CAUSE has worked with planning consultants, urban designers and transport consultants to build the following evidence base.

Click here for our Hearing Statement for the Examination in public, prepared December 2017:

HEARING STATEMENT 4TH DECEMBER 2017

And appendices:

Matter 6 zAppendix 3 NEGC letter

Matter 4 zAttachment 2 on Council’s 2008 views

Matter 1 zAttachment 1 Lightwood’MonksWood’Opinion

Click here for our full response to the summer 2017 consultation on the Publication Local Plan: CAUSE 2017 Part 1 Consultation response

For a summary, click here:  Part 1 response 2017 one-page summary

*See also the full papers on constraints to the expansion of capacity on the Great Eastern Mainline here:

Rail constraints, by Jonathan Tyler May 2017

Rail franchise, by Jonathan Tyler, May 2017

The papers above form an update to a response produced by CAUSE in September 2016 to the Preferred Options consultation, which you can read here:

CAUSE Preferred Options consultation response September 2016

Below is a contents list of the papers included in the response:
Page:

 

 

3

 

 

 

MAIN RESPONSE

 

 

APPENDICES:

This report explains why the decision to include three new garden settlements in the Local Plan is unsound, and recommends that two of the three (SP9 & SP10) should be dropped
12 1.  Necessary Amendments to the Local Plan  

We list some of the amendments needed to make the Plan sound.

18 2.  Sustainability appraisal The sustainability appraisal is the only document to attempt to justify two key decisions – adopting the garden community development format and the choice of West Tey (SP9) as a location.  The analysis is subjective and ignores both cost and viability.  It is not fit for purpose.
30 3.  Lessons from the past New stand-alone settlements are not likely to be viable. This lesson from the past is supported by their history.
33 4.  CAUSE’s positive vision CAUSE claims to be the only group to articulate a positive alternative to the Plan for the whole of North Essex.
40 5.  OAN critique The housing numbers in the plans are too high.  If the unjustified uplifts to the demographic forecasts are dropped then the need for two out of the three garden communities is removed.
50 6.  Employment critique We point up differences between the evidence from Cambridge Econometrics and the Plan.  West Tey will never be promising for sustainable local employment because, as a commuter town, it will be at a “comparative disadvantage”.
54 7.  Rail constraints Capacity on the GEML is constrained and will be very expensive to expand to meet forecast demand*.
57 8.  Connectivity and infrastructure The plans for the provision of infrastructure are inadequate for the scale of development proposed.  The infrastructure and connectivity goals set out in the Garden City charter are unachievable
62 9.  Viability The viability appraisal contains a material error in its methodology.  When corrected, West Tey is not viable even on the Council’s own cost assumptions.  There will not be sufficient surplus to pay for all the necessary infrastructure, and if land deals are being negotiated on this basis they will be unsound.  A subsidy of between £0.5 and £1.8 billion will be required to deliver on the promises made.
77 10. Costs and risks The cost assumptions underlying the Plan are unduly optimistic, based on the experience of past public sector infrastructure projects.  Industry standards and past experience indicate that a contingency of 40%, or more, is required at this early stage of project definition.  The 5% contingency in the viability appraisal is woefully inadequate.
83 11. The deal for landowners West Tey does not benefit anyone.  There is not enough surplus to compensate landowners for tying up their land in a 50-year call option.
87 12. Community engagement Genuine Community Engagement has been minimised, in contravention of the NPPF. No public discussion on location has been permitted.
94 13. Letter Letter from Michael Robson, Cerda Planning supporting CAUSE response.

 

*See also the full papers on constraints to the expansion of capacity on the Great Eastern Mainline here:

Rail constraints, by Jonathan Tyler May 2017

Rail franchise, by Jonathan Tyler, May 2017

The papers above form an update to a response produced by CAUSE in September 2016 to the Preferred Options consultation, which you can read here:

CAUSE Preferred Options consultation response September 2016