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.

Covered in depth herein

We support the overall direction of Policy EN6, and particularly the requirement for Heritage Impact Assessments for proposals related to or impacting on the setting of heritage assets. However, we recommend that the Council review the first paragraph, which addresses substantial harm to or total loss of significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets, to ensure consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Distinction between designated and non-designated heritage assets
It is particularly important that the policy distinguishes clearly between the tests of harm applicable to designated and non-designated heritage assets. Paragraph 214 of the NPPF sets out a high bar for substantial harm or total loss of designated heritage assets, requiring clear and convincing justification and demonstration of substantial public benefits. In contrast, paragraph 216 requires a balanced judgement for non-designated heritage assets, having regard to the scale of harm and the asset’s significance. These distinct approaches should be reflected accurately in the policy wording to avoid conflation.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of 900 houses on land north of Park Lane, Langham. This proposal conflicts with the Colchester Local Plan (2017–2033) – Section 2, Chapter 2: Vision and Approach, and the following policies:

• Policy ST3 – Spatial Strategy: Langham is designated as an “Other Village,” suitable only for limited growth. A scheme of this scale is disproportionate and contrary to ST3.
• Policy ST7 – Infrastructure Delivery and Impact Mitigation: The development lacks adequate infrastructure provision and fails to mitigate adverse impacts on local services and transport.
• Policy ST8 – Place Shaping Principles: The proposal disregards local character, landscape setting, and community identity.
• Policy EN6 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment: The development would harm the setting of heritage assets within Langham.
• Policy LC1 – Landscape: The scheme would irreversibly alter the rural landscape and sever the visual link between village and countryside.
• Policy PP37 – Development in Rural Areas – Langham: Large-scale development is incompatible with Langham’s designation and rural character.

The application is inconsistent with the Local Plan’s vision for sustainable, proportionate growth and should therefore be refused.

Thank you for considering my objection.

Kind regards,
Justin Scofield

No development north of A120 (PP18) must come after the A120 has been fully upgraded

agree

West Bergholt Parish Council supports this policy.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of 900 new dwellings north of Park Lane in Langham. This proposal conflicts with the objectives and policies set out in the Colchester Local Plan (2017–2033), in particular Section 2, Chapter 2: Vision and Approach, as well as the following relevant policies:

Policy ST1 – Health and Wellbeing: This policy fails to properly consider the negative consequences for the health and wellbeing of existing Langham residents

Policy ST3 – Spatial Strategy: Langham is designated as an “Other Village,” where only limited and proportionate growth is intended. The scale of the proposed development is wholly disproportionate and far exceeds what could reasonably be described as modest expansion, placing it in direct conflict with Policy ST3.

Policy ST4 – Development in the Countryside: A development of approximately 900 homes would fundamentally alter Langham’s role as a rural village.

Policy ST7 – Infrastructure Delivery and Impact Mitigation: The proposal does not include for suitable infrastructure to be delivered to support such a significant increase in population.

Policy ST8 – Place Shaping Principles: The development does not positively contribute to the village’s identity or integrate sensitively with the existing community.

Policy EN6 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment: The scale and nature of the development would undermine the village’s historical character.

Policy LC1 – Landscape: The proposals would result in a permanent and damaging alteration to the surrounding countryside, severing the visual and physical relationship between the village and its rural landscape.

Policy PP37 – Development in Rural Areas – Langham: Largwe-scale housing developments are incompatible with Langham’s rural designation and village status. The proposed scheme is therefore inappropriate in both scale and character for this location.

I am disappointed in how the council has failed to ensure that the older population, like myself, can access the information regarding these developments, and then the ways in which to respond, Not everyone has access to the internet and it's only because my daughter told me about the development that I was made aware. I feel that the council was excluding my opinion and those of my generation.

This proposal fails to align with the Local Plan’s ambitions for sustainable and balanced development. On this basis, I respectfully urge that the application be refused.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of 900 new dwellings north of Park Lane in Langham. This proposal conflicts with the objectives and policies set out in the Colchester Local Plan (2017–2033), in particular Section 2, Chapter 2: Vision and Approach, as well as the following relevant policies:

Policy ST1 – Health and Wellbeing: This policy fails to properly consider the negative consequences for the health and wellbeing of existing Langham residents, many of whom chose to live here because of the open green spaces, access to wildlife, and strong connection to the surrounding rural environment. The proposed development area would eradicate these features, replacing valued open views and natural landscapes with dense housing, to the clear detriment of residents’ quality of life.

Policy ST3 – Spatial Strategy: Langham is designated as an “Other Village,” where only limited and proportionate growth is intended. The scale of the proposed development is wholly disproportionate and far exceeds what could reasonably be described as modest expansion, placing it in direct conflict with Policy ST3.

Policy ST4 – Development in the Countryside: This policy emphasises that development should not harm settlement identity, valued landscapes, countryside character, or visual amenity. A development of approximately 900 homes would fundamentally alter Langham’s role as a rural village, eroding its distinct identity and resulting in the irreversible loss of its countryside setting.

Policy ST7 – Infrastructure Delivery and Impact Mitigation: The proposal does not demonstrate that adequate infrastructure will be delivered to support such a significant increase in population. In particular, the impacts on local services, facilities, and the transport network have not been satisfactorily addressed.

Policy ST8 – Place Shaping Principles: The development fails to respect or reflect the established character, landscape setting, and sense of place that define Langham. As proposed, it does not positively contribute to the village’s identity or integrate sensitively with the existing community.

Policy EN6 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment: The scale and nature of the development would cause harm to Langham’s historic environment, adversely affecting heritage assets and undermining the village’s historical character.

Policy LC1 – Landscape: The proposals would result in a permanent and damaging alteration to the surrounding countryside, severing the visual and physical relationship between the village and its rural landscape.

Policy PP37 – Development in Rural Areas – Langham: Large-scale housing developments are incompatible with Langham’s rural designation and village status. The proposed scheme is therefore inappropriate in both scale and character for this location.

I would also like to add that the way residents are required to respond to the Local Plan (or even to know about it) alienates many, who like myself are of the older generation, and find navigating websites and in particular the consultation documents confusing or may not have online access at all. It is only because I am being helped by my daughter that I am in a position to lodge my objection, otherwise my voice would go unheard (which makes me feel this is part of the Council’s plan).

In summary, this proposal fails to align with the Local Plan’s ambitions for sustainable and balanced development. On this basis, I respectfully urge that the application be refused.

Thank you for considering my objection.

Roman Mosaics must be incorporated into the design of any new development. The era of lifting mosaics out of the ground is over.

I assume this protection extends to farm land and woodland with historical significance. the history of Bullock Wood SSSI, a classified ancient woodland, can be traced back to the 1200's, so is as much a part of our historical culture as a building. Also it's setting should be protected and not lost amongst developments. I think you would agree that Dedham Vale AONB is defined as much by it's natural setting as it's buildings?

Stanfords Colchester LLP has submitted detailed representations on this draft policy; please refer to the attached document

Draft Policy EN6 sets out the Council's approach to the historic environment, including in relation to designated and non-designated heritage assets, and states that:
"Development that will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a listed building, conservation area, historic park or garden or important archaeological remains, locally significant buildings, non-heritage assets (including the setting of heritage assets) will only be permitted in wholly exceptional circumstances where the harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss".
Whilst the aim to protect designated heritage assets aligns with the provisions of the NPPF, the requirement that development proposals resulting in substantial harm to, or total loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset will only be permitted in 'wholly exceptional circumstances' is unduly onerous when assessed against the NPPF, specifically paragraph 214. This terminology is not used within the NPPF. Instead, paragraph 214 states that local planning authorities should refuse consent for such proposals unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. Paragraph 214 also sets out specific criteria against which proposals that do not deliver substantial public benefits should be assessed. The NPPF does not require applicants to demonstrate the existence of wholly exceptional circumstances.
In order to align with the provisions of the NPPF , it is therefore recommended that the policy wording is amended to remove the requirement for proposals that would result in substantial harm to, or total loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset to demonstrate 'wholly exceptional circumstances,' and instead reflect the tests and criteria set out in paragraph 214 of the NPPF.
It is also noted that the policy also states that:
‘In all cases there will be an expectation that any new development will enhance the historic environment or better reveal the significance of the heritage asset unless there are no identifiable opportunities available'.
Whilst the objective of protecting designated heritage assets is again consistent with the provisions of the of the NPPF the requirements that proposals ‘will’ enhance the significance of heritage assets is overly onerous when considered against the requirements of the NPPF (paragraph 203). This language and requirement is not contained in the NPPF, which states that plans should ‘take into account’ the ‘desirability’ of sustaining and enhancing heritage assets.
In order to align with the provisions of the NPPF, it is therefore recommended that the requirement that all proposals ‘will’ enhance the significance of the Council’s heritage assets is amended.

wish to register my opposition to the Local Plan and the planned construction of 900 new homes north of Park Lane in Langham. This scheme is at odds with the principles and policies outlined in the Colchester Local Plan (2017–2033), specifically Section 2, Chapter 2: Vision and Approach, and the following provisions:

•     Policy ST1: Health and Wellbeing: The policy ignores the crucial feature of a village, especially Langham, which has plenty of green open spaces and opportunities to connect with wildlife and the calm environment. A calm, green village is beneficial to mental health, physical health and people's wellbeing. The plans to strip the fields and build many houses, acts against ST1 and puts people's health at risk. Langham will no longer be a peaceful open green village for an escape of a busy life in cities or in general

•     Policy ST3 – Spatial Strategy: Langham is a quiet village and should remain that way as they aren't many of these left. New policies do not align with ST3, Langham cannot handle the expansion discussed.

•     Policy ST4: Development in the Countryside: The nature of the proposed development is completely at odds with this policy as 900 new homes would destroy Langham as a village and it would completely lose it’s rural nature.

•     Policy ST8 – Place Shaping Principles: The development overlooks the unique qualities, landscape, and identity of the local community. The beauty of a village is its greenery and uniqueness. Building 900 houses, ruins its identity and transforms a lovely village into a mass housing estate.

•     Policy EN6 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment: The project would negatively impact the historic assets and heritage of Langham. Something we should take pride in preserving as an old country with a large history.

•     Policy LC1 – Landscape: The plan would permanently change the countryside and break the visual connection between the village and its rural surroundings.

•     Policy PP37 – Development in Rural Areas – Langham: Large developments are unsuitable for Langham’s status and rural nature.

My objections are not limited to the policies specifically referred to above, many of my reasoning for objections are similar, as the action to build 900 houses has as same overall impact. Overall, the application does not support the Local Plan’s goal for balanced and sustainable growth and should therefore be declined. As a young (17yrs) member of Langham community, it makes me deeply upset at the possibility of the plan to go through as my home is being wrecked for unnecessarily developments that the quiet lovely village I live in will not be able to support. And as environmental issues are being more prominent over these last years to see continuation of stripping up the green from this country and planet is greatly disappointing. I beg that the opinions of the residents are being listened to and acted upon and that as a youth, you will not destroy the countryside and leave the consequences in the hand of us.

SEE ATTACHED