TA will mitigate against any mass of housing or water requirements

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policy NZ3 due to the lack of certainty around water supply and wastewater capacity. The policy does not demonstrate that infrastructure upgrades will be delivered in step with development, particularly in areas already experiencing pressure. Without clear evidence of capacity or delivery mechanisms, the policy risks environmental harm and unsustainable growth

Langham had permission for 70 houses to be built of which only 35 were completed due to lack of water and sewage provision. Until the extra 35 houses can be completed how on earth can 900 extra houses even be contemplated. There are people constantly flooded with sewage in the village, which is never properly resolved. 900 extra houses is insanity.

There is clear local evidence that both water supply and waste water management cannot cope with existing demands let alone the significant increase in new homes.
For PP29 and PP17 -a total of 1800 homes-Copford WRC only has 33% spare capacity, insufficient to deal with this number(and 630 currently due to be built off London Road)
Living in the driest area of the UK, water supply is a key driver and it is most unlikely that the increase in demand can be met.

As mentioned elsewhere, any development reliant on Tiptree Sewage Works (TSW) processing that does not include pro rated processing to prevent increased run-off to Salcott would violate this as it would increase flood risk in Salcott.

Kicking the can down the road is unacceptable and S106 for any development dependent on TSW should be of sufficient magnitude to provide necessary improvements to prevent increased run-off.

The area is subject to flooding, fields and roads are waterlogged during heavy or prolonged rain,

Anglian Water operates within five-year regulated investment cycles approved by Ofwat, and appears unable to respond to the acceleration in housebuilding. As a result:
• The Plan limits new builds to 80 litres a day, an extreme measure
• AW is objecting to new builds such as 150 new homes in Gt Horkesley due to insufficient sewage treatment capacity
• Either growth will be constrained or serious environmental damage will follow
This needs to be clearly laid out in the plan which would then support a statement of common ground with Anglian Water and well-informed lobbying of Offwat.

I object to the provision for waste water at the Langham 900 site. There have been problems due to lack of capacity in Langham and one small development has been halted due to the low capacity of the Langham waste water plant.How can 900 homes be connected to that system?Anglian Water would need to make significant changes to suit such an increase in need in advance of the building work . What assurances have been agreed?

WBPC supports this policy and particularly agrees with “The Council will work with Anglian Water, Affinity Water, the Environment Agency and developers to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the water supply and wastewater infrastructure to serve new development. Where necessary, improvements to water supply infrastructure, wastewater treatment and off-site drainage should be made ahead of the occupation of dwellings to ensure compliance with environmental legislation”. For evidence in support of this Policy, see Section 2 of Anglian Water attached document, and see WBPC Summary of Local Meeting 15th December 2025, and Minutes of Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting 7/1/2026.

WBPC supports this policy and agrees with “Proposals within the catchments of the following Water Recycling Centres: Dedham, … and West Bergholt must demonstrate they have confirmed with Anglian Water Services that treatment capacity at the Water Recycling Centre (WRC) is available to serve the development at the point of anticipated connection and where appropriate phasing triggers to support development to be agreed”; and “Development within the drainage catchments of Copford, … and West Bergholt WRCs must not discharge surface water to the foul sewer network”.

For policy support evidence see Section 2 of attached Anglian Water document, also see West Bergholt PC Summary of Local Meeting 15th December 2025, and Minutes of Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting 7/1/2026.

Policy NZ3 requires that new development has adequate wastewater treatment and water supply infrastructure in place before occupation, and that development does not compromise environmental quality or designated sites.
Key issues for Colchester:
1. Wastewater Capacity
i) The Local Plan does not provide evidence that the Water Recycling Centre (WRC) can accommodate the additional load from proposed development, including existing allocations (~280 homes) and new allocations (~600 homes in total).
ii) The only operational change (increased storm flow) does not address treatment capacity for new housing.
2. Environmental Impacts
i) Additional effluent threatens the Essex Estuaries SAC and Blackwater, Crouch, Roach and Colne Estuaries MCZ, both in unfavourable condition and under active recovery
ii) Increased nutrient, bacterial, and chemical loading would undermine biodiversity net gain (EN3), damage landscape and coastal character (LC1/LC3), and hinder the objectives of
ST2/ST3.
3. Cumulative Impacts
NZ3 requires infrastructure planning to consider cumulative impacts. A full assessment must include all existing and proposed dwellings to ensure the WRC and water supply can support growth without environmental harm.
4. Recommendation
Before further allocations, CCC must assess cumulative wastewater impacts, provide clear evidence of WRC capacity, and ensure mitigation measures are in place to protect sensitive coastal and estuarine habitats.
Economic Impacts of Pollution on Mersea
“Policy EN1: Nature Conservation Designated Sites – Development proposals that have adverse effects on the integrity of habitats, designated sites, or Sites of Special Scientific Interest, either alone or in combination, will not be supported.”
Oyster Industry:
i) Native oyster beds in the MCZ are highly sensitive to nutrient, bacterial, and chemical loading.
ii)Pollution from WRC effluent or CSO events could degrade water quality, halt oyster recovery, and directly threaten the livelihoods of local oystermen.
Tourism and Recreation:
i) Elevated bacterial and chemical levels in estuaries and bathing waters reduce recreational value.
ii) Tourism, water sports, and hospitality businesses would suffer significant economic losses if water quality declines.
Cumulative and Event-Based Pollution:
i) CSO spikes and cumulative discharges from existing and proposed housing developments amplify these risks.
ii) Unmanaged or poorly mitigated wastewater discharge threatens the long-term sustainability of both aquaculture and coastal tourism, key economic drivers for the area.
Policy Implications:
i) Without infrastructure upgrades and proper wastewater management, economic impacts are inevitable, alongside environmental degradation.
ii) Local Plan policies (LC1, LC3, EN3, ST2/ST3, NZ3) must explicitly consider economic as well as ecological consequences of additional pollution.

The first paragraph sounds reassuring, but basically the whole water supply/waste water issue is unanswered. Looking at the Colchester Infrastructure Audit and delivery Plan Stage 3 makes for worrying reading. The Environment Agency classes the area as "under serious water stress" (5.5.1). The report was completed in October 2025 and in 5.5.4 already lists Essex South WRZ as having a deficit predicted for 2025! For waste water table 5-16 shows capacity exceeded by 2031, with no growth plan identified. The Medium and Long term Proposals both list "Wait and see", which would be funny if not so disturbing. You say that necessary improvements should be made before occupation of dwellings, so everything is on hold essentially. The requirement to only use 80l. per person per day is great, but can it be achieved when current average usage is 142l.? What happens if this is exceeded, is someone fined, or we just all run out of water.

Bloor Homes acknowledge the importance of residential growth being supported by investment in existing and new water infrastructure. The Preferred Options Local Plan (POLP), Infrastructure Audit and Delivery Plan (October 2025) and the Water Cycle Study (February 2025) all acknowledge capacity pressures at various locations in Colchester.

The evidence base documents referenced above identify capacity issues and, in some cases, potential solutions and funding streams to address capacity shortfalls. The same documents also identify capacity issues in other locations, with no solutions or funding in place. The latter being in locations where the Pre-Submission Local Plan (POLP) is proposing growth.

In proactively and positively planning for growth the Council have a key role to play in phasing development and ensuring solutions are in place to support development coming forward at the planning application stage and implementation stage.

In planning policy terms, Bloor Homes currently object to paragraph 6 of Draft Policy NZ3 which requires Applicants to work with Anglian Water to confirm capacity at named Water Recycling Centres at the point of anticipated connection. Similar statements are contained in policies relating to site allocations i.e. growth planned for and promoted by the Council. It is for the Council to work with their partners to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in place as part of preparing the new Local Plan and assigning growth to areas with existing and identified pressures.

The use of a Grampian Condition limiting the occupancy, as per the Council’s current Development Management approach, is not an appropriate or robust strategy to support the delivery of new homes.

If this further work is not undertaken and solutions agreed between the Council and Anglian Water, housing delivery will stall and consequently the minimum housing requirements may not be met.

We agree that the Council should work with Anglian Water to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the water supply and wastewater infrastructure to serve new development.

Alarmingly, there is currently inadequate waste water treatment capacity and an inadequate supply of potable water in West Bergholt. There are no plans to expand/upgrade the West Bergholt Water Recycling Centre in the 2026 – 2030 period.

The part of the policy that reads:

Where necessary, improvements to water supply infrastructure, wastewater treatment and off-site drainage should be made ahead of the occupation of dwellings to ensure compliance with environmental legislation.

is therefore in direct conflict with the rest of the policy and with the rest of the plan. No new housing will be able to be delivered in areas with water and waste water capacity issues until such time as these issues are addressed. This could delay the delivery of new housing in these areas until late in the plan period (or even beyond it), especially given the absence of any programme for addressing the issues, by which time delivery within the plan period will likely be unachievable.

Proposed change(s):

The part of the policy that currently reads:

Proposals within the catchments of the following Water Recycling Centres: Dedham, Fingringhoe, Great Tey, Langham and West Bergholt must demonstrate they have confirmed with Anglian Water Services that treatment capacity at the Water Recycling Centre (WRC) is available to serve the development at the point of anticipated connection and where appropriate phasing triggers to support development to be agreed.

should be amended to read:

Anglian Water has a legal duty to provide sufficient capacity at Water Recycling Centres to accommodate new development. Anglian Water should increase the WRC capacity in the following catchments: Dedham, Fingringhoe, Great Tey, Langham and West Bergholt, in time to allow new developments within these catchments to be built and occupied within two years of the plan’s adoption.

Water quality, and the impact of recent unsustainable development on waste-water impact on our coastline and the Blackwater has been a topic of considerable concern to West Mersea.

Independent toxicology reports have led to concerns particular when compared with Anglian Water's questionable reporting on their ability to satisfy waste water processing on West Mersea without serious impact on the quality of water in The Blackwater and the native oyster industry which is very much a part of the history and culture of the Island, and an important source of tourism for West Mersea.

Further development of the Island isn't sustainable.

See attachment with detailed comments on numerous policies. Anglian Water welcomes the opportunity to contribute comments on the Draft
Local Plan for Colchester City Council. We consider that the Plan is well set out with in relation
to managing flood risk, surface water and wastewater, and enabling water efficiency. We
recognise the challenges for meeting the uplift in housing requirements and the
infrastructure required to help deliver future growth across the district, with the main
focus being Colchester and the larger towns.
We have raised some policy matters relating to consistency between policies addressing surface
water flood risk, water supply, and wastewater, and how these matters are attributed to site
allocation policies.
We look forward to continuing our positive and proactive discussions with the Council in
respect of our comments and the next iteration of the Local Plan, including supporting updates
to the evidence base if required

TWSL object to the proposed requirement within draft Policy NZ3 for all new dwellings to achieve a water efficiency standard of 80 litres per person per day (l/p/d). This primarily because the proposed figure is significantly greater than proposals by the Department for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs to revise the minimum Water Efficiency Standard from 125 l/p/d to 105 l/p/d, as well as the optional technical standard from 110 l/p/d to 100 l/p/d in areas of serious water stress. Regard should be had for the potential viability issues from overly strenuous requirements.

Please refer to Lichfields written representations letter obo Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land, dated 14 January 2026.

Please see comments in document submitted across a variety of policy areas.

Hopkins Homes are pleased to see that the Council has identified the land north of
Colchester Road as a site-specific allocation and included Policy PP43 within the Preferred
Options consultation draft.
We agree with the Council that the site is a suitable location for future residential
development and can be delivered within the plan period to make a significant contribution to
housing delivery and meeting the housing needs of Colchester.

Please see attached document for the rest of our representations.

see attached

see attached

SEE ATTACHED

Officer summary of full submission. See attachment with detailed comments on numerous policies:
The overall message is one of support for CCC undertaking a review of the adopted Local Plan to ensure an up to date plan prepared in accordance with the NPPF is in place. ECC will continue the on-going engagement with CCC, through the Duty (or any replacement), to assist progress of the Plan to Regulation 19 (the Pre-Submission Plan), particularly with regards the strategic and cross boundary implications, including cumulative issues and opportunities arising from growth to ensure that the infrastructure requirements are identified, quantified, costed and phased where appropriate. ECC service areas have clearly outlined where further collaborative work/assessment needs to be undertaken (e.g. education provision and ongoing transportation modelling) to refine and resolve an issue; and ECC will continue to be engaged, alongside NH, on the proposals which have an impact on the A12 strategic transport corridor, in particular A12 junctions 25 to 28, A12 widening and junction improvements, and the A120 Corridor Maks Tey to Braintree.

There is support for the Draft Plan’s vision which covers environmental, social and economic needs and emphasises healthy living environments and green networks, environmental protection and economic growth. There is support that the mandatory housing target will be met in full and exceeded over the Plan period in accordance with the NPPF, and that future employment needs will be met (noting that some clarifications are sought) by providing a range in scale of additional employment land supply. ECC provides strong support for policies related to net zero carbon (in operation and embodied), water efficiency, health and well-being, and the environment (green and blue infrastructure and BNG. Recommendations are made throughout the response on policy wording (including policy omissions) and justification to strengthen clarity, effectiveness and delivery.

There is strong support for the inclusion of site-specific Place Policies and references to infrastructure requirements, but these will need to be reviewed and confirmed with ECC following this consultation and the agreement of a final spatial strategy by CCC. It is noted there are some omissions in the Draft Plan such as the allocation of a new secondary school. On this issue, ECC acknowledges the requirement is stated in the Infrastructure Assessment Delivery Plan (Stage 3) for site allocation PP18 Land North of A120 Marks Tey; and in the Infrastructure Topic Paper prepared by CCC, where Appendix A lists the infrastructure requirements for the preferred options site allocations (including those for education). Land for the secondary school (and all education requirements) will need to be allocated in the Pre-Submission Plan.

The review of the IDP and full plan viability assessment are key documents for ECC engagement and input following this round of consultation. The Viability Assessment will need to be reviewed following consultation to ensure it can align with the most up to date evidence relating to the EPOA net zero development policies and its viability evidence. Mention is also made in the response to specific localities and sites – notably Marks Tey and Langham – where discussion needs to take place and recommendations are made to ensure effective delivery if these proposed allocations are taken forward to the Pre-Submission Plan.