MM45

The missing information regarding Biodiversity Net Gain should have been challenged by the inspector.
Use of 10 year old documentation (Green Infra Strategy 2011) as basis is negligent and least not relevant in 2021.
The Least Unit Cost use has completely ignored biodiversity by scoring it positive. How and why was this area with the status of wildlife , acid grassland (UK Biodiversity Action plan habitat) not get highlighted in the Sustainability Appraisal.
Mitigation uses the term Offset which is not measurable, this should be Avoid and was used to circumvent ecol

The missing information regarding Biodiversity Net Gain should have been challenged by the inspector.
Use of 10 year old documentation (Green Infra Strategy 2011) as basis is negligent and least not relevant in 2021.
The Least Unit Cost use has completely ignored biodiversity by scoring it positive. How and why was this area with the status of wildlife , acid grassland (UK Biodiversity Action plan habitat) not get highlighted in the Sustainability Appraisal.
Mitigation uses the term Offset which is not measurable, this should be Avoid and was used to circumvent ecol

Do not Build on this Land !

How can this site have been properly assessed with all this missing information and why didn't the inspector challenge this? The Green Infrastructure Strategy 2011 is out-of-date, being ten years old. It refers to the Middlewick Ranges as a farmland plateau, not acid grassland. How, given the site is a Local Wildlife Site with protected species & lowland acid grassland, can ‘Least Unit Cost’ (LUC) have scored it positive, will it protect and improve biodiversity?

- The information gathered is already outdated and the ecological reports will have to rely on more recent surveys to be valid

- There has been no proper assessment overall because the Green infrastructure strategy is out-of-date (2011).
- The mitigation hierarchy does not follow a logical approach as there is no clear rationale of why ‘Offset’ criteria have been applied Instead of the ‘Avoid’ criterion.
- This approach has been chosen despite consulted ecologists cited extreme concern at the loss of this habitat and at the high risk of the
mitigation proposed.

Middlewick should not be developed or built on, but preserved as a public open space with conservation status for all species that are found there. There should be proper respect for the biodiversity and habitats found on the site, and added protection for rare species.

There appear to be many flaws and omissions in the surveying of the site for ecological assessment.
The 2011 Green Infrastructure Strategy is out of date and not accurate (referring to Middlewick as 'farmland' rather than 'acid grassland') the inaccuracies make the site sound as if it is of less ecological value than it is - actually it's a Local Wildlife Site, a lowland acid grassland and has protected species. These reasons alone should prevent it from development in these times of drastic biodiversity loss and understanding of the vital need to protect what remains of our important native habitats.

Far more work needs to be done on 'sustainability' . More evidence and consultation is required.

The sustainability appraisal should have been challenged.
The loss of habitat seems to have been ignored throughout the process. I have no confidence in the report. It hasn't been positively prepared and lacks essential evidence and information.

You cannot simply “compensate” for loss of habitats by planting “new” areas of acid grassland or providing “compensatory habitats” like they were spring bulbs to be dug up and moved elsewhere; in reality such habitats take hundreds of years to develop and you appear to have no plan or indeed commitment to monitor these over the next hundred years at least?

Having read the Inspector’s modifications I am at a loss as to why they did not challenge there being missing information on the original assessment of the Middlewick site.

Middleick Ranges to be retained as green open space

• How can this site have been properly assessed with all this missing information and why
didn't the inspector challenge this?
• The Green Infrastructure Strategy 2011 is out-of-date, being ten years old. It refers to the
Middlewick Ranges as a farmland plateau, not acid grassland.
• How, given the site is a Local Wildlife Site with protected species & lowland acid grassland, can ‘Least Unit Cost’ (LUC) have scored it positive, will it protect and improve biodiversity?

Not suitable for housing abs should be protected as a country park.

The site is a valuable area of green space that should be protected both for the wildlife that lives there and for the opportunity to experience green space and the mental abs physical benefits this provides local residents. Local infrastructure especially the road access to and from the centre centre are not equipped to deal with the additional traffic this housing will bring to the area.

The Middlewick Ranges should be turned into a nature reserve.

With its Local Wildlife Status, The Middlewick Ranges is a rare habitat (acid grassland) that is a home to many protected species. As such, it should have never been included in the plans for the development. Additionally, there's information missing and the inspector should have challanged this.

I am submitting my objection to the building of houses on Middlewick.
MM35 - Housing Allocation.
As I look around Colchester after living in the town for 74 years, I am concerned with the amount of building that has been going up over the past ten years. I know there is an allocation specified for Colchester to build, but you have gone beyond these figures. The amount of houses alone at Stanway and Severalls old grounds must cover these figures for years to come, they are not needed on Middlewick.
MM36 - Traffic and Transport.
How another 1000 houses with at least two cars per home is going to impact on the roads is beyond me. The only two roads into Colchester are Mersea Road and Old Heath Road. At the time of submitting this there is congestion every day on these roads, there is no other way into town from Mersea and Fingringhoe, Abbot’s Road only leads to these two roads, if trying to get to the Hythe there are traffic jams trying to get to Whitehall Road, where if the roads aren’t flooded the traffic is horrendous, this is not good for the environment at all, surely you must see this.
MM37 - Biodiversity and Wildlife.
Middlewick is full of the most beautiful wildlife you could want and that the world needs to keep, to many species are being lost to the destruction of open spaces, the deers foxes badgers running free is a wonderful thing and you want to destroy all this for 1000 houses, once you have dug this up it will never be replaced, the beautiful grasses for the butterflies the trees for nightingale which are so rare, the planet needs plants and wildlife to survive and the way we are going these are going to disappear.
MM38 - Environmental.
The pollution that will be thrown out by more cars on these road will be devastating. The fumes from the cars and busses will cause major problems to people already suffering from bronchial illnesses. Overpopulation is a big problem, Colchester is a small town, there are so many building going up we will be gridlocked, as soon as there is a problem on the A12 the whole town comes to a standstill, the roads are too small coming into town from this area. We are having trouble already with the sewage, it is unable to cope with more buildings, where is the waste going, we just haven’t got the resources. Children soon won’t have any open spaces left to enjoy, this must stop.
MM40 - Landscape.
This is the most beautiful piece of land left in this once beautiful town. The peace it gives people to just walk and enjoy the wildlife around them. The space to be able to breath fresh air, to see wildlife and hear the birds, after the most terrible last eighteen months, this was a place to go to escape the horror to have a little piece of mind, you cannot destroy this, the beautiful trees that have been growing for hundreds of years, these will never be replaced, please reconsider.
MM45 - Biodiversity Net Gain.
I cannot for one second imagine how you would leave this beautiful piece of countryside in a measurable better state than it was beforehand. How can you even think of being able to substitute the beautiful trees grasses with replacement twigs which would take hundred of years to grow. You would be covering the place with concrete. There is nothing you can do to improve this only destroy everything.
MM46 - Long Term Management and Mitigating.
I understand that there has to be five years of monitoring the habitat before any plan is to be considered, if after five years of monitoring of growth and development of the habitat then the project is discussed, I would ask has this been done, you can’t just decide to build without a independent source. This cannot be pushed under the carpet.
MM47 - Scope
I would ask have up to date surveys been taken? as I understand outdated ones are being used, these are not sound and a independent one is urgently needed.
I would like my objection to be put forward with all the others, and please reconsider this terrible planning.

How will you mitigate change in ph levels caused by the environmental changes? Once the research starts it will be too late to stop development so include answers in this section, not just a plan.

You do not need this complex and potentially lengthy assessment if the homes are not built. Each section of this modification is designed to pay lip service to previous objections, which have largely been ignored. To lay new grass turves that have been analysed to match what is there already is just weird. Why don’t you just leave what is there?

Middlewick to be removed from the local plan as Offset mitigation proposed has not been tested, proved or achieved.

I do not believe that the site has been properly assessed. Lots of information seems to be missing and this has not been challenged. The Green Infrastructure Strategy 2011 is out of date and incorrect. Middlewick Ranges is not farmland but rare acid grassland, containing protected species Why did the Sustainability Appraisal not highlight Local Wildlife Sites?
Ecologists cited extreme concern at the loss of this habitat and at the high risk of the mitigation proposed.

Middlewick to be taken out of the plan as the Offset mitigation has not been proven, tested or achieved.

I do not believe that the site has been properly assessed. Lots of information seems to be missing and this has not been challenged. The Green Infrastructure Strategy 2011 is out of date. Middlewick Ranges is not farmland but rare acid grassland, containing protected species Why did the Sustainability Appraisal not highlight Local Wildlife Sites?
Ecologists cited extreme concern at the loss of this habitat and at the high risk of the mitigation proposed.

MM38
This build will seriously damage the only green lung in this area to the detriment of the Residents on three sides of the Ranges. There will be nowhere close enough to enjoy nature, breathe clean air, for children to play safe from traffic, to walk dogs, without resorting to the car to go further afield to other open spaces. The wildlife will either leave due to the destruction of their habitats, or they will die off. Middlewick Ranges are adjacent to an SSSI, and site noise and upheaval will be detrimental to the SSSI.
MM35
Air pollution in Colchester is already above Governmental safety guidelines, and especially so on Mersea/Abbott’s Road. Colchester is one of the most polluted towns in the country, and one of the most built up too. There is not the infrastructure to cope. In the last five years 25,628 people have moved into the Colchester area. In the last decade or so seven hospitals have been sold off to housing developers. Severalls,
Essex County, St. Mary’s, Myland, Heath, Essex Hall and the Maternity Hospital. We now have ONE, Colchester General which is frequently overwhelmed, as are GPS, Dentists, schools.
MM36
Traffic congestion is a big problem without more vehicles adding to it, plus ten or more years of dust, dirt, and noise from heavy plant machinery polluting the air further. Entering and exiting the site will cause major congestion and disruption on Abbots/Mersea Road and surrounding roads. In the rush hours it can take over an hour or more to get to work across town to the hospital and other employment, and congestion is ever present where development is ongoing now.
MM37
Middlewick Ranges is a Designated Wildlife Site and contains very rare acid grass which is vital for the survival of certain invertebrates and flora, many of whom are protected species. This lowland acid grass and Heath have remained undisturbed for hundreds of years. There needs to be another up-to-date Ecology Report. The plants and wildlife there will not survive the loss of their habitat. To create acid grass will take many years, may not be successful and the wildlife will die off
MM40
We need to get the Middlewick Ranges reclassified to incorporate the acid grass as it is not all just ‘farmland.’ Many will not want to live within the vicinity of the electricity pylons, either from fear of their effect close up or because they are an eyesore.
MM45
Middlewick Ranges are referred to as ‘a farmland plateau. It is acid grass/Heath.
MM46
It will be impossible to mitigate the upheaval/damage to the habitats of the wildlife. Why was so little made of the fact the Middlewick Ranges are a Local Wildlife Site with protected species. Will the Skylarks wait any number of years for acid grass to be created? and that is just one example. Where will the wildlife go during the intermediary period? Some will possibly go to the adjacent SSSI but most will die off.
Has the wider effect of chemicals been soundly investigated? What guarantees will there be if the Management Company fails?
MM47
The aims for this site are not achievable. They are not in the interests of the Wildlife or the surrounding residents both from a physical and mental health point of view. There is also the fact that Middlewick Ranges were added to the Local Plan without due process taking place.

Development at Middlewick Ranges will not be permitted as the correct mitigation criterion to be applied in this instance is 'avoid'.

This is totally unacceptable. For a designated LWS and UK Biodiversity Action Plan habitat the correct criterion to apply is ‘avoid’ not ‘offset’. The aim to increase biodiversity is unlikely to be achieved where a natural habitat is destroyed and takes no account of the species involved. In particular the rare and threatened species associated with the habitat will suffer at the expense of common, garden species. Why has the expert ecological advice been ignored in favour of the biased assessments from ecologists contracted by the developer?

Take the Middlewick Ranges proposals out of the Local Plan.

The site is one of the last significant remaining sites of undisturbed lowland dry acid grassland across our region, which is difficult to replace. I'm concerned the Inspector’s modifications don't acknowledge the risk and difficulty of replacing the current grassland, and they seemingly ignore submissions throughout the Local Plan process from ecologists, who highlighted extreme concern at the loss of this habitat and the high risk of the mitigation proposed. There's no guarantee this acid grassland can be replaced.

I remain concerned this site was not properly assessed, given the lack of all the missing information asked in the Modifications.

The Wick should be removed from the Local Plan completely.

Any strategy used in decision making should be up to date, not ten years old. For a start, it refers to the Wick as farmland! Wrong, it's grassland! The whole concept of biodiversity net gain is flawed. In the case of the Wick, the thinking is that alternative areas of land can be converted to acid grassland over a period of time for mitigation purposes. What time? The Wick has been there, untouched, for centuries and has become a site of special ecological and scientific interest. To think that this can be created elsewhere is a ridiculous idea.

Remove Middlewick from the Local Plan.

Phasing will only again, added to the archeological issues, electricity pylons, habitats, walking and cycling routes, produce high density housing in smaller areas. Developers will try to gain maximum profit by building crowded homes with no gardens using the public open space as residents green areas, only for these areas to get smaller and smaller over time. This type of wildlife, flora and fauna takes decades to develop and can not be manufactured, and, as diverse as we are and as skilled as we are, we can not artificially replicate an environment that has been formed and maintained by nature.

See above

All planning applications and subsequent decisions should be based on up to date ecological reports and survey data.
This very important site seems to have been assessed on out of date and missing information. The Green Infrastructure Strategy 2011 (ten years old) referring to Middlewick Ranges as farmland plateau not acid grassland.
This is a local wildlife site with protected species and lowland acid grassland.
How will development protect and improve biodiversity?
Taking into consideration all the above points, why wasn’t the site referred as a reason for rejection?

Cancel

Missing information at assessment and out of date ecological reports and survey data.

SC2 should not have been allocated, nor allowed to remain in the plan. The modifications proposed do not provide sufficient
assurances.

If the plan is approved; No development can commence on Middlewick Ranges (SC2) until a team of independent ecologists are satisfied that the new acid grassland mitigation habitat has established to a satisfactory level.

The modifications proposed do not provide sufficient assurances. The habitat is irreplaceable and the mitigation; (sulphur deposition) remains largely untested. The Green Infrastructure Strategy 2011 is out-of-date. It is not a farmland plateau. How, given the site is a Local Wildlife Site with protected species & lowland acid grassland, can ‘Least Unit Cost’ (LUC) have scored it positive? Why, in the original consideration of Middlewick, were the Local Wildlife Status, lowland acid grassland & protected species not referred to as reason for rejection? The mitigation hierarchy doesn’t appear to have been followed logically; ‘Avoid’ criterion is more appropriate.

Remove all plans for the Wick and cease any future plans

I will once again point out that the Green Infrastructure Strategy 201 is out-of-date. It refers to the Middlewick Ranges as a farmland plateau, not acid grassland which is a much rarer ecosystem and so must be considered as such in planning. Furthermore the ‘Sustainability Appraisal’ (SA) failed to highlight Local Wildlife Sites; lowland acidic grassland in particular which is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan habitat and cannot simply be ignored or relocated.

Preferably the Middlewick site allocation should be removed from the Plan, but if it remains, firm guarantees should be in place that demand mitigation is sucessfully completed (as verified by independent conservation experts) before any development is allowed to begin.

Given the uncertain nature and timescales of successfully recreating Acid Grassland habitat, such mitigation would be unworkable. Either the developer would have to wait years until the ‘new’ habitat was created before the planned ‘harm’ of the development could be considered as ‘mitigated’ - or, more likely, corners would be cut and development would proceed before the replacement habitat was established (if it even could be) thus negating the principle of mitigation and harming protected species.

It is unsound to continue with an allocation that requires such complex, costly and uncertain mitigation measures in attempting to re-create what already exists.

Show respect to future generations of Colchester, and to local residents and LEAVE MIDDLEWICK ALONE.

How can the assessors and inspector be taken seriously when the information used is competely out of date? The best way to protect and improve biodi-versity is to leave this local wildflie site alone to be valued by future generations, I want my kids to enloy this site and learn how to repect wildlife and nature as much as I hope I have done from visiting Middlewick.
Planning decisions should be based on up-to-date ecological reports and survey data. Therefore this report and surveys needs to be updated.

The idea that it is possible to provide 'compensatory habitat' which mitigates destroying such a valuable area of land makes no sense at all. It is talking about living environments in a business like way, like all creatures and plants could be simply moved to another area. Recreating an area that already exists so we can repurpose it for what we think is to our advantage in the hope that we can recreate what we have destroyed elsewhere is surely an extremely high risk strategy. I don't understand why this area is not protected as lowland acid grassland, at the very least a new survey needs to be done - not one dating from 2011.

If there are plans to use turves from the ranges to create new areas of acid grassland then isn't this in itself recognising the value of and need for this environment to exist to support the diverse range of wildlife, birds, insects and trees found in areas such as this. Why is any building on this land being considered? Why destroy what centuries of existence has created to attempt to recreate it elsewhere, it makes no sense at all. Such a shame that money comes out as the first priority, particularly with the pledges the government has made at COP26.

The Middlewick Allocation Site should be removed from the Plan and protected as a Local Wildlife Site.

The Allocation site cannot achieve Biodiversity Net Gain, since the proposed mitigation will not be located within the Allocation Boundary, but on the Mitigation Land. Therefore any Biodiversity Gain resulting from 'new' habitat cannot, by definition, be attributed to the Allocation Site. Furthermore the process itself may cause acidic contamination of the Mitigation land and Birch Brook resulting in overall Biodiversity loss. Significantly, Guidelines advise that Biodiversity Net Gain should not be applied to compensate for impacts on irreplaceable habitat. This is a recognised Local Wildlife Site containing protected high priority habitat and should be protected as such.

This detailed work should be carried out prior to final decisions about inclusion of the Ranges in the plan.

It would appear that a lot of the information is old and outdated.

This raises serious questions on the inspectors findings. For the inspector not to listen to the groups who are expertise of Middlewick, indicates the inspector has been influenced by getting the plan over the line no matter what.
The Green Infrastructure Strategy is out of date since 2011 as it says the Middlewick is farmland plateau and not acid grassland.
A new inspector needs to be employed and has an understanding across the board and listens to the expertise of the mentioned groups on their advice and go to their hearings where necessary. Also planning decisions are based on up-to-date ecological reports and survey data.

I believe Middlewick has not been inspected properly as the inspector had missed out on a lot of information of the area and refused to listen to the hearings and advice of Essex Wildlife Trust, Colchester Natural History and Butterfly Conservation Group. The inspector rather accepted the developers ecological report who does not have the understanding or importance of Lowland Acid Grassland, wildlife and protection of birds species who are found in acid grassland under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Green Infrastructure Strategy is out of date by 10 years, is the inspectors findings based on this?

An unbiased survey should be conducted and the land handed over to The Woodland Trust and local groups to ensure the area remains wild.

The Green Infrastructure Strategy 2011 is out-of-date, being ten years old. It refers to the Middlewick Ranges as a farmland plateau, not acid grassland. It is important that planning decisions are based on up-to-date ecological reports and survey data. After three years the report is unlikely to still be valid and most, if not all, of
the surveys are likely to need to be updated. The biodiversity of the area is important to retain, so building houses will have the opposite effect.

We should be looking at filling all unused properties before looking at further development in the town, particularly in an area where infrastructure doesn’t allow. We should in no cases be building on green sites.

Why are we modifying for ecological impact when we should just leave alone to do its own thing. We are meant to be saving the planet not providing more consumption