This is a web page preview of a Microsoft Word document from the Chelmsford Liberal Democrats site. It is generated by a computer and is not manually edited. Formatting and content may be displayed differently to the original document, and should not be regarded as definitive.

14 Paradise Road, Writtle, Chelmsford, CM1 3HP.

Development Plan Document - Submission Stage Representation

The Council has wrongly excluded from consideration a more sustainable option for the housing that is required to go on Greenfield sites. The Preferred Option fails to meet the sustainability aim of Strategic Objective MG1.

The Liberal Democrats stand by the principles, policies and arguments set out in the previous draft Local Plan, which was withdrawn by the new Conservative administration of the Borough Council in 2003. In particular we oppose the continued, incremental development of Chelmsford to the north east. There are more sustainable options.

The development set out in the Council's Options places too great a strain on already stretched infrastructure. We therefore oppose all three Options.

Local policies need to be crystal clear about HOW the infrastructure needs will be met. New railway station, bus routes, secondary school, healthcare facilities, library, community centres and neighbourhood shopping facilities all need to be delivered. This new infrastructure and new jobs must precede new housing development.

Chelmsford must meet its obligations to provide homes for the growing number of smaller households, as average household size declines. Unmet, local demand means price rises that put housing out of reach of young people and key workers.

A weakness of the preferred option is the lack of policies that define where development will go, rather than where it will not. Flowing from that, what are the policies that determine how locations beyond the plan period are selected?

The justification for the "North West Chelmsford" element is weak. This site would not be required within the plan period and there are much better options. The indicated number of houses is far larger than required for hospital-related staff, and this justification is undermined further by the recent Government announcement that Broomfield hospital may not expand as much as anticipated.

Existing facilities such as local schools and the road network would come under greater pressure. The main through route, Broomfield Road, is already under significant traffic pressure. We oppose the major, cross-valley road proposal and stand by our original proposal for a single-track, shorter route, and a low-impact Park & Ride facility, that were in the now-withdrawn local plan.

We oppose the "North East Chelmsford" element (in Options 1 and 2) as Chelmsford cannot continue to be stretched incrementally in its north east corner. The Metropolitan Green Belt to the south and south west is deemed protected, therefore North East Chelmsford is always going to be the preferred location for new development if "peripheral development" is always the priority.

This location is too far from the centre of Chelmsford to be justified as an extension of an existing settlement. The recent development of Beaulieu Park is already too far from the town centre and heavy traffic on the local roads makes access to the centre of Chelmsford from this area difficult.

The "North East Chelmsford" element in Options 1 and 2 will have an unacceptable impact on the landscape around New Hall, which is a Grade 1 listed building.

If Option 1 or 2 are pursued, the housing development must be focused on, and start near, the new station and all neighbourhoods MUST connect with it directly by bus, cycleways and footpaths. This infrastructure MUST come ahead of the houses, if we are to see genuine, local communities. However, there remains an option preferable to all of these.

The Option that was set out in the now-withdrawn draft Local Plan (a new settlement north of the railway and A12 north of Boreham) remains our preferred option. Having considered many alternative sites in the 2001 review period, this was identified as the most sustainable option to be progressed within the plan period.

The Borough Council were wrong to exclude it from serious consideration in preparing this DPD. The suspicion must be that they did so on political grounds rather than sustainability criteria.

Our preferred location, a former gravel workings (arguably a brownfield site), could provide a new settlement and is the Borough's greatest chance of achieving the essential improvements in infrastructure, in particular a desperately-needed new secondary school. A properly-designed, truly sustainable community can be provided on this site and nearby and is capable of accommodating most if not all of the greenfield requirement.

We recognise that this would be a departure from government policy as regards "peripheral development first". However (as stated above) it is difficult to argue that the proposed "North East of Chelmsford" option is peripheral - it is in fact 'remote' and the 'brownfield' nature of this alternative proposal is superior to the greenfield nature of the Preferred Options.

If there is a housing requirement beyond what is sustainable at this site, other options (better than the Springfield extension) were considered in 2001and remain possible but have been rejected without policy justification.

The Borough Council must not miss the opportunity presented to make a break with the past policy of incremental / peripheral development. If we continue in that direction, we risk greater congestion, a poorer sense of community and an environmental impact that will do nothing to meet wider objectives on genuine sustainability.

The Borough Council has failed to properly consider an alternative option submitted during the earlier consultation stages, an alternative that would better meet the sustainability objectives.