Issues and Options Feedback Report

Transcription

Chelmsford Local Plan
Issues and Options
Consultation Document
Feedback Report
June 2016
Our Planning Strategy to 2036
Local Plan
INDEX
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Section A
Section B
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Question 5
Question 6
Question 7
Question 8
Question 9
Question 10
Question 11
Question 12
Abbreviations
Introduction
Purpose of this Feedback report
Summary of consultation undertaken
Summary of representations
Main Issues raised in the consultation responses
Overview of the main issues made by type of
consultee
Specific and Duty to Co-operate Consultees Comments
Overview of General Consultees Comments
Overview of Developer/Landowner/Agents Comments
Overview of Public Comments
Summary and detailed breakdown of the key issues
raised by type of consultee
Summary of main issues raised by Specific Consultees
and Duty to Co-operate bodies
Chelmsford Town/Parish Councils
Neighbouring Town/Parish Councils
Other Local Planning Authorities
Other specific consultees
Summary of main issues raised by ‘General’ consultees
Summary of main issues raised by Developers/
Landowners/Agents
Summary of main issues raised by the public
Do you think that Section 3 provides an adequate range
of facts and figures about Chelmsford today?
Do you support what should drive the new Local Plan
Vision?
Do you agree with what should be covered in the Vision?
Do you have any comments of how the Council has
calculated its Objectively Assessed Housing need?
Do you have any comments on the housing number (930
homes per year) used for testing in this consultation?
Do you have any comments on how the new Local Plan
could meet the accommodation needs of Travellers?
Do you have any comments on how the Council has
calculated its job requirement number?
Do you have any comments on the job requirement
number (887 jobs per year) used for testing in this
consultation?
calculated its retail capacity forecasts?
Do you have any comments on the retail floorspace
requirements used for testing in this consultation?
calculated its office need forecasts?
Do you have any comments on the office floorspace
Page 1
4
5
5
6
8
11
11
11
14
15
16
22
22
24
42
44
55
65
98
155
155
162
167
173
176
179
182
184
186
188
190
191
Question 13
Question 14
Question 15
Question 16
Question 17
Question 18
Question 19
Question 20
Question 21
Question 22
Question 23
Do you think that we have missed any issues related to
future employment and economic development to be
addressed in the new Local Plan?
highways, transportation and accessibility to be
addressed in the new Local Plan?
protecting the environment to be addressed in the new
Local Plan?
Necessary infrastructure will be needed to support
development in the new Local Plan. Do you think that we
have missed any issues?
Do you agree with the proposed settlement hierarchy i.e.
City or Town, Key Service Settlement, Service Settlement
and Small Settlement?
Do you agree with the classification of individual
settlements within the Settlement Hierarchy?
Do you support the proposed Spatial Principles?
How do you think that new development growth in
Chelmsford should be provided in the new Local Plan?
Option 1 – Urban Focus
Option 2- Urban Focus and Growth on Key Transport
Corridors
Option 3 – Urban Focus and Growth in Key Villages
If you ticked ‘None of the above’ to Q20, can you suggest
any alternative or additional Option that should be
considered in the new Local Plan?
Which location(s) do you support for new development
growth in the new Local Plan?
Location 1 – Chelmsford Urban Area
Location 2 – West Chelmsford
Location 3 – North Chelmsford (Broomfield)
Location 4 – North East Chelmsford
Location 5 – East Chelmsford (East of Great Baddow)
Location 6 – North South Woodham Ferrers
Location 7 – Great Leighs
Location 8 – Howe Green
Location 9 – Rettendon Common
Location 10 – Boreham
Location 11 – Danbury
Location 12 – Bicknacre
Location 13 – Ford End
Location 14 – Great Waltham
Location 15 – Little Waltham
Location 16 – East Hanningfield
Location 17 – Woodham Ferrers
Are there any alternative or additional locations for new
development growth that should be considered in the new
Local Plan?
Page 2
192
195
202
210
220
222
224
233
234
236
237
240
246
248
249
252
255
256
258
260
263
264
265
268
269
270
272
273
274
275
277
Question 24
Question 25
Question 26
Question 27
Question 28
Question 29
Question 30
Do you have any comments on the following- road and
transportation improvements as shown on the Spatial
Options plans?
Potential Western Relief Road
Highway capacity improvements to the A132
Do you have any comments on the approach of
discounting development growth in the Green Belt in the
new Local Plan?
Do you have any comments on the approach of
discounting a large new settlement in the new Local
Plan?
Do you have any comments on the issues that the new
Local Plan policies need to cover?
Do you have any comments on the existing Special Policy
Areas?
Do you think there are other large facilities or sites which
should be considered as Special Policy Areas?
Have we missed anything? Please indicate what other
matters should be considered and why.
Appendices
279
280
281
283
286
289
291
293
295
298
Page 3
Abbreviations
CA
CCC
CfS
CTCAAP
dpa
ECC
HMA
LDF
NCAAP
NPPF
OAHN
OAN
ONS
pa
PPG
SA
SAD
SHMA
SLAA
SNPP
sqm
SSSI
SPA
SPD
SuDs
SWF
UPC
VDS
Conservation Area
Chelmsford City Council
Call for Sites
Chelmsford Town Centre Area Action Plan
dwellings per annum
Essex County Council
Housing Market Area
Local Development Framework
North Chelmsford Area Action Plan
National Planning Policy Framework
Objectively Assessed Housing Need
Objectively Assessed Need
Office for National Statistics
per annum
Planning Policy Guidance
Sustainability Appraisal
Site Allocations Document
Strategic Housing Market Assessment
Strategic Land Availability Assessment
Subnational Population Projections
Square Metres
Site of Special Scientific Interest
Special Policy Area
Supplementary Planning Document
Sustainable Drainage Systems
South Woodham Ferrers
Unattributed Population Change
Village Design Statements
Page 4
Introduction
The Issues and Options consultation represents the first formal stage in the
preparation of Chelmsford City Council’s new Local Plan. The consultation
document set out the key issues for the future growth and development of the
City and potential spatial options for addressing the projected growth
requirements up to 2036. This was undertaken in accordance with Regulation
18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations
2012.
The new Local Plan Issues and Options document and its accompanying
Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment)
were published for consultation for nine weeks from 19 November 2015 to 21
January 2016. The consultation period was longer than required by
Government regulations to recognise the Christmas period when offices are
closed and people are on holiday.
Purpose of this Feedback Report
This report sets out the consultation feedback received on the Issues and
Options document from a wide variety groups and individuals including
residents, developers, landowners and their agents, businesses and statutory
bodies such as other local authorities and Parish/Town Councils.
This report is constructed in three parts. Part One provides detail on the
scope of the public and stakeholder consultation undertaken. Part Two gives
a summary of consultation procedure and numbers of comments received.
Part Three provides a breakdown of the main issues raised.
However, it does not summarise all the representations received, identify
every individual issue, or provide a Chelmsford City Council (CCC) response
to those comments.
All the responses can be read in full on CCC’s Consultation Portal at
http://consult.chelmsford.gov.uk/portal/
Page 5
Part One – Summary of consultation undertaken
A comprehensive programme of consultation took place during the formal
consultation period from 19 November 2015 to 21 January 2016. This
followed (and exceeded) the requirements of the Council’s Adopted
Statement of Community Involvement (refreshed March 2016).
The package of documents published on 19 November comprised:



Issues and Options Consultation Document
Consultation Guidance Notes
Accompanying Sustainability Appraisal and Non-Technical Summary
(subject of a separate Feedback Report).
This package of documents was placed on deposit in the following locations:


CCC Customer Service Centres in Chelmsford and at South Woodham
Ferrers
10 libraries in CCCs area, 5 in adjacent districts/boroughs, and the
mobile library serving the Chelmsford area.
The Council notified in excess of 3,200 contacts registered on its Consultation
Portal. These included public, statutory agencies such as Essex County
Council and Parish Councils, utility companies, businesses, interest groups,
and voluntary and community bodies. CCC’s Citizens’ Panel and Youth
Panel, Council Members and staff were also notified.
A number of consultation events were arranged:





Public drop-in exhibitions at 25 venues, visited by more than 1,300
people
Exhibitions at Chelmsford Business Showcase
A Member and staff drop-in
Officers made presentations including to young people at the YMCA,
Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, Chelmsford Civic Society, and
Essex County Council (ECC) Infrastructure Group
Targeted engagement with the Parish/Town Council Forum and
Agent/Developers Forum.
Printed materials and advertisements were produced as follows:



Public notices in local newspapers
Posters distributed to Parishes, CCC offices and leisure facilities, post
offices, doctors’ surgeries and local shops
Summary leaflets widely available, in addition to being handed out at
Chelmsford and South Woodham Ferrers railway stations at peak
periods
Page 6


Adverts/articles in Business Forum Newsletter, Moulsham Times,
Chelmsford Times, South Woodham Focus, Writtle News, Essex Life
and retail offers booklet
Press releases and Tweets.
Copies of key consultation materials and a note of the meetings at the YMCA
are given in Appendix 1.
Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal
The Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental
Assessment) was also subject to consultation at the same time. Feedback on
this document is summarised in a separate report prepared by the Council’s
SA Consultants.
Call for Sites
In addition to the Local Plan and SA consultations, the Council undertook a
Call for Sites to identify available land for all types of uses and to establish
what land could potentially be made available in the future. In the region of 50
further sites were submitted through this process. Once all sites have been
assessed and updated, an updated Strategic Land Availability Assessment
(SLAA) will be re-published.
Next Steps
All responses are being considered in detail and will be used to help inform
the next stage of the new Local Plan (Preferred Options). This is alongside
ongoing discussions with infrastructure providers about their services, such as
education, and completion of evidence studies including traffic modelling,
landscape, recreation, and flood risk. The Preferred Options will also need to
reflect national guidance.
Page 7
Part Two – Summary of representations
A total of 10,445 separate comments were received to the consultation from
1,135 different respondents. These respondents are from a wide variety
groups and individuals including residents, developers, landowners and their
agents, businesses and statutory bodies such as other local authorities and
Parish/Town Councils.
A small number of representations were received the day after consultation
closed, by prior agreement with officers, and these have been analysed and
included in the figures in this report. An additional 26 comments received
were considered to be ‘inadmissible’ due to their content and have been
excluded.
To ensure proper consideration of issues, respondents have been divided into
types depending on their interface with the Council. Some fall into more than
one category, so totals exceed the overall number of respondents. Similarly
some respondents made their comments via multiple methods so the totals
for how comments were made is greater than the total number of comments
received.
Type of Respondent
Parish/Town Councils or adjoining local
authorities
Developers or Representatives
Other Agencies and Authorities
Members of the public
Number of
Respondents
34
91
92
1024
Number of
Respondents
425 (37%)
253 (22%)
466 (41%)
Method of making comments
Online Consultation Portal
Email/Electronic Form
Paper Form/Letter
All the comments have been inputted and recorded against one of the thirty
consultation questions posed in the consultation document.
A table of responses by members of the public follows in the next two pages.
The table shows a summary of the question, how many people responded,
how they responded where a yes/no answer was invited, and how many of
those responding also made a comment.
Every individual response is available to view in full on the Council’s online
consultation system ‘Objective’ at http://consult.chelmsford.gov.uk/portal
Page 8
Adequate range of facts and figures about Chelmsford today
Do you support what should drive the new Local Plan Vision
Do you agree with what should be covered in the Vision
How the Council has calculated its housing need
The housing number used for testing in this consultation
How the Plan could meet accommodation needs of Travellers
How the Council has calculated its job requirement
The job requirement number used for testing in this consultation
How the Council has calculated its retail capacity forecasts
The retail floorspace requirements used for this consultation
How the Council has calculated its office need forecasts
The office floorspace used for testing in this consultation
Missed any issues - employment and economic development
Missed any issues - highways, transportation and accessibility
Missed any issues - protecting the environment
Missed any issues - infrastructure to support development
Proposed Settlement Hierarchy
Classification of settlements within the Settlement Hierarchy
Do you support the proposed Spatial Principles
Maximise use of brownfield land
City Centre and Urban Area
Protect the Green Belt
Well-connected and sustainable
Defining Green Wedges
Designation of Green Buffers
Protect landscapes, heritage etc
Deliverable and in Plan period
Served by infrastructure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Question
How many
answered
question
291
308
313
158
165
136
100
98
100
81
81
72
182
623
570 (+37 in
petition)
282
180
190
427
380
359
385
356
372
369
377
326
367
No
None
ticked
Page 9
177
88
69
Yes
355
324
320
331
360
357
372
283
346
32
70
97
No
25
35
65
25
12
12
5
43
21
73
22
23
23
155
108
29
143
148
17
126
160
32
Text responses only
Text responses only
Text responses only
Text responses only
Text responses only
Text responses only
Text responses only
Text responses only
Text responses only
85
65
32
550
55
18
505
40
25
Yes
260
75
111
163
How many
made
a comment
180
187
221
126
134
103
57
54
61
38
41
33
93
589
542
Table of responses – Members of the Public
Page 10
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
21
22
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
None of the above
Alternative or additional Option
Location(s) for new development growth
1 Chelmsford Urban Area
2 West Chelmsford
3 N Chelmsford (Broomfield)
4 North East Chelmsford
5 E Chelmsford (E of Gt Baddow)
6 North SWF
7 Great Leighs
8 Howe Green
9 Rettendon Place
10 Boreham
11 Danbury
12 Bicknacre
13 Ford End
14 Great Waltham
15 Little Waltham
16 East Hanningfield
17 Woodham Ferrers
Alternative or additional locations for growth
Western Relief Road / A132 improvements
Discounting development growth in the Green Belt
Discounting a large new settlement
Issues for new Local Plan policies
Comments on the existing Special Policy Areas
Other sites for Special Policy Areas
Have we missed anything
20 How new development growth should be provided
Question
How many
answered
question
810 (+37 in
petition)
108
69
39
541
570
762
521
644
620
502
499
520
498
478
475
549
459
449
466
559
551
441
466
521
619
325
438
117
84
76
210
No
53
None
ticked
108
69
39
541
Text responses only
Yes
No
22
466
55
93
551
76
544
301
201
437
62
482
38
207
291
267
211
310
165
445
104
333
126
340
109
78
388
41
518
24
527
247
194
301
165
Text responses only
Text responses only
Text responses only
Text responses only
Text responses only
Text responses only
Text responses only
Text responses only
See below
Yes
512
619
316
427
88
54
43
188
570
403
How many
made
a comment
641
Part Three - Main issues raised in the consultation
responses
The main issues are presented as follows:
Section A – Overview of the main issues made by type of consultee
Section B – Summary and detailed breakdown of the key issues raised
by type of consultee
Section A - Overview of the main issues made by type of
consultee
An overview of the main issues raised in the consultation responses on
chapters of the Plan is set out below. This is presented by type of consultee:
Specific and Duty to Co-operate (includes statutory consultees that are
defined within the relevant Regulations and national guidance)
General Consultees (includes a wide range of other national and local
organisations)
Developers, Landowners and Agents
Public
Overview of Specific and Duty to Co-operate Consultees Comments
Comments were received from 45 specific consultees and Duty to Cooperate bodies. These include other local authorities, Essex County Council
(ECC), Parish/Town Councils, Highways England, Historic England,
Environment Agency, Mid Essex Clinical Commissioning Group and Sport
England
Facts and Figures about Chelmsford (Chapter 3)
Existing and predicted future commuting patterns are not adequately
considered
Impact from losing productive agricultural land needs assessing.
A Vision for the new Local Plan (Chapter 4)
General support for the Vision in principle
Suggested improvements include a greater focus on rural communities
and culture, and changes to better recognise Chelmsford's City Status.
Issues facing Chelmsford when planning for growth (Chapter 5)
Supporting infrastructure must be delivered alongside or ahead of new
development
General support for encouraging sustainable transport
Existing plans have failed to deliver planned infrastructure e.g.
NE Bypass
Page 11
Existing infrastructure is inadequate including schools, health provision
and roads
Generally CCC Parish/Town Councils consider that a target closer to
775dpa would more appropriate and realistic, and that a 20% uplift is
not necessary
Most other consultees support CCC's intention to meet its own housing
needs, its OAN and the 20% uplift although clarification is sought on
how the uplift has been calculated and the Plan period
Castle Point Borough Council asks CCC to consider meeting some of
its housing need to the south of its area
Basildon Borough Council asks CCC to help make provision for some
of its un-met Traveller pitch requirements
Thurrock Council suggest CCC considers its abilities to accommodate
un-met housing needs (including Traveller accommodation) from other
areas in Essex
Harlow District Council suggest CCC consider a Green Belt review to
see whether this could provide for more sustainable patterns of
development
Greater London Authority suggests CCC consider increases in
demographic flows between London and the South East when
assessing housing need
General support for the proposed future job numbers, the drive for
employment growth and for the MedTech Campus
Not all villages have been correctly classified in the Settlement
Hierarchy e.g. Great Leighs, Boreham and Ford End due to the limited
facilities they have
Support for Spatial Principles in principle. Some concern that they have
not been applied consistently and some suggest changes/
improvements
Support for Green Wedges and Green Buffers in principle
General support for SPAs in principle with comments relating to the
need to review specific areas. Consider Anglia Ruskin as a SPA
Writtle College calls for positive planning for the delivery of new and
expanded education facilities including student accommodation and an
enlarged and more flexible SPA
Clarification requested on the retail capacity forecasts
Mid Essex Clinical Commissioning Group advise that their emerging
Estates Strategy will help identify the health and social care
requirements and priorities to support the proposed growth.
How could future growth be accommodated? (Chapter 6)
Most neighbouring Councils stress the need to consider potential
cross-boundary impacts such as on highways, employment and service
provision
Braintree District Council is particularly concerned about potential
impacts of gowth in Great Leighs on secondary school provision, health
provision and highways in their District
Page 12
Writtle College requests that the impact of potential growth and
development in West Chelmsford on it be assessed
Need to work with key stakeholders to consider the impacts of growth
on the strategic highways network beyond CCC boundaries and on
other proposed transport projects (e.g. the Lower Thames Crossing
and A120 improvements)
Transport modelling is considered critical to identifying highways
impacts and mitigations and to selecting preferred options
CCC Parish/Town Councils: More support for Spatial Option 1, followed
by 2 although many disagree with all and consider they are too similar
and do not provide enough choice. Limited support for Option 3 and
concern that the Plan is unclear on how growth could be distributed
and impact on villages
ECC and Highways England suggest a hybrid of Spatial Options 1 and
2. Historic England support 1, the Environment Agency support 1 or 2
but most other consultees do not state a preference
Concern no strategy to fund and deliver the NE Bypass. This is
considered to be of strategic importance and the Western Relief Road
could deflect resources away from it
Some CCC Parish/Town Councils call for the deletion of the Western
Relief Road as it is unlikely to be delivered by 2036, its benefits are
unproven and it could have major adverse impacts
Little Waltham and Runwell Parish Councils call for no more Traveller
sites in their areas
Some CCC Parish Councils especially those in North and West
Chelmsford oppose development in Locations 2 and 3 and are
concerned about adverse impacts on e.g. traffic, landscape, tranquillity
and flood risk
Approach to Green Belt generally accepted although some suggest reconsidering development on suitable Green Belt sites such as surplus
Writtle College land
Re-consider more development growth on lower grade agricultural land
Re-consider more development growth on sites with good existing or
proposed transport infrastructure e.g. North Chelmsford, near the new
station and along the A12 corridor. The Call for Sites shows that
sufficient and suitable land is available in this area
Parish Councils in Braintree District oppose development in Great
Leighs and are concerned about adverse impacts on e.g. local traffic
and service provision
Both support and objection for a new settlement Spatial Option at
Hammonds Farm and Boreham Airfield. Those in favour of cite benefits
such as proximity to major transport infrastructure. Those opposed are
concerned about e.g. deliverability and coalescence.
Planning Policy Issues (Chapter 7)
Several consultees including ECC, Anglian Water, Natural England,
Environment Agency and Historic England suggest Local Plan policy
Page 13
ideas and/or draft policy text for consideration such as biodiversity, safe
walking and cycling route to school, high speed broadband and
renewable energy.
Any other comments? (Chapter 8)
Unclear at this stage if evidence base is comprehensive and robust
Evidence base should include community-led documents such as
Village Design Statements and Parish Plans
Many consultees call for continued collaborative working with CCC on
its Plan and evidence base.
Overview of General Consultees Comments
Comments were received from 34 general consultation bodies including a
wide range of voluntary organisations, businesses, religious groups,
schools, housing providers and neighbourhood groups. The main issues
raised in the comments relate to Chapters 5 and 6 of the Issues and
Options consultation document.
Generally the OAN is supported, but some question over the uplift from
657dpa
Support for the 20% buffer for the housing target used for testing
purposes
Concern that the rural areas of Chelmsford do not have the
infrastructure for more housing
The roads are close to or have exceeded capacity and will not cope
with more houses
The objectives and boundaries of Green Wedges should be reviewed
Meeting the needs of other neighbouring authorities needs to be
considered. Suggestion that Chelmsford should be meeting the needs
of Braintree and Tendring
The settlement hierarchy needs further consideration as some have
fewer services than others but are higher up the hierarchy
The existing rail service is not sufficient for the needs of the community
commuting to London for work
There needs to be better and increased forms of public transport to
encourage people to leave their car at home
Infrastructure must be delivered alongside new housing, ideally before
the housing gets built, and should have a forward capacity for future
growth
Support for the NE Bypass to come forward
The Plan should consider equestrian access across the CCC area in a
more holistic approach
Policies should seek to protect existing and to promote new social,
recreational and cultural facilities and services
Page 14
Important environmental assets should be protected.
An Option placing development near the train stations and A12/A130 to
the east of Chelmsford should be considered
The Western Relief Road will not assist in traffic congestion and will be
harmful to the environment
High grade agricultural land should not be built on
More sites, put forward under the 'Call for Sites', should have been
considered
Mixed views on whether a Green Belt review should be carried out as
some locations may be more sustainable than non-Green Belt
locations. Others support the continued protection of the Green Belt
General support for a large new settlement
Improvements to the A132 are supported
Concern over proposed development to the west of Chelmsford based
on the increased volume of traffic travelling through the City Centre and
in the general locality.
Overview of Developer/Landowner/Agent Comments
Comments were received from 70 developers/landowners or agents. The
main issues raised concern Chapters 5 and 6 of the Issues and Options
Local Plan.
Lots of agreement with the OAN and proposed housing requirement
figures of 775dpa and 930dpa
Some disagreement with the OAN and proposed housing requirement
should be increased with varying views as to why these should be
higher
Reference to the need for further consideration of in-migration and
growth from London to be factored into the OAN
Further consideration needed as to whether Chelmsford should be
meeting any neighbouring authorities unmet needs
Queries over some village's positions within the Settlement Hierarchy
due to the limited services they currently have.
There is a need to review the Green Belt
A new Settlement should be considered
Development within the Green Wedges should not be ruled out
Support for improvements to the A132
Questions raised over the deliverability and effectiveness of the
potential Western Relief Road.
Page 15
Overview of Public Comments
Comments were received from 1,024 members of the public.
Facts and Figures about Chelmsford (Chapter 3)
Impact from losing productive agricultural land needs assessing
Up-to-date information needed on commuting patterns and employment
sectors
Highway and transportation capacity needs more assessment
Too focused on City/urban based issues and ignores smaller
settlements
More information needed on future infrastructure requirements.
A Vision for the new Local Plan (Chapter 4)
Vision too vague
Too focused on City-focused issues and ignores smaller settlements
Vision needs to protect environment and minimise greenfield releases
Too focussed on housing targets
Not enough about existing residents quality of life
General support for Green Wedges/Buffers
Concern about lack of Green Belt Review
Vision needs to include more on cultural and recreational facilities
Concern over the lack of past delivery of infrastructure to support
development
Not enough about renewable energy generation
Vision should be encouraging development close to existing and
planned transport and road infrastructure.
Housing
Housing numbers should be driven by what infrastructure can be
provided to support the houses. Significant investment in infrastructure
will be needed
There is a lack of information on how the OAN figure has been
calculated
Mixed views on whether there is a need to uplift the figure from 657dpa
or if a 20% buffer should be added
It is unclear what split of affordable, special needs, elderly and other
specialist housing are within the overall OAN figure
There is a need to provide housing that is affordable and for local
residents
The housing number seems to take precedent over everything else in
the Plan, including the environment
It is unclear if the 930dpa is a final figure or what further testing will be
required, and when a final figure will be reached
Mixed views over whether an uplift should take account of migration or
demand from London.
Page 16
Travellers
Mixed views whether sites should be part of new development, isolated
or alongside settled communities
More authorised sites will reduce unauthorised sites in unwanted
locations
Concern over the way the number of pitches are calculated
Need for permanent sites questioned as Travellers should be travelling
Travellers should be involved themselves in finding sites.
Jobs
Mixed views on whether jobs number too high or too low
Housing affordability will create barrier to balancing jobs with homes
Fewer jobs will reduce the need for more housing
Focus should be on one job per person rather than new home
Consideration needs to be given to impact from adjoining areas
Infrastructure improvements crucial to deliver more jobs.
Retail
Rise of on-line provision needs to be taken into account
Importance of small and independent retailers for maintain vitality and
choice
Levels of parking at retail centres affects vitality.
Offices
Need is overestimated as many empty offices or converted and
technology advances will allow further reductions
Parking levels will affect success of new offices
New offices should be located at transport nodes and close to new
homes.
Other
Business types and working habits are changing resulting in less
manufacturing, more automation
Green Technology sectors should be encouraged
Need for more flexible/affordable space for Small and Medium
Enterprises, distribution and live/work
Business locations should close to rail station, A12 and locations for
new growth
More office and retail needed in strategic locations for new growth
Concern over loss of offices to residential
There is a need to work with neighbouring Councils.
Highways and Transportation
Locate new development close to existing or planned infrastructure
Funding concerns over delivery of infrastructure
Support for NE Chelmsford By-pass
Significant objection to Western Relief Road
Page 17
Improvements need to A12 including Boreham Interchange
Rail should be more fully used for freight
Concerns over highway maintenance
More parking needed in Central Chelmsford
No reference to measures to reduce pollution from traffic.
Environment
Strategic review of Green Belt needed
Support for Green Wedges and Buffers
New development will have a negative impact on the character and
tranquillity of countryside especially in NW Chelmsford
Focus for new development should be at lower grade land close to the
A12 corridor.
Infrastructure
Substantial cost of infrastructure will lead to new development not
supported by necessary infrastructure
Provision of infrastructure should be aligned with new development
Necessary infrastructure should be provided both for new and existing
residents
Development locations should be selected where there is existing
infrastructure capacity
Inadequate infrastructure in NW Chelmsford with no capacity on A1060
Rail should be more fully used for freight
NE By-pass, Army and Navy Improvements and improved access to
Broomfield Hospital needed
No reference to gas supply or renewable energy
Concerns over sewerage and waste water treatment capacity
Concerns over future availability of school places
Need for new community facilities including medium sized concert hall
New policies should protect existing community facilities
Improvements to broadband required.
Settlement Hierarchy
Classification of hierarchy is inconsistent
Concerns related to how Key Service Settlements and Service
Settlements are defined
Other factors such as character and population size should be used in
the classification
Settlements not identified should be recognised
Separate classification needed for Chelmsford and South Woodham
Ferrers.
Spatial Principles
Strong support for all of the proposed Spatial Principles.
Page 18
Spatial Options
Option 1 is favoured as it is seen to be the most sustainable option
which is most likely to be able to deliver the pieces of infrastructure
required to support the growth identified
Option 3 is considered to be the least popular as it would damage the
character of the surrounding countryside and the rural community's way
of life and the villages and rural areas do not have the services or
infrastructure to support the growth set out in this option
Option 1 appears to be more favoured, but there is also suggestion that
parts of Option 2 could also be acceptable if Option 1 on its own does
not deliver what is required
Appropriate infrastructure for any growth needs to be included and in
place as soon as possible. Particular concern in regards to traffic
congestion and making development more sustainable through more
appropriate and accessible public transport
Confusion over the fact that each Option is proposed to provide the
necessary infrastructure to support the growth in the areas suggested
and not simply rely upon existing services an infrastructure currently
available.
Alternative Spatial Options
Support to locate majority of growth to east Chelmsford on A12 corridor
where there is existing and planned infrastructure
Development should be focused in NE Chelmsford close to new railway
station
Concerns that Options are not sufficiently different
Boreham Airfield and Hammonds Farm should be considered as
locations for development
New settlement option should be investigated
No large scale development in villages which will affect their character
Development in villages could provide local needs housing and support
services and facilities
South/West Chelmsford should be considered to re-balance existing
development requiring review of Green Belt
Option to maximise public transport use.
Locations for development
Development should be concentrated where infrastructure is more
likely to be in place – Beaulieu Station and NE Bypass, major routes
including A12, A130, A131, and A12
Development should be focused on existing urban areas and major
settlements to protect the character of the countryside, village character
and environment
Housing development should be close to employment areas
Concern over the level of infrastructure currently in place and what
would be needed to support the suggested levels of growth
Concern over Villages losing their identity and being swallowed up by
urban areas and large developments.
Page 19
Alternative Locations for development
New development should be located close to transport infrastructure, in
particular the new rail station, A12 and A130
Large new settlements should not be discounted
The east and south of Chelmsford were predominantly identified as
representing the best locations for development
Development should be located on lower grade farmland.
Western Relief Road and Improvements to the A132
New roads should be constructed before new development
Potential Western Relief Road will divert resources from much needed
NE By-pass
Potential Western Relief Road will damage rural nature of West
Chelmsford and separate communities
General support for A132 Capacity Improvements
Concerns over funding for A132 Capacity Improvements
Need for co-operation between Chelmsford and Maldon Councils on
delivery of A132 Capacity Improvements.
Discounting development in the Green Belt
Significant support for discounting Green Belt option
Potential to extend Green Belt to protect countryside
Discounting Green Belt option has led to uneven growth of Chelmsford
Limited support for Green Belt Review.
Planning Policy Issues (Chapter 7)
Other Policy Areas
Climate change and environmental mitigation
Protection of rural communities and environments
Securing affordable housing
Re-assessment of Green Belt.
Special Policy Areas (SPAs)
Significant congestion at Broomfield Hospital, second access should be
investigated
Land associated with Writtle College should remain either for education
or agriculture.
New Special Policy Areas (SPAs)
RHS Hyde Hall Gardens
Hylands Park
Danbury Country Park
Other areas suggested include areas with environmental designations.
Page 20
Any other comments? (Chapter 8)
Things we have missed
Impact on rural communities
Lack of infrastructure
Housing affordability
Traffic congestion
Flood risk
Quality of life.
The Council also received a petition in from Mr Robert Barnard signed by
38 people. In summary this related to concern at the scale of growth
proposed and the negative impact it would have on the road network and
the countryside, with a specific objection to the Western Relief Road.
Page 21
Section B – Summary and detailed breakdown of the key
issues raised by type of consultee
This Section includes a summary of the main issues raised in the comments
(shown as a bullet point list). This is followed by a more detailed breakdown of
main issues within the tables.
This is presented by type of consultee:




Specific and Duty to Co-operate (includes statutory consultees that are
defined within relevant Regulations and national guidance)
General Consultees (includes a wide range of other national and local
organisations)
Developers, Landowners and Agents
Public
Summary of main issues raised by Specific Consultees and
Duty to Co-operate bodies
45 specific consultees and Duty to Co-operate bodies responded to the
consultation.
Summary of main issues raised by these groups/bodies:










General support for the Vision in principle. Suggested improvements
include a greater focus on rural communities and culture, and changes to
better recognise Chelmsford’s City Status.
Existing and predicted future commuting patterns and impact from losing
productive agricultural land are not adequately considered in the Plan
Supporting infrastructure must be delivered alongside or ahead of new
development. Existing plans have failed to deliver planned infrastructure
e.g. the NE Bypass
Clarification requested on the retail capacity forecasts
Existing infrastructure is inadequate and could not cope with additional
growth including schools, health provision and roads (such as Main Road
Boreham, Main Road Broomfield, A414 and the A1060)
General support for encouraging sustainable transport
Generally CCC Parish/Town Councils consider that a figure closer to
775dpa would more appropriate and a 20% uplift is not necessary.
Most other consultees including local authorities and ECC support CCC’s
intention to meet its own housing needs, its OAN and the 20% uplift.
Clarification is sought from some on how the uplift has been calculated
and the Plan period
Most neighbouring Councils including Rochford, Maldon, Basildon and
Braintree stress the need to consider and provide more information on
potential cross-boundary impacts e.g. on highways and services
Castle Point Borough Council asks CCC to consider meeting some of its
housing need to the south of its area
Page 22
















Basildon Borough Council asks CCC to help make provision for some of
its un-met traveller pitch requirements
Thurrock Council suggest CCC considers its abilities to accommodate unmet housing needs (including Traveller accommodation) from other areas
in Essex
Harlow District Council suggest CCC consider a Green Belt review to see
whether this could provide for more sustainable patterns of development
Greater London Authority suggests consideration be given to increases in
demographic flows between London and the South East when assessing
housing need
Braintree District Council is particularly concerned about potential impacts
of growth in Great Leighs on secondary school provision, health provision
and highways in their District
Work with key stakeholders to consider the impacts of growth on the
strategic highways network beyond CCC boundaries and on other
transport projects (e.g. the proposed Lower Thames Crossing and A120
improvements)
Writtle College requests that the impact of potential growth and
development in West Chelmsford on it be assessed
Transport modelling is considered critical to identifying highways impacts
and mitigations and to selecting preferred options
General support for the proposed future job numbers, the drive for
employment growth and for the Med Tech Campus
CCC Parish/Town Councils: More support for Spatial Option 1, then
Spatial Option 2 although many disagree with all and consider they are not
sufficiently different. Limited support for Option 3 and concern that the
Plan is unclear on how growth could be distributed and impact on villages
ECC and Highways England suggest a hybrid of Spatial Options 1 and 2.
Historic England support 1. The Environment Agency support 1 or 2. Most
other consultees do not state a preference
Concern no strategy to fund and deliver the NE Bypass which is
considered to be of strategic importance and that the Western Relief Road
could deflect resources away from it
Some consultees including some CCC Parish/Town Councils call for the
deletion of the Western Relief Road as it is unlikely to be delivered by
2036, its benefits are unproven and it could have adverse impact on the
landscape and environment
Some CCC Parish Councils especially those in North and West
Chelmsford oppose development in Locations 2 and 3 and are concerned
about adverse impacts on e.g. traffic, landscape, tranquillity and flood risk
Neighbouring Parish/Town Councils in Braintree District oppose
development in Great Leighs and are concerned about adverse impacts
on e.g. traffic and service provision in Braintree District
Support and objection for a new settlement Spatial Option at Hammonds
Farm and Boreham Airfield. Those in favour cite benefits such as
proximity to major transport infrastructure. Those opposed are concerned
about e.g. deliverability and coalescence
Page 23












Not all villages have been correctly classified in the Settlement Hierarchy
e.g. Great Leighs, Boreham and Ford End due to the limited facilities they
have
Consider impact of development on landscape and agricultural value more
fully. Re-consider more development on lower grade farmland
Approach to Green Belt generally accepted although some suggest reconsidering potential development on suitable Green Belt sites such as
surplus Writtle College land
Writtle College calls for positive planning for the delivery of new and
expanded education facilities including student accommodation and an
enlarged and more flexible SPA
Little Waltham and Runwell Parish Councils call for no more Traveller sites
in their areas
Re-consider more development growth on sites with good existing or
proposed transport infrastructure e.g. North Chelmsford, near the new
station and along the A12 corridor. The Call for Sites shows that sufficient
and suitable land is available in this area
Mid Essex Clinical Commissioning Group advise that their emerging
Estates Strategy will help identify the health and social care requirements
and priorities to support the proposed growth
General support for Spatial Principles although concern that some have
not been applied with consistency and some suggest changes/
improvements
General support for Green Wedges and Green Buffers in principle
General support for SPAs in principle with comments relating to the need
to review specific areas. Consider Anglia Ruskin as a SPA
Evidence base should include community-led documents such as Village
Design Statements and Parish Plans
Several consultees including ECC, Anglian Water, Natural England,
Environment Agency and Historic England suggest Local Plan policy ideas
and/or draft policy text for consideration such as biodiversity, safe walking
and cycling route to school and high speed broadband.
Chelmsford Town/Parish Councils
Boreham Parish Council
Summary of issues raised
Vision and Highways Infrastructure
 Too much emphasis on growth and not enough on supporting and
protecting existing communities and their individual characteristics
 All countryside needs to be protected, not just Green Belt
 Development in Green Belt could support failing villages and rebalance the growth of the City
 Supporting infrastructure must be delivered alongside or ahead of new
development. Existing infrastructure is inadequate
 Need to deliver essential transport schemes including the new station,
NE bypass and Western Relief Road.
Page 24
Boreham Parish Council
 Chelmsford should not be solving London’s housing problem
 657dpa a year is adequate. No adjustment or uplift is necessary.
Environmental Protection
 Develop Grade 3B or lower agricultural land over Grades 1 and 2
 Protect the countryside around Boreham.
 Many other villages could be Key Service Settlements. Boreham
should not be, given its limited facilities which are full
 Substantial development would change Boreham from a stand-alone
sustainable village
 A Green Buffer would help to protect the village character.
 Prefer Option 1 with focus on brownfield sites and urban extensions.
Development in the NW would support new jobs from the University
 Option 2 is a reasonable alternative
 Reject Option 3. This will increase the need to travel
 Support only Locations 1‐7 and 9
 No development supported east of NE Bypass including Boreham
 Boreham is already impacted by the planned growth and existing
roads are at capacity
 Need to protect setting of Boreham - see our Village Design
Statement.
Broomfield Parish Council
Facts and Figures
 These need greater recognition of the City’s villages and evolution of
the district as a whole
 Spatial Options do not reflect some facts e.g. commuting flows.
Vision
 The views of communities should drive the Vision
 Needs to go further than building on the successes of previous Plans
and look beyond the next decade
 Local communities feel they have little control over their own destinies
 Existing infrastructure cannot keep pace with increased demand
 Needs a greater emphasis on sustainable communities and quality of
life issues including self-supporting new settlements.
 The 20% uplift is unsatisfactory. Should not assume that the same
Page 25
Spatial Options are appropriate for 775dpa as 930dpa
 There should be further consultation before Preferred Options if the
housing number significantly changes
 775 dpa is more realistic. Any higher number will require consideration
of development sites within the Green Wedges and the Green Belt
 Should have included the housing to be carried into the new Plan.
Highways, transportation and accessibility
 This section is too aspirational. It fails to recognise the scale of existing
problems, how significant improvements will be achieved or to propose
sustainable transport solutions
 The new development will largely rely on existing/planned
infrastructure which may be inadequate for the level of growth
proposed
 There is no strategy to deliver the NE Bypass and no prospect of
achieving the West Bypass by 2036 even if funding was available
 Little of the interventions proposed in the Broomfield Corridor and
Access to Broomfield Hospital Study (2007) have been achieved
 Intensify development of Park Farm/Boreham Airfield to help the NE
Bypass
 Delete the Western Relief Road. This could dilute delivery of the NE
Bypass. The Plan misleads by implying Locations 2 and 3 would be
mitigated by it
 Our own transport study shows the Western Relief Road is unlikely to
have any benefits for North Chelmsford
 Location 2 would be a mile from the station which is beyond most
peoples’ walking distance. Unclear how safe cycle ways could be
provided and why significant greenfield land within a mile of the new
station is discounted
 Plan is contrary to new national guidance which promotes higher
density development at commuter hubs.
 Plan fails to consider spatial options and locations on lower grade
agricultural land in the south
 Green Wedge boundaries should be drawn tighter and better
evidenced. Current/expanded boundaries will impact on valuable
landscapes and habitats elsewhere
 Consider Green Wedge designations for other areas important for
landscape and biodiversity e.g. Felsted Field, Broomfield
 The recreation value of Green Wedges needs promoting and
monitoring. Large parts of the Chelmer Green Wedge are inaccessible
 This section should be based on agriculture or landscape character
rather than Green Belt and Green Wedges.
 Hammond’s Farm is discounted on landscape terms although this
development could enhance the screening of the A12
 The proposed local landscape study must inform the preferred
locations
Page 26
 Community Landscape Character Statements/Assessments such as
that for Broomfield should provide evidence to inform the Plan.
Spatial Principles
 Mostly support. Suggest re-group into Principles for Development and
Principles for Protection for clarity and consistency
 Propose instead ‘Continue the renewal of Chelmsford’s City Centre,
Urban Area and the South Woodham Ferrers Urban Area’
 Propose instead ‘Protect the character and value of important
landscapes, heritage and biodiversity, including by defining Green
Wedges where appropriate’
 Propose instead ‘Protect the aims and purposes of the Green Belt’
 Propose instead ‘Protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the Rural
Area beyond the Green Belt’.
Spatial Options
 None are appropriate, there is too little variation between them, the
Spatial Options descriptions are confusing and all fail Spatial
Principles
 Lack of diversity between Spatial Options has discouraged our
residents from responding contrary to the Statement of Community
Involvement
 Unclear how the Spatial Options have been informed by the
Chelmsford Landscape Character Assessment
 The Spatial Options will significantly adversely impact on the
environment including the Writtle and Pleshey Farmland Plateaus
 Plan fails to show how the NE Bypass, Western Relief Road would be
funded and delivered
 Plan fails to establish if the Western Relief Road is feasible and would
be beneficial. Our own transport study shows it will be of no benefit
 Option 1: Unclear why this excludes Location 5 (East of Great
Baddow), how Location 7 (Great Leighs) would function as an urban
extension and why it includes village extensions
 Location 3 (N Chelmsford - Broomfield) logically belongs in Option 3
 Option 2: Not clear how transport corridors have been defined and if
they are the most suitable. Consider further deliverable locations
around the A12 and Locations 8 and 10 (Howe Green and Boreham)
 Option 3: Not clear how growth will be distributed around villages
 The Plan lacks evidence on how sewage connections in remote areas
like Broomfield can be addressed in a cost-effective way.
Alternative or Additional Spatial Options
 Include Spatial Option(s) which reduce car journeys into Chelmsford
and support a new settlement
 Include a Spatial Option which maximises development within a mile of
the stations and the A12/A130 corridor. Land is available through the
Call for Sites – see our submitted list of sites. This would avoid the
need to grow in less sustainable locations e.g. West and North
Page 27
Chelmsford although some development may be appropriate here to
encourage organic growth and strengthen local facilities
 Support also a Spatial Option for development of Boreham Airfield
post gravel extraction which could continue into the next Plan period
 We are identifying alternative locations/sites in or adjacent to
Broomfield. These will be in areas less valued by residents, for
smaller scale growth and work in traffic terms
 Locate development where there is greater sewage capacity and less
sewage connectivity issues.
Locations supported for new development
 Support only Locations 1, 4-6, 8-12 and 16-17
 Delete Location 5 (West Chelmsford) as:
o Unclear if strategic cycle and walking links could be achieved
o Not clear if the Western Relief Road would be deliverable
contrary to Spatial Principle 9
o Would require a new road to the A414 and/or A12 which would
have unacceptable impacts on Writtle village
o Could not successfully integrate with existing communities
o Would adversely harm local landscapes sensitive to change
and noted for their ‘sense of tranquillity’
o Could exacerbate flooding in areas to the south that may not be
suitable mitigated
o No account is made of the Special Landscape Character
designation
 Delete Location 3 (North Chelmsford - Broomfield) as:
o Unclear if the Western Relief Road would be deliverable,
contrary to Spatial Principle 9
o Our own submitted transport study concludes it would not
provide any significant benefits to alleviate existing or projected
traffic congestion on routes into the City Centre
o The Western Relief Road would not significantly benefit access
to Broomfield Hospital
o It is too remote to achieve strategic pedestrian connectivity or
integration with existing neighbouring communities
o Would adversely harm local landscapes and their ‘strong sense
of tranquillity’ and be contrary to the Chelmsford Landscape
Character Assessment
o Local residents most want to protect the landscape that
corresponds to Location 3
o Development could be hindered by presence of heritage assets
e.g. Iron Age and Roman archaeology
o Contrary to NCAAP which recognised west Broomfield could
only accommodate 800 new homes
o Existing roads are at capacity
o Existing sewerage is almost at capacity
o Surface water drainage problems
o Nothing has changed to overcome our grounds for opposing
development around Location 3 since the NCAAP Statement of
Page 28
Common Ground (submitted alongside this representation)
 Delete locations 2-3 and 13-15. Existing roads in Ford End, Great
Waltham and Little Waltham are already highly congested and impacts
on smaller settlements could be disproportionate.
 Remove this proposal either entirely or at least from the A1060
northwards as could dilute the focus on achieving the NE Bypass
 Lack of evidence for the road and the Plan wrongly misleads that it
would specifically mitigate the impact of Locations 2 and 3
 Our own joint study shows the importance of the NE Bypass and lack
of benefit of a Western Relief Road
 This would risk infilling to the line of the road to help fund it and result
in wider problems to Chelmsford western approaches (A1060)
 Land in the likely corridor is in multiple land ownership which could
require compulsory purchase
 Would pass through Green Belt, has no funding and is unlikely to be
delivered by 2036, contrary to the Spatial Principles
 Would cut through Special Landscape Character areas and be
contrary to guidance in the Chelmsford Landscape Character
Assessment
 Would create widespread noise and light pollution and reduce the
sense of tranquillity
 No evidence to show how environmental impacts could be suitably
mitigated
 If a relief road was required, a route from the A130 Essex Regiment
Way would be more preferable to Broomfield residents
 Not clear how it would alleviate Hospital related traffic. We submit an
initial plan showing a second access to the north. The adjacent area
could be infilled subject to the overall traffic impact being neutral.
Discounting growth in the Green Belt
 Cannot discount without a Green Belt review. This will also ensure
boundaries are up-to-date and identify if Green Belt land could be
more sustainable for development
 Similarity between the Spatial Options suggests a lack of suitable
growth options in non-Green Belt locations
 Non-Green Belt may not be suitable for growth above 930dpa
 Consider a new Green Belt to prevent the coalescence of Great Leighs
and Braintree.
 Plan should have included a new settlement Spatial Option
 3,000 homes in locations 2 and 4 would have similar risks to delivering
a new settlement e.g. infrastructure provision, delivery rates
 The distinction between large urban extensions and a new settlement
is unclear and contradictory
 Hammonds Farm and Park Farm/Boreham Airfield should have been
Page 29
new settlement Spatial Options in the consultation
 Hammonds Farm and Park Farm/Boreham Airfield could be justified as
urban extensions in this Plan, even if completion would be after 2036.
Park Farm/ Boreham
 Confusing to classify as one ‘large new settlement’ when it could
include one or more large extensions
 Development could help fund the NE Bypass
 Relevant authorities need to work together to overcome the minerals
constraints
 It could deliver 3,000 homes by 2021/36.
Hammonds Farm
 The A12 should not limit the expansion of Chelmsford’s urban area to
the east
 Could provide a satellite Key Service Settlement with a distinct identity
close to Chelmsford
 The site constraints identified in the Plan may be possible to overcome
and exist at other locations e.g. landscape impacts.
Special Policy Areas (SPAs)
 SPAs should include a mechanism to ensure early formal consultation
on relevant proposals with Town/Parish Councils.
Chignal Parish Council
Facts and Figures
 Insufficient weight is given to protecting Grade 2 farmland in the north
and west of Chelmsford in line with the NPPF
 Areas west of Chignal and Roxwell are Mineral Safeguarding Areas
which could constrain/delay development in this area.
Vision
 Too focussed on meeting housing demand over place-making
 Should be more ambitious to reflect City status and the need for more
infrastructure, better public realm and cultural and recreational facilities
 Too focused on urban extensions and bolting development onto
existing communities and services
 Previous plans have not delivered major transport infrastructure
alongside development e.g. NE Bypass
 Include ‘Respect and support the identity and social cohesion of
existing local communities and protecting high quality farmland’
 Request the evidence that the Council and its partners have
successfully delivered new infrastructure to support a growing
population.
Page 30
Housing Number
 Consultation should have followed clarification of the housing target
 930dpa is unrealistic given past delivery rates
 A 20% uplift is a blunt tool to test the Spatial Options
 Do a further consultation before Preferred Options to test the spatial
implications of applying a different housing target.
Retail and Employment
 Unclear why convenience retail floorspace in Table 2 will grow by
400% to 2036 but population by 20–30%, given changing retail trends
 No specific forecasts for commuting to London in the Plan period and
the implications of the new station and Crossrail.
 Extend River Can Green Wedge to include the Upper Can Valley
which is important for wildlife and well served by bridleways and
footpaths
 Protect the open farmland plateau landscape to the west of
Chelmsford which is highly productive, well used, tranquil and has
historic features
 We wish to be consulted on the local landscape study
 Local landscape is most important to Chignal residents
 The settings of Grade 2 listed buildings in Chignal Parish are
vulnerable to damage in all 3 Options
 Support Green Buffers.
Infrastructure
 Chelmsford’s road network is close to capacity and regularly
congested
 Park and Ride locations will not support development on the A1060
corridor
 Development at Locations 2 and 3 could exacerbate current flooding
issues.
 Development at locations 2 and 3 would harm Chignal St James and
Chignal Smealy, the identity of our community, the farmland,
landscape and ability to access Chelmsford
 Recent resident surveys and feedback indicate support for smaller
scale organic developments (1-5 homes) only in the Parish
 Chignal St James and Chignal Smealy are not defined collectively as a
small settlement although they have community facilities and services.
Show these villages on the Options maps for clarity.
Spatial Principles
 Support overall but Location 2 is contrary to some principles e.g.
Locate development at well-connected sustainable location.
Page 31
Spatial Options and Locations for Development
 Do not support Spatial Options. All will increase vehicle movements
along Broomfield and Roxwell Roads
 Plan should not have proposed Locations 2 and 3 without having first
modelled their traffic impacts. Also contrary to the aims in the Strategic
Zonal Focuses table (e.g. to remove traffic on the outskirts of the city)
 Include an Option which maximises development near the new railway
station and the A12/A130. Land is available through the Call for Sites
 Re-direct growth from north and west Chelmsford to Boreham Airfield
and Hammonds Farm with good existing and proposed transportation
infrastructure
 Strong objections to Locations 2-3 and 13-15
 Support Locations 1, 4-6 and 9-11 which are served by good
transportation infrastructure or in the urban area
 Chignal Road, Roxwell Road and Rainsford Road are too narrow for
dedicated bus lanes and cycle paths and often heavily congested.
Western Relief Road
 Oppose. No evidence to support. Our submitted joint transport study
shows it would do little to alleviate existing or projected congestion on
strategic routes into the City Centre
 Would not be built by 2036
 Would split Chignal communities, destroy a historic landscape,
important wildlife habitats and high quality
 Would result in unacceptable levels of noise, air and water pollution in
tranquil countryside that is enjoyed by many residents
 Would divert resources away from the much needed NE Bypass.
 Less brownfield sites remain. Review the Green Belt to establish if
could provide for more ‘sustainable patterns of development’ in line
with the NPPF.
Large New Settlement
 Should not have discounted Hammonds Farm with better transport
infrastructure than development locations to the west of Chelmsford
 Should not have discounted Boreham Airfield which could be
developed after 2031
 New settlements can be small-scale of between 1,500 and 5,000
homes.
Other Matters
 Parish Council plans e.g. Parish Plans should inform the Local Plan
 Development needs to respect the values and practices of the
community as it exists and grows.
Page 32
Danbury Parish Council
 Support a Maldon-Langford-Hatfield Peverel to A12 link and the
subsequent downgrading of the A414. This would reduce current
traffic congestion and improve air quality and the health of local
residents
 Any development affecting the Parish should help fund a bypass from
Heybridge to join the A12 at Witham.
Spatial Options
 Strongly oppose Option 3 and 100 houses to the East of Danbury as:
o Unsustainable. Danbury roads and junctions are already very
congested. New development plus that planned nearby will
exacerbate congestion, rat running and environmental impacts
o Lead to ribbon development which would degrade the area and
harm the identity and character of the village
 Support some small commercial development on brownfield sites that
provide economic benefits to the village.
Hammonds Farm
 Strongly oppose as would be detrimental to Danbury and surrounding
villages, on a flood plain and destroy the buffer between Danbury,
Sandon and the A12.
East Hanningfield Parish Council
Spatial Options
 Prefer Option 1
 Option 2 extends the urban boundary too far
 Object to equal share of 300 houses for East Hanningfield in Option 3.
This would be disproportionate and unsustainable given its poor
service provision.
Great and Little Leighs Parish Council





Do not support the drivers and areas covered by the Vision or the
Support the Spatial Principles
Object to the Spatial Options and development at Great Leighs. The
areas of search are already identified for long-term gravel extraction
and a growing Racecourse
Plan does not consider increases in traffic movements towards
Chelmsford and the impacts on travel times, congestion and ratrunning
The village has not recovered from the detrimental effects on recent
Page 33
Great and Little Leighs Parish Council
housing growth and the bypass.
Great Baddow Parish Council
 Support no development in the Green Belt
 Object to Locations 5, 8, 11-12 and 16-17 which would worsen traffic
problems at the Army & Navy
 Plan should give preference to the sites within walking distance of
railway stations such as West Chelmsford and North Chelmsford
 Development east of Great Baddow would harm the landscape
conservation area and Howe Green has inadequate transport links
 Work now on development of a new settlement east of Boreham for
the Plan post 2036.
Other comments
 Ensure the next Plan makes clear that Chelmsford Urban Area
contains the largely populated parishes of Great Baddow and
Springfield
 Not credible to state that the Riverside redevelopment will provide a
facility of regional importance given the proposed reduced offer.
Great Waltham Parish Council
Facts and Figures
 Consider the need to protect the higher quality agricultural land to the
north and west and the impact of losing this important asset.
Vision
 The Plan is flawed as it cannot ensure that the necessary
infrastructure to support growth will be delivered by 2036, contrary to
the Vision
 Review the Plan and reconsider more sites to the South East of
Chelmsford
 Include "Protecting high quality farmland".
Spatial Options and locations for development
 Support no Option. None are readily sustainable and will exacerbate
Chelmsford's traffic issues
 Option 3 could swamp small villages like Ford End with new
development
 Support Locations 1, 4-6, and 8-10 with good existing/proposed
transport infrastructure. Object to Locations 2, 3, 7 and 13-15.
Alternative Spatial Options and New Settlement
 Include an Option without North and West Chelmsford that focuses
development where adequate transport infrastructure exists or is
Page 34
Great Waltham Parish Council
proposed e.g. near the new station, A12 and A130. The Call for Sites
indicates sufficient and suitable land is available
 Lower grade agricultural land to the south and east should be
preferred for development
 Plan is premature to discount the two new settlements which both
have benefits e.g. access to the A12 and new station. The Council
should reconsider these as possible Spatial Options.
Other comments
 Plan fails to consider increases and impacts of increased commuting
 The Western Relief Road would be beneficial but is unlikely to be
delivered by 2036. It should be identified as a high-risk scheme
 Support Green Wedges but concerned that development in Ford End
would compromise an extended Chelmer Valley Green Wedge
 The classification of "Service Settlement" is misleading. Ford End
should be a "Small Settlement" given its limited and constrained
services
 Support the Spatial Principles but they do not apply to development in
North and West Chelmsford
 The proposed policies inadequately reflect rural communities
 Local Plan evidence should include local documents e.g. Parish and
Neighbourhood Plans.
Little Baddow Parish Council
General
 Support the Local Plan Vision, Spatial Principles, settlement hierarchy
and discounting growth in the Green Belt
 Support the calculation of housing need and a 20% buffer
 Disagree that Local Plans should avoid repeating national policies or
legislation.
Infrastructure
 Growth will rely on the funding of new infrastructure but previous Plans
have failed to deliver necessary infrastructure within the Plan period
e.g. the NE Bypass and Danbury Bypass
 Proposed development in Danbury acknowledges the issues of traffic
congestion but does not solve it
 Need to ensure that highways modelling is robust
 Ensure parking standards for new developments has regard to
increases in car ownership per property and off-road parking provision.
 Support Option 1 and Locations 1-7. These direct growth to
sustainable locations, minimise pressure on existing roads and provide
critical mass for delivery of new infrastructure
 Option 3 is the least optimal. Substantial growth of villages can destroy
Page 35
Little Baddow Parish Council
their character
 Location 5 - No development to the east of the A12 to protect the
Green Wedge extension
 Concerned about additional traffic impacts from any new development
in Danbury.
New settlement
 Support discounting of Hammonds Farm and the reasons given in the
Plan. It would also exacerbate existing road congestion, increase ratrunning and threaten existing villages.
Little Waltham Parish Council
General comments
 Not enough weight on protecting good quality farmland, the interests of
rural parishes and the effects of growth on existing infrastructure
 Protect the boundaries of defined settlements
 Protect existing and create new Green Wedges to safeguard
Broomfield and Great & Little Waltham
 Many objectives for the existing Broomfield Hospital SPA remain
outstanding so the effect of this designation is unclear
 Consider Anglia Ruskin Campus as a SPA.
Housing Number
 The OAN includes a shortfall for other areas. This should be
discounted
 A 20% uplift is not required as at least
 930 houses a year is optimistic based on past delivery rates
 Need to build more affordable social housing
 Small development areas are more constrained and slower to build
out.
Traveller Accommodation
 Further work required should be available before final decisions are
made
 Provide temporary sites adjacent to major road infrastructure and more
urban areas with access to services
 No more sites should be provided in Little Waltham or rural
communities.
Employment and Economic Development
 The jobs number does not include figures for home workers who would
not require business premises
 Prevent further out-of-town retailing other than local corner shops
 New retail developments in Chelmsford will increase pressure on
existing infrastructure including city centre roads
 The need does not exist for new offices
Page 36
 The plan does not consider growth in commuting into London.
 New development must be supported by necessary infrastructure.
New infrastructure should be in place in advance of development
 Previous Plans have failed to deliver road infrastructure e.g. NE
Bypass
 Provide better bus services from rural to urban areas
 Chelmsford needs a ring-road around it.
Spatial Options, locations for development and alternatives
 Object to all Spatial Options which are too similar
 All Options conflict with the Strategic Zonal Focuses, the spatial
principles and will increase traffic on existing congested roads – see
our submitted transport report
 The rationale for proposed development locations is lacking and
should be more robust and transparent
 Object to development at Locations 2-3 and 13-15. Support all others
 Chatham Green remains unsuitable for new development
 Development within Great Leighs should remain inside the boundaries
of the original Essex Showground
 Further development off Essex Regiment Way will require the NE
Bypass – see our submitted transport study
 Re-consider locations where adequate transportation infrastructure
exists or will be provided during the Plan period e.g. East Chelmsford,
A12/A130 junction, SWF rail station. Evidence identifies that suitable
sites exist to the East of Chelmsford
 Consider development close to the new MedTech Campus
 Reconsider new settlements at Boreham Airfield and at Hammonds
Farm with good transport links. Allocating sites for no more than 3,000
homes is not justified or consistent with the Beaulieu Park
 Work with the site owners and ECC to bring Boreham Airfield forward
 Hammonds Farm could support a range of services, integrate with
Chelmsford and benefits from a single land-ownership
 Evidence identifies that suitable sites exist to the East of Chelmsford
 The NE Bypass is essential and resources should be focused on
delivering it
 The Western Relief Road would not relieve traffic generated from new
development as it would not be built by 2036.
 Utilise Grade 4 farmland for development in the SE of the Borough
 Reconsider Green Belt boundaries to ensure new development will
occur in the right places.
Protecting the environment
 Protect the existing countryside, Grade 2 farmland and natural flood
plains from development
 Protect the boundaries of defined settlements
 Protect existing and create new Green Wedges to safeguard
Page 37
Broomfield and Great & Little Waltham.
Rettendon Parish Council
Housing and Jobs Number
 Some Councillor support for 14,000 new homes and 900 new jobs.
Infrastructure
 Any development around Rettendon and South Woodham will require
substantial improvements to the A132 and new health and education
facilities.
Spatial Options
 Both support and objection from Councillors to the Options
 Concern regarding the cumulative impacts of proposed growth on
Rettendon from this Plan and Plans in preparation by neighbouring
areas e.g. Basildon and Maldon Councils
 Concern about impact of the Spatial Options on flooding, sewerage
and roads that are at capacity now
 Unclear what amount of growth could be proposed under Option 3 for
Rettendon and the other villages.
 All Councillors oppose 1,250 homes in Rettendon Place
 Locate new homes to increase the viability and bring community
benefits to both Rettendon Place and Rettendon Common
 Ensure new development should create 'village centres' for existing
villages. This would require major changes to Rettendon Place.
Consultation Document
 The public have repeatedly reported that the consultation document is
unclear and too complicated. This must reduce consultation
responses.
Runwell Parish Council
General
 Support Local Plan Vision
 No further Traveller provision in this Parish. Pitch sizes need to be
sufficient for their needs
 Given more home working future need for office space may go down.
Transport Infrastructure
 Improvements to the A132 must extend to the lower section through
Runwell/Wickford to Basildon
 Concern that lots of development planned in these areas will cause
Page 38
Runwell Parish Council
congestion. Consider a Runwell Ring Road/Bypass
 Highway improvements including the NE bypass and links from
Broomfield to the A414 are a better proposition.
Options and locations for development
 Development in Rettendon will place a strain on overloaded
infrastructure in nearby areas and the impact of current development
has not had a chance to be reviewed
 Prefer Option 1
 Does not support Location 6, 9, 11-13 and 16-17 or development in
outlying areas that are poorly connected
 Supports development in areas where transport links and
infrastructure is best.
Sandon Parish Council
Spatial Options
 Prefer Option 1 or 2
 Concern that Howe Green cannot accommodate another 800 houses.
It will put a huge strain on this small, historic community and harm its
rural setting and character
 Village could probably accommodate a few more properties if
thoughtfully placed
 Concern regarding existing rat-running along Parish roads and that the
existing infrastructure is inadequate
 Proposal does not include a shop and is at odds with Policies DC2 and
DC17
 Support green buffer to the North of Sandon up to the A414 to protect
us from development from Chelmsford and Great Baddow.
South Woodham Ferrers (SWF) Town Council
Vision
 Support the Vision drivers and themes.
Environment
 Essential the Plan provides sufficient green space for informal and
formal recreation and wellbeing.
Housing
 Need to explain why Maldon and Chelmsford do not share a Housing
Market Area (HMA) given the close boundary they share.
Retail and Employment
 Retail capacity forecasts are not a true reflection of the current retail
situation in SWF with many empty retail outlets
Page 39

Businesses are moving out of SWF e.g. due to lack of car parking.
 Need more joined up thinking regarding highways, transportation, and
accessibility
 The B1012 should also be improved given additional housing on the
Dengie.
Spatial Principles and Options
 Support Spatial Principles
 Support Spatial Option 3 and all the proposed locations for
development.
Springfield Parish Council
Traveller accommodation
 Provide two dedicated Traveller community sites within the Chelmsford
City Council area
 Include a site within proposal in NE Chelmsford and another as part of
a major development allocation in the new Local Plan
 Allocating sites should prevent illegal occupancy of land.
Retail
 Maintain retail capacity within local neighbourhood areas for smaller
outlets.
 Essential that new development in NE Chelmsford is served with new
road infrastructure
 Funding must be in place prior to planning permission

Need to improve the capacity of the A12 through Chelmsford e.g.
make it three lanes.
Woodham Ferrers & Bicknacre Parish Council


Support Option 1 and 2. These do not threaten Bicknacre and
Woodham Ferrers villages
Object to 300 homes (equal share of 1,700 homes) in Woodham
Ferrers under Option 3. This would dominate the village and seriously
affect the limited services it has.
Writtle Parish Council
Facts and Figures
 Insufficient weight given to the need to protect the "very good quality"
Page 40
agricultural land to the north and west of Chelmsford.
Vision
 Support Vision drivers and themes but has no positive Vision for travel
 Plan fails to consider the impacts of traffic growth and their
environmental implications which is not 21st century thinking.
Housing Needs
 Should consult on a figure closer to 775dpa. This is more realistic
based on past delivery rates.
Employment and Transport
 Future commuting patterns have not been adequately addressed
 Park and Ride locations do not service the proposed new housing
locations on the A1060 corridor
 Existing road infrastructure is inadequate and cannot accommodate
new growth including the A1060
 Support the NE Bypass which will benefit the strategic road network
 Do not oppose highway capacity improvements to the A132.
 Do not support any Option. They are too similar and unsustainable
 Oppose Locations 2 and 3. Support growth in east Chelmsford around
the A12, A130 and new station including Hammonds Farm and
Boreham Airfield. The Call for Sites indicates that suitable and
sufficient land exists here
 The Plan justifies West Chelmsford given its proximity to Chelmsford
station, but this is beyond the distance most are prepared to walk
 There is no space to accommodate new cycleways along Roxwell
Road and Rainsford Road
 It is unclear why land within 2km of the new station in NE Chelmsford
has been discounted
 West Chelmsford would lead to the loss of a designated a Special
Landscape Area, exacerbate congestion on existing busy roads,
reduce an essential rainwater catchment area and bring Chelmsford
City closer to Writtle village
 Do not support development in smaller settlements in Option 3 as this
will transform their nature
 Focus growth on lower grade agricultural land east of Chelmsford.
Western Relief Road
 This is unlikely to be built in by 2036. The Plan is misleading by
implying traffic from development in west Chelmsford would be
mitigated by it
 Our submitted transport study indicates that the road alongside a NE
Bypass will not significantly reduce existing or proposed growth.
Page 41
Green Belt
 Support discounting development in the Green Belt.
Hammonds Farm
 This site is well-located in relation to Chelmsford to provide a large
satellite settlement
 A new settlement here or on Boreham Airfield would be in line with the
2015 Policy Exchange report on Garden Villages.
Local Plan Policies
 The Plan is too urban focussed and fails to reflect the interests of
Chelmsford's rural parishes.
Neighbouring Town/Parish Councils
Black Notley Parish Council
Vision
 Support. The vision is to extend Chelmsford in a well-structured way
with housing and infrastructure.
 Disagree with Hierarchy. Great Leighs is a small village proposed for
development given its close proximity to Braintree
 Development here would have adverse impacts on Braintree e.g.
traffic and strain on existing services.
Spatial Options and Alternatives
 Great Leighs: All Options will massively increase traffic on London
Road and Bakers Lane. This development could be isolated if growth
is not promoted nearby through the Braintree Local Plan. Build only on
brownfield sites. Provide a Green Wedge to the north to discourage
use of Braintree facilities
 Consider the development of more developed and suitably located
places e.g. Broomfield.
 This would provide the opportunity for better access to the A12 and
West and a Park and Ride.
Discounting development growth in the Green Belt
 Support some building on Green Belt to protect other areas of open
countryside and good farmland e.g. Great Leighs.
Page 42
Felsted Parish Council
Green Belt and Vision
 No Green Belt review and discounting ‘Call for Sites’ within the Green
Belt is not justified or right.
 Object to development in Great Leighs especially on the Racecourse
 Development here could destroy the character of Great Leighs village
and risk coalescence with Willows Green. The area already has traffic
congestion, is safeguarded for minerals and includes ancient
woodlands.
Great Notley Parish Council
Vision
 Support aim to ensure that the right type of development is in the right
place and served with necessary supporting infrastructure.
Spatial Principles
 Support for some principles.
 Given its facilities, it is inappropriate to define Great Leighs as a ‘key
service settlement’ and to use this to justify new development.
Proposed development at Great Leighs
 Object as it would be contrary to the spatial principles, harm the rural
character of the village, increase the strain on existing congested
roads and services in Braintree District and Great Notley Parish
 The proposed road improvements would not increase road capacity
 The proposed NE Bypass would not relieve traffic travelling into the
Braintree District from Great Leighs
 It is wrong to justify the development based on proximity to Braintree
District and growth may not happen around Great Notley
 The Plan and proposed Green Buffer suggest that Great Leighs will
become a suburb of Braintree.
Green Wedge
 Include these between the north of Great Leighs and this Parish.
Rayne Parish Council
 Concern about proposed development in Great Leighs and its impact
on the residents and infrastructure of Braintree and Rayne
Page 43
Rayne Parish Council
 Development could exacerbate issues including major road congestion
and schools and doctors nearing capacity
 Consider transferring Great Leighs to Braintree to help fund services in
this District.
Other Local Planning Authorities
Basildon Borough Council
Calculating Objectively Assessed Housing Need and Housing Number
 No objection to how the OAN figure has been calculated but it is
unclear the OAN will be met from 2018 to 2021, assuming the new
Local Plan will supersede current plans
 Welcomes testing of a 20% uplift which will allow CCC to consider its
abilities to accommodate un-met housing need in Essex, should an
evidenced need arise.
Accommodating Traveller Needs
 Support development of a robust evidence base on Travellers needs
 Concern Plan does not acknowledge potential un-met need for
Traveller accommodation from neighbouring authorities
 BBC’s Draft Local Plan will identify an un-met need of 136 pitches.
CCC is asked to help make provision for this within its area.
Highways, Transportation and Accessibility Issues
 Plan presents a clear strategic approach to managing traffic in
Chelmsford City through modal shift
 Support approach to traffic management around Chelmsford, but
unclear if will work for smaller settlements e.g. SWF which relies on
places like Wickford and Basildon for jobs and services
 Effective transport modelling is required





Consider relationships with neighbouring authorities when allocating
growth locations and transport modelling
Ensure collaborative and on-going engagement between local
planning authorities, highway authority and transport providers to
ensure strategic transport links can accommodate the proposed
growth
Significant growth at SWF would affect the local road network in
Wickford and the strategic road network in South Essex
Development here must be supported by appropriate transport
modelling and transport infrastructure improvements, especially at the
Rettendon Turnpike junction
Development should contribute to improvements on the wider strategic
road network including the A127 and A130.
Page 44
Basildon Borough Council
Other Matters
 CCC must be aware of potential unmet housing from other areas.
Widely acknowledged that some South Essex authorities are
constrained and unable to meet their OAN and Traveller needs
 There is evidence that Basildon cannot meet its own Traveller needs.
CCC should consider these under the Duty to Cooperate
 Not possible at this stage to comment on whether the forthcoming Plan
evidence base will be comprehensive and appropriate
 Important that Chelmsford further identifies Spatial Options, strategic
growth areas and policies informed by up-to-date evidence and
consultation with local planning authorities
 We welcome further engagement through the Duty to Co-operate.
Braintree District Council
Calculating Objectively Assessed Housing and Housing Number
 Strongly support the provision made to provide appropriate numbers of
new homes and new jobs within the Chelmsford City area.
Accommodating Traveller Needs
 It is expected that all local authorities look to provide their own needs
within their boundaries.
Jobs requirement calculation and number
 A significant number of Braintree District residents work in Chelmsford
so we support employment growth providing it is not to the detriment of
other employment markets within the local area.
 Plan should support improvements to highway networks across the
County and ensure growth proposed in all Local Plans can be
successfully accommodated across District borders


Strongly support improvements to the A12 and will work with relevant
bodies to achieve a successful scheme
Plan should support A120 improvements which would provide benefit
to the wider network plus residents and businesses in Chelmsford.
 Essential that green space to prevent coalescence is maintained
between Hatfield Peverel and Chelmsford and Great Notley, Black
Notley and Great Leighs.
Providing for development growth
 Request evidence on the level of movement and use of facilities in
Braintree from the Chelmsford population to help aid the provision of
facilities. If Braintree would be the main source of services and
Page 45
Braintree District Council
facilities for the new development at Great Leighs, this must be
considered alongside any development proposed in Braintree District.
Education at secondary level and highways are of particular concern
but implications in terms of retail need, health, open space and leisure
facilities will also need to be addressed
 Major concern that no Spatial Option in Great Leighs would support a
new secondary school. Unclear if and what additional provision would
be required in Braintree. Need to consider this alongside growth in
Braintree and will require close working with us and ECC
 Health facilities in Braintree District including Great Notley surgery are
stretched. Need to consider how health requirements of development
in Great Leighs will be provided alongside growth in Braintree
 Welcome improvements to the local and strategic highways network in
the infrastructure list. Need to assess the highway implications of the
site in conjunction with growth in Braintree District on the highway
network and on Great Notley and Braintree town in particular
 Essential to assess the implications of any development on Hatfield
Peverel and the A12 corridor, highways, health, education and
community facilities. Hatfield Peverel is currently undertaking a
Neighbourhood Plan
 Imperative that officers and Members continue to engage
constructively and continuously on both our respective Local Plans.
Brentwood Borough Council



Comments submitted at Officer-level
Supportive of intention to meet your own full objectively assessed
needs
Welcome working with you as the Chelmsford Plan progresses.
Castle Point Borough Council
Calculating Objectively Assessed Housing and Housing Number
 No objection to how the OAN figure has been calculated but it is
unclear the OAN will be met from 2018 to 2021, assuming the new
Local Plan will supersede current plans
 Welcome testing of a 20% uplift which will allow CCC to consider its
abilities to accommodate un-met housing need in Essex, should an
evidenced need arise
 CCC is asked to consider meeting some of Castle Point’s housing
need to the south of its area.
 Our Borough is most likely to be affected if growth is concentrated in
SWF or Runwell
 Consider relationships with neighbouring authorities when allocating
Page 46
Castle Point Borough Council
growth locations and transport modelling
 Ensure collaborative and on-going engagement between local
planning authorities, highway authority and transport providers to
ensure strategic transport links can accommodate the proposed
growth.
Potential Improvements to the A132
 Significant growth at SWF would affect the local road network strategic
road network in South Essex
 Development here must be supported by appropriate transport
modelling and transport infrastructure improvements contributing to the
wider strategic road network including the A13, A127, A130 and
Fairglen Interchange.
Colchester Borough Council
Calculating Objectively Assessed Housing
 We are within the same Housing Market Area. Our Plan preparation
will require continuing cooperation on this key issue.
 Joint working on the strategic road and rail network will be essential to
address the wider implications of infrastructure issues e.g. A12
improvements and capacity issues on the mainline rail network.
Spatial Options
 No view on the Spatial Options which are not considered to have wider
strategic implications for growth in Colchester.
Other Matters
 Document provides a sound approach to planning for growth
 Endorse the commitment to the Duty to Co-operate in the Plan
 Both Councils have a good working relationship and will continue this
with a Memorandum of Cooperation.
Epping Forest District Council





Support intention to meet full housing needs at sustainable locations
with necessary supporting infrastructure
Traveller accommodation should be a cross-boundary issue,
particularly with reference to 4(d), 4(h), 10(c) and 16 of the revised
guidance
Support Spatial Principles, Spatial Options including hybrids and to
discount development in the Green Belt
Note with interest the potential Western Relief Road
Note the City Council's commitment to on-going co-operation with
Page 47
Epping Forest District Council
other Councils and key organisations on cross-boundary planning
issues.
Vision
 Vision is clear, concise and is consistent with ECCs current Vision for
Essex and Corporate Outcomes Framework
 Expand Vision areas by referring to:
o Reducing car usage within the urban area
o Other benefits arising from green infrastructure
o Working with other local authorities to deliver necessary key
strategic highway infrastructure
o Mitigation and adaptation to climate change when designing
new development.
Housing Number
 Support the OAN Study and adoption of the higher range figure
 A 20% buffer will provide flexibility when working up preferred options
 Housing policies should provide for supported living schemes and
extra care housing. Chelmsford will require an extra 196 independent
living units by 2020. ECC has a framework, partnerships and budget in
place to help support delivery of new units in Essex.
 Recommend the additional 4,000 sqm of office space is Grade A
 Support MedTech but need to consider site access, local road capacity
and sustainable transport connections
 Request consult ECC Minerals and Waste on changes to industrial
land.
Protecting the Environment
 When developing the Preferred Options Local Plan consider:
o How preferred locations will affect environmental issues,
provide SuDS solutions and improve the historic environment
o Distinguishing between different levels of protection for wildlife
sites and the inclusion of Protected Lanes
o References to Local Ecological Networks, priority habitats and
species, mitigation hierarchy and Historic Environment
Characterisation Study
o ECC’s recommended biodiversity policies for Local Plans
o Ensuring historic evidence is up to date and developing a local
list of heritage assets
o SPDs on how to meet energy efficiency, renewable energy
standards and retrofit measures
o Opportunities to connect new development to decentralised
energy systems
Page 48
o Assessing sites for their local surface water flood risk. See
suggested ‘Surface Water Flood Management’ Local Plan
policy.
Infrastructure to support new development - Education and Early Years:
 Many existing school sites cannot be expanded without the provision
of additional land. This is often impracticable in urban areas
 New schools should be within or close to proposed developments and
have suitable land reserved
 New housing should promote sustainable travel and transport between
homes and schools/academies
 Ensure sufficient provision for early years and childcare services at
appropriate locations.
Infrastructure to support new development - Strategic highway infrastructure:
 Future growth will place significant pressure on highway and transport
accessibility and connectivity
 Major highways improvements, new passenger transport, walking and
cycling will be required, and funded from new development
 Plan must consider potential impacts on the wider strategic transport
network
 ECC and Districts should work with other key partners through
Strategic Transport Boards to prioritise, plan and deliver major
highways infrastructure for example, A12 Widening and A120 dualling
 The NE Bypass could plug a gap in the strategic road network. Work is
progressing to identify it as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure
Project
 The Lower Thames Crossing is a key Plan consideration which will
fundamentally change transport movements within Essex
 Plans will need to provide new sustainable transport measures and
infrastructure e.g. new Park & Ride and passenger transport
 Consider a policy to designate safe walking and cycling routes to
schools in new developments.
Infrastructure to support new development – High Speed Broadband
 Consider a specific policy to provide new developments and rural
areas with new telecommunications infrastructure – see our submitted
draft policy.
Infrastructure to support new development - Minerals and Waste:
 Consider requirements of the Minerals and Waste Local Plans when
considering development locations e.g. Mineral Safeguarding Areas
 An Employment Land Needs Assessment should consider the
potential for employment land to be used for waste purposes
 Recommend waste management uses are included as a permitted use
within appropriate employment areas
 Consider renewable energy opportunities and promotion in emerging
Plan policies.
Page 49
Spatial Principles
 Support a number of Spatial Principles
 Prior to decisions on brownfield site allocations, consider if any require
remediation work and/or a biodiversity assessment
 Consider the Essex Rivers’ Hub portal and refer to the Living
Landscapes project when reviewing Green Wedges.
Options and locations for new development growth
 ECC cannot state a preferred Option and locations at this stage
 Consider a hybrid approach of Spatial Option 1 and 2
 ECC Highways and Transportation:
o Continued engagement with stakeholders and the emerging
highways modelling will be key to identifying potential traffic
impacts and mitigations measures
o ECC is developing transport models to test the Plan’s emerging
growth proposals and possible mitigation measures
o ECC support locations which aid delivery and funding for
strategic new infrastructure
o Cannot confirm at this stage if sufficient deliverable transport
infrastructure can be identified to support all the potential
options/ locations
o Support in principle the Indicative Infrastructure Requirements
for each location but also need to consider/add other highways
infrastructure to some locations e.g. expansion of existing Park
& Rides, potential A12 Widening, Rettendon Turnpike and
A414 junction improvements and strategic pedestrian/cycle
connectivity
o Options 1 and 2 perform better at ensuring development is
accessible, supporting urban renaissance and continuing
Chelmsford’s role as a major driver of economic growth, and
provide greater opportunity to secure developer contributions
and other funding within the A12 and A130 transport corridors
o Option 3 is more likely to increase the need to travel given its
dispersed approach, more likely to increase in-commuting to
Chelmsford City Centre with related congestion on the network
and less able to provide critical mass for infrastructure but could
provide opportunities for wider public transport investment
 ECC Education – Early Years, Childcare, Primary and Secondary (A
high-level assessment has been taken – see Appendix 4 of our
submission):
o Additional school, early years and childcare facilities will be
required at most strategic growth locations. This will include
new and expanded schools. All will need to be funded by
developer contributions
o When considering the requirements for preferred sites, ECC will
seek to minimise payments for school transport, to ensure `safe
and direct’ routes to schools from new development, to ensure
sustainable school travel and the location of development sites
to ensure viability to fund schools, and opportunities for coPage 50
location of Early Years and Childcare facilities with new primary
schools
o West Chelmsford: Chelmer Valley and Hylands have capacity to
expand but are not easily accessible to the proposed
development
o North of SWF: a safe walking/cycling route would be necessary
across the Burnham Road to link with the existing urban area
 ECC Minerals
o Boreham Airfield and Bulls Lodge mineral sites are important
regional land banks. Unlikely all their minerals would be
extracted within the Local Plan timescales
o Need to ensure no adverse impacts on existing minerals
operations
o Future development at NE Chelmsford must consider the
timetable for existing mineral extraction consents, re-phasing of
existing permissions with operators and impact on the route and
delivery of the NE bypass
 ECC will continue to work alongside CCC and neighbouring authorities
to ensure the delivery of their growth and infrastructure.
Western Relief Road
 Support in principle subject to more detailed assessment, transport
modelling and consideration. It could potentially benefit the strategic
network especially if major growth is directed to west and north
Chelmsford.
A132 Improvements
 Would be required to support level of growth proposed in SWF and
Rettendon. Support in principle subject to more transport modelling.
Discounting a new settlement
 Plan should allocate a range of development sites to ensure a 5 year
housing supply
 Support in principle the reasons for discounting Boreham Airfield and
Hammonds Farm
 ECC could require a minerals resource assessment for Hammonds
Farm.
Other matters
 ECC has provided guidance draft policies for consideration including
Addressing Climate Change and Biodiversity
 Consider reference to Biodiversity Offsetting
 ECC has been actively engaged in the preparation of the consultation
document and will continue to support CCC.
Page 51
Greater London Authority
Housing and Employment Numbers
 The consultation raises strategic issues which may bear on the
relationship between London, the wider South East and Chelmsford
 Generally welcome the 20% uplift. Consider increases in demographic
flows between London and the South East when assessing housing
need e.g. test population projections against longer timescales than
ONS data
 Welcome proposals to allocate new land for manufacturing, distribution
and industrial. Opportunities could arise for Chelmsford from growth
and development across London and its Opportunity Areas.
Strategic Transport
 Support improvements to the Greater Eastern Mainline between
London and Norwich, and related opportunities for growth
 The Plans’ identified road improvements should be considered in the
context of potential traffic impacts on the wider road network, including
TRLN in London, which includes the A12.
Collaboration with the Wider South East
 The work of the Strategic Spatial Planning Liaison Group (SSPOLG)
on evidence base could be helpful to Chelmsford’s Local Plan.
Harlow District Council



Welcome the positive approach taken in the Plan
Consider a Green Belt review to see whether this could provide for
more sustainable patterns of development
Other policy tools can be used to shape development and protect open
areas of importance including Green Wedges.
Maldon District Council
Housing Number
 The Council is keen to review further evidence work being prepared to
inform the overall housing requirement.
Spatial Principles
 Support
 Consider opportunities to locate development where existing
infrastructure capacity exists.
Spatial Options, locations for growth and infrastructure
 Connectivity for commuters is not reflected in the Strategic Zonal
Focus. Improving connectivity for commuters from surrounding areas
Page 52
Maldon District Council
with Chelmsford should be an aim within the ‘Outer’ section
 Growth north of SWF and Rettendon Place could have the largest
impact on Maldon District residents
 Welcome further information on the impact of growth on the highways
network e.g. the A414, A132, B1012 and Rettendon Turnpike
 Given our strong links in relation education, healthcare, leisure and
community facilities, consider the impacts of growth on these services
 Consider potential impacts of new retail and office floorspace in SWF
on the provision of these facilities in Maldon District
 The Council’s Planning and Licensing Committee on 14 January 2016
highlighted additional concerns including the impact of growth in
Danbury on the local highway network and whether sufficient Traveller
pitches will be allocated to meet needs
 The Council wishes to work with CCC to address all concerns raised
and to assist in our detailed consideration of sites for strategic growth.
Rochford District Council
 Welcome clarification on CCC’s intentions regarding housing delivery
between 2018 (expected plan adoption date) and 2021
 It is unclear how the proposed uplift of 20% on the OAN has been
derived.
Transportation
 Note the proposed approach to managing traffic in and around the city
 Ensure potential implications of growth on the strategic highway
network in South Essex is appropriately considered e.g. on the A130,
A1245 and A127
 This Council welcomes further engagement with CCC on strategic
planning matters and on our respective Plans.
Tendring District Council
Facts and Figures
 Insufficient information is given on commuting between Tendring and
Chelmsford for work. This should be recognised in the evidence base.
Vision
 Support Vision drivers and themes.
Housing
 CCC should address the full housing need.
 Include reference to the rural economy.
Page 53
Tendring District Council
Highways
 Serious consideration should be given to the upgrading of the A12
between the M25 and Chelmsford. This would promote both economic
and tourism benefits to our District.
 Option 2 or similar hybrid appears to be the most sustainable and
deliverable Option
 Many locations have potential issues which will need resolving before
Preferred Options stage e.g. Locations 4 and 11-15 before they can be
carried forward to the Preferred Options stage
 No alternative or additional locations are recommended.
Thurrock Council
Objectively Assessed Housing Need and Housing Number
 A robust approach has been taken in considering housing need. No
objection to how the OAN figure has been calculated
 Unclear how the OAN will be met between 2018 and 2021. Consider if
a further three years of the annualised figure should be included in the
requirement for 2018-21
 Welcome the 20% uplift. This should also allow CCC to consider its
abilities to accommodate un-met housing needs from other areas in
Essex should the need arise and be clearly evidenced.
Traveller Accommodation
 Support the approach that Chelmsford is taking in ensuring that their
evidence base is updated to ensure it is robust
 Concern that Plan does not acknowledge potential un-met traveller
accommodation needs in neighbouring authorities. Travelling
showpeople have become concentrated in authorities including
Thurrock
 This Council wishes to engage with Essex authorities to ensure
appropriate future provision for Travelling Showpeople.
 Plan includes a clear strategic approach to managing traffic in and
around Chelmsford City itself through modal shift
 Plan must consider transport impacts outside its area when allocating
growth options and work with relevant stakeholders to ensure strategic
transport issues are properly considered
 Plan is incorrect to state that CCC has not been presented with any
evidence to explain or justify why any other local authority in Essex
cannot meet its own housing requirement
 It is widely acknowledged that some South Essex authorities are
subject to significant constraints and unable to meet their OAN
requirements. This matter needs further consideration
Page 54
Thurrock Council
 It is not possible at this stage to comment on whether the evidence
base will be comprehensive and appropriate
 This Council welcomes further engagement with CCC to consider its
responses and other strategic planning priorities.
Highways/Transport bodies
Highways England
What should the Vision cover?
 Under ‘Travel’ refer to reducing car usage within the urban area,
connecting to the urban area and the promotion of sustainable modes
 Under ‘Delivering New Infrastructure’ refer to other partners and
neighbouring districts given the key strategic highway infrastructure
that will be necessary to support growth.
 Growth must be supporting by new or improved highways
infrastructure. Investigate a range of funding sources
 Ensure Councils work together with us to progress strategic highways
improvements within the context of emerging Local Plans e.g. A12
widening and A130 dualling. A12 improvements could start in 2020
 The NE Bypass will close strategic network gap. Work is progressing
on identifying it as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project
 Consider the impact of a new Lower Thames Crossing. This will
fundamentally change strategic transport movements within Essex and
could open in 2025
 Welcome promotion of sustainable transport. Consider also e.g.
electric car charging points, public transport voucher schemes and car
clubs
 Include a policy to ensure safe walking or cycling to school on
designated routes through new developments
 Ensure additional cycle/pedestrian paths link new developments with
existing developments, key destinations and community facilities
 Important that the Plan provides new developments with new
telecommunications infrastructure including superfast broadband.
 Cannot state a preferred Option and locations at this stage
 Consider a hybrid approach of Spatial Option 1 and 2
 Option 3 provides less opportunity to secure developer contributions
and other funding within the A12 and A130 transport corridors
 Emerging highways modelling and continued engagement with
stakeholders will be key to identifying potential traffic impacts and
mitigations measures
 Consider impacts on the network and ensure rail and bus providers
are fully engaged with the Plan
Page 55
Highways England
 Support locations which aid delivery and funding for strategic new
infrastructure
 Cannot confirm at this stage if sufficient deliverable transport
infrastructure can be identified to support all the potential Spatial
Options/locations
 We will continue to assist Councils on their Local Plans so
development can come forward in a planned and sustainable way
 Support in principle the Indicative Infrastructure Requirements for each
location but also need to consider/add other highways infrastructure to
some locations e.g. expansion of existing Park & Rides, Rettendon
Turnpike, A12 and A414 junction improvements and strategic
pedestrian/cycle connectivity.
Transport for London





Chelmsford and Transport for London (TfL) share a close relationship
in terms of strategic transport, notably the Great Eastern mainline
(GEML) and the A12
Support the comments made by the GLA on strategic transport
Would welcome policy support in the Plan to improve the GEML
Consider traffic impacts of proposed road improvements on the wider
road network. Would be concerned if they significantly increased traffic
on existing congested TfL roads/routes e.g. the A12 and A13
Consider how the Plan could minimise additional car trip generation.
Environmental and Heritage Consultees
Environment Agency
Vision
 Broadly support. Suggest amend last driver to ‘Maintain and enhance
a more sustainable built and natural environment’
 Plan should encourage development of new habitats and the greater
use of waterways for informal recreation
 Support promotion of green infrastructure.
Employment and economic development
 Water supports economic growth and a high quality water environment
makes places attractive and healthy place to live in.
Protecting the environment - Water Environment
 The Plan should take a holistic catchment-based approach to the
water environment
 Ensure new development avoids high flood risk areas, does not impact
on the River Chelmer, is resilient to flooding and provides opportunities
to improve river environments
Page 56
Environment Agency
 Ensure new development does not impact on Surface Water
Management Plans and Critical Drainage Areas
 Consider how tidal flood risk will be managed
 Consider opportunities to reduce and manage surface water flooding
and enhance the aquatic environment
 Include the second River Basin Management Plan in the evidence
base.
Protecting the environment - Biodiversity
 Consider the White Paper ‘Making Space for Nature’ and promote
more coherent and resilient ecological networks
 New development should consider green infrastructure design
standards, networks of green and blue corridors, connectivity between
wildlife habitats and increasing biodiversity assets.
Protecting the environment – Water Resources
 Planning for water resources and water supply in the Plan should be
on a catchment scale
 Ensure policies help rivers achieve good ecological status and prevent
any deterioration of water bodies in the catchment.
Infrastructure
 An Infrastructure Delivery Plan is needed
 Consult us on any proposals to upgrade water supply and waste water
treatment.
Spatial Principles
 Support in principle.
Spatial Options
 Options 1 and 2 are logical approaches
 Growth in urban areas will require effective fluvial Flood Risk
Management infrastructure and completion of the Chelmsford Flood
Alleviation scheme.
Local Plan Policies - Include/consider policies that:
 Direct inappropriate development away from flood risk areas, require
Sequential and Exception Tests and flood resilience where necessary
 Ensure development promotes a sequential approach to development
layout, does not impact on flood defences, can provide safe access
and egress, and considers the impacts of climate change
 Require developers to achieve greenfield runoff rates, maximise
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs), follow the SuDS hierarchy and
achieve Water Framework Directive (WFD) objectives
 Prevent harmful development around watercourses and ponds
 Protect and improve the quality of the water environment
 Promote WFD objectives regarding contaminated land and require
developers to appropriately assess and make good such land
Page 57
Environment Agency
 Steer high-risk developments away from the highest risk groundwater
areas
 Require new homes to minimise water use and new commercial
buildings to meet the BREEAM ‘very good’ standard for water
efficiency.
Other comments
 Waste does not appear to have been considered
 Consider opportunities to improve the City’s rivers under legislative
such as Water Framework Directive and Eel Regulations
 Consult us on any Traveller sites close to a river
 Consider published guidance attached to this response to support the
Plan evidence base and proposals.
Historic England
General
 The Plan makes appropriate references to the historic environment
 Consider Historic England’s advice notes on Local Plan and the
historic environment.
Vision
 Include cultural heritage as a Vision driver
 Under ‘Safeguarding Heritage Assets’ refer to a clear strategy for the
conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.
Tourism
 Support references to heritage and tourism. Consider how this could
be further encouraged in the Plan e.g. heritage led regeneration.
Infrastructure Impacts
 Ensure impacts of new infrastructure are assessed and conserve the
historic environment including route options for the NE Bypass,
Western Relief Road and potential A132 improvements.
 Plan policies and allocations should consider Heritage at Risk, nondesignated heritage assets, archaeological interests and the setting of
heritage assets.
Spatial Options and locations for new development growth
 Support Option 1 although all may impact upon heritage assets.
Further assessment will be needed to inform Preferred Options
 Unclear how proposed greenfield growth in Option 1 relates to current
planned growth in the LDF
 Support strong policy commitments to establishing positive strategies
for the conservation and enjoyment of heritage assets
 A detailed historic landscape characterisation project will be required
Page 58
Historic England
to further inform future Spatial Options
 Chelmsford Urban Area contains three Conservation Areas (CA) at
risk. Work on urban CAs will be published by us later in 2016
 West Chelmsford appears less constrained by historic environment /
heritage asset issues
 In NE Chelmsford consider historic impacts in the context of the
NCAAP and Landscape Design and Management Plan 2012
 Promote the proposed Green Buffer at Boreham which could enhance
the setting of its historic landscape.
Special Policy Areas
 Review to ensure they remain appropriate and consider heritage
issues.
Natural England
Facts and Figures
 Welcome references to Chelmsford’s environment.
Vision
 Generally support including proposals for a Borough-wide green
infrastructure network
 Ensure the Plan takes a strategic approach and a strong commitment
to protecting and enhancing biodiversity especially on designated sites


Consider how the Plan can contribute to the Biodiversity Action Plan,
Rights of Way Improvement Plans and Green Infrastructure Strategy
Include a commitment to protect and enhance other aspects of the
natural environment e.g. geodiversity, local landscape, the Best and
Most Versatile land and policies to address climate change.
 Ensure the Plan recognises that social and economic benefits can be
delivered through environmental gains – see published Natural
England reports
 Consider early on key issues e.g. changes in water quality / resources,
air quality and increased recreational pressure
 Refer to National Character Areas 111 Northern Thames Basin and 86
South Suffolk and North Essex Clayland
 Include a commitment to enhance other aspects of the natural
environment.
Infrastructure to support development
 Consider early impacts on the natural environment from e.g. transport
infrastructure, water and sewerage, flood protection and recreation
and leisure requirements
 Include requirements for green infrastructure provision in this section.
Page 59
Natural England
Spatial Principles
 These seem reasonable. Ensure Plan policies recognise the potential
need for biodiversity assessments on brownfield sites
 Select development sites of least environmental value.
Spatial Options and locations for growth
 Avoid and mitigate adverse impacts of development on internationally
designated sites including the Crouch and Roach estuaries. Plan
policies must ensure any necessary mitigation measures are
delivered.
Issues that Plan policies need to cover:
 Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and different types of
designated sites
 Planning positively for biodiversity and Geodiversity conservation
 Priority habitats, ecological networks and priority and/or legally
protected species populations
 Green Infrastructure, Access and Rights of Way, Soils, Coastal Issues,
Impacts on air pollution, Protecting areas of tranquillity
 Water Quality and Resources and Flood Risk Management and
Climate change adaptation
 Ensure the Plan is screened under Regulation 102 of the Conservation
of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).
Utilities Consultees
Anglian Water
 Welcome an updated Water Cycle Study and the intention to work
closely with both water companies
 Consider the availability of water recycling infrastructure when
identifying preferred allocation sites.
Local Plan policies
 Suggest policies around:
o Potential risk of flooding within the foul sewerage network and
other sources of flood risk (fluvial and surface water)
o Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs) in major developments
o Ensuring development proposals accord with the surface water
management hierarchy - suitable alternatives should be
considered before connecting to the surface water sewer
network
o Requiring applicants to submit evidence to demonstrate
capacity within the foul sewerage and water supply networks or
that capacity can be made available in time for the development
o Phasing of development to ensure that water and wastewater
Page 60
Anglian Water
infrastructure is available to serve development proposals
particularly strategic allocation sites.
Health and public safety Consultees
Mid Essex Clinical Commissioning Group




Our Estates Strategy will inform the health and social care
requirements and priorities to support growth in the new Plan including
new and improved facilities
Our Local Estates Forum will help to ensure all relevant stakeholders
are engaged in the new Plan process
Key priorities include to:
o Enable more care in, or close to, patients’ homes to reduce the
need for urgent and emergency care services
o Increase primary care services through GP practices,
community services and the voluntary sector and increase their
capacity
o Provide opportunities for integrated care services within the
community
o Improve access to seven day effective care
Request we be part of formal discussions on Preferred Options to help
ensure patient participation groups can be informed.
Education and Sport Consultees
Anglia Ruskin University
Vision
 Agree with what is covered. Anglia Ruskin MedTech Campus
(Campus) will help to deliver ambitions in the Vision including new
homes, businesses and jobs (4,000 direct and 300 indirect)
 The Campus directly supports the Plan objective "... to reinforce and
strengthen the local economy by encouraging innovation in all sectors"
 Acknowledge the need to address transport infrastructure challenges
and encouraging sustainable patterns of transport to reduce car usage
 Support the ambition to retain Chelmsford as a premier retail
destination which will attract new businesses related to the Campus.
Job Requirements
 Support the job requirement calculations and figures presented. The
medical technology sector will provide for some of these new jobs.
 The MedBIC innovation centre is 100% occupied. Many occupants are
looking to expand and require the rapid delivery of the Campus
 The Campus will create significant new jobs and have a major
economic impact for Chelmsford.
Page 61
Anglia Ruskin University
Office Requirements
 Support the office floorspace requirements and its calculation
 The Campus is expected to create 300 indirect jobs in the first 5 years
and many others in related sectors. This will create demand for off
Campus office space in and around Chelmsford City Centre.
Employment and Economic Issues
 The issues presented appear to be sound
 Acknowledge the need to address transport and accessibility
infrastructure challenges created from new growth
 Support sustainable patterns of transport that reduce car usage and
consideration of more innovative solutions to transport infrastructure.
Other Matters
 The Campus will generate £200m GVA in Chelmsford in the first five
years of operation
 Welcome working with the Council and others to bring forward the
Campus through the Plan and Phase 1 as soon as possible.
Sport England
Vision
 Support the Vision and reference to promoting healthier, inclusive and
more active lifestyles
 Ensure the Plan safeguards and enhance facilities and spaces
important for sport and physical activity needs and secures funding
through new developments.
Highways
 Paragraph 5.47 should also promote active travel and delivering
walkable communities – see our Active Design guidance note.
Infrastructure needed to support new development
 Ensure the Plan considers the need to safeguard and enhance
existing leisure/recreation provision to meet health and wellbeing and
social/economic development objectives
 Ensure the Plan promotes the co-location of community facilities in
new development, shared use of facilities plans for new infrastructure
to encourage active lifestyles
 Ensure the Plan is based on good evidence of local sport and leisure
needs.
Writtle College
Vision
 Support the Vision drivers. Include reference to “Provide additional
Page 62
Writtle College
education facilities, where necessary, of further and higher education
facilities such as Writtle College”
 Support Vision themes. Include paragraph to require positive planning
for new and expanded education facilities at all levels including student
accommodation
 Inadequately considers the need to plan for mitigation of impacts
arising from new housing growth and supporting infrastructure.
Highways, transportation and access
 Major concerns regarding the inadequate transport links between the
College and City Centre (e.g. cycle/walk link,A1060 congestion) and
how developments in West Chelmsford could add to existing issues
 Unclear if development in West Chelmsford and the Western Relief
Road would impact upon the operations and setting of the College
 Would like to understand the implications of the Western Relief Road
and participate in any options testing.
Infrastructure needed
 Ensure the Plan recognises the future needs of Writtle College e.g.
need to improve teaching, accommodation, ancillary uses and
complementary employment uses. Include appropriate references in
the Plan’s infrastructure and SPA sections.
Spatial Principles, Spatial Options and Locations for Development
 Support the Spatial Principles
 Consider small releases of surplus land at Writtle College for housing.
These would have no greater impact on the countryside/Green Belt
than proposed development in West Chelmsford
 Concerned the scale of proposed development in West Chelmsford
will adversely impact accessibility between the City Centre and
College
 Assess the impacts of potential development in the Green Belt before
dismissing growth within the Green Belt.
Writtle College Special Policy Area
 Support the existing SPA and the policy approach in the Plan
 Enlarge and enhance the Sturgeons Farm and Main Campus SPA
 The SPA should be more flexible to facilitate future requirements
 Wish to remain fully engaged with CCC as the Plan develops.
Page 63
Summary of main issues raised by ‘General’ consultees
34 groups/bodies responded to the consultation.
Summary of main issues raised by these groups/bodies:






















Generally the OAN is supported, but some question over the uplift from
657
Support for the 20% buffer for the housing target used for testing purposes
An Option placing development near the train stations and A12/A130 to
the east of Chelmsford should be considered
Concern that the rural areas of Chelmsford do not have the infrastructure
for more housing
The Western Relief Road will not assist in easing traffic congestion and
will be harmful to the environment
High grade agricultural land should not be built on
The roads are close to or have exceeded capacity and will not cope with
more houses
More sites, put forward under the ‘Call for Sites’, should have been
considered
Mixed views on whether a Green Belt review should be carried out as
some locations may be more sustainable than non-Green Belt locations.
Others support the continued protection of the Green Belt
The objectives and boundaries of Green Wedges should be reviewed
Meeting the needs of other neighbouring authorities needs to be
considered. Suggestion that Chelmsford should be meeting the needs of
Braintree and Tendring
The settlement hierarchy needs further consideration as some have fewer
services than others but are higher up the hierarchy
The existing rail service is not sufficient for the needs of the community
commuting to London for work
There needs to be better and increased forms of public transport to
encourage people to leave their car at home
Infrastructure must be delivered alongside new housing, ideally before the
housing gets built, and should have a forward capacity for future growth
Support for the NE Bypass to come forward
General support for a large new settlement
Improvements to the A132 are supported
Concern over proposed development to the west of Chelmsford based on
the increased volume of traffic travelling through the City Centre and in the
general locality
The Plan should consider equestrian access across the CCC area in a
more holistic approach
Important environmental assets should be protected.
Page 64
Summary of responses from ‘General’ consultees:
Voluntary Bodies
Janet Campen - Women’s Institute
Spatial Principles
 Generally agree with the Spatial Principles.
Options
 None of the Options are suitable. West Chelmsford should not be
included for development
 An Option to place development near main rail and road routes (A12
and the railway) to the east of Chelmsford should be considered.
Infrastructure
 Chelmsford’s rural areas do not have enough infrastructure in terms of
travel, school, roads, amenities, community facilities or shops for more
housing
 The Western Relief Road would have a negative impact on the
environment and community.
Environment
 Farm land around the Chignal area is of a high grade which should be
protected.
River Crouch Conservation Trust





Do not support any of the Spatial Options
Housing numbers are too high. Consider an Option 4 which meets 10%
of your proposed housing need. The area cannot take more houses as
the infrastructure is inadequate
Missing infrastructure issues include flooding from surface water runoff,
inadequate sewerage disposal and road congestion/gridlock
Consider as alternative locations two Settlements between Stansted,
and on the outskirts of Cambridge
The River Crouch is under great threat of being wiped out by sewage
discharge.
Racial, ethical or national bodies
The Theatres Trust


Support vision but also refer to cultural opportunities and facilities to
reflect the NPPF
Page 65
The Theatres Trust

A variety of community infrastructure and cultural opportunities are vital
to people’s life satisfaction and well-being.
Woodland Trust





Object to any site allocations that could lead to the damage and loss of
ancient woodland, contrary to government policies
Refer to Natural England’s standing advice for Ancient Woodland and
Veteran Trees (2014)
Ensure that development at least 15m away from areas of ancient
woodland to protect this irreplaceable asset and the biodiversity that
they support
Consider creating buffer zones around ancient woodland on a case-bycase basis to reduce potential damage
Maintain secondary woodland to ensure that ecological networks are
maintained and enhanced.
Campaign to Protect Rural Essex
Vision
 Vision should include a reference to cultural facilities
 The transport proposals are not sustainable nor help to reduce air
pollution or climate change emissions
 Reduce Army and Navy roundabout accesses and give more bus
priority.
Calculating Objectively Assessed Housing Need and Housing Number
 Continued expansion of Chelmsford is inherently unsustainable. Our
country is already overpopulated
 The OAN should be driven by the need to minimise greenfield
development and to align with the demographic starting point
 Household projections may be too high and a 20% buffer is excessive.
The final housing number should be close to the National Household
Projection
 Too much emphasis on growth and too little on resident prosperity.
Prosperity is about quality as well as quantity of life.
Employment
 Plan for sustainable employment growth and take into account the
growth of self-employment/working from home
 Office floorspace figure seems high given amount of vacant office
buildings.
Protecting the Environment
Page 66
Campaign to Protect Rural Essex







Important to preserve the natural countryside which contributes to
tourism and mental and physical health and wellbeing
Keep Green Wedges and informal open spaces natural
Plan missed issues relating to protecting landscape with a high
tranquillity, protecting farmland for food production and reducing light
pollution from new developments
Only develop on the best and most versatile farmland in exceptional
circumstances and on a small scale
New housing should all be zero emission - built to address climate
change and air pollution
Photovoltaic panels should be on all public buildings and housing
Encourage electric transport of all types.
 Hierarchy should cover all settlements in Chelmsford
 Margaretting should be a Small Settlement as the Primary School is in
lngatestone
 Loves Green should be a Small Settlement.
Infrastructure
 Park and Ride at Widford is not justified. Look at options to improve
local bus services
 Pursue better bus services e.g. on the A1060 and to the Hospital
 Impact on countryside will outweigh the benefits of a Western Relief
Road
 Improve Battlesbridge Rail Station over widening the A132.
Spatial Principles
 Include an overriding principle for all new development to be sustainable
and for infrastructure to exclude road widening.
Spatial Options
 Option 3 has no positive effect on sustainability
 Propose a variant of Option 2 with 10,500 homes, removal of Location 2
and reduced development at Location 3
 Exclude Location 2 as Grade 1 farmland, open landscape, would
increase traffic and could lead to ribbon development.
 Use only in the Green Belt and only allow essential development under
stringent conditions
 The SPA for Writtle College is unclear
 Racecourse SPA should prevent light nuisance and pollution.
Other Matters
 Green Buffers should be in the glossary.
Page 67
Religious groups
Chelmsford Diocese Board of Finance; Agent: Strutt and Parker
Spatial Principles
 The objectives of the Green Wedges should be reviewed and not have
as high a test as the Green Belt re future development
 By not building in the Green Wedges it may result in unsustainable
patterns of development as these are close to the City Centre.
Housing Need
 Support the OAN and housing requirement figures suggested in the
Plan
 Suggest that Chelmsford should consider meeting unmet needs from
Braintree and Tendring.
Employment
 The plan should acknowledge the significant contribution residential
development will make to the local economy.
Locations
 Location 15 is supported as it has the potential to deliver additional
services and facilities, and relates well to proposed strategic
employment growth locations. It is well placed in relation to the potential
Western Relief Road to both benefit from, and assists in its delivery
 Location 16 is supported as it will help ensure the vitality of the local
community, helping to sustain important local community services and
facilities.
 The Plan should not adopt an overly prescriptive approach to the
distribution of housing based on the current proposed settlement
hierarchy as it would fail to direct development to the most sustainable
locations, and could result in more suitable and sustainable
opportunities being overlooked
 The positive impacts of directing a proportion of growth to rural
settlements, and ensuring the vitality of such communities are
sustained, should be recognised.
Transport
 It is important that the Plan is not overly reliant on sites that can only be
brought forward if large-scale road and transportation improvements are
delivered, and accounts for circumstances in which major infrastructure
projects are not realised.
Green Belt
 There should be a review of the Green Belt.
Page 68
Business Bodies
John Dallaway – Essex Chamber of Commerce
Jobs/Employment
 Support the methodology for job target and retail capacity calculations.
Transportation
 Strong belief that any Western Relief Road should link to A12 at a new
dedicated junction.
Spatial Principles
 Support for all Spatial Principles.
Location of development
 Support Option 3 – to support the viability of villages through affordable
housing and improve sustainability of local schools, businesses and
service providers
 Support all 17 locations for development growth.
Policies/SPA
 Support the need both for policies and SPAs.
Jamie Banks - Mid-Essex Business Group
Transport
 The ‘NE Bypass’ needs to be a dual carriageway with a high speed
interchange with the A12
 The ‘Western Relief Road’ should be planned to be part of an outer
orbital road, continuing southwards to join the A12 at or close to the
A12/A414 junction near Margaretting, and it should continue from its
northern end to join up with the ‘NE Bypass’
 The A12/A130 junction needs upgrading to alleviate congestion caused
by the existing roundabout
 Plans should be put in place to bypass the villages through which the
B1008 passes, in the interests of business and residential users
 Chelmsford City Centre suffers from serious traffic congestion at peak
times, and a study should be made of ways in which the situation might
be eased, for example by alternative pedestrian crossing options, traffic
light phasing, etc. Mid-Essex Business Group would welcome
involvement in discussions about how these issues may be resolved
 It is vital to Chelmsford’s planned growth that the Boreham Station
proposal, complete with an associated passing section of track to
enable more trains to be accommodated, should be implemented as
soon as possible. Without this, the traffic loadings on City Centre roads,
and on the peak time trains, will be likely to become an acute problem.
Page 69
Jamie Banks - Mid-Essex Business Group
Options
 Option 1 is the preferred Option
 Options 2 and 3 could overload the local road network, particularly
Option 3
 There should be no new development on any flood plain, or in areas
categorised by the Environment Agency as Flood Zones 2 or 3.
 There is an opportunity for the Council to promote development and
business growth by facilitating construction of industrial units. This was
done on what became the Dukes Farm Industrial Estate. Remaining
leases on that site could be sold to fund the purchase of further land for
development
 Chelmsford has over dependency on office employment, whereas
traditionally, it was industrial based. While the big employers have gone,
or reduced their presence, there is a wide range of smaller
entrepreneurial businesses, which need encouragement
 In pursuit of addressing a residential accommodation shortage, current
policies risk unduly limiting affordable commercial space in the City in
the future. There should be a sensible level of restriction on further
changes of office to residential use.
Housing Providers
Paul Negi – Genesis Housing Association; Agent: Ray Houghton Bidwells
Spatial Principles
 Support for all 9 Spatial Principles.
Genesis Housing Association; Agent Jonathan Friel – Capita Property
and Infrastructure
 Support Option 3
 Key Villages and Key Service Settlements should bear most growth good access, existing infrastructure and local amenities
 Villages such as Bicknacre lie in sustainable locations, capacity for
several hundred new homes (suggest 300), has good amenities and
public transport
 The balance in distribution of housing between the Key Service
Settlements and Service Settlements is inappropriate. Many have small
populations - concentration of development in these will lead to
settlements with poor local facilities and infrastructures, will further the
Page 70
Genesis Housing Association; Agent Jonathan Friel – Capita Property
and Infrastructure

reliance on cars and impact negatively on Conservation Areas
Housing must be provided that meets the changing needs of the
population, such as ‘in-house social support’ (elderly and people with
learning difficulties).
Rentplus Agent: Stephen Hinsley -Tetlow King Planning
Housing Need
 Rentplus is an approach to rent to buy housing and it is requested that
CCC give further consideration to how this scheme could assist in
delivering affordable housing within the Plan
 The NPPF consultation which seeks to remove the need for affordable
housing to be retained for perpetuity needs to be factored in to any new
policy
 Support a 20% uplift on the OAN and suggest that the assessment of
affordable homes needed specifically includes an analysis of the
contribution that Rentplus homes could make to delivering affordable
houses in the future.
James Stevens - Home Builders Federation
Housing Need
 The Plan notes that Chelmsford shares an HMA with other authorities
but it is unclear if the other authorities will require Chelmsford to meet
some of their housing need. The four authorities should have
developed a common evidence base for their OAN
 The Chelmsford Plan should also describe how if one authority cannot
accommodate its OAN in full, how the other three Local Plans propose
to deal with this issue
 The OAN figure provides a reasonable contingency to accommodate
potentially higher inward migration from London should it arise
 The discussion in the OAN Study on UPC is noted but not considered
an appropriate adjustment for UPC. The ONS also argues that it would
be methodologically difficult to adjust for UPC because it is unclear what
proportions of the UPC are due to errors in the Census population
counts as against errors in the migration estimates. Everything is too
uncertain to adjust for UPC in Chelmsford
 Agree with the OAN Study that given the potential for a large margin of
error in all the data, it is sensible to adhere to the 2012 SNPP as the
starting point. Included in the ‘margin for error’ would be the uncertainty
relating to migration with London plus the fact that the ONS 2014 MidYear Estimates for population are showing an increase in the UK
population. This increase is attributed mainly to an increase in net
Page 71
James Stevens - Home Builders Federation

international migration to the UK
Strongly endorse Chelmsford’s decision to adopt the upper end of the
range (775 dpa) and support adding a further 20% buffer. This responds
positively to the Government’s desire to see a significant increase to the
housing supply.
Options
 Consider an Option with a Spatial Strategy which would open up
opportunities to smaller developers so that they can build in the villages
and other smaller settlements
 While focusing development on the urban areas, including transport
nodes, would still be sensible, it could result in a temporary oversaturation of the market in these locations. This would tend to supress
delivery rates in the short to medium term. Generally, the best approach
is to provide a wide variety of sites (small and large) in the widest
number of locations. This would also cater for the needs of different
groups since not all of Chelmsford’s newly emerging households will
want to live in Chelmsford and South Woodham Ferrers. Therefore, a
combination of Options 2 and 3 are favoured.
Other Matters
 The Council’s commitment to having an up-to-date plan in place is
commendable. We recognise that by the time the Council has adopted
its new Plan it will probably be 2021. Much may happen between now
and 2021 in terms of changing events, Government policy and evidence
that could threaten to de-rail the Plan and there is a case for bringing
forward a new Plan that reflects the objectives of the NPPF sooner
 The Council should consider bringing forward the plan so that it has a
start date in 2018 and runs for a fifteen year period until 2033. The Plan
could then be examined and adopted in late 2018 / early 2019.
Neighbourhood Groups
Steve Jeyes – Chelmsford Civic Society
Facts and Figures
 People leaving education without qualifications is misleading and
complacent (Para 3.13). Maintained schools and the College
underperform. Although good, secondary schools in Chelmsford are no
better than average. Chelmsford proportion of pupils with 5 or more A+ C passes including English and Mathematics is 55%, for England it’s
56%. The exceptions are the two selective schools
 34.9% of residents are educated to level NVQ 4 (national average
36.6%) but managerial and professional occupations are 57.7%
(national figure 54.4%). A successful and growing economy will require
Page 72


more good graduates
From 2016 there will be two measures of performance for secondary
schools: attainment and value they add to pupils - likely that good
schools will drop to satisfactory level: i.e. not good enough
The Local Plan should specify challenging expectations for at least the
next decade e.g. no school should be judged below a good standard,
with most outstanding. This is achievable in a city with the socioeconomic profile of Chelmsford.
Vision
 Suggests an alternative vision: the Local Plan is driven by a vision to
develop and grow the city, to deliver strategic priorities and ensure a
sustainable future for all our communities. This will be achieved through:
• Promoting a vibrant and diverse quality of life that is inclusive and
meets the needs of all citizens. • Ensuring that communities are
healthier and pursue more active lifestyles. • Providing homes and job
opportunities for all sectors of the community. • Facilitating a more
diversified economy. • Implementing a Heritage Strategy that preserves
the historic built environment and landscapes and encourages an
interest in Chelmsford’s past among residents and visitors. • Providing
enhanced opportunities for river use. • Enhance cultural and leisure
activities: including new venues for the arts appropriate to city life. •
Providing additional high quality public and private spaces. • Ensure that
the right kind of development is in the right places. • Enhancing a more
sustainable environment. • Developing cultural and educational links
with cities of a similar scale across the European Union.
Transportation
 Park and Ride is a success: should aim to reduce car dependency in
the City Centre - two more Park and Ride facilities, more frequent bus
services, linked cycle routes and further pedestrianisation
 Suggests that rail service is inadequate.
Spatial Principles
 Support for all 9 Spatial Principles.
Policies
 Civic Society intends to publish a statement on culture and heritage:
ECC should also support the City's vision by setting out clear aims for
education and skills, transport planning and the City's economy.
Other
 Recommendations for Chelmsford Heritage Strategy - asks for
involvement and engagement in new Council Strategy, specifically
around heritage and participation. Royal Society of Arts recent Heritage
Index ranks Chelmsford low despite its rich history. Heritage can be
Page 73


used as a tool for active community participation. An opportunity for
Chelmsford to be ahead of the curve. New Plan can prioritise a strategic
framework for heritage. Marconi is a strong brand, also Changing
Chelmsford’s Heritage Triangle. Would bring social and economic
wealth
Recommend: redevelopment of Shire Hall as a community asset, a pilot
study for developing community strategies, a city character assessment,
visit Chelmsford to consult with Chelmsford heritage groups
Aims: manage, care for and present Chelmsford’s key assets, link up
popular tourist destination buildings, develop and enhance the
amenities and experiences that visitors and locals expect to find in a
modern heritage city, raise Chelmsford’s profile as a modern heritage &
university city, partnership working, create a city that people feel proud
to live in, and want to contribute to.
Alan Swash – Boreham Conservation Society (Mark Button of BCS also
submitted duplicates of 5 comments)
Facts and Figures
 Important to make clear that ECC have failed to deliver the necessary
infrastructure required for current levels of growth
 Missing information on Figure 9 land classification – the difference
between grade 3a & grade 3b land boundaries are unclear
 The ECC Minerals safeguarding areas should be shown in Section 3
which should not be sterilized by being built over without prior
extraction, much of the land south of Danbury and in the Metropolitan
Green Belt is not in any mineral safeguarding areas.
Vision
 Vision gives insufficient emphasis on supporting and protecting existing
communities from over development





Should be clearer that attracting new jobs, and in turn new housing, is
the real driver of the Plan
Some development in the Green Belt would be more sustainable,
should also enhance communities (shops & schools) within the Green
Belt as young people are currently forced to move away
Infrastructure improvements are not keeping pace with development
(new railway station, NE bypass, A12, Boreham interchange, Western
Relief Road). Needs commitment and timetable
Welcome the Green Buffer to protect the separation of Boreham, and
Green Wedges, Safeguarding Heritage Assets, Green Infrastructure
and Rivers and Waterways
Vision should:
o Ensure that all development is sustainable in all senses.
Page 74


o Protect all countryside, not just Green Belt.
o Protect the best and most versatile agricultural land for food for the
increased population
o Protect the mineral reserves by not sterilizing them
Lack of development in the Green Belt will result in further lopsided
development in the North and East of Chelmsford
London needs to reconsider development in the Green Belt to alleviate
the shortage of housing and high house prices.
Housing Need
 657 houses a year should allow reasonable growth, more would result
in planning for more houses than are necessary
 Support the Council’s decision not to meet housing needs of any other
local authority – better to provide more jobs to reduce commuting out
 If allocated employment land is not developed for jobs, housing number
should be reduced
 Need another solution for affordable housing rather than just raising
overall target, a higher target to achieve more affordable units is a false
premise
 Why set such a high target? Any shortfall in the 930 number will be
used by speculative developers as justification for approval for
unplanned development
 The use of exact numbers lends spurious accuracy estimates - rounded
numbers with appropriate qualifications would present a clearer picture.
Travellers
 Provision should be a condition of new approvals and accommodated
on site
 A full assessment of existing pitches and usage must be undertaken.
Jobs/Employment
 Does the forecast model take any account of EU economic revival and /
or UK withdrawal from the EU
 How much employment land is approved currently but not developed
 Ensure that the number of jobs per hectare of land is maximised, rather
than distribution which has a very low number of jobs in relation to unit
size
 The minimum number should be used, with the market taking up
unused approvals to additional growth
 Do the estimates include any allowance for potential spin off’s from
Crossrail or Stansted?
 If the number of homes in the final Plan total is reduced, the job
numbers should also be scaled down.
Page 75
Retail
 Ensure the viability of Chelmsford High Street as a retail area; North
End looks neglected; minimise the number of mobile phone and budget
shops as these do little to encourage shoppers.
Office space
 Document should note that some office space has been converted to
residential - significant allocation of new office space in the current LDF
is unlikely to materialise. Adjust future projections to reflect any carry
forward to avoid over provision
 Ensure sufficient parking adjacent to proposed office developments
 Figures for people in employment do not concur with the numbers
described as economically active.
Transportation
 Recognise that infrastructure delivery is largely outside CCC control
 Infrastructure promises should be finalised, they melt away once the
developments have been completed
 Need support of ECC and Central Government for Chelmsford to
become a regional hub, with major A12 improvements at junctions and
widening, a complete outer ring road, new highway network strategy
 New infrastructure should have at least 25 years forward capacity to
avoid addressing the same issues for each Local Plan
 Western Relief Road should be fast tracked to join Widford to the A131
at Great Leighs
 Support western relief road and A132 improvements.
Environment
 Farmland around Boreham should not be developed in preference to
lower grade land
 Must think outside the box and pressurise central government to use the
Green Belt. The assumption that all MGB is sacrosanct is strongly
challenged. Green Belt can be replaced elsewhere by the use of Green
Buffers
 Must also protect the countryside outside the Green Belt – the land itself
and the communities.
Infrastructure
 A full outer relief road covering all sectors N, S, E & W should be
considered. Partial links will only solve a short term stress
 The document should give a firmer view on transport infrastructure agree a good highway network ahead of land allocations
 Boreham’s school and medical facilities are first class, albeit at capacity
- the new Plan should focus development on under-utilised areas.
Page 76
 Settlement Hierarchy should recognise and respect individual
characteristics. Boreham is a standalone village, with a clear separation
from Chelmsford - Broomfield calls itself a village but it appears as a
continuation of Chelmsford
 Boreham should not be a Key Service Settlement as it has only limited
facilities, such as schools and doctors, at capacity.
 Option 1 is preferable - locates development as much as possible on
brownfield sites and extends current urban locations. North West of the
A130 would support new jobs from University expansion, Broomfield
Hospital, Chelmer Valley School
 Also support in-filling up to the NE Bypass and Western Relief Roads as
necessary
 Option 2 is a reasonable alternative and will help failing villages like
East and West Hanningfield, Rettendon, Howe Green etc
 Option 3 would result in the destruction of many village communities.
Only locations 1-7 and 9 should be supported for new development
 No development, either housing or employment, should be allowed to
the east of the proposed NE Bypass.
 Alternative - new settlement in the north west with Western Relief Road
to provide a good transport link to the north and west to Stansted and
the M11 and the North of England
 Alternative - expand some of the failing villages (which have very limited
infrastructure and services) south of the City along and close to the
improved A130 corridor.
 Strong objection to not using the Green Belt - cannot be sustained with
the future demands for land space for development. CCC must lead the
way. Has CCC really tested this with Central Government – should not
go for the route of least resistance.
 This will solve the long term development aspirations of Chelmsford with
scope for future local plans. Not like when SWF was planned – demand
and type of housing is key
 Hammonds Farm unsuitable - much is within flood plain which will only
get larger as the Environment Agency re-appraises its models
 Boreham airfield site is not suitable as construction will sterilise the
mineral reserves that extend through to at least 2035.
Policies/SPA
 Protect the countryside for its own sake
Page 77





Protect agricultural land for future generations
Protect the identity existing communities
Reconsider the policy of not using the Green Belt
Concerned at inclusion of Chelmsford Racecourse - it does not provide
a utility service, but is a private operation
Biotech industries as described within the document may be better
located within a SPA to cater for a collocation of such facilities as at
Cambridge.
Norman Bartlett – Danbury Society
Facts and Figures
 The consultation document is quite comprehensive.
Vision
 The vision is clichéd and unoriginal
 Some of the points are not within the City’s gift e.g. road infrastructure.
Housing Need
 Calculation is by outside bodies so the matter of objectivity cannot be
assessed
 The HMA was imposed from outside. The adjusted uplift of 118 more
homes than that figure is not explained, questions the higher quantum
of development by an apparently arbitrary figure of 20%.
Jobs/Employment
 No statement to link job requirements with housing requirements
 Figures appear arbitrary and externally led, not by CCC
 Would like to see an estimate of the land take for all employment
proposals.
Retail
 Assessment is overly optimistic, supermarkets abandoning plans for
large stores and online fashion retail growing
 Query whether the goods handling and parking are considered in the
calculation.
Office space
 Queries evidence on impact of trend for working from home, online, and
serviced offices.
Transportation
 Concern about A414 running through the heart of Danbury. CCC should
emphasise that the central Government funds already allocated for the
strategic network will lose their effectiveness if users are delayed by
Page 78
Norman Bartlett – Danbury Society
congested access roads to them – particularly the A414 linking Maldon
and the Dengie with the A12 and Chelmsford. Unclear whether the
consultancy documents entirely originated from the City Council, clarify
that Table 3 are ECC’s aims.
Environment
 Encouraged by the attention given to the environmental issues. Query
the listing of the different kinds of conservation designations without any
indication of the relative protection that the City Council would give each
type.
 Agrees with the Hierarchy, and Danbury’s categorisation as a Key
Service Settlement.
Spatial Principles
 Support the 9 Spatial Principles; Danbury influenced by ‘well-connected
sustainable locations’.
 Support Option 2 - scales back the centrality of Option 1 development
and compensates by more along A130/131 and A132 corridors
 Would not support a mix of the Options
 Second choice is Option 1 – to concentrate development on existing
urban centres
 Support Locations 1-4. Building more houses in Danbury will exacerbate
the already challenging traffic situation on the A414, and be constrained
by nature conservation designations with a high sensitivity to change –
acknowledged by the document and the Landscape Character
Assessment and SAD.
Other
 The development challenges and outside influences are recognised, but
making choices can set communities apart
 No mention of actual land take for all development
 Danbury Society covers a third of households in Danbury and was
formed in 1967.
Paul Grundy – Newlands Spring Residents Association
Vision
 The plan should be realistic in not proposing major infrastructure that
cannot be delivered, and ensure sustainable, quality development is
delivered to schedule
 Western Relief Road will not be built until after the period of the new
Page 79
Local Plan and therefore cannot support development in the west and
north of Chelmsford. Much more important NE Bypass is yet to be
started. All resources should be concentrated on NE Bypass.
Transportation
 Delivering transportation infrastructure to support development is vital;
new development should be sited close to good transportation
infrastructure.
Environment
 Pleshey and Writtle Plateaus will be adversely affected by proposals for
development at Locations 2 and 3 on ‘very good quality’ Grade 2
agricultural land. Landscape character and agricultural land quality are
inferior to the east and south of the city, therefore suitable for
development.
Spatial Principles
 Green Belt and existing and proposed Green Wedges should not be
provided at the expense of development sites that are sustainable.
 No support, the 3 Options given are not very different, with few
alternatives. The document is asking for a choice to be made that in
each case includes significant development west and north Chelmsford.
This is not sustainable due to transportation issues. Concern about
timing and delivery of Western Relief Road
 West Chelmsford - traffic will have to pass through City Centre to reach
the A12/north/east/south; Writtle village also will be used for access to
the A12 and become choked
 Broomfield – will generate traffic that again must pass through the
village and the City centre to reach the A12 and anywhere east, south
or west
 Many ‘Call for Sites’ considered but few have been included as options.
Many do not have the same serious transportation problems
 To meet the Plan’s aims development should not take place on sites
where the existing road system will not be able to cope
 Right place for new development is close to A12/A130 corridor, NE
Bypass and the new rail station at Beaulieu Park
 Boreham Airfield or Hammonds Farm must be reconsidered. Propose
that the development suggested in all 3 Options for the west and north
of the city is redirected to these sustainable sites east of Chelmsford good transportation infrastructure already exists/will be further
improved. Also along the Transport Corridors and at SWF as suggested
in Option 2 is considered appropriate
 Object to Locations 2, 3, 13-15. Support others.
Page 80
 Support reconsidering the boundaries of the Green Belt to some
degree. Some undeveloped countryside around the city is of greater
value than that within the Green Belt. Hope CCC will keep an open mind
to enable all options to be considered.
 Large new settlements should not have been discounted. Boreham
Airfield and Hammonds Farm are on the best side of the city being close
to good road and rail infrastructure, and should be considered for
inclusion in the current proposals
 There are complications in sites of multiple ownership. Coordinated
large settlements may be a better option.
Other
 Concern at some people’s difficulty completing online form.
Sandra Brown - Ford End Village Design Statement Committee
 Ford End is classified in the consultation document as a Service
Settlement. It is a small village consisting of 168 households, a Church,
a primary school and a village hall. The village has no mains gas
supply and is not in any current plans for superfast broadband upgrade
 The school is full to maximum capacity. The village hall is a very small
building and cannot be expanded on the existing site. The nearest shop
and post office is 3 miles away in Great Waltham. The current bus
service is infrequent, and the nearest public house and restaurant is
outside of the village boundary with no pedestrian access
 Ford End should be re-classified from a Service Settlement to a Small
Settlement.
Environment
 Ford End is surrounded by higher grade agricultural land than other
areas which surround Chelmsford.
 The Green Wedges should be extended all the way along the river
valleys, to include the land around Ford End.
Lynn Ballard - Broomfield, Chignal, Great Waltham, Little Waltham, and
Writtle Parish Councils, and Newlands Spring Residents Association
Vision
 If Chelmsford is to develop in line with its new City status, there needs
to a more ambitious vision that involves considerably more investment
Page 81

in transport and other community infrastructure, the public realm and
cultural, recreational and sporting facilities. This Local Plan is too
focused on just adding another 14,000 houses, on top of what is already
in the pipeline up to 2021
It is imperative that enough thought and consideration is given to the
provision of supporting infrastructure. All too often large developments
have been built with very little or no up-grading of the infrastructure and
major access roads into Chelmsford have little or no further capacity.
Housing Need
 The appropriateness of consulting on a housing target that has yet to be
clarified and the ability of achieving a figure of 930 dwellings per annum
is questioned as such a figure has not been reached on average per
annum within the current plan
 The housing requirement figure should be as close as possible to the
Objectively Assessed Housing Need figure of 775 per annum.
Spatial Principles
 Generally supportive but suggest the following amendments (bracketed
wording explains why):
o Continue the renewal of Chelmsford’s City Centre, Urban Area
and the South Woodham Ferrers Urban Area (to recognise the
importance/potential importance of the town of South Woodham
Ferrers and the need of regeneration/expansion).
o Maximise the use of brownfield land for development
o Locate development at well-connected sustainable locations
o Ensure that new development is served by necessary
infrastructure
o Ensure new development is deliverable and can be built within
the Plan period
o Respect the character of the existing settlement pattern including
the potential designation of Green Buffers
o Protect the character and value of important landscapes, heritage
and biodiversity, including by defining Green Wedges where
appropriate (large cities can be defined by surrounding ridges or
plateaus as well as rivers, so this amendment would make the
Green Wedge policy more flexible as a means for establishing
settlement definition and appropriate corridors of green space)
o Protect the aims and purposes of the Green Belt (more in line
with the NPPF guidance on green belts and ensures long-term
robustness by separating out the aims and purposes of Green
Belt from specific boundaries)
o Protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the Rural Area
beyond the Green Belt (in line with the NPPF and the current
Core Strategy policy as amended by the Focussed Review).
Page 82
Transport
 The document does not forecast the probable future commuting
patterns nor explore the implications of potentially huge increases in the
number of commuters accessing rail services in the City Centre, the
new station near Boreham and Crossrail at Shenfield
 Car parks serving the current station are full
 Park and Ride locations do not service the proposed new housing
locations on the A1060 corridor
 Major roads are already reaching capacity
 The NE Bypass is an essential piece of infrastructure that would bring
benefits to the strategic road network. It has still not been achieved and
the document fails to make any reference as to how this might be
achieved
 The potential Western Relief Road will dilute the chances of achieving
the NE Bypass in the next planning period, both by diluting the
effectiveness of developer contributions, possibility of achieving
government funding and the energy, focus and political will to achieve
the NE Bypass
 Broomfield, Chignal and Little Waltham Parish Councils have
commissioned their own study of the effectiveness of a Western Relief
Road considers development in Locations 2 and 3 would be likely to
result in an unacceptable increase in traffic flow on the A1060.
 The need for a Western Relief Road is unproven and its achievability is
questioned. It should be removed from the Plan.
Options
 New development needs to reduce the need for travel by private car
and should be sited close to good transportation infrastructure. A Spatial
Option which promotes more development within walking and cycling
distance of the new rail station and along the A12 corridor should be
considered
 There should be an option based on locating as much as possible of the
development near to the new railway station and the A12/A130 where
the land is of a lower grade agricultural value and there is better
transportation infrastructure
 None of the Options are acceptable. Concentrating the majority of new
housing in west Chelmsford in all 3 Options is unsustainable and will
lead to unacceptable traffic issues
 Option 3, in particular, is unacceptable in the context of the smaller
villages, such as Ford End, where any large increase in housing would
be disproportionate in scale to the existing community and very limited
services it has
 Many sites submitted through the Call for Sites are much better
alternatives to the proposed sites in the west and north of Chelmsford
and do not have the same transportation problems.
Page 83
Locations
 Strong objections to Location 2, 3, 13, 14, and 15 and would not wish to
see large scale development in Locations 8, 12, 16, and 17
 Locations 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 are supported as they are served by
good transportation infrastructure that is either existing or proposed or
they are in the urban centre of the City.
Environment
 Insufficient weight is being given to the need to protect the “very good
quality” Grade 2 agricultural land to the north and west of the built up
area of Chelmsford. The Document should provide more quantitative
information on the impact of the potential loss of this important asset
 The sensitive landscape character and Special Landscape Area at
Writtle and Pleshey would be destroyed by development at Locations 2
and 3.
Green Belt
 There should be a Green Belt review to establish whether there are
potential locations in the Green Belt that would provide more
sustainable patterns of development.
 A large new settlement should not have been discounted
 The distinction between large urban extensions/new sustainable
neighbourhoods and ‘large new settlements’ is not clear in the
document
 The sites proposed but discounted at Park Farm/Boreham Airfield and
Hammonds Farm are both close to good transportation infrastructure,
both road and rail and would not have the associated loss of high grade
agricultural land and infrastructure difficulties
 In relation to Park Farm the City Council could coordinate with the
Minerals Authority, the landowners and the gravel extractors to confirm
whether or not there is a way that Park Farm/Boreham Airfield could be
developed in 2021/36 to provide the 3,000 (and perhaps more)
dwellings envisaged in Option 1
 Hammonds Farm is well-located in relation to Chelmsford to provide a
large satellite settlement, with a range of its own services and be close
enough to the City Centre to benefit from Chelmsford's facilities. It would
also reduce traffic in the City Centre by virtue of easy access to the A12
and enable sustainable commuter travel to the new railway station
 Large settlements may be a better option in ensuring the delivery of new
housing on schedule and with the required infrastructure from the
outset.
Page 84
Other Matters
 The Plan is too urban focussed: the interests of Chelmsford’s rural
parishes also need to be reflected. Most parishes have, or are in the
process of producing, Village Design Statements, Parish Plans and
Neighbourhood Plans which provide evidence on the aspirations of rural
communities that should be used to guide development in the Local
Plan
 The development Options take no account of existing communities and
are simply extensions to the City. Those that move in have to develop
their own community or community links usually years after the houses
are built.
Kenneth Wedon - Howe Green Community Association
Facts and Figures
 Much more should have been included on past development outside
city/urban centre.
Transport
 Growth in Maldon and its impact on the A414 needs to be considered.
Environment
 Reference to climate change and increased rainfall needs to be
considered.
Infrastructure
 The cost of the necessary infrastructure needs to be estimated to
establish if it is feasible
 Support A132 improvements but this will necessitate enlargement of
A12/A130 junction - a major project of which there is no mention. This
junction is already at capacity at peak times.
 Agreed with the hierarchy and where settlements have been placed
within it.
Spatial Principles
 Agrees with them.
Options
 Option 1 will provide the most cost effective solution for reducing the
need for new infrastructure in rural areas and transportation problems.
 Reduce retail provision in the City Centre and add more housing
numbers.
Page 85
Kenneth Wedon - Howe Green Community Association
Locations
 Development in Broomfield and Great Leighs will destroy the character
of these long established settlements and contribute to making
Chelmsford an urban sprawl.
Green Belt
 Support discounting development growth in the Green Belt.
 Agree that a large new settlement should be discounted.
Other Organisations
Ken Edwards – Chelmsford Sport
Travellers
 Need to take action and not just decide on paper plans.
Jobs/Employment
 Job requirement and office space numbers seem sensible
 Retail capacity forecasts seem high.
Transportation
 Need to make public transport cheaper, easier and convenient whilst
making car journeys more expensive and inconvenient
 Build Western Relief Road and improve A132 now.
Infrastructure
 Sequencing – need infrastructure in place before development.
 Support Option 3, will allow some flexibility for after the Plan period.
 Should Anglia Ruskin University be added.
Other (businesses, schools, groups)
John Monk - Mansfield Monk Limited
Vision
 Supports the Vision.
Page 86
John Monk - Mansfield Monk Limited
Transport
 The Options including the two Locations to the west of Chelmsford give
the impression that a new Western Relief Road will deal with the
additional traffic generated. It will not and funding for this road is not in
place in any event. All the major road and rail infrastructure is to the
east of Chelmsford. To avoid further congestion development should be
concentrated to the east
 Improvements to the A132 are supported.
Options
 None of the Options are acceptable and alternative areas to the east of
Chelmsford should be explored as there are better links to the A12 and
new train station.
Locations
 Location 2 would diminish the gap between Chelmsford and Writtle and
may have potential for flooding due to run-off
 The existing road network to the west of Chelmsford will not cope with
the additional traffic generated along Broomfield Road, Roxwell Road,
Rainsford Road and Writtle past the Writtle Schools. Traffic at peak
times through Writtle is already unacceptable
 Locations 5, 6, 10, 11 and 12 have the best transport links and should
be explored further.
Green Belt
 Support the approach to discounting growth in the Green Belt.
Jonathan Fairclough - St Johns Billericay Cricket Club
Green Belt
 Welcome and support the strong commitment to preserving the Green
Belt area in which we are located. This helps the club continue to plan
for growth in providing cricket to those of all ages in our local
community.
Councillor Anthony Sach
Vision
 Supports the Vision.
Housing Need
 Agree with the methodology for the calculation of OAN
 Proposals set out for meeting the needs of Gypsy and Travellers is
adequate.
Page 87
Councillor Anthony Sach
Options
 Major development should take place closer to the proposed new
station and major roads to minimise impact on existing infrastructure.
Locations
 The development proposed for west Chelmsford would adversely affect
the village of Writtle with the traffic it would generate as the Western
Relief Road is very unlikely to be built during the Plan period
 Safeguarding children at Writtle schools is paramount and current rat
running from A1060 to A12 causes great concern, the development
sites will make it much worse.
Transport
 West Chelmsford and north Chelmsford the infrastructure cannot cope
with existing developments. These locations will generate traffic that will
mean that traffic on Broomfield Road, Rainsford Road and Writtle will be
worsened. The Western Relief Road is expensive and unlikely to
happen
 Strongly support improvements to A132.
Green Belt
 Strongly support discounting development growth in the Green Belt.
 Such options should be explored further. Supportive of the proposal for
a development at Hammonds Farm.
Stephen Robinson – Chelmsford Liberal Democrats
Facts and figures
 Insufficient recognition of the existing pressure on roads and community
facilities such as health and growth, and that built into the current plan,
and the need to address these.
Vision
 The first six bullet points are undermined by the record to date and the
detail later in this document. The seventh is meaningless. You either
want to deliver a more sustainable environment or maintain what you
have
 Vision is too long, with too many non-specific words. Should be that
housing, jobs, services, open space and community facilities grow at the
same pace.
Housing need/number
 We need many more homes, but if the build rate of the numbers in the
Page 88
current plan was better, the total could be less than 800 rather than over
900.
Jobs/Employment
 The aim should be a growth in the number of jobs that at least matches
and ideally exceeds the growth in the working age population, to reduce
the need for out-commuting
 Chelmsford needs to ensure that its number of high-quality, welllocated, fast-internet-enabled office space exceeds the number required
to deliver the jobs
 The changing nature of work includes the growth in home working (both
among employees who work one/two/three days a week at home and
the self-employed / small business owners); employees who have no
fixed place of work and are always on the move (e.g. care workers), and
of people moving towards retirement who want to work part-time. This
should influence the need for growth in businesses and support
facilities.
Transportation
 Para 5.45 is complacent. The entire route network is close to gridlock.
Solutions (for buses, cycling and pedestrians) are not radical enough to
promote a dramatic change in travel habits
 Western Relief Road so unlikely, especially in the Plan period, that the
council would be unwise in the extreme to build a strategy around it.
Environment
 No reference in this section to the environmental impact of current, let
alone future, levels of traffic.
Infrastructure
 Need to asses where we are already falling short to deliver the needs of
the current plan. CCC should be more proactive in pushing partners
such as ECC and the NHS to deliver on their obligations.
 Would like to see comments from relevant Parish Councils on their
status and approach to future development.
Spatial Principles
 Some of these conflict with others. Development at any scale will affect
the river valleys, Green Wedges and character of the existing settlement
patterns
 To ensure development comes forward within the Plan period may lead
to less sustainable locations being chosen because they are thought to
be more "deliverable".
Page 89
 The Options are badly named. There is limited difference between the
Options. "Urban focus and growth on key transport corridors" is the best
aim for sustainability but Option 2 does not deliver it. After '1-Urban
area', the main focus for large-scale development should be close to the
new station at Beaulieu / Boreham and the railway in the south of the
CCC area
 Locations 2 and 3 fail on sustainability. A Western Relief Road would
not solve the traffic problems already present and planned, let alone
those caused by this plan. Also, on higher grade agricultural land than
elsewhere
 Locations 4 and 10 (and 6) could ensure the delivery of essential
infrastructure. Otherwise, Parish Councils should be encouraged to
identify any scope for small-scale development
 This consultation should highlight a wider range of locations, using the
Call for Sites, in particular in the north east and south east.
 It is the right decision, but there should be a fuller evaluation of the
consequences of doing so and developing elsewhere.
 It may take a long time but, since development will not stop in 2036, it
would be wise to discuss the concept, including with other Essex
districts.
Other
 The payment for and delivery of infrastructure needs to be emphasised ensure that developers do actually deliver and in a timely manner
 35% affordable housing and 30 dwellings per hectare policies should be
maintained, as essential features of sustainable communities
 Residents need more reassurance on ancillary issues, such as flooding,
utility delivery (telecoms, power and water) and community services.
Bill Horslen - Chelmsford Labour Party
Vision
 Support the Vision but infrastructure must be given priority to address
the transport and traffic problems in Chelmsford and this should be
development lead.
Housing Need
 The OAN fails to address the short fall in housing needs over the last
ten years where affordable housing requirements have not been
delivered. This deficit needs to be addressed to meet affordable housing
Page 90
Bill Horslen - Chelmsford Labour Party
need in Chelmsford in light of the new Planning Bill going through
Parliament.
Transport
 There is little reference to the Army and Navy roundabout, upon which
there appears to be no constructive projections to overcome the traffic
congestion there
 The Western Relief Road should be extended from Roxwell Road to the
A12 at Margaretting.
 Support the link road from Boreham Interchange to Essex Regiment
Way with a direct link to the A12 and welcome the improvements to the
A132 South Woodham
 The two Park and Ride proposals indicated in the Plan should be
considered as an essential part of the infrastructure for dealing with the
traffic congestion. These should be brought forward in the Plans
proposals at the earliest opportunity.
Environment
 The protection of green urban areas should be given greater protection
in the Plan. Both sides of the railway line running through
Chelmsford/Springfield and through to the open countryside should be
protected as a wildlife corridor.
Infrastructure
 The Plan fails to address the lack of facilities and amenities required in
the Non-Parished areas such as health and recreation facilities and
improvements to the infrastructure which should be included in the Plan
and form part of the Key Service Settlements.
Options
 Option 1 is the better of the three Options.
Locations
 The industrial site in Rignals Lane Galleywood could accommodate
additional social/affordable housing which is in an area of good public
transport links and will meet housing needs in the area.
Green Belt
 A new settlement should be examined in detail and presented for
consideration. A new settlement could reduce the spread of
developments to the north and west of Chelmsford and provide a better
infrastructure model for overcoming some of the traffic problems in
Chelmsford.
Page 91
David Siedlaczek - Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) Chelmsford & MidEssex Branch
Policies
 Policies need to cover community facilities or the need to guard against
the unnecessary loss of valued facilities in line with Section 70 of the
NPPF. CAMRA would wish to see the inclusion of policies which
recognise the importance of community facilities, like pubs, to local
people and seek to prevent the loss of such facilities unless suitable and
convenient alternatives are, or will be made, available. Should it be
agreed that the inclusion of such policies is appropriate, CAMRA would
be pleased to suggest detailed wording which could be considered.
G H Ingram - Heritage Writtle
Transport
 Writtle is used as a rat run bypass from north Chelmsford as the main
direct routes through the City Centre/ Parkway, are unable to cope with
the existing traffic
 A radical rethink should be undertaken to consider a comprehensive full
ring road around Chelmsford.
Environment
 Concern that Location 2 may contain historic artefacts which could be
lost if development takes place. Detailed historical and archaeological
surveying is needed over that whole area for full assessments to be
conducted
 "Special landscape areas" should be preserved
 Location 2 contains minerals and has refuse and waste infill within it.
Some of the site was considered too polluted for development
previously.
 Locate all the expansion in one area where a comprehensively planned
approach can be implemented, effectively creating a new self-contained
community complete with housing, retail and business facilities
 The new train station to the east of Chelmsford should act as a focus for
such a development.
Locations
 Location 2 is inappropriate and likely to cause major problems in terms
of transport, facilities and population, as well as erosion of the Green
Belt and the associated natural, built and community environments
 Location 2 is contrary to the Writtle Village Design Statement and the
Parish Plans as surveys showed residents did not want building on
undeveloped countryside, or the Roxwell Road, or outside of the Village
Page 92
G H Ingram - Heritage Writtle
boundary.
Sue Dobson - Essex Bridleways Association
Vision
 Suggest an objective to put full inclusivity at the forefront of the vision,
especially in relation to access to public spaces which has the benefit of
promoting healthier and active lifestyles
 There are no council-owned public spaces that allow equestrian access
and it should be part of the Vision to include facilities for all sectors of
the community
 Any new Local Plan should accord with the Government’s new ‘Sporting
Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation’, and recognise the
importance of green spaces and the public rights of way network in
encouraging people to partake in active recreation and accessing the
outdoors, which includes equestrian activities.
Infrastructure
 Equestrian access is not currently available in any Council parks or
open spaces. This should be addressed
 There are no further open spaces or country parks being proposed or
allocated in the Plan. New public open space which should be fully
inclusive and be linked by multi-user tracks should be included
 There needs to be commitment in the plan to improve all public rights of
way and ensure better access for equestrians within Green Wedges,
Leisure and Sport sections, Green Infrastructure, and along Rivers and
Waterways.
Policies
 The need for multi-user tracks (which include equestrian access) within
new major residential developments should be created and funded by
developer contribution (as is being done at Beaulieu Park)
 The principle of bridleways creation is supported in the NPPF and is a
requirement within the Rights of Way Improvement Plan. Although in
the SA this document has not been included within the list of Evidence
Base documents in Appendix 2.
Councillor Aldridge
Vision
 Accept the need for a Plan but Spatial Options 1-3 are limited in scope
and flawed
Highways, Infrastructure and Transportation
Page 93
Councillor Aldridge





Broomfield, Writtle, Great Leighs and Ford End have poor and
congested road infrastructure e.g. A1060, Chignal Road. Additional
growth here will make this worse
West Chelmsford is not appropriate for major growth. There are no
significant road infrastructure proposed, limited scope for road widening
or new roads and the Western Relief Road is outside the Plan period
Parishes in this area are unclear why growth is not directed to east
Chelmsford where transport infrastructure is in place/planned
Need to consider an additional access to Broomfield Hospital. The
Western Relief Road would have no impact
Plan has no significant proposals for infrastructural measures to mitigate
the impact of the additional housing in West Chelmsford e.g. roads and
services.
Environment
 West Chelmsford: Consider the implications of proposed development
in a designated mineral safeguarding area and the impacts on surface
water run/flood risk off towards Writtle.
Spatial Options
 Too much growth (68% or 9,500 homes) is proposed in areas around
Broomfield, Writtle, Great Leighs and Ford End. This will burden local
infrastructure and diminish the local environment
 Developments in one area over 500 homes place very significant strains
on existing communities.
 This has no certainty, route or funding, and is unlikely before 2040.
Therefore it cannot be used to support any development north or west
Chelmsford.
New Settlement
 Hammonds Farm and Boreham Airfield are real alternatives and the
public should have been able to comment on these
 There could be several options to create small garden villages of 23,000 homes.
Other Matters
 Look forward to seeing further options come forward in the next stage of
the Plan.
Anita Curtis ( Writtle Workers Education Association)
Locations
 Disagree with Location 2 as it would cause congestion and the land is
Page 94
Anita Curtis ( Writtle Workers Education Association)


high grade agricultural land so should be preserved for crops
There is no room in the schools or doctors in Writtle to accommodate
the growth at Location 2
The east of Chelmsford would be a better location to place development
as there are better transport links.
Green Belt
Nadine Collins - Broomfield Primary School
Locations
 New development should be located at South Woodham Ferrers and
near the new train station and A12 corridor to assist with the NE Bypass
coming forward.
Options
 None of the Options offer a choice for Broomfield. Please consider the
Broomfield Parish Plan.
Transport
 The Western Relief Road is not welcomed.
 A new settlement should be considered at Hammonds Farm or
Boreham Airfield.
Councillor Tim Roper
Locations
 Object to development at Location 2 as the land is high grade
agricultural land, a Special Landscape Area, contains Minerals and is a
water catchment area which could lead to flooding if built on
 Location 2 would lead to traffic congestion and there is not room for a
dedicated bus lane into Chelmsford for the proposed Park and Ride
 Hammonds Farm and Boreham Airfield should be considered as
alternative sites for development. As they have better access to wider
infrastructure.
Transport
 There is no money available for the Western Relief Road and it would
be unlikely to be built until 2040.
Page 95
Allen Wakford - Christian Care
Housing Need
 Suggests that the housing requirement should be higher, based on
population increase, in-migration from London, increased single
occupancy, and increased homelessness.
 With an ageing population housing for the elderly needs to be
considered.
Locations
 Locations 1 and 2 would lead to over-development and unhealthy living
conditions
 Locations 3 and 4 would be popular choices for elderly residents
 All housing should be in walking distance of community services,
including doctors, library, bus stops, schools, parks, churches and
community halls.
Green Belt
 There should be development in the Green Belt to provide healthy living
environments through improved facilities and services in rural areas.
Gypsy and Travellers
 Special accommodation settlements should be available to Gypsy and
Travellers as well as all homeless people.
Paul Jeater - Brentwood and Chelmsford Green Party
Transport
 The roads are reaching capacity and without improvements to public
transport people will turn to the private car, generating further
congestion
 With fewer jobs than homes in Chelmsford people will have to travel for
work and the number of commuters going to London will increase and
put further pressure on the rail service.
Housing Need
 The notion that there is capacity for further homes in Essex should be
challenged otherwise there will be further loss of countryside which will
be of detriment to future generations
 Concern that the target is set by central government and is too high
 The number of housing units in the plan is undesirable and
unsustainable. The environmental impacts this will have seem to have
been glossed over.
Infrastructure
 Infrastructure, for instance schools, GP services, hospitals and other
vital infrastructure including sewage systems should be built before the
Page 96
Paul Jeater - Brentwood and Chelmsford Green Party


homes
Further pressure will be placed on Broomfield Hospital with the
expansion of Chelmsford and its neighbouring authorities whose
residents are also serviced by the Hospital. The need for a further
hospital with emergency services will be acute yet this is not flagged up
as a priority
There is reference to “quality of life” in the Plan but there is little focus
on the quality of ‘city life’ for the existing population of the area.
Locations
 The concentration of development in the north west segment of the city
will have a detrimental impact including noise and air pollution, upon
residents living in adjacent parishes.
Page 97
Summary of main issues raised by Developers/ Landowners/
Agents
70 Developers/Landowners and Agents responded to the consultation
Summary of main issues raised by Developers, Landowners and
Agents:










Lots of agreement with the OAN and proposed housing requirement
figures of 775 and 930
Disagreement with the OAN and proposed housing requirement figures
with varying views as to why these should be higher
Reference to the need for further consideration of in-migration and growth
from London to be factored in to the OAN
There is a need to review the Green Belt
A new Settlement should be considered
Development within the Green Wedges should not be ruled out
Further consideration needed as to whether Chelmsford should be
meeting any neighbouring authorities unmet needs
Support for improvements to the A132
Questions raised over the deliverability and effectiveness of the potential
Western Relief Road
Queries over some Village’s positions within the Settlement Hierarchy due
to the limited services they currently have.
Summary of responses from Developers, Landowners and Agents:
Mr Andrew Parker
CFS27 – Land at Chatham Green Yard, Braintree Road, Little Waltham
Environment
 Proposed Green Wedge through Little Waltham should not extend
further than the A130
 Do not agree with any new Green Buffers
 Rivers should be promoted more for recreation.
Housing Need
 Council have persistently underperformed to deliver housing numbers
– suggests regular reviews through Plan period
 Should do more to promote self/custom build – especially in rural
areas.
 Little Waltham should be a Key Service Settlement – when combined
with Chatham Green as they are in the same Parish
 Chatham Green should be a Service Settlement – or new category of
Small Service Settlement.
Page 98
Mr Andrew Parker
Location of Development
 Supports Option 3 – would locate development in Chatham Green, is
situated on the A131 transport corridor
 Pondside Nursery, Chatham Green should be considered for housing –
is on the A131 transport corridor, good bus service to Chelmsford and
Braintree
 NE Bypass should be a priority
 Green Belt should be protected
 Agrees that large new settlement should be discounted – there should
be more development on smaller sites in villages
 Policies need to put more weight behind development on previously
developed land, especially where this is in the countryside.
Mr Keith Francis
15SLAA24 – Allotment Hut, Allotment Gardens, Hill Road South,
Chelmsford
Transport
 Transport deficiencies in current plan – past development has not been
matched with sufficient investment in transport-related infrastructure
 Assessment needs to be undertaken to establish the deficit in transport
infrastructure
 Not acceptable to proceed with the new Plan until the extent of this
deficit is known and how it will be mitigated
 Too many communities fail to receive a meaningful bus service and
services that do exist vary considerably in terms of frequency and
hours of operation are too limited
 Cycle networks have yet to be established. Cycling should be taken
more seriously by the Transport Authority, with necessary funding
support, to become a realistic alternative form of transport
 Changes to layout and character of Parkway are vital. May benefit from
conversion to a ‘boulevard’ with live frontages and improved pedestrian
and cycle accessibility. This would serve to calm and even deter
extraneous/through-traffic movements
 Infrastructure improvements identified in the current Plan such as the
3rd Park & Ride site at Widford should be delivered before the start of
the new Plan period.
 Proposed Option 4:
 Utilisation of brownfield sites within urban and built-up areas of existing
settlements. A sequential list needs to be drawn up starting with
Chelmsford and SWF
 Locations 1, 4, 7, 10, 15
 SWF (unfettered as a result of Green Belt boundary revision to align
with A130) - This allows normal criteria to identify sites here
 Battlesbridge (unfettered as a result of Green Belt boundary revision to
align with A130) - This allows normal criteria to identify sites here and
Page 99
Mr Keith Francis
would be a prime location if not for the Green Belt constraint, due to its
rail station etc.
 All Key Settlements, restricted in the Green Belt - These settlements
could benefit from 'starter home' projects and may achieve added
viability of services/facilities via brownfield and re-development
opportunities
 All other Service Settlements beyond the Green Belt - These
settlements could benefit from 'starter home' projects and may achieve
added viability of services/facilities via brownfield and re-development
opportunities
 All Small Settlements beyond the Green Belt - These settlements could
benefit from 'starter home' projects
 All Service and Small Settlements within the Green Belt (restricted) These settlements could benefit from 'starter home' projects
 Objects to the following locations:
 Locations 2 & 3 – will be heavily dependent on a Western Relief Road
that must be constructed in advance, to safeguard the interests of the
present populations, business etc. in that area during building stages
 Location 5 – is on a prominent valley slope and would damage
landscape value. Is also sustainably inferior as a location
 Location 6 – may be suitable but subject to a re-evaluation of site
options for SWF if Green Belt status is rescinded east of A130
 Location 8 – scale of development not likely to generate Key
Settlement status. Less sustainable location
 Location 9 – (as 8) and may generate too many longer trips and much
less sustainable than preferred Battlesbridge suggestion
 Locations 11 & 12 – as both would add stress to A414 that suffers
existing congestion issues. Chelmsford CC & Maldon DC need to press
for an improved highway link from Maldon to A12 between Hatfield
Peverel & Witham
 Locations 13, 14, 16 & 17 – are less sustainable locations.
Air Quality
 The new Plan should acknowledge the need to identify areas of poor
air quality and take measures to maintain safe conditions
 There are known to be conditions within built-up areas that directly
affect residential property. These areas are known to be below EU
standards, requiring remedial action
 In addition, precautionary monitoring should be undertaken to identify
any new areas threatened by such problems and testing of added
development impacts resulting from the implementation of the new
Plan.
Green Belt
 Green Belt policy generally supported
 Area east of the A130, south of Rettendon and north of the River
Crouch between Battlesbridge and SWF should be removed from the
Green Belt
Page 100
Mr Keith Francis
 This area is detached from bulk of the Green Belt and would open up
additional development sites adjacent to SWF and Battlesbridge.
Mr Paul Grundy
Infrastructure
 Western Relief Road would not support proposed development to the
west and north of Chelmsford as it would not be built for many years
 NE Bypass should be a priority.
 New development should be east of Chelmsford where there is good
transport infrastructure – A12/A130 corridor and new rail station at
Beaulieu
 SWF also a good location as it has a rail station
 Landscape character of the Pleshey and Writtle Plateaus will be
adversely affected by development at Locations 2 and 3
 There should be some flexibility regarding development in Green
Belt/Green Wedge sites
 Does not support any of the three Options – they are very similar and
all include development to the west and north of Chelmsford
 Does not support development to the west and north of Chelmsford –
existing road infrastructure would not support this
 Large new settlements should not be discounted – both sites
discounted are close to transport infrastructure and should be
considered for inclusion.
Mr Peter Court – Bovis Homes Limited; Agent: Mr Paul Cronk – JB
Planning Associates Ltd
CFS113 – Land north east of Skeggs Farm, Chelmsford Road, Writtle
Housing Need
 Fails to account for any housing the City may need to accommodate
from other local authority areas
 Close proximity to London needs consideration – likely that out
migration will increase as property prices in London continue to rise. As
Chelmsford has good commuter facilities, it would be a likely place to
relocate
 Questioning why market and affordable housing have been calculated
separately
 If evidence is submitted that another local authority in Essex is unable
to meet their housing requirement, the Council will need to consider
whether to assist these authorities. Could have a significant impact on
strategy and OAN
 Suggest a 10% non-implementation rate is applied
 Requirement of 930 dpa is likely to be the minimum required
 The OAN has not yet been properly formulated
Page 101
 It is not apparent whether Edge Analytics forecasts will have factored in
the high level of new job growth – assume not – Plan would be failing
to let Chelmsford develop to its true economic potential.
Transportation
 Existing major roads are the main source of air pollution in Chelmsford.
All growth options considered should demonstrate how they can
mitigate their impact through the provision of Green Infrastructure
 Likely cost, funding sources and developer contributions for major road
schemes have not been specified – developer contributions through
S106 contributions and CIL would only likely be small contribution to
overall costs
 Believe transport modelling should also consider potential Green Belt
releases – could help disperse traffic movements and reduce
congestion hotspots, particularly to the north of the City area.
Green Belt
 The Council should undertake a comprehensive Green Belt Review in
order to test whether sites still meet the Green Belt tests identified in
the NPPF
 Sites may not need to be covered by both Green Belt and Green
Wedge designations
 Concern that potential Green Buffers could be another unnecessary
constraint that duplicates Green Belt policy
 Believe that new housing allocations can deliver Green Infrastructure
which can legally guarantee long-term protection of gaps between
settlements and provide new opportunities for public access and
recreation
 Do not consider it to be either appropriate or sustainable to carry on
protecting Green Belt land that does not merit continued protection
where it does not fulfil the Green Belt requirements identified in the
NPPF
 Development strategy that focuses new housing to the north and north
west of Chelmsford, at the exclusion of Green Belt land to the west and
south, will be more harmful in terms of loss of the highest quality
agricultural land
 Surprised a Green Belt Review has not been undertaken with Basildon
given strong migration links identified in the OAHN study
 Believe that client’s sites do not meet the Green Belt justification tests
and should be removed from the Green Belt
 Green Belt represents an arbitrary boundary in relation to Chelmsford,
with part of the administrative area in and part out. It has no connection
to Chelmsford but has heavily influenced the growth of the City in a
northern direction
 The majority of Green Belt boundaries were drawn up in the 1950’s
and have not been fundamentally reviewed since – No substantive
assessment of Green Belt sites has been undertaken by the Council
Page 102
 By choosing not to countenance a Green Belt Review, the Council is
acting out of line with surrounding local authorities and risks failing
under Duty to Co-operate
 It is too early in the Local Plan process to decide that the Authority’s
Green Belt boundaries do not need reviewing.
 Support proposed Settlement Hierarchy but believe not undertaking a
Green Belt Review, higher tier settlements will be prevented from
fulfilling their potential – E.g. Writtle will be prevented from benefitting
from any significant levels of growth.
Spatial Principles
 Propose additional Spatial Principle; ‘all new strategic scale
development should deliver meaningful and public accessible Green
Infrastructure’.
 Do not consider any of the proposed options are appropriate
 Highly sceptical that the 18,500 new homes identified through the
SLAA, deliverable on sites outside of the Green Belt and Green
Wedges, are suitable, available and achievable during the Plan period
 Believe a significant amount of them are either situated in
unsustainable locations, possess constraints or are incapable of
delivering the amounts of housing specified
 Do not consider Great Leighs is a suitable location for further
significant development – Parish population for Great and Little Leighs
is only 2,700 and there is a lack of facilities and services to justify
significant further residential development
 Agree with the Council regarding the provision of new settlements and
do not believe that they are likely to be the answer to addressing
Chelmsford’s overall housing requirement
 Believe promoted sites would secure a permanent separation between
Chelmsford and Writtle through the provision of new green
infrastructure and would check the sprawl of the built up area of both
settlements and prevent coalescence in the future and would provide
the necessary funding to secure and deliver publically accessible open
space.
Cogent Land; Agent: Mr Ian Mayhead – Iceni Projects
CFS9 – Land south east of The Lion Inn, Main Road, Boreham
Strategic Housing Market Assessment
 Caution should be had with this document as the proposed HMA
excludes Maldon despite interrelationship with neighbouring authorities
 Fails to adequately consider Chelmsford’s interaction with Basildon
despite PBA study acknowledging that Basildon and Chelmsford have
Page 103
the greatest influence on each other’s housing market
 Previously wrote to the Council in September 2014 highlighting
concerns with SHMA – document not compliant with requirements of
the NPPF or PPG. SHMA cast in the mould of a pre-NPPF SHMA and
focused predominantly on affordable housing needs.
Vision
 Broadly agree with what should be covered in the Vision, particularly
not developing in the Green Belt, providing new homes in sustainable
locations, providing new jobs and delivering infrastructure.
Housing Need
 Concerns about robustness of the methodology used by PBA in the
calculation of the OAN
 Fails to consider the requirement for CCC to provide a choice of means
of housing (older persons housing, custom build, student
accommodation)
 Fails to have appropriate regard to affordable housing – 20% uplift
does not consider the actual affordable housing need
 Underestimates the resultant additional London need and fails to
include this in the suggested housing target ranges
 Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) Inspector had concerns
that the anticipated shortfall could not be met in London. Therefore,
potential land releases outside the capital will need to be explored. This
is likely to include Chelmsford
 HMA is undermined by the absence of Maldon. CCC’s strongest link is
with Basildon, which also does not form part of the HMA
 Suggested housing target fails to take into account that CCC has the
highest projected net new jobs in the HMA
 House price analysis only runs to 2012 and is out of date – house
prices in Chelmsford have increased approximately 20% since that
time
 Reduced delivery of housing during the recession was not due to low
demand but due to lack of availability of finance and public’s
confidence in buying property
 The Local Plan Testing Number (930 dpa) does not appear to factor in
the need to add a 20% buffer for persistent under-delivery in line with
national planning policy. Backlog needs to be addressed in the first five
years of the plan-period, has not been addressed in the PBA Study or
accounted for within the proposed figure of 930 dpa.
Jobs
 Not clear how jobs number is considered in relation to the housing
target. The uplift should be great as CCC is the largest economy and
major driver of growth for the Heart of Essex
 Acknowledged within the Heart of Essex Economic Futures Study
(2012) that in order to support the higher level of job growth that CCC
aspires to, increased levels of housing should be provided to meet the
Page 104
requirements of its labour force.
 Broadly agree with proposed Settlement Hierarchy
 Settlement boundaries themselves need to be reviewed in order to
ensure settlements have adequate capacity to deliver required growth
 Settlement edges should be based on sustainable growth options and
not be formed by backs of houses and close boarded fences.
Spatial Principles
 Spatial Principles are a useful starting point to direct potential growth to
locations which can support these principles
 In line with Government’s definition of Sustainable Development, each
site should be considered on its own merits in achieving the three
strands of Sustainable Development.
 Three key drivers for sustainable growth:
o Location of both local and regional centres to generate
employment opportunities
o Proximity to key transport corridors provide a good level of
transport connectivity and access to local services
o Focus development around existing health and education
facilities, shops and community facilities.
 Option 3 represents the most sustainable approach
 Option 1 lacks infrastructure to cope with the level of growth required.
The focus of a large amount of development in a single area presents
issues of deliverability, with potential market saturation slowing the
release of housing. Important to distribute development across the City
area. Smaller previously developed sites would not have required
capacity to address the level of growth needed
 Option 2 would also require significant infrastructure provision. Would
put increased pressure on main road junctions. Little attention has
been paid to the public transport connectivity of these locations.
Providing new infrastructure would be less viable and sustainable than
improving existing infrastructure in the settlements identified in Option
3
 The expansion of Service Settlements is the most sustainable option
for growth
 Support Locations 1-5 and Location 10
 Question the location of the Green Buffer to the west of Boreham. This
is not supported as there are no landscape or ecological designations
in this area and it is the most sustainable location for development
 Potential for development all around Boreham, particularly to the west.
Green Belt
 Each site should be considered on its own merits and whether or not a
particular area of land contributes towards the objectives of the Green
Page 105
Belt designation
 A blanket restriction should not be applied.
Mr Gary Duncan – Countryside Properties; Agent: Mr Andrew Martin –
Andrew Martin – Planning Limited
CFS196 – Land south of Chelmer Village Way and north of the Chelmer
and Blackwater Navigation, Springfield
Vision
 Not always clear the geographical area the term ‘Chelmsford’ relates to
– whether Urban Area of Chelmsford or the district as a whole.
 Central themes of Vision considered appropriate and comprehensive.
Environment
 The emerging Plan should review boundaries to exclude areas that do
not make positive contribution to the purposes of the Green Wedges
 Review should take into account the opportunity to broaden the use of
the riverside recreational facilities and ecological benefits to a wider
audience
 The area of floodplain between City Centre and Sandford Mill has
played an important role in shaping the form and character of
Chelmsford
 Green Wedges are locations abutting the urban edge where change
continues to take place. Construction of new Chelmer Bridge has had a
further urbanising effect on this area
Housing Need
 Agree that the identified HMA is sound
 Methodology used to calculate the OAHN is sound and robust and
follows approach set out in the NPPF and PPG
 Inclusion of a 20% uplift is considered bold compared with many
authorities but is fully justified in relation to Government Policy
 Agree with the Council’s justification not to meet unmet housing
requirements from neighbouring authorities
 Housing figure of 930 dpa considered to be fully justified as it is based
on a sound evidence base.
Jobs/employment
 887 jobs per year would appear to be sound and robust based on past
trends
 This figure should be treated as a minimum due to improvements in
strategic infrastructure such as the new railways station and new major
roads – there should be some flexibility in order to avoid shortfalls of
supply. Proposed MedTech Campus could create 4,000 jobs alone and
act as a catalyst for further growth
 Local Plan should also make specific provision for the needs of start-up
and small businesses
 50,000 sqm of new office space being tested should be treated as a
Page 106
Mr Gary Duncan – Countryside Properties; Agent: Mr Andrew Martin –
Andrew Martin – Planning Limited
minimum target and should be regularly monitored
 There are additional sources of employment in sectors besides office,
retail and those listed on page 35
 Growing trend of jobs being created from sport, recreation, leisure and
entertainment.
Infrastructure
 All the main infrastructure issues have been covered in the Issues and
Options Document
 There is an opportunity to provide some of the uses referred to e.g.
children’s nurseries, sports facilities, a nursing home, medical centre,
public house/restaurant/hotel within the Chelmer Riverside area.
 Believe there should be a distinction between ‘City’ i.e. Chelmsford and
‘Town’ i.e. SWF
 In general support all three Options for growth
 By concentrating the maximum amount of growth and people in a
central location will provide the greatest scope to encourage the use of
the most sustainable transport facilities
 Support not developing in the Green Belt
 Support discounting a large new settlement
 Chelmer Riverside presents an opportunity to provide range of uses to
serve the needs of an ageing population such as being adjacent to
open space, visitor attractions and high quality landscape settings
 Is in a sustainable location served by a range of transport modes.
Mr Denis James Castell
CFS34 – Land Rear of Rettendon Lodge, Hayes Chase, Battlesbridge,
Wickford
Green Belt
 Does not support protecting the Green Belt
 Many Green Belt sites remain neglected, unproductive and do not
contribute to local community
 Some Green Belt sites are well located with access to services and rail
and road provisions.
Mr G E Vint; Agent: Mr Andrew Ransome – Plainview Planning
CFS10 – Mount Maskall, Generals Lane, Boreham
Housing Market Area
 Excluding Maldon from the HMA is a fundamental flaw, of the
neighbouring local authority areas, Chelmsford has the strongest
connection with Maldon
Page 107
Mr G E Vint; Agent: Mr Andrew Ransome – Plainview Planning
 The Council’s 2014 SHMA demonstrates that Chelmsford has a
stronger relationship with Maldon in respect to house prices, household
migration, travel to work areas and retail catchments than other areas
in the HMA
 Maldon’s assertion that they do not share a HMA with Chelmsford has
not been found sound. Maldon DC have produced a number of SHMA
documents that demonstrate the strong housing market connection
with Chelmsford
 Ignoring the Maldon component of the HMA runs the risk of the Local
Plan being unsound
 Further engagement is required with Maldon DC through Duty to
Cooperate on matters relating to the joint HMA.
Affordable Housing
 Current SHMA does not give full consideration to meeting the needs of
affordable housing and adding this into the identified OAN
 Question why extra work in respect to affordable housing was not
undertaken to inform the Issues and Options Document as it potentially
has a bearing on the final housing target.
Custom and Self-build Housing
 No reference is made to custom or self-build housing in the Issues and
Options Document or the 2015 OAN assessment
 The demand and need for custom and self-build housing is important
component of the OAN for the HMA
 The Council should incorporate a specific development policy that
encourages the delivery of custom and self-build housing as windfall
development and identifies sites as specific custom and self-build
housing allocations.
Employment Figures
 Support the adjustment of the OAN to reflect the higher jobs growth
forecasts.
 Option 1 represents the most sustainable Option for planned growth, in
particular extensions to existing developments in north east
Chelmsford are supported
 North east Chelmsford already has a significant planned infrastructure
programme
 Development at north east Chelmsford would allow significant and
important linkages between homes, jobs and infrastructure to be
maintained and enhanced
 Development should be located on a mix of large, medium and small
sites given that large sites cannot be delivered immediately
 The site promoted at Mount Maskall, Generals Lane would be a
suitable smaller site to complement the larger developments in north
east Chelmsford.
Page 108
Mr Ruszkiewicz; Agent: Mr Chris Loon – Springfields Planning &
Development
15SLAA9/10 – Norwood, Great Notley
 Supports Option 1 as this allocates the greatest proportion of housing
in the Great Leighs area. This is a well-connected and more affordable
location for growth
 Supports the Settlement Hierarchy but questions how the LPA will deal
with the potential for development in sustainable locations outside the
settlement boundary. Small housing developments should not be
deterred on small sites beyond villages
 Planning policies have restricted development in smaller villages which
has caused a decline in services and affordable housing in these areas
and resulted in younger adults and families having to move away.
Rosehart Properties Ltd; Agent: Mr Olivier Spencer – Andrew Martin –
Planning Ltd
CFS117 – BAE Works, West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow
Green Belt
 No consideration has been given to the quantum or availability of
previously developed land in the Green Belt
 Objects to the decision not to undertake a strategic Green Belt Review
– rules out any urban extensions to the south and southwest of the City
and potentially focusses development to the north west and north east
of Chelmsford, which could unbalance the morphology of the City as a
whole
 Spatial Principle three should be amended to ‘Protect the Green Belt,
unless exception policies apply’, to recognise that certain new
development can be acceptable in the Green Belt.
Housing Need
 Calculation of OAN is supported
 Inclusion of a 20% buffer is strongly supported – accords with
paragraph 47 of the NPPF and provides flexibility.
Employment
 Support the job requirement number and new office floorspace
requirement – should be treated as a minimum target

Should consider the potential to deliver new employment floorspace on
and adjacent to existing employment areas such as BAE Systems
Advanced Technology Centre in Great Baddow.
 Support Location 1
 Objects to Location 5 – acts as a Green Wedge between Great
Page 109
Rosehart Properties Ltd; Agent: Mr Olivier Spencer – Andrew Martin –
Planning Ltd
Baddow and Chelmer Village and contains the River Chelmer and its
flood plain.
 Request that the promoted site is designated as a SPA in the emerging
Local Plan.
Mr Grant Thompson – RVL Properties Ltd; Agent: Ms Alice Brighton –
Planning Potential
CFS14 – Sutch and Searle Shipping, The Causeway, Highwood Road,
Writtle
Government Policy Changes
 Local Planning Authorities should begin considering the proposed
changes contained in the Housing and Planning Bill 2015 in the
preparation of their Local Plans
 Promotion of Starter Homes and presumption in favour of brownfield
land should be taken into account in the preparation of the Preferred
Options document.
Green Belt
 Considers the intention not to undertake a Green Belt Review to be
flawed
 Previously developed sites within the Green Belt should be considered
for development
 In particular, support the redevelopment of the former Sutch and Searle
Shipping site, located just outside Writtle
 Believe the six bullet points considered exceptions to inappropriate
development, as listed in Paragraph 89 of the NPPF, are included in
future documents
 Some Green Belt sites, particularly previously developed sites, could
be more suitable for redevelopment than those identified within the
SLAA.
Housing Need
 Support the approach taken to calculate the housing number
 The Council should consider whether they have the ability to deliver in
excess of 930 new homes per year.
 Supports, in the most, Option 3
 Provides the opportunity for Key Service Settlements and Service
Settlements the opportunity to provide essential facilities and services
and helps ensure they remain sustainable locations
 The majority of Key Service Settlements that are considered more
suitable for development have been excluded
 Options 1 and 2 would result in a large number of greenfield sites being
Page 110
Mr Grant Thompson – RVL Properties Ltd; Agent: Ms Alice Brighton –
Planning Potential
developed, which is contrary to the Council’s proposed Spatial
Principles.
Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd; Agent: Mr Robert Sellwood – Sellwood
Planning
CFS165 – Land a Warren Farm, Roxwell Road
Housing Need
 Methodology to calculate the OAHN is robust
 The housing figure of 930 homes per year is justified.
Job Requirement
 Historic job growth of around 800 jobs per year included the 2008-2012
recession
 The assumption of an additional 887 jobs per year is regarded as the
minimum feasible figure
 This will need to be monitored and early action taken if actual job
growth outstrips this figure in the early years of the Plan.
 There should be a ‘City’ category which contains Chelmsford and a
‘Town’ category which contains SWF.
Spatial Principles
 An additional Spatial Principle should be included: ‘Maximise the
economic and social benefits of sustainable new development to the
City’
 The first bullet point should be amended to read ‘Maximise the use of
sustainable brownfield land for development’.
 Option 1 considered most appropriate
 Concentrates the greatest amount of development around the built up
area of the City which has the greatest range of jobs, shops,
recreation/leisure facilities and access to public transport
 Great Leighs and SWF have less facilities, services, employment and
public transport than Chelmsford. Option to relocate 1,000 dwellings
from each of these locations and increase the number of dwellings at
west Chelmsford (Location 2) and north east Chelmsford (Location 4)
 Rettendon Place (Location 9) should be discounted as unsustainable
 Not considered sustainable to locate 800 dwellings at Howe Green and
Boreham – would change the character of the villages and lead to
much higher levels of car based commuting
 Established there are no ‘showstoppers’ in terms of infrastructure
provision, environmental mitigation or delivery with regards to the
promoted site at Warren Farm
 Discounting of Green Belt and large new settlements is supported.
Page 111
Mr Trevor Hollinger – Aquila Developments
CFS50 – Land east of Premier Lodge Hotel, Main Road, Boreham
Office Space
 Believe that the office requirement has been underestimated
 Impact on supply from office to residential permitted development
rights is not considered as the Employment Land Review (ELR) is
based on data which precedes this
 Aside from office use, the Council has failed to quantify the
requirement for other B Class uses
 Little recognition is paid to the PPG advice that diversity of employment
uses requires different policy responses and variety of employment
sites
 Local Plan must include employment allocations capable of early
delivery
 Large scale strategic business park not the only suitable form of out of
centre provision.
Spatial Principles
 Majority of Spatial Principles are supported
 Green Buffers should not be introduced in the absence of critical
review of existing settlement boundaries.
 Supports Boreham as a location for employment development
 Promoted site’s countryside designation fails to recognise that it is
effectively part of the Chelmsford Urban Area
 Precedent in this vicinity which establish that small business
requirements can be met in keeping with a semi-rural or settlement
edge location
 Inclusion of the promoted site within the Green Buffer to the west of
Boreham would be strongly resisted
 Site is well located at the Boreham Interchange and has potential to
develop connections with the new station at Beaulieu.
Stonebond Properties Ltd; Agent: Mr Michael Calder – Phase 2 Planning
CFS2 – The Lordship Stud, Writtle College, Back Road, Writtle
Green Belt
 The principle of protecting the Green Belt is supported
 Opportunities for small scale boundary amendments to achieve more
permanent and defensible boundaries
 Promoted site is previously developed so redevelopment is supported
in principle
 Green Belt boundary should be reviewed through the Local Plan to
ensure it endures beyond the Plan period
 Proposed site seeks to realign the Green Belt boundary to follow the
Page 112
Stonebond Properties Ltd; Agent: Mr Michael Calder – Phase 2 Planning
existing line of rear gardens to the east and west of the site
 The site does not perform any of the Green Belt opportunities identified
in the NPPF.
 Writtle is a sustainable location with a number of services and facilities,
which provide social, shopping, health, education and employment.
Bolton Farms; Agent: Mr David Maher - ASP
CFS49 – Land south east of the Lion Inn, Main Road, Boreham
CFS51 – Field OS Ref 4730, The Chase, Boreham
CFS52 – Blairs Farm, Main Road, Boreham
CFS54 – Land at Boreham Interchange, Colchester Road, Boreham
CFS59 – Field Adjacent Lionfield Cottages, Main Road, Boreham
Green Wedges/Buffers
 Strongly objects to the proposed Green Buffer and Green Wedge to the
east of the City and west of Boreham
 It is too early in the Local Plan process for Green Buffers and Green
Wedges to be drawn up
 Such areas of land may be required to meet the Council’s OAN
 2006 Landscape Character Assessment makes no mention of
preventing coalescence between Chelmsford and Boreham as being
important
 Area to the east of Chelmsford is already protected by policy DP5 of
the 2008 Core Strategy and 2013 Focussed Review
 Green Wedge and Green Buffer would be an additional layer of
planning control not considered necessary.
 The Council ought to be reviewing areas along the edges of
Chelmsford. This includes the area east of Chelmsford and the
Council should be planning positively for growth in this location in line
with planned growth north east Chelmsford new NE Bypass and
proposed Beaulieu station

Much of the land east of Chelmsford and west of Boreham is suitable
for residential, commercial and retail use.
Employment Space
 2014-15 Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) confirmed loss in
employment floorspace is almost at the same level of the new
floorspace permitted
 There is a lot of old and unsuitable employment stock being converted
to other uses, most notably residential
 The Council will require new land to accommodate ‘high-tech’ business
development and land at east Chelmsford is suitable for this purpose.
Page 113
Mr & Mrs R McDowell; Agent: Mr Chris Loon – Springfields Planning &
Development Limited
CFS24 – Kings Farm, Main Road, Ford End
 Restrictive policies over last 30 to 40 years have caused decline in
services and facilities in outlying areas and villages
 Young adults and young families who may wish to stay in these areas
have been forced to live in bigger settlements
 In most cases, the only way of providing new services and
infrastructure will be as part of new development sites in villages
 Only Option 3 considers growth within some village settlements
 Specific numbers of dwellings should not be allocated to specific
villages at this stage
 Criteria based policies along with local consultation might then assist in
identifying the right amount for each village, based on its needs
 Important to consider economies of scale and critical mass to provide
required services and facilities
 The Council does not appear to have gathered evidence on the needs
of villages and the level of housing growth required to deliver those
needs
 Support development in Ford End
 Promoted site could provide new community hall, shop and land for a
doctors surgery
 Great Leighs and Rettendon Place not considered suitable for levels of
growth suggested.
Economy/Employment
 Little reference to employment association with Uttlesford, in particular
Stansted Airport – accessible via public transport from Chelmsford with
stops en route
 No reference to retail needs of smaller settlements.
Green Wedges
 No need to extend Green Wedges
 River valleys generally of sufficient scenic quality where development
could be resisted through development management processes
 Often areas affected by flooding or biodiversity interests
 Previous Green Wedge whitewash has not distinguished areas which
should have been excluded from the designation.
Infrastructure
 Important to strengthen the viability of existing bus services which
come through villages
 Potential Western Relief Road will help improve links with villages to
the north of Chelmsford and may support options for development in
those areas, such as Ford End
Page 114
Mr & Mrs R McDowell; Agent: Mr Chris Loon – Springfields Planning &
Development Limited
 Maps for Spatial Options should include the B1008.
Mr David Hopkins – Bernard Le Claire and Osiris Trustees Ltd; Agent:
Mr James Govier – The JTS Partnership LLP
CFS78 – Stacey’s, School Lane, Broomfield
CFS156 – Land south west of 2 Scotts Green, Hollow Lane, Broomfield
CFS157 – Land north west of Pennyfields, Parsonage Green, Broomfield
Housing Need
 The Council should anticipate an ever increasing demand for housing
and treat existing needs as a minimum
 Support the 20% buffer
 Support the housing number of 930 dpa.
Infrastructure
 Western Relief Road considered essential and should be promoted
through the Local Plan. It will provide access to north and west of
Chelmsford which is set for the greatest amount of new housing
outside the urban centre, and ease the congestion to central and fringe
parts of Chelmsford.
 Focus in these areas will better enable the provision of infrastructure to
serve existing and new communities
 Greatest support given to Locations 2 and 3
 These are the most appropriate locations for development outside the
central urban area
 Support not releasing the Green Belt
 Support discounting large new settlement at present but development
and infrastructure should be considered with potential new settlement
in mind beyond the Plan period.
Mr Thomasin–Foster and Mrs Wilkinson; Agent: Ms Kate Jennings –
Whirledge and Nott
CFS73 – Land east and west of A1114 and north and south of the A12,
Great Baddow and Galleywood
CFS75 – 215 Main Road, Great Leighs
CFS76 – Land south west of 203 Main Road, Great Leighs
CFS142 – Land north of Lammas Cottage, High Street, Stock
15SLAA25 – Land north west of Woodlands and Rose Marie, Banters
Lane, Great Leighs
Green Belt
 Do not support blanket protection of Green Belt
 Council have not objectively assessed the suitability of some Green
Belt release over more inappropriate greenfield release in non-Green
Page 115
Mr Thomasin–Foster and Mrs Wilkinson; Agent: Ms Kate Jennings –
Whirledge and Nott
Belt areas
 NPPF requires assessment of constraints and appropriateness of
Green Belt development within the Local Plan.
 Would also support Option 3
 Allocation of large greenfield sites cannot be relied on to deliver
housing allocation throughout the period – allocation of smaller sites is
required
 Key Service Settlements should receive housing allocations to take
pressure off the urban centre
 Support development in Great Leighs, especially to the north of the
existing settlement
 Area to the south of Great Leighs, including the River Ter valley should
have buffer from development retained
 Great Leighs has excellent transport links and infrastructure can be
further improved through future development
 Support development in Stock – should be allowed to grow organically
to ensure existing services are supported
 Support development in Great Baddow – area is adjacent to transport
corridors and the landscape is not part of the Chelmer Valley and not
as sensitive to development.
Miss Shyy Sachdev
CFS235 – Rembrandt House, Blasford Hill, Little Waltham
Environment
 Does not support the protection of river valleys by defining Green
Wedges.
 Supports Option 3
 Believes there should be recognition of the need for small windfall infill
sites to diversify the land supply
 Smaller sites typically do not require much infrastructure and can be
delivered in short time frames
 Supports development in Locations 1, 3 and 4
 Supports infill sites along Main Road, Broomfield such as Rembrandt
House – regular bus service and close to neighbourhood centres such
as Broomfield Hospital.
Mrs J Mallet
CFS108 – Land west of the Green Man and north of Highwood Road,
Edney Common
CFS109 – Land east of Four Gables and south of Ongar Road
Page 116
Mrs J Mallet
CFS110 – Land west of Red House, Cooksmill Green, Highwood
CFS111 – Land north of Hawkin Smiths Farmhouse, Wyses Road,
Highwood
 Modest growth of Small Settlements will help disperse development
and lessen the impact of large scale growth across fewer locations
 Growth should be spread across the whole district
 Promoted sites discounted but are well served by infrastructure and
public transport.
Green Belt
 Review of the Green Belt may release some modest areas of
development that are suitable and sustainable in close proximity to
existing Small Settlements
 Discounting growth within the Green Belt potentially creates dormant
and unsustainable villages.
Mr P Smith; Agent: Mr Paul Walker – Whirledge and Nott
CFS103 – Land east of The Willows, East Hanningfield Road, Rettendon
CFS107 – Land south east of the Yard, Old Bell Lane, Rettendon
 Modest development associated with existing Service and Small
Settlements will spread the impact of growth across the district
 Believe growth in these areas can sustain and enhance existing
services
 Promoted sites offer opportunity for modest growth of Rettendon and
support and enhance the sustainability of local businesses and
services.
Mr & Mrs J & S Nyari; Agent: Mr Paul Walker – Whirledge and Nott
CFS98 – Site south of Woodhouse Lane and east of North Court Road,
Little Waltham
 Support each of the Spatial Principles
 Promoted site is located close to Broomfield Hospital and adjacent to
site with planning permission for development
 The site is sustainable in terms of location, proximity to services and
employment area.
Mr Cottey; Agent: Mr Paul Walker – Whirledge and Nott
CFS95 – Wood Farm, Stock Road, Galleywood
CFS96 – Land south east of Glebe Farm, Stock Road, Galleywood
CFS97 – Land south of A12 and east of Stock Road, Galleywood
 Promoted sites offer opportunity to expand Chelmsford to the south in
Page 117
Mr Cottey; Agent: Mr Paul Walker – Whirledge and Nott
locations that are well serviced in close proximity to Key Service
Settlement of Galleywood and employment growth associated with the
A12 corridor and adjoining developments at Bakers Lane and Temple
Farm
 Development of promoted sites would enable tangible growth in close
proximity to the City, within well serviced location.
Green Belt
 Discounting growth within the Green Belt potentially creates dormant
and unsustainable villages
 Areas of Green Belt land lie to the south of Chelmsford but within the
A12 bypass.
Mr B Freeman; Agent: Mr Paul Walker – Whirledge and Nott
CFS93 – Land west of Back Lane and west of Playing Fields, east of
Ford End, Ford End
CFS215 – Land north east of Spread Eagle, Church Lane, Great Waltham
CFS216 – Land south of Church of England Primary School, Ford End
CFS217 – Land east of Home Pastures, Main Road, Ford End
 Support Option 3 – modest growth in Service Settlements will spread
growth and disperse impact across the district
 Support development in Ford End. It is located on a main road, has a
primary school and is served by public transport
 Growth offers opportunity to enhance and secure the existing services
and create a new Key Settlement at Ford End
 Promoted sites are suitable, deliverable and achievable within the Plan
period.
Van Diemans Property Company; Agent: Mr Andy Butcher – Strutt &
Parker LLP
CFS135 – Land north of The Old Coal Yard, Little Waltham
CFS149 – Land north east of Mole Cottage, London Road, Chelmsford
Green Wedges
 A review of the Green Wedges is supported and should be undertaken
through the Local Plan
 Not appropriate for policies from the extant Development Plan to be
simply carried forward into the new Local Plan without due
consideration
 Important that spatial principle “Protect the river valleys by defining
Green Wedges” is not interpreted as a blanket restriction to
development in Green Wedges, as with Green Belt policy.
Employment
 Proposed that smaller sites can come forward quicker to provide
employment floorspace
Page 118
Van Diemans Property Company; Agent: Mr Andy Butcher – Strutt &
Parker LLP
 Important that the Local Plan supports reasonable level of employment
development outside the Chelmsford Urban Area.
 Important that distribution is not narrowly focussed based on proposed
 This could result in suitable and sustainable opportunities being
overlooked.
 Support development to the north east of Chelmsford. It is well related
to the City Centre of Chelmsford with strong transport links and
successful Park & Ride scheme
 Promoted site is located close to the A130 and proposed NE Bypass
 Important that sufficient development is directed in areas of potential
Western Relief Road, NE Bypass and improvements to the A132 to
ensure such schemes are viable
 Important that the Plan is not overly reliant on sites that can only be
brought forward if large-scale road and transportation improvements
are delivered.
Eastern Approaches Investments Ltd; Agent: Mr Andy Butcher – Strutt &
Parker LLP
CFS137 – Land west of Farrow Road, Chelmsford
Green Wedges
 A review of the Green Wedges is supported and should be undertaken
through the Local Plan
 Not appropriate for policies from the extant Development Plan to be
simply carried forward into the new Local Plan without due
consideration
 Important that spatial principle “Protect the river valleys by defining
Green Wedges” is not interpreted as a blanket restriction to
development in Green Wedges, as with Green Belt policy.
Employment
 Proposed that smaller sites can come forward quicker to provide
employment floorspace
 Important that the Local Plan supports reasonable level of employment
development outside the Chelmsford Urban Area.
overlooked.
Page 119
Eastern Approaches Investments Ltd; Agent: Mr Andy Butcher – Strutt &
Parker LLP
 Sites within the Chelmsford Urban Area should be utilised to their full
potential
 Promoted site has good connections to the wider Essex area and
London through the A1016 and the A12
 Important that the plan is not overly reliant on sites that can only be
brought forward if large-scale road and transportation improvements
are delivered
 Delivery of increased employment floorspace at Widford Industrial
Estate is not dependent on significant infrastructure improvements.
Mr P McMillan; Agent – Mr Sam Hollingworth – Strutt & Parker LLP
CFS144 – Land east of St Marys Church, Church Road, Little Baddow
CFS145 – Land east of Plantation Road and west of Church Road,
Boreham
Housing Need
 Support uplift of OAN to 930 dpa – Local Plan is more likely to be
‘future proof’ and able to adapt to increased demand for housing
 OAN does not account for any unmet development needs of
neighbouring authorities
 There is unmet housing need in both Braintree and Tendring
 As Chelmsford is in the same HMA as Braintree and Tendring,
suggests there is scope to redirect this unmet need to Chelmsford
 Chelmsford plays an important regional and sub-regional role
 Issues and Options Document states there is no evidence
neighbouring authorities cannot meet their objectively assessed
housing needs – NPPF does not reference the ability of neighbouring
authorities to meet their need but whether such unmet need exists
 A number of neighbouring authorities lack up to date Plans
 Suggestion of using a different figure for the calculation of 5 year land
supply than planned for in the Local Plan is considered unusual.
Economy
 Housing development has intrinsic economic benefits to the local area
 Additional employment directly related to construction and the supply
chain
 Development results in increased local expenditure and considerable
additional Gross Value Added (GVA) to the local economy.
overlooked
 Especially true for Boreham – strong relationship with Chelmsford, the
proposed NE Bypass, strategic employment locations and new park
Page 120
Mr P McMillan; Agent – Mr Sam Hollingworth – Strutt & Parker LLP
and ride should be accounted for as the Local Plan is progressed
 Boreham should be placed higher within the Settlement Hierarchy
given the range of local facilities and amenities
 Positive impacts of directing growth to rural settlements, sustaining the
vitality of communities, should be recognised.
 Support development to the east of Boreham
 Boreham has a range of services and facilities which make it suitable
for development as well as being well located in relation to Chelmsford,
employment opportunities and proposed infrastructure improvements
 Development to the east of Boreham would enable the provision of a
Green Buffer to avoid coalescence with Chelmsford
 Important that sufficient development is directed in areas of potential
Western Relief Road, NE Bypass and improvements to the A132 to
ensure such schemes are viable – Such as Boreham in the case of the
NE Bypass
 Development should also be directed to smaller existing settlements
including Little Baddow
 Important that Local Plan is not reliant on large, strategic sites and the
vitality of rural communities is sustained or enhanced.
Mr Andrew Young; Agent: Ms Kate Jennings – Whirledge and Nott
CFS172 – Land south east of Southlands Cottages, Runwell Road,
Runwell
Green Belt
 To not consider any release of Green Belt within a new Local Plan on a
policy principle is not sound, unless that policy has been tested.
 Would also support Option 3
 Allocation of large greenfield sites cannot be relied on to deliver
housing throughout the period
 The delivery of smaller sites will ensure early supply of housing in the
Plan period
 Development has focussed on urban extensions for several decades
 It is considered that Key Service Settlements should now receive
housing allocation to take pressure of urban centre
 Supports Location 9 and wider development to the south of the
transport interchange at the Rettendon Turnpike/A132
 Allocation of promoted site could provide additional neighbourhood
services to support recent development at Runwell Hospital and
improved links to the railway station at Battlesbridge.
Page 121
Mrs Anne Chambers; Agent: Mr Trevor Hollinger – Aquila Developments
Ltd
CFS188 – Danecroft, Woodhill Road, Danbury
 The role played by Key Service Settlements is important in identifying
potential locations which can accommodate development
 Danbury is demonstrably a Key Service Settlement with a wide range
of existing facilities.
Spatial Principles
 Support each of the Spatial Principles
 A review of settlement boundaries at a local level in order to identify
development opportunities should be included as a Spatial Principle
 Important that non-Green Belt urban edge land is not treated as defacto Green Belt through failure to review settlement boundaries.
 Support development in Danbury
 Modest growth at key villages should be included in final strategy
 The Council should not unduly rely on strategic land releases.
Mr W Brinzer – Galleywood Equestrian Centre; Agent: Mr Paul Walker –
Whirledge and Nott
CFS191 – Land west of 129 Watchouse Road, Galleywood
 Growth at promoted location would sustain and enhance local services
and businesses and not infringe on smaller rural settlements and
disperse development from other larger scale options

Promoted site adjoins Key Settlement of Galleywood, close to existing
services and the City.
Green Belt
 Dismissing Green Belt sites fails to recognise there are sites
considered suitable, achievable and deliverable within Plan period.
Mrs S Plouvier; Agent: Mr Paul Walker – Whirledge and Nott
CFS206 – Land south east of Sandpit Cottage, Holybread Lane, Little
Baddow
 Urban focus with growth in Key Settlements and modest sustainable
growth in small villages
 Growth in smaller settlements can aid sustainability of local services
 Promoted site adjoins existing residential development and is located
within walking distance of public transport routes.
Page 122
Mr Alderton & Mrs Cullerton; Agent: Mr Paul Walker – Whirledge and
Nott
CFS207 – Land to the east of Bulls Lodge Farm, Generals Lane,
Boreham
 Supports Location 4
 Growth should be associated with existing and proposed infrastructure
 Promoted site is adjacent to existing development and will lie within the
A131 northern relief road once constructed.
Mr B W Green; Agent: Mr Paul Walker – Whirledge and Nott
CFS213 – Land north of the A12 east of Southend Road, Great Baddow
CFS214 – Land south of Ongar Road and west of Highwood Road,
Writtle
Green Belt
 Discounting growth in the Green Belt potentially creates dormant and
unsustainable villages.
 Support development in areas of Green Belt in areas to the west of
Writtle which are in close proximity to an existing Key Service
Settlement and help sustain existing services
 Promoted sites could be served by and assist with funding the
proposed Western Relief Road.
Mr E Caleno; Agent: Mr Paul Walker – Whirledge and Nott
CFS218 – Land north of Hilltop, Southend Road, Howe Green
Green Belt
 Green Belt sites should not be discounted out of hand
 Green Belt Review may provide some modest areas of development
without impacting on overarching Green Belt principles
 Promoted site lies between existing residential developments.
Richborough Estates; Agent: Mr Graeme Warriner – Turley
15SLAA45 – Land north of Mill Lane, east of Barley Mead and south of
Maldon Road, Danbury
Housing Need
 Support the use of the high OAN target given the previous under
delivery of housing in Chelmsford
 Support the inclusion of a 20% buffer
 Strategy based on 930 dpa is more consistent with earlier assessments
of housing need.
Page 123
Richborough Estates; Agent: Mr Graeme Warriner – Turley
Spatial Principles
 Support each of the proposed Spatial Principles.
 Believe this balances new development in the main settlements of
Chelmsford and SWF with some smaller developments in key larger
villages
 Options 1 and 2 place too much emphasis on a few sites
 Evidence of previous delivery problems on large strategic sites such as
Beaulieu Park
 Mixture of strategic allocations and smaller sites provides more robust
strategy, and an even housing delivery throughout Plan period
 Support protection of Green Belt and Green Wedges
 Support development in Danbury
 Due to environmental constraints, Danbury has grown in an elongated
manner with little development in the centre
 Village has number of services and facilities and good public transport
links
 Believe the promoted site is unconstrained and well located within
Danbury to provide the potential level of development identified
 Support discounting a large new settlement.
Knight Developments Ltd; Agent: Mr David Maher - ASP
CFS63 – Land east and west of Beehive Lane, Great Baddow
 Great Leighs and Rettendon Place not considered suitable for strategic
levels of growth due to their relatively remote location
 Other peripheral areas identified for development in Option 3
 Considered more suitable areas adjacent to existing boundary of
Chelmsford
 Believe promoted site represents good opportunity for potential urban
expansion
 Site offers good transport links to the A12, Galleywood and the City
Centre
 Close proximity to local services and facilities.
Green Belt
 Considered too early in the Local Plan process for development in the
Green Belt to be dismissed and renders the Plan unsound
 The Council should at least review the Green Belt and explore areas
that may not be fulfilling their original Green Belt purpose
 Unclear the purpose the promoted site serves as Green Belt location
 Original objective of the Green Belt was to prevent London merging
with towns such as Chelmsford not to prevent Chelmsford merging with
villages such as Galleywood and Writtle
Page 124
Knight Developments Ltd; Agent: Mr David Maher - ASP
 Considered promoted site would effectively constitute ‘infill’
development in view of being surrounded by urban form on three sides.
Mr & Mrs R Speakman; Agent: Mr Nick Harper - Hawkspur
CFS47 – Land a Junction of Woodhill Road and Hulls Lane, Sandon
CFS48 – Land east of Myjoy, Woodhill Road, Sandon
Proposed Settlement Hierarchy
 Sandon should be classified as a Service Settlement due to range of
services, facilities and education provision.
 Some development should take place in Service Settlements and
Small Settlements to ensure they remain as self-serving communities
 Support development in Sandon
 Local Plan policies should allow proportionate development in Service
Settlements and Small Settlements.
Green Belt
 Limited and proportionate development should be permitted in the
Green Belt, especially for affordable housing or Starter Homes.
Mr Nick Fairman – New Hall Properties (Eastern) Ltd.
Green Wedges
 Do not agree that “general extent of existing Green Wedges should be
maintained” – especially where any part of the existing Green Wedge
fails to fulfil the stated aims of Green Wedges.
Mr Michael Bladon; Agent: Mr Robert Pomery – Pomery Planning
Consultants
CFS91 – Land east of Drakes Farm, Drakes Lane, Little Waltham
Employment
 No recognition of the contribution the promoted site can make to
employment growth
 Expansion of employment site will compliment proposed housing
growth in Boreham.
 Supports some housing growth in Boreham
 Infrastructure identified fails to include any provision for localised
employment opportunities
 Promoted site is previously developed and adjacent to existing
industrial estate.
Page 125
Mr Jonathan Hart; Agent: Miss Rebecca Saunders – Andrew Martin Planning
CFS180 – Land Adjacent Newells, Slades Lane, Galleywood
 Using the term ‘Chelmsford’ does not give clear indication of the
geographical area being discussed.
Green Belt
 Object to the decision not to undertake a Green Belt Review
 May be certain Green Belt sites that do not perform well against the
five purposes of the Green Belt
 The Council should conduct a Green Belt Review to assist
neighbourhood plan preparation and as not to discourage
neighbourhood groups identifying small Green Belt locations for local
needs affordable housing
 Third Spatial Principle should be amended to “Protect the Green Belt,
unless exception policies apply”
 The Council should assess the sustainability of all Call for Sites
submissions – ensure that if housing delivery slipped, the Council were
aware of all sites that could come forward immediately.
Housing Need
 Support the calculation of the OAHN
 Support the 20% uplift to the OAHN
 Approach is considered bold but fully justified in relation to government
policy
 Provides flexibility in the event that any key housing sites fail to come
forward.
 Support Locations 1, 2 and 4
 These larger sites will have long lead-in times and smaller sites will be
required to maintain a 5-year housing land supply
 Promoted site is located close to education services and other services
and facilities
 Believe site is suitable as a 100% affordable housing site, in
accordance with Green Belt exception criteria, and promoted as a
‘Starter Home exception site’.
Mr Marriage; Agent: Mr Andrew Martin – Andrew Martin – Planning
Limited
Housing Need
 Support the methodology used in calculating the OAHN.
Gypsy and Travellers
 Further work is required to select suitable sites for Gypsy and Traveller
pitches.
Page 126
Mr Marriage; Agent: Mr Andrew Martin – Andrew Martin – Planning
Limited
Economy and Employment
 Jobs growth may be an underestimate if the local economy continues
to gather pace
 Historic job growth has been around 800, even in recession years
 887 should be treated as a minimum.
 There should be a ‘City’ category which contains Chelmsford and a
‘Town’ category which contains SWF.
Spatial Principles
 Support all the proposed Spatial Principles
 Brownfield should only be maximised where land is sustainable for
development
 Recommend additional Spatial Principle ‘Maximise the economic and
social benefits of sustainable new development to the City’.
 All three Options broadly supported – Option 1 is preferred
 Concentrates greatest amount of development around area with the
greatest range of service, facilities and access to public transport
 Will encourage non-car modes of transport and reduce carbon
emissions
 Believe proposed growth at Great Leighs and SWF should be reduced
and relocated to west Chelmsford and north east Chelmsford
 Enhanced concentration would assist infrastructure funding such as the
Western Relief Road
 Support development at west Chelmsford – Location 2
 Support protecting the Green Belt
 Support discounting a large new settlement.
Taylor Wimpey East London; Agent: Mr James Firth – Strutt & Parker
LLP
CFS264 – Chelmer Waterside Development
Spatial Principles
 Particularly support Spatial Principles 1 and 4
 Accords with national planning policy and ensure sites such as the
promoted site come forward.
 Particularly support Location 1
 Believe the Plan should not set maximum limits for development in this
area.
Page 127
Taylor Wimpey East London; Agent: Mr James Firth – Strutt & Parker
LLP
Infrastructure
 Achievement of improved highway access to Chelmer Waterside will
require close joint working from ECC and CCC and input from
developers
 Development of sites in the short term should not be delayed by the
pending outcome of long term infrastructure projects.
Mr Richard Marriage; Agent: Mr James Govier – The JTS Partnership
LLP
CFS181 – Land north and south of Brick Barns Farm, Broomfield
Vision
 Should look beyond the Plan period and look for opportunities to go
beyond meeting the housing need of existing and new communities
 The Council should anticipate an ever increasing demand for housing
and treat existing needs as a minimum.
Housing Need
 Support the 20% added to the OAN
 OAN should be treated as a minimum
 Support the 930 figure.
Infrastructure
 Consider Western Relief Road is essential
 Will improve access to area set for greatest amount of new housing
outside the urban centre
 Will ease congestion in central and fringe parts of Chelmsford.
 Focus development on areas adjacent or close to Chelmsford where
expansion has already occurred through NCAAP
 Support Location 2 – west Chelmsford
 Location has good access and links to central areas
 Support discounting the Green Belt
 New settlement should be considered beyond the Plan period.
King Edwards VI Grammar School Foundation; Agent: Mr Sam
Hollingworth – Strutt & Parker LLP
15SLAA47 – Sports Centre, Partridge Green, Broomfield
 Believe the definition of Chelmsford City should include Broomfield, as
per the definition of Chelmsford Urban Area
 If Broomfield is considered a separate settlement, support its
identification as a Key Service Settlement.
Page 128
King Edwards VI Grammar School Foundation; Agent: Mr Sam
Hollingworth – Strutt & Parker LLP
 Support Location 3 – north Chelmsford – Broomfield
 Area is well related to the City Centre and Broomfield Hospital
 Area is free from landscape, environmental and heritage constraints.
Mr C Philpot; Agent: Mr Andy Butcher – Strutt & Parker LLP
CFS152 – Land north of Ash Tree House, Boyton Cross, Roxwell
Housing Need
 Approach taken to calculate housing need is supported by Government
policy
 By uplifting the OAN, the Plan is more likely to be ‘future proof’
 Believe there is evidence of unmet housing need in neighbouring
authorities and suggest the Council give the issue further consideration
as the Plan is progressed
 As Chelmsford acts as a regional hub, it could be sustainable to locate
the wider area’s unmet need in Chelmsford
Economy
chain
 Believe the Local Plan should facilitate growth of rural settlements,
including those within the Green Belt
 Important the Council identifies smaller sites to ensure development
can be achieved early in the Plan period
 Believe promoted site would offer such a site.
Mr James Thomas – Hill; Agent: Mr William Nichols – Strutt & Parker
LLP
CFS116 – Land east of 1-15 Millfields, Danbury
Housing Need
 Concerned the Council has not requested evidence from neighbouring
authorities that they can meet their housing requirements
 If such evidence was provided it could alter the overall housing
projections and level of development required.
Infrastructure
 The deliverability of large scale development will be reliant on the
ability to provide school places
 Suitability of large-scale sites should take into account ECC’s ability to
Page 129
Mr James Thomas – Hill; Agent: Mr William Nichols – Strutt & Parker
LLP
deliver required level of provision.
 Proposed Settlement Hierarchy is supported
 Identification of Danbury as a Key Service Settlement is supported
 Facilities Report produced by the respondent identifies a range of
services and facilities within Danbury which support its classification as
a Key Service Settlement.
 Over-reliance on large sites such as those in Option 1 is likely to lead
to significant shortfall in delivery
 Support Location 11 – Danbury
 One of the larger settlements in the Council’s area and has good range
of shops, services, facilities and public transport connections
 Believe promoted site offers a sustainable location for development
within Danbury
 Support discounting large new settlement.
Scott Properties; Agent: Mr Richard Clews – Strutt & Parker LLP
15SLAA44 – Land Rear of 22 Downham Road, Ramsden Heath
Housing Need
 Support uplift of OAN to 930 dpa – Local Plan is more likely to be
‘future proof’ and able to adapt to increased demand for housing
 OAN does not account for any unmet development needs of
neighbouring authorities
 Believe there is unmet housing need in both Braintree and Tendring
 As Chelmsford is in the same HMA as Braintree and Tendring,
suggests there is scope to redirect this unmet need to Chelmsford
 Chelmsford plays an important regional and sub-regional role
Economy
chain
additional Gross Value Added (GVA) to the local economy
 Development within Ramsden Heath will help support rural amenities
and maintain the vitality of the community.
 Identification of Ramsden Heath as a Service Settlement is supported.
Page 130
Scott Properties; Agent: Mr Richard Clews – Strutt & Parker LLP
 Appropriate that a proportion of growth is directed to Ramsden Heath
 Important to sustain vitality of rural communities
 Believe promoted site is opportunity for logical expansion of Ramsden
Heath.
Green Belt
 Designation of promoted site as Green Belt does not contribute to the
purposes of the Green Belt
 Would not result in unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area, the
potential coalescence of neighbouring towns, project into open
countryside, or undermine the setting or character of the settlement
 Consider development of site an urban extension and an infill
development
 Allocation of site as Green Belt should be reviewed.
Waitrose; Agent: Mr Ian Anderson - CBRE
Employment
 Request that retail capacity forecasts and floorspace requirements are
tied to population projections and take account of any changes to
housing targets or allocation strategies
 Believe this will help ensure that retail space will be provided in the
right locations at the right times
 Support continued vitality of the City Centre
 Where retail floorspace is directed out of the City Centre, important it
forms part of a sustainable development for the benefit of new
communities
 Request further detail to ensure phasing of retail provision is in
accordance with delivery of residential development.
Hammonds Estates LLP; Agent: Mr Paul Rogers – Terence O’Rourke Ltd
CFS83 – Land east and west of the A12 and north and south of the A414,
Great Baddow and Sandon
Representation promoting a new garden village settlement on a site of around
470 hectares east of the A12/north of the A414 (CFS43).
Evidence Base
 The supporting evidence base is not robust or fully reflective of the
Plan period so could be procedurally flawed.
Facts and Figures
 Fails to recognise the strategic importance of the A12 corridor and the
planned improvements
 Should recognise the benefits of new rail infrastructure (e.g. new
station and Cross Rail) and Chelmsford’s role as a major transport hub
Page 131
 Should recognise the potential for further expansion of Park and Ride
east of junction 18 to address traffic congestion and intercept traffic
travelling towards Chelmsford from Maldon.
Vision
 Broadly support the Vision drivers and themes but it should be more
strategic and consider growth options that extend beyond 2036
 Uncertain if the ‘proposed’ new road infrastructure will be delivered
(e.g. Western Relief Road and A132 improvements) making the Spatial
Options unsustainable and a high-risk strategy
 A new garden village (settlement) at Hammonds Farm accords with the
Vision drivers and themes.
Objectively Assessed Housing Need, Housing Number (930 dpa) and
Housing Market Area (see submitted report on Chelmsford’s OAN)
 Consider further if OAN needs increasing given e.g. to accommodate
London’s future housing needs and high potential jobs growth over the
Plan period
 930 homes pa may need to increase following the assessment of
affordable housing need and extra demand linked to jobs growth
 Unclear what period the Plan is planning for.
Jobs Requirement (887 pa) and Employment
 Other forecasts, past trends and information indicate jobs growth in
Chelmsford could be higher than proposed. Need to examine this issue
further as part of the evidence base
 Plan should recognise opportunities to co-locate housing and
employment around commuter hubs.
 Include an additional objective at 5.47 that seeks to locate major new
development which maximises use of existing and planned road and
rail transport infrastructure and investment
 A new settlement at Hammonds Farm would help meet the overarching
strategic zonal focuses.
Infrastructure
 Key infrastructure required to support growth in west Chelmsford is not
in place
 It is easier to secure key infrastructure by focusing major growth in a
limited number of areas.
 Locate the majority of housing and employment growth within or in
close proximity to the primary services centres of Chelmsford City or
SWF
 Hammonds Farm could create a distinctive new Key Service
Settlement.
Page 132
Spatial Principles
 Broadly support although some have not been correctly applied e.g.
Hammonds Farm is rejected but is in a well-connected sustainable
location and growth is promoted in location 5 although this is a Green
Wedge.
Spatial Options, Locations for Growth and Alternatives
 Do not support any Option. All are too narrow, too similar and it is
questionable whether the scale of growth proposed at some locations
would be deliverable, sustainable and capable of providing necessary
infrastructure e.g. Broomfield, north east Chelmsford, Great Leighs
 Unclear why the A132 is identified as a key transport corridor
 Opportunities for growth in smaller settlements is likely to be limited
 Focus growth in the A130/131 and A12 corridors. Significant
investment is planned in this area e.g. future A12 widening and NE
Bypass
 Propose a hybrid to Option 2 which focuses growth in Chelmsford
Urban Area, along key transport corridors and in a new settlement at
Hammonds Farm
 Hammonds Farm is preferable to other locations as it is more suitable,
justified and reasonable and reflects the Government’s strong
encouragement for new settlements
 Plan is inconsistent e.g. by rejecting Hammonds Farm as some
delivery will be after 2036 (but accepting this in east Chelmsford) and
on grounds of landscape impacts (whilst promoting growth in areas of
high sensitivities e.g. east Chelmsford and north of SWF).
Western Relief Road
 This is aspirational, appears to offer little value and its delivery is
unproven so growth to the north and west of Chelmsford should be
significantly reduced
 Focus growth instead within established transport corridors e.g. A12.
A132 Improvements
 No evidence to demonstrate that these improvements are feasible or
can be delivered.
 No exceptional circumstances exist to justify Green Belt releases.
Sufficient suitable land for development exists elsewhere.
 Implicit in the NPPF that a new settlement option should be explored
and consulted on as part of a robust Local Plan process
 There is strengthening Government’s encouragement for new
settlements
 Exclusion of a new settlement option is not adequately justified so the
Issues and Options Plan potentially flawed
Page 133
 Plan should be more strategic and think beyond the 15 years Plan
period
 Hammonds Farm could deliver a new highly sustainable garden village
and 3,000 homes by 2036 and should be included within the emerging
Plan. Concerns raised about the proposal in the Plan e.g. flood risk and
landscape impact are not justified
 New settlements do not need to contain 10,000 homes or be entirely
self-supporting as suggested within the Plan
 The assumptions made regarding long lead-in times for allocations
over 3,000 homes are not substantiated or evidenced
 Maintaining a rolling five-year land supply should not drive the longterm planning strategy for the Plan.
Threadneedle, Hanson, CZ; Agent: Mr Matthew Johnson – Dominic
Lawson Bespoke Planning Ltd
CFS139 – Boreham Airfield, Waltham Road, Boreham
Representation promoting residential-led development in north east
Chelmsford (CFS139).
Facts and Figures
 Unclear as to the specific geographical areas being referred to
throughout the Plan
 Consider providing a of SWOT analysis of the district.
Vision
 The Vision drivers and themes are appropriate
 Amend to refer to meeting housing needs of existing and future
communities and existing and potential new employers.
Objectively Assessed Housing Need and Housing Number
 Definition of the HMA and the methodology to calculate the OAHN is
sound
 Testing 930 dpa and a 20% uplift is justified and will ensure the Plan
does not under provide and is flexible.
Employment and Jobs
 887 jobs pa is sound but should be treated as a minimum, capable of
upward adjustments if the local economy grows beyond expected
forecasts
 Improved strategic infrastructure (e.g. new station) could result in
greater demand than 50,000sqm for new office space. This figure
should be a minimum
 The Plan should not inhibit the supply of jobs or employment space.
 This is logical but to avoid confusion have separate categories for City
and Town.
Page 134
Threadneedle, Hanson, CZ; Agent: Mr Matthew Johnson – Dominic
Lawson Bespoke Planning Ltd
Spatial Principles
 Broadly support
 Consider instead ‘Maximise the use of sustainable brownfield land for
development’ as not all brownfield sites will be suitable.
Spatial Options and Locations for Growth
 These are reasonable and comprehensive
 Option 1 is the most sustainable and appropriate. It performs the best
in the Sustainability Appraisal and should become the Preferred Option
 Strongly support north east Chelmsford (Location 4). It has capacity to
accommodate more homes than suggested in the Plan.
Western Relief Road
 This could provide significant traffic relief and a new Hospital access.
 No exceptional circumstances exist to justify Green Belt releases.
Sufficient sustainable land for development exists elsewhere.
 Our proposal could allow housing development on Boreham Airfield
first by re-phasing the minerals extraction.
Bloor Homes Eastern: Agent: Mr Steven Kosky – Barton Willmore
15SLAA1, CFS79, CFS185
Representation promoting residential-led 28ha site for 700-750 dwellings to
the west of B1008 (Blasford Hill) and north of Broomfield Hospital.
 Broomfield has a wide range of services and facilities
 Support for identification as Key Service Settlement.
Spatial Principles
 General support for Principles
 More emphasis is needed on meeting development needs for
consistency with NPPF
 Additional Spatial Principle: Minimise the amount of new development
located within the defined Mineral Safeguarding Areas
 The Plan period should run from the proposed date of adoption rather
than 2021.
Spatial Option 1
 No objection to Option 1 in principle, although strategic infrastructure
requirements could hinder delivery and be at conflict with emerging
guidance within the NPPF to ensure a broad spatial mix when
allocating development
Page 135
 The delivery of development in north east Chelmsford will be restricted
by the need to extract minerals and the market need for sand and
gravel
 Development in north east Chelmsford could conflict with Spatial
Principle to ensure it is deliverable and can be built within Plan period
 Location 3 (north Chelmsford – Broomfield) supported
 No objection to 1,500 new homes at Location 3 provided it is
undertaken in a phased manner to align with infrastructure provision
 Two tranches of 750 homes is recommended for Location 3 as a
whole.
Spatial Option 2
 Option 2 is supported in principle.
 Strength of Option 2 being a more dispersed approach which allows
flexibility in delivery, with the exception of Location 4 with mineral
issues (north east Chelmsford)
 Question as to whether two primary schools required for lower number
of dwellings in Option 2
 Obligations for infrastructure should be phased and not unduly front
loaded.
Spatial Option 3
 Option 3 is supported in principle which allows flexibility in delivery,
with the exception of Location 4 with mineral issues (north east
Chelmsford).
 Development growth in key village can be justified on grounds of
sustainability provided the growth is not disproportionate
 Object to unnecessarily limiting Location 3 to 750 new homes
 Disproportionate growth at Boreham of 800 new homes (Location 10)
 Uplift growth to 1,250 new homes in Option 3
 Promoted site is deliverable, outside Minerals Safeguarding Area,
sustainable and close to Chelmsford’s largest employer (Broomfield
Hospital)
 Proposed new supporting infrastructure would further enhance
sustainability of site including a GP surgery
 Location 3 (north Chelmsford – Broomfield) accords with Spatial
Principles.
Highway Capacity Improvements
 Supportive of Western Relief Road provided pragmatic approach is
taken that does not delay delivery of development sites.
Green Belt
 Support that development growth in the Green Belt is unnecessary,
unjustified and therefore unreasonable at this time.
 New settlements over 3,000 new homes will not be delivered within the
Page 136
Plan period
 Support the Council’s view that new settlements are not justified or
suitable at this time where there are less constrained more deliverable
options
 A new settlement at Bulls Lodge Quarry (Boreham Airfield) is
constrained by mineral extraction
 Hammonds Farm site has issues of landscape character, flood risk,
conservation and is likely to require a new A12 junction and less than
half the 5,000 units will be able to be delivered within the Plan period.
Cliffords Ltd; Agent: Mr Andy Butcher – Strutt & Parker LLP
CFS122 – Land north west of Wheelers Hill Roundabout, Wheelers Hill,
Little Waltham
CFS123 – Land south east of Little Belsteads, Back Lane, Little Waltham
CFS124 – Land opposite Mid Essex Gravel Pits Ltd
CFS125 – Land north of Cranham Road, Little Waltham
CFS138 – Land east of Hallfield House, Back Lane, Little Waltham
CFS146 – Land east of Bowen House, Wheelers Hill, Little Waltham
CFS212 – Land adjacent to Campion Farm, Saxon Way, Broomfield
Green Wedges
 Support a review. This should consider opportunities for sustainable
development sites within existing Green Wedges
 The current boundaries could prohibit sustainable development around
Little Waltham.
Housing Number
 Support higher figure tested (930 dpa) which will provide flexibility
 Consider if Chelmsford should and could met the evidenced unmet
housing needs in neighbouring areas including Braintree and
Tendring.
Employment and Jobs
 Plan should acknowledge the contribution that housing development
makes to the local economy e.g. construction jobs
 Need to provide small scale employment sites and for employment
development outside Chelmsford Urban Area.
Locations for Growth
 Support north east Chelmsford (Location 4) which has good transport
links, is well-related to the City Centre and will benefit from the NE
Bypass. This location would be complemented by a rural business park
at CFS125
 Support Little Waltham (Location 15) which is well-related to existing
and proposed services and employment
 Support the creation of a new neighbourhood at Location 3 – well
placed in relation to Broomfield Hospital and potential Western Relief
Road.
Page 137
Cliffords Ltd; Agent: Mr Andy Butcher – Strutt & Parker LLP
 Plan should not be overly reliant on sites requiring new large-scale
transport improvements which may be delayed/not be delivered.
Persimmon Homes – Ms Anna Davies
CFS183 – Land north of Newlands Spring and south west of Broomfield
Village, Chignall and Broomfield
Representation promotes site for 1,500 new homes.
Housing Growth
 The 930 dpa figure should be used from 2015 and any backlog dealt
with by the emerging Local Plan
 Existing LDF allocated sites that have not been developed should be
maintained in the new Local Plan unless there is compelling evidence
to do otherwise.
Housing Market Area
 The geographic location of Chelmsford means there are important
interactions with Epping, Brentwood and Basildon not just Braintree,
Colchester and Tendring



The wider housing need from London has not been fully assessed and
the role Chelmsford has in meeting London’s unmet need
Chelmsford is well placed geographically and functionally to help meet
London’s shortfall
The impacts of the Duty to Co-operate need to be more fully
considered.
 Chelmsford has a number of suitable growth areas outside the Green
Belt
 Green Wedges should have defensible boundaries: roads, rivers,
infrastructure, landmarks
 A Green Wedge between Broomfield and Chelmsford, not identified in
the NCAAP, needs to be justified
 Sites need to be deliverable to ensure that 5 year land supply is
maintained through the Plan period.
 Proposed approach appropriate.
Brownfield Sites
 Brownfield sites can be constrained due to viability issues, there should
not be a general presumption that brownfield sites must come ahead of
greenfield sites.
Greenfield Sites
 Support for larger strategic greenfield sites which supports reliable
Page 138
Persimmon Homes – Ms Anna Davies
housing delivery.
Growth Options
 Option 1 is overly reliant on large strategic sites between 1,500 and
3,000 new homes. Smaller sites should be allocated to ensure delivery
in the first five years
 Development in Great Leighs is not urban focused so does not belong
to Option 1 at the scale of development proposed as it is not a
sustainable location
 Option 2 - Locations 2 and 4 reliant on the delivery of road
infrastructure which need to be demonstrated that it can be delivered in
the Plan period
 Option 3 does not provide for the most sustainable growth in the area
 The deliverability of the Western Relief Road is questioned and is not
currently supported by an evidence base and has not been been the
subject of consultation
 Broomfield Community Landscape Character Assessment identifies
land to the west of Broomfield to be most valued (1st out of 9 areas)
and land to the north of Chelmsford of less value (7th out of 9 areas)
 Land north of Essex Avenue and east of Patching Hall Lane should be
a location for development growth as it represents a sustainable and
deliverable option.
W & H Marriage & Sons Limited; Agent: Mr Matthew Driscoll – The JTS
Partnership LLP
CFS44 – Land north of Cranham Road, Little Waltham
Land promoted as extension to Drakes Lane employment area for new mill
Vision
 The Vision is supported.
 Council should give greater weight to the economic benefits of
development in any decision making
 More focus should be made on supporting economic growth in rural
areas to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to
new development.
Environment
 Suggest a more local level landscape study to inform the next stage of
the Plan
 The Council should adopt a positive approach towards new buildings in
the countryside that promote the development and diversification of
agriculture and other appropriate land-based rural businesses.
Location for Development
Page 139
W & H Marriage & Sons Limited; Agent: Mr Matthew Driscoll – The JTS
Partnership LLP
 Policy must recognise sites which are sustainable in the context of
Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, such as the re-use of previously developed
land, lack of other harmful impacts, its particular location; together with
the site being well related to traffic distribution and the primary road
network
 Site promoted for new mill and is the most suitable of all sites reviewed
 The site is open countryside, subject to restraint policies
 Believe the Council should recognise the need for Marriage Mills to
develop a new facility which is close to both transport links and the
agricultural processes linked to the business, even if this means
developing in the countryside
 Request that the land is identified as an employment area and
extension to existing Drakes Lane employment area.
Policies
 Mill use type not within current Plan
 Is considered part of the agricultural process and should be treated as
a land-based rural business
 Access to the road network for importing and exporting products and
location of agricultural holdings and grain stores essential in identifying
location for new mill.
Chelmsford Land Ltd; Agent: Mr Andy Butcher – Strutt & Parker LLP
CFS94 – Land south east of Little Waltham, east and west of Essex
Regiment Way, Little Waltham and Broomfield
Representation promotes strategic development on the existing Channels site
and land to the north comprising 100,000 sqm Medtech Innovation and
Business hub, residential and supporting retail, hotel and leisure uses.
Vision
 Chelmsford Local Plan should support the delivery of the Medtech
proposals which will be a flagship project for the City
 A sustainable new neighbourhood in this location would support the
Council’s Vision
 Vision supported but needs specific reference to supporting growth of
new sectors linked to the growth of the University, such as medical
technologies and supporting high value employments sectors
Housing Number
 The Council’s approach of exceeding the OAN using 930 dpa is
supported by Government policy
 The issue of unmet housing need in adjoining Local authorities should
be considered in the context of Chelmsford’s important sub-regional
role.
Page 140
Chelmsford Land Ltd; Agent: Mr Andy Butcher – Strutt & Parker LLP
 Due to the range of services and facilities Chelmsford City should be at
the top of the Settlement Hierarchy with SWF placed below
 The Local Plan Glossary describes Broomfield as falling within
Chelmsford Urban Area, however, Broomfield is identified as a distinct
Key Service Settlement.
Spatial Principles
 Spatial Principles supported.
Spatial Options
 Support for identification of large amount of greenfield development at
Location 4 (north east Chelmsford) providing critical mass to help
deliver necessary infrastructure
 Development at Location 4 (north east Chelmsford) represents a
logical extension connected to the existing planned development in
north east Chelmsford
 Development at Location 4 (north east Chelmsford) has the ability to
provide a new northern Gateway for Chelmsford with a new residential
neighbourhood linked to a high-tech business park including the
MedTech Campus
 It is considered that Location 4 will perform well against the
Sustainability Objectives
 Phasing of sites should be expressed as an estimation and if a site can
come forward earlier the Local Plan should not impose unnecessary
restrictions.
Road and Transportation Improvements
 Considered that Phase 1 of the MedTech Campus project can be
delivered without the need for significant highway capacity
improvements
 The wider development of Location 4 (north east Chelmsford) will need
wider highway improvement potentially including the NE Bypass
 Representation accompanied by Brief Position Statement technical
note on transportation issues at Location 4 (north east Chelmsford).
Mr James Woodrough
15SLAA17 – Land east of Mill Lane, Great Leighs
Representation promoting residential-led 0.25ha site for up to 8 dwellings to
the east of Mill Lane, Great Leighs.
Housing Need
 Disagrees with the figures of 657, 775 or 930 as a housing requirement
pa
 Based on the 2014 SHMA, it is suggested that there is no huge
demand for the housing numbers put forward as there are not
hundreds of homeless people in Chelmsford, there would be no homes
for sale in Chelmsford if there was such a high demand, the net
Page 141
Mr James Woodrough
increase of migration into Chelmsford is not as high as the figures put
forward, the figures are higher than the shortfall set out in the 2013
SHMA, and there are high levels of under-occupation in Chelmsford.
Environment
 By developing in the countryside the plan is not seeking to protect the
environment
 The Green Belt is to be protected but some areas of it have less
environmental value than other areas of countryside to the north
 To protect the environment more homes should be built in higher
density within the City, where the infrastructure is.
Options
 Option 1 is favoured. The focus should be high rise and high density on
brownfield sites in the main urban areas
 If further development is needed such as in areas like Great Leighs the
necessary infrastructure (roads, rail, schools, community facilities etc)
should be put in place before houses are built
 The NE Bypass would be good but there is concern its capacity would
be out dated very quickly
 Better bus links from Great Leighs would be needed, and direct rail
services from Braintree to Chelmsford are needed
 The new rail station at Boreham will only add to capacity issues on the
rail network and a further track is needed to be put in place to increase
capacity on this line.
Green Belt
 Development in the Green Belt should not be ruled out and the national
approach to this needs to be reconsidered
 South of Chelmsford should be the focus for rural development if it is
necessary
 The southern half of the Chelmsford area has better transport links and
is closer to London.
Transport
 Previous transport policies have failed Chelmsford. Roads are over
capacity, in rural and central Chelmsford
 The A131 from Great Leighs is at a standstill at peak times and journey
times are twice what they are non-peak. The addition of a park and ride
has made matters worse by adding further traffic to the roundabouts. A
further roundabout along this route from the current north Chelmsford
developments will make this issue worse and is not a solution to the
traffic issues in this area
 More trains on the route to London are required as a new station will
only add to the number of people wishing to use the trains. Additional
tracks along this line should be added. Four track should be in place
 Light rail systems in and around Chelmsford, direct to Stanstead and
Braintree is required
Page 142
Mr James Woodrough
 More buses are required
 No more Park and Ride sites should be considered.
Messrs Speakman; Agent: Kate Jennings – Whirledge and Nott
CFS102 – Land at Garage Block and west of 5 to 11 Cards Road, Sandon
Representation promoting residential-led 9.44ha site for up to 50 dwellings to
the west of Hall Lane, Sandon.
Housing Need
 Support the figure of 930 dpa used for testing (14,000 homes over the
Plan period).
Options
 In order to accommodate the variety and quantity of homes required to
meet the local need in Chelmsford, a mix of all 3 Spatial Options will be
required, thereby distributing the development growth in the Urban
Area, in key transport corridors as well as the villages.
Locations
 Support development adjacent to Sandon village which would be well
located on the edge of Chelmsford with easy access to the Park and
Ride.
Hopkins Homes; Agent: Sam Hollingworth – Strutt & Parker LLP
CFS208 – Land at Manor Farm, Sandford Mill Lane, Great Baddow
Representation promoting residential-led 90ha site for 500-600 dwellings and
a 60ha country park to the north of A1114, Great Baddow.
Vision
 In reviewing the Green Wedge boundaries, regard should be had to
landscape and function of existing allocations. In addition, opportunities
to enhance the purposes of including land in the Green Wedge should
be given due consideration.
Housing Need
 The figure of 930 dpa used for testing purposes reflects the
requirements of the NPPF to significantly boost the supply of housing
 Need to consider whether there are unmet development needs in
neighbouring areas; and if so, whether it would be reasonable and
consistent with achieving sustainable development for Chelmsford to
seek to meet a proportion of this unmet need. It is suggested that
Braintree and Tendring (which share a HMA with Chelmsford) have
unmet need which could be met by Chelmsford
 The suggestion below paragraph 5.16 of the Plan that a different figure
be used for the calculation of 5 year land supply than that planned for
in the Local Plan is considered an unusual approach. We suggest that
Page 143
the performance of the plan should be monitored against the objectives
of the plan, including the housing target established in the plan (930).
Locations
 Location 5 is supported. This location is considered to contribute to a
sustainable pattern of development regardless of which Option is
chosen. It is not in the Green Belt and would not result in the loss of
high grade agricultural land
 Development into the Green Wedge at Location 5 is not considered to
undermine the purposes of the Green Wedge, but would enhance it
through the introduction of a country park
 Location 5 offers good public transport links
 The 2013 SHMA shows Location 5 within the ‘Urban South’ where
there is the greatest demand for market and affordable housing.
Development in this location would assist in housing delivery in this
sub-area
 Development in location 5 would provide improved access to Sandford
Mill
 The timeframes set out for development in the locations should be a
guide and not policy constrained to that timeframe
 Development in Location 5 could come forward without the need for
major new infrastructure.
Potential Western Relief Road and A132 improvements
 It is important that the Plan is flexible enough so not to be constrained
by necessary pieces of infrastructure in case there are delays in them
coming forward.
Spatial Principles
 The creation of a country park in the Green Wedge at Location 5 would
enhance the current objectives of the Green Wedges by allowing better
public access and protecting the land as a park for future years
 Allowing a blanket ban of development in the Green Wedges would not
be appropriate as it may undermine efforts to deliver a sustainable
pattern of development as the Green Wedges are all in centrally
located areas
 To preclude any consideration of development in the Green Wedges at
this early stage of the Plan would be inappropriate.
 Chelmsford City should be placed above SWF in the hierarchy as it
offers a much wider range of services and opportunities
 Chelmsford Urban Area is defined within the Local Plan Glossary as
“The main built up part of Chelmsford, including the areas of Great
Baddow, Springfield, Broomfield”. The settlement hierarchy should
refer to Chelmsford Urban Area, or make clear that the definition of
Chelmsford City and Chelmsford Urban Area are one and the same
 In addition to the Settlement Hierarchy guiding where development
Page 144
should go the, 2013 SHMA housing areas and the needs they show
should also be considered as a factor to direct growth.
Other Matters
 The Plan should acknowledge the significant contribution residential
development will make to the local economy. Additional residential
development results in additional local expenditure and a considerable
Redrow Homes; Agent: Chris Collett – Barton Willmore
CFS99 – Land south of A414 and north of Sandon Village, Maldon Road,
Sandon
CFS100 – Land north and south of Sandon School, Molrams Lane,
Sandon
CFS101 – Land north west of Park and Ride Terminus, Woodhill Road,
Sandon
Representation promoting residential-led 90ha site for up to 700-800
dwellings, business uses and the potential extension of Sandon Park and
Ride on land to the east of Great Baddow.
Vision
 Agree with the Vision and consider that the site promoted reflects the
themes of the Vision.
Housing Need
 Support the addition of a 20% buffer to the OAN
 The OAN should be based on the jobs led scenario of 870 as set out in
the EPOA report, with the 20% buffer being added onto this figure,
resulting in an OAN of 1,044.
Spatial Principles
 Support the Spatial Principles set out in the consultation document and
consider the site promoted fulfils many of these Principles.
Options
 Location 5 should also be included in Option 1 as it is a sustainable
location adjacent to Chelmsford
 Options 1 and 2 are the most sustainable Options providing an urban
focus for development near to sustainable forms of transport
 Option 3 would spread the new development too sparsely over the
district to provide sustainable centres of growth and the critical mass to
help develop existing and proposed public transport, services and
community facilities.
Locations
 The capacity of Location 5 should be more than set out in the Plan as
the site promoted has capacity for 700-800 homes
Page 145
Redrow Homes; Agent: Chris Collett – Barton Willmore
 Development at Location 5 is strongly supported.
Other Matters
 The DCLG consultation on proposed changes to national planning
policy (December 2015) proposes a change to national planning policy
that would expect LPAs (in both plan-making and in taking planning
decisions) to require higher density development around commuter
hubs wherever feasible. A commuter hub is defined as a public
transport interchange where people can board or alight to continue
their journey by public transport, including buses.
Brett Group; Agent: Mr Richard Harman – BDB Design
15SLAA19 – Land north of St Swithins Cottages, Howe Green
Representation promoting employment-led 19ha site for B1, B2 and B8 uses
on land at Sandon Quarry.
Options
 Option 3 does not rely as heavily on development at Chelmsford,
particularly at north east Chelmsford where there are major road
infrastructure requirements and other constraints to development
 The more dispersed growth pattern of Option 3 will reduce reliance on
development coming forward in the City of Chelmsford and SWF
 It would also benefit the villages, helping to maintain existing facilities
and support new ones
 Option 3 is the only Option that gives any recognition to the potential of
the A12 transport corridor.
Locations
 Location 8 (Howe Green) is supported as this would bring enhanced
public facilities to the area and has good transport links.
Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land; Agent: Mr Duncan Bennett – RPS
15SLAA30 – Land south of 89-149 Galleywood Road, Great Baddow
Representation promoting residential-led 8ha site for up to 200 dwellings on
land south of 89-149 Galleywood Road, Great Baddow.
Facts and Figures
 More information regarding in-migration from London is required as it is
highlighted as being very high in the 2013 SHMA and is likely to
increase due to increasing house prices
 Information about the fact that the capacity of schools in the Green Belt
is low is missing.
Vision
 It is not clear that the fundamental requirement of the LPA and its Local
Page 146
Plan is to meet its OAHN. The first bullet point should be revised to
‘Ensure the housing needs of the City as identified through objectively
assessed housing need are fully met’ and a further bullet point
‘Providing job opportunities for all sectors of the community’ added
 The ‘need to ensure that the right type of development is in the right
place’ is too vague. This need should be revised to ‘ensure
development is planned in accordance with sustainable development
principles’. The fourth bullet point should be revised to ‘Ensure
development is planned in accordance with sustainable development
principles’


The Vision is flawed as it does not contain growth within the Green
Belt. The Green Belt should be reviewed in line with national guidance
The development strategy of the Local Plan should include measures
to ensure that all community facilities, including schools and GPs, are
efficiently used in order to reduce capital costs and to safeguard their
future viability.
Housing Need
 The 2015 OAHN Study recommendation follows the Office for National
Statics Sub-National Population projections (SNPP) 2012 and GLA
Central scenario migration projections of circa 630 persons, when the
Council’s own evidence (2013 SHMA for Chelmsford at Figure 3-3
(page 31), illustrates that ONS Migration Data for 2011 indicates a net
in-migration of 680 to Chelmsford for the year ending June 2011)
shows a higher level of inward migration in 2011
 The OAN should be increased to take into account past levels of inmigration from Greater London and the likelihood of increased levels of
in-migration in the future. The 20% buffer should then be applied to this
increased target to determine the Local Plan Testing Number
 In light of the above, the housing number of 930 dpa does not take into
account a justified OAHN.
Transport
 The development options in the Issues and Options Consultation
Document do not follow a sustainable pattern of development as the
strategy designates development in locations which necessitates
increased journey times to work and recreational opportunities, and
requires the provision of significant additional infrastructure in order to
minimise adverse transportation impacts.
Environment/Infrastructure
 The Green Belt should be reviewed. The need to efficiently utilise
existing facilities, and safeguard and support the enhancement of
facilities in local communities, together with the need to meet local
housing needs within these communities is considered to represent the
exceptional circumstances necessary to justify a redefinition of the
Green Belt boundary in these locations. The following additional
Page 147
sentence should be added at the end of paragraph 5.56 ‘In certain
instances, the release of Green Belt land for development through the
Local Plan Process in order to meet local housing needs and to
support and safeguard local facilities represents such exceptional
circumstances’.
 Runwell should not be a Key Service Settlement as it does not contain
the range of facilities such a designation suggests is available. It has
no post office or GP surgery. It does not contain a public house and
only has three active retail uses within the settlement. Its location
adjoining Wickford means that these facilities are available within a
short travel distance but Runwell cannot be recognised as a Key
Service settlement in its own right
 Question the classification of the Green Belt settlements of
Margaretting, Ramsden Heath, Rettendon and West Hanningfield as
Service Settlements. They have limited local facilities and services and
do not feature a post office. Without enabling these settlements to
grow, their role in providing services to the local population will
continue to diminish.
Spatial Principles
 These do not fully accord with the NPPF
 They should include ‘Fully meet the Council’s Identified Housing Need
within the Plan period’
 Protecting the Green Belt should be removed and replaced with
‘Redefine Green Belt boundaries only in exceptional circumstances in
order to promote sustainable patterns of development’ in accordance
with paragraphs 83 and 84 of the NPPF
 ‘Enabling development that will support local facilities and services and
stimulate and support their enhancement’ should be added.
Options
 All three development growth Options ignore the need to support
growth within existing settlements in and adjoining the Green Belt in
order to provide for local housing need and ensure the viability of local
infrastructure. This is not considered to represent a sustainable pattern
of development and is contrary to the NPPF
 All three development growth Options should include proposals for
limited redefinition of the Green Belt boundaries at settlements within
and adjoining the Green Belt in order to provide for local housing need
and ensure the viability of local infrastructure. This would promote a
sustainable pattern of development across the City area in conformity
with the NPPF
 Question the strategy of providing large numbers of dwellings in few
locations which rely on large pieces of infrastructure coming forward. If
there are delays in the infrastructure delivery of the dwellings would
also be delayed and threaten a five year supply of housing
Page 148
 An alternative development option that includes limited southward
expansion of the Chelmsford Urban Area in sustainable locations within
the southern area of the City should be considered.
Western Relief Road
 The Western Relief Road appears to be put forward on the basis of a
justification for further development to the north of the City. Promoting
development in this location exacerbates traffic problems in this area of
the city and generates additional need for the Relief Road.
 Development would be better located to the south of the City were
existing strategic road links already exist which can accommodate the
additional traffic generated.
Green Belt
 Opposed to this approach as it fails to recognise the policy approach
advocated in the NPPF of promoting sustainable patterns of
development set out in paragraph 83 to 85
 The policy approach in the NPPF does not indicate that Green Belt
boundaries should not be revised in any circumstances. It allows for
them to be redefined in exceptional circumstances in order to take
account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. It
also indicates that in redefining boundaries local authorities should not
include land which is unnecessary to keep permanently open
 The review of the Metropolitan Green Belt by Lord Kerslake for the
London Housing Commission suggests a growing recognition that
Metropolitan Green Belt land will be required to meet London’s housing
growth and that a review of its boundaries is justified.
 Agree that there is concern over the delivery rate of a large new
settlement but concern that this is the same issue for some of the
Options which contain large areas of development in few locations.
Mrs Kate Bowling/D Chennells Ltd; Agent: Kate Jennings – Whirledge
and Nott
CFS131 – Land north and south of East Hanningfield Road, south and
east of Howe Green, Sandon
Representation promoting residential-led 68ha site on lane south east of
Howe Green.
Options
 Large scale strategic urban extensions can deliver significant housing
numbers and provision of infrastructure but these sites are often
delayed
 The allocation of large scale greenfield sites is not an approach that
can be relied on to deliver the housing allocation throughout the period.
The allocation of more modest sites for greenfield development across
Page 149
Mrs Kate Bowling/D Chennells Ltd; Agent: Kate Jennings – Whirledge
and Nott
the district is essential to ensure that the proposed housing delivery of
(930 dpa) can be met
 The delivery of smaller sites in sustainable locations can ensure an
early supply of housing in the Plan period which is needed due to the
slow deliverability of housing over the last Plan period
 By adding development to existing settlements the Council is providing
long term support for existing services and enabling the provision of
additional infrastructure to support them
 Option 3 is preferred ahead of continued urban extensions to the City.
Development has focused on urban extensions for several decades
and it is considered that the villages should now receive housing
allocations to take the pressure off the Urban Centre and its already
congested transport links.
Locations
 Supportive of Location 8. Howe Green is an existing centre which
benefits from excellent transport links which provide swift access into
Chelmsford and onto the A12 and A130.
Mr Paul Green; Agent: Robert Pomery – Pomery Planning Consultants
CFS90 – Land at 87 Main Road, Great Leighs
 Support all three Options as each involve significant development at
Great Leighs
 Support development at Locations 1 and 7
 Believe that expansion of Great Leighs should be in an organic way
 Promoted site has good links to transport, services and facilities.
Mr Peter Dutton – Gladman Developments
CFS104 – Horseshoe Farm, Main Road, Bicknacre
CFS105 – Land east of nos. 170-194 Main Road, Great Leighs
CFS106 – Land east of Plantation Road, Boreham
15SLAA48 – Land off Main Road, East Hanningfield
15SLAA49 – Land off Maldon Road, Danbury
Housing Need
 Commissioned Barton Willmore to undertake objective assessment of
Chelmsford’s future housing needs
 Believe OAN of 775 dpa significantly underestimates required level of
housing development
 Believe Maldon should be included in the HMA
 OAHN study fails to take account of EPOA’s 2011 and 2008-based
household formation rates. Questioned why the study relies solely on
the 2012-based household formation rates
 OAHN study ignores EPOA’s ‘job led scenario’ which suggests that up
to 870 dpa may be required
Page 150
Mr Peter Dutton – Gladman Developments
 Phase 7 EPOA forecasts suggest jobs-led housing needs could
increase further still 915 dpa, when using 2008-based household
formation rates
 OAHN study suggests 8% uplift to the 2012 Household Projections
across the HMA, 18% in Chelmsford. Barton Wilmore consider a 20%
uplift across the HMA and Chelmsford should be applied
 2013 SHMA identifies affordable housing requirement of 555 and 331
over a 5 year and 20 year period. Based on 35% affordable housing
policy, would require between 950 and 1,600 dpa to meet the
affordable need in full
 Barton Willmore study identifies full OAN for Chelmsford as 1,215 dpa
 Housing target of 930 dpa reflects a more appropriate and positive
response to addressing Chelmsford’s future housing needs.
 Generally support the proposed Settlement Hierarchy and
classification of individual settlements – particularly classification of
Bicknacre, Boreham, Danbury, Great Leighs and East Hanningfield.
Spatial Principles
 Oppose objective to maximise the re-use of brownfield land if this
would preclude further sustainable development on greenfield sites
 Would oppose Green Buffers if designation would only serve to restrict
otherwise sustainable development
 Support Spatial Principles 4 and 8.
 Believe that all Options place too much emphasis on large-scale urban
extensions to Chelmsford and SWF, which are often slow to come
forward and require significant upfront work
 Believe Plan should direct housing to a broad range of sites to come
forward in the short to medium term
 Sustainable growth should be allocated to Key Service and Service
Settlements
 Support development at Locations 7, 10, 11, 12 and 16
 Believe these Locations have capacity to accommodate development
and promoted sites provide appropriate locations for this.
Countryside Properties; Agent – Mr Jeremy Needs – South Molton Real
Estate Ltd
CFS282 – Land north of South Woodham Ferrers, SWF
Facts and Figures
 Greater clarity should be given to importance of SWF as one of the two
principle settlements in Chelmsford
 Population of SWF should be stated at paragraph 3.6
 Figure 9 should identify the Non Agricultural Urban Area of SWF.
Page 151
Countryside Properties; Agent – Mr Jeremy Needs – South Molton Real
Estate Ltd
 Development of Location 6 would significantly benefit SWF town centre
 Support the potential of locating surplus retail floor space capacity
within proposed development
 Have not yet identified specific demand for office accommodation in
SWF – subject to more detailed research.
 Agree that Chelmsford and SWF are the primary settlements in the
district.
 Broadly support Option 1 – most logical and sustainable approach
 Answered ‘none of the above’ due to the role of Great Leighs in all
three Options
 Believe that Great Leighs does not provide the same level of services
and facilities as Chelmsford or SWF
 Unclear whether proposed level of growth would provide the required
additional facilities in Great Leighs, such as a new secondary school
 Development in Great Leighs could be justified to contribute to the NE
Bypass
 Support development at Location 6
 Believe SWF is a suitable and sustainable location for development
with good education, employment, leisure and transport facilities
 North of SWF provides the best location for an extension to the urban
area due to flood risk and ecology constraints to the east, south and
west and Green Belt to the west.
Transport
 Support capacity improvements to the A132
 Extent of improvements envisaged is unclear
 Delivery of strategic highway improvements can best be delivered in
conjunction with large-scale strategic housing projects.
J & A Lyon and Mr Britcher; Agent: Mr Olivier Spencer – Andrew Martin
– Planning Ltd
15SLAA40 – Land north east of Meadow Road, Rettendon
Housing Need
 Support the calculation of OAHN
 Support additional 20% buffer
 Provides flexibility if any key sites fail to come forward.
 Support identification of Rettendon Place as a Service Settlement.
Page 152
J & A Lyon and Mr Britcher; Agent: Mr Olivier Spencer – Andrew Martin
– Planning Ltd
 Option 2 is preferred option
 Option 3 is supported if Option 2 is not taken forward
 Strategic growth options are likely to experience delays and are
unlikely to deliver significant new dwellings early in the Plan period,
e.g. Beaulieu Park
 Can be addressed by the early delivery of smaller sites in a variety of
locations
 Believe growth should be distributed to key transport corridors and Key
Service Settlements
 Reduce reliance on development to north and east of Chelmsford,
which will change the character and integrity of City
 Rettendon Place located along key transport corridor with connections
to SWF, Chelmsford, Basildon, Wickford and London
 Benefits services such as primary school, nursery, village hall,
recreation ground, church and bus stop
 Village lacks critical mass to support convenience store, public house,
restaurant or GP surgery
 Development in Rettendon Place will deliver critical mass to provide
necessary services and facilities
 Believe promoted site can provide homes within the first years of the
Plan period, as well as potentially providing local centre, convenience
store, GP surgery and reserve land for potential extensions to primary
school and recreation ground.
Bellway Homes; Agent: Mr Andy Butcher – Strutt & Parker LLP
CFS120 – Land north west of Longlands Farm, Boreham Road, Great
Leighs
CFS181 – Land north and south of Brick Barns Farm, Broomfield
15SLAA46 – Old Chase Farm, Hyde Lane, Danbury
Green Buffers
 Recognise the importance of maintaining the identity of settlements
 Important that Green Buffers do not prohibit sustainable growth of
settlements they are intended to protect.
Housing Need
 Approach taken to calculate housing need is supported by Government
policy
 By uplifting the OAN, the Plan is more likely to be ‘future proof’
 Believe there is evidence of unmet housing need in neighbouring
authorities and suggest the Council give the issue further consideration
as the Plan is progressed
 As Chelmsford acts as a regional hub it could be sustainable to locate
the wider area’s unmet need in Chelmsford
Page 153
Bellway Homes; Agent: Mr Andy Butcher – Strutt & Parker LLP
Economy
chain
 Identification of Bicknacre and Great Leighs as Key Service
Settlements is supported
 Due to the range of services and facilities Chelmsford City should be at
the top of the Settlement Hierarchy with SWF placed below
 The Local Plan Glossary describes Broomfield as falling within
Chelmsford Urban Area, however, Broomfield is identified as a distinct
Key Service Settlement.
 Suggest Settlement Hierarchy refers to Chelmsford Urban Area, or
makes it clear the definition of Chelmsford City and Chelmsford Urban
Area are the same
 If Broomfield is considered a separate settlement, support its
identification as a Key Service Settlement.
 Support development at Location 12
 Believe promoted site at Old Chase Farm is a suitable and sustainable
location for development
 Development of site would benefit local community and result in 50%
reduction in vehicular trips
 Support development in Great Leighs but believe this should not be
concentrated in one location north of the village
 Land to the south east of Great Leighs should be identified as a
location for growth
 Promoted site would relate well to strategic growth in north east
Chelmsford and the NE Bypass
 Creation of new neighbourhood at Location 3 is supported
 Promoted site is well placed to deliver this
 Location 3 well placed in relation to services, facilities, employment
opportunities at Broomfield Hospital
 Will benefit from and assist in delivery of potential Western Relief
Road.
Page 154
Summary of main issues raised by the Public (Q1)
Do you think that Section 3 provides an adequate range of
facts and figures about Chelmsford today?
Question
1
How many
Yes
answered question
291
155
No
108
None
ticked
29
How many made
a comment
180
Summary of main issues raised by members of the public:










Further break down of facts and figures – population density, by parish
rather than ward, population density
Concern at loss of good agricultural land and other green space, the
economic value of agriculture, land in the east is of less value than that in
the west – could be more info on land classification
Traffic capacity and current problems, in the City and beyond, concerns
about commuting by car and cross City traffic, impact on rural villages,
Broomfield Hospital traffic
Underestimates of numbers of people commuting by train, appears to be
based on out of date evidence, skilled and manufacturing workforce has
reduced in favour of service/retail, business property and house prices are
high
Housing – empty/derelict properties for reuse, definition of affordable
Maps and text tend to ignore smaller settlements, currently too City
focused
Infrastructure has not been fulfilled from current local plan
Standard of education and educational facilities is not as high as the
interpretation given in the text
Public transport and cycling provision need improving
More detail sought on level of community facilities envisaged, doctors’
services, also heritage and culture.
Summary of issues raised (Q1)
Facts, figures and population
 Large wards need to show population density to define future impact on
infrastructure and environment
 Should consider age demographics
 Welcomes historical growth and population figures
 Map should show parish/village boundaries and population numbers,
rather than wards. This is needed as the Options 1-3 are considered as
individual villages and towns. This needs addressing for clarity and
future consultations
 Would like to see figures for growth of the City by year, projected impact
of being granted City status
 No mention of NCAAP sites yet to be built at Hospital Approach, Hollow
Lane and Broomfield Place
Page 155




Figs 6 and 9 have no source dates, generally data is used from mixed
time points, making comparison and data on population growth difficult
This section does not include detail on either unoccupied housing in
Chelmsford or derelict housing suitable for redevelopment
It would be better to be transparent about infrastructure unfulfilment - a
section should include statistics and figures of money given back to
developers where ECC has not fulfilled agreed dates for infrastructure,
and indicate which infrastructure, (schools, roads, transport, etc) have
been unfulfilled in which areas
Does not show population density in terms of individuals per square
mile, and how this relates to current road use, and health and education
provision.
Agriculture/green space
 Welcomes quality of farmland information
 Could be more information on land classification
 Details of active current agricultural land and farming, where proposals
are on green space
 No reference to large areas of high quality farmland which have been
sacrificed to housing (Beaulieu, N Springfield, Roxwell Road, Hollow
Lane) but Boreham Airfield is untouched
 Inadequate attention to the economic contribution of agriculture –
resulted in planned expansion on best agricultural land to the west of
Chelmsford - should be on eastern side on lower value agricultural land
 The high quality environment stated depends on links to west and the
land remaining a grade 2 area all the way to the M11
 West of Chelmsford is an important floodplain; one of the last areas of
Essex to be enjoyed for those escaping suburbia; a beautiful unspoilt
area noted for its strong sense of tranquillity
 What is proportion of green space being lost for housing
 Any proposals for accessible wild spaces and woodlands?
 Loss of green space between commercial and residential areas is
concerning, especially Chelmer Village/N Springfield
 Pleshey should be included in the Green Wedge to protect it and its
environs as a key tourist destination for future generations
 Agricultural land acts as the lungs of the country so any development
must be restricted to brown field sites
 Classification of agricultural land in Chelmsford – map is undated/out of
date (doesn’t include Beaulieu Park and Chelmer Village developments)
 It is essential to protect the Grade 2/highest graded/prime agricultural
land to the north and west of the built up area of Chelmsford. Area to
the east and south are lower grade farmland. Little justification is given
for this approach
 The protection of high quality agricultural land accords well with the
NPPF requirement to “use natural resources prudently”
 New development of all forms to be focused in the southern and eastern
sides of the town, giving protection to Writtle, Highwood and the Easters
Page 156

All the farmland in the east is lower grade than to the west, the
tranquillity is already affected by the A12.
Connectivity
 No detail on car ownership – average number per household
 Suggest additional diagram to 8 – how much traffic travels right through
without stopping
 Disagree that road infrastructure is OK - most of it is fast approaching
saturation. There are daily problems
 Traffic problems highlighted: Army and Navy, A12, A414, A132, A131,
A130, A1060, B1007, B1012, B1418, Boreham Interchange
 Urban network problems - Chelmer Road, Baddow Bypass, Parkway,
Waterhouse Lane, London Road
 Lordship Lane is used as a thoroughfare from the A414 to the A1060.
High volume of commuter traffic. A further 3000-4500 homes and
associated traffic is going to overload infrastructure
 A12 performance varies considerably according to the time of day,
season and vulnerability due to traffic load and incident frequency; finite
capacity is often tested
 The road and rail infrastructure that has been promised has not been
completed, major developments from the last Local Plan built without
the completed planned infrastructure
 Opening of the new railway station would attract more traffic from north.
 Housing growth to the north and west of Chelmsford will increase cross
town traffic
 Growth to the east will influence commuting patterns in and out of
Chelmsford – plan should show how
 Concern about the impact on the rural villages, particularly from the
Maldon area through Woodham Ferrers, Bicknacre, Danbury, Little
Baddow and Sandon
 The new railway station should not be included here, this section is for
current facts and figures. Delay in provision should be explained
 Seeking info on statistics or planning in relation to increases in the
number of commuters coming into Chelmsford, either to the new railway
station or the old City station. The new station will attract commuters
from north; Crossrail from Shenfield will also attract an increase in
commuters from Chelmsford. The new railway station will only work with
the NE Bypass - Essex Regiment Way and White Hart Lane are
operating at full capacity/overcapacity at peak times
 Plan ignores Broomfield Hospital – staff are at 2000 plus, plus non NHS
personnel (subcontractors or maintenance and cleaning), people
visiting. Large numbers use Broomfield Road to go to work, this is not
demonstrated by the graphic; from 7-9.30am and 3.30 till 6pm.
Development on main access roads will affect ambulance response
times and will affect all City residents
 As much of the new housing as possible should be built within a mile of
the new station, so that people can walk or cycle there, without the need
Page 157


to drive into the City Centre
Other potential sites along the A12 corridor would be within cycling or a
short bus journey of the new station and are outside the Green Belt
More could be made of the radial nature of the highway network which
tends to focus traffic into the City, rather than divert through traffic that
has no need to enter.
Economy
 Maps of the main commuting flows in and out of Chelmsford are out of
date by 15 years, dated 2001. NOMIS data is available for 2014 and
could be used instead – this shows 25% increase in passengers in 10
years. Assume: 2.5 million season ticket exits per year - 5 trips during
the week - 1 trip at weekends (which is an overestimate) - 288 days
actively using the railway (allowing for holidays) - this indicates around
8,680 unique commuter only passengers – minus generous 15%
travelling north, equals 7,400 going to London by train
 Incorrect/out of date statistics: The 15% figure for commuters to London
is incorrect, approximately 9% commute to London
 Underestimate of commuting figures. CCC’s figure (15% of workforce =
15,000) and Greater Anglia Figure (up to 30,000) do not tally
 More explanation of impact on growing number of commuters – rail,
traffic to station, parking for station. Impact appears to be
underestimated. Already 7th highest in the country, trend is for increase
 The number of London commuters living in Chelmsford is rising rapidly.
This trend has been noted by several estate agents in Chelmsford. New
housing estates should therefore be close to the new station and with
easy access to the A12
 Traffic flows to and from the north have grown since 2011
 Need accurate reflection of flows to avoid major disruption and air/noise
pollution. Need also to forecast this for the future. Many ARU students
live in London
 These figures represent people, but not how many people travel by car
or public transport – a more comprehensive diagram including this is
needed
 More people in the future will want to work in London but live in the
countryside
 The new railway would only "improve rail infrastructure" if track is
expanded en-route to London, which does not appear in any plans
 People living within the fringes/at current City limits add to rush hour
congestion by driving to, or being dropped at, the station. Schools and
workplaces have a similar problem with regard to transport
 What about counter flows into Chelmsford (shopping, work or facilities,
schools/hospitals)
 Want to know what London contributes to our economy, is London a
draining influence? Our employees cannot afford to live here, causing
commuting congestion. We should aim for complete localism to reduce
commuting of all types; companies and services should all live and work
Page 158







locally
The impact of online shopping has not been considered when the
calculations of jobs created has been done and may lead to
overestimates of the housing need
Local employment is mostly retail/office, we have lost
engineering/manufacturing
Not sure where the highly skilled workforce is employed in Chelmsford
except e2v. Chelmsford is now mainly a commuter town with its
workforce mainly retail
Business property and associated expenses are too high
A lack of support for new business start-ups in the area that are not
technical/IT based
It should consider household income demographics, to demonstrate the
link between income with homes and jobs. House prices are high in
Chelmsford, how you can evidence that jobs will be created in
Chelmsford for people who live in Chelmsford. Otherwise it creates
more urban traffic
Seeks an additional paragraph to summarise key positive and negative
factors, additional figures on changes to employment numbers and
activities over the last Plan period and to identify employment growth
areas.
Housing
 No figures for houses in the rental sector – what and where are they?
 No detail on empty or derelict housing suitable for reuse – could be
used to offset requirement for greenfield sites
 No definition of what affordable means – how does it relate to average
earnings – preferable to using market price as base
 How many units of social housing are proposed? Leaving this to
developers means lower income people will suffer.
Rural environment
 Maps do not show the Chignal villages. Proposals would have a far
reaching negative impact on them; 'potential' Western Relief Road
would involve pushing through these two villages - the maps make it
look as though there is nothing there
 All the smaller populated areas should be shown on the maps to see
accurately where development might be located
 Section is too Chelmsford based - does not look at history and
development of surrounding villages. Each community should be
identified and analysed independently. Comment made to Writtle,
Broomfield, Rettendon, Rettendon Place alone, Runwell, Chignals
 Section focuses on the growth of Chelmsford. Should be a
balance/contrast with some of the outlying areas and villages which
have suffered from a lack of growth due to planning policies over the
last 30 to 40 years - causing the decline in services and facilities such
as loss of shops, pubs, post offices. Policies also limit the amount of
Page 159





housing and affordable housing available, particularly affecting young
adults and young families
More facts about the rural areas, and villages within those rural areas,
separately. Chelmsford is 3 parts - the urban City area, the suburbs, the
small villages in the rural areas – all are equally important
Little reference to employment association with Uttlesford area, in
particular Stansted Airport, one of the largest employers in Essex. This
should be addressed, as are links to Braintree and London
Seeks information regarding the landscape such as the Chelmer River
Valley, areas of natural beauty or significance, Wildlife Trust sites,
SSSIs or specific wildlife habitats etc.
Environmental issues must be a central consideration - a sound
appreciation of the historic development of the area's rural landscape
and its interconnection with the natural environment. Available evidence
includes many articles in the journal 'Essex Archaeology and History',
volumes in the 'East Anglian Archaeology' monograph series, and the
Historic Environment Characterisation project
Would like to see figures on number of listed buildings by settlement/
area.
Schooling and education
 Seeking more information on:
o school pupil numbers both current and projected
o the schooling available
o how many schools are currently full
o how many children get their 1st choice school
o how far children have to travel to get to school
o proportion of schools in OFSTED categories
 People leaving education without qualifications is misleading and
complacent (Para 3.13). Maintained schools and the college
underperform. Although good, secondary schools in Chelmsford are no
better than average. Chelmsford proportion of pupils with 5 or more A+ C passes including English and Mathematics is 55%, for England it’s
56%. The exceptions are the two selective schools
 34.9% of residents are educated to level NVQ 4 (national average
36.6%). But managerial and professional occupations are 57.7%
(national figure 54.4%). A successful and growing economy will require
more good graduates
 From 2016 there will be two measures of performance for secondary
schools: attainment and value they add to pupils - likely that good
schools will drop to satisfactory level: i.e. not good enough
 The Local Plan should specify challenging expectations for at least the
next decade. e.g. no school should be judged below a good standard,
with most outstanding. This is achievable in a city with the socioeconomic profile of Chelmsford
 Courses at ARU have been axed in the past year, along with the impact
of the reduced funding of higher education and reduction in student
Page 160

grants, this might lead to over optimistic predictions about the need for
housing
Limited information about ARU - no mention that it is in the bottom third
of league tables published by major national newspapers, including The
Times. Its research quality ratings are equally as poor, as seen in the
most recent Research Assessment Exercise.
Other:
 Proposal for incorporating CCC into the proposed Greater Essex
Devolution authority - how will this affect future development in the area
– should be mentioned
 Section on community facilities and services is very general and doesn't
cover what additional facilities might be provided as part of this plan,
and demands of existing communities for the next period which should
be pivotal part of the vision
 Should assess infrastructure progress against published plans over the
past 10 years; infrastructure improvements are still far behind targets
 Terminology lacks clarity for geographical areas of Chelmsford City, i.e.
the Urban Area of Chelmsford and its suburbs, or the former Borough
as a whole. Using the term ‘Chelmsford’ does not give a clear indication
of the geographical area being discussed
 Buses: dramatic reduction in frequency from early evening; limited
coverage beyond built-up areas; too many communities fail to receive a
meaningful service; services vary considerably in terms of frequency
and their hours of operation are too limited
 Too few cycleway 'routes' exist and they suffer varying degrees of
'standard requirements'. Commuting by bike remains elusive to all but
the most proficient/daring of cyclists – it is mainly related to leisure. It
needs to be taken far more seriously, with funding, to become a realistic
and comprehensive alternative form of transport
 A need for substantially improved public transport provision, linking
communities across the Plan area, and neighbouring communities.
Express services needed which complement rail services as well as
main community centres, co-ordinated circular routes
 Park and Ride network should be 4 sites, with an early 3rd site west of
Chelmsford to relieve extreme congestion problems on London Road
and Waterhouse Lane
 Space could have been found to publish residential construction figures
for Chelmsford over the current Plan period which can be found with
difficulty in another document available on the website
 More is needed on education and culture and heritage; for instance
theatres are not mentioned
 Primary care is facing extreme pressures, how will this be addressed?
 Statistics on doctors’ services such as ratio of people to doctors’
surgeries should be provided
 Flooding recorded recently at the back of Aubrey close - caused
apparently by insufficient drainage from Saxon Gate development.
Page 161
Do you support what should drive the new Local Plan Vision?
Question
2
How many
Yes
answered question
308
143
No
148
None
ticked
17
How many made
a comment
187













It is unclear if all priorities carry equal importance or not
Vision is idealistic, the wording of several of the points are vague and
could be expanded
More emphasis should be given to supporting and protecting existing
communities
Mixed views on whether there should be a Green Belt review
More needed to ensure the existing natural environment is protected
Too much focus on meeting housing targets/growth, not enough about
existing residents quality of life
We need to provide housing for all; elderly, affordable housing, housing for
young people and first time buyers
Easy access to unpolluted, tranquil, open countryside is important for
physical and mental well-being for urban communities
Chelmsford lacks a number of facilities which would attract tourists/visitors
The right development in the right place is supported. It is suggested this
should be focused near existing infrastructure which can be improved
It is essential that the necessary infrastructure is delivered, ideally prior to
new development
The current road infrastructure is not adequately maintained and the road
network is already congested
There are not enough supporting utilities such as schools, GP practices,
community facilities and drainage requirements etc.
General comments
 All issues to be considered in a balanced way and no single aspect to
take priority
 It was not clear which, if any, objectives were taking priority, some might
conflict with each other and all might not be fully achieved
 The Vision is vague and idealistic
 This Plan should learn from any failures of previous plans and not
repeat them
 The vision should start with a realistic view of the current status of
Chelmsford since the facts in chapter 3 suggest that everything is
perfect, and do not reflect reality
 There has not been enough consultation with local communities
Page 162

The Local Plan should stand on its own two feet and be more ambitious
than the existing Plan.
Provide housing and job opportunities for all sectors of the community
 Too much focus on meeting housing targets/growth, not enough about
existing residents quality of life
 Housing to meet current and future needs should be given priority
 Chelmsford doesn’t need more homes, it has reached the point where
any further development is going to destroy what’s left of the original
market town
 Growth is desirable but not at the expense of the characteristics that
make Chelmsford and the surrounding countryside attractive
 A large extent of the housing need is to meet national targets, housing
pressures should be redistributed evenly throughout the UK
 The Plan should enhance the experience of living and working in
Chelmsford
 Housing needs to be provided for all sectors of the community, including
the elderly to enable them to downsize to suitable accommodation,
affordable housing, housing for first time buyers
 More should be done to get empty houses back in use
 More should be done to assess the existing populations need; the types
of houses, where people need to work in relation to where we live and
other resources needed, the environment people seek to live in
 The Plan should address issues of building communities and allowing
places to grow organically rather than allocating them with large
amounts of housing
 The Vision assumes that the extra homes and jobs are needed but does
not question the scale of these needs.
Promote healthier, inclusive and more active lifestyles
 Rural open space should be protected as much as possible since
accessible countryside is especially valuable to urban communities for
both physical and mental well-being
 Losing more countryside by building lots of houses on it does not
promote healthier lifestyles
 An increased population will lead to more noise, pollution and a further
impact on an already overstretched medical profession and education
system, this will not promote a healthier, inclusive lifestyles
 It is not clear what an ‘inclusive lifestyle’ means
 Insufficient thought about the environmental impact rendering future
problems for health and happiness.
Enhance culture and leisure activities
 Valuable open spaces will be lost, hence the plan does not enhance
cultural and leisure activities
Page 163


Concern expressed that Chelmsford lacks a number of facilities which
would also attract tourists/visitors/generate employment such as a
concert hall, a large theatre, galleries, museums, a soccer stadium and
a swimming pool with diving facilities
Listed buildings such as the Cathedral should be promoted.
Ensure the right type of development in the right place
 General support for this objective although it was questioned what is the
right development in the right place
 New roads are very expensive to build and unlikely to get sufficient
funding to go ahead so building developments where there are no
existing major roads would not be sustainable
 Enhancing and protecting town and neighbourhood centres should be a
primary driver of the Vision as supported by the NPPF and para 4.16 of
the Plan
 There is no mention of respecting existing VDS’s and Landscape
Character Assessments
 Suggestions that development should be near existing infrastructure
which can be improved i.e. the A12 and the planned new railway
station, Park and Ride and the A130
 We need smaller developments that are well planned and designed to fit
in and complement the existing area and enhance the quality of life for
new and existing residents
 Green Buffers are important to maintain identity of villages to ensure
they do not merge into Chelmsford
 The Plan should respect and protect those residents who have chosen
rural life instead of urban living
 There should be a Green Belt review to allow Chelmsford to expand
symmetrically by taking some parts out of the Green Belt
 Green Wedges should continue to be protected
 Build on Grade 4 farmland after all available brownfield sites have been
developed
 Do not build on protected land, such as SSSI’s, Green Belt, Special
Landscape Areas etc.
Deliver the necessary supporting Infrastructure
 Delivering the necessary supporting infrastructure should be a key
priority and driver of the Plan as ensuring that the right type of
development is in the right place is largely dependent upon
infrastructure
 The Plan lacks a big vision for the identity and infrastructure that can
create a thriving and challenging environment for residents to live in
 There should be no unacceptable strain on roads, parking, schools,
dentists and GPs, especially in rural areas
 Necessary infrastructure should be delivered prior to development
Page 164










Maintenance of the current road infrastructure is poor and the road
network is already congested, further housing will only add to what is an
increasing problem
All developments should be served by regular bus routes and
cycle/footpaths as soon as the first dwellings/business premises are
occupied
Required infrastructure should support travel and communication whilst
minimizing pollution and delays
High quality broadband needs to be part of the required infrastructure
The plan should not propose major infrastructure that is unlikely to
materialise due to the substantial costs and long lead-in times
There is currently not enough supporting utilities, schools, GP practices,
sewerage, roads to support new development
There is a lack of transport ideas/imagination such as a tram system
and other more sustainable modes of transport. The vision seems to be
the building of more roads and widening of others
Infrastructure is essential to the well-being of the community. Poor road
networks lead to social unrest and frustration
Impacts beyond Chelmsford need to be considered with neighbouring
authorities and ECC, e.g. the residents and businesses located further
out on the Dengie peninsula
More should be done to utilise the rivers, with wide foot/cycle paths and
better use of the rivers themselves as a piece of infrastructure.
Provide high quality public and private spaces
 There should be more focus on public spaces and the countryside as
well as parks
 We should do more to protect what we have now, including restricting
overdevelopment and over populating the area
 Existing settlements and their character need to be protected.
Maintain and enhance a more sustainable environment
 Suggest that a commitment to providing and developing sustainable
practices and environments would enhance this driver, rather than
simply maintaining what we have
 There is nothing in the Vision that specifically protects the heritage or
environmental quality of the towns, the Green Belt or the countryside
that make Chelmsford a place of enjoyable living
 There should be more emphasis to protect what we have now, including
restricting overdevelopment and over populating the area, protecting
existing settlements and their character, and providing infrastructure
that is lacking
 The Vision should strive to protect the natural environment and
minimise greenfield development and protecting the Green Belt and
countryside
Page 165




It will be very difficult to encourage people to leave the family car at
home but all should be done to promote and provide more sustainable
modes of transport
The economy would be more sustainable if there were more local
companies rather than chain stores. Chelmsford needs more
independent butchers, grocery shops, coffee shops, and ironmongers
etc.
If development is to be truly sustainable, care for the environment must
be central to the Vision
The summary paragraph beginning 'Above all else...' and ending
'...within our communities.' contains no mention of the environment.
That should be rectified.
Page 166
Do you agree with what should be covered in the Vision?
Question
3
How many
Yes
answered question
313
126
No
160
None
ticked
32
How many made
a comment
221


















Vision too vague/too much focused on housing/should go beyond the Plan
period and create a longer term vision for the City
Mixed views over the Council’s decision not to carry out a Green Belt
review
The Green Wedges are generally supported with some suggestions of
increasing the area covered by Green Wedges
The Green Buffers were also supported with some more buffers suggested
Housing needs to be provided for all members of the community
Chelmsford needs to encourage a sustainable and substantial
manufacturing sector to complement the service sector
There should be increased access to rivers and water ways, Green
Wedges and Green Infrastructure to all users
More development and support needed for retail provision in SWF town
centre and better parking provision
Concern and disappointment with the new proposed swimming pool is not
considered to be of regional importance lacking an outdoor swimming pool
and diving boards
There is no section on culture
The road network within/to Chelmsford is near to capacity/congested
already and would be unable to cope with further expansion
New infrastructure to be put in place in advance of, or in line with, any new
development
Concern about whether the Western Relief Road is appropriate
There needs to be more focus on improving public transport and public
routes
Services such as schools, doctor surgeries and drainage are not adequate
for the existing communities and should be improved before any further
expansion is considered
No mention of renewable energy generation
Insufficient emphasis on supporting and protecting existing communities
and their individual characteristics
More emphasis is needed on the quality of life in general rather than new
infrastructure.
Page 167
General comments
 Too much emphasis on growth/housing and new residents
 The focus is on housing and does not appear to integrate with
employment and transport
 The Vision is too urban based/too optimistic/vague
 The Vision should be more radical, it needs to look beyond the Plan
period and look for opportunities to go beyond meeting the housing
need of its existing and new communities. It should present a view of
what the whole City area will look like say in 50 years time.
Protecting the Green Belt
 Mixed views over whether there should be a Green Belt review
 A review would enable a wider dispersal of housing throughout the
Chelmsford area
 Lack of clarity over Green Belt vs greenfield development.
Protecting the Green Wedges
 Support for the City’s Green Wedges
 Green Wedges are needed to stop urban sprawl and safeguard rural
village identities but there should be increased access for all users
horse riders as well as pedestrians and cyclists
 The Green Wedges do not go far enough as a means of protecting
wildlife, the areas are very narrow and thus far too limited in terms of the
wildlife they can sustain and therefore protect
 It is essential to protect all rural communities not just the Green Wedge
areas
 A Green Wedge is needed in the upper Can valley, an area used as a
corridor by wildlife and for recreational and social use by walkers,
cyclists and for other outdoor activities
 A Green Wedge is needed from the Army and Navy roundabout to the
eastern boundary of the Local Authority being a landscape of
significance
 There must be caveats in these areas which allow for infrastructure.
New Homes
 There is a need to provide a wider range of housing; more innovative
means of affordable housing, affordable homes for rent, bungalows,
sheltered housing, care homes, shared ownership housing, elderly
housing
 Homes should be of the highest build and efficiency standard and of
better quality internally
 Strong agreement that new homes should bring forward the necessary
improvements for existing communities, including the supporting
infrastructure that is required
 Suggestion that housing for the over 55s should be housing for the over
65s given how long people now live.
Page 168
New Jobs
 Chelmsford should encourage a sustainable and substantial
manufacturing sector, which have been lost in recent years, as well as
the service economy
 Countries with a significant manufacturing base came out of recession
much quicker once things improved in the global economy because the
other elements in their economies could in turn build on the firm
foundation of their manufacturing capability which is the bedrock of any
sustainable economy
 Diversification of jobs is important, especially in rural areas, but this
needs to be supported by the appropriate infrastructure, e.g. faster
broadband provision.
Travel
 The road network within and in and out of Chelmsford is near to
capacity and heavily congested already, it cannot cope with further
expansion
 Proposed new roads need to be in place before new housing is built.
Without them travelling will be intolerable with increased levels of
congestion and gridlock in and around Chelmsford every time there is
an incident on the A12
 More emphasis is needed to provide sustainable public transport to
alleviate the congestion on the roads.
Safeguarding Heritage Assets
 There is a poor history of the Council safeguarding Heritage Assets
 The plan should be more ambitious aiming not merely to safeguard but
also to enhance and promote such assets
 What is meant by a Heritage Asset should be defined and to what
degree it will be protected should be explained
 No Heritage Assets should be adversely affected by new development.
Green Infrastructure
 Access to be made available to all users, including equestrians, not just
pedestrians and cyclists
 A strategic multi-user path network should be created linking
surrounding villages so that all sectors of the community can access
these.
Green Buffers
 Support for the Green Buffers to ensure villages are not swallowed up
by urban development
 These will not protect villages further out from the urban area from a
loss of identity, further Green Buffers are needed to protect other
villages
 The Green Buffer proposed between Great Waltham and Broomfield
would be destroyed by the proposed Western Relief Road
Page 169

Questioning Green Buffers in areas such as Boreham, Sandon and
SWF which should be prime locations for development as they already
have the infrastructure in place with good transport links.
Shopping
 Development and support is required for retail provision in SWF Town
Centre. Better parking/Park and Ride or a new train station with
extended parking at SWF should be considered
 The role of town centres should be given greater prominence with a mix
of uses to ensure their future sustainability and vibrancy, including some
residential uses
 People choose not to shop in Chelmsford because there is no parking,
and any available parking is far too expensive. Alternative shopping
destinations offer free onsite parking, a nicer atmosphere, and are
easier to travel to
 The City is not inviting in the evenings as the atmosphere can be
threatening.
Rivers and Waterways
 Agreement that the use of rivers and waterways should be encouraged
 Further usage of the rivers could be encouraged with a 'cut' linking the
canal to the main river by Essex Records Office, by-passing the weir
 There should be enhanced access for all users where practicable i.e.
horse riders as well as pedestrians and cyclists.
Leisure and Sport
 Many expressed concern and disappointment with the new proposed
swimming pool as it is not considered to meet the needs of the current
users, there will be no outdoor swimming pool and no diving boards, the
consultation was very rushed and many organisations were not
consulted, the resulting facilities are felt to be inadequate
 The Plan should encompass enhancements to informal recreation
facilities for residents, including inclusive access of such spaces
 People value the countryside around Chelmsford to get some peace
and quiet
 Culture is missing
 It was considered that Chelmsford lacks a new or updated theatre, a
new multipurpose concert hall, a conference centre, an open air
swimming pool and sun bathing area.
Delivering New Infrastructure
 New infrastructure should be put in place in advance of, or in line with,
any new development e.g. new railway station, widening of the A12,
upgrading Boreham Interchange and the NE Bypass
 Development of the strategic transport network should be a priority - not
just a vision
Page 170




















It is essential in terms of cost, delivery timescales and impact on the
environmental to improve existing transport networks
The Council should encourage public transport over car usage
All developments should be served by regular bus routes and
cycle/footpaths as soon as the first dwellings/business premises are
occupied
Discontent with the track record in ensuring necessary supporting
infrastructure is delivered to support new development including the NE
Bypass, widening of the A12 , Beaulieu station, poor bus services and
no shelters where promised, Army and Navy still awaiting a resolution,
existing roads not properly maintained, most rush hours the town is
gridlocked
Road network needs to be improved in conjunction with neighbouring
authorities including the Highway Authority
Many respondents said the NE Bypass is vital and needs to be in place
before any major new development begins
The NE Bypass should have dedicated on/off ramps to the A12 - there
is no point in adding to/creating another bottle-neck around the
Boreham interchange
The Western Relief Road does not link into the major road systems
across Chelmsford - i.e. the A12 and A130/A131, does not link to the
main railway station, will not be built until the end of the planned period
or later, will cut through beautiful countryside, does not have committed
funding/will be hugely expensive and would cause more traffic to go
through Writtle
A recent traffic survey commissioned by several local Parish Councils
concluded that once the NE Bypass is built, there would be no
advantage in building a Western Relief Road
Some supported the Western Relief Road and thought it was essential
for any further development west of the City Centre
Base Park & Ride at the new railway station and use trains not buses to
get shoppers/workers to City Centre
Public transport is not good enough to cope with this Plan; one way
systems with bus-lanes would make the buses more attractive
throughout the City
The proposals will increase emissions and contribute to climate change,
the increase in carbon footprint generated by the proposals in the Plan
needs to be offset by other activities to combat climate change
Large HGVs should be restricted from access on narrow roads, which
causes air pollution
New infrastructure should include the essential upgrades of foul water
management
Sufficient schools need to be provided alongside housing development
Health service should be covered separately
There are not enough supporting utilities
There is no mention of renewable energy
Traffic studies are needed.
Page 171
Delivering Quality
 The aim should be for zero carbon housing
 The majority of the developments to-date are not high quality housing,
they are tiny with ugly roofs and their roads are almost un-negotiable
once occupants all return home in the evening.
Missing drivers
 There was insufficient emphasis on supporting and protecting existing
communities and their individual characteristics
 The Plan needs to consider how to build communities as well and make
it a place where people want to live
 Any new and existing housing needs to be safe from flooding and other
environmental threats - maintenance and improvement of existing
defences must be a priority and must not be compromised by future
development.
 The design and layout of developments should promote safety e.g.
reduce the need to cross main roads.
Page 172
Do you have any comments of how the Council has calculated
its Objectively Assessed Housing need?
Question
4
How many answered
question
158
How many made
a comment
126









Housing numbers should be driven by what infrastructure can be provided
to support the houses. There should not be more housing than the
infrastructure can accommodate
Questions over the appropriateness of the HMA and how it has been
derived
There is a need to explain and identify what levels and types of affordable
homes are required
There should be a requirement to provide housing to meet the needs of
local people
It is unclear from the consultation document how the numbers put forward
have been calculated
There is no need to uplift the housing need figure from 657 per year
There are insufficient jobs to support the levels of growth suggested
It is unclear what split of affordable, special needs, elderly and other
specialist housing are within the housing need figure
Support for the 20% uplift for testing to ensure growth is not unnecessarily
constrained.







How are Brentwood, Maldon and Uttlesford not part of the same
Housing Market Area (HMA) as Chelmsford?
Housing growth should be in keeping with the level of infrastructure
provision
930 dwellings per annum should be used for planning infrastructure
improvements whilst 775 homes should be planned for, to account for
infrastructure provision lagging behind that of new homes
The plan should be more focused on infrastructure provision and
existing communities
There is no information explaining the level of or type of housing
shortages currently. The SHMA Update provides information on the
type and tenure of future housing needed
At present the emphasis is on larger homes however smaller homes are
needed which are more affordable and more sustainable
There is no mention of affordable homes for people struggling to get on
the housing ladder in Chelmsford. Many Chelmsford born people have
had to move to cheaper towns. There should be more housing suitable
Page 173



















for all ages and abilities with greater focus on the needs of local people
At least 20% of all housing built should be social housing not that which
the developer considers affordable
It is not clear how the 657 or the 775 new homes figures have been
calculated
It is not clear whether student housing, care homes for the elderly and
special needs supported housing counts in the overall total?
There is no indication of what the various options would look like if
based solely on demographic outputs for population growth
657 houses a year should be more than adequate to allow a reasonable
degree of growth
National guidance sets out that demographic projections should only be
the starting point for assessing housing need and may be adjusted if
future employment requirements and past provision and market signals
justify uplifts
The national household projections are based on uncontrolled
immigration rates
The demographic projections consist of a significant proportion of net
migration, much of which is from London. London should be building
more sensibly priced houses within its inner boundaries or on its green
belt land
To raise the OAHN to take into account a theoretical increase in jobs
has no merit
There are insufficient jobs to support this level of new homes
The adjustment to 775 houses per annum is arbitrary and excessive
The 775 new homes figure has been calculated to attract additional
revenue for the City without consideration of the consequences for
existing residents and communities
The 775 new homes figure is a maximum which should not be
exceeded
To increase the OAHN above demographic projections only serves to
increase resistance to the Plan and isn’t justified as it will result in
planning for more houses than are reasonably necessary
The Council has never yet achieved 930 homes and housing
completions have only met the Plan target on a few occasions, leaving
the Council vulnerable to more developer led speculative applications in
future
The 14,000 new homes requirement has not been fully tested. This
should have occurred before options were created
The 20% uplift should be removed and the numbers reviewed as the
Plan period progresses
The 20% uplift for affordable housing is too high and no allowance has
been given to the fact the 775 new homes will include households living
in affordable housing
The 20% uplift complies with Government guidance and is a minimum
to ensure the growth over the Plan period is not unnecessarily
constrained
Page 174







The Council has not adjusted it OAHN for any ‘policy on’ housing needs
such as taking on any of the housing needs from its neighbouring
boroughs
New towns near major road and rail links appear worthy of
consideration to deal with housing requirements of this magnitude
The Council should resist pressure to build in the countryside
None of the options are sensitive to environmental issues
The expansion of Boreham, Broomfield, Writtle and other rural areas to
the west of Chelmsford are not justified, especially due to existing
strains on the infrastructure in these areas
Boreham and other areas to the east of Chelmsford have been
excluded from additional housing development, which is illogical given
their proximity to the new station
What is the percentage of the need that is likely to be for mobile homes.
Page 175
Do you have any comments on the housing number (930
homes per year) used for testing in this consultation?
Question
5
How many answered
question
165
How many made
a comment
134











Significant investment in infrastructure will be needed to support the level
of growth suggested as the existing infrastructure will not cope
Infrastructure should be put in place before the housing is built
A good proportion of these numbers should be affordable housing and this
should be built before the market housing
There is a need to provide housing that is affordable and for local
residents
The housing number seems to take precedent over everything else in the
Plan, including the environment
It is unclear if the 930 homes per year is a final figure or what further
testing will be required, and when a final figure will be reached
Any uplift from the 657 per year is unjustified and should not be added
A 20% uplift should not be added
Support for an uplift of 20% to allow for unconstrained growth
Mixed views over whether an uplift should take account of migration or
demand from London
Queries over the mix and type of housing that will be provided through the
Plan.









There is pressure on the existing infrastructure and it is difficult to
understand how thousands of extra homes can be sustainable without
significant investment to improve and enhance existing infrastructure,
including the hospital
The Spatial Strategy must take into account the type of housing,
location and infrastructure required
The infrastructure required to deliver 930 homes per year should be
delivered in advance of any new housing
More than 930 new homes per annum will be delivered at the cost of
the countryside
The affordable housing should be built before market housing
At least 20% of all housing built should be social housing
There is already a huge amount of social housing in the City
Additional housing should be primarily for local residents
The new housing that is being built now is not affordable to local
residents
Page 176






















The housing number is given preferential consideration over all other
matters. Environmental consideration should be paramount
This level of growth is not environmentally sustainable and threatens
the Green Belt and farmland
Consideration should be given to the need for additional smaller homes
How is Maldon not part of the same Housing Market Area (HMA) as
Chelmsford?
A fixed target of 930 homes per annum gives no flexibility to take
account changes in or to the environment
The 14,000 new homes requirement has not been fully tested. This
should have occurred before options were created. Because the
Council identify that further testing is needed is the 930 still an option
or has this decision already been taken? The Issues and Options
Consultation document states that the Council’s housing and jobs
targets will continue to be tested taking into account the evidence and
consultation responses
What capacity assessments have been undertaken and what
assessments are planned?
The Council should remove the 20% buffer, which is considered
unreasonably high and not justified, and be prepared to oppose
speculative housing developments that do not comply with the Plan
The figure of 657 homes per year should not be inflated, higher growth
only caters for people moving here from London
The OAHN figure of 775 should be sufficient for planning at this stage
The 20% buffer should be reduced, possibly to 10%
The 20% buffer does not take into account changes in the living and
working arrangements e.g. working from home
Consider organic growth in communities rather than number of homes
per annum
930 new homes per annum is far too high a more realistic figure taking
into account empty properties is 500 homes per annum
The 657 new homes per annum figure will adequately provide for this
area and support significant inward migration
To increase the OAHN above demographic projections only serves to
increase resistance to the Plan and sets residents in different locations
against each other
It seems unlikely that unmet housing need from adjoining areas will not
need to be factored in
The 20% buffer leaves the Council open to exploitation from other
Councils if they fail to deliver homes that they are required to build
930 new homes per annum will change the identity of Chelmsford to be
big city, which is unwelcome
It is not clear how the 930 new homes figures has been calculated
Completions under the current plan are well below the existing target
which makes the 775 per annum figure difficult to achieve let alone the
930 figure
Not enough jobs to support the additional housing
Page 177













This approach accords with the key objectives of paragraph 47 of the
NPPF. It also provides flexibility in the event that key housing sites fail
to come forward or are delayed in their delivery which will ensure that
the Plan is deliverable over the Plan period
It is prudent to plan for at least 930 homes per year to account for
increasing displacement from the London housing market
Whilst very high, 930 new homes per year is probably a figure which
the market can viably deliver
The number is reasonable for testing purposes however there should
be scope to revisit projections half way through the Plan period
The 930 new homes figure is reasonable but more housing should be
built earlier in the Plan period
New towns near major road and rail links appear worth of consideration
to deal with housing requirements of this magnitude
How will existing site allocations in the Local Plan be dealt with in the
new plan?
Respondents queried the type of housing that is needed
Specific comments about the existing pressures on Broomfield and its
desire to retain a village identity
Specific comments regarding the existing infrastructure pressures on
Boreham caused by the Greater Beaulieu Park development
Criticism regarding the disproportionate impact of Option 3 on Boreham
Criticism of the proposed level of building in West Chelmsford
Support for Option 3.
Page 178
Do you have any comments on how the new Local Plan could
meet the accommodation needs of Travellers?
Question
6
How many answered
question
136
How many made
a comment
103
 There are very mixed views on whether the provision of Gypsy and
Traveller sites should be a condition or requirement of part of any large
new development
 Mixed views on whether sites should be isolated from the settled
population or in more sustainable locations alongside the settled
population
 The provision of authorised new sites would prevent the unauthorised sites
appearing in unwanted locations
 There are already enough sites within Chelmsford and no more should be
provided
 Questioning how the number of pitches suggested to be required has been
calculated
 Travellers should be travelling and therefore the need for permanent sites
is questionable
 Gypsy and Travellers should be involved in finding new sites and the right
type of site
 Locations which already have traveller sites should not have any more
allocated nearby
 The site allocated in the North Chelmsford Area Action Plan needs to be
built out.









A significant proportion of respondents simply said they had ‘no
comments’
The Council should be providing sites for Gypsy and Travellers
Further sites should not be provided for Gypsy and Travellers
Small sites rather than large ones are preferred (10 pitches and under)
Sites should be inspected regularly and monitored for tidiness and
should be supplied with refuse storage facilities
Gypsy and Traveller communities should be involved in the type and
location of new sites to meet their needs
Sites should not be within major new housing developments
Sites should be within new housing developments so that all open
market purchasers have a choice to purchase near to sites or not
Sites could be put out for tender and management by private sector
companies similar to holiday trailer parks, on a pay as you go type
basis
Page 179


























Sites should be located away from the settled community. The needs
of the two communities are different and therefore there are different
site requirements
Sites should be located on brownfield sites
There should be no sites in Broomfield, Writtle, Boreham
There should be no more sites in Writtle
Strict criteria need to be applied when considering the number of
pitches the Council is calculating as being required
Affordable housing could be built for Gypsy and Travellers and their
needs met by these houses
Questioning why there is a need for permanent sites if this community
are ‘Travellers’ and how the communities travelling is monitored
A transit site adjacent to the Park and Ride is suggested
The site identified in the North Chelmsford Area Action Plan should be
built before anymore and then the need for more sites reassessed
Sites need to be planned for and delivered on the ground otherwise
more unauthorised encampments appear in unwanted areas, and then
there is additional and unnecessary cost to the Council to have the
sites cleared
The number of pitches suggested seems to be excessive and there is
no information as to how this figure has been reached
Questioning the need for further sites
Any transit sites should be immediately adjacent to a main highway to
enable onward movement easily
The existing sites mainly seem to be alright so something similar to
those would seem acceptable
Actual sites and a precise location should be identified in the Local
Plan and not left for later stage consideration
Questioning what financial contributions Gypsy and Travellers make
towards any future site
Questioning why the City Council should be making provision for sites
Questioning if such sites will be used if they are provided
Sites should be located outside of the Green Belt
More sites are needed to the north and east of Chelmsford
There should be no more sites to the north of Chelmsford
Further Gypsy and Travellers should not be encouraged to reside in
Chelmsford
Sites should be provided adjacent to or on suitable employment land
Sites should have good pedestrian and cycle access to services such
as schools and be in sustainable locations to assist the Travelling
community in integrating with the settle community rather than being in
isolated locations
Boreham Airfield and disused military sites are suggested as a possible
site if it is unsuitable for bricks and mortar housing
Transit sites would be better for the settled population as well as to
help Gypsy and Travellers maintain a travelling lifestyle
Page 180





There is not enough land for bricks and mortar housing let alone for the
Travelling community
Questioning if the Local Plan takes into account the needs of all other
racial groups and refugees from other countries too and the changing
demographic from EU open borders
Tough enforcement action should be taken against illegal sites
Mitigation measures should be put in place to cover the cost of
providing and servicing any new sites
Some confusion that this question was referring to accommodation
needs of all people who happen to travel (by car, rail etc) rather than in
relation to the Gypsy and Traveller community.
Page 181
calculated its job requirement number?
Question
7
How many answered
question
100
How many made
a comment
57







Problem of balancing of housing costs against wages – affordability
Reduce the number of jobs to reduce the housing number
Assumes one job per house, not per person
Jobs do not appear to be linked to infrastructure or housing, leading to
cross-town travel and traffic increase
What is the breakdown by job sector and temporary/full time/part time
Impact of other employment areas on the need for jobs here – additional
jobs in future at DP World Port, Stansted, London
Radical improvement to infrastructure necessary to accommodate such
growth.










Relative to house prices, local jobs may not provide sufficiently high
wages to attract employees; housing costs must be related to average
wages; how many jobs are real jobs; jobs would need to be high
salaried to fund price of new homes, even affordable
Consider restricting the number of jobs, so not as many houses are
required – can have more control on growth this way
Jobs are calculated on one to one for house and not people – most
people live in partnerships, therefore less houses needed
House numbers based on unrealistic job numbers – which are based
on infrastructure assumptions
Ensure number of jobs per hectare is maximised, rather than low
number of jobs for unit size (e.g. Distribution Warehouse)
Sites for jobs are not near sites for housing, with no travel connections
between houses and workplaces; housing should be the same vicinity;
jobs should be for local people to avoid a dormitory town
Jobs appear to be in south and east, but a large proportion of new
dwellings are in the west without west-east infrastructure
What is the forecast for the rise in London jobs, commuters must be
factored in; how does the proximity to London affect job requirements
The number of jobs appears lower than the number of houses, shifting
the problem to traffic through the town/local villages
Chelmsford should not be planning for more growth in jobs than can
reasonably be supported by the infrastructure and local housing
supply. There is a limit to the amount of new employment to be
Page 182
















encouraged
Clarify this text with plain English and bullet points
Unclear how the higher figure is reached; forecasts are guesses with
little evidence
Preference should be given to manufacturing sector to underpin the
economy, rather than service/retail; need to consider other sectors for
future employment growth
What are the job sectors by proportion, and how will public sector jobs
(health, schools) be funded
Extra houses will contribute to unemployment problem in the longer
term
Housing should be located to the north and east to cater for expansion
referred to at Harlow, Southend, Stansted; also impact of Crossrail on
access to employment
DP World Port, Thurrock, will attract people to live in the area,
especially Rettendon
What is the definition of a job – temporary, part time, full time?
Offices in the City being converted to flats is at odds with office space
needs
The figures may underestimate health and social care, and
tourism/leisure jobs which are not venue related but event led
887 jobs figure should be a minimum target, Essex is an excellent
location for growth and investment, proposed infrastructure
improvements will act as further catalysts
A radical improvement in infrastructure is required for existing
business, let alone increased business activity. M25, A120, A130,
A131, A12, railway singled out in particular
Housing should be built to the east to serve MedTech
Figure is dependent on a range of factors; EU referendum could affect
the state of the economy
Jobs should be created where the net inflow of workers come from, to
reduce highway infrastructure requirements
A positive comment that figures are based on clear evidence and
robust analysis.
Page 183
Do you have any comments on the job requirement number
(887 jobs per year) used for testing in this consultation?
Question
8
How many answered
question
98
How many made
a comment
54







Differences of opinion – jobs number is too high and overly optimistic; or
too low and should be a minimum
Working patterns may change due to new technology, online shopping,
ageing population
Perception that wages are not/will not be high enough to meet housing
costs, both purchase and rental
Assumes one job per house, not per person
What is the breakdown by job sector and temporary/full time/part time
Impact of other employment areas on the need for jobs here – additional
jobs in future at DP World Port, Stansted, London
Radical improvement to infrastructure necessary to accommodate such
growth.








Seems sensible but is it achievable?
How can 930 homes per year require only 887 jobs? The number of
jobs appears lower than the number of houses, shifting the problem to
traffic through the town/local villages
Suggest that 887 should be a minimum requirement; appears too low;
more will commute; what is longevity/turnover rate assumption; may
attract ‘footloose’ businesses particularly in relation to MedTech as a
catalyst for more relocations
887 is optimistic due to online shopping, local government cuts, poor
transport connections, City Centre at capacity for employment; better to
underpromise
Number of workers may change in 20 years due to higher percentage
of older people
Does not take into account working patterns brought about by changing
technology
Relative to house prices, local jobs may not provide sufficiently high
wages to attract employees; housing costs (purchase and rent) must
be related to average wages; how many jobs are real jobs; jobs would
need to be high salaried to fund price of new homes, even affordable;
much local work is low paid; some of the people of the 887 jobs will live
in affordable housing
Consider restricting the number of jobs, so not so many houses are
Page 184










required – can have more control on growth this way
Jobs are calculated on one to one for house and not people – most
people live in partnerships, some have 3 or 4 working age people,
therefore less houses needed
House numbers based on unrealistic job numbers – which are based
on infrastructure assumptions
Sites for jobs are not near sites for housing, with no travel connections
between houses and workplaces; housing should be the same vicinity;
jobs should be for local people to avoid a dormitory town
Preference should be given to manufacturing sector to underpin the
economy, rather than service/retail; need to consider other sectors for
future employment growth; more manual work opportunities
Extra houses will contribute to unemployment problem in the longer
term
DP World Port, Thurrock, will attract people to live in the area,
especially Rettendon
What is the definition of a job – temporary, part time, full time, homeworking?
A radical improvement in infrastructure is required for existing
business, let alone increased business activity. M25, A120, A130,
A131, A12 (mostly 2 lane, inadequate), railway singled out in particular
Jobs should be created elsewhere in the country where there is high
unemployment
Limit building on greenfield / rural areas.
Page 185
calculated its retail capacity forecasts?
Question
9
How many answered
question
100
How many made
a comment
61




There was likely to be a continued increase in the proportion of online
retailing and that this should be taken into account in the forecast
It is important to maintain the vitality of the High Street, including smaller,
independent shops and an improvement to the Chelmsford Market
Some respondents were unclear on the calculation of the forecasts and
felt unable to comment
Parking in Chelmsford and SWF was considered inadequate, which
impacted on retail vitality.
Changes in shopping patterns
 There was significant concern as to whether changes in shopping
patterns had been accounted for in the forecasts, particularly increases
in online shopping
 The proportion of people online shopping would continue to increase
over the Plan period resulting in a reduced requirement for physical
retail space.
Chelmsford Market
 The market should be encouraged made more attractive to shoppers.
Retail capacity forecasts
 There was some concern that the proposed increase in floorspace was
very large and was an optimistic assumption
 The proposed increase in retail floorspace is not proportional to
projected population growth
 The retail forecasts essentially represent guesswork with little evidence
 It was questioned whether the additional space was required given
current retail developments such as the John Lewis development.
Clarity of explanation
 There was some concern that the forecasts were not explained in
sufficient detail to allow people to comment and the information was not
understood by all.
Page 186
Vitality of High Street
 There was some confusion over the identified need for new floorspace
given the current number of vacant units in both Chelmsford and SWF
 The opening of the John Lewis development may also impact the
number of vacant units on the High Street as current stores relocate
 Alternative locations such as Lakeside and Westfield Stratford will
impact on the number of shoppers using the High Street.
Retail offer in Chelmsford
 Too much focus on chain retailers and not enough smaller, independent
shops
 A more diverse range of shops would help improve the cultural offer of
Chelmsford.
Parking provision
 Parking provision was an essential component of retail vitality and that
current provision was inadequate in both Chelmsford and SWF.
Page 187
Do you have any comments on the retail floorspace
Question
10
How many answered
question
81
How many made
a comment
38




There is likely to be a continued increase in the proportion of online
retailing and this should be taken into account in the forecast
It is important to maintain the vitality of the High Street, including smaller,
independent shops
Some respondents were unclear on the calculation of the forecasts and
felt unable to comment
Parking in Chelmsford and SWF was considered inadequate, which
impacted on retail vitality.
Changes in shopping patterns
 There was significant concern as to whether changes in shopping
patterns had been accounted for in the forecasts, particularly increases
in online shopping
 There was a belief that the proportion of people shopping online would
continue to increase over the Plan period resulting in a reduced
requirement for physical retail space.
Retail capacity forecasts
 There was some concern that the proposed increase in floorspace was
very large and was an optimistic assumption
 Belief that proposed increase in retail floor space is not proportional to
projected population growth
 There was some belief that the retail forecasts essentially represent
guesswork with little evidence
 It was questioned whether the additional space was required given
current retail developments such as the John Lewis development.
Clarity of explanation
 There was some concern that the forecasts were not explained in
sufficient detail to allow people to comment and the information was not
understood by all.
Vitality of High Street
 There was some confusion over the identified need for new floor space
given the current number of vacant units in both Chelmsford and SWF.
Page 188
Retail offer in Chelmsford
 There was some belief that there was too much focus on chain retailers
and not enough smaller, independent shops
 A more diverse range of shops would help improve the cultural offer of
Chelmsford.
Parking provision
 There was some belief that parking provision was an essential
component of retail vitality and that current provision was inadequate in
both Chelmsford and SWF.
Page 189
calculated its office need forecasts?
Question
11
How many answered
question
81
How many made
a comment
41



Need is over estimated
The need for offices is questioned:
- many offices have been converted
- there are already a lot of empty offices, technology will reduce the
need further
Availability of parking may affect success of offices.










Office provision would be welcome in SWF but there is no long stay
parking; cars park on roads causing a hazard. Some businesses have
relocated away from SWF due to this
Need for office space is over-calculated – many comments stating that
offices have been turned into residential, therefore assuming there is no
need for offices
There is already plenty of office space; a lot of empty offices, even
recently built ones; no need to expand; hot desking and home working
reduces need, this will affect office needs forecasts; more people
commuting to London due to lack of road infrastructure and parking for
employees; people unaware that there is a need; why can’t existing
offices be refurbished?
Ensure sufficient parking space adjacent to offices
Only two types will be needed (due to internet/home working) prestige/international which will be in London; and call-centre offices in
cheaper regions with plentiful supply of workers, not Chelmsford
Offices should be near to rail stations and main roads
Offices should incorporate housing in the City Centre, to prevent loss of
village settings
Too much emphasis on office space needs
No mention of how market forces drive the need e.g. cost of office
space here and in comparable towns
Where are the proposed locations?
Page 190
Do you have any comments on the office floorspace
Question
12
How many answered
question
72
How many made
a comment
33




Changing working patterns will affect office need – home working,
technology, flexible working
Parking is important for new offices
Location is important – near to transport links or to new houses
Also need more large retail distribution areas, due to our location.













All office space should be suitable for new technologies
Only two types will be needed (due to internet/home working) prestige/international which will be in London; and call-centre offices in
cheaper regions with plentiful supply of workers, not Chelmsford
Changing working patterns will continue – working from home, flexible
working
Need to ensure sufficient parking adjacent for offices
Businesses are moving out of SWF due to lack of car parking with many
offices being turned into residential
Forecasts appear not to be based on concrete evidence
There is insufficient emphasis placed on the need to create more local
employment. Chelmsford will need to attract more employers and
cannot rely on being a dormitory for commuters to London. The
objective should be to provide more land for manufacturing and
distribution. We are under-represented when compared to towns like
Harlow, Stevenage, Luton, and Oxford in terms of retail distribution
centres (RDCs) and given our geographic positioning between the
important ports of Felixstowe, Harwich, Grays and the metropolis of
Greater London, the City should be setting aside land with which to
attract more retail distributers
Space should be near main transport links
None is shown for north or west Chelmsford, will increase cross-town
commuting
A lot of office space is being converted into flats; therefore the amount
required seems high
More emphasis on office space than there needs to be
Office development should be built in relation to where new houses are
built
Office rents are too high.
Page 191
Do you think that we have missed any issues related to future
employment and economic development to be addressed in
the new Local Plan?
Question
13
How many
Yes
answered question
182
85
No
65
None
ticked
32
How many made
a comment
93
 Types of business are changing:
- less manufacturing, more automation, less public sector
- working habits e.g. home working, online shopping, out-commuting
(particularly due to Crossrail, Stansted, Thurrock
port)
 Sectors to encourage green technology, tourism and culture, high-tech,
manufacturing to replace Marconi, flexible/affordable space for SMEs and
start-ups, distribution, live/work, low energy and sustainable
 Significant concern about infrastructure to support employment, potential
for increased congestion, peak traffic increase, access to jobs for people
living rurally, need for improved access to Broomfield Hospital, additional
capacity needed on rail link to London
 Business locations – walking distance of railway station, close to A12,
where the housing is to avoid cross town travel, near to MedTech, Great
Leighs if houses go ahead there
 More office and retail needed with plans for west of Chelmsford; and all
housing sites in Options 1 and 2
 Concern about vacant office space and conversion of some to residential
 A need to work closely with Braintree and Uttlesford due to the scale of
expansion.






Should encourage green technologies, e.g. electric battery technology
Work with university to encourage development using sustainable
building materials and for insulation and low energy use, to tackle
resource use and climate change
Have changes in working habits and arrangements (e.g. home working)
been taken into account?
Should take into account how various industries currently employing
people in Chelmsford are changing; e.g. administrative functions in the
finance sector are disappearing through automation, many people
working at Broomfield Hospital and at Stansted
There is significant unused office space in Chelmsford and ageing
buildings that require redevelopment. A study of the vacant office space
would indicate the spare capacity
Office being lost to residential should be controlled by Article 4
Page 192
























Directions.
Small businesses may have reduced footfall e.g. if large supermarket
built at SWF
Employment in public sectors likely to fall due to reduced state
expenditure
Jobs in farming and conservation will be lost by building on greenfield
sites; no proposals for agriculture and related industry; students will not
be attracted to Writtle if there is no farmland
Tourism and culture opportunities – Roman settlement, recreations of
Chelmsford’s past (indoors e.g. at Shire Hall); Civic Theatre is basic;
how will we encourage sustainable tourism when we don’t have a tourist
office?
Will be a rise in care jobs due to ageing population and more infants
Should encourage high-tech industry, take advantage of proximity to
‘Cambridge corridor’; use brownfield sites in the City for these
businesses, rather than for housing
DP World port at Thurrock will create jobs
Crossrail will have limited economic advantage for Chelmsford – people
living here and commuting out
London commuters will increase due to rising house prices
A lot of comments concerned about infrastructure and transport plans to
cope with expansion of employment, peak traffic is significant
First priority should be to improve access to and from Broomfield (for all
workers), and encourage people not to pass through the village
Difficult for rural dwellers to access jobs
Effect of increased commuters on trains to London
Reinstate rail link to Maldon
Not enough consideration to the impact of changing technology on how
and where people use office, retail and manufacturing space
Marconi type businesses should be replaced/encouraged along with
small scale manufacturing
Manufacturing and distribution should be planned for - manufacturing
has died; status as centre of excellence for electrical/electronic
engineering has been lost; distribution will go to cheaper areas; tourism
will struggle with urbanisation (heritage already destroyed); healthcare
jobs are not wealth creators and proportional to the population
Address the reasons why big companies are relocating
Small amount of employment at Great Leighs will create a commuter
community and destroy the community spirit
Are all small (one-man) business noted in the system?
Number of jobs per hectare should be maximised, rather than
distribution with low number of jobs for the size of unit
All new housing should incorporate office/workshop space
Particular attention should be given to providing flexible, affordable
workspace for start-ups and SMEs – this will help enterprise and young
people
New dwellings should be within walking distance of the new railway
Page 193










station; or close to the A12
Housing needs to be where the jobs are, e.g. east of Chelmsford for
MedTech; not to west or north which would need cross town travel
Business locations could also be at land east of Three Mile Hill, west of
A414, north of Essex Regiment Way
No office or food retail proposed with houses west of Chelmsford, where
will these people work?
How and where will 3,000 households in north and west Chelmsford
shop and work? Will increase roads congestion.
All housing sites in Options 1 and 2 should include additional business
and retail
Future population numbers not linked to future birth rate, there is a
population explosion
Will new jobs be for local people?
Chelmsford, Braintree and Uttlesford need to plan in a joined-up way,
population of these areas will practically double but there is no
infrastructure, it’s unsustainable. Particular effect on Great Leighs
If Chelmsford remains a nice place to visit, more visitors will provide
employment and economic development
South-east is booming at present, but have you allowed for bust?
Recessions happen every decade.
Page 194
highways, transportation and accessibility to be addressed in
the new Local Plan?
Question
14
How many
Yes
answered question
623
550
No
55
None
ticked
18
How many made
a comment
589















New development should be located near existing, new or firmly planned
infrastructure
The existing road system is inadequate with many key routes experiencing
congestion
Deliver required new road infrastructure before or alongside new growth
including the NE Bypass, A12 improvements, upgrading the Boreham
Interchange and the new railway station. Improvements to many other
roads suggested
Strong support for the NE Bypass
General concerns over how new infrastructure especially roads will be
funded
Concerns that no traffic modelling has been undertaken on the Plan
Significant objection to the Western Relief Road including concerns over
its justification, benefits, impacts, delivery and funding
Many existing roads in proposed growth areas are already congested and
unsafe e.g. Main Road in Broomfield, Main Road in Boreham, Roxwell
Road/A1060, A414 in Danbury. They cannot cope with additional growth
Great Leighs and Danbury villages already suffers from congestion and
rat-running. They could not cope with additional growth proposed in the
Plan plus that set out in neighbouring councils’ plans
Consider how the existing and the new railway station can support
transportation of freight
Significant concerns regarding the price, frequency and availability of
public transport
Support for providing improved sustainable transport including more Park
and Ride facilities, walking and cycle links
Concerns over the poor state of pavements and cycle paths in some areas
More parking will be needed in central Chelmsford
Consider how to reduce pollution from traffic and to limiting HGVs in the
City Centre.
Page 195
Location of new development/general
 Significant support for directing new development near existing, new or
firmly planned infrastructure and main transport corridors e.g. the
existing and the new railway station, Boreham, the A12 and A130.
 Do not rely upon the already heavily congested City road system that is
very close to capacity
 Consider development in areas which would minimise travel to work
and around major commuter routes
 Suggested new locations for development included the old gas works,
the Britvic building, the Police headquarters and Hammonds Farm
 New roads are eating further into Green Belt land.
Existing situation/general need for improvement/more infrastructure/funding
 Significant concerns that the existing road system is almost at capacity,
is inadequate for existing needs and new development will create even
more congestion/gridlock
 Provide new required infrastructure before or in line with new
development
 Channels and Beaulieu developments are a strain on existing roads
and should have dedicated main routes in and out of town
 New shops and leisure facilities in Chelmsford will increase traffic and
congestion
 Unclear what infrastructure will be needed to support growth and how
they will be funded
 Some infrastructure improvements have never been delivered
 Invest in public transport and main commuting routes rather than the
Western Relief Road
 Unclear if the Highways Agency supports the highway proposals and
what other schemes are in the pipeline
 Improve City Centre roads and routes e.g. Army and Navy, Parkway
and Victoria Road
 Assess impacts of growth beyond Chelmsford’s area on the local road
network
 Consider traffic impacts of local villages and potential 'rat running'
 Villages and rural areas have been missed out of the transport and
access strategy
 Build a bypass connecting Broomfield Hospital with Galleywood
 Some of our roads and pavements are already in dire need of repair.
North East Bypass
 Must deliver before new development
 This will benefit the local and strategic highway network
 Build before contemplating a Western Relief Road
 Include a link to Broomfield Hospital
 Concern that there is no delivery timetable
 Concern it would not ease City Centre congestion
Page 196


Questioning if there have been any recent traffic surveys
Maintain North Essex route instead of building a new one.
Western Relief Road
 Significant objection. It will spoil beautiful countryside, harm wildlife,
listed buildings, high quality farmland and lead to more housing and
congestion
 Concern it is not deliverable by 2036 so would not support the
proposed development
 It should be entirely or partly paid for by developers
 Concern that the need for the road is unproven and will generate more
traffic locally on existing very busy roads
 Public transport and cycling improvements would not offset the time
delay in the delivery of the Western Relief Road
 Some support but must be delivered ahead of new development to
prevent local traffic gridlock
 It should link to the A12 and any new housing around it.
Main Road Broomfield/access to Broomfield Hospital/Newlands Spring
 Significant concern Broomfield Road is already at full capacity/
dangerous and cannot cope with more development
 Need to improve existing inadequate infrastructure before any more
housing is built
 Growth would exacerbate congestion, worsen air quality and increase
noise and disturbance
 No mention of alleviating traffic through Broomfield or improving access
to Broomfield Hospital
 Hospital Approach and the roundabout are inadequate and congested
now
 New development will make it harder to use Main Road which is
already difficult and dangerous to use and it will increase rat-running
through the village
 There has been numerous serious accidents on Main Road
 Pavements along Main Road are inadequate
 Newland Spring and roads around the Walthams are already at
maximum capacity.
Writtle/A1060/Roxwell Road/Chignal Road
 Significant concern that these roads are already heavily congested and
unable to cope with proposed developments in north and west of
Chelmsford making the Spatial Options unsustainable
 Need to improve road links along Roxwell Road towards Chelmsford
 Adequate road infrastructure must be in place before development in
west and north Chelmsford
 These roads are already heavily congested
 No development at Location 2 without the Western Relief Road but this
will not be built by 2036
Page 197


Location 2 is beyond most people’s walking distance to the station,
meaning greater car use
Residents in Location 2 would drive through Writtle to access Crossrail
at Shenfield Station harming this village.
Great Leighs/Braintree/Essex Regiment Way
 Concern that road through Great Leighs and Essex Regiment Way are
already congested. Existing planned development at Channels will add
to this without providing suitable traffic mitigation
 Many travel from Braintree to Chelmsford station, further increasing
traffic flow
 Development at Great Leighs together with 1000’s of new homes in
adjoining areas will be unsustainable on existing infrastructure
including roads and public services
 Chelmsford, Braintree and Uttlesford Councils must work together on
their plans in a joined up way.
A12/A130/A131/ring road/new roads/general
 Considerable support for improving these roads and upgrading
Boreham Interchange
 Improve Chelmer Road & Princes Road, the Army & Navy, the Great
Leighs/Boreham Road and the B1012
 Consider a complete outer ring road to include the Western Relief
Road to reduce gridlock in the City Centre and an alternative to the
A12
 Consider other new roads/connections e.g. between the A12 and the
A130/A131, new access to the A12 from the North of Chelmsford,
between Broomfield Hospital and Channels
 Table 3 should refer to removing through traffic well beyond the
outskirts of the City
 Consider how the road infrastructure can be improved in villages.
Danbury/Maldon/Boreham
 Many residents commented that the roads in Danbury including the
A414 are already heavily congested and cannot cope with any more
development
 New housing growth in other areas (e.g. Maldon) will make the
situation worse
 New development in east Danbury would not be able to join the A414
 The new traffic lights in Little Baddow Road and Mayes Lane will only
make the situation worse
 A414 will be compromised by traffic from the new Danbury Medical
Centre
 The extra traffic will increase rat running making roads unsafe
 Local residents do not support new development in the village (as
expressed in responses to the Danbury Village Plan)
Page 198




ECC Highways have stated that traffic levels at Eves Corner would be
at saturation levels by 2026 even without Maldon’s planned
development
Consider a Danbury bypass, downgrading the A414 through Danbury
to relieve traffic relief.
Traffic is a huge traffic problem in Boreham already
800 new dwellings in Boreham would be totally unacceptable in traffic
terms
East Hanningfield/SWF
 Development under Option 3 would increase rat-running and lead to
grid-around East Hanningfield
 Only a very small percentage of people living in East Hanningfield
actually work here, hence newcomers will commute creating further
traffic problem for the village and surrounding areas
 Better parking/Park and Ride or a new railway station in SWF with
extended parking should be considered
 SWF town centre is already under threat from the proposed
Sainsbury's development
 Move the B1012 north of any further development to protect the town
centre
 SWF to Rettendon Road widening will simply move the problem.
Improve the Turnpike
 Dual the A132 from Rettendon to the Hamberts Road roundabout.
Railway stations/new railway links/rail travel/movement of freight/depot
 Significant support for the new railway station which should open
before any further development
 Focus infrastructure improvements around the new railway station and
provide a frequent bus service
 Focus new development around the new railway station to minimise
congestion
 No information on predicted usage of the train station and additional
traffic flows
 Consider issues with Chelmsford’s railway station e.g. it is currently
over capacity, in a poor condition with expensive services
 Some support for a new rail link from Maldon, better links with
Cambridge, Kings Cross and Ebbsfleet, Harlow, Luton airport and
upgrading the SWF line
 Road access to the station at Chelmsford would be disastrous and not
viable
 Chelmsford station parking is too limited and provides poor access to
the station
 Plan does not consider the use of the existing and new stations for the
transportation of freight.
Page 199
Public transport (especially bus services), trams, river transport etc
 Must provide/invest in improved and affordable public transport before
new development commences
 Support for the promotion of sustainable transport, walking and cycling
 Significant concern that public transport is expensive, inefficient, not
accessible and inconvenient e.g. bus services along Broomfield Road
 Not enough emphasis on sustainable forms of transport
 Support for the ‘Strategic Zonal Focuses’ in principle. Consider
emphasising a bus strategy in all zones and ensuring different modes
of public transport are joined up
 Consider a tram-train system (successfully adopted in Germany and
elsewhere in Europe)
 No mention of innovative transport measures e.g. monorail and
canal/river transport.
Park and Ride
 Encourage car sharing by charging by car rather than by person as in
e.g. Nottingham
 Support Park and Ride, provide more facilities e.g. in south and west
Chelmsford, and ensure the price is kept down
 Some concerns/suggestions over the siting of the Widford Park and
Ride e.g. site close to the junction of the A12 and A414 near
Margaretting.
Cycling
 Should be more emphasis on sustainable forms of transport e.g.
walking and cycling
 Provide details and timetable for the improved cycle network
 New and improved cycle paths are needed to build on the existing
provision e.g. around the north/around Broomfield, from
Walthams/Broomfield to the City Centre, over Essex Regiment Way
 Concerns expressed over the poor state of existing cycle paths and
cycling barriers e.g. parked cars
 Broomfield Road should have segregated cycling paths
 Encouraging people to cycle to the railway station is supported but the
distances involved (from Broomfield) and lack of safe cycle routes
mean that it has a limited impact on traffic congestion
 Cyclists must be required to obey 'Cyclists Dismount' and 'No Cycling'
signage
 User-friendly and safe cycle and bus-lanes are essential. This will
improve journey times
 More bicycle parks are needed at the stations.
Footpaths, safety, car sharing and car free developments
 Too much reliance on walking
 Not enough emphasis on sustainable forms of transport
 Promote sustainable transport, walking and cycling though the Plan
Page 200
Address poor pedestrian pathways e.g. pavements in Broomfield are
too narrow and hard to use
 Encourage car sharing/renting by making more compact housing
areas, this will also make it easier to walk and cycle
 What about making the City Centre and other areas of good transport
accessibility car free?
 Promote opportunities for car clubs across the wider area

Various issues
 There is a national shortages of GPs, have the surgeries in SWF been
consulted to see if they could cope with a large influx of new patients?
 Surface drainage and sewer systems must be addressed before any
new building
 Provide more parking in central Chelmsford e.g. for commuters and
shoppers
 No reference to how vehicle emissions from more traffic will be
reduced
 Consider how to minimise HGV traffic e.g. time restrictions
 Consider providing secure overnight stops for HGV lorry services
 Encourage home working which can reduce the need to travel
 Extensive development to the west of Chelmsford is not supported by
any traffic assessments
 Consider an energy strategy to keep street lights on at night
 Ensure Essex Police and Essex Ambulance Service are consulted
about future traffic increases
 No detailed traffic modelling is provided to support the proposals in the
Plan
 Look at smart cities.
Page 201
protecting the environment to be addressed in the new Local
Plan?
Question
15
How many
answered question
570 (+37 in petition)
Yes
No
505
40
None
ticked
25
How many made
a comment
542
















There needs to be a strategic review of the Green Belt allowing
Chelmsford to be developed in a more effective way
There was general support for Green Wedges but they should have a
wider scope and need to be expanded
There was support for Green Buffers on land at edges of vulnerable
villages but the effect of the Green Buffer proposed north of Broomfield
was questioned
The fields to the north and west of Chelmsford are extremely viable
agricultural land, with woodland pockets, wildlife and archaeological
interest
Broomfield’s countryside is the reason why many people have moved
there, it has a strong sense of tranquillity which would be spoiled by the
Building on the best farmland is a great waste of resources as this land will
be vital for growing crops in the future to feed our growing population
The proposed Western Relief Road would ruin the communities and
landscape surrounding the Chignal parish as well as the settings of historic
buildings and a Scheduled Monument
Half of the land at location 2 is designated a Special Landscape Area
The landscape character of the Pleshey and Writtle plateaus will be greatly
adversely affected if locations 2 and 3 were developed
It is not clear whether Chelmsford has a positive strategy for the historic
environment
Warren Farm is part of a rainwater catchment area reducing flooding by
nearby rivers and brooks
The countryside around Boreham has a strong identity which should be
protected for future generations
It is essential to provide convenient and sufficient green space for
recreation and wellbeing
The beauty of living in a village is the opportunity to have close proximity
to the countryside
There needs to be more emphasis on retaining the character and appeal
of established communities, particularly villages surrounding Chelmsford
There is little if any mention of what protection there will be for footpaths to
the north and west of the City Centre
Page 202



The effect of the increase of the volume of traffic and the resulting noise
and pollution on the enjoyment of life have not been considered
Development should be focused on the lower grade land near/to the south
of the A12/to the south and east/north-east already affected by road noise
from the A12
Where are the plans to plant native trees along road sides to reduce air
pollution?
General
 You need to engage more everyday people in the thought process who
live in and around Chelmsford, and who have a sense of forwardthinking
 Ensure that greenfield sites are well chosen to maintain the rural areas,
both to provide food and jobs as well as air quality, water supplies and
other environmental effects. Climate change and flooding should be a
major consideration
 More suitable sites are not included as options
 The environment is best "protected" by not building these over-large
and unsustainable developments.
Green Belt
 Some respondents believed that the Green Belt should be protected for
its wildlife, future generations and to retain the character of the area
 There was some belief that that Green Belt designation to the south and
west of Chelmsford has had a significant impact of the spatial growth of
the City which is now unevenly spread and putting pressure on
infrastructure unnecessarily
 Support for a strategic review of the Green Belt allowing Chelmsford to
be developed in a more effective way and including areas which may
be suitable for development with better transport links
 Some areas in the Green Belt have less landscape value, less quality of
agricultural land, less historic and natural environment significance than
some places currently outside the Green Belt - some areas could be reclassified as Green Belt allowing landscape, ecological aspects, quality
of agricultural land etc to be taken into account e.g. the Chignals, the
Walthams, Pleshey etc.
 The former scrapyard in Temple Road, West Hanningfield is a brown
field site and should be considered for housing, as should all other
scrap yards, former agricultural farms etc
 A lack of development in villages in the Green Belt affects the
sustainability of those communities, e.g. Margaretting where shops and
a school have closed, these could become pensioner villages
 If potential housing location 2 is accepted, this must be complemented
with an extension of the Green Belt immediately to the south
 Some parts of the Green Belt may need to be used to help support new
developments i.e. used to provide new roads and access links
 The Western Relief Road would almost certainly encroach on Green
Page 203
Belt.
Green Wedges and Buffers
 General support for Green Wedges to maintain the character of the area
 Welcome the extension of the Green Wedge to the north of the area
 Green Wedges around the villages, especially the Chignals, will stop
them being swallowed up by the Chelmsford Urban expansion
 Although reference is made to Green Wedges, there seems to me to be
insufficient resolve and determination
 There is no Green Wedge plan to protect urban sprawl and gradual
ribbon industrialisation
 Green Wedges should not be merely areas unsuitable for new housing
(e.g. flood plains), they are also necessary for proper development of
character elsewhere
 "Potential" Green Wedges and Buffers must be given as much priority
as housing, retail and office development
 The Green Wedges should be preserved and/or even extended length
wise, e.g. an extension of the River Can Green Wedge to include the
upper Can valley
 Chelmer valley from the Army and Navy roundabout to the eastern
boundary of the district should be recognised as a Green wedge, it is a
landscape of national significance since it lies at the heart of the work of
J.A. Baker now widely regarded as one of the great landscape writers of
the 20th century
 The Green Wedges are not wide enough to be able to sustain larger
numbers of wildlife that may be displaced.
 Change the potential extension of the northern Green Wedge to
eliminate some anomalies and address local housing need; this Green
Wedge extends finger like for almost half a mile into the village
boundary to encompass all the land around Brooklands (CM1 7AJ) but
the paddock to the west of Brooklands, geographically in the centre of
the village and immediately adjacent to the Main Road (B1008), are not
included within the village boundary
 The educational role of the Green Wedges needs to be stressed - every
school should have access to its own 'wild' area, not have to get on a
bus to experience nature
 Suggest new ‘Wedges’ to safeguard Broomfield from increased
incursion from the north of Chelmsford and Great and Little Waltham
from any northward incursion from Broomfield
 Local designations should be extended to geodiversity in collaboration
with GeoEssex
 Support for Green Buffers on land at edges of vulnerable villages
 Questioning the Green Buffer north of Broomfield as this might have a
road running through it - any street lighting would urbanise this quiet
country area; it would also lead to housing infill between it and the
hospital.
Page 204
Natural Environment
 Location 3 is currently extremely viable agricultural land divided up by
areas of woodland, natural ponds and watercourses, public footpaths
and hedgerows, made up of native wild species, and lakes which could
also be lost to potential development. Development will affect wildlife,
trees, plant life, the area is used by walkers, dog walkers and horse
riders. There is a particular need to protect fields and woodlands from St
Mary’s Church in Broomfield across to the Chignals, and Great
Waltham, incorporating Border Wood, the lakes at Tufnell Mere,
Micklem Mere, Broads Green and Partridge Green and the area north
and east of Broomfield Hospital between the Bedford Sports Playing
Field and Woodhouse Lane incorporating Sparrowhawk Wood
(supported by a petition with 37 additional signatures)
 Road verges and other public areas should also be included as they
constitute a large important area for potential wildlife conservation
 The focus for environmental protection seems to be on areas that
already have a formal designation - what about the concept of
tranquillity offered by unspoilt countryside? Tranquillity in the
countryside around Broomfield Hospital benefits patients as evidenced
in the following BIOPHILIA report http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760412/
 The fields to the north and west of Chelmsford have woodland pockets
and wildlife in abundance (deer, owls, hares, badgers, foxes, rabbits,
owls and many more animals and birds) which would be affected by the
 There are local nature reserves such as Newland Grove by the side of
the river with abundant wildlife
 Cutting major new roads and building huge housing developments on
fields and meadows is destroying the environment not protecting it
 The proposed Western Relief Road would ruin the communities and
landscape around Chignal parish; affect the wildlife in Sparrowhawks
Wood and Border Wood, Chignal; endanger the small areas of ancient
woodland between Chignal, Broomfield and Great Waltham
 Environmental Impact Assessments are key to ensure established
environments and habitats are preserved; effective management plans
to ensure environmentally sensitive areas are protected are vital.
Flooding and Climate Change
 No new development should be allowed on any flood plain, or in areas
categorised by the Environment Agency as Flood Zones 2 or 3
 More emphasis needed on flooding and climate change issues
 Flood protection measures should be incorporated into any
development on or near areas at risk of flooding
 Significant concern over proposed development on Warren Farm - part
of a rainwater catchment area reducing flooding of the River Can/Wid
and Roxwell Brook. New homes will increase flooding because more
rain water will run off rather than be absorbed and released slowly.
Page 205







Areas affected (and already prone to flooding) include Lordship Road,
Cow Watering Lane, Melba Court, Bridge Street and Lower Lane;
development should not increase flood risk
Building in the Chelmer Valley increases risk of flooding of local homes
There are current problems at Old Church Road in East Hanningfield
which floods regularly with sewage polluted water (what measures have
been put in place to deal with this?)
It would be good to see proper flood prevention measures put in place,
e.g. Battlesbridge is at risk of flooding largely due to the lack of dredging
over many decades
Land around Boreham is of clay, continual building will only exacerbate
flooding
Clean out the ditches and dredge some of the river areas to help with
flooding. The more land that is developed the more the water runs off or
cannot be absorbed into, creating more flooding. Encourage water butts
and permeable driveways with some grass
New housing must all be zero emission built to address climate change
and air pollution. Encourage photo-voltaic panels, electric transport of all
types including electric bicycles
The plan must commit itself to maintaining and improving existing
infrastructure - like flood defences and especially sea walls where the
risk is already known and quantified.
Historic Environment
 Need more resolve and determination to protect these priceless
inheritances for future generations
 An understanding of the historic environment should help shape the
location and form of new development, every opportunity to enhance
heritage assets should be taken and the historic and natural
environment must be understood and managed in an integrated way if
development is to be sustainable
 Chelmsford’s strategy for the historic environment should be clearly
summarised, or a statement to say it is being developed to inform
Preferred Options
 What protection will there be for existing sites of archaeological and/or
historic interest, now and those identified in the future?
 Several residents pointed out that the land to the north west of
Chelmsford has archaeological interest (e.g. evidence of Roman and
Saxon occupation, Iron Age remains, Dragon’s Foot field) and a number
of listed buildings including some historic buildings missed in the original
listing
 Many historic buildings and the Scheduled Monument in Chignal or their
settings would be damaged by the development proposals and by the
Western Relief Road
 GHQ line (Second World War) has a wide range of historical sites that
form part of the City's heritage. Many have already been lost to
development. Every effort should be made to preserve those which
Page 206
remain.
Landscape Character
 A considerable number of respondents pointed out that half of the land
at location 2 (Warren Farm) is designated a Special Landscape Area
and this area will be lost if developed
 A considerable number of respondents referred to the Council’s own
documentation - countryside around Broomfield has 'a strong sense of
tranquillity', which would be spoiled by the proposed development
 Limited reference to the quality of land from an aesthetic viewpoint, has
destruction of areas of natural beauty been truly considered?
 Seems to be insufficient resolve and determination to protect these
priceless inheritances for future generations
 Broomfield's Community Landscape Character Assessment 2010
emphasised the closeness to the open countryside
 Agricultural land north west Chelmsford (Broomfield) has an attractive
landscape character; an important reason for living in Broomfield; the
wide view and the ability to see all the hills surrounding Chelmsford from
Broomfield Church is a superb area of open space which should be kept
 Chignals VDS states that the River Can valley “is designated a Special
Landscape Area”. The river and valley are directly in the line of the
potential Western Relief Road. Listed buildings, Scheduled Monument
Local List buildings would be seriously compromised by the
development suggested in all three Options
 Writtle, the Chignals, and Broomfield all have strong, vibrant
communities, identities and heritage value which would be eroded under
any of the three options; supported by the Chignals VDS
 Pleshey Farmland Plateau has tranquillity and a pattern of settlements
that should remain a principle in town planning; Pleshey and Writtle
plateaus will be adversely affected by the proposals for development at
site 2 and 3; The Western Relief Road would be hugely detrimental to
the essential rural character and signature landscape of villages like the
Chignals, the Walthams, Pleshey and Nine Elms.
Building on good quality farmland
 Option 3 areas are predominantly on good fertile and productive
farmland, grade 3A and above, this should be avoided at all costs for
the sustainability of future populations
 Chelmsford's best farmland is to the north and west, all vital for growing
crops in the future to feed our growing population
 Location 2 will result in the loss of good quality agricultural land,
valuable land for future food security
 Boreham area is Grade 2 and 3A farmland, we should not sacrifice this
asset in preference to lower grade land
 The variation in the quality of the farmland around the City may be
overlooked, many of the proposed sites in the west are grade 2
farmland
Page 207



Some Green Belt land is of a lower grade agricultural land and less
valuable for farming use. To sacrifice good farming land for building
when Green Belt land could be used in its place is not a sound plan
A Western Relief Road will change the existing environment forever and
impact on the higher grade farmland in the west
Farmland also supports many animals, insects and birds and creates a
pleasant environment for us to enjoy.
 Considerable support for focusing development on the lower grade land
near/to the south of the A12/to the south and east/north-east already
affected by road noise from the A12; close to the proposed railway
station and A12/A130
 Build in brownfield sites and if necessary on poor agricultural land such
as near Boreham
 Boreham Airfield seems ideal with all the houses built in one place near
the new station
 Hammonds Farms is of lower grade
 SWF has lower grade agricultural land.
Access to and use of the countryside/green space
 Access to open countryside is important to many residents of the City
 West - a huge amount of farmland will be lost meaning we will have to
drive to the countryside; tranquil footpaths for dog walkers and
ramblers; beautiful countryside and woodland
 Writtle and Roxwell - widely used for horse-riding and cycling; vital
green lung to the west of Chelmsford.
 Boreham - the countryside around Boreham has a strong identity which
should be protected for future generations
 Broomfield - countryside is the reason people moved there; beautiful,
peaceful, used by dog walkers, ramblers and families for rest, relaxation
and recreation
 Sufficient green space for recreation and wellbeing is needed, which
was not properly planned for when SWF was planned in the 1960/70s
 Educational value of the countryside is also important; next generation
need to embrace the countryside to respect it; don’t send a message to
the youngsters saying that the countryside doesn't matter
 River valleys should be protected from development
 Chelmsford is a rural market City, expansion will remove the landscape
and open spaces for all Chelmsford residents.
Protection of villages
 The Green Wedges and the defined settlement boundaries are very
important for the small villages and for the protection of rural areas and
the surrounding countryside
 Support for Green Buffers around villages
 There should be specific protection of rural villages with unique and
Page 208




independent identities such as Danbury sitting atop its hill and the
Danbury Ridge which is of acknowledged regional significance. The
land between the A12 and Danbury should be protected so the village
retains its own unique character
Broomfield will become a suburb of Chelmsford; Broomfield has its own
Landscape Statement, which must be respected
Chelmsford villages and farmland must be protected for their wildlife,
their proximity to the countryside, character and appeal of established
communities
Heavy traffic can only mean more pollution through our villages. It
needs to be directed away from these areas
Writtle will get all of the negative impact with none of the positive.
Public footpaths
 The peaceful network of footpaths in the Broomfield and Walthams
would be destroyed by traffic noise, contradicting the Council's own
policies (wellbeing, activity, green spaces); what protection will there
be?
 Many footpaths already get great use and become wide, muddy, ugly
areas, damaging the landscape and restricting access.
Air quality, noise and traffic, quality of life
 Concern about vehicles (especially lorries) which produce most pollution
when under heavy acceleration e.g. when joining an existing traffic flow
at speed, suggest keep traffic moving through use of long slip roads,
'zipper' lanes and interchange junctions rather than roundabouts, avoid
speed humps and direct lorries away from villages
 Noise pollution is a major problem with health and mental health
implications
 New development will result in more cars, air and light pollution, noise the effect on residents/the rural environment/residential
areas/wildlife/health and quality of life needs to be considered
 Suggests planting native trees to reduce air pollution and enhance
quality of life, e.g. London Plane and Oak alongside roads
 Are allowances being made for future technological changes and
advancements in transport, energy supply etc?
Various
 All houses should be eco-friendly with solar panels and eco-friendly
street lighting
 Are residential gardens considered greenfield sites (see para 5.98) –
what is the principle on residential garden development?
 Broomfield Parish Plan seems to have been disregarded
 Ensure new developments are attractive both internally and from a
distance, particularly Locations 6 and 9, which are on sloping ground
and visible from a distance.
Page 209
Necessary infrastructure will be needed to support
development in the new Local Plan. Do you think that we have
missed any issues?
Question
16
How many
Yes
answered question
282
177
No
32
None
ticked
73
How many made
a comment
260














New development should not be proposed where major transport
infrastructure is unlikely to materialise due to the substantial costs previous plans have seen housing implemented without the promised
new/improved transport infrastructure to support it to the detriment of the
existing insufficient local road networks.
Infrastructure, services and facilities should be provided for existing as well
as new residents
Considerable support for putting in infrastructure before development
commences or at least at the same time
What is required to facilitate development in any particular area needs to
be assessed and considered at the outset
The plan should look at where existing infrastructure has capacity/ can
feasibly be added and look at putting development there rather than
identify development sites first and then see what infrastructure is needed
to support it
How/when will funding be secured for the new infrastructure? How much
and from where?
Why build houses to the west and make people drive across the City to the
new station? Additional traffic towards the new station from proposed
residential development sites has not been considered.
Considerable concern that the existing road infrastructure is inadequate
and needs improving before building more houses
Use the existing infrastructure to its maximum by widening existing roads
and improve public transport
The current rail infrastructure is inadequate and there is grid lock at the
railway station at commuter times
No allocation has been made for the use of the railway for the
transportation of freight or for the provision of a new depot
A relief road linking the A12 to A130/A131 is long overdue, an update of
the required improvements to the Army and Navy junction is required and
an alternative access to Broomfield Hospital needs to be provided
New development should be situated near existing good transport
infrastructure or firmly committed new infrastructure
Main Road, Broomfield gets very badly congested, increasing the
population in and around Broomfield means emergency vehicles will have
greater problems accessing Broomfield Hospital
Page 210











Brooomfield hospital is already struggling to cope with the demands of a
growing population and there is not enough space for parking
Road safety should be addressed before further development
Many doctor surgeries and dentists are already stretched to the limit or
over-subscribed
Considerable concern expressed over A1060 which cannot manage
existing traffic
New school places/schools to be provided before any more houses are
built just to meet existing needs in some areas
Whether existing sewerage works can cope with the extra demand needs
to be seriously considered; Anglian Water does not have current capacity
to accommodate foul water flows from existing developed areas
There is reference to the provision of electric power but no reference has
been made to gas supplies
Consideration should be given to the allocation of sites for renewable
energy
Some villages lack community facilities and Chelmsford lacks a medium
sized concert hall
The new Local Plan should provide strong protection for existing facilities
such as public houses
Improving residential broadband delivery issues throughout the borough
for existing users should be a priority, and mobile blackspots should be
eliminated.
General
 The document could be more innovative and holistic in its outlook and
approach
 The language is bland and non-committal
 All 3 options are wrong, and very similar and Broomfield has not been
given any good option to choose between
 Plans for west of Chelmsford are very vague
 New development should not be proposed where major transport
infrastructure is unlikely to materialise - previous plans have seen
housing implemented without the promised new/improved transport
infrastructure
 Infrastructure, services and facilities should be provided for existing as
well as new residents
 No detail/timescale is provided for the medical facilities, schools, shops,
roads and other services and facilities for the proposed new housing nor
information about the impact on current services
 Historically infrastructure improvements have been used to justify
development but subsequently never delivered, how can we avoid this
being repeated; delivery of infrastructure is an essential component of
spatial planning and place making
 Considerable support for putting in infrastructure before development
commences or at least at the same time
 Developers must be contractually bound to include infrastructure
Page 211





Development should be focused where existing infrastructure has
capacity, rather than identify development sites first and then see what
infrastructure is needed to support it
Need better co-ordination between CCC and surrounding authorities,
e.g. the area around Great Leighs, and all proposed development will
double the population of the area
How will funding be secured for the necessary infrastructure? How
much and from where?
What plans are there for public consultation and assurance that unlike
the last time the public’s views will be considered in respect of any
further expansion of businesses and homes in the area?
Some infrastructure need to be located on Green Belt land.
North East Bypass
 Some support - essential to relive serious congestion at peak periods /
take traffic away from north Chelmsford / avoid rat running through
country lanes
 Resources would be best spent on completing the NE Bypass rather
than starting a Western Relief Road
 Work should start as soon as possible and be completed prior to
building new houses
 NE Bypass will not provide significant benefit to existing traffic / will do
nothing to relieve City Centre congestion/traffic will still come down Main
Road, Broomfield
 The NE Bypass is the better option since there is space and better
access to the new station and it will take all the Braintree traffic away
from the Walthams
 The NE Bypass and the widening of the A12 to four lanes have been an
essential requirement for the last 20 years, but have not been delivered.
Traffic from Braintree cuts through Broads Green and School Lane,
Broomfield to avoid the blockages to the east resulting in massive
queues at the Sheepcotes Wood Roundabout (A130, A131, B1008) in
all directions and queuing from Ash Tree Corner Little Waltham all the
way down the B1008 to School Lane. The traffic from Dunmow direction
cuts through Great Waltham and Breeds.
Western Relief Road
 Concern that the Western Relief Road will not alleviate traffic
problems/City Centre congestion, it will move problems to the A414/
force more traffic coming into Chelmsford to use Roxwell Road which
already struggles to cope at rush hours and it will increase traffic
through Writtle
 There are no details, it will be very expensive and it is unlikely to be
ready until much of the housing is complete
 What traffic analysis has been undertaken to support this road?
 Some support of the Western Relief Road to prevent more traffic
through Writtle, relieve traffic congestion in the City Centre, to cope with
Page 212


increased traffic if developing to the west and forming part of a ring-road
around the City Centre
The Western Relief Road would only be needed for the Dunmow traffic,
therefore it would be better if it started at the Warner's Farm roundabout
north of Howe Street, rather than Broomfield Road
Western Relief Road should not be not provided with street lighting to
preserve the countryside.
Railway station/rail infrastructure/traffic to and from
 Seeking clarification of date for the completion of the new railway station
 There will be highway safety issues with all the cars and people heading
to the new station
 The current rail infrastructure is inadequate and there is grid lock at the
railway station at commuter times
 Additional tracks are needed in certain places in order to create greater
capacity for an already overcrowded commute into London, Colchester
or Ipswich
 Consideration should be given to reopening the railway line to Maldon to
remove the pressure from the local roads. The track bed is still available
for the line to be reopened
 Four railway tracks through Chelmsford have been needed for 20 years.
Train overcrowding cannot be reduced on a two track railway with or
without passing tracks at the non-existent Boreham Station
 No allocation has been made for the use of the railway for the
transportation of freight or for the provision of a depot for this purpose
which is contrary to CP26 in the Core Strategy. Consider a freight depot
at the proposed new railway station replacing the historic depot at Brook
Street, which could be released for redevelopment.
Other transport infrastructure needed
 Some support for a ring road around Chelmsford to remove crossing
traffic
 Major transport infrastructure from the last plan has still to be
implemented; also improvements in utility provision, undergrounding of
power cabling
 Traffic created by development north of Chelmsford will necessitate
extensive improvements/dualling of roads such as the A131 and
Chelmer Valley Route
 A relief road linking the A12 to A130/A131 is long overdue and must be
given a top priority
 The missing link in the form of a dual carriageway from the A12 to the
A120 is vital (and the disruption it will cause during its building is better
now before more houses are built and traffic gets heavier)
 The A12 need to be upgraded/widened to three lanes in both directions
throughout the area
 Beaulieu has been built and sold without the promised road to the A12
 Use the existing infrastructure to its maximum - widen existing roads,
Page 213




developers to build dual carriageways to/from new developments
Broomfield Hospital only has one access road, suggestions for
alternative access include: 1) across valley heading east from Hospital
Approach /Broomfield Road Roundabout linking up with Chelmer Valley
Road, 2a) a road heading north to provide alternative access for
patients/staff from the hospitals majority north catchment area, 2b) from
the area of Blasford Hill direct to Broomfield Hospital, this link could also
connect to the proposed cycleway/pedestrian route from Great Waltham
(with no development but totally standalone within the countryside, an
increased width roadway for ingress into the Hospital site and expanded
Pudding Wood).
Army and Navy junction needs a dual carriageway flyover in both
directions to be certain that the flyover can accommodate the increased
traffic
A two way flyover for the Army and Navy will simply transfer the
problem to the Odeon Roundabout, already gridlocked at times
A new stretch of the A414 from Maldon - Langdon - Hatfield Peverel to
join the A12 would alleviate the effects of development on Danbury,
Little Baddow, Bicknacre and Sandon.
Public transport, cycling, walkways
 Public transport needs to be improved including rural bus services;
particularly between Rettendon, Wickford and SWF
 More subsidy should be provided on the buses, it is cheaper to drive a
family of four and park all day than it is to take them on a return bus trip
 The new station will ease the use of the existing railway station and it
will need good road and public transport connections
 Better public transport is needed to/from Broomfield Hospital in the form
of Park and Ride or bus service or cycle lane
 The Park and Ride sites are needed including the west one now
proposed; the south one is needed for the old A12 and the west A414
 The Park and Ride on Essex Regiment Way is already full
 How can cyclists be made to obey the rules of the road and cycling
signage, as well as making footways, footpaths and pedestrian areas
safer for walkers from errant cyclists who ignore all efforts to control
them
 Cycle routes should be designed with substantial inputs from cyclists,
many current routes in Chelmsford are not friendly to cycles with
chicanes and narrow bridges that require cyclists to dismount
 Suggest footpaths and cycle ways from Chelmer Valley High School
and Broomfield Hospital to the City Centre avoiding Main Road,
Broomfield.
Other transport issues e.g. existing situation, parking issues, volume of traffic
 Considerable concern about existing road infrastructure - inadequate/full
to capacity, gridlocks as soon as a minor incident occurs and struggles
at peak times (e.g. Main Road in Broomfield, Springfield, west of
Page 214

















Chelmsford, Chelmer Valley relief road and the City Centre), and this is
before the proposed house building
Improve existing infrastructure before building more houses
New development should be situated near a good transport
infrastructure such as the A12/A130 corridor and new railway station.
The current City road system cannot cope with more traffic. The west
and north of the City does not have the infrastructure
The impact of the Maldon Local Plan should be taken into consideration
Traffic originating outside of the Borough e.g. Braintree and Uttlesford to
be considered as new development there will increase traffic flow into
Chelmsford, and increase use of surrounding rural roads by people
trying to avoid traffic on routes into Chelmsford
Concern that emergency vehicles will have greater problems accessing
Broomfield Hospital
Fire services will have problems negotiating congested traffic to get
across town to the hospital, M11 and Stansted Airport
Insufficient parking at places like Duke's Park Industrial Estate and
Broomfield Hospital
More parking is needed in the City Centre to cater for visitors to the
John Lewis development and the proposed growth of homes and jobs
As self-driving cars become the norm, more parking will become
necessary as older people will keep their cars longer than they do now.
New housing, industrial estates, shopping centres and business centre
developments will all need additional parking provision
Consider resident only parking permits to restrict over-parking
Road safety should be addressed before further development e.g. safe
crossing points and especially at schools, bus stops and GP surgeries
Traffic at A1060/Roxwell Road west of Chelmsford - cannot even
manage existing traffic and would not cope with more traffic
Writtle is used at a rat run causing congestion and grid lock –
development at Warren Farm will result in unacceptable traffic levels
through Writtle to the A414 and A12
Writtle is not close to a railway station so any new residents will add
additional congestion to the roads
Access to the M11 is difficult because of the need to go through Writtle
and/or North Weald, Epping, and Harlow to enter south and to go north
via the A120, Ford End or all the way to Braintree
If development to the north of Broomfield is unavoidable, could traffic be
directed onto the A130 (instead of Main Road, Broomfield) to access
Chelmsford City Centre via the Chelmer Valley Road?
The Strategic Zonal Focus is required now not in 15 years’ time.
Education
 New school places need to be provided urgently and before any more
houses are built not after, just to meet existing needs, this shouldn’t just
be an issue for a local plan
 Location and capacities of schools and colleges needed during the Plan
Page 215











period should be given detailed consideration with particular attention to
villages and to minimise the need to travel
Will we be able to attract sufficient numbers of high quality teachers into
new schools?
Broomfield has zero additional capacity despite and there has been
plans for a bigger primary school in Broomfield for years, children from
the same family are attending different schools
Great Waltham School will struggle to take Broomfield pupils
Great Leighs Primary School is overcrowded, and all secondary level
children are being bussed into Chelmsford
Will schools/school places actually be delivered in Great Leighs and
Beaulieu based on past experience/promises?
Writtle would have to support the growth at Warren Farm because
providing new schools will almost certainly be a much later
consideration
There will be a need for at least one more junior school and also a
secondary school in Boreham, children have to be bussed to such
schools now
Rettendon - what proposals are there to ensure that school provision is
available to meet expanded local needs?
Suggest development is focused in areas with school capacity to avoid
transport issues
The vast increase of schools needed will take up large areas of land
800 homes will need more than one primary school. Better to plan to
have spare capacity and headroom rather than cramming in more kids
into every class.
Healthcare
 GP surgeries and dentists are already stretched to the limit/oversubscribed, new medical facilities would be necessary to cater for the
population increase
 Particular attention to doctor’s surgeries outside the City Centre is
needed, where will they be located and what will their capacity be?
 Brooomfield Hospital is already struggling to cope with the demands of
a growing population and is very often on a red or black alert, there are
not the staff or the beds to accommodate a bigger population
 Mid Essex Health Trust is £50 million in the red. The hospital is
struggling to provide services for the existing population, growth in this
local plan will require a new hospital; the Broomfield Hospital site is land
locked with no scope to expand; who will pay for a new hospital?
 The lack of community facilities in villages has not been covered;
Broomfield has no doctors surgery – yet this was part of NCAAP; Great
Leighs and Writtle would need extra capacity; Boreham’s doctors
surgery is full; Little Waltham’s and Great Notley’s surgeries are very
busy and are used by Great Leigh residents
 Provision is needed for community/social support following hospital
discharge as well as detailed healthcare plans, funding and structure
Page 216


There is little mention of an ageing population including illnesses such
as dementia; a rather narrow focus missing the difficult to talk about
issues such as waste and cemeteries
The encouragement of healthy and active lifestyles should be
considered (under healthcare, para 5.76) along with the new
Government Sports Strategy and this should include a commitment to
enhance the public rights of way network and enhanced access to open
spaces.
Water and Sewerage
 More houses will lead to water shortage and sewerage increase
 What action is in the programme to replace inadequate pipework (size
of pipes and capacity)? How are you planning to deal with sewage
removal and treatment?
 Anglian Water should be required to upgrade their capacity without
additional load from new development, or in conjunction with it, as a
condition of any consent granted
 The sewage pumping capacity in East Hanningfield is already
inadequate. During rain storms sewage is permitted to flow into the
adjacent ditch causing pollution to public roads, footpaths and private
gardens etc. which is a health risk. There are no plans to improve this
unsatisfactory situation until at least 2020
 Even before the development of the Runwell Hospital site, there has
been overflowing of untreated waste water into the Crouch. Are there
any proposals to expand the Shotgate site to meet the suggested
development options?
 With water coming from Colchester, to avoid further enhancements
having to be made across the City to get it to the west of Chelmsford,
full development of the existing Beaulieu area along with Great Leighs
should be given full consideration.
Power
 Mains gas supply should be a stronger guide of where development
should be, to create sustainable homes without the need to import
energy by vehicles
 The general provision of electric and gas are major concerns
 Solar power is affordable, clean and would support local engineering
businesses. Solar panels will be the predominant energy source and
can be achieved by solar farms and/or solar panels on building roofs
(new developments to be designed and aligned to have south-facing
solar panels). Solar farms (and wind farms) need to be part of the
spatial planning process rather than dealing with applications on an ad
hoc basis.
Flood Protection
 Higher seawalls around SWF and adjacent caravan park are needed
 Flood control and surface water runoff control to be fully assessed.
Page 217




Base services already stretched, major upgrade to be assessed
Little evidence of infrastructure to support rain runoff from large scale
development in location 1
The two main rivers join in the City Centre, an area that has been
known to flood. With substantial development in these areas rain water
run-off will increase resulting in a greater risk of flooding in Writtle and
the City Centre
The Warren Farm development will see a great deal of water flooding
across the A1060 and flood the area, especially around the college as
the land is lower at the 1060 and rises towards Broomfield
The Environment Agency’s flood risk scope must also address any
impact new developments would have to flood risk in other areas.
Community Facilities
 Will there be enough shops near the new housing, where will they be
and what capacity will they have?
 Broomfield and Great Leighs lack community facilities and residents are
forced further afield creating more traffic. Regenerating community
facilities in villages is essential. Broomfield needs new shops to support
new housing, so will Warren Farm
 Provide strong protection for existing facilities such as public houses.
Pubs encounter unique pressures when compared to other community
facilities. There should be a policy and evidence requirements to ensure
that pubs are not intentionally undermined and are retained where they
could be viable. Cambridge policy is a good example; Barking and
Dagenham, and Waltham Forest also.
 Chelmsford lacks a medium sized concert hall, 500-700 seats, such as
the Saffron Hall, Saffron Walden, suggest it could be included in plans
for a new secondary school. Few churches apart from Chelmsford
Cathedral are large enough and the existing theatres are not good
acoustically for concerts.
Recreation and Leisure
 The 'new' Riverside should be built with the aim of supporting the larger
City we will soon be living in – reinstate the diving pool and outdoor pool
 Riverside Ice and Leisure will not be big enough to support the City.
Why not plan for another public swimming pool to be available?
 Consider the large number of people who enjoy walking along the many
paths and trails in the countryside, and the peace and tranquillity.
Gauge the impact to residents enjoyment caused by the vast new
developments and the traffic
 What about playgrounds and other amenities that are already stretched
to the limit?
 More parks for kids and population to walk.
Telecommunications
 Residential broadband delivery issues for existing users should be a
Page 218


priority - essential for small local business, people who work from home
and for domestic use. Ford End, west of Chelmsford and Rettendon
have missed out
The City should be positioning itself as a high-tech, exceptionally well
connected alternative to London for financial/insurance/data-processing
firms looking to establish or re-locate in the South East
Mobile black spots e.g. The Walthams and Margaretting to be
eliminated.
Other
 Concern about rubbish collection and emergency vehicles if the
Council does not adopt the roads on new estates
 How will the increased demand be met for street cleansing, rubbish
collection, cemeteries
 How will surface rainwater runoff, street lighting, and street furniture,
installation and maintenance of same be dealt with?
 West of Chelmsford has no gas, and bad roads
 Green Wedges and Buffers must be given as much priority as housing,
retail and office development to protect the nature and distinct character
of the villages/ small towns around Chelmsford.
Page 219
Do you agree with the proposed settlement hierarchy i.e. City
or Town, Key Service Settlement, Service Settlement and
Small Settlement?
Question
17
How many
Yes
answered question
180
88
No
70
None
ticked
22
How many made
a comment
75










The criteria to classify settlements has been applied inconsistently
Great Leighs, Broomfield and Writtle offer limited services and facilities
and should not be Key Service Settlements
Ford End and Rettendon offer limited services and facilities and should not
be classified as Service Settlements
Other factors such as the capacity of services and facilities should be used
Settlements not classified should be recognised
Terminology of hierarchy too bureaucratic and technical
Provision should be made for groups of small settlements which help rural
sustainability
The character and population size of settlements should be a factor in their
classification
The settlement hierarchy should not be the determining factor about the
expansion of villages
There should be a separate classification for Chelmsford (City) and South
Woodham Ferrers (Town).









Difficult to distinguish between different settlements and not clear
whether criteria have been consistently applied
Size of population and numbers of commuters should be taken into
account
Is it correct that Broomfield should be a Key Service Settlement mainly
due to the hospital?
Broomfield should be a Service Settlement not a Key Service
Settlement as it has limited services and facilities
SWF has limited bus frequency which will encourage more car use
Great Leighs has doubled in size from recent development and has
limited services, facilities and no doctors surgeries and should not be
classified as a Key Service Settlement
Great Leighs proximity to A131 should not be determining factor.
More development near new railway station/A12 in the Boreham
location
Ford End has limited services and facilities and should be classified as
a small village
Page 220
























The term village or hamlet should be used to describe smaller
settlements rather than bureaucratic descriptions
The age of a City as a hub is gone as shopping can be done online.
Wherever small settlements are built they grow beyond their original
proposals
All relevant information should be shown on maps including those
settlements not classified in the Settlement Hierarchy
Chignal Parish Plan shows respondents identify with the local
community rather than the City
Writtle is a village and should be classified as a Service Settlement as it
has limited services and facilities, building at Warren Farm would ruin
that
Village life promotes healthier, inclusive and more active lifestyles
If villages are expanded to meet the needs of the City, improved
transport links are required
People live in villages as they want small communities with local
facilities represented by local Parish Councils
Villages should be self-sustaining with their own schools, doctors
surgeries etc which would stop residents having to travel to larger
settlements for a lot of the services
Only develop in well served villages to reduce the need to travel not in
places like Rettendon
Provision should be made for groups of small settlements to have their
own category to allow small-scale expansion in accordance with
paragraph 55 of the NPPF
The area of development between Chelmsford and Broomfield is not
fully thought through
The proposed hierarchy is generally right, but what happens if facilities
are over-subscribed?
Villages should be kept compact
Creating a settlement hierarchy should not make justification for new
development ahead of new infrastructure
Locations for new development should be considered on merit. Smaller
villages may be more suitable for development
Development should be in the City first without sprawling into towns or
villages
Service Settlements require doctors, school, regular transport, preschool, pub, church and community facilities
Plans should stipulate new/existing water and sewage treatment works
The hierarchy should differentiate between City and Town as there is a
difference Chelmsford and SWF
Future house types should fit in into the character of the settlements.
There needs to be greater diversity of services for different members of
the community
The hierarchy should also take into account the availability of services
and facilities.
Page 221
Do you agree with the classification of individual settlements
within the Settlement Hierarchy?
Question
18
How many
Yes
answered question
190
69
No
97
None
ticked
23
How many made
a comment
111










The criteria to classify settlements has been applied inconsistently
Great Leighs, Broomfield, Danbury, Boreham, Galleywood and Writtle
offer limited services and facilities and should not be Key Service
Settlements
Great Waltham and Little Waltham have services and facilities that warrant
them being Key Service Settlements
Ford End and Rettendon offer limited services and facilities and should not
be classified as Service Settlements
Other factors such as the capacity of services and facilities should be used
Settlements not classified should be recognised
Terminology of hierarchy too bureaucratic and technical
Provision should be made for groups of small settlements which help rural
sustainability
The character and population size of settlements should be a factor in their
classification
The settlement hierarchy should not be the determining factor about the
expansion of villages.









Broomfield should be classified as a Service Settlement because
facilities such as the garage and pub have closed
Broomfield should not be classified as a Key Service Settlement as it
lacks services and facilities such as a GP surgery
Great Leighs should not be classified as a Key Service Settlement as it
lacks services and facilities and it has less facilities than other
settlements classified as Service Settlements
Q20 make reference to Great Leighs being a town which is an error
Ford End should be classified as a small settlement as it only has a
small school and lacks other services and facilities
Great and Little Waltham have more services and facilities and should
be classified as Key Service Settlements
SWF is a dormitory town with limited services and facilities, it should be
classed as a Key Service Settlement
Boreham should not be classified as a Key Service Settlement as it
lacks services and facilities, schools and doctors are full
East Hanningfield should be a Service Settlement but capacity in
services and facilities should be taken into account
Page 222






























The expansion of Boreham would be against the VDS
Green Buffers would be welcomed at Boreham
New housing at Boreham would be on good agricultural land
The classifications should take into account future capacities at
Boreham school and doctors surgery
Proposals for 800 new homes at Boreham would change it from village
to town
Writtle should be classified as a village
Danbury should be considered a Small Service Settlement as it has
limited capacity to expand
Rettendon Place should not be a Service Settlement as apart from the
school there are no services and facilities
Galleywood does not have a GP surgery so should not be classed as a
Key Service Settlement
Assessment of settlements is inconsistent
Settlements close to one another share services and facilities
The size and population of settlements need to be taken into account.
Chatham Green is an example of a small settlement that could be
considered in the context of a group of settlements i.e. Great Leighs and
the Walthams as per Paragraph 55 of the NPPF
There should not be blanket classification of settlements
Springfield and Great Baddow are missing
Chignal St James and Chignal Smealy are missing from Small
Settlements list as they have a range of local facilities
Other small settlements including Mashbury, Broads Green, Newney
Green and Battlesbridge are not classified as Small Settlements
Development in smaller settlements would help support services and
facilities and should not be limited to Key Service Settlements
The existing size, population and capacity at services and facilities
should be considered
New development should be focused at established areas such as
SWF, not in villages
New settlements should be added to the list
New development should not significantly increase size of settlements
General agreement with proposed settlement hierarchy
Broomfield and Galleywood are effectively suburbs of Chelmsford
Villages should be described as such as they have distinct features
Opportunity for Option 4 or 5 for smaller environmentally friendly
developments rather than ‘bolting on’ to existing developments
The area of development between Chelmsford and Broomfield is not
fully thought through
Poor terminology should be ‘large’ and ‘small’ villages
No question about the definition of brownfield and greenfield sites
Development should be restricted to the existing urban areas.
Page 223
Do you support the proposed Spatial Principles?
Question
How many
answered question
427
19
Spatial Principle (summary)
Maximise use of brownfield land
City Centre and Urban Area
Protect the Green Belt
Well-connected and sustainable
Defining Green Wedges
Designation of Green Buffers
Protect landscapes, heritage etc
Deliverable and in Plan period
Served by infrastructure
Yes
No
See below
Yes
No
355
25
324
35
320
65
331
25
360
12
357
12
372
5
283
43
346
21
None
ticked
23
How many made
a comment
163
Summary of responses for each Spatial Principle:
Maximise the use of brownfield land for development (Q19)
There was strong support for this Spatial Principle
There was a belief that continued development in the City Centre will cause
more congestion
 Considered that some brownfield sites contribute to the character of an
area and are worthy of protection.


Comments in support of this Spatial Principle
 Agree that as much development as possible is allocated to brownfield
sites
 Support the use of brownfield sites for new development providing it
does not damage the biodiversity within the site.
Comments objecting to this Spatial Principle
 Some sites designated as brownfield give an area character and variety
– not all are eyesores. Each brownfield site should be assessed as to its
contribution to the amenity and character of the area. Brownfield sites
should not become automatic targets for development
 Developing the City Centre causes more congestion, infrastructure is
not sufficient, too many flats.
Continue the renewal of Chelmsford’s City Centre and Urban Area (Q19)


Although strong support for this Spatial Principle, there were a number of
comments made in objection
Considered that further development in the centre of Chelmsford would
Page 224
Continue the renewal of Chelmsford’s City Centre and Urban Area (Q19)
exacerbate existing traffic and congestion issues.
 Continue the renewal of Chelmsford City Centre only not the rest of the
urban area.
 Chelmsford is already overcrowded. Development, including
infrastructure being built before development, should take place away
from the centre and surrounding villages before it becomes impossible
to move
 Not if this means more congestion to roads and access
 Chelmsford is a traffic nightmare and extra housing/development will
only make it worse
 Renewal implies demolition of old. Evolution enables communities to
adapt and change in response to a changing environment. Growth is a
new mantra but if it comes at the cost of making life harder for existing
communities it is not worth doing.
Protect the Green Belt (Q19)
comments made in objection
 Green Belt designation has caused uneven development of Chelmsford
towards the north and east
 Lack of development within the Green Belt is causing facilities and services
to close in these communities
 All countryside should be protected and not just Green Belt land
 May be suitable and sustainable development sites within the Green Belt
which shouldn’t be dismissed.

 Whilst I fully support the protection of Green Belt, it does contain some
brownfield sites. If these were incorporated into the plans, it would
relieve the burden on the rest
 There was some belief that development in the Green Belt should not
be discounted and this area should be considered for development
 I believe Green Belt land should be reviewed for appropriate
development as part of the local plan. The fixed designation of these
areas is too crude. There are inevitably sites within it that are more
appropriate for development than others that will be required in the
absence of a review
 Whilst the Green Belt does require protection, it is clear that some areas
Page 225
Protect the Green Belt (Q19)











to the south and west of Chelmsford currently within the Green Belt, are
more suitable for development than some areas currently outside it, so
in order to achieve sustainable and balanced growth a review of the
Green Belt is necessary
The growth of the City is unprecedented over the next 20 years or so,
therefore the Green Belt to the south and west should also come under
careful consideration, we cannot keep building to the north and north
east or we will lose the 'unofficial' Green Belt that helps to define
Chelmsford
The City Council has dismissed expansion in the Green Belt and we
believe this is wrong as small communities in the Green Belt, which are
unable to expand, are dying as schools and other facilities are forced to
close
If the Government has given guidance for certain criteria for the
increase in the number of dwellings and associated commercial
/industrial development, then the Government must assist CCC and
allow some development within the Green Belt
With the inevitability of the City expansion, development of some Green
Belt must be considered to ensure a fairer distribution of new housing
stock
All countryside needs to be protected, not just the Green Belt. Lack of
development in the Green Belt will result in further lopsided
development in the north and east of Chelmsford which have already
borne more than their fair share of development
It would be beneficial to develop some Green Belt land around failing
communities such as Margaretting to the south of Chelmsford. It would
help to revitalise them
There should be flexibility when considering the extent of the Green Belt
and the existing and proposed Green Wedges to ensure that they are
not provided at the expense of development sites that are sustainable
The Green Belt is the Metropolitan Green Belt – it is not a Chelmsford
Green Belt and I see little justification for the area North of the A12
between the A414 and the A130 being excluded from development as
the A12 is the natural urban boundary to the City Centre
Within the Plan period Crossrail will be operational to Shenfield and will
put pressure on Chelmsford and the villages on the west side of the
City. If such pressure is not met locally it will simply exacerbate the
situation elsewhere and encourage longer commutes to Chelmsford /
Shenfield
The assumption that all Green Belt is sacrosanct is strongly challenged.
Green Belt can be replaced elsewhere by the use of green buffers
Some locations within the Green Belt are on the point of no longer
remaining sustainable e.g. Margaretting and development could be
essential to their sustainability.
Page 226
Locate development at well-connected sustainable locations (Q19)
Development should be located in sustainable locations close to transport
links such as the A12 and new railway station
 Development should be located with good access to main commuter routes
 Some belief that development locations proposed do not represent
sustainable locations for growth, such as north and west Chelmsford.


 It is important to locate development at well-connected sustainable
locations, e.g. in the area around the proposed new railway station and
not in the more rural west of Chelmsford
 Development should be at sustainable locations but in such a way that
“our urban areas do not sprawl into existing settlements undermining
their distinct and separate identities” (para 6.5)
 To be sustainable they should be located near to main commuter routes
to minimise movement of traffic across the City Centre
 Keep developments very close to A12 and the railway to cut down traffic
movements
 With regard to the siting of developments, for them to be sustainable, it
is important to locate them near well-connected areas with access to the
main commuter routes in/out of the City.
 Explore multiple development at more isolated locations without the
need for increased road development
 You need to consider building new infrastructure and housing on
disconnected sites. E.g. Boreham Airfield and A12 corridor.
Other comments
 The development suggested in the west of Chelmsford is not at a wellconnected sustainable location
 Need to concentrate support on locations that have limited facilities to
prevent community failure
 Urban add on/development of the suburbs should be the priority
Urbanisation is a fact and cannot be reversed. Current villages are a
fact and must be maintained for future generations; these could be lost
forever by over-development
 This Plan does not 'Locate development at well-connected sustainable
locations'
 Proposed expansion north and west of the City would not be a
sustainable location
 The allocation of substantial amounts of housing land to the west of
Chelmsford in all 3 Options does not sit well with all of the Spatial
Principles, notably, “Locate development at well-connected sustainable
locations”
 New Garden Villages would become well connected sustainable
Page 227
Locate development at well-connected sustainable locations (Q19)
locations.
Protect the river valleys by defining Green Wedges (Q19)
Green Wedges are important for protecting the river valleys and extending
these was supported
 Belief that Green Wedges should also be designated to protect the valleys
of the River Can and River Ter.


 Protecting the river valleys is very important particularly for the Chelmer
valley east of Chelmsford
 Yes, but there should be flexibility when considering the extent of the
Green Belt and the existing and proposed Green Wedges to ensure that
they are not provided at the expense of development sites that are
sustainable
 Green Wedges are one of the best features of Chelmsford's planning
policies, and I applaud the idea of extending the three existing Green
Wedges to reach the City boundaries
 Avoid building of flood plains - flood plains are for flooding in times of
high rainfall
 River valleys are subject to flooding and as such are protected by other
means. Green Wedges should cover other landscape elements worthy
of protection.
Other comments
 The status of the River Can valley is not being protected under this
proposal
 There is scope for a fourth extension, following the River Can northwestwards, from north of the Writtle College buildings, to the City
boundary in Good Easter parish
 Why is the River Ter not designated as a Green Buffer?
Respect the character of the existing settlement pattern including the
potential designation of Green Buffers (Q19)


There was significant support for the designation of Green Buffers to
protect the character of existing settlements with additional Green Buffers
suggested
Green Buffers were considered important to prevent coalescence and
maintain the independence of existing villages and settlements.
Page 228
Respect the character of the existing settlement pattern including the
potential designation of Green Buffers (Q19)
 Boreham is a standalone village and needs to be protected
consideration should be given to smaller villages that are declining for
re-development such as Margaretting
 If Warren Farm were to be built, Writtle becomes joined to Chelmsford,
therefore the 3 proposed options ignore the potential designation of
Green Buffers
 The introduction of a Green Buffer between Boreham and Chelmsford is
in line with the Boreham VDS and would help to respect and protect the
character of the village community
 Green Buffers are worthwhile. I would like to suggest additional Buffers:
1) North of Great Leighs or Location 7, to avoid Great Leighs and Great
Notley coalescing 2) Between the Avon Road estate and Location 2, to
include the floodplain of the stream here and the Centenary Circle
footpath
 Existing settlements as defined above should be protected by Green
Buffers not “potential” Green Buffers
 Character of existing settlements needs more analysis and
consideration
 Development should be at sustainable locations but in such a way that
“our urban areas do not sprawl into existing settlements undermining
their distinct and separate identities” (para 6.5)
 A Green Buffer between Boreham and Chelmsford would preserve
Boreham as a village for future generations to enjoy.
 The character of the existing settlement pattern of the Chignals is not
being respected under this proposal.
Other comments
 The potential for creating a new settlement should be investigated,
potentially within the north west sector.
Protect the character and value of important landscapes, heritage and
biodiversity (Q19)
There was significant support for this Spatial Principle
There was some belief that development in a number of the proposed
locations for development would not protect the character and value of
important landscapes, heritage and biodiversity.


 It is also important to protect the character and value of important
Page 229
Protect the character and value of important landscapes, heritage and
biodiversity (Q19)


landscapes, heritage and biodiversity and this is a good reason for no
major development on the west side of Chelmsford
The north and west countryside is an important landscape which needs
protecting but it is proposed that 3000+ houses will be built on it
Add Geodiversity.
 The character and value of important landscapes, heritage and bio
diversity is not being protected in the Chignals under this proposal.
Ensure new development is delivered and can be built within the Plan
period (Q19)
comments in objection
 There was some contention whether the stated level of development would
be required over the Plan period
 There was some belief that development should not take place ahead of
necessary infrastructure work
 The extent to which the Council could ensure development is delivered
within the Plan period was questioned, especially as it wasn’t delivered
within the current Plan period.

 Yes, but there is a need to re-appraise the number of dwellings
requirement.
 Pace of building must not override all other Spatial Principles
 Plan period implies deadline set in stone - longer term might allow more
sympathetic development
 Housing needs may fall so new building may not be required during the
Plan period
 Development has not been met within the current period
 New development cannot be guaranteed within the Plan period – other
economic and political factors will probably prevail
 A strict timetable may not always be achievable if under pressure, which
means houses are built before the required infrastructure
 Only if infrastructure is put in place first and that excessive over building
does not take place



It is not certain that the proposed amount of development will be
necessary
Deliverability is not necessarily a spatial principle
The new housing development is fully reliant on developers to deliver, I
Page 230
Ensure new development is delivered and can be built within the Plan
period (Q19)


am sure they can deliver to a reasonable time frame, however, we are
going to end up with “Identical” estates of well-insulated, small
windowed boxes rather than a proper village or community
The Plan period allows no time to see if the current infrastructure can
cope, with only the possibility of more building in the future to buffer the
obvious inability for it to cope
Only if the development is required in the Plan period.
Other comments
 Past history suggests that CCC is unable to meet delivery of
development within the Plan period
 I struggle to understand how the Council can ensure that new
development is deliverable within the Plan period. The Council can
ensure, through the planning process that houses can be built but the
decision on timing lies with developers
 There is a concern that in order to meet targets on numbers and within
numbers the allocation of affordable housing, prime greenfield sites
which quickly generate profit, will be approved and then used by
developers rather than sites which fully meet the plan criteria but which
are less profitable but more sustainable.
Ensure that new development is served by necessary infrastructure
(Q19)
There was significant belief that infrastructure improvements should be
undertaken in advance of housing development
 There was some concern whether infrastructure improvements would be
provided given previous improvements had not been completed, e.g. new
station in north east Chelmsford.


 Significant belief that infrastructure improvements should be completed
in advance of houses being built
 Yes, but necessary infrastructure should not include wide or widening
roads, which only encourage car use
 Yes, with the proviso that the infrastructure is completed well ahead of
the completion of development
 Infrastructure should be in place before development is undertaken
 Do not develop on sustainable locations unless new road infrastructure
is built.
 There always seems to be an assumption by planners that if
development takes place, necessary infrastructure will follow. In many
cases this appears to be the wrong way round and that it is often
Page 231
Ensure that new development is served by necessary infrastructure
(Q19)





infrastructure such as roads and schools that should come first in order
to service the housing for which planning had already been granted
The Plan should include a review of existing deficiencies in
Infrastructure and include a programme for rectifying those deficiencies
regardless of new development pressures but ideally in association with
new developments and funded by the developers
We should not 'rush' to ensure that all the development is made without
commitment and underlying guarantees, that sufficient infrastructure is
in place to support the housing developments proposed. At present the
Council seem very good at granting developments/ improvement,
without enhancing infrastructure. i.e. Western Relief Road, Beaulieu
station, new secondary school for the City
Ensure that new development is served by current improved
infrastructure or don't develop at all
The necessary infrastructure will not be completed for some time after
the development and not situated in the best areas to ease congestion
I do not believe the correct data has been used and will create severe
traffic congestion on an unsuitable infrastructure.
Other comments
 There was concern whether infrastructure improvements would be
completed given the time taken to complete previous projects such as
the new station in north east Chelmsford
 I suggest that a 'land hierarchy' similar to the 'settlement hierarchy' be
developed. The 'land hierarchy' would depend on how valuable the land
was in terms of food production - the more valuable the less likely it
would be used for development.
Page 232
How do you think that new development growth in
Chelmsford should be provided in the new Local Plan?




Option 1 – Urban Focus. Focus all the development to locations
adjacent or close to the City of Chelmsford and the towns of
South Woodham Ferrers and Great Leighs (to the south of
Braintree)
Option 2- Urban Focus and Growth on Key Transport Corridors.
Reduced growth at locations adjacent or close to the City of
Chelmsford and the towns of South Woodham Ferrers and Great
Leighs (to the south of Braintree) with the remaining development
directed to key locations on the A130/A131 transport corridor
Option 3 – Urban Focus and Growth in Key Villages. Reduced
growth at locations adjacent or close to the City of Chelmsford
and the towns of South Woodham Ferrers and Great Leighs (to
the south of Braintree) the remaining development directed to the
key villages
None of the above.
Question
20
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
‘None of the Above’
No Option selected
How many answered
question
810 (+37 petition)
How many selected
108
69
39
541
53
How many made
a comment
641
All written comments received are summarised under the options to which
they relate in the table below, regardless of which box was ticked.




Option 1 is favoured as it is seen to be the most sustainable option which
is most likely to be able to deliver the pieces of infrastructure required to
support the growth identified
Option 3 is considered to be the least popular as it would damage the
character of the surrounding countryside and the rural community’s way of
life and the villages and rural areas do not have the services or
infrastructure to support the growth set out in this option
Option 1 appears to be more favoured, but there is also suggestion that
parts of Option 2 could also be acceptable if Option 1 on its own does not
deliver what is required
Appropriate infrastructure for any growth needs to be included and in place
as soon as possible. Particular concern in regards to traffic congestion
Page 233

and making development more sustainable through more appropriate and
accessible public transport
Confusion over the fact that each Option is proposed to provide the
necessary infrastructure to support the growth in the areas suggested and
not simply rely upon existing services an infrastructure currently available.
Summary of responses for each Option:
Option 1 (Q20)
Comments in support of this Option
 This concentrates development more and protects the rural area which
is important to those who live there as well as those visiting it
 It is the most sustainable option that gives people better access to
public transport as development is more concentrated in the urban
areas where there is better access to services and other means of
transport than the private car
 It preserves the surrounding villages which make Chelmsford special.
 It is the most efficient way to implement the Local Plan
 This option maintains the contrast between urban and rural
 It would be useful to see the number of houses proposed listed as a
percentage increase to an area to give an indication on the potential
pressure to a location
 This option would be more likely to secure funding for the road
infrastructure required by the Local Plan
 It places as much development as possible on brownfield sites and by
extending existing urban areas
 Development in the NW of the A130 would support new jobs in the area,
particularly at the University and Stanstead Airport
 No development should be allowed to the east of the line of the
proposed NE bypass
 Further consideration should be given to development in the Green Belt.
 This would maximise the current infrastructure usage and be the most
cost-efficient way to deliver further infrastructure
 This option would prevent Boreham becoming a semi-urban settlement
which would merge into Chelmsford
 Infrastructure needs to be brought up to speed and standard with the
growth to achieve this option
 This is the best option as Danbury should not have any further growth
due to traffic issues and congestion on the A414 which were highlighted
in the Maldon Local Plan examination
 The necessary infrastructure needs to be in place before housing is built
 Support for option 1 over Option 3 as Option 3 would damage the
character of the surrounding countryside and the rural community’s way
of life and there is insufficient infrastructure and services in these areas
to support Option 3
 Any new development should facilitate cycle and pedestrian
Page 234
Option 1 (Q20)



















permeability through the creation of new routes and the improvement of
existing routes
The impacts of development in Rayleigh, Hullbridge, Maldon, Basildon
and Wickford need to be considered in respect of any development in
the south
Given job opportunities around Stanstead a mixture of some elements
of Option 2, locating further development to the north would also be
useful
Any increase in size of villages should ensure that they maintain their
identity
With the Western Relief Road there is capacity for more housing and
employment being located to the west of Chelmsford or a further
development to the north west of Chelmsford
The sensitive nature of the Service and Key Service Settlements need
to be considered. Existing conservation areas should be protected
Existing Park and Ride sites should be operated from much earlier in
the morning to utilise this piece of infrastructure more fully
Rural public transport needs to be improved to get more people using it,
particularly in the evenings
Support for findings of the Sustainability Appraisal regarding Option 1
More high-rise buildings for residential and commercial uses should be
built in the main urban areas.
This would support the growth of the City Centre
The growth at Great Leighs contained within this Option needs to be
supported by better transport links and modes of public transport or
reduced to 1000 homes with the remaining numbers redistributed to
other sites north east and north west of Chelmsford. These sites are
more sustainable and would help fund key infrastructure
A lot of support for those who ticked Option 1 saying that Option 2 is a
close second choice behind Option 1 or that Option 1 or 2 would be
acceptable as these are similar and contain more growth in more built
up/urban areas, and in a more sustainable manner than Option 3
Boreham should not be described as a Key Service Settlement as it
only has limited facilities and these are full
Building on good quality agricultural land should not be included in this
Option
Necessary infrastructure needs to be in place before the new houses it
supports are built
Further consideration needs to be given to widening the A12 to support
this growth and relieve traffic congestion
Other communities in the south west could also benefit from growth to
assist with small school numbers and to provide better services to these
areas
The widening of the A12 and the new railway station should be the
focus for new growth
Support for better infrastructure this will provide, including a Western
Relief Road
Page 235
Option 1 (Q20)


Support for growth to the west of Chelmsford as it would offer good
access and links to central Chelmsford and is unconstrained by the
Green Belt
Least impact on wildlife in the countryside.
Comments against this Option
 There is no need for a Western Relief Road and it will never happen
 To build any more houses to the west of Chelmsford will cause
significant problems to the roads in the area, particularly along Roxwell
Road
 Objection to the Western Relief Road and development to the west of
Chelmsford due to the impact on the character of the area and possible
in-filling of the land to the east of the road.
Option 2 (Q20)
 Development should be focused on the proposed new railway station
 It provides a satisfactory solution which is currently well served by
existing infrastructure to be built upon
 This Option reduces the burden on locations 2, 3 and 7 while still
concentrating the development in the main urban areas
 It offers the best balance for use of land, development of housing and
the creation of jobs
 This Option reduces the number of homes at SWF as there is concern
that too many in this location will result in congestion in surrounding
villages as people rat run to avoid the busy A132 and A130
 Growth concentrated around transport corridors offers greater flexibility
and will be more deliverable and sustainable
 Support for growth to the SWF and Rettendon Place
 It is the most logical Option which builds on existing development areas
 It would offer benefits to new members of the community while having
the least detrimental impact of the existing community
 Adequate infrastructure must be provided before houses are built
 There needs to be sufficient off-road parking spaces and road
improvements to avoid bottlenecks
 This Option caters for additional housing and services in locations much
better served than the smaller villages
 Areas along the A12 corridor and other key transport corridors are
better placed to serve the development proposed
 With brownfield sites making up a small proportion of the site area
required for new development, the greenfield sites selected should be
carefully chosen
 Preferred as Boreham and the surrounding roads cannot cope with a
further 800 homes
Page 236
Option 2 (Q20)




This Option would provide the best spread of development while helping
to sustain certain locations
Happy with either this Option or Option 1
Development would support new jobs in the area, particularly at the
University, Broomfield Hospital, Chelmer Valley and Stanstead Airport
Prefer the slightly wider spread of development than in Option 1
On the basis that no development is allowed to the east of the NE
Bypass
 Development to the west of Chelmsford will create significant traffic
problems for the rest of the City. This site does not reflect the principles
set out in the document
 It seems that homes are proposed to be built on some of the better
quality agricultural land
 Object to the Western Relief Road and development to the west of
Chelmsford due to the impact on the character of the area and possible
in-filling of the land to the east of the road.
Option 3 (Q20)
 Development in a wider variety of locations but at a smaller scale is
supported
 The current infrastructure would not cope with Option 1 and 2
 A wider spread of development is supported
 Industrial and business estates should be located in the main urban
areas but some smaller office space and other local services would be
welcomed in the Key Service Settlements
 Growth in this Option should be focused in SWF and Rettendon Place
 This Option offers a longer term future for all to cater for rising
populations
 Supported on the basis that this Option offers the least amount of
development in Great Leighs. Requests that expansion of Great Leighs
only occurs on the west side of the Great Leighs Bypass or much further
north so the character of the original Village is retained
 This Option should be expanded to include provision to expand all
Defined Settlement Boundaries so to reduce the pressure on those
smaller settlements identified in Option 3
 Rettendon needs some new housing but not as much as in Option 2 so
Option 3 is preferable
 Options 3 relieves some of the pressure on Broomfield which would
occur in the other two Options
 No settlement should be protected from development and everyone
should take a proportion of the growth required based on the current
Page 237
Option 3 (Q20)


population size
This offers a more balanced approach and villages would benefit from
some growth as it would help youngsters stay in them
By spreading the growth more evenly, the congestion on the roads will
be spread, creating less in one location.
 This is generally the least favoured Option
 If this were to go ahead improvements to A414 would be required
 It would damage the character of the surrounding countryside and the
rural community’s way of life and there is insufficient infrastructure and
services in these areas to support this Option
 Strong objection to Option 3 as it is not sustainable and would destroy
village communities and the rural environments around Chelmsford.
 It is the most unsustainable Option put forward
 Further development in Boreham would destroy its identity and
community. The services and facilities in the village could not cope with
this scale of development
 The infrastructure in villages is insufficient to absorb the scale of
development proposed
 Those who live in small rural villages have chosen to do so and like the
fact there are smaller, good quality shops there
 This Option should not include any development in Danbury. The
Maldon Local Plan found there to be issues with traffic congestion along
the A414 and no more should be built in Danbury unless this is
resolved. The option of working with Maldon and Braintree to relieve
this issue is raised through possible options considered by an
independent Traffic Inspector many years ago.
Other general comments received in relation to this question (Q20)








None of the Options offer much difference
None of the Options offer much choice for Broomfield
The potential Western Relief Road will not alleviate congestion in the
City, if it ever gets built
All Options place an unfair burden on north Chelmsford
Other Options to include development to the south and east of
Chelmsford should be explored as these offer better transport links than
areas such as Broomfield and the Walthams
The Green Belt should not be protected for the sake of it
Concerns over the impact it would have on traffic congestion at the
Army and Navy roundabout
Concern regarding traffic impact and general erosion of the Green
Buffer to the east of Chelmsford if further development is taken forward
in the Sandon area
Page 238
Other general comments received in relation to this question (Q20)


















Another option should be to have as much of the development as
possible near the new railway station, the A12/A130, and the existing
railway station at SWF
No more houses are needed
More schools and doctors are needed
All three Options show too much development in the West of
Chelmsford
The Western Relief Road is shown in all Options but has no timescale
for implementation, no route detail, no funding, and no considerations
has been given for how it will impact on traffic in existing areas
The Western Relief Road would destroy the character of the countryside
in this location as well as noise and pollution to the area, destroying it
for those who use it and would lead to likely further in-filling of
development in the future
Building on the land to the west of Chelmsford would be likely to lead to
further flooding issues in the area
Broomfield could not cope with any of the three Options proposed.
Spaces between settlements need to be retained in any of the Options.
Development is being proposed on better quality agricultural land and it
should be on the poorer grade land
Great Leighs should not be defined in a similar group as Chelmsford
and SWF, it is a small rural village
The most important factor in deciding where development should go is
whether the roads and other highway infrastructure is there or can be
put in place to serve new development
To give people a choice, locate development in and around the City
Centre and leave the rural Villages and locations rural
A mix of Options would be the best with as much as possible going in
the City Centre
A development at Howe Green would be a further locational option and
would provide some services for the village
SWF would benefit from more development to provide greater retail
choice than it currently has
A general request for smaller developments, developments for an
ageing population, more eco-friendly developments, larger plots with
more off-road parking
The Plan needs to ensure that people can live and work without adding
to the existing commuter issues in and around the City.
Page 239
If you ticked ‘None of the above’ to Q20, can you suggest any
alternative or additional Option that should be considered in
the new Local Plan?
Question
21
How many answered
question
570
How many made
a comment
570


















Overall the overwhelming response was to allocate the majority of
development on the east side of Chelmsford where there is the highest
levels of existing infrastructure and better connectivity to that infrastructure
There should be an Option which sees as much development as possible
located near the new railway station, the NE and east of Chelmsford, the
A120/A130 and the existing railway station at SWF
Development around the new railway stations should be the focus
More development should be located on brownfield sites
More development to the North East of Chelmsford so it could utilise the
new railway station
The area to the east of the A12 from Boreham to Sandon should be
developed as it is poorer grade agricultural land than some of the
suggested locations
A large proportion of respondents simply stated that none of the Options
are very different and offered little choice, or that none of them where
acceptable but did not offer alternative suggestions
An Option without the new Western Relief Road should be considered
Boreham Airfield should be developed as a possible new settlement
Development should be focused around the new NE Bypass to ensure that
it comes forward
More villages where housing would support local people staying in a
village and assist in delivering services in these areas could be considered
Modification and review of the Green Belt should be considered rather
than more growth in non-Green Belt locations
Any alternatives should not see large developments in villages which
dramatically alter their character.
Development should ensure the NE Bypass comes forward
As the vast majority of people commute south to their place of
employment, as much development as possible should be to the south of
the City to avoid greater levels of congestion and reduce peoples travel to
work distances
Further consideration of the Hammonds Farm site should be carried out as
it would have the least impact on the existing communities
The need for any Option to maximise and increase public transport usage
should be considered
New settlements should be considered
Page 240

Large amounts of development are already taking place to the north of
Chelmsford and the south and west of the City should be considered to
balance out the development and the traffic which goes with it.
Comments
 There should be no further development in and around Chelmsford
 Further development on open fields will impact negatively on the
environment and lead to damage and pollution to the countryside
 Any further development should be on brownfield sites
 A focus on community gardens, allotments and other community
projects should feature in the Plan
 More green infrastructure should be considered to ensure the health of
residents is encouraged
 There should be an Option which sees as much development as
possible located near the new railway station, the A120/A130 and the
existing railway station at SWF
 Boreham Airfield should be developed as a possible new settlement
 The area to the east of the A12 from Boreham to Sandon should be
developed as it is poorer grade agricultural land than some of the
suggested locations
 The A12 corridor should be the focus of development as it would make
better use of this piece of transport infrastructure
 Development in the Green Belt should be considered, such as Runwell,
the A130 corridor and Galleywood. It takes no account of landscape
value and a swap, to reallocate a proportion of Green Belt land to more
sensitive areas to the north should be considered
 None of the Options are very different and offer little choice
 Fewer homes should be built
 An Option without the new Western Relief Road should be considered
 Development should be focused around the new NE Bypass to ensure
that it comes forward
 The western relief road should not be considered until the NE Bypass
has been delivered
 Any development which increases a village by more than 10 percent or
includes less than 75 percent affordable housing should be avoided
 Development at SWF could be enhanced by improving A130 links and
rail connections from SWF
 Provide a new settlement in the north west sector along with the
Western Relief Road, providing the transport infrastructure that is
needed and improving access to Broomfield Hospital and Stanstead
Airport
 Expand some of the villages with limited service and infrastructure in the
south along and close to the A130 corridor. This will reduce the need
for major highway improvements and bring forward easier sites
 Better road access is required for all Options to ensure further traffic
does not come through Broomfield
 Development should be fair to all residents so there should be Options
Page 241


















which cover all areas around the City, currently areas to the east in and
around Danbury and Sandon are not contributing enough
The Plan should be changed to reflect more sensible and cheaper
Options
A new modern sustainable development/new settlement should be
identified with planned strategic expansion. Adding significant
developments to existing communities is not sustainable
None of the Options achieve all the objectives set out. In particular
‘‘Respect the character of the existing settlement pattern including the
potential designation of Green Buffers’’
SWF is already an overdeveloped commuter town where services and
infrastructure is already over-stretched
If a new settlement was considered, the rest of the development needed
would be accounted for by natural expansion without the need for more
allocations
As demonstrated by the delays in the NE Bypass, the Western Relief
Road may never happen, or at least not within the Plan period. No
Option should be based around this happening unless it will come
forward
An Option to include minimal housing in Broomfield should be provided,
much less than in Option 3, to ensure it does not merge with
Chelmsford and more traffic in the area does not restrict access to
Broomfield Hospital
More needs to be done to recognise the development which will take
place in surrounding boroughs and districts to understand the impact
this may have on Chelmsford
A Western Relief Road should be considered to relieve traffic through
Broomfield and allow better access to Broomfield Hospital
Concern over the wider need for highway improvements around the
Rettendon Turnpike area as there is difficulty getting into Wickford
More should be done to encourage people to use public transport,
especially when travelling to Broomfield Hospital, and to place
development in locations which can utilise public transport
If improvements to the A132 are to be done, more development should
be considered in Rettendon, Runwell and Wickford
The boundaries of the Green Wedges should be re-considered
CCC should actively promote high rise development in the City Centre
and near the railway stations
Re-development of the poorer quality housing stock in Chelmsford
should be considered where it becomes available for re-development
Development around railway stations on the whole should be a focus
including railway stations in close proximity to Chelmsford’s boundaries
(Billericay, Wickford, Ingatestone)
Whatever Option comes forward, infrastructure should be a key
component and needs to come forward ahead of housing, particularly
transport infrastructure
As the vast majority of people commute south to their place of
Page 242



















employment, as much development as possible should be to the south
of the City to avoid greater levels of congestion and reduce travel to
work distances
The Government stated that Starter Homes should be built in the Green
Belt and this should be factored into an Option to allow the Green Belt
areas to take some growth
There are plenty of SLAA sites to the north and east of Chelmsford
which should feature as part of an Option
Work should be done with other neighbouring authorities to produce a
new settlement near existing roads and railways
The Hammonds Farm site could be developed in a way that causes the
least amount of harm to existing residents and provide a large number
of homes for several years, all in one place
The gas works site in the City should be developed with high rise
buildings
Only 10,000 new homes should be provided and these could all be
accommodated within the Urban Area
A new settlement or Garden Village to the north west along with the
Western Relief Road would improve transport connections in this
locality
More Park and Ride sites should be included in future Options
Consideration should be given to the reinstatement of the Witham to
Maldon railway
The existing VDSs should be recognised and incorporated into the Plan
Development should be built around and maximise the existing
transport infrastructure which is in place
There should not be development to the west of Chelmsford as it will
cause unacceptable traffic congestion in Writtle
Consideration needs to be given to how additional traffic will affect
access to Broomfield Hospital
The Hammonds Farm site is of lower grade agricultural value, adjacent
to the A12 and the Park and Ride site, close to a new railway station
and traffic would not have to pass through Chelmsford to travel north or
south
Development at Warren Farm would result in the loss of a rainwater
catchment area and would result in flooding in Writtle and the
surrounding area
Concern over the scale of development having a negative impact on
flooding in and around Chelmsford
Grade 2 farmland should not be considered for development, only
grades 4 or 3 should be considered to be suitable for development
A bypass connecting the two opposite sides of the City should be
considered so people do not have to travel through the City Centre
Grow areas proportionally to their current population so the level of
growth is shared equally to all towns and villages. Once the level of
growth is known for each town/village, local people can assist in
deciding where to place that growth
Page 243

















Expand all existing New Towns, i.e. SWF, Beaulieu and Channels
Build on the south side of the City, in areas such as Galleywood, Stock
and Margaretting
Rural populations should be increased and business opportunities
should be encouraged in these areas to reduce the miles travelled for
work
Sites submitted through CCC’s ‘Call for sites’ and SLAA should be
considered
Only build in Location 2 (West Chelmsford) if the Western Relief Road is
built first
The fact there is an ageing population will need to be considered in
terms of the types of housing which is built
A much longer term plan is needed (25-50 years vision)
Smaller developments of small family homes and starter homes, for
local people is needed, especially where schools in villages need further
pupils to retain them
The viability of a rail link from Chelmsford to Stanstead should be
considered. This could be funded by development at Great Leighs and
Felsted
The Western Relief Road would not be used as people will
predominantly be wishing to travel east to the City Centre, the A12 or
the railway stations
Improve the A12 and build closer to it
The focus of only transport led options seems to be inappropriate and
narrow in its scope
The expansion of Runwell should be considered within an Option
Large amounts of development are already taking place to the north of
Chelmsford and the south and west of the City should be considered to
balance out the development and the traffic which goes with it
Villages surrounding the City should not be allowed to be engulfed by
Chelmsford but should be retained as separate villages
The current Plan recognised that Broomfield’s landscape could only
cope with 800 additional dwellings, so there should not be any more
built near here
Increase the development in rural areas to allow for more homes and
business, thus reducing the need to travel to urban areas for work.
Other comments
 Further development will push up the cost of Council Tax
 Chelmsford has lost its identity as a market town
 Great Leighs should not be a Key Service Settlement and until this is
amended other alternative Options cannot be suggested
 Exact locations of developments should be stated so residents can
make more informed comments on the Options
 The A12 needs to be widened to support further growth
 Concern that the necessary infrastructure and services will not be
provided alongside the houses
Page 244





The proposed Widford Park and Ride site is not located in suitable
location to intercept traffic flows in and out of Chelmsford
The number of student houses is an issue which should be considered
as these are not occupied all year round and prevent residents from
living in those homes
More should be done to promote awareness of the Park and Ride sites
and the fact that it now serves Broomfield Hospital
The Army and Navy roundabout needs further works to manage
increased traffic flows
Building homes to the west of Chelmsford does not justify the Western
Relief Road.
Page 245
Which location(s) do you support for new development
growth in the new Local Plan?
Question
How many
Yes
No
answered question
762
See below
22
Location
Yes
No
1 Chelmsford Urban Area
466
55
2 West Chelmsford
93
551
3 N Chelmsford (Broomfield)
76
544
4 North East Chelmsford
301
201
5 E Chelmsford (E of Gt Baddow) 437
62
6 North SWF
482
38
7 Great Leighs
207
291
8 Howe Green
267
211
9 Rettendon Place
310
165
10 Boreham
445
104
11 Danbury
333
126
12 Bicknacre
340
109
13 Ford End
78
388
14 Great Waltham
41
518
15 Little Waltham
24
527
16 East Hanningfield
247
194
17 Woodham Ferrers
301
165
None
ticked
22
How many made
a comment
403
Overall positive themes were that:
 Development should be concentrated where infrastructure is more likely to
be in place – Beaulieu Station and NE Bypass, major routes including A12,
A130, and A131
 Development should be focused on existing urban areas and major
settlements to protect the character of the countryside, villages and the
environment
 Housing development should be close to employment areas
 Previous development has resulted in uneven distribution of houses to the
north and east
 Green Wedges and Green Buffers supported.
Overall negative themes were that:
 There was significant concern about traffic generation, leading to
congestion and rat-running
 Concerns about public transport provision and capacity
 Inadequate infrastructure and facilities in existing communities
 Loss of good quality agricultural land and impact on landscape
Page 246

Villages will be being swallowed by urban areas and large developments,
disproportionate amount of development in small villages, leading to
erosion of character and identity.
Summary of responses for each Location (hold Ctrl button on keyboard
and click on section number below):
1 2
17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
All written comments received are summarised under the options to which
they relate in the table below, regardless of which box was ticked.
Comment only (no locations selected) (Q22)
Proportionate development
 Development should be proportionate between areas, not a yes/no
verdict; otherwise the villages will be subsumed into Chelmsford
 Should be fairly distributed, all areas to have some houses built in them
in small manageable quantities; no more than 10% expansion
 Not all areas could support large developments but all could
accommodate some
 Small environmentally and eco-friendly developments of well thought
out and designed homes that complement and enhance the
surrounding landscape
 Villages will become 'unbalanced' if too much development is crammed
into one place
 Expansion should not interfere with the character and identity of
existing villages; small villages should remain that way; retain quality of
life, belonging and pride
 Give thought to those who live in these areas now.
Location
 Brownfield sites should take preference over greenfield sites
 Talk to other councils in Essex - agree a location and build a new town
 Build a new settlement, people who want to move to this settlement will
do so
 CCC has not yet delivered the new Beaulieu station - locate
developments with a mile of this new station with adequate safe cycle
ways and storage for bikes. Trains are frequent to the city centre and
would alleviate road traffic
 It should concentrate on urban expansion in other areas of the city and
not just the NE
 Development growth should be spread throughout the Local Plan Area
including Green Belt Areas (subject to a review).
Page 247
Comment only (no locations selected) (Q22)
Alternative sites
 Hammonds Farm
 Great Baddow area Site Reference CFS83 Hammonds Farm east and
west of A12 and north and south of the A414
 Boreham area Site References CFS59; CFS13; CFS49; CFS52;
CFS81; CFS145; and the significant site CFS139 at Boreham Airfield
 Danbury area Site References CFS56; CFS57
 Sandon area Site References CFS99; CFS100; CFS131
 Sandon with Green Buffer to A414
 Great Baddow area Site Reference CFS73. (In total these sites could
accommodate up to 17,500 dwellings.)
 Land proposed in the Call for Sites
 Great Notley
 Green Belt
 Chelmsford City Centre
 New areas between A12 and A130
 Great Holts.
Location 1 – Chelmsford Urban Area (Q22)
There were no comments objecting to this location.
 Support was expressed for brownfield development
 Little impact on character, and would enhance the city
 Good existing or proposed transport infrastructure, alongside current and
future employment opportunities.
Comments in support of this location
 Development in cities/towns is to be expected
 It is served by good existing or proposed transportation infrastructure
 These areas would "cope" better with the Plan
 Existing and proposed employment opportunities are in these areas
 This would enhance the City as a regional hub
 The maximum allocation of development in the City Centre should be a
priority, particularly on brownfield sites, lessening the impact on the
outlying areas
 Not all available sites either have approved development and some
remain available for development. Physical, technological and social
forces have rapidly altered our physical environment and will render
more areas within the existing urban framework available for
development
 Can be allocated without detriment to their existing character and can
in fact enhance their vitality and sustainability
 Will place people in the right areas in terms of employment growth and
Page 248
Location 1 – Chelmsford Urban Area (Q22)

causing the least traffic congestion possible
Chelmsford has expanded considerably to the north and east, the city
is becoming lop-sided, so it is now time to rebalance that with
development in other directions.
Location 2 – West Chelmsford (Q22)
Although there were significant objections to this site, some support was also
shown.
Support:
 Chelmsford has developed in an uneven way, focused on development to
the north and north east of the city
 Well placed for expansion of the city with growth of urban areas
 Any development should be a dynamic eco-project, fully utilising
technology, architecture and planning.
Object:
 Significant concern about traffic generation – congestion on village roads,
Rainsford Road into Chelmsford, rat-running to access A414 and A12 at
Furze Hill, B1008 to Broomfield and Hospital
 Considerable concern about proposed Western Relief Road –doubts about
timing and delivery, effect on communities and potential for further infilling
development
 Concern about lack of public transport, no park and ride, distance from
railway station
 Significant concern of Writtle being merged into Chelmsford, loss of
identity and character
 Concern about pressure on community facilities and utilities
 Significant concern about effect on floodplain, loss of land acting as a
soakaway, increased flood risk
 Support for Writtle Parish Council’s alternative proposals (Hammonds
Farm, Boreham Airfield and others).
 A new road might reduce traffic and stop traffic jams at the Roxwell
Road/Lordship Road roundabout. More houses are a good idea,
without more it will be harder to find and afford a home; new homes will
help to keep prices sensible. While people will feel frustrated to have to
find new places in the countryside to enjoy, there are still plenty of
lovely places for walking and fresh air
 New development can build and expand upon expansion of the city
that has already occurred - the best opportunity to meet the housing
need is in areas adjacent or close to the city, accessible and capable of
delivering housing and infrastructure over the next 20 years and
beyond
Page 249






Would be supportive of small (proportional to Writtle’s relative size)
development at east end of Warrens Estate site. The A1060 cannot
take anything more
To the north west would help growth in Stansted airport and schools.
General support to build 4,500 houses west of Chelmsford
Development should take place where it has least impact on the areas
as a whole and best serves needs of inhabitants
is becoming lop-sided; The new Local Plan should redress the
imbalance of previous development and concentrate developing to the
areas to the north west of the city creating a more structured urban
expansion; to balance up the city and stop the skewing of the area
The proportionate solution is to concentrate the new houses in
expanding the urban areas.
Comments against this location
 Writtle is a village - let’s keep it like that; natural beauty is one of the
village’s finest features
 Would require new road and subsequent infill of houses, producing
even more traffic
 Wholly lacking in road/transport infrastructure, will be gridlock
accessing city centre; will double the amount of traffic in an already
congested area; would cause further congestion and parking problems
for people using city station; people would also need to use city for
everyday needs
 Roxwell Road, A414, Chignal Road, Lodge Road, The Green, Lordship
Road, and other roads in Writtle are frequently at a standstill; people
from new estate would take shortcuts through village adding to the
existing problems
 Massive congestion from people trying to avoid Rainsford Road
junction; traffic often at gridlock
 Already a huge amount of traffic accessing the A12 via Margaretting
Road with no solution; to access trunk roads need to travel through city
centre or Writtle village
 A new road to the west will be of little use given the catchment area of
the hospital and other resources north and east of Chelmsford
 A lack of a coherent roads policy to manage the increase in road traffic
from proposed development. Traffic from the west (A12 via Furze Hill)
causes chaos during commuter times. A link road must be built from
Warren Farm to the west end of the Writtle bypass
 A Western Relief Road will encircle Chelmsford leading to the
destruction of the communities of Writtle and Broomfield
 There is no Park and Ride this side of Chelmsford so commuters take
their cars; there is no bus along Roxwell road, so people will drive; a
Park and Ride should be provided
 Concern about delivery of any new road; timing of any new road is
unclear, at least 10 years away, and probably after development – the
Page 250






















period between housing and the road being built would be intolerable
No way to drastically improve this situation without creating a bypass
through Hylands House area - which is unthinkable
Traffic surveys need to be over a long period to be accurate
Rat running past schools is already unacceptable for child safety
Too far from railway station to assume people will walk, or even cycle
there; people are lazy and will use their cars; parents do not let their
children walk 100m to school; most cars have only 1 person in them
Is there any research on new development and proximity to city
centres, and relationship of increased walking and cycling?
Council should lobby for more connection between housing and
transport policy, roads are matter for ECC and are unconnected with
planning of housing by CCC
Will double Writtle population and merge village into Chelmsford; lose
identity; will be just another suburban district of Chelmsford
Would erode what is left of the Green Wedge between the city and the
ancient village of Writtle; separation to east of Writtle is most
vulnerable extending in 180 degree arc to the north; would end up
relying on Writtle College land for separation
One of the prettiest/nicest villages in Essex will lose its identity as a
village and character will be destroyed; open green countryside setting
one of its greatest charms
CCC states a mission to protect local communities but is pursuing a
Plan which will destroy Writtle
Loss/destruction of high quality farmland, rural area will be lost forever
Concern about environmental impact; wildlife impact
Would mean additional lights and noise pollution; air quality issues
Burden on doctors, dentists, schools, shops; will seriously strain all our
resources; doctors’ already very busy, 3 week wait for an appointment
All infrastructure would have to be built from scratch, proposed roads
would take years to plan and build, and cost vast sums of money
Sewer pipes and phone lines all need replacing
Would have a devastating effect on all villages to west of Chelmsford
and those who live there
Several people express a concern about the effect on the floodplain,
loss of land as soakaway for rainfall, leading to water running down
Lordship Road and Cow Watering Lane and Roxwell Brook causing
increased flood risk; every year Roxwell Road is closed due to flooding
and traffic is diverted; there will be wetter weather/more flooding; flood
reduction tools are expensive and can create other problems
There will always be a risk to some flooding in the Wid valley, work
required to relieve this is not being done
Feel confident that CCC members will take into account the views and
ideas of local residents
Garden city at Hammonds Farm seems a more obvious choice; can be
brought forward quickly
Many express support for Writtle Parish Council’s alternative proposals
Page 251










Pleshey would be indirectly affected by light and noise pollution from
such a vast estate
Writtle has 3% of city population now – this will raise it to 20%
Children have had every opportunity to experience village life, this will
be taken away by building 3000 houses
If we must keep building then the answer must surely be to build a new
town outside of Chelmsford with its own infrastructure such as
happened in SWF
14,000 houses is gross overestimation, if reduced Writtle could be
omitted
A sizeable proportion of housing should be low cost for purchase or
renting
No large development on the pristine and agriculturally valuable
countryside of the Pleshey Farmland Plateau
Will also impact on protection of landscape and congestion around
Broomfield and hospital; increase traffic flow on the congested B1008
Chelmsford is one of the best places to live we are told but I wonder
how long would it remain so with unchecked urban sprawl threatening
villages and hamlets around the north west of Chelmsford
If development in the west is to proceed then it should really be
dynamic eco project development. Not one which ticks the boxes of
government sustainability ideas, but which fully utilises all technology
and ideas to make Chelmsford's developments of big media interest on
a national scale. Chelmsford is a great new city - the aim should be to
show the country the vision of a new city and attract dynamic likeminded families by using architecture and planning at the sharp end of
environmental thinking.
Location 3 – North Chelmsford (Broomfield) (Q22)
Although there were significant objections to this site, a small amount of
support was also shown.
Support:
 Chelmsford has developed in a uneven way, focused on development to
the north and north east of the city
 Well placed for expansion of the city with growth of urban areas
 Would be close to employment locations of Broomfield Hospital, Chelmer
Valley High School, Stansted Airport and MedTech
 Would support if there is better access to Broomfield Hospital.
Object:
 Significant concern about infrastructure provision and additional
congestion, particularly Main Road/Broomfield Road and hospital access
 Public transport not sufficient including rail and bus
 Concern about the effect of a Western Relief Road on communities and
the potential for further infilling development
Page 252
Inadequate infrastructure, particularly school places, doctors
Significant opposition to development west of Broomfield, due to loss of
good quality agricultural land, open space, footpaths – Green Buffer must
be retained
 Concern about Broomfield becoming a suburb of Chelmsford, loss of
identity.


 New development can build and expand upon expansion of the city
that has already occurred - the best opportunity to meet the housing
need in areas adjacent or close to the city, accessible and capable of
delivering housing and infrastructure over the next 20 years and
beyond
 Support to build 4,500 houses West of Chelmsford
 Chelmsford has expanded considerably to the north and east, the city
development in other directions
 The New Local Plan should redress the imbalance of previous
development and concentrate developing to the areas to the north west
of the city creating a more structured urban expansion
 The proportionate solution is to concentrate the new houses in
expanding the urban areas
 Support, but with better access to Broomfield Hospital
 An acceptable transport system is the Royal Bournemouth General
Hospital - fed from a three-lane dual carriageway (four if you include
the bus lane). Until Broomfield Hospital has similar roads all
development in the Broomfield area should be suspended
 Two of the City’s largest employers Broomfield Hospital and Chelmer
Valley School are in Broomfield and Stansted Airport (the largest
employer in the south east) is also on that side of the City. Further, the
University Medical Technical life science research establishment will be
near Broomfield. Housing at Broomfield would help cater for these
employers, reduce traffic flows and pressure on public transport and
parking. Also good links to the Chelmer Valley Park and Ride,
Braintree, Stansted / Stansted Railway Station and M11.
 Would require new road and subsequent infill of houses, producing
even more traffic; Western Relief Road would affect Broomfield, the
next step would be building even more houses around it
 A Western Relief Road will encircle Chelmsford leading to the
destruction of the communities of Writtle and Broomfield
 More roads is the last thing this area needs as it would bring air and
noise pollution and environmental destruction to beautiful areas of
unspoilt Essex countryside and farm land
 The NE Bypass needs to happen now
Page 253






















Infrastructure is seriously inadequate - need a separate road into the
hospital/Chelmer Valley High School for public safety and hospital
access. A big increase in traffic volume in the last twelve months. All
new residents will use the hospital/schools and Main Road, which is
buckling under the pressure
Traffic on Patching Hall Lane has trebled
Traffic to Broomfield Hospital is already too much
Will result in huge increases in the already heavy traffic down the
B1008 into Chelmsford as more people try to reach the train station
and A12/A130
Severe traffic at peak times already – waiting 5 minutes to break into
traffic or cross the road
Main Road is congested at peak periods and very busy at all other
times
Petersfield is already a nightmare to drive out of or back in to due to
traffic speed and amount; specific problem with turning into Petersfield
as traffic behind sees green traffic light and accelerates, not expecting
traffic to be turning before the traffic lights
Park and Ride has made hardly any difference as it’s not sufficiently
routed, people won't want to take two buses just to get to the hospital
If the school bus is taken away this will mean parents driving children
into school so more pressure on the roads
Bus service is non-existent and woefully inadequate
Transport links go only to the City Centre
Improved public transport can only be a good thing but in reality people
will still use their own vehicles so it will make little difference to traffic
congestion
Pavements are narrow and broken; cars are mounting pavements to
make way for ambulances – children cannot walk safely to school
Inadequate infrastructure is proposed for roads, schools, doctors –
impossible to register at doctors
You should ask what facilities are missing from where you live? For
example, Broomfield does not have a GP surgery
Families cannot get places at the local school; children have to travel
out of the area to school bringing more traffic
Will have 180 new homes before the new Plan which will already add
further strain on infrastructure; Broomfield is still absorbing
development from the last Plan
No large enough new shopping facilities are proposed to support this
Devastating effect of thousands of homes in one area
New housing increases traffic congestion and destroys the green
spaces
No further extension can be added without breaching its natural limits. would be visible over long distances and unacceptable in conservation
and settlement pattern terms
Will be a poorer place for many generations to come, will deprive future
generations of a greener, more pleasant, healthier place
Page 254











Area west of Broomfield hospital has fantastic footpaths which add
much to family life; fantastic open spaces, farmland and footpaths,
would be eroded with continual housing development
Building on agricultural land makes no sense, use more suitable
industrial quality land elsewhere
It would result in the destruction of many village communities
Need to guard the Roman and Saxon sites in Broomfield
Broomfield will become a suburb of greater Chelmsford
Would swallow up villages which currently have their own identity into a
general mass of housing sprawl; would absorb the smaller villages,
erasing their identity and way of life of the residents
The Green Buffer between the urban area of Chelmsford and
Broomfield must be maintained at all costs
Chelmsford is one of the best places to live we are told but how long
will it remain so with unchecked urban sprawl threatening villages and
hamlets around the north west of Chelmsford
Building over green fields increases the risk of local flooding
Broomfield should be included in a category for small development at
most, which is not provided in any of the Options. An option including
minimal housing development for Broomfield should be provided. If this
were to occur this should be to north/north west of Broomfield Hospital,
being able to utilise preferential access to/from north, and some of
hospital’s transport connections (buses) and infrastructure
Housing should be built at Beaulieu – there is a place for a school there
and the railway will go further afield.
Location 4 – North East Chelmsford (Q22)
Many comments made general points to support this location.
Support
 Significant support for the area’s proximity to transport infrastructure
including A12, A130, new rail station
 Current developing infrastructure could support development here
 Development would protect the villages and countryside elsewhere, and
would have least impact
 NE Bypass should be provided, and development should be to the west of
the bypass only.
Object
 There has already been considerable development to the north and east
 Smaller villages would be absorbed into larger developments, the Chignals
in particular should be protected.
 It is served by good transportation infrastructure that is either existing
Page 255
Location 4 – North East Chelmsford (Q22)









or proposed, plus in/near the urban centre of the city
This has better road links and is already surrounded by high density
development, also closer to new station, A12, A130
North east Chelmsford should be maximised for a major proportion of
development due to its developing infrastructure
These areas would focus on continued development of the existing
area with room to grow, along with the area around the proposed new
station at Boreham, and would protect the Green Belt, villages,
countryside and road infrastructure that currently makes this part of
Essex so pleasant to live in
The majority of the expansion should take place on Site 4 linked to the
provision of a NE Bypass - which could be far more easily achieved
Several large sites have been considered satisfactory by the City
Council in their Call for Sites
Dispersing a small minority of the new houses to the outlying towns
and villages will have a disproportionately adverse impact on the
villages without a large positive impact in not expanding the urban
area. The proportionate solution is therefore to concentrate the new
houses in expanding the urban areas
Do not allow spanning over the NE Bypass
Will place people in the right areas in terms of employment growth and
causing the least traffic congestion possible.
 The sizes of developments proposed would absorb the smaller
villages, erasing their identity and way of life of the residents
 Any development should leave villages such as The Chignals
separated from the main urban area so that they do not become
subsumed into that area
 Already over developed and would leave Chelmsford asymmetric
increasing transportation problems.
Location 5 – East Chelmsford (East of Great Baddow) (Q22)
Significant support was expressed for this area, largely by those objecting to
locations 2 and 3.
Support
including A12, A130, A127, A130, new rail station
 The area would benefit from additional infrastructure
Page 256

Well placed for access to employment opportunities.
Object
 Impact on landscape
 Concern about additional traffic on the A414, Army and Navy junction,
A12/A414 junction, A414/A1114 junction, onwards to Baddow Road and
Beehive Lane
 Ability of local facilities to cope, particularly Vineyards shopping centre,
library and car park.
 Expansion of the A12 would support development in the Boreham and
Baddow areas; this area is suited for higher levels of development
(near A12/A414/A130)
or proposed, plus in/near the urban centre of the City
 Support Location 5 if it were guaranteed to be restricted to the West of
the A12
 These areas would cope better with the Plan
 Development should take place where it has least impact on the areas
 Good access to the A130, A127 and A12 - useful as most of the new
development inhabitants are likely to commute to London, Southend,
Chelmsford or Colchester
 Area would benefit from new infrastructure and have the capacity to
take a new development
 Currently an area with limited infrastructure apart from Park and Ride,
but flood protection maybe required in some locations
in fact enhance the vitality and sustainability.
 Already over developed and would leave Chelmsford asymmetric
increasing transportation problems
 Would probably impact on the site of natural beauty (landscape
conservation area) –Danbury Hill/ Chelmer Valley. Even with use of the
Park and Ride, this site would add to the traffic problems at the Army
and Navy without generating enough CIL to construct a 2 way flyover
 The A414 Maldon Road is busy via the Army and Navy junction to
Great Baddow, the A12, Danbury and Maldon. The extra traffic from
the 750 new homes and new office/high tech business park will create
unacceptable traffic congestion at A12/A414 junction, Park and Ride
junction, and the A414/A1114 junction. The Vineyards Shopping
Centre/library/car park are very busy with no spare capacity at the
Centre for the increased traffic generated by a new neighbourhood. 58
Page 257
new flats at Marrable House will add to the congestion. Increased
traffic also will affect Baddow Road from the Army and Navy, onto A12
or A130 access; Beehive Lane; Galleywood. There is no way to
improve the existing local highway network.
Location 6 – North South Woodham Ferrers (Q22)
The majority of comments support this location.
Support
including A132, A127, A130, A12, railway station
 The area would benefit from new infrastructure
 There is adequate school capacity
 Development should be concentrated in existing urban areas, where it has
the least impact of inhabitants
 Well placed for access to employment opportunities.
Object
 Avoid the B1012 acting as a division, effectively creating two towns
 A suggestion to divert the B1012 north of any development to retain the
character of the town bounded by the river and main roads, as with original
new town vision
 More details sought on proposals for A132 improvements, junctions, and
links to A130
 Concern about increased traffic from new development in the Dengie
 Concern about rail capacity as trains are often full already, more direct
trains (to London) needed to avoid pressure on services at Wickford
 What proposals are there to expand William de Ferrers School?
 Concern of increased flood risk, brooks are at capacity
 Concern about closure of emergency services in SWF.
 The A130 (south of the city) has room to expand and hence promote
the potential growth of SWF
causing the least traffic congestion possible; existing and proposed
employment opportunities are in these areas
 Well equipped for public transport - suggest train to Chelmsford, or
more frequent bus services. SWF appears to have school capacity.
This seems like the logical place to build
Page 258










Deliverable with good road links
There is more open land with easy access to the A130, A12 and A127
which would help any new housing development with more road
options to keep traffic flowing
These areas would cope better with the Plan
Area would benefit from new infrastructure and have the capacity to
Agree with certain growth on Key Transport Corridors, this would
include SWF
Support but only along with A132 improvements
The train station could serve many more dwellers
Dispersing a small minority of the new houses to the outlying towns
and villages will have a disproportionately adverse impact on the
villages without a large positive impact in not expanding the urban
area. The proportionate solution is therefore to concentrate the new
houses in expanding the urban areas.
 Need to avoid having two towns separated by main trunk road from the
Dengie
 Proposals for A132 - How would a new road connect with Fenn
Roundabout; what is the proposal for the A132 – dual carriageway and
how will it link with A130?
 Traffic problems at A132 and A12 junctions
 Significant traffic attempting to (a) exit the town, and (b) pass through
via the north side of the town from other towns and villages on the
Dengie - upgrading the A132 will not resolve this issue
 A new, national speed limit, high capacity boundary road needs to be in
place before development
 Development to the north of SWF will create an 'outpost village' unless
it includes other changes to the road network. Divert B1012 to go to the
north of any new development so that the essential character of the
town, bounded by the river to the south and road to the north, is kept
intact
 A major new road is required, such as from Maldon to SWF and
enhancing the A132 to dual carriageway. The statement in tables 27
and 28 for Indicative Infrastructure Requirements: "Local highway
network improvements" is inadequate, and previous campaigns over
many years have failed to find any significant improvement short of a
major new road
 Rush hour trains are full and platform is maximum length; trains from
Southend to change at Wickford are also full
Page 259











A large number of SWF residents commute by train, likely that a large
percentage of any new residents will also - adequate capacity needed
to allow more through trains directly to and from Liverpool Street. An
extra passing loop on the branch line will not provide the necessary
improvements - in effect all it will allow is the running of a few more 4
carriage trains that will have to terminate at Wickford, adding more
commuters to the already busy Southend line service
Should a tram/train link be provided to Chelmsford?
Need to consider utilities – power lines, water main, gas main
William de Ferrers School - Plan should also show necessary extra
school facilities, costs, locations for expansion of classrooms and
sports facilities
Proposals for closure of emergency services stations – will be needed
in future
Will there be another town centre, and is Sainsbury’s in the right place?
Drainage and fluvial run-off are needed; brooks feeding Fenn Creek
are at capacity; Old Wickford Road floods at the Whalebone; current
brooks go through an SSSI
Have not been given an option for no development, no chance to
object to a proposal to change the town beyond all recognition
The new town of SWF was given the go-ahead on the assurance that
there would never be any development north of the B1012, as this
would create a natural break between Woodham Ferrers and the new
town. This is all recorded (1970s)
SWF is a dormitory town and will remain so regardless of any attempt
to provide more jobs within the town
The town of SWF desperately needs revitalising but unless the
stranglehold on the shopping centre by Wal-Mart is broken there will
never be any decent offering in the town centre itself, and the only way
to improve the area is to expand it elsewhere.
Location 7 – Great Leighs (Q22)
Comments were balanced between support and object. However, many
supporting comments were general ones applied by consultees to many sites;
the objections were more specific.
Support
 Considerable support for the area’s proximity to transport infrastructure
including A131, A120, A12, new railway station
 Well placed for access to employment opportunities
 Support if the NE Bypass is built.
Object
 Significant concern about additional traffic and congestion, also the effect
on Broomfield traffic, Broomfield Road, access to hospital
 Significant concern about the rural environment, village environment, loss
of countryside, woods and wildlife, particularly the effect on Sandylay
Page 260
Woods, and Longlands farm area
 Great Leighs racecourse is particularly unsuitable for development as it is
close to Willows Green
 Amount of development is disproportionate, village has already doubled in
population, this would further triple it
 CCC, Uttlesford and Braintree should work together as 22,000 houses
within a 6 mile radius of Great Leighs is unsustainable.
 The A131 / A120 has the road infrastructure in place to support
expansion of Great Leighs
 Great Leighs could provide large development as outlined as adjacent
to A131, and with links via NE Bypass would be well connected to
A12/North Chelmsford Station, alongside further connections to
Braintree
 Adjacent to an excellent transport link A131
 Support, if the NE Bypass is built
 These areas would focus on continued development of existing area
with room to grow, along with the area around the proposed new
station at Boreham, and would protect the green belt, villages,
 A small amount of housing would probably be okay
 Area has better infrastructure already in place to support additional
traffic at the levels required
causing the least traffic congestion possible.
 Will soon be swallowed up and joined with Beaulieu Park via the NE
Bypass.
 Concerns for destruction of the rural environment, village environment,
character, and community
 Concern about impact on fields to east adjacent to Sandalay Woods –
used for education, dog walking, exercise
 The land adjacent to Longlands farm is an area of special landscape
and is adjacent to the nature reserve. These fields back onto the village
school and are used by dog walkers and children for playing and need
to be protected
 Concern about effect on woods which are well-managed, danger of
wildlife moving away, invaluable area for peace of mind affected by
extra children using woods
 Fields to east form a river 30m wide in winter and are always boggy in
Page 261















summer – concern about impact of more concrete on flood risk
Village in green surroundings which is why people choose to live there,
not urban sprawl; should not be turned into an urban district
Village is set in picturesque countryside, with listed buildings, protected
lanes, ancient grazing land, protected woods and an abundance of
wildlife
There are more suitable sites for imposition of this increase in houses,
infrastructure, transport and population
There are places where town life can be embraced and others where
country living and rural lifestyles should be retained and embraced
(such as here)
Inadequate infrastructure - school at capacity, doctors surgery above
capacity
Additional traffic would be terrible, there are already long tail backs
every morning
Effect of development here on Broomfield, the road is already unable to
take the current traffic. Ambulances accessing hospital are delayed by
this congestion
Number of dwellings already doubled in 2004, Great Leighs has done
its bit
Great Leighs has already found itself under social behaviour pressure
from recent housing developments
Great Leighs racecourse area particularly unsuitable (CFS site
MON/00204/14) – ancient woodlands, minerals safeguarding area, and
would deliver sprawling development towards Willows Green which is
contrary to the Felsted Parish Plan
Need for joined-up thinking/working/consulting between Chelmsford,
Uttlesford and Braintree District Councils (and residents) regarding
plans for the area around Braintree. Current Local Plan proposals from
these 3 focus up to 22,000 new homes on an area within a 5 or 6 mile
radius of Great Leighs. This is utterly unsustainable. It will have huge
social consequences
The amount being suggested is completely disproportionate to the size
of the village
Development here will substantially increase traffic flow on the already
congested B1008 into Chelmsford and require destruction of much high
quality farmland to the west and north of Chelmsford, as well as
swallowing up villages which currently have their own identity into a
general mass of housing sprawl
The Option 1 shows Great Leighs having 2000 extra dwellings. This is
the same as SWF which already has a population of several
thousands. Great Leighs would triple in size, yet there is no mention of
any extra retail/commercial space. Why is Great Leighs in every
option?
Broomfield Road is very busy and ambulances need speedy passage
to and from the hospital. At the present time there are several
problems. More traffic from further development will be disastrous.
Page 262
Location 8 – Howe Green (Q22)
Support
including A12, A130, A127
 Would rebalance development away from north and east
 Could provide much needed services
 Support on condition of a new Green Wedge between Howe Green and
new development.
Object
 Size of development would absorb the village, concern about the effect of
urban sprawl
 Distinct and separate identity should not be undermined
 Traffic impact on Army and Navy, A414, and minor roads to reach major
routes.
 Infrastructure appears more sustainable than some other options and
should not be banded together with them
 Not opposed to a well thought out development in this area
 Howe Green has turned into a place with no amenities
 A development at Howe Green could be of benefit to Howe Green as it
will provide some much-needed services to the hamlet, provided that a
Green Wedge is created between the new development and the
original part of Howe Green.
 No respect for local character, green spaces, residents here. Only see
housing on flood plains and green spaces. Essex was green and rural no more.
 This location has “distinct and separate identities” which should not be
Page 263
Location 8 – Howe Green (Q22)


undermined
This site has no adequate transport connections. The traffic generated
from this site will worsen traffic problems at the Army and Navy without
generating enough CIL to construct a 2 way flyover
Traffic from the new homes will pass through the settlements, and the
attractive minor rural roads to reach major routes. The increase in
traffic will spoil the existing character of the villages and the
landscapes.
Location 9 – Rettendon Common (Q22)
Support
including A130, A12, A127, SWF railway station
 The area would benefit from new infrastructure.
Object
 Potential for additional congestion at Turnpike, especially when added to
Runwell Hospital development, use of minor roads to reach major ones
 No public transport, development here depends on travel by car
 Concern about urbanisation of this rural area, loss of character and identity
 Care should be taken to protect the setting of the church
 Rettendon Common and village (Bell crossroads) should also be
considered, already has the makings of a village centre.
 Deliverable and sustainable with good road links and employment
areas in south Essex
 Locate as much development as possible near the new railway station,
the A12/A130 corridor(s); Springfield and Boreham; existing station at
SWF
 Deliverable with good road links
station at Boreham, and would protect the green belt, villages,
Page 264
Location 9 – Rettendon Common (Q22)


Area has better infrastructure already in place to support additional
traffic at the levels required.
 A132 is not really the problem, but the congestion at the Turnpike and
traffic to Wickford is. Effect of development at Runwell on Turnpike not
yet felt.
 Development here requires travel by road to Chelmsford or SWF
 Not the infrastructure in Rettendon to support all these houses
 People live in a rural location for a reason, they do not want to be
urbanised
 Great care would need to be taken not to damage the setting of the
magnificent medieval church of All Saints at Rettendon, every effort
would need to be made not to damage views of the church in particular
from the south and west
 Opposed to solely building homes at Rettendon Place. If Rettendon
has to take its share then new homes should increase the viability and
bring community benefits to both Rettendon Place and Rettendon
Common - to focus and create 'village centres' for both these areas.
Bell crossroads already has the makings of a central village area and
this will lend itself to being enhanced with the park area shortly to be
improved, with new homes built around the existing developments
there
undermined
 Traffic from the new homes will pass through the settlements, and the
landscapes.
Location 10 – Boreham (Q22)
There was significant support for this location, with the addition of suggestions
for development at the former Boreham airfield.
Support
including A12, A130, new rail station
 Support for Green Buffer.
Page 265
Object
 Considerable number of suggestions to develop former Boreham airfield
 Concern about loss of village character
 Existing services and facilities are full to capacity, community and
transport infrastructure should be provided in advance of development
 Size of growth is disproportionate, would be a 50% increase in population
in addition to the impact from Beaulieu and Channels
 Concerns about traffic impact on A12, Boreham Interchange, Main Road,
rat-running through Hammonds Lane, accessing new station, accessing
school and doctors
 Agricultural land should be retained for farming, stated in VDS
 Facilities are limited and should not justify selection as a Key Service
Settlement.
 Expansion of the A12 would support development in the Boreham and
Baddow areas
 This has better road links and is already surrounded by high density
development, also closer to New Station, A12, A130
the A12/A130 corridor(s), existing station at SWF.
 These areas would "cope" better with the Plan.
station at Boreham, and would protect the Green Belt, villages,
 There is a lot of space with good transport links that could be
developed
 Existing and proposed employment opportunities are in these areas;
will place people in the right areas in terms of employment growth and
causing the least traffic congestion possible
 Area would benefit from new infrastructure and have the capacity to
in fact enhance their vitality and sustainability
 Support for proposed Green Buffer, should never be built on.
Page 266
 A lot of support to develop Boreham Airfield instead of the village
 A complete new community at the brownfield site of Boreham Airfield,
close to the planned infrastructure improvements of the NE Bypass and
Boreham Railway Station would be a much better alternative than
spoiling existing villages
 Wish to see community spirit continue and need to encourage a buffer
between Chelmsford to protect the character of the village
 Such large expansion would alter the character of the village to the
detriment of current inhabitants; at odds with spatial principles of
protecting the character of the area
 Village life would be destroyed – countryside reduced and outlook
spoilt
 Increase would swamp existing services which are already at capacity
 Local facilities are full to capacity i.e. schools and medical surgery.
Where are the doctors and money coming from to staff any new
surgery? Our surgery here has always been first class with quick
response to problems. Doctors surgery, primary school and secondary
school should be completed before any more development
 The vast increase in homes in existing villages like Boreham is
completely out of scale and balance of the existing community
 Would result in over 50% increase in size of Boreham
 Boreham is already impacted by 4000 houses plus Business Park at
Beaulieu Park and Channels, and has itself taken a lot of housing
 Can accept small infill but to develop on this scale would be the nail in
the coffin
 Anticipate increase village traffic to an unacceptable level with
consequential dangers to residents – traffic already generated by
school and doctors is chaotic
 Proposed NE Bypass, widening of the A12, new rail station,
improvements to Boreham Interchange, should be completed first
 Main Road is already very busy, more traffic will cause gridlock at peak
times; A12 totally inadequate; Boreham Interchange at capacity
 Any development at Boreham will almost certainly lead to more traffic
along Hammond's Road to access junction 18 on the A12 - which is
against the protected nature of this lane
 Traffic in Boreham will be stationary trying to access new railway
station
 Greenfield and agricultural setting is listed for protection in the VDS
 Boreham's VDS plans must be respected and not overruled
 Grade 2 and 3A farmland should be left, only 3B considered for
housing
 Support a Green Buffer to the west
 A new neighbourhood centre is not required, although there is little
space for extension to the existing centre
 The Village is loved and has had two books written on it – please read
them before any decisions are made
Page 267




Such a huge increase in housing to Boreham would destroy its village
status and would become a small town
The character of Boreham Village with its listed buildings is already
under threat from development within 1 mile with the Channels /
Beaulieu homes developments
We all have a responsibility to protect Boreham community as once it is
lost with large scale development it is gone and there is no way back
This location has “distinct and separate identities” which should not be
undermined.
Location 11 – Danbury (Q22)
Support
including A12, A130, A127, new rail station.
Object
 Significant concern about traffic generation on A414, along with traffic from
Maldon district, impact on Army and Navy
 Additional traffic needs to be considered, from Danbury Palace
development and new health centre, not just in peak periods
 Traffic will use minor roads to reach major routes, concerns of rat-running
on village lanes
 Concern that the distinct and separate identity will be undermined.
 Provided this is built on suitable sites and a great regard is given to
appropriate infrastructure this should not alter the village ambience
 There is a lot of space that could be developed that has good transport
links
development, also closer to new station, A12, A130
 Support, but limited as A414 currently is poor but nearby access to A12
in fact enhance vitality and sustainability.
 Concern about traffic issues which will be exacerbated by new health
centre; also additional traffic from Maldon district; Danbury haulage
Page 268
Location 11 – Danbury (Q22)








vehicles are very frequent; the road is overloaded, with dangerous
sections
Location 11 is unsuitable
Danbury's link to the A12 is not fantastic but it isn't easily modified to
facilitate traffic flows (due to land restrictions)
If essential to build more houses in Danbury, think about building on
the west side of the village, maybe in a gravel pit? Every house built on
the east side will result in at least one car trying to drive through
Danbury, which is often heavily congested
Will exacerbate existing congestion on A414 – traffic will be held up on
Little Baddow Road and on Mayes Lane by the ‘pre-signals’. Woodhill
Road/Bicknacre Road, Hopping Jacks Lane, Hulls Lane and
Hammonds Road will all become 'rat runs'. Must factor in the 45
dwellings at Danbury Palace and effect on traffic of vehicles crossing
the traffic flow to access and egress the new Danbury Medical Centre,
not just at peak periods. Difficulties and road safety issues for the
village as a whole
undermined
All developments in Maldon will increase the traffic on the A414.
Chelmsford's needs cannot be considered in isolation, but should take
into account the impact of neighbouring areas
The traffic generated from this site will worsen traffic problems at the
Army and Navy without generating enough CIL to construct a 2 way
flyover
The increase in traffic will spoil the existing character of the villages
and the landscapes.
Location 12 – Bicknacre (Q22)
Support
including A12, A130, A127, new rail station.
Object
 Significant concern about traffic generation on A414, along with traffic from
Maldon district, impact on Army and Navy
 Traffic will use minor roads to reach major routes
 Concern that the distinct and separate identity will be undermined.
the A12/A130 corridor(s), existing station at SWF
Page 269
Location 12 – Bicknacre (Q22)




Good access to the A130, A127 and A12 - useful as most of the new
traffic at the levels required.
Support, but limited as A414 currently is poor but nearby access to
A12.
undermined
 ALL developments in Maldon and some in Rochford will increase the
traffic on the A414. Chelmsford's needs cannot be considered in
isolation, but should take into account the impact of neighbouring areas
 The traffic generated from this site will worsen traffic problems at the
flyover
attractive minor rural roads to reach major routes. The A414 suffers
congestion at peak times. The increase in traffic will spoil the existing
character of the villages and the landscapes
in fact enhance their vitality and sustainability.
Location 13 – Ford End (Q22)
There were significant objections to this location, with few comments in
support.
Support
 Support for a small amount of housing
 Development to the north west will help to address imbalance of previous
development areas
 Good location for access to Stansted expansion.
Object
 Significant concerns about traffic generation, for Ford End itself, access to
Broomfield and hospital, potential for additional use of minor roads to
reach major roads
 Commercial vehicles prefer this road to A120/A120 to save on distance
 Amount of development is disproportionate, with only 160 houses at
present, it would lead to loss of identity and village character, a higher
amount of houses needed for improved infrastructure would be too great
 Concern about loss of good agricultural land.
Page 270
 A small amount of housing would probably be okay
 The new Local Plan should redress the imbalance of previous
development and concentrate developing to the areas to the north west
of the city creating a more structured urban expansion
 This would assist in expansion of Stansted with minimum journey
times.
 Effect of development here on Broomfield, the road is already unable to
take the current traffic. Ambulances accessing hospital are delayed by
this congestion
 Needs to be protected from development which would irrevocably
destroy the close knit communities of such a small, typical village
 Traffic causes problems through Ford End as the main road through
the village carries heavy traffic for Stansted airport. Commercial
vehicles prefer this to the A130/120 as it is shorter
 Ford End has little or no capacity for additional infrastructure - has
small roads and Victorian school buildings
 No large development on the pristine and agriculturally valuable
undermined
 Any development should leave villages such as The Chignals
 Development here will increase congestion on Broomfield Road.
Broomfield Road is very busy and ambulances need speedy passage
to and from the hospital. At the present time there are several
problems. More traffic from further development will be disastrous
traffic will spoil the existing character of the villages and the landscapes
 Ford End is adjacent to a Green Wedge which should be widened to
take the whole area into account as it is extremely rich and diverse in
wildlife. It is also grade 2 agricultural land, which is the best quality
farmland available in the whole of the Chelmsford area.
 There are only 160 houses in Ford End, to add substantial numbers to
this would result in the village losing its identity, cause huge amounts of
traffic issues not only for vehicles but for pedestrians, the school is at
full capacity and would prove difficult to extend (it is also located on a
very busy and dangerous road), and there is no infrastructure here,
Page 271
there is no shop, no pub, the village hall is tiny, the church is small,
there are no healthcare facilities, and at a recent Local Plan exhibition
one of the council's representatives confirmed that in order to get a
shop we would need another 800 houses before it could be
considered. 800 houses would destroy this small tight knit community.
It would be the least practical option.
Location 14 – Great Waltham (Q22)
There were significant objections to this location, with few comments in
support.
Support
 Support if development is in proportion to the village to retain character
Object
 Considerable concern about traffic congestion on B1008 at Broomfield,
traffic accessing Broomfield, new rail station, using minor routes to access
major routes
 Impact on good quality farmland, and protection of landscape
 Erosion of village character, villages including Chignals should be kept
separate.
 New building should be proportionate; there is no reason why Great
Waltham should not have new housing but it should be in proportion to
the existing population of the village and retain character
times.
 Development will create yet more traffic for Broomfield.
 Development here would be unsustainable due to the issues with
sustainable transportation links; congestion around Broomfield and
hospital
 This will result in huge increases in the already heavy traffic down the
and A12/A130
attractive minor rural roads to reach major routes. The A414 suffers
congestion at peak times
Page 272
Location 14 – Great Waltham (Q22)




countryside of the Pleshey Farmland Plateau; concern about impact on
Grade 2 farmland; destruction of much high quality farmland to the
west and north of Chelmsford
Negative impact on protection of landscape
Development here will swallow up villages which currently have their
own identity into a general mass of housing sprawl; the distinct and
separate identity should not be undermined
The increase in traffic will spoil the existing character of the villages
and the landscapes
Any development should leave villages such as The Chignals
subsumed into that area.
Location 15 – Little Waltham (Q22)
There were significant objections to this location
Support
Object
 Significant concerns about traffic congestion, on B1008, Broomfield, traffic
accessing Broomfield, new rail station, using minor routes to access major
routes
 Impact on good quality farmland, and protection of landscape
 Development of this scale would absorb smaller villages, leading to loss of
identity
 Some sites here are in Chatham Green which were rejected as
unsustainable in 2010 plan preparation, nothing has changed – no local
amenities, commuting distances, loss of fields, erosion of rural character,
lack of amenities.
times.
 Development will create yet more traffic for Broomfield
 Development here would be unsustainable due to the issues with
sustainable transportation links and impact on Grade 2 farmland
 Areas which should have minimal development are adjacent parts of
West Chelmsford (only development adjacent to A1060) and Great and
Little Waltham, as these will otherwise impact on protection of
landscape visions and congestion around Broomfield and hospital
Page 273
Location 15 – Little Waltham (Q22)







The sizes of developments proposed would absorb the smaller
undermined
Any development should leave villages such as The Chignals
The sites within Little Waltham are in Chatham Green. In 2010 the City
Council’s own environmental consultants (Entec) discounted any
development in the area – the situation remains unchanged: no local
amenities or facilities available with the nearest major settlement being
Chelmsford which is 3-4 km to the south; People are likely to have to
commute to work • new development would be on greenfield land and
would encroach on the rural characteristics of the village and would not
promote the reuse or conservation of resources; Pondside
Nursery/Chatham Green Yard were rejected as developable brownfield
site as it was disjointed from the settlement boundary and is slightly
isolated from the village footprint and would not see a continuation in
the village built development
Overall due to the size and location of the village it performs poorly
against sustainability criteria. Chatham Green is isolated from any local
facilities or amenities and the rural character of the village could
potentially be threatened by any future development proposed
Will result in huge increases in the already heavy traffic down the
and A12/A130
Traffic from the new homes will pass through the settlements, and the
landscapes.
Location 16 – East Hanningfield (Q22)
Support
 Support for the area’s proximity to transport infrastructure including A12,
A130, A127, A12
 Area would benefit from improved infrastructure and additional facilities.
Object
 Concern about traffic generation for Army and Navy, A414, traffic using
minor roads to access major roads
 Development of this size would absorb small villages eroding their identity.
Page 274
Location 16 – East Hanningfield (Q22)





Locate as much development as possible near the new railway station,
the A12/A130 corridor(s), existing station at SWF
Good access to the A130, A127 and A12 - useful as most of the new
Currently minimal facilities within village which would benefit from
expansion.
 The size of development proposed would absorb the smaller villages,
erasing their identity and way of life of the residents; this location’s
distinct and separate identity should not be undermined
flyover
landscapes.
Location 17 – Woodham Ferrers (Q22)
Support
including A12, A130, A127, SWF rail station
 Development would rebalance previous expansion to the north and east.
Object
 There is other land with better access to the road network to keep traffic
flowing
 Concern about traffic generation for a stretch of road which is already
overloaded, also on Army and Navy, and traffic using minor roads to
access major roads.
 This area is already surrounded by high density development
 There is good access to the A130, A127 and A12, existing station at
SWF
 Area is deliverable and sustainable with good access to employment
Page 275
Location 17 – Woodham Ferrers (Q22)






areas in south Essex; most of the new development inhabitants are
likely to commute to London, Southend, Chelmsford or Colchester
This will place people in the right areas in terms of employment growth
and causing the least traffic congestion possible
Would focus on continued development of existing area with room to
grow, and would protect the Green Belt, villages, countryside and road
infrastructure that currently makes this part of Essex so pleasant to live
in
Area would benefit from new infrastructure and has the capacity to take
a new development; currently minimal facilities within village which
would benefit from expansion, provided there is a new link to improved
A132
development in other directions.
undermined
 Would add traffic to an already overloaded stretch of road
 There is other open land with easy access to the A130, A12 and A127
which would help any new housing development with more road
options to keep traffic flowing
flyover
 Increase in traffic from the new homes will pass through the
settlements, and the attractive minor rural roads to reach major routes;
this will add to A414 congestion at peak times; and will spoil the
existing character of the villages and the landscapes.
Page 276
Are there any alternative or additional locations for new
development growth that should be considered in the new
Local Plan?
Question
23
How many answered
question
521
How many made
a comment
512





New development should be located close to transport infrastructure, in
particular the new rail station, A12 and A130
The east and south of Chelmsford were predominantly identified as
representing the best locations for development
Development should be located on lower grade farmland
Some belief that some development should take place within the Green
Belt.
Proximity to key transport infrastructure
 Strong belief that development should be situated near key transport
infrastructure
 Significant support that new development should be located close to the
new rail station in east Chelmsford
 Sites within close proximity to major roads, particularly the A12 and
A130, should be utilised
 The NE Bypass should be considered a priority and that new
development should be located alongside it.
Large New Settlements
 Substantial support for the development on large new settlements to
provide housing, schools, community facilities and other infrastructure
 Both Boreham Airfield and Hammonds Farm received considerable
support as locations for new development.
Location of development east of Chelmsford
 There was significant belief that new development should be located to
the east of Chelmsford, particularly focussed on areas close to the new
railway station and the A12. Locating development in this location
would reduce the need of residents to travel through the centre of
Chelmsford to access key transport infrastructure
 It was widely stated that the PBA SLAA work identified adequate
development sites east of Chelmsford
 Specific areas highlighted for possible development were Boreham,
Page 277
Sandon, Danbury and Great Baddow.
Location of development south of Chelmsford
 There was some support that development should be south of
Chelmsford, although on a much lesser scale than to the east
 Suggestions for locations for development in this area focused on SWF,
and to a lesser extent, villages along the A130.
Consideration of grade of farmland
 Development should be located in areas of lower grade farmland.
Green Belt
 Some support that development should be located in within the Green
Belt.
Page 278
Do you have any comments on the following- road and
transportation improvements as shown on the Spatial Options
plans?
 Potential Western Relief Road
 Highway capacity improvements to the A132
Question
24
How many answered
question
619
How many made
a comment
619














The majority of responders mainly objected to the Western Relief Road
Fewer responses were received in relation to Highway capacity
improvements to the A132. Those 107 who responded were supportive in
the majority
Both such improvements should be built before developments if they are
to happen
North East Bypass is needed and is in current Local Plan, but has not
been built due to funding challenges. The Western Relief Road will divert
funding and resources away from this which is unacceptable
High grade farmland should not be built on to create the Western Relief
Road
Access to Broomfield Hospital is an issue and any new road should also
address this
The Western Relief Road will permanently damage the rural nature of
Chelmsford
Concern that the Western Relief Road will divide village communities and
lead to urban sprawl as infilling between the road and Chelmsford Urban
Area occurs
There is no guarantee the Western Relief Road would happen, and
therefore this road cannot be taken into consideration when thinking about
where growth can be supported
Highway Capacity improvements to the A132 are generally supported.
They are seen as essential if development is going to go ahead
Concerns over funding and the timescale for the Highway Capacity
improvements to the A132
Concerns over road maintenance have been expressed as it is challenging
ensuring there is funding for existing road maintenance let alone more
Need for co-operation between Councils for any A132 improvements as
these may have a wider impact
Traffic management and forecasts need to be closely looked at to ensure
congestion is resolved rather than moved elsewhere.
Page 279
Potential Western Relief Road (Q24)
Principle
 Risk of further housing development between the road and the rest of
Chelmsford/Broomfield in the future
 Many consider the road is unlikely to be built within the Plan period as it
would rely on planning, compulsory land purchase and funding outside
the control of the City Council
 The NE Bypass should be the priority not additional roads
 It is just a dotted line on a map and does not have a planned route
safeguarded
 Has the potential to destroy the two Chignal Village communities
 The potential Western Relief Road should not be used to justify
development to the west and north of Chelmsford
 Concern that a portion of the relief road is in Green Belt which is meant
to have been discounted for any development
 There is no need for this road as infrastructure already exists elsewhere
to assist with development
 Commuting flows in the SA do not support the need for this road
 Need for sustainable transport, rather than building more roads
 Would need to link with the A12 to provide any meaningful value
 The road has positive implications for economic development.
Traffic Issues
 Concern that the road would increase traffic along Main Road
Broomfield to the Hospital
 Will increase traffic in the area if further houses are built around the
road
 Roundabout improvements on Broomfield Road/Hospital Approach
would be needed
 A Western Relief Road is a common sense solution to the ever
increasing volume of traffic on Chelmsford’s roads. It would ease traffic
through the City as well as relieving traffic on the already overcrowded
A12 Chelmsford bypass. A City the size of Chelmsford should have a
well-defined circular route around its periphery
 Concern over the impact on journeys whilst the road is being built
 There appears to be no evidence that this will provide any relief to the
traffic levels in the area
 It must connect up with the exiting major road network to be any benefit
 Long term impact on Writtle has not been taken into account including
traffic studies
 The local traffic report commissioned by the two local parishes shows
that once the NE Bypass is built, little benefit would be forthcoming from
a road between the A1060 and A131
 It would offer little traffic relief to Broomfield and the Walthams
 It should be a duel carriageway
Page 280
Potential Western Relief Road (Q24)


A Western road would not link into the main transport infrastructure
without traffic having to go through the City centre, it would increase
congestion
Careful consideration will need to be given to the locations of both
terminal and intermediate junctions to ensure that the maximum amount
of traffic is kept away from local roads.
Funding
 Concern that the road has not been costed and has no funding set in
place
 It will divert money/resources away from building the NE Bypass
 It will be a very expensive project for the questionable gains it will offer
 There is no guarantee it would happen, and therefore cannot be taken
into consideration when thinking about the amount of traffic the new
buildings would create
 There is a possibility that this road would need a larger amount of
housing to secure enough developer funding. For this reason it is not
supported
 Concern over long term funding for repairs of more roads.
Environmental Impacts
 Damage to habitats by development of road and environmental impact
 Should avoid building on high grade farmland which is unspoilt
 It should not be supplied with street lighting as this will ruin the
countryside nature of this area
 It would cause considerable noise pollution
 It will ruin a tranquil piece of countryside currently enjoyed by many.
Highway capacity improvements to the A132 (Q24)
Principle
 Improvements are strongly supported
 Improving the use and access of the Battlesbridge Rail Station would be
more sustainable than widening the A132
 Potential improvements will facilitate development at SWF and
potentially at Battlesbridge
 Objections as this will facilitate development in SWF, which is not
welcomed
 The road from Rettendon to SWF as well as to Wickford should be
duelled.
 This needs to be dual carriage way all the way to SWF and must be part
of a new national speed limit northern boundary road that defines the
limit of any new development
 Necessary due to increased housing being built on the Dengie and
Maldon district
Page 281
Highway capacity improvements to the A132 (Q24)


Need for co-operation between councils (Chelmsford, Maldon, Rochford
and Basildon) as this may have impacts for all
Needed now not in 30 years after more new homes are built.
Traffic
 These works are essential as currently the A132 is barely coping with
the traffic from SWF and further east from Maldon
 There is potential that improvements may move the traffic congestion
somewhere else on the system
 A132 improvements would help but the A130/A12 junction also needs
upgrading.
Funding
 Concern over how or if such improvements could be funded
 Concern over long term funding for repairs of more roads.
Page 282
Do you have any comments on the approach of discounting
development growth in the Green Belt in the new Local Plan?
Question
25
How many answered
question
325
How many made
a comment
316





Significant support for discounting development within the Green Belt
Some support that all countryside around Chelmsford was in need of
protection and that the Green Belt should be extended
Discounting the Green Belt has caused Chelmsford to develop in a uneven
way, focused on development to the north and north east of the City
Development could improve the sustainability of communities within the
Green Belt and prevent the closure of services and facilities
Some support for a Green Belt Review.
Green Belt should be protected from development
 There was significant support for the proposed approach to discount
development growth within the Green Belt
 Green Belt land was important for improving the health and wellbeing of
local residents, providing an opportunity to get away from the stresses
of life, and that it was essential this was maintained for future
generations
 The Green Belt is important for providing leisure space for activities
such as walking and that these recreational facilities can be improved
through protecting the Green Belt
 There was support for the Council’s position that if the development
needs of the City can be met using non-Green Belt locations, growth
should be focused in those areas first.
Non-Green Belt countryside
 There was a strong belief that other areas of countryside beyond the
Green Belt were at least of equal importance as countryside within the
Green Belt, and warranted the same level of protection from
development
 The Green Belt should be extended to protect other areas of
countryside around Chelmsford
 The current Green Belt designation has resulted in a disproportional
level of development within other areas of countryside
 Areas of countryside beyond the Green Belt represented higher grade
agricultural land and that these areas should not be developed as a
result of protecting lower grade agricultural land within the Green Belt.
Page 283
Impact of Green Belt on pattern of growth in Chelmsford
 Green Belt designation to the south and west of Chelmsford has had a
significant impact on the spatial growth of the City over many years
 The current Green Belt designation has channelled disproportionate
levels of growth towards the north and east of Chelmsford and has
resulted in an uneven pattern development
 There was concern that this would result in the City Centre not actually
being located in the centre of Chelmsford
 Some support for development in the Green Belt to help redress this
uneven pattern of growth.
Existing communities within the Green Belt
 Some concern about the impact a lack of development in villages in the
Green Belt was having on the sustainability of those communities
 It was believed that services and facilities such as schools and shops
were being forced to close
 There was some support for development within the Green Belt to help
sustain the services and facilities within these communities, which were
considered to be ‘failing’
 There was a belief that villages within the Green Belt should be
developed at an equivalent rate as those outside the Green Belt.
Support for development in the Green Belt
 There was some belief that that no locations should be discounted from
development at this stage of the Local Plan preparation and that all
sites and locations should be assessed on their own merits and on an
even basis
 It was considered there may sites within the Green Belt that are more
suitable for development than other areas outside the Green Belt. A
blanket discounting of sites in the Green Belt would not allow for these
more suitable sites to be identified
 There was support for the development of brownfield sites within the
Green Belt where this would reduce the need for development of
greenfield sites elsewhere
 It was considered that new Local Plan should take account of recent
announcements by the Government concerning the Green Belt,
particularly the support for the development of previously developed
land
 There was some belief that locations within the Green Belt had good
access to transport infrastructure such as the A12 and forthcoming
Crossrail at Shenfield.
Green Belt Review
 There was some support for the Council undertaking a Green Belt
review to remove potentially suitable areas for development from the
Green Belt and reclassify other areas in greater need of protection
 It was believed that the current Green Belt designation was out of date
Page 284
as there had not been a significant review since the designation was
established.
Page 285
Do you have any comments on the approach of discounting a
large new settlement in the new Local Plan?
Question
26
How many answered
question
438
How many made
a comment
427




There was significant support for a large new settlement at both
Hammonds Farm and Boreham Airfield
A large new settlement provides the best opportunity to ensure the
necessary infrastructure is delivered
It was considered contradictory to discount a large new settlement whilst
promoting developments of up to 3,000 homes in areas such as west
Chelmsford
There was some support for discounting large new settlements, which
were considered too large and not deliverable within the Plan period.
 There was significant belief that a large new settlement should not be
discounted at this stage of the Local Plan preparation and that this
option warranted further investigation
 Ensuring the necessary provision of infrastructure such as doctors,
schools and transport links would be easier to deliver through a planned
new settlement than extensions to existing settlements
 As Chelmsford continues to grow, there will be a need for a large new
settlement to be considered eventually. Therefore, it was right to start
planning this now, even if the delivery is not wholly within the Plan
period
 Providing a significant proportion of the required growth within a large
new settlement would reduce the impact on existing villages and
communities
 A large new settlement should be located close to existing and planned
transport infrastructure such as the A12 and new rail station east of
Chelmsford.
Hammonds Farm
 There was significant support for a large new settlement located at
Hammonds Farm
 It was considered the site was well located with regards to transport
infrastructure with strong links to the A12 and new rail station
 The site could be developed as a sustainable community with provision
of all necessary infrastructure, in line with the Garden Village principle. It
Page 286




was noted that this approach is currently being promoted by DCLG and
should therefore be considered by the Council
The Council’s decision to discount this option due to the need for a new
junction on the A12 was questioned. It was stated that all growth options
would require infrastructure improvements and that a new junction on
the A12 would be easier to deliver than some other improvements
identified, such as the Western Relief Road
There was some support for discounting development at Hammonds
Farm
The flood plain in this location was important to protect and
development would cause environmental damage which would be
detrimental to the Chelmer Valley
The A12 should act as a natural boundary for containing development.
Boreham Airfield
 There was significant support for a large new settlement located at
Boreham Airfield
 It was considered the site was well located with regards to transport
infrastructure with strong links to the A12 and new rail station
 The site could be developed as a self-supporting community with shops,
doctors, schools and employment space
 Planning and infrastructure works should be commenced to allow
development to proceed as soon as mineral extraction has finished or
that development could occur alongside mineral extraction
 As a brownfield site, this was considered a preferable option to building
on farmland.
Approach to discount large new settlement is inconsistent
 The Council’s decision to discount a large new settlement was
inconsistent with other options in both the proposed new Local Plan and
the current Plan
 It was considered that in proposing developments of up to 3,000 homes
in individual locations, the Council was in fact proposing large new
settlements. It was therefore considered inconsistent for the Council to
discount a large new settlement at Hammonds Farm or Boreham
Airfield
 The Council had included a large new settlement in the current Plan –
Beaulieu Park – so there was no reason for discounting another in the
new Local Plan.
Support discounting large new settlements
 There was some support for the Council’s decision to discount a large
new settlement
 A large new settlement represented too many homes in one location,
would take too long to develop and would place pressure on existing
infrastructure
 There was support for extending existing smaller settlements and
Page 287

spreading development around to help retain the character of
Chelmsford
It was questioned whether there was sufficient space to create to a
large new settlement without having a significant impact on existing
small villages.
Page 288
Do you have any comments on the issues that the new Local
Plan policies need to cover?
Question
27
How many answered
question
117
How many made
a comment
88
 Climate change and the environmental implications of developments
 Protection of rural communities
 Need to ensure infrastructure is sufficient for the development
proposed
 Parish Councils should be more involved
 Affordable housing to allow younger Chelmsford citizens onto the
property ladder is needed
 The Green Belt should be re-assessed.
Housing
 Lack of future planning for those who are homeless, in need of social
housing or starting out on the property ladder
 Concern over the possibility of devaluation of existing property due to
further development
 Green Buffers need to be protected from possible development
 Limits should be placed on current villages size to ensure no
overdevelopment takes place
 Build homes within walking distance to the new railway station to help
alleviate traffic congestion
 More local level decisions need to be made rather than allowing national
policy to dictate local housing development.
Environment
 More focus is needed on climate change and long term sustainability of
the environment
 Need for the Green Belt to be re-examined for future development
 Preservation of countryside surrounding urban areas for educational
needs
 Protect rural communities and village identities for future generations to
enjoy
 Create a buffer around Danbury to protect it becoming a part of greater
Chelmsford
 An in depth flood report should be produced on the river Chelmer
 Reports on air pollution should be provided
 Increase the number of native plants and trees within Chelmsford and
the surrounding area
Page 289




Loss of open spaces could create a negative feel within the area
Western bypass would be located within the Green Belt and therefore
detract from the council’s policy
The need to guard against health issues associated with pollution,
active living etc
Tighter guidelines for development around sites with Tree Preservation
Orders to avoid trees being removed.
Infrastructure
 The impact of development on the health service e.g. hospital size,
doctor numbers, GP surgeries etc
 Lack of infrastructure already in place (schools, education, health
services, road networks, shops, parking)
 Drainage and sewerage infrastructure needs to be improved before any
potential development begins
 Lack of radical transportation options e.g trams, monorails and lack of
leisure activities e.g. allotments, sports facilities, concert halls, art
galleries etc
 Expansion of local emergency services may be required to cope with
the increased number of people
 Lack of alternative transport due to high prices of buses and trains
within Chelmsford
 Lack of mention of transport availability during any development (e.g.
buses, trains, taxis etc) and large amount of noise pollution created.
 More dedicated cycle lanes needed to ensure the safety of commuters.
General
 Regeneration of SWF Town Centre is vital and should be fast tracked
 Any development Plan should be Chelmsford centred not based upon
the national policies
 Residents’ safety could be at risk with the increase in traffic in areas of
development. This may create ‘rat runs’ to avoid the worst of the traffic
and in turn make traffic congestion worse due to a lack of appropriate
infrastructure currently in place
 Changes to the quality of living for current residents are not fully
explained within the consultation
 The views of Parish Councils need to be fully acknowledged within the
Local Plan
 The three Options provided are too narrow in scope
 Modelling of sites would be useful to allow for people to visualise them.
Page 290
Do you have any comments on the existing Special Policy
Areas?
Question
28
How many answered
question
84
How many made
a comment
54



Mixed views on further development at the Racecourse
Access to Broomfield Hospital for patients and ambulances is a
concern should there be any further development
The land put forward by Writtle College for development was gifted to
them for educational and agricultural purposes and should remain as
such, protected by its Green Belt status.
Chelmsford City Racecourse
 Development at the Chelmsford City racecourse should be avoided
 Major development should be centred around the Racecourse.
Broomfield Hospital
 Building any expansion at Broomfield Hospital would recreate the issues
created at St Johns previously and should be avoided
 Any Broomfield expansion would require a second entrance and access
road being created to allow for better commuting and ambulance access
 Traffic and congestion and parking in Broomfield Hospital is currently an
issue and may be worsened by development
 Omission of hospital response times and traffic statistics within the
consultation limits the ability to make an informed comment
 Any development near the hospital would reduce tranquillity and could
have a detrimental effect on hospital patients’ health.
Writtle College
 Green Belt policies should negate any possible building on Writtle
College land
 The land offered from Writtle college was gifted to them for educational
and agricultural purposes and this should remain the case
 Expansion of Writtle College land has the potential to cause damage to
the surrounding environment, trees, commuters and inhabitants.
Sandford Mill
 No comments received.
Page 291
Hanningfield Treatment Works
 No comments received.
General Comments
 Development should be centred in Green Belt areas
 Any development should be environmentally sensitive and not be
harmful to the countryside in terms of light and noise pollution etc
 Warren Farm is not a suitable location due to the lack of infrastructure to
deal with the traffic
 Listing of 6 SPAs (paragraph 7.5) when only 5 are provided
 Lack of a definition of SPAs.
Page 292
Do you think there are other large facilities or sites which
should be considered as Special Policy Areas?
Question
29
How many answered
question
76
How many made
a comment
43



A number of sites were put forward for consideration in creating new SPAs
A number of sites were also put forward which were considered to require
greater level of policy protection
Suggestion that specific uses or industries, such as biotech industries,
would be better suited within a SPA.
Sites suggested as SPA’s
 Hyde Hall RHS Garden
 Hylands House
 Danbury Country Park
 Green Belt land in Writtle
 National Trust areas
 Chelmer and Blackwater Navigation
 Anglia Ruskin University land
 Land near to the new railway station.
Sites suggested as requiring further protection through SPA’s
 Galleywood Common
 Ancient woodlands
 National Trust land
 Essex Wildlife Trust sites
 River Valleys
 Nature Reserves
 Village Greens
 Urban Parks
 AONBs such as Danbury Ridge
 Green Buffers around villages and small towns.
General Comments
 Biotech industries may be better located within a SPA
 Consider a major development on the land at Boreham Airfield
 Consider small and affordable development on the brownfield sites
 Although not considered as large areas, consider community facilities
and Village Halls to allow for enhancements and protection
Page 293



A small development should be built on land at Chelmer Village to
create a slight expansion
Protection of Boreham due to the gravel pits contributing to the local
economy and Gross Domestic Product should be a serious
consideration
Small and fully integrated developments should be the focus rather than
any large development.
Page 294
Question 30 - Have we missed anything? Please indicate what
other matters should be considered and why.
Question
30
How many answered
question
210
How many made
a comment
188












Loss of identity of areas due to the scale of development
Lack of infrastructure currently in place for the development and how this
will be provided in the future
The need for infrastructure to be in place before all the development
Further and improved public routes and public modes of transport need to
be provided to ensure sustainable development
Traffic congestion and parking availability need to be addressed
The need to protect the area from pollution and other environmental harm
Renewable energy is not covered
Housing which is affordable and for an ageing population should be
provided
The possibility of a wider area taking some of Chelmsford’s development
requirements should be explored further
The characteristic and qualities of different areas should be given greater
consideration
Concerns with the Councils online response system and its usability
The consultation was not as widely publicised as it should be and people
had difficulties attending exhibitions.
Social Issues
 Loss of rural identity due to expansion through the loss of community
feel, becoming part of greater Chelmsford rather than having a unique
identity
 Loss of identity in the future by becoming part of London’s urban sprawl
 Loss of historical connections through development e.g. Marconi site
 Quality of living should be a high priority.
Infrastructure
 Lack of infrastructure to accommodate development (e.g. shops, roads,
gas mains, GP surgeries, shops, schools, more emergency services to
deal with the increased population, leisure centres, pavement condition)
 Potential relief roads need building prior to expansion and timescale for
these
 Improvements to A12 & A414. Road surface, slip roads, number of
lanes, roads to access and depart from main trunk roads all need
Page 295












improving
Lack of City Centre parking for commuters using the train station
The availability of parks, cycle paths, play areas and tranquil areas to
residents after development has taken place
More cycleways and footpaths should be provided to encourage less
people to drive
The need for financial planning for future infrastructure requirements
provision and maintenance
If development is going to be created into already congested areas on
the basis of using alternative transport, subsidies should be provided for
buses as prices are too high
Potholes on the roads will be made worse by the volume of traffic, poor
pavement condition
The need to address rat running when there are incidents on the A12
Parking requirements for new developments needs to be included
Need for further Park and Rides to make commuting faster
Baddow Road, Broomfield Road, A12, A414, Army & Navy are
insufficient to deal with the increased level of traffic currently and with
an increase in housing and number of cars this will only become worse
Traffic congestion has caused fatalities as ambulances cannot make it
through to the hospital in a time
Burial space requirements need to be considered.
Environmental Issues
 Countryside protection e.g. agricultural land, animal & bird life, lack of
new nature reserves
 Drainage for potential flooding on fields which currently act as flood
plains if they are tarmacked
 Loss of farmland and greenfield sites to the west of Chelmsford
 Rising pollution levels through increased development needs to be
addressed to ensure sustainable development
 Renewable energy plans are not properly explained
 Mineral extraction plans and their appraisal is lacking from the
consultation.
Economic Issues
 Job availability in Chelmsford and the surrounding villages would not
accommodate the new increased population from development.
Housing
 Concentrate the development towards the ageing population e.g. more
retirement homes and renting properties
 There is a lack of homes for the retired community London’s housing
issues with extra people looking to commute puts more pressure on
Chelmsford to grow
 The number of offices turned into flats is not covered in the consultation
 Aesthetics of new housing and flats needs to be of high quality
Page 296


Affordable housing to encourage younger generation to stay in
Chelmsford is needed
House affordability should be further addressed.
General comments
 Further options to the 3 provided should be created to allow
development to move from the west of Chelmsford
 Lack of broadband in areas
 Spread development across the country rather than having to meet the
targets when other areas could better accommodate the development
 Lack of attention to an areas characteristics
 Lack of mention of the historical significance of areas
 Duty of co-operation should be utilised to reduce housing numbers
 Lack of long term view provided (10-15 years)
 There should be more detailed policy information included e.g.
householder extension guidance.
The Consultation Process
 People reverted to using paper based forms as they found the online
system too complex
 Use of ‘jargon’ e.g. spatial principles put people off commenting and
was confusing for members of the public
 Lack of alternatives in the 3 Options offered little choice
 Inclusion of an infrastructure consultation would have been helpful
 Lack of time for public consultation, it was not long enough and there
was not enough advance warning about where and when the exhibitions
were and some of the timings of them meant people at work could not
attend
 Issues with printing the form.
Page 297

Issues and Options Feedback Report

Transcription

Similar documents

Chelmsford city centre guide

Trinity E.M.S. Simulates Car Crash as Warning to Underage Drinking

Anglia Singers - Farleigh Hospice

73734 CBA fall 07 q5.qxd - Chelmsford Business Association

APRIL 2013 - AUGUST 2013 WORkSHOP SCHEDuLE

Newsletter 60 - Chelmsford Hockey Club

Phase 1 Ribbon Cutting August 29, 2009 Edition

Read the Enterasys Case Study

Read August`s The Edge as a PDF

05-16 FMA newsletter