Meeting between Promoters of Land East of Pond Hall Farm, Dovercourt and
representatives of Tendring District Council on 23rd January 2013 at 14:00hrs:
Regeneration Centre, Council Offices, Weeley.
AGENDA
1. Representations of support in relation to the Tendring Local Plan Proposed
Submission Draft November 2012.
2. Co-ordination of timetable for Planning Applications with that of the Proposed
Submission Document.*
3. Masterplan and technical work programme: Update.**
4. Retail element and Retail Impact Assessment – Terms of reference.
5. Sources of funding or grants.
6. Harwich Linear Park.
7. Possible link to regeneration in Dovercourt town centre.
8. Branding and public relations.***
9. Any other business.
* Attached: TDC Timetable.
**Attached: Letters from Intermodal Transportation and Essex Highways.
*** Attached: Potential Names: History of Garlands
What is the timetable for preparing the new local plan?
November 2012 – public consultation
A draft of our new local plan is currently out on public consultation. Please click
here to find out more about the consultation period, to view the draft plan and to
make a representation (i.e. object or support the draft new local plan).
Early 2013 – submit the new local plan to the government
We will consider whether we need to amend the plan in response to any
comments received during the public consultation period. If significant changes
are required, we will need to consult on these changes. If no changes, or only
minor changes, are required, we will submit the local plan (along with all of the
background evidence and the results of the previous public consultation
exercises) to the government for independent examination.
Mid 2013 – independent examination
The government will appoint an independent planning inspector, who will examine
the new local plan to test whether it is ‘sound’ (i.e. positively prepared, justified,
effective and consistent with national policy). This will involve thoroughly
examining the new local plan and debating any issues that remain unresolved.
The inspector will decide who to invite to the examination and what issues to
discuss.
Late 2013/Early 2014 – final adoption
Following the examination, the independent inspector will produce a report
setting out whether the local plan is ‘sound’, or whether there are parts of the
plan that need to be improved. We can formally adopt the plan once the inspector
passes it as ‘sound’.
What has happened to the 'local development framework'
you were working on?
Up until 2011, we were working on a plan in accordance with the rules in place at
that time, which required councils to prepare a ‘local development framework’
consisting of a series of planning documents that, together, would form our plan
for our area. Following a change to the rules in 2012 and the introduction of new
government planning policy we decided to prepare a single new local plan.
However, all the previous work carried out remains relevant and has informed the
content of the new local plan. Please click here to find out more about the
previous work carried out for the local development framework.
Hunters Court
Debden Road
Saffron Walden
Edward Gittins & Associates
Essex CB11 4A A
Unit 5 Patches Yard
Cavendish Lane
Telephone +
Fax +4
Glemsford
Email: xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx
Sudbury
CO107PZ
Ref: IT1281L17.12.12
Date: 17th December 2012
Dear
POND HALL FARM, DOVERCOURT: HIGHWAY REVIEW
Further to your instruction to proceed with a review of the above site access, to give an initial
overview in relation to the draft allocation for mixed use on land situated between Stour Close
and the A120 Dovercourt bypass for up to 250 housing units, we set out below our considered
views, principally in relation to highway access onto Stour Close and also the adequacy of the
Clayton Road and its junction onto the B1352 Ramsey Road.
A site inspection was undertaken during the morning peak hour on 14th December 2012.
The Existing Situation
The draft allocated site, which is around 17 hectares in size, is currently open agricultural land, and is
located to the immediate east of Pond Hall Farm and its yard. The land extends eastwards to a point
that is immediately west of Vicarage Farm and its yard/land holding.
The proposed submission draft of the Tendring Local Plan indicates that the site is suitable for mixed
residential and commercial (anticipated port related) use. We are aware that in order to facilitate any
commercial development of the site a new roundabout access would have to be formed onto the
A120 trunk road but that the Council consider that the residential aspect of the development site,
amounting to no more than 8 hectares, can be facilitated via the existing urban road network in
Dovercourt.
Potential access directly to Valley Road is not possible, as access would be required to cross third
party land. Potential access directly to Clayton Road via Chevy Court might be possible, if the
grassed area to the north of Chevy Court is public open space and the agricultural land north of this to
the site (as shown hatched on the draft allocation plan) is in the Developers ownership.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, access is however expected to be taken from Stour Close, as
indicated in Policy HAD4 of the draft Local Plan.
Directors : Chris Glegg BSc CEng MICE MIHT
Reza Farahmand MSc DIC MA DIR MCIT MILT
Registered Company No: 4089153
Stour Close, (beyond the access to the Harwich and District Indoor Bowls Centre), is a new cul-de-
sac road which has been constructed to enable recent residential development to take place. To the
north of the properties that have been recently constructed on the north side of Stour Close, there is a
large tract of open space with a formal footpath meandering through a generally grassed open space
area. This open space (which we assume to be public open space) wraps around the ends of these
properties such that there is a physical connection to the public highway at the first right angle bend
after entering Stour Close (next to the indoor bowls access) and via the north limb of the hammer
head at the extreme eastern end of Stour Close.
Following discussions with
we are advised that a new estate road connection to the
subject site has been discussed with officers of Essex County Council’s development control team in
a position which is to the west of the new housing in Stour Close, close to the aforementioned bend.
This, therefore, is the specific location which we have reviewed in formulating our opinion with regard
to access. The possible option via Chevy Court has therefore not been considered in detail.
Stour Close, from its junction with Clayton Road, is a 5.5m wide road supporting 1.8m wide footways
on either side to a point just beyond the first 90 degree bend in the road. This geometry and provision
conforms to a Type 3 ‘Feeder Road’ in accordance with the Essex Design Guide specifications.
Beyond this bend Stour Close becomes a 20mph zone and the road width reduces significantly to
4.8m with a footway of 2.0m on the northern side and a footway of 1.5m on the southern side. This
part of Stour Close has been constructed to a Type 4 ‘Minor Access Road’ specification. The 20mph
speed restricted road has some traffic calming in the form of raised tables. The entrance to the 20mph
zone is demarked with two substantial brick pillars supporting the speed limit signs and the road
narrows to a single lane width as part of a priority give way system to regulate vehicle speeds on
entering or leaving the 20 mph zone. From the 20 mph zone to Clayton Road, Stour Close reverts to
a 30 mph limit. Stour Close supports street lighting and would be classified as an urban road in
relation to the application of design standards.
Stour Close forms a priority uncontrolled junction with Clayton Road on the outside of the 90 degree
bend in Clayton Road. The available visibility at this junction is reasonably good by virtue of being on
the outside of a bend. The available visibility from an ‘x’ distance of 4.5m (set back distance from the
give way line) is well in excess of 90m to the west (the ‘y’ distance) and in excess of 90m to the
nearside kerb looking south. However, the distance to the off side kerb of Clayton Road looking south
over highway land (assumed to be the back edge of the footway) is 53m although it is possible to
sight much further than this over the grassed frontages to the properties on the west side of Clayton
Road. The forward visibility to sight a car turning right into Stour Close is 45m within highway land but
again a better forward visibility is available by sighting over the front gardens of existing properties.
Clayton Road has almost the same road geometry as the first part of Stour Close, save the road is
slightly wider at 6.0m. It is therefore relatively commodious, given that it currently provides access to
circa 200 properties. Most of the houses that have a direct frontage onto Clayton Road between Stour
Close and Ramsey Road have off street parking space and garages and therefore the link between
Stour Close and the main road gives rise to modest levels of on street parking, allowing estate traffic
to pass and re pass without too much conflict or delay.
c:\users\edward gittins\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\olk2280\it1281l17 12 12eg_draft.doc
Clayton Road joins the B1352 at a priority uncontrolled junction. There is a ghosted right turn lane
provided on the main road to facilitate the safe harbourage of drivers wanting to turn right into Clayton
Road from Ramsey Road and thus not impede the flow of traffic travelling east to west on the B1352.
The available visibility from an ‘x’ distance of 4.5m is well in excess of 90m to the west (looking right)
and is 48m to the nearside kerb looking east. However, because there is a pedestrian refuge in
Ramsey Road a short distance east of the junction Clayton Road, this would be a situation where it
would be acceptable to consider a sighting distance to the middle of the main road; hence, to the
centre of the main road it is possible to sight 65m to the left. From an ‘x’ distance of 2.4m it is possible
to sight 57m to the nearside kerb and 76m centre of the main road. Forward visibility to sight the
junction travelling either eastbound or westbound on the B1352 is well in excess of 90m.
Ramsey Road (A1352) is a 10.0m wide road in the vicinity of the Clayton road junction. Such a wide
road is a legacy from when the road was the principal access route to the docks/port before the A120
bypass was constructed. Due to the width of the road, the Highway Authority embraced the
opportunity to provide 1.0m wide cycle lanes to each side of Ramsey Road. Also many junctions
served off Ramsey Road are afforded the benefit of a ghosted right turn lane to safely harbour
vehicles waiting to turn right. Large parts of the B1352 also have wide central hatch markings to
maintain clear separation between opposing traffic movements and to reduce the temptation for
drivers to overtake.
The B1352 is an important urban link road serving Dovercourt and Harwich from the A120 trunk road.
The road was observed during the morning peak hour (between 0800 hrs and 0900 hrs) and although
the road was moderately busy, it was free flowing with plenty of gap opportunities to allow traffic from
Clayton Road to enter the main road without too much delay. In fact at no time were there any
significant queues on Clayton Road. Ramsey Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit. Posted
speeds appeared to be near to or slightly above 30 mph.
There are two bus stops located on the B1352 close to and west of the junction of Clayton Road.
Policy Position
For the policy position in relation to access to the site, reference is made to the County
Council’s February 2011 ‘Development Management Policies’ publication and on this basis the
following policy would apply to the Stour Close where it is proposed access is to be taken..
Policy DM4 Other Routes
The Highway Authority will protect the function of all other routes by:
i.
ensuring that new access points will be designed and constructed in accordance with the
current standards;
ii. seeking improvement to existing substandard accesses.
c:\users\edward gittins\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\olk2280\it1281l17 12 12eg_draft.doc
Technical Assessment
We are advised that the residential aspect of the total mixed use development site could
amount to 250 dwellings. This is the level of development that we have assumed. Given the
location of the site, we consider that the development could generate around 0.6 trips per
dwelling in the morning peak hour, 0.8 trips per dwelling in the evening peak hour and around 6
trips per dwelling over the normal working day taken as between 0700 hrs and 1900 hrs. This
could therefore give rise to some 150 additional vehicle movements during the morning peak,
some 200 movements during the evening peak and around 1500 movements over the 12 hour
working day.
During the morning peak, most movements would be outbound from Clayton Road and during
the evening peak most movements would be inbound. Whilst 200 additional movements is a
notable increase, the average increase in flow would be just over 3 vehicle movements a
minute during the busiest hour.
Despite there being two possible points of access to the land from Stour Close, a location to
the west of the new housing in Stour Close has discussed between Mr Harding and Matt Tiller
of the Highway Authority (HA). This is the obvious location to consider taking access because it
would avoid a substantial amount of new traffic passing through the 20 mph restricted area
served by a ‘Type 4’ road with the associated amenity and road safety dis-benefits that would
result for those people already living in Stour Close. Moreover, a ‘Type 4’ road is normally only
suitable for developments up to 200 units.
In policy terms there should not be any fundamental objection to forming a new access onto
Stour Close, as long as the access meets standards which the HA deem to be safe.
Conveniently, the access would emerge onto Stour Close where it becomes a Type 3 Feeder
Road. A ‘Type 3’ road can accommodate up to 400 dwelling as a link or loop road and up to
700 if there are two points of vehicular access. Hence, if 250 units were to be constructed and
taking into account that there are circa 50 units currently served off Stour Close, the section of
Stour Close between the proposed new access and Clayton Road would have the capacity to
accept the new development.
We estimate that there are about 125 dwellings served off Clayton Road, and also there is an
ambulance station situated on the west side of Clayton Road at its junction with the B1352. The
vehicular access to the ambulance station is taken onto Clayton Road. Hence, the section of
Clayton Road between Ramsey Road and Stour Close would provide access to some 450 units
in total plus the ambulance depot, if the site were to be developed. Technically speaking the HA
could object to any further development that breaches the 400 limit and this would suggest that
initially an upper limit of circa 200 units might be allowed to access the existing road
infrastructure. From a technical point of view, we do not consider that a limit of 450 units would
create any capacity issues, per se, but it is the access to houses in the case of an emergency
or when the road may be blocked for utility works that triggers the need for a second access to
allow a limit of 700 units be facilitated from a Type 3 road.
c:\users\edward gittins\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\olk2280\it1281l17 12 12eg_draft.doc
Given that it would not be possible to upgrade this critical section of Clayton Road to a 6.75m
wide carriageway, we proffer that the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the
Highways Agency, might allow a temporary ‘emergency’ access to the residential aspect of the
site direct from the A120 bypass; such an access would be closed to all traffic movements but
would allow access in the case of an emergency; this might be enough to temporarily allow
development up to 250 units on the site until the new roundabout onto the bypass (to serve the
remainder of the allocated site) is constructed.
In considering the preferred access option to the site from Stour Close, we have measured the
open space frontage onto Stour Close which is 23.4m. There is a parcel of scrub land which
exists between the open space and the physical tarmacked drive to the bowls club, which we
have assumed to be in third party ownership for the purposes of this appraisal.
The type of road that would be required to serve 250 units would initially need to be a Type 3
road but could drop down to a type 4 design at the point the road serves a maximum of 200
units. Hence within the available ‘open space’ frontage a new 5.5m wide road supporting 2.0m
wide footways on either side would be required. Allowing for a preferred 10m bell mouth radius
on the west side of the new junction and a lesser 6.0m radius on the east side, this would
suggest that a total width of 19.5m would be required to accommodate the junction. Hence, it
would be possible to facilitate the access and spine road to the site but the infrastructure would
almost totally take up the open space frontage where the junctions join onto Stour Close.
Implicitly, the 20mph gateway feature and the narrowing features of Stour Close would need to
be removed to facilitate a new junction. It is considered that a 2.4m ‘x’ distance at the junction
to serve the development should be acceptable, given that the access is not onto a county
road. From an ‘x’ distance of 2.4m back from the give way line at the proposed new access
point, it would be possible to sight around 41m to the right within highway land to the nearside
kerb of Stour Close and 52m to the left. If the parcel of land situated on the inside of the 90
degree bend in Stour Close is highway land it is possible to sight 49.5m to the right.
The Manual for Streets 2 (MfS2) design guidance can be applied in relation to the design of the
estate road and the visibility requirements at junctions. The most critical direction to consider
the acceptability of standards would be to the right for drivers leaving the new access. The
desirable safe sighting distance for a 30 mph road would be 43m. This distance can be
comfortably delivered if the land on the inside of the bend is proven to be highway land;
otherwise, the standard can almost be met. Even if 41m is the best that can be achieved, we
still consider that the junction would operate safely within the context of the guidance offered in
MfS2. Hence, it should just about be physically possible to facilitate a junction that would be
capable of accommodating up to 250 housing units.
c:\users\edward gittins\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\olk2280\it1281l17 12 12eg_draft.doc
Elimination of the brick pillar gateway feature and road narrowing in Stour Close is not seen as
a major issue to preserve the essence of the 20 mph zone controls. Vehicle speeds are already
tempered by virtue of the 90 degree bend in Stour Close and we consider that if the 20mph
speed restriction plates are moved westwards to a point immediately before the proposed new
junction, then the access arrangements would operate safely to both Stour Close and the new
development spine road. It may be necessary to erect the speed limit signs on cranked poles
rather than brick piers because there may not be enough room within highway land to re-erect
the pillars west of their current location, without impeding pedestrian movements.
We understand that when an officer of ECC’s development control team, met with Mr Harding
on site, the principal of an access onto Stour Close appeared to be acceptable to the HA but
mention was made of possibly providing a raised table junction to reinforce the 20 mph zones
(assuming that the new development would similarly be designed as a 20 mph controlled zone
area). In relation to this requirement, we consider it would not be a necessity to provide a
raised table for safety reasons but we can see the merit of this feature as a strong visual
indicator that residents and visitors are entering a controlled area. In the context of the
development itself this feature would be a modest on-cost.
Opinion
In policy terms, access onto Stour Close should be regarded as being acceptable.
The proposed junction would almost meet desirable design standards, save the visibility to the
right might be just below desirable standards if the quadrant of scrub land on the inside of the
first bend in Stour Close is not part of the public highway. However, we do not consider that
ECC should have a fundamental safety issue with this.
All other existing junctions onto Clayton Road and Ramsey Road are deemed to meet the MfS2
design standards in terms of geometry and available visibility within highway limits and
therefore we would not anticipate that any further off site road improvements would be required
to allow the draft allocation site to be developed for housing.
Observations during the worst peak hour (morning peak with most movements from Clayton
Road being outbound) revealed that there was absolutely no capacity issues in relation to
drivers gaining quick and safe access onto the B1352. Based upon the general traffic flows
observed during this peak hour, we would expect that any future capacity testing of the junction
should reveal that it would have spare capacity to accept the additional traffic movements
without altering the junction.
There is the potential that ECC might wish to place a limit on the release of the housing land
based upon the upper limits normally permitted for a ‘Type 3’ road. This might therefore give
rise to a phased development plan for the site where we consider around 200 units could be
justified on the draft allocation site. This limit would be subject to an accurate count of the
number of dwellings that take access from Clayton Road (including Stour Close).
c:\users\edward gittins\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\olk2280\it1281l17 12 12eg_draft.doc
On-Going Strategy
We have highlighted to
that it would be helpful to have sight of the highway
boundaries in the proximity of the new proposed junction to consolidate upon some
uncertainties with regard to land ownership.
has authorised Intermodal to obtain
this mapping. Upon receipt of the highway boundary we will be able to clarify one or two points
in relation to achievable vision splays and this will covered in a follow up e-mail when we
receive the plan.
To be certain about the capacity of the junction of Clayton Road with Ramsey Road, some
traffic surveys would need to be undertaken during the two peak hours on a typical working day
ideally in a neutral traffic month. Estimates of the ‘with development’ traffic movements at the
junction would allow for a PICADY (industry standard software) capacity assessment to be
carried out. This would be a requirement of any Transport Assessment to support an
application for development on the site. It may be prudent to undertake this appraisal early on
to establish that capacity constraint would not be a potential issue.
We would also advise that it would be prudent to develop any initial master plans for the
residential aspect of the development to facilitate a future connection to the A120 as a second
point of (permanent) access to the site. In traffic terms the use of the A120 to access the
housing land would be beneficial in highway safety terms by removing a large element of the
new residential traffic from lower order urbanised roads, where the accidents rates tend to be
higher.
Finally, it may be worth drawing up a preliminary junction design to forward to ECC for
comment and to help consolidate the acceptability and deliverability of the access. Separate
terms would need to be agreed if
and/or you wished to advance any of the above
activities at this stage.
We trust that the above gives a balanced overview of the key issues associated with the further
development of the site for residential use. Please do not hesitate to call me if you wish to
discuss any matters arising from the above preliminary appraisal.
Yours sincerely
Director of Intermodal Transportation Ltd
c:\users\edward gittins\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\olk2280\it1281l17 12 12eg_draft.doc
POTENTIAL NAMES
East Field
Coast Field
Bay Field
Hall Fields
Great Eastern Business Park
Garland Enterprise Park
Garland Green *residential*
Nathaniel Garland
1684 -1756
Elected Master of the Mercers Company in the City of London in 1738. His father, also Nathaniel, was married to
Mary Elphick from whose family the Garlands also inherited the Barcombe estate near Lewes, Sussex
Lewes Peake Garland
1732 -1778
Lewes was forty years old when he married Indiana Talbot from Durham in 1773. Two years later his eldest son
Nathaniel was born but Lewes died in 1778 just before the birth of his second son. Indiana died in 1787 and the two
boys were brought up by guardians at Michaelstowe Hall and were educated at Eton and Christ Church Oxford.
Nathaniel Garland
1775-1845
Michaelstowe Hall
Nathanial Garland, lived in a palatial mansion to the east of St.Michael’s Church, Ramsey. known as Michaelstowe
Hall until his death in 1845 he was forty years old when he married Anna Cope from Armagh, Ireland, in 1814. The
couple divided their time between their London home and Michaelstowe Hall, and also their estate in Surrey.
Nathaniel was appointed Deputy Lieutenant of Essex in 1819 and High Sheriff of Essex in 1824. Nathaniel died at his
London home in January 1845 age 70.
Edgar Walter Garland
1814 – 1902
Was Lord of the Manor when the Eastern Union Railway, later the Great Eastern Railway, built the line from
Manningtree to Harwich, much of it across land owned by the Garlands. The line opened in 1854. Some twenty years
later in 1875 the board of GER decided to build their own quay up river from Harwich. Negotiations with Edgar
Garland resulted in a further 50 acres of Ray Island being sold to the Railway Board for this purpose. The docks and
the newly created village were named after the Charles H. Parks, chairman of the Great Eastern Railway Company
and the new Parkeston Quay opened for shipping in March 1883. Edgar Garland died without issue in 1902, and was
succeeded by his nephew Arthur Nathaniel Garland.
Arthur Nathaniel Garland
1847 – 1942
Squire Garland and Family 1913
Oversaw the building of the current Michaelstowe Hall in 1903. In 1904 he married his second wife Evelyn Lisa
Chavalley, the daughter of a French aristocrat and his son Victor Nathaniel Garland was born in 1905. The census
from 1911 shows four daughters from Arthur’s first marriage also resident at Michaelstowe Hall along with 10
servants, including a butler, first footman, second footman, nurse, cook/housekeeper and five housemaids.
The Garland’s link with Michaelstowe Hall ended in 1920, when the 2,250 acres of the Michaelstowe estate were put
up for sale by auction by Hampton and Sons at the Corn Exchange in Colchester. The estate at that time owned land
and farms across Bradfield, Wrabness and Ramsey as well as the Dovercourt Golf Course and the Garland Hotel in
Parkeston.