main settlements. In the long term access to the railway may help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

- - -


The increase of housing around the small village of Latchingdon could cause localised air quality issues.

- - -



The large expansion of an existing small settlement is anticipated to significantly change the landscape character of the surrounding area.

-- -- --

Economic

15

To strengthen the local economy through supporting the growth and diversification of business sectors and improving the attractiveness of the District to investment in both urban and rural areas.

An increase in housing in Latchingdon may improve the local economy as it will increase the potential workforce for employers and create a larger settlement in the centre of the District which has good road links and is close to the rail line.

+ + ++



81/89



17 To support employment diversity to create jobs that matches the skills profile for the local population. No obvious direct effects. 0 0 0


82/89

Table 7: GO7 (Southminster)



The provision of housing an existing settlement will ensure suitable access for all the community. However, local pressures on existing services and facilities may occur from increased development.

+ + ++ Confirmation of sustainable levels of service provision is required.


The creation of a larger settlement at Southminster will ensure the provision of a mix of housing to suit local needs.

+ + ++



+ + +


The creation of a larger settlement close to an existing area of development and on the rail line is likely to reduce rural isolation and create a viable community

+ + +




heritage assets and their settings.

By developing around the boundary of an existing settlement, the townscape of Southminster will be largely preserved.

+ + +


The provision of further housing at Southminster could put increased pressure on nearby biodiversity features.

- - -


The large increase in housing at one settlement has the potential to put increased pressure on local water resources.

- - -



10 To ensure efficient use of land and protectgeodiversity, soil quality and mineral resources.

The use of land directly adjacent to an existing settlement is considered to be an effective use of land.

+ + +

11 To reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Travel will still be required to connect to the rest of the District and the main settlements. In the long term - - -


83/89

access to the railway may help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


13 To reduce natural resource consumption. No obvious direct effects. 0 0 0 14 To maintain and enhance the quality of the

countryside and local landscape character.

By developing around the boundary of an existing settlement, the landscape character of the surrounding area will be preserved.

+ + +



An increase in housing in Southminster may improve the local economy as it will increase the potential workforce for employers. In addition the creation of a larger settlement in the south could in the long term also benefit the local economy.

+ + ++





84/89

Table 8: Summary of SA for growth areas and sites

Options SA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

GO1 North Heybridge + + + - ++ 0 - 0 0 + + - 0 + + 0 0 H1 ++ ++ H4 - - BS1 - - BS2 -

GO2 South Maldon + + + - ++ 0 0 0 0 + + - 0 + + 0 0 M1 ++ M2

GO3 Burnham-on-Crouch

+ + + + 0 - + - 0 + - 0 0 + + 0 0

B1

B2

B4

GO4 Rural Allocations + + - - 0 + + - 0 + - 0 0 + + + 0 GO5 North Fambridge + + - + 0 - 0 - 0 + - 0 0 + + 0 0

F3

F4

GO6 Latchingdon ++/--- + ++/--- ++ + -- 0 0 + + - - 0 -- + 0 0 L1

G07 Southminster + + + + 0 + - - 0 + - 0 0 + + 0 0 S3

S4 - S5


85/89

Option summary

GO1

Development to the north of Heybridge will be able to utilise existing services, facilities, open spaces and public transport. This will result in an associated decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. There are opportunities for higher density development which can ensure that a housing mix is provided, although there may also be local air quality issues as a result.

However, the expansion of one of the main settlements may also reinforce the sense of rural isolation in the rest of the District. There is also the potential for increased pressure on the upper reaches of the Blackwater Estuary, causing disturbance to the features of the designated sites.

Sites

Development at Site H1 benefits from being part of the masterplan area and can ensure an efficient use of land whilst improving access to local services and facilities. However, impacts to the environment need to be considered, given the location of woodland close to the site.

Development at Site H4 could potentially have flood risk issues and will result in the loss of recreational areas, which will need to be provided elsewhere.

If Site BS1 is developed alone it has the potential to create an isolated settlement, disconnected from Heybridge and the wider District.

Sites BS1 and BS2 are close to water bodies and impacts to these features would need to be managed from both a water quality and ecological perspective.

GO2

Development in this area will have similar impacts to that of GO1, given the proximity to one of the main settlements in the District, Maldon. The existing services, facilities and public transport will be available for use by the new population and these will have associated positive impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. The issue of rural isolation will still remain as development will be focused in an already developed area.

Site

There are opportunities to intensify the number of housings developed on Site M1 which would result in a more efficient use of land, although this could cause localised air quality issues. Overall, there is little difference between the selection of Site M1 or M2.

GO3

Socially, increased development at Burnham-on-Crouch could enhance the area and help to spread development more equitably through the district. However, the maintenance of service provision is likely to be more difficult and would require new infrastructure to be provided to support the larger population. There could also be an impact on water resources and water quality as there are existing sewerage capacity issues which would need to be addressed. There is expected to be some economic benefit to the eastern areas of the District given this increase in development and access to the railway.

Sites

There are no additional impacts from any of the specific sites.

GO4

Overall, there would be no significant benefits in respect of the sustainability objectives. Specifically the spread of development across a wide number of rural settlements would not reduce rural isolation. By dispersing growth across the District it is likely that maximum benefits will not be achieved. Dispersed growth makes it harder to develop a business case for infrastructure and service provision. Dependency on cars will remain unless there is an increase in public transport across the District. This use of cars will also have an associated effect on greenhouse gas emissions and natural resources.


86/89

GO5

This growth area would meet several of the social objectives and could have a positive impact on the local economy. The creation of a larger settlement away from the main settlements could improve rural isolation by providing a more accessible centre for facilities and services to be developed. Dependency on cars will remain unless there is an increase in public transport across the District. This use of cars will also have an associated effect on greenhouse gas emissions and natural resources. However, the existing railway link provides an alternative mode of transport for people travelling outside of the District.

Sites

There are no additional impacts from any of the specific sites.

GO6

The increased development will result in a significant population increase at Latchingdon and be a larger new development in the currently sparsely population centre of the District. This could have either a negative or positive impact in association with the social objectives, depending on the appropriate provision of services and facilities. However, given the central location of this settlement, rural isolation overall may be reduced. The relatively short distance from Latchingdon to settlements with rail links could decrease the length of car journeys and also provide economic benefits.

Given the size of the development, there will be a significant change to the townscape of Latchingdon and also to the wider landscape character. The large development will also affect other environmental objectives particularly those associated with greenhouse house emissions, air quality and the use of natural resources.

GO7

Increased development at Southminster could socially enhance the existing area and help to spread development more equitably through the District. However, the maintenance of service provision is likely to be more difficult as new infrastructure would need to be provided to maintain existing access levels. There could also be an impact on water resources and water quality as there are existing sewerage capacity issues which would need to be determined. The existing railway links could provide an alternative mode of transport for people in the new development areas. There is expected to be some economic benefit to the eastern areas of the District.

Sites

S4 would be located near to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and measures would need to be put in place to ensure that this site is not affected.


87/89

1

Tai Tsui

From: Bull Sue <[email protected]>Sent: 25 June 2013 19:28To: Tai TsuiSubject: FW: Maldon Local Development Plan - Growth Capacity TestingAttachments: maldon1.pdf

Dear Tai

Further to my response yesterday, I thought you might find the attached map helpful giving an indication of current capacity availability at the sewage treatment works in Maldon District.

Please bear in mind where capacity is limited we will take the necessary steps to create further capacity when it is required.

I will see you in the morning.

Regards

Sue

From: Bull Sue Sent: 24 June 2013 21:48 To: 'Tai Tsui' Cc: Morris Rob C Subject: RE: Maldon Local Development Plan - Growth Capacity Testing

Dear Tai,

I have discussed this with Rob and we are of the opinion that there is not sufficient detail to enable us to make meaningful comment.

The ‘Growth capacity testing –AW Doc’ attaches 700 additional to each area, I can advise that for all of these would require significant network upgrades. It is not possible for AW to suggest a threshold number to indicate available capacity at each location.

If you can provide numbers against each specific site we will make a red/amber/green response.

As discussed at our last meeting in May, in order to make more details comments we would need to carry out a developer impact assessment that we normally carry out if needed as part of our pre planning service for developers. This would provide a number of potential options to enable the site to be drained. Details of this service can be found at: http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/developers/planning.aspx

I am visiting your office on Wednesday so we can take the opportunity to discuss this matter if you wish or alternatively you can give me a call tomorrow.

Regards

Sue

Sue Bull

APPENDIX 2 RESPONSE FROM ANGLIAN WATERAPPENDIX 2

88/89

MALDON STW

GREAT TOTHAM STW

LT TOTHAM STW

TOLLESHUNT-D ARCY STW

TOLLESBURY STW

BRADWELL ON SEA STW

WOODHAM WALTER STW

PURLEIGH STW

LATCHINGDON STW

MAYLANDSEA STW

STONE ST LAWRENCE STW

TILLINGHAM STW

SOUTHMINSTER STW

BURNHAM ON CROUCH STW

W'HAM MORTIMER POST OFFICE RD STW

HAZELEIGH GOAT LODGE LANE STW

COCK CLARKS HACKMANS LANE STW

Key

No capacity

Limited capacity

Capacity

Limited to no capacity

(small package plant)

APPENDIX 2 RESPONSE FROM ANGLIAN WATERAPPENDIX 2

89/89

Key Issues Arising from Growth Capacity Testing

Members have resolved to increase the housing requirement within the LDP to meet objectively assessed needs for housing at a special Council meeting which took place on 22 May 2013. This means the minimum housing target in the LDP will increase from 200 per annum (as indicated in the preferred options consultation in 2012) to 294 per annum. At the Council meeting Members also agreed that Officers should undertake further assessment and testing into how this increase in housing requirement could be achieved.

Following on from the Council meeting, a Growth Capacity Testing paper was circulated to key infrastructure providers including Essex County Council, the Environment Agency, Anglian Water and the NHS. Building on from the Baseline LDP housing supply agreed, seven potential areas of growth were identified in the paper, namely:

GO1: North Heybridge GO2: South Maldon GO3: Burnham-on-Crouch GO4: Rural Allocation GO5: North Fambridge GO6: Latchingdon GO7: Southminster

The purpose of this paper is therefore to summarise and outline the key issues identified through the Growth Capacity Testing as well as information collected from other emerging evidence including updates to the Sustainability Appraisal and the Viability Assessment.

It should be noted that the contents of this paper is not intended to be comprehensive and will be subject to change in light of the emerging evidence and the receipt of further responses to the Growth Capacity Testing.

The paper should also be considered in conjunction with other key evidence base documents including the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (MDC, 2012), the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (MDC, 2012), the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (MDC, 2013), and the Preferred Growth Strategy (MDC, 2012).

APPENDIX 3

1/16

[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

APPENDIX 3

2/16

GO1: North Heybridge

This broad location was assessed to consider its potential to deliver between 900 and 1,600 dwellings.

Highway Capacity A new link road between Broad Street Green Road and Langford Road will be essential to mitigate impacts from the proposed growth. Actual routing for the link road and junction solutions will depend upon the extent of the allocation and will be subject to further discussion with infrastructure providers and delivery partners through the masterplanning process.

A number of junctions in the surrounding areas are already at capacity but some junction improvements are feasible to mitigate potential impacts.

ECC also indicated that strategic development in the District as proposed will be likely to have some impact on the wider highways network including the A414 and the B1019. However, given the data available at present it is not possible to quantify the impact at this stage.

Education Depending on the scale of growth, ECC indicates that there will be a need for a new 1fe (form entry) primary school for 900 dwellings or a 2fe primary school if the overall growth increases to 1,600 dwellings.

In terms of secondary school provision, ECC indicates that the Plume will need to be expanded to allow for additional growth around Maldon and Heybridge as well as any development within the school’s catchment area. The Plume School have indicated a willingness to explore a 2fe expansion, and the Council is currently working with ECC and the Plume to develop a Feasibility Study for the potential expansion.

Healthcare Provision The NHS indicated that there is a current deficit in GP provision across the District. Initial comments received from the NHS indicates that in general a total of 5.68 extra GP practices, or a financial contribution of £1,363,200 will be required to accommodate the proposed growth within the District (4,410 in total). The NHS is expected to provide further details in terms of site specific requirements shortly.

Sewerage Anglian Water indicated that there is sufficient capacity within the treatment works (near Heybridge Basin) to accommodate the proposed level of growth. However, due to existing constraints, strategic development in this area will need to avoid existing sewers in Heybridge and introduce a new sewer to serve the new growth area.

APPENDIX 3

3/16

Floodrisk Only a small part of the area is affected by coastal / fluvial flooding i.e. within EA Floodzone Two and Floodzone Three. However, there are known surface water issues particularly along Holloway Road and the northern part of the existing settlement area. The exact scale and source of the issue and any potential mitigation measures will be identified through the emerging Surface Water Management Plan. There is potential for the strategic growth to help to alleviate existing surface water flooding issues.

Green Infrastructure Strategic growth in this area will generate demand for green infrastructure. This may take various forms. The Council’s Green Infrastructure Study sets out clear standards that should be applied during the planning of any strategic site.

Strategic growth to the north of Heybridge could present an opportunity for the Council to deliver a new “District Park” (minimum size of 12ha) as identified in the Green Infrastructure Study.

Historic Assets ECC indicated that the area potentially contains nationally important undesignated monuments including at least six possible prehistoric/Roman settlement sites spread out over much of the proposed development area. Therefore any proposed development will require a comprehensive and detailed archaeological excavation and recording programme, with in situ preservation and excavation over large areas as part of any mitigation strategy.

Sustainability Appraisal Development to the north of Heybridge will be able to utilise existing services, facilities, open spaces and public transport. This will result in an associated decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. There are opportunities for higher density development which can ensure that a housing mix is provided, although there may also be local air quality issues as a result.

However, the expansion of one of the main settlements may also reinforce the sense of rural isolation in the rest of the District. There is also the potential for increased pressure on the upper reaches of the Blackwater Estuary, causing disturbance to the features of the designated sites.

APPENDIX 3

4/16

GO2: South of Maldon

This broad location was assessed to consider its potential to deliver between 1,250 and 1,950 dwellings

Highway Capacity ECC indicated that a bypass around the A414 / Limebrook Way roundabout is considered important in order to accommodate the level of development not just in the South Maldon area, but also for development in Heybridge. A number of options for routing the bypass are being assessed together with alternative proposed options. Further study may be required to understand more fully what effect these options would have.

ECC also indicated that strategic development in the District as proposed will be likely to have some impact on the wider highways network including the A414 and the B1019. However, given the data available at present it is not possible to quantify the impact at this stage.

Education Depending on the scale of growth, ECC indicates that there will be a need for a new 1.5fe primary school for 1,250 extra dwellings or a 2.5fe primary school if the overall growth increases to 1,930 dwellings.

In terms of secondary school provision, ECC indicates that the Plume will need to be expanded to allow for additional growth around Maldon and Heybridge as well as any development within the school’s catchment area. The Plume School have indicated a willingness to explore a 2fe expansion, and the Council is currently working with ECC and the Plume to develop a Feasibility Study for the potential expansion.


Sewerage Anglian Water indicated that there is sufficient capacity within the Heybridge Basin treatment works to accommodate the proposed level of growth. However, major upgrades would be required at significant capital costs to provide for a second sewer river crossing. There is also a potential option for new treatment facilities or foul water retention system but this will be subject to approval from the Environment Agency.

APPENDIX 3

5/16

Floodrisk Only a small part of the area is affected by coastal / fluvial flooding i.e. within EA Floodzone Two and Floodzone Three. However, there are known surface water issues particularly along the waterways within the area. The exact scale and source of the issue and any potential mitigation measures will be identified through the emerging Surface Water Management Plan. There is also potential for the strategic growth to help to alleviate existing surface water flooding issues.

Green Infrastructure Strategic growth in this area will generate demand for green infrastructure. This may take various forms. The Council’s Green Infrastructure Study sets out clear standards that should be applied within the planning of any strategic site.

Strategic growth to south of Maldon could present an opportunity for the Council to deliver a new “District Park” at land south of Promenade Park (minimum size of 12ha) as identified in the Green Infrastructure Study.

Historic Assets ECC indicated that there are known historic environment assets and potential for others to be present at land South of Maldon. Therefore any proposed development will require a comprehensive and detailed archaeological excavation and recording programme, with in situ preservation and excavation over large areas as part of any mitigation strategy.

Sustainability Appraisal Development in this area will have similar impacts to that of GO1, given the proximity to one of the main settlements in the District, Maldon. The existing services, facilities and public transport will be available for use by the new population and these will have associated positive impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. The issue of rural isolation will still remain as development will be focused in an already developed area.

APPENDIX 3

6/16

GO3: Burnham-on-Crouch

This broad location was assessed to consider its potential to deliver between 450 and 1,150 dwellings.

Highway Capacity Essex Highways consider that the proposed level of growth could be satisfactorily accommodated on the local highway network with mitigation at the B1021 Church Road / B1010 Maldon Road junction. Whilst development in Burnham-on-Crouch does not represent a problem in terms of road capacity, Essex Highways recognises local concerns about the accident rate. Therefore, road safety may have to be considered when taking forward any future housing plans for the town.

Education Depending on the scale of growth, ECC indicates that there is a need for three extra temporary classbases at St Mary’s Primary School for 450 extra dwellings or a new 1fe primary school if the overall growth increases. There is not thought to be any major future issues in relation to the capacity of the Ormiston Rivers Academy, although further clarification will need to be sought from the academy.


Sewerage Anglian Water indicated that the network would need to be upgraded to accommodate additional flows. Generally the further away from the treatment works the greater the capacity costs to upgrade the network. Capital costs will also be increased by the need to cross the railway line.

Floodrisk Only a small part of the area is affected by coastal / fluvial flooding i.e. within EA Floodzone Two and Floodzone Three.


APPENDIX 3

7/16

Historic Assets ECC indicated that there are known historic environment assets and potential for others to be present. Therefore any proposed development will require a comprehensive and detailed archaeological excavation and recording programme with in situ preservation and excavation over large areas as part of any mitigation strategy.

Sustainability Appraisal Socially, increased development at Burnham-on-Crouch could enhance the area and help to spread development more equitably throughout the District. However, the maintenance of service provision is likely to be more difficult and would require new infrastructure to be provided to support the larger population. There could also be an impact on water resources and water quality as there are existing sewerage capacity issues which would need to be addressed. There is expected to be some economic benefit to the eastern areas of the District given this increase in development and access to the railway.

APPENDIX 3

8/16

GO4: Rural Allocation

The Council is committed to deliver a total of 300 – 1000 (depending on the final agreed strategic approach) new dwellings through a Rural Allocations DPD which will be produced soon after the adoption of the LDP. However, it is difficult to provide detailed assessments at this stage as specific locations have not been identified.

Essex Highways indicated that it is preferable for any rural developments of any size to be kept geographically separate from Maldon and Heybridge where congestion is identified. Rural locations which already have good bus and / or rail services and local facilities available close-by should be prioritised over less accessible sites. Similarly, any rural developments should preferably be allocated within the catchment areas of rural schools with existing capacity.

In terms of sustainability, there would be no significant benefits in respect of the sustainability objectives. Specifically the spread of development across a wide number of rural settlements would not reduce rural isolation. By dispersing growth across the District it is likely that maximum benefits will not be achieved. Dispersed growth makes it harder to develop a business case for infrastructure and service provision. Dependency on cars will remain unless there is an increase in public transport across the District. This use of cars will also have an associated effect on greenhouse gas emissions and natural resources.

APPENDIX 3

9/16

[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

APPENDIX 3

10/16

GO5: North Fambridge

This broad location was assessed to consider its potential to deliver between 75 and 775 dwellings.

Highway Capacity North Fambridge has not been assessed in Essex Highways’ recent studies. However, Essex Highways considered North Fambridge to be a reasonable location because the railway station provides an alternative to private car travel. However, the main access road to the village is narrow and meets the B1012 on a sharp bend, forward visibility is very restricted and there appears to be minimal land available for suitable improvements. Traffic signals are not considered to be appropriate at this location as this would restrict the free flow of traffic on a main distributor route. The village also has limited facilities, so it may not be appropriate for significant additional development without better services and improved access from the B1012.

Education Depending on the scale of growth, ECC indicates that existing capacity at primary schools in Purleigh and Latchingdon will be able to accommodate 75 extra dwellings in the village. However, a new 1fe primary school would be needed if the overall growth increases to 775 dwellings. There is not thought to be any major future issues in relation to the capacity of the Ormiston Rivers Academy, although further clarification will need to be sought from the academy.


Sewerage Anglian Water indicated that any major development will require new EA flow consent which will significantly delay the delivery of the development. Furthermore, given the scheduled step up in the water quality standard as required by the Waste Water Directive, it is unlikely that any new consent will be granted in this location.

Floodrisk Only a small part of the area is affected by coastal / fluvial flooding i.e. within EA Floodzone Two and Floodzone Three. However, there are known surface water issues particularly along Franklin Road. The Council is working closely with local residents and Anglian Water to attempt to address this issue.

APPENDIX 3

11/16


Historic Assets Further investigation may be required

Sustainability Appraisal This growth area would meet several of the social objectives and could have a positive impact on the local economy. The creation of a larger settlement away from the main settlements could improve rural isolation by providing a more accessible centre for facilities and services to be developed. Dependency on cars will remain unless there is an increase in public transport across the District. This use of cars will also have an associated effect on greenhouse gas emissions and natural resources. However, the existing railway link provides an alternative mode of transport for people travelling outside of the District.

APPENDIX 3

12/16

GO6: Latchingdon

This broad location was assessed to consider its potential to deliver 700 dwellings.

Highway Capacity Although Essex Highways does not have any specific traffic data to assess the potential impact of a development in this location, information extracted from Traffic Master data (obtained from the Department for Transport) gives an indication of average peak period speeds in the area and thus possible traffic ‘hotspots’. The only location where average speeds are shown to fall below off-peak levels is near the village centre, in the vicinity of the primary school, during the AM peak hour. On the remainder of the local road network, average speeds observed are typical for a 30mph limit. Consequently, there is no strong case for the mooted bypass to relieve congestion in the village centre if it were to accompany a development of 700 dwellings. With regard to the feasibility of a potential southern bypass, Essex Highways believe that such a bypass could slightly reduce journey times for through-trips from Southminster and Burnham-on-Crouch, but it would not benefit traffic emanating from the Bradwell-on-Sea direction. It should also be borne in mind that a bypass may adversely affect the commercial activity of the village centre. In addition, consideration should be given to the funding of such a bypass as 700 dwellings within Latchingdon are unlikely to support such a scheme (although an access road to serve the development would clearly be required).

Education The level of growth proposed at Latchingdon would also need to consider the baseline position at North Fambridge (75 dwellings). To accommodate this level of growth further examination would be required into the possible relocation and expansion of Latchingdon Primary School to a 1.5fe school. There is not thought to be any major future issues in relation to the capacity of the Ormiston Rivers Academy, although further clarification will need to be sought from the academy.



APPENDIX 3

13/16


Historic Assets Further investigation may be required

Sustainability Appraisal The increased development will result in a significant population increase at Latchingdon and create a larger new settlement in the countryside. This could have either a negative or positive impact in association with the social objectives, depending on the appropriate provision of services and facilities. However, given the central location of this settlement, rural isolation overall may be reduced. The relatively short distance from Latchingdon to settlements with rail links could decrease the length of car journeys and also provide economic benefits.

Given the size of the development, there will be a significant change to the townscape of Latchingdon and also to the wider landscape character. The large development will also affect other environmental objectives particularly those associated with greenhouse house emissions, air quality and the use of natural resources.

APPENDIX 3

14/16

GO7: Southminster

This broad location was assessed to consider its potential to deliver 700 dwellings.

Highway Capacity Essex Highways is of the opinion that 700 extra dwellings could be accommodated satisfactorily on the local highway network, subject to suitable access arrangements and accessibility links being achievable. This is supported by the aforementioned Traffic Master data which only shows delays for a short stretch of road in the AM peak. However, if the full 700 dwellings are to be located in Southminster, congestion could arise in the centre of Latchingdon as the majority of peak hour trips would travel through that village. More positively, like Burnham-on-Crouch and North Fambridge, Southminster is a more sustainable location as it benefits from having a railway station to encourage non-car travel. Education To accommodate this level of growth it would be necessary to expand the Southminster Primary School to a 2fe school. There is not thought to be any major future issues in relation to the capacity of the Ormiston Rivers Academy, although further clarification will need to be sought from the academy.



Floodrisk Only a small part of the area is affected by coastal / fluvial flooding i.e. within EA Floodzone Two and Floodzone Three.


APPENDIX 3

15/16

Historic Assets There are two identified Scheduled Ancient Monuments to the north-east of Southminster. Any development which affects these two SAMs and / or their settings will require Scheduled Monument Consent.

Sustainability Appraisal Increased development at Southminster could socially enhance the existing area and help to spread development more equitably through the District. However, the maintenance of service provision is likely to be more difficult as new infrastructure would need to be provided to maintain existing access levels. There could also be an impact on water resources and water quality as there are existing sewerage capacity issues which would need to be determined. The existing railway links could provide an alternative mode of transport for people in the new development areas. There is expected to be some economic benefit to the eastern areas of the District

APPENDIX 3

16/16

Appendix 4: Spatial Growth Scenarios

Introduction Following further assessment and testing for increased housing provision, eight scenarios have been formulated. Each scenario allocates sites with a capacity totalling 4,410 dwellings including an allowance for Windfall.

Baseline for LDP housing supply as agreed at Council on 22 May 2013 Sites Total

Strategic Allocations North of Heybridge 1,000 South of Maldon 1,250 West Burnham-on-Crouch 450

Rural Allocations North Fambridge 75 Other rural locations 225

Residual Land Supply

Existing commitments (including SHLAA compliant sites)

400

Windfall Allowance Windfall 330 Total 3,730

Spatial Growth Scenarios 1) Enhanced growth in Heybridge and Rural Allocations2) Enhanced Growth in Maldon3) Enhanced Growth in Maldon and Burnham-on-Crouch4) Enhanced Growth in Rural Villages5) Enhanced Growth in Southminster6) Enhanced Growth in Latchingdon7) Enhanced Growth in North Fambridge8) Maximising short term delivery

SPATIAL GROWTH OPTIONS APPENDIX 4

1/17

Rural Allocations355

120

0

450

800

1010

390

120120

100 100

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,0001,000Meters

¯© Crown copyright. All rights reserved Maldon District Council 100018588 2013

KeyMaldon District BoundaryStrategic AllocationDevelopment Boundary

Spatial Growth Scenario 1Enhanced Growth in Heybridge and Rural Allocations

North Fambridge75


2/17

Scenario 1: Enhanced Growth in Heybridge and Rural Allocations Site 0-5yr 6-10yr 11-15yr Allocation Key components (Indicative) North of Heybridge 150 550 550 1250 - A link road between Langford Road and BSG (exact route to be decided) and other necessary highway mitigation measures

- A new primary school (2-form entry), contribution towards secondary school, early years and childcare - Enhanced healthcare facilities (to be confirmed with NHS) - Public Transport enhancement - Green Infrastructure and open space provision - Flood alleviation including SuDS - Improvement to foul drainage capacity / connection - Affordable housing provision - Community hub and local centre

North of Heybridge (Land to the North of Holloway Road)

100 N/A N/A 100

Heybridge Swifts 100 N/A N/A 100 North of Heybridge (Adj. Broad Street Green)

120 N/A N/A 120

South of Maldon (South of Limebrook Way)

150 400 460 1,010 - All necessary highway mitigation measures - A new primary school (1.5-form entry), contribution towards secondary school, early years and childcare - Enhanced healthcare facilities (to be confirmed with NHS) - Public Transport enhancement - Green Infrastructure and open space provision - Flood alleviation including SuDS - Affordable housing provision - Provision for employment use at South of Maldon (South of Limebrook Way)(3.4ha) and South of Maldon (Wycke Hill North)(1.9ha) - Community hub and local centre - Potential flexibility for reserved residential site at South of Maldon (Wycke Hill North) - Improvement to foul drainage capacity / connection

South of Maldon (Park Drive) 120 N/A N/A 120 South of Maldon (Wycke Hill South) 120 N/A N/A 120 South of Maldon (Wycke Hill North) N/A N/A N/A N/A

West of Burnham-on-Crouch 150 150 150 450 - Enhanced primary school provision - Land for potential new primary school - Enhanced healthcare facilities (to be confirmed with NHS) - Green Infrastructure and open space provision - Affordable housing provision - Provision for employment use (4.5ha) - Community hub and local centre - Potential for supermarket - Potential for future rail crossing - Potential flexibility for reserve residential site at North of Burnham-on-Crouch (East and West) - Improvement to foul drainage capacity / connection

Rural Allocation (North Fambridge) 75 N/A N/A 75 - Will vary depending on the scale and location of individual developments Rural Allocation (Others) 110 110 135 355 - Will vary depending on the scale and location of individual developments Existing commitments (including SHLAA compliant sites)*

300 100 N/A 400 - As agreed through planning permissions

Windfall 110 110 110 330 - Will vary depending on the scale and location of individual developments 1,605 1,420 1,385 4,430*

*Figures subject to amendment as new evidence emerges (e.g. from annual monitoring data) or updated demographic projections


3/17


310

450

800

1010

390

120120

100 100

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,0001,000Meters



Spatial Growth Scenario 2Enhanced Growth in Maldon

North Fambridge75


4/17

Scenario 2: Enhanced Growth in Maldon Site 0-5yr 6-10yr 11-15yr Allocation Key Components (Indicative) North of Heybridge 100 350 350 800 - A link road between Langford Road and BSG (exact route to be decided) and other necessary highway mitigation measures



100 N/A N/A 100

Heybridge Swifts 100 N/A N/A 100


150 595 575 1,320 - All necessary highway mitigation measures - New primary school (2.5-form entry), contribution towards secondary school, early years and childcare - Enhanced healthcare facilities (to be confirmed with NHS) - Public Transport enhancement - Green Infrastructure and open space provision - Flood alleviation including SuDS - Affordable housing provision - Provision for employment use at South of Maldon (South of Limebrook Way)(3.4ha) and South of Maldon (Wycke Hill North)(1.9ha) - Community hub and local centre - Improvement to foul drainage capacity / connection

South of Maldon (Park Drive) 120 N/A N/A 120 South of Maldon (Wycke Hill South) 120 N/A N/A 120 South of Maldon (Wycke Hill North) 150 120 121 390




Windfall 110 110 110 330 - Will vary depending on the scale and location of individual developments 1,550 1,480 1,380 4,430*

*Figures subject to amendment as new evidence emerges (e.g. from annual monitoring data) or updated demographic projections


5/17

180


215

800

1010

45090

0

215

120

120

100 100

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,0001,000Meters


KeyMaldon District BoundaryDevelopment BoundaryStrategic Allocation

Spatial Growth Scenario 3Enhanced Growth in Maldon and Burnham-on-Crouch

North Fambridge75


6/17

Scenario 3: Enhanced Growth in Maldon and Burnham-on-Crouch Site 0-5yr 6-10yr 11-15yr Allocation Key Components (Indicative) North of Heybridge 100 350 350 800 - A link road between Langford Road and BSG (exact route to be decided) and other necessary highway mitigation measures



100 N/A N/A 100



150 530 510 1,190 - All necessary highway mitigation measures - New primary school (2.5-form entry), contribution towards secondary school, early years and childcare - Enhanced healthcare facilities (to be confirmed with NHS) - Public Transport enhancement - Green Infrastructure and open space provision - Flood alleviation including SuDS - Affordable housing provision - Provision for employment use at South of Maldon (South of Limebrook Way)(3.4ha) and South of Maldon (Wycke Hill North)(1.9ha) - Potential flexibility for reserved residential site at South of Maldon (Wycke Hill North) - Community hub and local centre - Improvement to foul drainage capacity / connection


West of Burnham-on-Crouch 150 150 150 450 - Enhanced primary school provision - Land for potential new primary school - Enhanced healthcare facilities (to be confirmed with NHS) - Green Infrastructure and open space provision - Affordable housing provision - Provision for employment use at West of Burnham-on-Crouch(4.5ha) - Community hub and local centre - Potential for supermarket - Potential for future rail crossing - Potential flexibility for reserve residential site at North of Burnham-on-Crouch (East and West) - Improvement to foul drainage capacity / connection

North of Burnham-on-Crouch (East and West)

130 150 150 430

East of Burnham-on-Crouch 90 90



Windfall 110 110 110 330 - Will vary depending on the scale and location of individual developments 1,620 1,445 1,345 4,430* *Figures subject to amendment as new evidence emerges (e.g. from annual monitoring data) or updated demographic projections


7/17

Rural Allocation (Others) 925

450

800

1010

0

120120

100 100

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,0001,000Meters



Spatial Growth ScenarioOption 4

Enhanced Growth in Rural Villages

North Fambridge75


8/17

Scenario 4: Enhanced Growth in Rural Villages Site 0-5yr 6-10yr 11-15yr Allocation Key Components (Indicative) North of Heybridge 100 350 350 800 - A link road between Langford Road and BSG (exact route to be decided) and other necessary highway mitigation measures



100 N/A N/A 100










9/17

755


0

450

800

1010

120120

100 100

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,0001,000Meters



Spatial Growth Scenario 5Enhanced Growth at North Fambridge


10/17

Scenario 5: Enhanced Growth in North Fambridge Site 0-5yr 6-10yr 11-15yr Allocation Key Components (Indicative) North of Heybridge 100 350 350 800 - A link road between Langford Road and BSG (exact route to be decided) and other necessary highway mitigation measures



100 N/A N/A 100




South of Maldon (Park Drive) 120 N/A N/A 120 South of Maldon (Wycke Hill South)

120 N/A N/A 120

South of Maldon (Wycke Hill North)

N/A N/A N/A N/A


North Fambridge 175 300 300 775 - A new primary school, early years and childcare - Enhanced healthcare facilities (to be confirmed with NHS) - Public Transport enhancement - Green Infrastructure and open space provision - Flood alleviation including SuDS - Improvement to foul drainage capacity / connection - Affordable housing provision - Community hub and local centre

Rural Allocation (Others) 75 75 75 225 - Will vary depending on the scale and location of individual developments Existing commitments (including SHLAA compliant sites)*




11/17


700

450

800

1010

0

120120

100 100

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,0001,000Meters



Spatial Growth Scenario 6Enhanced Growth at Latchingdon


12/17

Scenario 6: Enhanced Growth in Latchingdon Site 0-5yr 6-10yr 11-15yr Allocation Key Components (Indicative) North of Heybridge 100 350 350 800 - A link road between Langford Road and BSG (exact route to be decided) and other necessary highway mitigation measures



100 N/A N/A 100






Latchingdon (South) 200 240 260 700 - A link road between Burnham Road and B1018 - Public Transport enhancement - Green Infrastructure and open space provision - Affordable housing provision - Contribution towards education provision - Improvement to foul drainage capacity / connection





13/17


200 380

100North Fambridge75 450

800

1010

0

120120

100 100

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,0001,000Meters



Spatial Growth Scenario 7Enhanced Growth at Southminster


14/17

Scenario 7: Enhanced Growth in Southminster Site 0-5yr 6-10yr 11-15yr Allocation Key Components (Indicative) North of Heybridge 100 350 350 800 - A link road between Langford Road and BSG (exact route to be decided) and other necessary highway mitigation measures



100 N/A N/A 100






East of Southminster 180 100 100 380 - Green Infrastructure and open space provision - Enhanced healthcare facilities (to be confirmed with NHS) - Green Infrastructure and open space provision - Affordable housing provision - Expansion of existing primary school to 2-form entry - Flood alleviation including SuDS - Improvement to foul drainage capacity / connection

North of Southminster 100 120 N/A 220 South of Southminster 100 N/A N/A 100





15/17

800

1010

45090

130

140

210

130

120120

100 100

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,0001,000Meters



Spatial Growth Scenario 8Maximising short term delivery


North Fambridge75


16/17

Scenario 8: Maximising short term delivery Site 0-5yr 6-10yr 11-15yr Allocation Key Components (Indicative) North of Heybridge 100 350 350 800 - A link road between Langford Road and BSG (exact route to be decided) and other necessary highway mitigation measures



100 N/A N/A 100

Heybridge Swifts 100 N/A N/A 100 North of Heybridge (Adj. Broad Street Green)

120 N/A N/A 120


150 400 460 1,010 - All necessary highway mitigation measures - A new primary school (1.5-form entry), contribution towards secondary school, early years and childcare - Enhanced healthcare facilities (to be confirmed with NHS) - Public Transport enhancement - Green Infrastructure and open space provision - Flood alleviation including SuDS - Affordable housing provision - Provision for employment use at South of Maldon (South of Limebrook Way)(3.4ha) - Community hub and local centre - Improvement to foul drainage capacity / connection

South of Maldon (Park Drive) 120 N/A N/A 120 South of Maldon (Wycke Hill South) 120 N/A N/A 120 South of Maldon (Wycke Hill North) 100 110 N/A 210

West of Burnham-on-Crouch 150 150 150 450 - A new primary school (1-form entry), early years and childcare - Enhanced healthcare facilities (to be confirmed with NHS) - Green Infrastructure and open space provision - Flood alleviation including SuDS - Affordable housing provision - Provision for employment use (West of BOC site) - A new supermarket (optional) - Community hub and local centre - Improvement to foul drainage capacity / connection

North of Burnham-on-Crouch (West) 150 110 N/A 260 North of Burnham-on-Crouch (East) 90 N/A N/A 90





17/17

APPENDIX 5

1 / 3

Communications Brief

Client / Service: Planning Job Title: Local Development Plan (LDP)

Date: June 2013 Communications

Team Officer Comms / Planning Policy

Project objective: • To produce a robust Communications Strategy for the Local Development Plan (LDP)

focused using both tested and innovative methods • To raise awareness about the next LDP consultation (and subsequent consultations)

and encourage participation/response • To provide factual, timely and information to the Community, Members, Parish

Councils, partner organisations and the Media in a cost effective manner Desired Results of this Communications Brief • To stimulate consultation responses. • To ensure that factually accurate information is disseminated to the community and

media. • To ensure that there is a better understanding of the LDP process by all. Communication Tools • Members of the Council as leaders in the community. • Printed Press. • Broadcast media. • Leaflets. • Targeted LDP E-zine (electronic newsletter). • You Tube. • Adverts (if required). • On line / face to face / Paper. • Web site. • Intranet to inform staff internally. • Footer on corporate email. • LDP Twitter account. • Telephone system. • Parish Council’s. • Parent Mail – Plume School / Ormiston Rivers Academy. • Public notice boards. • Road shows e.g.:

APPENDIX 5

2 / 3

• Tesco’s; • Morrisons; • High Street, Maldon; • High Street, Burnham-on-Crouch; • Parish / Village Halls; • Railway stations; • Libraries- mobile library; • One Place and One Place mobile; • Village Agents; • Maldon District Council (MDC) Park Rangers / outside / visiting officers; • Main shopping centres.

• Any other sector specific group • Maldon Access Group • Faith Groups • Maldon & District CVS (newsletter) • Parish Clerks’ Forum

Audience • External audience – Maldon District residents and interested parties Equalities and Diversity Considerations • Ensure that the consultation document is provided in hard copy • Provide an opportunity for face to face responses via the road shows Key Messages (to be agreed) • What is the next stage of the consultation about? • How can their views make a difference? • What will it mean to the community? • When will the plan be finalised? • How will we feedback? Link to Council’s Corporate Plan • Protecting and shaping the District and balancing the future needs of the community Authenticity • Any communication will be produced in conjunction with the Planning Policy Team

and issued in agreement by the Communications team. • All Communication prior to publication will be agreed by the Head of Planning

Services and/or the Strategic Planning Policy Manager and the Committee Chairman or Vice-Chairman.

Tone • Clear, concise, timely and accurate. Budget • Budget requirement to be determined and subject to further job evaluation.

APPENDIX 5

3 / 3

Practical considerations (formats, partners etc?) • Staff time/resources. • deadline for proofs, design and printing of all material. Deadlines and time constraints • ?? July - ?? Deliverables (web content, press release, event, campaign, launch etc.) • Press releases, web site, road shows, media interviews, public meetings. Measured • The successful completion of the next phase of the consultation. Next Steps • Develop an Operational Plan in order to factor the various activities, staff resources

required and the communication tools which will be used for each.