To provide background and an update to the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community (TCBGC) Joint Committee to note for information purposes key forward funded transport infrastructure delivery on site or associated with TCBGC. The report outlines the infrastructure that has been completed or commenced to date, in addition to setting out next steps noting that a detailed assessment of the impacts of the development can only be fully undertaken once all planning documentation has been submitted by the applicant.

The Joint Committee considered a detailed report that provided background and an update to note for information purposes on key forward funded transport infrastructure delivery on site or associated with TCBGC. The report outlined the infrastructure that had been completed or commenced to date, in addition to setting out next steps noting that a detailed assessment of the impacts of the development could only be fully undertaken once all planning documentation had been submitted by the applicant.

 

Members were aware that the Development Plan Document (DPD) adopted to underpin the consideration and determination of any planning application for development at TCBGC included GC Policy 7 and GC Policy 9 that required the delivery of necessary infrastructure. The scale and nature of a Garden Community development meant that there was a need for significant infrastructure improvements to enable the full growth potential to be secured in a sustainable manner.

 

The Joint Committee recalled that planning and delivering the required infrastructure was at the heart of sustainable development for the Garden Community and the DPD required that proposals must demonstrate that the required infrastructure to support development would be delivered in a timely and, where appropriate, phased manner.

 

Members were reminded that, in 2019 Essex County Council (ECC) had successfully bid for funding from the Government's Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) to enable the early delivery of elements of significant infrastructure improvements at TCBGC. HIF funding had been secured to deliver the following pieces of strategic transport infrastructure:

 

The Colchester Rapid Transit System (RTS)

 

This new public transport system would run through the Garden Community and link the development into destinations in Colchester including the university, the city centre, the mainline railway station and the hospital. The RTS infrastructure, funded by HIF, included new segregated bus lanes and crossing points for cycling and pedestrians as well as new signalised junctions. The objective of the RTS was to provide a transformational public transport offer that provided an attractive, reliable, and affordable alternative to car travel and helped to meet TCBGC’s ambitious modal share targets.

 

Phase 1 of the new A1331 Link Road

 

Once complete, the A1331 would connect to the Strategic Road Network by linking the A120 with the A133. The new road would help people to more easily access the A120 and A12 and reduce the need to travel through the urban area of Colchester, managing congestion and improving air quality in sensitive areas. The new A1331 Link Road was an important element of TCBGC, unlocking sustainable growth in the area.

 

It was reported that advanced progress across both schemes had been strong. The HIF funded RTS infrastructure was now largely delivered with works on the Northern Approach Road and Clingoe Hill completed. Phase 1 of the A1331 was also progressing and was due to complete in Summer 2026.

 

Members were aware that the original commitment had been to fund and deliver the A1331 Link Road in its entirety.  However, since the first award of the Government's HIF in 2019, the cost of the Link Road scheme had increased because of unprecedented cost inflation in the macro-economic environment, including supply chain issues, materials and labour costs.  In 2023, a formal decision had been made by ECC and Homes England (HE) to vary the HIF agreement to bring forward the A1331 Link Road in two phases with the first phase (Phase 1) being funded by the 2019 HIF award and Phase 2 being delivered by alternative funding sources, including a developer contribution.

 

The Joint Committee was informed that, in early 2025, due to further cost increases, it had become apparent that the delivery of TCBGC would be unable to support the completion of Phase 2 of the A1331 Link Road whilst maintaining a viable development.  Given that the DPD required funding for the (entire) A1331 to be secured prior to the grant of planning permission for development forming part of the Garden Community, it had been clear that additional funding would be required to ensure that the development was deliverable, viable and able to meet policy requirements.

 

Members were advised that, throughout 2025, ECC had been working closely with the master developer for TCBGC and HE to set out the business case for additional funding via HIF, culminating in the submission of a further formal request of £65m, to be match-funded by a £21m developer contribution. The Councils were currently awaiting confirmation from Homes England of approval for that funding request. ECC would be responsible for delivery, subject to a ECC Cabinet Decision which had been proposed for coming months.

 

The report was introduced by way of a presentation given by Amy Collins, the Garden Community Senior Infrastructure Planner. That presentation covered the following matters:-

 

(1)     Introduction;

(2)     Background;

(3)     Colchester RTS;

(4)     The A1331 Link Road; and

(5)     The report’s recommendations.

 

The Public Speaking Scheme for the Joint Committee gave the opportunity for members of the public and other interested parties/stakeholders to speak to the Joint Committee on any specific agenda item to be considered at this meeting.

 

The Chairman accordingly invited the following public speakers to come to the table in turn to speak. Their comments are in precis.

 

Adam Hall (CEAG – Crockleford & Elmstead Action Group)

 

·      am speaking in relation to Allen’s Farm roundabout;

·      issue in relation to a restricted byway (Elmstead 21 that goes into Ardleigh 46) – no mechanical vehicles are allowed upon it other than agricultural vehicles;

·      CEAG therefore requests that no public exits off of the roundabout be completed for anything other than the originally agreed routes;

·      the restricted byway has been used since April 2025 by members of Allen’s Farm and works and associated organisations including SRC which is illegal and has been reported several times to Essex Highways and there is an ongoing complaint lodged with ECC Ombudsman in relation to this;

·      concern is that this restricted byway will be used as a shortcut through to avoid the preferred route which has already been installed to Allen’s Farm;

·      want to see that the roundabout link to the side road should be gated to prevent illegal public use in the exit which leads to onto the restricted byway;

·      given that this link road is blocked between Tye Road roundabout and Allen’s Farm to prevent its use as a racetrack, failure to do this could lead to fatalities.

 

Manda O’Connell (Chair, TCBGC Community Liaison Group)

 

·      whilst it is a relief to know that the application for further funding has now been submitted by ECC to Homes England following due diligence procedure, is there any indication as to when a decision is likely to be made by Homes England;

·      is there any indication of the approval mechanism within central Government before the final decision;

·      is it also known whether any further funding granted would be released in a ‘lump sum’ or in a phased manner to ECC and whether that additional funding would also be subject to a deadline for expenditure as was the original HIF monies;

·      will ECC be using the usual best value procedures when tendering for contractors to build the second phase of the link road and whether ECC plan to expedite this process to avoid further rises in the cost of building materials e.g. by inviting tenders now as agreed plans and planning permission are already in place;

·      how will devolution affect this especially with responsibility for delivery and expenditure of the further funding;

·      are steps being taken to alleviate or mitigate any potential delay that may result from devolution and could those steps be shared;

·      have any steps been taken now to purchase the land needed for the Phase 2 link road and avoid delay as CPOs are notoriously long-winded affairs;

·      is there any money left from the original funding that can be put towards this.

 

Jonathan Schifferes, Head of Housing Growth and Garden Communities (Essex County Council), responded to those statements as follows:-

 

In response to Adam Hall:-

 

·      appreciate the concern as to how the existing PROW network including byways will intersect with the new infrastructure under construction;

·      confirm the intention that, as the project concludes construction, there will be a gate at the north of the roundabout which will restrict access from the public highway to access Allen’s Farm onto that byway which should prevent unauthorised vehicle use;

·      the suggestion was that the A1331 should be closed north of Tye Road once construction completed – ECC does not, currently, intend to do that as accessing Allen’s Farm north of the A1331 is a key objective in the interim until phase 2 is delivered;

·      closing the A1331 as suggested would leave Allen’s Farm without sufficient access;

·      current access to Allen’s Farm is a temporary route across another landowner’s land so that access is on a ‘permissive’ basis only and which will cease once construction is completed.

 

In response to Manda O’Connell:-

 

·      we would like the HIF decision to be made as soon as possible for the reasons indicated i.e. to get Phase 2 link road delivered as early as possible;

·      Homes England have indicated that the request is to be submitted imminently to the HIF programme governance board who are likely to take several weeks to finalise their decision;

·      understand it will go to the board with a recommendation of approval for the requested £65million in grant;

·      ECC is taking a number of steps to get as far forward as possible legally and financially including lining up ECC governance procedures such as publishing the forthcoming Cabinet decision as an issue on the ECC “Forward Plan” and aiming for ECC Cabinet on 24 February 2026 to accept the funding (assuming Homes England has issued its approval in the meantime) and the associated terms and conditions;

·      the HIF board is the key central Government decision making body and comprises representatives from across the Government departments e.g. the Treasury and the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Agency;

·      any further funding granted would not be released in a lump sum to ECC;

·      the protocol would be for ECC to claim funding monthly, if not quarterly, in arrears;

·      ECC would take on the responsibility to deliver the infrastructure, appoint the contractors and pay for it and then ECC would submit valid claims to Homes England who would then reimburse ECC;

·      there will be a deadline for the expenditure and negotiations are ongoing with Homes England to get as long a period of time as possible;

·      ECC will be using best value procedures in its procurement in accordance with the procurement regulations and will procure a contractor for phase 2 under the usual highways procurement frameworks;

·      the Programme Team is focused on expediting delivery as much as possible;

·      meetings are being held with affected landowners to set terms of negotiation to acquire land but ECC is also preparing now to potentially issue CPOs should those land negotiations not prove successful;

·      contractual mechanism in place for ECC to request Homes England’s consent to use any remaining budget from phase one to acquire land and assemble land and, at present, there is sufficient budget in place;

·      in regards to devolution there is a Statutory Instrument in the making for the Combine Authority subject to further governance from the Upper Tier members of that combined authority likely to take place after the local government elections in May 2026;

·      there is also a process of local government reorganisation (LGR) which is on track to go through with new Unitary Authorities vested from April 2028;

·      inevitable therefore that the delivery of the phase two link round will run across the devolution and LGR timelines – the new UAs will take on ECC’s contractual obligations and liabilities and that is being taken into account by ECC in all of its GC actions.

 

The Joint Committee then proceeded to discuss, and debate matters pertaining to the Officer’s report as follows:-

 

Councillor Lesley Wagland (Essex County Council)

 

·      can you confirm if there is a deadline in relation to the HIF payment and on-going payment.

 

Jonathan Schifferes, Head of Housing Growth and Garden Communities (Essex County Council), responded to Councillor Wagland as follows:-

 

·      there will be a deadline for the expenditure of the £65million and negotiations are ongoing with Homes England to get as long a period of time as possible but in reality, it is, based on previous Home England stipulations, a realistic expectation that their deadline will be 2030.

 

Councillor Andrea Luxford-Vaughan (Colchester City Council)

·      my concern on delivery is in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) there was a reference to it had to be built by 1,750 homes which is the only policy part that could be latched onto in terms of when it’s delivered;

·      given the build-out rate that is seven years away – am assuming that once the Government has confirmed the funding the report to ECC Cabinet will confirm the delivery date;

·      another issue is that the £21.5 million will not prove to be enough and Latimer were aware of the tender figures for phase 2 of the link road and therefore knew that it would not be enough going into the DPD hearing;

·      the Memorandum of Understanding with Latimer is not legally binding so how are we going to secure, as it is not in policy, that the developer’s contribution does come within a timescale that’s acceptable to the three Councils and the public as the consensus view is that you can’t have the houses without the road;

·      need a reassurance that via the Section 106 legal agreements that there will be a trigger point for when that has to be delivered and if it is not delivered by that trigger point then housebuilding will stop;

·      need to go out to tender as soon as funding application is approved as no contractor will hold their prices indefinitely so seek a reassurance on that;

·      Homes England have previously objected to, regarding the link road, the modal shift calculations and the traffic assessments – understand that it is now on Latimer to re-prepare them on the basis of the scheme that they are going to be putting forward – seek assurance that Homes England will not, late on, state that they are still not happy;

·      Home England had raised a safety point on the A120 and the slip roads – at the time there was an expectation of a large investment on the A120 to increase safety but that is now not going ahead.

 

Jonathan Schifferes, Head of Housing Growth and Garden Communities (Essex County Council), responded to Councillor Luxford-Vaughan as follows:-

 

·      it’s correct that the IDP references the delivery of the link road within “the first phase of the development” which is defined as the first 1,750 homes;

·      should the funding bid to Homes England be successful it would need to be supplemented by a developer contribution and in making the bid ECC had in mind the DPD viability testing which defined a £21million developer contribution so in effect match funding to reach the full cost estimate as it currently stands;

·      reiterate that the realistic expectation is that Homes England’s deadline will be 2030 and the overall delivery is likely to need to align to that;

·      never was a tender process for phase two as a standalone project – the £21million was an estimate derived from an aborted procurement exercise for the full link road which demonstrated that the Homes England original funding would not meet the cost of the link road – hence the subsequent descoping and two phased approach;

·      the developer’s contribution will be secured through the determination of the planning application and the negotiation of the heads of terms of the Section 106 Agreement and then the signing of that Agreement;

·      ECC will need that Agreement to be watertight and robust and legally defensible and enforceable to ensure payment from the developer;

·      the agreement will also be defined against certain trigger points at some point in the development;

·      if the link road was to be delivered by 2030 or in the early 2030s then it would be well in advance of the 1,750 homes being delivered and therefore within the first phase of development;

·      the total £86million estimate for the phase two link road does include a “risk buffer” and a best guess forecast for inflation so therefore ‘hedging’ the risks as much as possible;

·      Homes England were not a party to the examination-in-public but National Highways (NH) were – ECC is liaising closely with NH now to, in part demonstrate to Homes England that NH supports the phase two scheme and to get ahead of certain issues such as how to construct the scheme as they are a key stakeholder.

 

Councillor Julie Young (Colchester City Council)

 

·      reassuring to hear that an allowance has been made in terms of the costs forecast and a risk buffer;

·      how long does the planning permission for the link road hold good – don’t want to get caught out by losing that planning consent.

 

Jonathan Schifferes, Head of Housing Growth and Garden Communities (Essex County Council), responded to Councillor Young as follows:-

 

·      the construction of phase one is taking place now as the implementation of that planning permission;

·      before it commenced supplementary material was submitted to ECC Planning to get their approval to implement that planning permission in a phased manner;

·      there is an overall construction management plan and appropriate environmental assessments etc. which supports phase one and similar will be provided for phase two which is under that same planning permission;

·      therefore the planning permission can not expire as it has been implemented albeit in a phased manner.

 

Councillor David King (Colchester City Council)

 

·      can you walk us through again the £86million i.e. how much is the buffer; how many sources of advice were taken; how much confidence do you have;

·      should not see LGR as any kind of impediment;

·      if the project comes in under the £86million what will happen to that balance.

 

Jonathan Schifferes, Head of Housing Growth and Garden Communities (Essex County Council), responded to Councillor King as follows:-

 

·      earlier in 2025, became aware of two cost estimates in liaison with Latimer in the pre-application process;

·      both Latimer’s consultants and the phase one contractors had been asked to produce “ball park” estimates for the phase two scheme and both had shown it as being much above £21million and much nearer today’s assured cost estimate of £86million;

·      ECC had them commissioned its own retained consultants (Jacobs) to prepare a more detailed cost estimate in summer 2025 and it is on that basis that ECC has worked with Homes England on the material amendment;

·      scrutiny of the £86million figure has included a “quantified risk assessment” which investigates every element of design and elements such as infrastructure, licences, mitigation, planting etc. – all given a likelihood of occurring and a range of costs as if they had occurred;

·      at this stage of the project it’s appropriate to take a PAT score – look at potential risks and their likelihood and quantify all of them through an algebraic process whereby if you ran a scenario a 1,000 times then 800 times it will be at least better than X figure and that figure is in the cost estimate as the risk envelope – therefore a healthy amount of risk contingency is built in;

·      for the cost estimates there is then an expenditure forecast over the projected construction period and then applied are the most recent estimates from the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) which is the industry standard and they are mapped out over the next 4 years with monthly updates from the BCIS on what they think cost inflation will be;

·      for construction cost forecasting last few years have been extremely challenging due to events such as Covid-19; supply chain shortfalls; Brexit; war in Ukraine etc;

·      but current cost estimates are considered robust, and it is in Homes England’s and Latimer’s interests to know that ECC has a good grip on forecast costs;

·      Homes England appointed their own due diligence cost consultants to scrutinise everything that ECC submitted to them and their report has demonstrated broad alignment with ECC’s estimates;

·      if the scheme is completed under the £86million budget it will not be a case of ECC having to give money back to Homes England due to the fact that ECC has to claim the funds in arrears so essentially the shortfall will never have left Home England’s accounts in that scenario;

·      if there is remaining money left over from the developer’s contribution then, depending on the terms of the Section 106 Agreement, it could be put to other infrastructure projects within the garden community.

 

Councillor Andrea Luxford-Vaughan (Colchester City Council)

 

·      there was a previous ECC document that stated that the RTS would be affordable, 20% faster than a car and at some point, there will be a low emission bus – can it be included within a Section 106 Agreement that there will be a cap on fares and a date for when a low emission bus will be included and enforced as necessary;

·      can’t see how it will be 20% faster than car travel with all of the stops / halts along the way;

·      at one point there was a RTS route along the A120 proposed which has now disappeared from all discussions / aspirations.

 

Jonathan Schifferes, Head of Housing Growth and Garden Communities (Essex County Council), responded to Councillor Luxford-Vaughan as follows:-

 

·      the principle of investing in the RTS infrastructure is that it provides a very significant advantage to public transport vehicles over cars;

·      the 20% speed advantage at peak hours is still something that ECC would stand behind as being evidenced now by Section A of the RTS and by the other sections when they open;

·      RTS relies on new routes and potentially new vehicles and new operators;

·      currently, there is no certainty as to when new routes will come online;

·      intention is for the RTS to be subsidised in part by a developer contribution which is factored into the IDP policy work that has been undertaken;

·      until there is an application and a public transport strategy and negotiations with Latimer around what goes into the Section 106 Agreement the RTS in terms of new services is still likely several years away but the infrastructure has been delivered early and is of benefit to existing services along those routes in Colchester;

·      Bus operators who are at liberty to add or subtract services will benefit from that bus priority infrastructure – it makes their services more reliable and quicker which potentially increases utilisation and reduces service costs and drives passengers and revenue;

·      so, it is already a good thing and a ‘win’ for Colchester’s bus system as a whole that we have the RTS infrastructure in place;

·      almost every new bus brought online is a low emission vehicle which meets the Euro6 standard albeit that is still a fossil fuel powered vehicle;

·      can not say at this point which buses will be procured by which bus operator when they come into service on the RTS;

·      note that in relation both to LGR and devolution that there is an important but not yet settled position on which forms of bus commissioning and bus franchising will sit either with a Combine Authority (integrated ticketing, concessionary fares / passes) or with the Unitary Authorities as the transport authority and highway authority locally;

·      the HIF bid did not ultimately include any infrastructure along the A120 route – Route 1 that has made it into the adopted policy is the route from the University and Garden Community into Colchester and through the Town Centre to the Station, the Hospital and the Park and Ride adjacent to this venue.

 

Councillor Carlo Guglielmi (Tendring District Council)

 

·      regarding the procurement exercise due to take place in the Autumn and given that the Homes England funding bid decision is imminent, can that timescale be brought forward.

 

Jonathan Schifferes, Head of Housing Growth and Garden Communities (Essex County Council), responded to Councillor Guglielmi as follows:-

 

·      suffice to say that as and when the HIF Programme Board makes its decision to approve the funding then ECC will move as fast as possible through a number of governance gateways to see the road delivered e.g. will seek a Cabinet decision within days of the Board’s decision; officers are already in negotiations with landowners over the land assembly for phase two and will progress very quickly to a detailed design and going out through the approved procurement routes to find a contractor to deliver phase two;

·      but would likely take 12 – 18 months to have a start on site – all the land would need to be secured to allow the contractor to get on site and that might require, in the end, a CPO to enable that.

 

It was thereupon moved by Councillor Carlo Guglielmi, seconded by Councillor Andy Baker and:-

 

RESOLVED that the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee –

 

(a)     notes the contents of this report which presents an update regarding the delivery of the A1331 Link Road and the Colchester Rapid Transit System (RTS) and other work being undertaken to ensure that forward-funded transport infrastructure and services linked to the Garden Community are designed and delivered successfully; and

 

(b)     notes and supports the proposed delivery arrangements for A1331 Link Road Phase 2, subject to funding and governance confirmation.