Regarding the proposal of 2,000 homes in St Johns, If 1,000 children move into those homes and no application to develop a new school is put forward, where are they going for education? The provision doesn't outline new facilities, it simply suggests the council will act positively to applications. Considering most locally are at capacity and bordering schools on this side of town are going to be impacted by large scale housing increases in Manningtree and Elmstead. Families will then have to travel adding further disruption to a road network that is already inadequate.

as previous

The Mersea Island primary school is already overcrowded therefore not large enough. Increasing the housing will make the school unviable

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policies CS1–CS4 because they do not adequately demonstrate how education, healthcare, and community facilities will be delivered in line with planned growth. Existing services are already under pressure, and the policies rely on future provision without firm commitments. This risks worsening access to essential services and undermines the creation of sustainable, balanced

Abberton and Langenhoe only have a primary school which is almost full and a further 60+ houes are planned to be built. There is only limited scope for more and we have no secondary school

The infrastructure audit shows that investment of £207m is required for education, principally for early years, primary and secondary. This should be covered by a Community Infrastructure Levy similar to the £200psm used in Chelmsford. The plan should commit firmly to preparing the necessary SPD in parallel to the plan adoption process.

I object to an aspect of the Education plan. Siting the 900 houses in Langham where all nearby schools lack capacity seems misguided. The children and young people will have to be transported to all places of education by bus/coach down the narrow country lanes adding to the traffic from their parents driving to work.
There is very little public transport in the area and no provision for cycle and walking routes which is too far from Colchester anyway.

Busing of some 400 plus students to two secondary schools with high tides the return trip can be a problem. The buses to TLA are free the other catchment secondary school in Tiptree has to be paid for by the parents.

West Bergholt Parish Council supports this policy.

The indoor and outdoor sports facilities on education sites make a significant contribution to meeting the community’s indoor and outdoor sports facilities in Colchester and this has been evidenced by the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy and Indoor & Built Facilities Strategy which forms the Local Plan’s sports facility evidence base. Most schools in Colchester have formal or informal arrangements to allow community access to their facilities outside of school hours. These strategies recommend the protection of sports facilities on education sites regardless of whether the educational use is operational. In scenarios where educational sites are demonstrated to be redundant from an educational needs perspective this does not mean that their sports facilities are also redundant or surplus to requirements in terms of meeting community needs. The policy in its current form would potentially allow school playing fields and other sports facilities that are used extensively by the community to be considered surplus to requirements if there are existing alternative facilities and/or capital receipts are invested in improving or expanding other education facilities. The criteria in this policy would not be consistent with Government policy relating to sports facilities including playing fields as they would not accord with paragraph 104 of the NPPF which applies to all sports facilities including those on education sites (and Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy which is applied by Sport England as a statutory consultee). To address this, it is suggested that Policy CS3 is qualified to confirm that proposals for alternative uses affecting sports facilities on education sites will also need to meet the requirements of Policy CS4. This would help avoid potential misinterpretations that if a proposal involving the loss of sports facilities on education sites met Policy CS3 it would not need to also meet Policy CS4. If the policy is maintained in its current form Sport England would have to object at the Regulation 19 stage.

In relation to new school and education facilities it is requested that the policy is amended to expect new facilities to be designed to support community use outside of school hours and that the completion of community use agreement will be expected to secure community access over a long term period. As well as according with paragraph 98 (a) of the NPPF this would accord with the recommendations of the Council’s evidence base in the Playing Pitch Strategy and the Indoor & Built Facilities Strategy. It would also contribute to delivering the Local Plan’s vision in relation to providing opportunities for healthy lifestyles and reducing health inequalities especially as schools are usually located centrally within the communities where residents live.

WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH PLACES IN OUR VERY SMALL VILLAGE SCHOOL

See full text of the attachment for each policy which in some cases add extra information that couldn't be included fully in the rep summary.

Proposed Housing Allocations Affecting Copford with Easthorpe Parish
The Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan proposes two major housing allocations affecting Copford with Easthorpe Parish:
• Policy PP29 – Land east of School Road, Copford: approximately 300 homes
• Policy PP17 – Land behind shops off London Road, Marks Tey: approximately 1,500 homes, crossing the Marks Tey / Copford parish boundary, with an estimated 600 homes located within Copford with Easthorpe Parish
Together, these allocations represent an additional 900 homes within the Parish. Based on an average household size of three people, this equates to an increase of approximately 2,700 residents.
While I recognise the need to identify sites to meet the City-wide housing target of approximately 21,000 new homes, I have serious concerns about where and how these homes are proposed and whether the necessary infrastructure can realistically be delivered. The scale of development proposed for Copford with Easthorpe Parish is neither fair nor proportionate.
________________________________________
Conflict with the Vision and Objectives of the Local Plan
Section 2 (paragraph 2.19) of the Draft Local Plan sets out a vision of:
• “preserving Colchester’s identity” and
• “improving the quality of life of our residents”.
These are objectives I strongly support. However, the sheer scale of development proposed under PP17 and PP29 will have a significant and overall negative impact on this area. The scale, density and location of the proposed sites do not preserve local identity, rural character or biodiversity, and are therefore inconsistent with the stated vision of the Plan.
________________________________________
Policy PP29 – Impact on Rural Character and Heritage Assets
The proposed housing density under PP29 would result in a substantial erosion of the rural nature of the Parish.
While the seven Grade II listed buildings and the Copford Green Conservation Area may not be directly affected by the development boundary, they will be adversely impacted by the inevitable increase in traffic, noise and pollution generated by the proposal.
Although the Draft Local Plan refers to a City-wide Housing Needs Survey, it makes no reference to the Copford Local Housing Needs Survey, which should be a material consideration when assessing local housing requirements.
________________________________________
Policy PP17 – Cross-Boundary Development Concerns
With regard to Policy PP17, it is notable that Colchester City Council has recently refused an application for 175 homes in Tiptree, citing cross-boundary planning issues. Given this precedent, it logically follows that a proposal for 1,500 homes straddling the parishes of Marks Tey and Copford with Easthorpe should be subject to the same concern and scrutiny.
________________________________________
Infrastructure Constraints
In addition to the scale of development, I have serious concerns about whether essential infrastructure can support these allocations.
Wastewater Treatment and Water Supply
Copford Water Recycling Works has very limited remaining capacity, with only 33% permitted Dry Weather Flow (DWF) capacity remaining (Colchester Water Cycle Study – Interim Findings, February 2025). The study identifies a “high risk of water quality non-compliance”.
While the interim AECOM report suggests sufficient water supply for new development, it does not specify where this additional water will come from. There has been speculation that this will rely heavily on reducing domestic water consumption to below 100 litres per person per day, an assumption that is both uncertain and unrealistic. Furthermore, the report does not account for wastewater and water supply requirements arising from existing allocations, let alone new ones.
________________________________________
Road Network and Transport Impacts
There are already significant and well-documented problems on both the A12 and A120, with conditions on the A120 widely acknowledged as severe and unsustainable.
Additional housing will place further strain on these routes and will inevitably impact local roads, particularly:
• London Road (B1408), and
• School Road, the likely access route for PP29.
School Road is a major route to and from Copford Primary School, is already heavily congested at peak times, and is increasingly used as a rat run towards the A12 via Easthorpe Road and from Maldon Road via Fountain Lane and Aldercar. It is also used by HGVs.
Traffic generated by PP29 alone could result in up to 600 additional vehicle movements per day, significantly worsening congestion, pollution and road safety risks. This is of particular concern given the large number of children crossing School Road daily to attend the primary school. The proposal is therefore likely to result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, and it is difficult to see how the policy objective of “safe pedestrian access” can realistically be achieved.
________________________________________
Active Travel and Public Transport
Policy ST1 – Health and Wellbeing promotes active travel, which is commendable in principle. However, it is difficult to see how increased walking and cycling can be realistically achieved in the context of:
• higher traffic volumes,
• increased congestion, and
• safety concerns along School Road, London Road (B1408) and the A120.
Rather than promoting healthier lifestyles, the development risks leading to:
• increased noise and air pollution,
• compromised air quality, and
• wider environmental harm.
The suggested mitigation of a modal shift towards public transport is also problematic. Public transport options are limited to bus services on London Road, which are infrequent outside peak hours and become increasingly poor the further one travels from the city centre. In these circumstances, private car use is likely to remain the dominant mode of transport.
________________________________________
Impact on the Local Environment and Biodiversity
Policy PP29 and Policy EN4 – Irreplaceable Habitats
The PP29 site lies adjacent to Pits Wood Local Wildlife Site. The proposed 15-metre buffer is inadequate given the sensitivity of the site and the presence of:
• large badger setts, and
• a population of nesting nightingales, a Red List endangered species.
The Woodland Trust recommends significantly larger buffer zones for development adjacent to ancient or sensitive woodland habitats. It is essential that full, seasonal ecological surveys are undertaken before any allocation is confirmed.
The potential enhancement of wildlife corridors linked to the Roman River corridor is welcomed, but this does not offset the likely harm arising from development at this location.
________________________________________
Health and Wellbeing – Healthcare Provision
The delivery of Policy ST1(f) relating to healthcare provision is questionable. Local GP surgeries are already operating at or beyond capacity and would be unable to accommodate the additional population generated by approximately 1,800 new homes, in addition to the 630 homes planned in Stanway. There are also ongoing concerns regarding hospital capacity.
Any new development must be accompanied by properly funded healthcare provision, including staffing, to meet the needs of a significantly increased population.
________________________________________
Community Facilities
Policies CS1 and CS2
Copford Village Hall is a well-used and financially viable community facility. While PP29 refers to its potential replacement, there are serious concerns:
• The Village Hall and associated land are registered with the Charity Commission, yet Draft Local Plan mapping suggests this land could be used for housing or access.
• Any transfer or redevelopment would require detailed negotiations between the developer, the Charity Commission and the current Trustees.
• An alternative approach could involve remodelling the existing hall and improving parking provision.
The local community must be fully involved in any decisions regarding the location and design of a new or improved Village Hall. The existing car park plays a vital role during the school run, helping to reduce on-street parking and congestion on School Road.
________________________________________
Education Provision
While the inclusion of a two-form entry primary school within PP17 is welcomed, this does not adequately address the combined impact of 300 homes from PP29 and 1,500 homes from PP17. Copford Primary School is already near capacity and would require significant investment to accommodate additional pupils.
There is also no clear information regarding provision for secondary or post-16 education. Local secondary schools are already close to capacity, and the projected increase in pupil numbers cannot be accommodated without substantial new provision.

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.

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.