Great Waltham Parish

The Call for sites and feedback for the Chelmsford Local Plan

 

2024

Great Waltham Parish Council (“GWPC”) comments to the Chelmsford Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation Document

 

These comments relate to Location 14 – Ford End:

 

GWPC recognises the need to add additional housing to the area, especially if it is available to local residents, and includes  high proportion of affordable homes.

 

Ford End currently  comprises about 170 dwellings, with particularly good public transport, a primary school (under single form entry), Church, Recreation Ground, Village Hall, and used to have a pre-school which closed due to lack of demand. It is recognised that adding additional housing would add to the sustainability of the area, especially around school expansion to single form entry, and reinstatement of the pre-school.

 

The main issue for Ford End is the traffic. The B1008, PR1 between Dunmow and Chelmsford, suffers 10,000 vehicles per day that pass through the village and cut it in two. Any addition of dwellings needs to be cognisant of this current situation, in terms of vehicle access. GWPC would want to see traffic calming measures that allow any new developments to fit in without increasing the safety of residents, and indeed might wish S106 and/or CIL contributions to improve it! 

 

GWPC were approached by the local landowner and a developer in relation to site 14b (Land South of Ford End Primary School) and were expecting the proposed Local Plan to include this site, with the number of dwellings in the vicinity of 50. It was a surprise to see that the proposal is for two separate sites of 20 dwellings each. GWPC understand that a reasonable number of dwellings need to be added to improve sustainability and generate sufficient S106 and CIL funds to address the traffic issues. For that reason, GWPC were comfortable with a single site south of the school at a higher number of dwellings. In particular, whilst 14b has the potential to accommodate safe access, GWPC contend that 14a has many issues in terms of access and conflict with existing residences.

 

Therefore, in summary :    

 

• GWPC objects to GROWTH SITE POLICY 14a – LAND WEST OF BACK LANE, FORD END
• but is supportive of GROWTH SITE POLICY 14b – LAND SOUTH OF FORD END PRIMARY SCHOOL – and would consider a higher number than 20 dwellings.

 

However, GWPC would want to see appropriate mitigation to address traffic issues, as well as contributions towards school expansion and pre-school availability. In terms of traffic mitigation, it has been a long-term wish by GWPC to implement an Average Speed Camera (ASC) scheme through the 1km stretch of the village. GWPC recognises that Highways has made it clear that they restrict many traffic calming aspects on the B1008 because it is a PR1 and a back-up route for the A130, and that only an ASC is a possibility, as it does not restrict traffic flow. Funding issues have made an ASC difficult, but GWPC would welcome the opportunity to support the site south of the school if it came with an ASC for the whole village.

 

The following outlines GWPC’s views on each of the proposed sites:

 

GROWTH SITE POLICY 14a – LAND WEST OF BACK LANE, FORD END

 

• This site was a surprise to GWPC as its conversations with the landowner would suggest that development at this site is not being driven forward.

 

• The access for this site for development vehicles is extremely poor. Large lorries delivering pallets of bricks or roof trusses would have trouble negotiating access, and indeed we have had large lorries get stuck on Back Lane on a number of occasions, which then had to reverse out onto the main road (B1008) in front of fast-moving oncoming traffic. Lorries negotiating Pleshey Road/Woods Road would also have trouble, certainly the local landowner sometimes has issues with large farm vehicles.

 

• Access in general is also extremely poor, in particular due to the single lane width of Back Lane, and the stretch of Pleshey Road between the junctions of the main road and Woods Road.

 

• There is often surface water flooding along Back Lane, in particular after prolonged periods of rain. This water is run off from the existing field/potential site, which is a lot higher than the lane itself. Additional houses on the potential site, with paths, patios and roads will exacerbate the level of surface water run off onto Back Lane. This will be a major issue for the two Grade II listed cottages, Wayfarers and April Cottage, which both sit very low – their internal floor levels are lower than the external ground levels. April Cottage in particular floods occasionally, and thus GWPC feels any new housing will inadvertently cause untold damage to these historic assets by causing regular flooding.

 

• GWPC understand that, as described in the draft Local Plan, the planners have suggested a landscape buffer could be situated on the edge of the field next to Back Lane, to mitigate the issue of the potential houses being overbearing. However, this in itself would also cause an issue, as the landscape buffer would have to include tall trees, which would then cause the existing dwellings, especially the historic cottages, to suffer from a loss of light.

 

• An important part of any listed building, and certainly no different in the case of the two listed cottages on Back Lane, is it is setting. This includes the garden areas within each cottage boundary. Historic England have published a document citing why this is so. They say “The setting of a heritage asset will include, but generally be more extensive than, its curtilage [and] the contribution of setting to the significance of a heritage asset is often expressed by reference to views, a purely visual impression of an asset or place which can be static or dynamic, long, short or of lateral spread, and include a variety of views of, from, across, or including that asset.”  On that basis GWPC  would agree with Historic England that the setting, including the view to the heritage assets, and the view from the heritage assets, would be hugely compromised should the potential site be developed.

 

• The Chelmsford Local Plan has an evidence-based document on heritage assessments, which confirms the National Planning Policy Framework has guidance on heritage assets. This states that “[…] heritage assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Heritage assets are irreplaceable and, when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.” This same report also states that, and this is specifically discussing the site 14a, that “development of the adjacent land would erode the rural setting and be harmful to the setting of the listed buildings.”

 

• In relation to non-designated heritage assets – this means historic buildings that, whilst not listed, are deemed to be of local historic significance and/or heritage value – there are several in the vicinity, including Felford Cottage, Gables, Holly House, Lavender House, Lavender Cottage, Lavender Farm. All of these would be severely affected by any proposed development, for the same reason as above – it would erode the rural setting and be harmful to the setting of the heritage assets.

 

GROWTH SITE POLICY 14b – LAND SOUTH OF FORD END PRIMARY SCHOOL

 

• GWPC can understand the benefit of the addition of a small development in terms of enabling the school to expand to single entry. And locating the development adjacent to the school, would enable easy access for children walking to school.

 

• GWPC recognise that the number of dwellings needs to be sufficient to provide S106 and CIL contributions that could benefit the village, such as traffic calming/ASC and/or a community building (on the same side as the school) for pre-school or as a village hall.

 

• Access to just one site is more manageable and GWPC would expect ECC Highways to design such access off the B1008 to be safe.