The Housing Needs make no reference to the Community Planning Alliances strategy / 6 point plan for the provision of housing. It should be adopted as the hierarchy for addressing housing need.
There is no positive statement / policy that ensures that those associated with Colchester, by family connection and or work, will get priority for social / shared housing/ starter homes.
These points need to be at the core of the Local Plan.

Please use authentic Traditional Architecture Design Codes as illustrated in my PDF umbrella Representation as these will support all key stakeholders ranging from property owners to the Local Authority itself and the community on strong economic, ecological and environmental grounds. Place a Ban on demolition of buildings constructed prior to 1950 and grant full protection of historic buildings, be these listed, Non-Designated Heritage Assets or otherwise.

The Plan will be greatly boosted by TA across so many different themes and agenda items.

The bus system is woeful and does not have a direct route to the train station or hospital and a lot of residents no longer drive. Access to the sixth form is very difficult as there are so few buses.

How can 900 extra homes in a village of 350 possibly add positively to health and wellbeing?. We have plenty of places for nature and biodiversity already in Langham, all this will be lost with the village becoming a soulless housing estate.

Resident of Langham since 1982. Object to housing as the infrastructure cannot support proposed development of 900 dwellings. Water treatment plant does not have capacity to deal with waste water. The transport links to Colchester are inadequate (poor bus service and roads). Additional housing would treble the population of Lanham. The services of doctors, schools could not cope with additional demand. Houses on the new estate failed to sell and I fear this would be the case if the new proposal went ahead and the houses will be offered as social housing to fill them. It would increase the amount of vehicles and parking at school times would be dangerous. Langham has had its fair share of new houses and this is unfair and other sites should be considered.

2.19 makes very broad statements 'on preserving Colchesters' identity' and 'improving the quality of life for our residents' the sheer volume homes in PP29 and PP17does neither and is in conflict with the Vision of Copford Nplan which seeks to preserve our identities, rural nature and biodiversity. The proposed homes compromises the identity of Copford and is certainly not 'proportionate' to the existing settlements in the Parish. Housing close to Roman River and Pits Wood conflicts with CE2a of the Neighbourhood Plan.
Well planned small developments proportionate to the area within a local Master Plan are needed not mass housing.

I comment upon Clause 2.5 referring to ....flooding and coastal erosion... . I remind that any development that increases outflow from the Tiptree sewage works increases the risk of another 1953 flood in Salcott. Please make sure in infrastructure planning that appropriate expansion/processing of this sewage works to recycle rather than discharge is scheduled.

Including the Preferred Options Local Plan Consultation Draft and Policies Map
The Woodland Trust welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Colchester Local Plan Preferred Options. As the UK’s leading woodland conservation charity, our mission is to protect and restore ancient woodland, increase native tree cover, and ensure that planning policy contributes meaningfully to nature recovery, climate resilience, and healthier places for people.
We commend Colchester City Council for producing a Local Plan that places strong emphasis on the environment, green networks, and biodiversity, and for aligning the Plan with the ambitions of the Environment Act 2021 and the Essex Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS). However, we consider that several aspects of the Plan require strengthening to ensure it is sound, consistent with national policy, and capable of effective delivery.
This response sets out our strategic comments on the Plan as a whole, followed by specific objections to Policy PP29 – Land East of School Road, Copford, as shown on the Preferred Options Policies Map.
________________________________________
1. Vision and Strategic Approach
We support the overarching vision of the Plan to address the climate and ecological emergencies, enhance green networks, and embed health and wellbeing throughout plan-making. The recognition that Colchester is one of the most nature-depleted parts of the country, and that nature recovery must be central to future growth, is welcome.
However, the effectiveness of this vision depends on policy consistency and implementation, particularly where growth pressures intersect with irreplaceable habitats. Allocations that undermine ancient woodland protection risk weakening the Plan’s environmental credibility and internal coherence.
________________________________________
2. Strategic Policy ST2 – Environment and the Green Network and Waterways
Policy ST2 sets a strong strategic framework for nature recovery, ecological connectivity, and delivery of the Essex LNRS. We strongly support:
• The identification of strategic biodiversity areas
• The emphasis on habitat connectivity and multifunctional green infrastructure
• The requirement for Green Network and Waterways Plans for major development
However, we are concerned that Policy PP29 directly conflicts with the intent of ST2, by allocating development in immediate proximity to an Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland (ASNW) that forms part of the wider ecological network. Development of the scale proposed risks fragmenting, rather than strengthening, the biodiversity network, contrary to the stated objectives of the Plan.
________________________________________
3. Policy EN4 – Irreplaceable Habitats
We strongly support the inclusion of a dedicated policy on irreplaceable habitats and the recognition of ancient woodland as such. However, for the Plan to be sound, policy wording and allocations must align.
National policy is clear that:
Development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodland, should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons.
We emphasise that deterioration includes indirect and cumulative impacts, not solely direct land take. Allocations that place high-density residential development adjacent to ancient woodland must therefore be scrutinised against this test at plan-making stage, not deferred to development management.
________________________________________
4. Policy EN5 – New and Existing Trees & Policy GN4 – Tree Canopy Cover
We welcome the Council’s ambition to increase tree canopy cover and protect existing trees. However, ancient woodland is not simply a collection of trees; it is a complex, irreplaceable ecosystem dependent on long-term stability of soils, microclimate, and hydrology.
Tree planting, canopy targets, or Biodiversity Net Gain cannot compensate for harm to ancient woodland, and policies should make this explicit to avoid misinterpretation at application stage.
________________________________________
5. Biodiversity Net Gain and Nature Recovery
We support Policy EN2 and the ambition to deliver Biodiversity Net Gain. However, we reiterate that:
• Ancient woodland and its buffer zones must be excluded from BNG calculations
• BNG must not be relied upon to justify allocations that cause deterioration of irreplaceable habitats
This is particularly relevant to Policy PP29.
________________________________________
6. Place Policy PP29 – Land East of School Road, Copford
Formal Objection
The Woodland Trust objects to Policy PP29 as currently drafted and shown on the Preferred Options Policies Map.
a) Impact on Pits Wood ASNW and Local Wildlife Site
Pits Wood is an Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland and a Local Wildlife Site, and therefore an irreplaceable habitat of the highest sensitivity. The allocation of approximately 300 dwellings immediately adjacent to its southern and eastern boundaries presents a clear risk of deterioration, including:
• Increased recreational pressure from an estimated 700 new residents
• Trampling, soil compaction, and damage to ancient woodland indicator species such as bluebell and wood anemone
• Light, noise, and air pollution
• Domestic pet disturbance
• Increased risk of invasive non-native species
• Long-term degradation of woodland soils and edge habitat
These impacts are well-evidenced, predictable, and difficult to mitigate once established.
________________________________________
b) Inadequate Buffering
While Policy PP29 acknowledges the need for buffering, it fails to secure a defined, policy-compliant buffer of sufficient width. Best practice, supported by the Woodland Trust, indicates:
• A minimum 50 metre buffer between ancient woodland and development
• Larger buffers (up to 100 metres) where development is of significant scale or intensity
Given the scale of this allocation, we do not consider that the policy provides sufficient certainty that unacceptable edge effects can be avoided.
________________________________________
c) Conflict with Strategic Biodiversity Priorities
National datasets identify this area as forming part of the Woodland Priority Habitat Network (England) with High Spatial Priority. Such areas are intended to:
• Buffer and expand existing woodland
• Improve habitat connectivity
• Deliver nature recovery at scale
Allocating high-density housing in this location fundamentally conflicts with these objectives and undermines the Plan’s alignment with the Essex LNRS and Policy ST2.
________________________________________
d) Soundness Concerns
In its current form, Policy PP29 raises concerns in relation to the tests of soundness, in particular:
• Positively Prepared – by failing to avoid foreseeable harm to irreplaceable habitats
• Justified – by selecting a site with clear environmental constraints where less sensitive alternatives may exist
• Consistent with National Policy – given the NPPF’s strong protection for ancient woodland
________________________________________
7. Recommendations
To address these issues, the Woodland Trust recommends that the Council:
1. Removes or significantly revises Policy PP29 to avoid development that would result in deterioration of Pits Wood ASNW; or
2. Substantially reduces the scale of development and secures:
o A minimum 50–100 metre semi-natural buffer, excluded from private gardens
o Explicit policy wording reflecting NPPF protections for irreplaceable habitats
o Long-term management and monitoring arrangements in perpetuity
Without these changes, we consider that Policy PP29 risks causing irreversible harm and undermining the environmental integrity of the Local Plan.
________________________________________
8. Conclusion
The Woodland Trust supports Colchester City Council’s ambition to deliver a Local Plan that responds to the climate and ecological emergencies. However, this ambition must be reflected consistently across both strategic policies and site allocations.
Ancient woodland is irreplaceable. Once degraded, it cannot be recreated elsewhere. The precautionary principle must therefore apply at plan-making stage.
We would welcome ongoing engagement with the Council to help identify alternative approaches that meet housing needs while safeguarding Colchester’s most valuable natural assets.

Although the wording of this Proposed Local Plan is laudable and the goals are positive and, I believe, correct, I am writing from the atypical perspective of living on Mersea Island. An attempt shall be made to comment on those points that are not appropriate for Mersea.

Directing the greatest growth to the least constrained locations should be a core principle, but unfortunately the housing allocations were made before the infrastructure audit was complete.

As a result the biggest allocation has been made to two sites (at Marks Tey) which are undeliverable until the A12 and A120 constraints have been resolved.

Another major allocation (at Langham) is undeliverable until local sewage problems have been resolved.

Given the length of section 2 the 100 word limit is insufficient for all my objections to it so I have included them as an attachment.

2.7 says “Essex is the most water stressed county in the country. The situation is expected to get worse due to climate change, population growth and the need to restore, protect and enhance the natural environment.” Yet CCC are proposing 20,800 new dwellings. There is no mention in the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025 as to where the water is the water to come from to supply all these dwellings.

2.14 The city expanding into the surrounding countryside which form part of its jurisdiction, turning villages into featureless suburbs in the urban sprawl of Greater Colchester, was a predicted negative outcome of the bid for city status and the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025 shows this is what Colchester City Council is now seeking to achieve.

This view is supported by the fact that in December 2024, Colchester City Council submitted a response to the Government’s New Towns Taskforce Call for Evidence, identifying Marks Tey as a location worth exploring for significant growth. It was done without the knowledge of most Councillors, it was never discussed at the Local Plan Committee, or at any other public meeting, and even the senior Councillor in charge of Planning was either not aware of it or not supportive. No public consultation took place. It was the action of one planning officer acting with one senior councillor. It was only bright to public notice by a Freedom of Information request.

It was never clear if the 20,000 houses it would lead to, would count towards the Council’s housing target anyway. It was only withdrawn because once subjected to public scrutiny it was found those responsible for submitting it had no authority to do so. This action clearly shows that prejudice in favour of large-scale development at Marks Tey exists with certain senior officers and councillors at Colchester City Council so even before any other objections are taken into account, on this basis alone any proposal for the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town should be permanently withdrawn from the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025.

2.19 Growth is not inevitable and should be resisted at all costs. The population is declining and the Government by their recent own admission are not setting annual targets for housing but expect them to be achieved by the end of this parliament. It is widely reported that this will not be achievable. The Government are also unable to justify the overall housing target they have set. It is said that there is a need for affordable and social housing and this may well be the case. However, developers will and are already doing everything they can to avoid building these. They also do everything they can to get out of any promised infrastructure or community enhancements linked to their schemes, They prefer large three or more bedroom “executive” houses which are very expensive. These do nothing to solve the so called “housing crisis”.

They deliberately build at a slow rate and sit on planning permissions to throttle supply and keep demand, and therefore prices, high so they can increase their profits which is their only motivation. If they don’t continually build, they go bust. Development on greenfield sites is purely so the landowner can profit by selling to developers and the developers can profit from building. Building on green field sites is also more profitable than brownfield sites as the latter require clearance and sometimes decontamination.

This plan achieves neither of the objectives defined in the vision statement of 2.19. If the Government and the Council were genuine in their desire to provide affordable housing, they would not be putting forward these proposals, which only fill the pockets of landowners and developers. Instead, they would be proposing to build high quality council homes, which are in keeping with their surroundings and have adequate infrastructure built with them. These would be available to rent or buy with an at cost council mortgage. They would not be available for housing associations from areas outside of the Colchester City region or other councils to buy. They would only be available for those on the local housing list. When Colchester City Council is abolished, the new authority, should continue to offer them only to those on the housing list from the former Colchester City Council area.

2.21 Developments such as those proposed in PP17 and PP18 do nothing to “Protect stretches of undeveloped countryside, enhance the quality of natural environment creating net gains to biodiversity.” Quite the opposite, large so called garden communities or growth areas, which in reality are new towns, will achieve the opposite to this ambition.

The Vision needs to be more explicit in recognising the challenge
created by the new housing numbers the City has to accommodate,
particularly in those areas that have not seen this scale of
development in the last 50 years. There needs to be a clear
commitment embedded in the Vision to mitigate the impact of major
housing growth and for the Plan to demonstrate evidence of how this
mitigation will be delivered. The Vision and Plan as drafted are too
vague for the scale of the task

Spencer Planning Limited acts on behalf of Laura Brown, the owner of 0.84 hectares (ha) of former paddock / grassland adjacent to Nightingale Corner at The Folley, Layer de la Haye, as set out on the accompanying Site Location Plan (drawing no. OS-020-01).

Our client supports the Vision at paragraph 2.19 of the Local Plan Regulation 18 document, including its recognition that the local authority area will grow and change, and that this brings with it opportunity.

The Vision needs to be more explicit in recognising the challenge created by the new housing numbers the City has to accommodate, particularly in those areas that have not seen this scale of development in the last 50 years. There needs to be a clear commitment embedded in the Vision to mitigate the impact of major housing growth and for the Plan to demonstrate evidence of how this mitigation will be delivered. The Vision and Plan as drafted are too vague for the scale of the task.

Spencer Planning Limited acts on behalf of Tey Gardens LLP, the owner of 5.3 hectares (ha) of land at Tey Gardens, to the north of the A120 and east of Church Lane in Little Tey, as set out on the accompanying Site Location Plan (drawing no. OS-022-01).

Our client supports the Vision at paragraph 2.19 of the Local Plan Regulation 18 document, including its recognition that the local authority area will grow and change, and that this brings with it opportunity.

Themes and Objectives
Create communities which reduce the need to travel, particularly by car for most of their daily needs. See also NPPF Para. 109 & 110 Promoting sustainable transport.
Comment:
Mersea Island can hardly be proposed as an area meeting these objectives with all the issues outlined and concerns due to access route onto the Island.
One of Mersea Island Red Squirrels photo Chrissie Westgate

None of the themes and objectives are met by imposing 900 new homes on farmland in the heart of Langham. The diversity offered by small rural villages in the orbit of the city and bordering Constable country is a prized Colchester asset and should be protected going forward. Any new housing development should be sympathetic to the village environment and of a size and scale which can be assimilated by the current community. In this way, new residents would be welcomed and integrated. This Plan is developer-led and has been post-rationalised. Has compulsory purchase of more appropriate sites been considered?

We refer to your plans/consultation for the development of 900 houses on agricultural land north of Park Lane, Langham, Essex.

We both as residents of Langham, Essex object in the strongest terms possible to these ridiculous and unsustainable plans/consultations.
We find the whole matter very badly though out by Colchester City Council with no regard to the implications and subsequent consequences
which are numerous and alarming,

The most relevant policies which we have to comment are as follows;

1. Chapter 2- Vision & Approach.

Points 2.6 & 2.7, The matter of water levels will increase dramatically with waste water and sewerage from 900 houses. The water table levels are
already high in Langham with flooding a regular problem. if you research these issues you will see the problem that already exists. Anglian Water
will take years to put a decent sewerage plant in place let alone manage to fund it.
Point 2.13 & 2.20, In your consultation you state quite clearly the need to double natural greenspace in the future. We can see from the map/plans that
apart from space for a cricket pitch there are no plans or evidence of any greenspace.
Point 2.14, You again clearly state your policy is to create 1300 new homes per year in and around Colchester. So why build 900 homes in one place in a year? This goes against your own policy.

2. Policy ST7- Infrastructure Delivery & Impact Mitigation,

Point 3.65, This states that all the categories must be implemented. We seriously doubt if they can and will be implemented. Also we very much doubt
that sufficient contributions will be received from Developers. There are no plans for infrastructure or mentioned what these will entail. The scale of
another 900 houses means that shops, schools, doctors, will be needed.

3. Policy ST8- Place Shaping Principles.

We advise that you will not be protecting the natural environment. Drainage will be a major concern, already Langham has problems with this issue.
All the streets currently have no lighting at all and we cannot see this changing making it very dangerous and not safe in non daylight hours.
Transport in the village will become a major issue with no thought to developers traffic, excessive number of cars in village on roads already not suitable for todays traffic, There will be further issues with the A12 traffic junction to Langham from the Colchester direction, already a tight dangerous
junction.

4. Policy LC1 - Landscape.

Point 6.5, This in no way ever happen if 900 houses built.

5. Policy PP37 - Land north of Park Lane, Langham.

We cannot see that any of the points in a to p would be implemented or sustained if 900m houses are built.

We advise that the cumulative impact of all the issues, challenges, and uncertainties raised above means that the site allocation is very unlikely
to prove desirable in compliance with the NPPF deliverability definitions.

We both fully endorse and support Langham Parish Council's response to the Regulation 18 Local Plan Consultation involving the proposed 900
new houses in Langham.

In summary we object to the plans to build 900 houses in Langham and find this totally unsuitable, unsustainable, and just not viable regarding
Transport, Environment, Infrastructure, Funding issues and non-compliance in every respect of Colchester City Council's Principles.

If any housing has to be implemented in Langham we suggest initially maximum 300 houses in the short term, then further 300 in 5 years time, and last 300 five years after that. Even this is too much for such a small village.

Yours faithfully, Colin Strutt and Valerie Stone

While it is natural to be suspicious of change, we support 2.19 - the vision to provide growth and opportunities in a well thought out and structured way, rather than a piecemeal approach.

P12-13

Explicit bullet points under healthy, vibrant and diverse places to link back the health and wellbeing overarching theme and strategic objective with a strong focus on prevention

• “Create healthier food environments by managing the location and concentration of unhealthy food outlets to tackle obesity and diet-related inequalities” (links to policy PC1)
“Protect and enhance the environment to prioritise the prevention of ill-health and support mental and physical wellbeing”

P11-12 2.19

This will be achieved through provision of new open spaces, biodiversity net gain, and wildlife corridors to create better connections between habitats and people, supporting physical and mental wellbeing. Healthy food environments will be promoted by enabling access to affordable nutritious food, supporting local food growing initiatives, and managing the density of unhealthy food outlets. Colchester will have a real sense of community and be welcoming and inclusive—a destination of choice. Sustainable and inclusive communities will be created with a focus on diversity of place and valuing what is unique to Colchester—the countryside, coast, and city. Communities will have a varied mix of housing to meet the needs of all, including social and lower income households; and a range of jobs, including careers, that support a strong local economy and reduce the need for residents to commute outside of Colchester. Colchester's distinctive arts, culture, heritage, and tourism will improve the quality of life for residents, foster life-long learning, and boost the local economy. There will be enhanced public transport corridors and routes and an increase in active travel, reducing air pollution and promoting healthier lifestyles. Infrastructure will be future-proofed and delivered where it is needed, with innovative solutions that respond to climate change and support community health.

Greenspace and access to nature has benefits for physical and mental health. The ICB agrees that open spaces and waterways are essential components of resilient, healthy and sustainable communities and will support Colchester City Council in aiming to make these important factors with each planning application. The aim to double the amount of natural greenspace whilst trying to meet the levels of residential growth set out in the NPPF is admirable and the ICB will support this through the planning process.

In central open space developers should establish of seating in open spaces and along walkways to provide the opportunity for residents to meet and supports those who have limited mobility to rest and enjoy the surrounding green space.

This is a very encouraging statement and the ICB is very supportive of the intentions of the local plan. The ICB will continue to work with Colchester City Council to promote healthier and active lifestyles and to begin to implement the NHS 10-Year Plan.

ECC Public Health welcome and support that health and wellbeing outcomes are considered as an overarching theme and a strategic objective for the Local Plan that is embedded throughout the policies in the Local Plan.

EEAST would request the Council ensure via a s106 contribution sufficient defibrillators are provided for the new community. This should include the cost of the device, an outdoor rated heated cabinet and the associated consumables, as well as the ongoing maintenance costs for a period of 10-years (circa £,500 per device). The cabinet needs to be located where there is electrical power and sufficient footfall to provide benefits to the new community. Research indicates 800 meters is the maximum distance to fetch a defibrillator. The s106 could be allocated either to the local parish council or to EEAST.

Thank you for consulting Chelmsford City Council (CCC) on the emerging Colchester Local Plan (Regulation 18 Preferred Options) and for the opportunity to comment at this formative stage. CCC welcomes continued cooperation on strategic cross‑boundary matters that may affect CCC’s administrative area.

Support is offered for the Vision as it supports healthy lifestyles by maximising the opportunities provided through well connected green networks. The vision would align with Sport England’s Uniting the Movement Strategy and Government policy in paragraph 96 of the NPPF. The content of paragraph 2.2 of the supporting text is particularly supported as it recognises the important role that planning and design play in creating opportunities for healthy and active lifestyles.

I feel that the plan is not well thought out, and will be impossible to achieve

not achievable

The Councils view of Marks Tey as a sustainable location for development and the allocations under policies PP17 and PP18 are supported, however, we do have some concerns particularly in relation to the level of development that can be achieved within the plan period in light of the significant infrastructure improvements that are required for development of this scale, and which can often take some time to work through. This needs to be taken into consideration. In this regard it is suggested that alongside the extension of the plan period further allocations are required at Marks Tey in the short-term.

Why have you made this so difficult to comment?