Consultation outcome

Middlewick Ranges consultation report (accessible version)

Updated 8 January 2021

Defence Infrastructure Organisation
Middlewick Ranges
Colchester
CO2 8QH

Prepared by:

GL Hearn
65 Gresham Street
London
EC2V 7NQ

Telephone number +44 (0)20 7851 4900

Quality Standards Control: the signatories below verify that this documents has been prepared in accordance with our quality control requirements. These procedures do not affect the content and views expressed by the originator.

This document must only be treated as a draft unless it has been signed by the originators and approved by a Business or Associate Director.

Date: December 2020 Originators: Francis Gaskin, Account Manager Approved: Matthew Evans, Strategic Communications Director.

Limitations This document has been prepared for the stated objective and should not be used for any other purpose without the prior written authority of GL Hearn; we accept no responsibility or liability for the consequences of this document being used for a purpose other than for which it was commissioned.

Introduction

1.1 The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has identified Middlewick Ranges (‘the site’) for disposal, when work at Fingringhoe Ranges has been completed and is operational to ensure continuing military capability. This presents an opportunity for the site to contribute towards Colchester’s housing needs and the site has been identified in the emerging Colchester Local Plan as being suitable for the development of up to 1,000 new homes.

1.2 The Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO), part of the MOD, is overseeing the promotion of the site for inclusion in the emerging Local Plan and has instructed a technical consultant team to help develop an evidence base to support an allocation.

1.3 The DIO has undertaken public consultation on the proposal to redevelop the site for new housing and initial concept plans and held meetings with key stakeholders at Colchester Borough Council. This report sets out the consultation undertaken in the summer of 2019 and the feedback received, as well as an overview of the further technical work that has been undertaken to support the allocation taking account of concerns that have been raised. It also provides an update on further activity being undertaken in the autumn and winter of 2020.

1.4 The site is being promoted for an allocation as a development site within the emerging Colchester Local Plan and no planning application has yet been prepared. Although consultation is not necessarily required to support a Local Plan allocation, DIO has sought to provide local residents and groups with the opportunity to provide feedback on the redevelopment of the site to inform the technical work and evidence base being prepared.

1.5 If an allocation is secured it is likely that the owner of the site (either the MOD or a developer who has acquired the site) will then bring forward a planning application. At this point, further public consultation will be required and additional technical work needed to support the proposals which would be submitted to Colchester Borough Council.

1.6 As a planning application is not yet being prepared, it is not possible to provide definitive responses to all the areas of feedback set out in this report as the details of any future scheme are not finalised. This document does however set out a record of the feedback received on the project to date and establishes the topics of particular importance to local residents and the wider community.

Summer 2019 Consultation

2.1 The project team undertook a round of public consultation in the summer of 2019. The activity described in this chapter was led by Camargue, who were appointed by the DIO at that time as communication consultants.

Pre-consultation publicity

2.2 The consultation and associated public engagement events were widely publicised to the local community from late June 2019:

• invitation flyers were sent to over 5,300 neighbouring homes and businesses, elected representatives, local amenity providers and interested parties
• additional invitation letters were sent to 340 homes directly neighbouring the site to ensure they knew of the consultation
• adverts were published in the Colchester Gazette on 26 June and 3 July 2019
• a press release was issued to the local media and published by Colchester Gazette.

Public Consultation events

2.3 Two consultation events were held by the DIO as part of an inclusive programme of engagement to inform, explain and involve stakeholders and members of the community including local residents and businesses:

• Wednesday 10 July 2019 (2pm to 8pm), RCCG Stillwater Centre, Grange Way
• Saturday 13 July 2019 (10am to 3pm), Orchard Baptist Church, 23 Blackheath.

2.4 These venues were chosen due to their accessibility and because they were known by the local community, providing straightforward access to members of the public.

2.5 The opening hours covered weekend and evening times to increase the opportunities for people to attend and provide the largest potential audience of people living and working nearby.

2.6 Representatives from the DIO and its project team including specialist consultants staffed the exhibition at all times to answer queries and explain the proposals to the public. The initial concept plan was on display at the events together with supporting information on key topics including transport and ecology.

2.7 For those unable to attend the exhibition, a copy of materials available at the event and an online feedback form could be downloaded from the Middlewick Ranges project website.

Event attendance

Both events were well-attended, demonstrating a strong level of engagement from the local community and the efficacy of the DIO’s consultation publicity.

• approximately 250 visitors attended the event on Wednesday 10 July 2019
• approximately 290 visitors attended the event on Saturday 13 July 2019.

As well as local residents, a number of local business, community groups, key stakeholders and elected representatives attended the events to find out more about the proposals.

Consultation feedback analysis

2.10 A total of 231 written statements of feedback were received during the consultation window, which ran from 10 July to 5 August 2019.

2.11 This included a combination of paper feedback forms submitted at the events, afterwards by post, online and ‘unstructured’ feedback by email:

• 175 paper feedback forms
• 37 online feedback forms
• 19 emails containing statements of feedback.

2.12 Respondents were asked to provide their name and contact details, including identifying themselves as either a resident, local business, local group or elected representative (GDPR protection applied). The clear majority of respondents identified themselves as local residents.

Table 1: About you

Resident	Local group	Local business	Elected representatives	No response
158	2	3	2	37

2.13 Respondents were asked to check a box if they would like to be kept updated on the proposals for Middlewick Ranges. 184 indicated that they would like to receive future updates, confirming the strong levels of interest in the developing plans. Contact details for those indicating they would like to be kept updated will be held in accordance with relevant data protection and privacy laws.

2.14 The DIO will be able to use this register of information to ensure interested parties are kept informed on the emerging proposals and future public consultation.

Community facilities

2.15 Respondents had an opportunity to indicate what community facilities they would like to see included within the plans. Many respondents also used this space to provide general comments, which have been included in the analysis of question three below.

2.16 A significant number (73) of the feedback forms directly referenced a desire to see the site turned into a ‘country park’ with no further development.

2.17 An overview of the general types of amenity requested is provided and then broken down into further detail below:

Table 2: Question 2 What type of community facilities would you like to see included in the plans?

Green space and parkland

Number of times referenced: 121

Themes of feedback:

• 73 referenced a country park (with limited or no development)
• 31 referenced green space and parkland (accompanying development)
• 7 referenced spaces to walk dogs
• 7 referenced the preservation or provision of trees
• 1 referenced specific wildflower areas
• 1 referenced allotments for the community
• 1 referenced a duck pond.

Healthcare

Number of times referenced:50

Themes of feedback:

• 33 referenced a doctors surgery/GP
• 8 referenced a hospital
• 7 referenced a dentist
• 2 referenced a care home.

Education

Number of times referenced: 46

Themes of feedback:

• 18 referenced a school (non-specific)
• 10 referenced a nursery
• 9 referenced a secondary school
• 8 referenced a primary school
• 1 referenced a special needs school

Retail and leisure

Number of times referenced: 45

Themes of feedback:

• 12 referenced an outdoor play area
• 9 referenced shops
• 9 referenced a community centre
• 7 referenced a sports / swimming centre
• 2 referenced a library
• 2 referenced a pub / restaurant
• 2 referenced a skate park
• 1 referenced a military museum
• 1 referenced a water park.

Transport and access

Number of times referenced: 41

Themes of feedback:

• 12 referenced improvements to local roads
• 10 referenced footpaths and cycleways
• 10 referenced new bus links for the development
• 6 referenced adequate parking provision for new houses
• 3 referenced wide streets between the new housing.

Other issues

2.18 Respondents were invited to share their views on the proposals, to draw out the issues which respondents viewed as the most important in relation to the potential development.

2.19 The following key themes emerged which are analysed and evidenced in greater detail below.

Table 3: Question 3 Please let us know any other comments you may have about the proposals

Theme of feedback	Number of times referenced
Transport and access	141
Ecology and environment	109
Loss of local amenity and social impact	83
Ability of local social infrastructure to cope (for example, schools, GP surgeries.)	71
Colchester’s housing need	52
Climate change and pollution	50
Site suitability (for example; flooding sewerage, archaeology, contamination)	37
Consultation method	30
Density and style of development	27
Site ownership	26

Transport and access

2.20 Transport and access issues were the most frequently raised theme, appearing in 141 written feedback forms. Most of these expressed the opinion that the local road network would not be able to cope with an influx of new people and vehicles.

2.21 The key areas principally mentioned were the roads directly surrounding the site, namely Mersea Road, Abbot’s Road and Berechurch Hall Road, particularly at key commuting and school run times. The Lidl on Abbot’s Road was repeatedly cited as a special area of concern for congestion.

2.22 Several feedback forms suggested that any new development would have to have multiple access roads.

2.23 Several comments expressed the difficulty of mitigating the development’s impact on local traffic flow due to the surrounding roads being naturally bordered by the river and by the town’s Roman walls.

2.24 In relation to local transport services, a significant number of respondents commented that the existing bus services would not be able to service demand. Their limited operation, going into Colchester town centre rather than the surrounding area, was also raised as a drawback for potential commuters looking for employment in the local area.

Ecology and environment

2.25 After transport and access concerns, the most frequently cited issue was ecological and environmental concerns due to the potential new development impacting wildlife habitats.

2.26 In many cases respondents listed the species they had personally observed on the Middlewick Ranges, particularly where they believed these to be protected.

2.27 The Essex Wildlife Trust also responded formally to the consultation with its intention to object to the proposals due to their potential to create a significant reduction in biodiversity for the Local Wildlife Site. Its objection also referenced Colchester Borough Council’s commitment to delivering an overall net gain to biodiversity in the implementation of its new Local Plan, stating that the Middlewick Ranges Local Wildlife Site would play a key part in this:

It is our contention that the loss of a large part of Middlewick Ranges local wildlife site to development will result in a significant reduction in biodiversity and therefore cannot be considered sustainable. The ecological value of Middlewick Ranges must be recognised and protected if Colchester Borough Council’s new local plan is to deliver an overall biodiversity net gain. [Essex Wildlife Trust]

2.28 Some feedback also contained doubts about the proposal’s efforts to mitigate its impact on local wildlife. Of particular concern for some was the loss of connectivity for wildlife across the site, while others were happy with the retention of specific spaces for habitats.

Loss of local amenity and social impact

2.29 83 responses mentioned how the proposed development would impact on the existing community’s use of the Middlewick Ranges site. Activities such as dog walking and nature-spotting were most frequently cited, with a significant proportion of respondents talking about the site’s contribution to the community’s mental and physical wellbeing.

2.30 This was regularly linked to children needing natural outdoor play spaces instead of being ‘stuck indoors’ with phones and computers. In this context, some respondents noted how the community has used Middlewick Ranges for generations and their hope that future generations could continue to have access to the site.

2.31 Comments on the loss of amenity were regularly framed in the context of a perceived lack of green spaces elsewhere in south Colchester. The Middlewick Ranges site is perceived by some as possessing a community facility value equivalent to the Highwoods Country Park for this part of the borough.

2.32 Some respondents felt that the creation of a new community was at the expense of the amenity and quality of life of existing residents. This included seven feedback forms implying that the new development would also increase crime rates and antisocial behaviour in the local area.

Social infrastructure

2.33 71 respondents talked about the local social infrastructure and its perceived inability to cope with any significant new development. As demonstrated by Question 2, healthcare and educational facilities were most frequently referenced issues, followed by perceived pressure on local policing.

2.34 Many respondents stated that local schools (both primary and secondary) and GP surgeries were already unable to cope without additional residents.

2.35 Similarly to Question 2, several respondents were sceptical about references to supporting infrastructure provision to accompany the development. This was raised in the context of previous developments that brought a perceived lack of benefits and new amenities.

Colchester’s housing need

2.36 52 respondents questioned the need for the development, with many disputing the independently assessed housing need (920 homes per year) in Colchester’s Draft Local Plan. The view that Colchester is already overdeveloped and overpopulated were frequently cited as objections to the proposals going ahead.

2.37 This included reference to specific new developments including The Hythe, Tollgate, Severills Hospital, Lexden Hospital and the proposed West Tey garden community.

2.38 Three feedback forms acknowledged the need for more housing, but also questioned whether 1,000 was the right number for this site.

2.39 There was also a general level of concern that the properties would not help the people and community of Colchester but instead be bought by commuters or outsiders. 14 specifically referenced new residents from London buying any houses, which was portrayed as negatively impacting the town’s current community.

2.40 Some respondents therefore stated that the proposals should include guaranteed provision for local people, including homeless individuals.

Climate change and pollution

2.41 Climate change, greenhouse gas emissions and carbon were referenced in 14 responses, while a further 36 respondents concentrated specifically on potential air pollution, largely as a result of increased traffic movements due to the new development.

2.42 Some respondents stated that it would be difficult to encourage sustainable modes of transport due to the lack of bus services and the site’s perceived isolation from nearby train services. In particular, Wivenhoe Station’s location over the river was repeatedly characterised as difficult to access.

2.43 A perceived increase in air pollution due to traffic and the partial loss of Middlewick acting as a ‘green lung’ was frequently commented on. Again, this was perceived to be a pre-existing issue for the town which any new development would make worse.

Site suitability

2.44 37 respondents named specific issues that they believed made the site unsuitable for any future development, namely perceived contamination from foot and mouth livestock carcasses (11), munitions (4), sewerage issues (10), flooding (8) and existing archaeology (4).

Consultation

2.45 30 respondents took the opportunity to comment on the Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s consultation within their written feedback. Several were sceptical about the process and their ability to affect any change by leaving feedback, expressing a belief that the development going ahead was a foregone conclusion.

2.46 In 12 feedback forms, the respondents expressed frustration about the lack of information available at the consultation events. The lack of consultants based locally was mentioned, leading some to believe that a lack of local input would adversely affect the quality of the development.

2.47 Six responses specifically criticised Colchester Borough Council for a lack of involvement in the consultation process or attendance at the consultation events, as well as for standing to profit from the development at the perceived expense of local people’s quality of life.

2.48 While a narrative of the local community against outsiders proposing development was frequently apparent, there was also a frustration that objections might be perceived or written off as ‘NIMBYism’.

Density

2.49 27 responses made specific comments about the density and design of any new development. Nine of these stated that if building does go ahead, then it should be in reduced numbers rather than the ‘up to 1,000 homes’ referenced in the consultation. Housing numbers between 200 and 500 were suggested, but none higher.

2.50 Nine respondents stated they wanted to see social housing and council homes as some or all of the development.

2.51 Regarding the design of the houses, there was a clear preference for individuality rather than ‘cookie cutter’ homes. Some respondents also expressed a preference for sustainable building choices.

2.52 However, 6 feedback forms questioned whether the current proposals would act as a floodgate for further development on the Middlewick Ranges and in south Colchester. This was referenced in relation to the land to the south of the proposed development and whether this could be developed in the future.

Site ownership

2.53 26 responses specifically questioned the ownership of the site, referring to a locally held belief that the land has been gifted to the Ministry of Defence by the people of Colchester. Many such responses referred to the site as ‘public land’ or ‘our Wick’.

2.54 Several respondents wanted to see the land ‘returned’ to the community to be used as a Country Park. Some suggested that the public would be able to raise funds or volunteer their time to facilitate this.

2.55 Some feedback also suggested that the development proposals had the potential to damage the positive relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the people of Colchester.

Conclusion

2.56 Consultation on the initial concept plans for Middlewick Ranges was well participated, with approximately 540 visitors at the public exhibitions and 231 pieces of written feedback. The majority of respondents expressed objection or opposition towards development at the site, largely citing the loss of ecology and leisure space and concern for the ability of transport and social infrastructure to cope with increased homes as primary issues for concern.

Autumn/Winter 2020 Engagement

3.1 Since undertaking the consultation set out in Chapter 2, the project team has been working on further studies, surveys and assessment work in order to further develop the supporting evidence base for the Local Plan allocation. This has taken into consideration the comments and feedback received during 2019 consultation, including topics such as ecology and transportation.

3.2 It had originally been the plan that a further round of public exhibitions would have taken place during 2020 to provide an update to residents and other stakeholders on the work undertaken by the team. However the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have meant this has not proven to be feasible and as such the team has had to combine a newsletter mailing with virtual meetings. This chapter sets out the engagement that has taken place from September to December 2020.

Community newsletter

3.3 An update community newsletter is being prepared and will be distributed to approximately 6,000 local properties around the site, following the submission of the technical evidence base to Colchester Borough Council. This will update people on the progress of the project and advise them how their feedback has been considered and applied in the further development of the illustrative masterplan for the site.

3.4 A copy of this newsletter can be found at Appendix A of this document. The distribution area is consistent with the area that was used for invitations to the 2019 consultation.

3.5 The newsletter provided an update on:

• the work that had been undertaken by the team
• an overview of the previous consultation and discussion of the most common themes of feedback
• a revised illustrative masterplan for the site showing how it could be redeveloped
• timescales and next steps for the Local Plan process and when the site may come forward for development
• contact details for the project team and a link to the existing .gov consultation website, which has been updated with the technical documents submitted to Colchester Borough Council.

3.6 A copy of the newsletter can also be viewed on the Middlewick Ranges consultation page.

Updates for Colchester councillors

3.7 The project team has met and provided briefings to members of Colchester Borough Council, including:

• Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council
• Ward councillors for Old Heath and the Hythe
• Ward councillors for Berechurch.

3.8 These briefings included an update on the work that the team has undertaken since the 2019 consultation (when meetings had previously been arranged with the majority of these same councillors), with a particular focus on known topics of interest (including ecology, open space and transport) and an overview of next steps and timescales.

Updates for local Members of Parliament

3.9 The team has also provided briefings to Member of Parliament for Colchester (Will Quince MP) and for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin MP).

Again, these briefings included an update on the work that the team has undertaken since the 2019 consultation and a particular focus on known topics of interest (including ecology, open space and transport) and an overview of next steps and timescales.

Further engagement

3.10 It is envisaged that there will continue to be local interest in the proposed redevelopment of the site as the Local Plan process moves forward. The project team will continue to engage with stakeholders on technical matters associated with the evidence base for the site allocation as part of the Examination in Public process. It is committed to working positively and proactively with Colchester Borough Council and others to bring forward this site.

3.11 Further engagement activities may be organised in the future, potentially once COVID-19 social distancing restrictions are lessened allowing public events to be held again. The team may also provide further briefings to local councillors, MPs as requested.

Appendices

Appendix A

• Middlewick Ranges winter 2020 community newsletter (accessible version)
• Middlewick Ranges winter 2020 community newsletter PDF version