Object
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 11208
Received: 05/12/2025
Respondent: Mr B Ruffle
Further housing development on Mersea Island will overstretch already inadequate infrastructure, particularly water services and the single access route at The Strood, which is prone to delays. Safety concerns related to the nearby Bradwell nuclear site also warrant caution. Recent developments have increased, not reduced, house prices, making homes less affordable for local people. Past affordable housing from the 1960s shows the value of adaptable, reasonably priced homes, which new builds do not provide. Overall, Mersea Island and the wider Colchester area cannot support additional development, and public consultations feel like box-ticking rather than genuine engagement.
I am increasingly concerned that further housing developments on Mersea Island will place additional strain on already inadequate infrastructure, particularly regarding water services and road access to the mainland.
At present, The Strood is the only access route to and from Mersea Island, and it already suffers significant delays whenever roadworks or tidal conditions occur. When I moved to Mersea Island, I was led to believe that new development would be limited due to the need to safely evacuate the island in the event of an incident at the Bradwell nuclear power station. Although the original station has been decommissioned, it continues to store radioactive waste, and there have also been proposals for a new nuclear facility in the future. These considerations should warrant greater caution, not increased development.
Developers often argue that adding new housing will reduce prices by increasing supply. However, recent experience suggests the opposite. When the new homes behind Seaview Avenue were built, their high price points prompted increases in the value of existing properties, ultimately making the area even less affordable for local people.
While the houses built in the 1960s are sometimes criticised, they were genuinely affordable and offered flexibility for future extensions. Very few remain in their original state, demonstrating how important adaptable, reasonably priced housing once was—and how little of it is now being built.
As has been stated many times, the current infrastructure on Mersea Island and across the wider Colchester area simply cannot support additional large-scale development. Despite this, public consultations too often feel like a box-ticking exercise, with decisions appearing predetermined rather than shaped by genuine community input.
I urge planners and decision-makers to reconsider these proposals and prioritise the long-term sustainability and safety of our island community. I am increasingly concerned that further housing developments on Mersea Island will place additional strain on already inadequate infrastructure, particularly regarding water services and road access to the mainland.
At present, The Strood is the only access route to and from Mersea Island, and it already suffers significant delays whenever roadworks or tidal conditions occur. When I moved to Mersea Island, I was led to believe that new development would be limited due to the need to safely evacuate the island in the event of an incident at the Bradwell nuclear power station. Although the original station has been decommissioned, it continues to store radioactive waste, and there have also been proposals for a new nuclear facility in the future. These considerations should warrant greater caution, not increased development.
I urge planners and decision-makers to reconsider these proposals and prioritise the long-term sustainability and safety of our island community.
Comment
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 11289
Received: 09/12/2025
Respondent: Mr Community Campaigner David Barton
Only TA will win this and get support for whichever housing type is actually needed
Only TA will win this and get support for whichever housing type is actually needed
Object
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 11836
Received: 03/01/2026
Respondent: Mr John Tring
Use brownfield sites first.
Use brownfield sites first.
Support
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 12002
Received: 06/01/2026
Respondent: Mrs Amanda Hursey
Housing should be for local people
Housing should be for local people
Comment
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 12305
Received: 09/01/2026
Respondent: Mrs Yvonne Norman
I know that the council has got to build houses for the future but Marks Tey seems to have been earmarked for most of them in one place. 2500 seems a lot of houses when we have two major roads, A12 and A120, which are already chocked up a lot during the day and break the developments into two. We need to see a Master Plan on how infrastructure will be developed which takes vehicles away from these roads and not through the village. What kinds of houses are being proposed and will there be bungalows?
I know that the council has got to build houses for the future but Marks Tey seems to have been earmarked for most of them in one place. 2500 seems a lot of houses when we have two major roads, A12 and A120, which are already chocked up a lot during the day and break the developments into two. We need to see a Master Plan on how infrastructure will be developed which takes vehicles away from these roads and not through the village. What kinds of houses are being proposed and will there be bungalows?
Object
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 12571
Received: 11/01/2026
Respondent: Mrs Eleanor Jenkins
I object to the proportion of one bedroom provision..only 4% yet 4 bedroom houses will be 24%. Thought there was a great need for affordable places for local young people? The 4 bedroom houses will mostly be bought by folk from outside the area as local people may not be able to afford the prices.Will the builders be forced to build the affordable places at the same time as the 4 bedroom ones? As the need is greater?
I object to the proportion of one bedroom provision..only 4% yet 4 bedroom houses will be 24%. Thought there was a great need for affordable places for local young people? The 4 bedroom houses will mostly be bought by folk from outside the area as local people may not be able to afford the prices.Will the builders be forced to build the affordable places at the same time as the 4 bedroom ones? As the need is greater?
Support
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 12745
Received: 12/01/2026
Respondent: West Bergholt Parish Council
West Bergholt Parish Council supports this policy and notes the weight given to neighbourhood plans.
The results of current ‘Housing Needs Surveys’ should also carry some weight within this policy, as evidenced see attached West Bergholt’s Housing Needs Survey, November 2025, pages 2 and 3, Minutes of Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting 7/1/2026, and Housing Need and Density Report.
West Bergholt Parish Council supports this policy and notes the weight given to neighbourhood plans.
The results of current ‘Housing Needs Surveys’ should also carry some weight within this policy, as evidenced see attached West Bergholt’s Housing Needs Survey, November 2025, pages 2 and 3, Minutes of Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting 7/1/2026, and Housing Need and Density Report.
Object
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 12777
Received: 12/01/2026
Respondent: West Mersea Town Council
Should it found necessary to put 300 further dwellings at West Mersea
From WMNP
Policy WM 6 - Housing Mix
In all housing developments of ten or more homes, there shall be an emphasis on providing a higher proportion of one and two bedroomed houses and bungalows within the scheme, unless it can be demonstrated that the particular circumstances relating to the tenure of the housing dictate otherwise or where such provision is demonstrated to not be in accordance with the latest available housing needs information for the Plan Area.
Should it found necessary to put 300 further dwellings at West Mersea
From WMNP
Policy WM 6 - Housing Mix
In all housing developments of ten or more homes, there shall be an emphasis on providing a higher proportion of one and two bedroomed houses and bungalows within the scheme, unless it can be demonstrated that the particular circumstances relating to the tenure of the housing dictate otherwise or where such provision is demonstrated to not be in accordance with the latest available housing needs information for the Plan Area.
Object
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 13416
Received: 13/01/2026
Respondent: Gail Denise Gibbs
not achievable
not achievable
Object
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 13427
Received: 14/01/2026
Respondent: Mrs Karen Warren
1.No infrastructure
2.Duty of care to those here with no medical facilities, schools, sewage, emergency services
3.Renowned Wildlife including migration of birds, red squirrel, snakes,
species studied have declined, nearly one in six species are threatened with extinction.
4. Severe Coastal erosion
5. Emergency evacuation from the island I.e flooding, Bradwell
6. More residents living in caravans not in the headcount
Please don't ignore the devastation this will cause. We can't cope
Mersea island cannot support any further building, we have no doctors, dentist, secondary schools, regular bus or any trains. Sewage is struggling, omotting directly onto oysterbeds. Water pressure is dropping significantly. Environmental and health disaster waiting to happen. In fact, what we do have is flooded roads, pot holes, coastal erosion and an array of rare birds, red squirrels insects and snakes. This island has many documentarys regarding its unique wildlife, bird migration.
Mersea island is water stressed and expected to get worse due to climate change, population growth and the need to restore, protect and enhance the natural environment. Mersea is a high flood risk from the sea and rivers and only one small road off the island. In addition to this, Essex water quality is below the national average as a result of storm overflows discharging sewage into the water supply; pollution from fertilisers and traffic
Do not ignore what you are destroying. The stroid cuts us off, we have thousands more living in caravans most of the year who are not registered.
Comment
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 13497
Received: 12/01/2026
Respondent: Andrew Mattin
Agent: Boyer Planning
Policy H1 relates to housing mix and provides the percentage breakdown of housing mix
requirements within the policy. However, we would welcome some flexibility to be provided in
the percentages to allow for a mix which is reflective of the specific settlements. The policy
should also make reference to any later revisions of the Colchester Local Housing Needs
Assessment, rather than just within the supporting text, to ensure that the mix required is
based on the most recent evidence base.
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.
Comment
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 13532
Received: 14/01/2026
Respondent: Bloor Homes (Eastern)
Agent: Pegasus Group
Bloor Homes welcome the acknowledgement in Policy H1 that an alternative mix could be accepted if it was evidenced as being “more appropriate” at the application stage. However, greater flexibility in approach is required to enable the policy to support further development proposals throughout the Plan period as the housing needs of the local market will change over time. Should the Council wish to pursue its prescriptive approach, a flexibility buffer of 10% should be included in the policy and it is recommended that a five-bedroom category be introduced, or the 4-bedroom category is amended to 4-bedroom +.
Bloor Homes support the concept of new residential development delivering a mix of house types and tenures to meet local needs. The role of tailored and specific evidence, such as the Local Housing Needs Assessment, is also acknowledged by Bloor Homes.
Policy H1 currently seeks a prescriptive and inflexible housing mix for residential planning applications to meet. Bloor Homes welcome the acknowledgement in the policy that an alternative mix could be accepted if it was evidenced as being “more appropriate” at the application stage. However, greater flexibility in approach is required to enable the policy to support further development proposals throughout the Plan period as the housing needs of the local market will change over time. In its current form the Policy will increase delays in the Development Management process as alternative mixes will inevitably need to be proposed, evidenced and agreed.
Should the Council wish to pursue its prescriptive approach, a flexibility buffer of 10% should be included in the policy to allow for variances to meet local demands and overcome design/layout challenges on site. In addition, it is noted that based on the proposed mix the Council do not want or need any five-bedroom houses. Again, this is an inflexible approach, accordingly, it is recommended that a five-bedroom category is introduced, or the 4-bedroom category is amended to 4-bedroom +.
Object
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 13534
Received: 14/01/2026
Respondent: Mersea Homes
Agent: ADP
We object to Policy H1 as currently drafted. The policy is overly prescriptive, insufficiently flexible, and risks undermining housing delivery in Colchester. See attachment.
We object to Policy H1 as currently drafted. The policy is overly prescriptive, insufficiently flexible, and risks undermining housing delivery in Colchester. See attachment.
Object
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 13604
Received: 14/01/2026
Respondent: Mersea Homes
Agent: ADP
We object to Policy H1 as currently drafted. The policy is overly prescriptive, insufficiently flexible, and risks undermining housing delivery in Colchester. See attachment.
We object to Policy H1 as currently drafted. The policy is overly prescriptive, insufficiently flexible, and risks undermining housing delivery in Colchester. See attachment.
Comment
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 13622
Received: 14/01/2026
Respondent: Anchor Hanover
Policy H1 appears to adopt a flexible approach to housing mix and does not prescribe a specific mix for each site. Flexibility in tenure and housing mix is essential to ensure the viability and successful delivery of older persons’ housing developments to meet identified needs. To be effective, the final policy wording should make clear that developments are not required to follow the exact housing mix set out in the table within the policy.
Policy H1 appears to adopt a flexible approach to housing mix and does not prescribe a specific mix for each site. Flexibility in tenure and housing mix is essential to ensure the viability and successful delivery of older persons’ housing developments to meet identified needs. To be effective, the final policy wording should make clear that developments are not required to follow the exact housing mix set out in the table within the policy.
Comment
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 13709
Received: 14/01/2026
Respondent: House Builders Federation
HBF welcomes the flexibility within this policy which allows for other evidence to provide to support an alternative housing mix. This recognises that the LHNA is a snap shot in time across the borough and as such may lack relevance in some locations. However, we would suggest that the table in part a is removed given that the evidence relating to mix could change over time. Part a should simply state that residential development will be supported where it is informed by the most recent local housing needs assessment. informed by most recent local housing needs assessment.
HBF welcomes the flexibility within this policy which allows for other evidence to provide to support an alternative housing mix. This recognises that the LHNA is a snap shot in time across the borough and as such may lack relevance in some locations. However, we would suggest that the table in part a is removed given that the evidence relating to mix could change over time. Part a should simply state that residential development will be supported where it is informed by the most recent local housing needs assessment. informed by most recent local housing needs assessment.
Comment
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 13925
Received: 14/01/2026
Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land
Agent: Lichfields
TWSL acknowledges and supports the need to deliver larger family sized units across Colchester, however the policy should provide flexibility to propose an evidence-based alterative housing mix at the time any application.
Please refer to Lichfields written representations letter obo Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land, dated 14 January 2026.
TWSL acknowledges and supports the need to deliver larger family sized units across Colchester, however the policy should provide flexibility to propose an evidence-based alterative housing mix at the time any application.
Please refer to Lichfields written representations letter obo Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land, dated 14 January 2026.
Comment
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 13970
Received: 14/01/2026
Respondent: Hopkins Homes
Agent: Boyer
Policy H1 should be amended to allow for greater flexibility and allow applicants to consider
the mix of units on a development site based on up-to-date evidence. Policy H1 should be
the starting point to provide certainty for applicants but we are concerned it will be
used in a strict manner by decision makers and provide reasons for refusal that would be
based on evidence which is “not” up to date. The
Council will need to be justified in their approach to mix as the plan evolves but also allow for flexibility as needs evolve over the plan period.
Please see comments in document submitted across a variety of policy areas.
Comment
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 13989
Received: 14/01/2026
Respondent: Boyer
Policy H1 should be amended to allow for greater flexibility and allow applicants to consider
the mix of units on a development site based on up-to-date evidence. Policy H1 should be
the starting point to provide certainty for applicants but we are concerned it will be
used in a strict manner by decision makers and provide reasons for refusal that would be
based on evidence which is “not” up to date. The
Council will need to be justified in their approach to mix as the plan evolves but also allow for flexibility as needs evolve over the plan period.
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.
Comment
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 14273
Received: 13/01/2026
Respondent: Boyer Planning
Policy H1 should be amended to ensure that it is seen as a starting point for considering proposals and not be an absolute guide on the mix of dwellings to be provided. We are concerned that decision makers will use the details in H1 in a strict manner which would fail to respond to changing circumstances and needs. Policy should introduce greater flexibility to ensure that sites in different parts of the area can come forward in a meaningful manner which balance development viability, efficient use of land and have a realistic chance of delivering sustainable development.
Site specific allocation PP14 covers a variety of land parcels and sites that are adjacent to one another, but we are concerned that it will be very difficult for the policy to be truly delivered in a meaningful manner due to the land ownership arrangements and no mechanism within the policy for the site to come forward in a piecemeal manner.
We have attached our detailed response for the site.
Comment
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 14300
Received: 14/01/2026
Respondent: Bellway Strategic Land
Agent: Mr Tom Sharman
It would therefore be helpful for developers such as Bellway to have early confirmation as to the starting point
for proposed housing mixes on strategic sites where an up-to-date Neighbourhood Plan exists. Clarity on this
matter could reduce unnecessary amendments to proposals during the determination period of a planning
application. It is appreciated that where there are two adopted policies on housing mix, there will need to be a
degree of compromise, but Bellway are of the view that this point could be more explicitly set out with specific
reference to Neighbourhood Plans.
SEE ATTACHMENTS
Object
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 14314
Received: 14/01/2026
Respondent: Wellbeck Strategic Land
Agent: Star Planning and Development
Objection is raised because the mix sought for both market and affordable housing in the Table reflects a specific moment in time. It is inevitable the housing need, in terms of the size of dwellings, will inevitably change of the plan period. Accordingly, the policy requirement should be the housing mix should generally align with the latest published SHMA or other evidence which may be produced. It should also be recognised that there can be no ‘one size fits all’ approach to every housing site because there are site-specific and location specific factors which need to be taken into account.
SEE ATTACHED
Comment
Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025
Representation ID: 14320
Received: 14/01/2026
Respondent: RoundShield and Elder
Agent: Savills
We consider that there is an absence in the draft Local Plan of a policy for Build to Rent housing, and similar to co-living, in accordance with Paragraph 16 of the NPPF, there should be a policy in the Plan to ensure it is clear how a decision maker considers the proposals. Policy wording is suggested.
see attached