Use TA as previous practically possible for pavilions, stadia designs, etc

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

The infrastructure audit shows that investment of £19m is required for sports provision, including £12m for swimming pools and £5.6m for playing pitches. Policy CS3 should specifically require all new developments to contribute.

There is a clear need for Community Infrastructure Levy similar to the £200psm used in Chelmsford. The plan should commit firmly to doing it in parallel to the plan adoption process.

It has to be understood that facilities provided at the WMTC recreation fields, The Glebe, are for Parish use and not a sub centre for CCC sports facilities as the provision has to be maintained at Parish’s expense/local council tax payers. Also it has to be borne in mind the problematic access to these facilities with people coming from off the Island due to tidal problems.
The Island does have many sports facilities in the form of private clubs which run by subscription of the members who use same.

West Bergholt Parish Council supports this policy.

Our client's representations seek:
The reinstatement of Florence Park within the Tiptree settlement boundary; and,
The associated removal of Florence Park from the 'countryside'.
Further details are contained within the attached representations letter dated 12th January 2026.

Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) support EEAST in delivering high level critical care and transportation to specialist hospitals for patients that have severe or life-threatening injuries and medical conditions. To accommodate the different airframes that operate in this region, an equivalent size of a football field would be required to support both day and night landings. This space needs to be free of overhead and ground level obstacles eg trees and overhead cables and ideally be centrally located within the development with easy road access to and from. It would be preferable if lighting was available for the helipad, but as a minimum could easily be included in developers existing plans for open, leisure or sport space.

The policy is welcomed as it seeks to protect, enhance and deliver new and improved sports and leisure facilities to encourage active lifestyles and increase participation in recreation. This would be consistent with Sport England’s Planning for Sport Guidance principles. The policy on protection of outdoor sports facilities is broadly welcomed as it would broadly align with Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy and paragraph 104 of the NPPF and would be supported by the Council’s evidence base. The approach to sports provision in major residential development is also broadly welcomed and would be supported by the Council’s evidence base. However, the following amendments are requested to the policy:

• While the scope of the policy is ‘Sports Provision’ the wording of the policy focuses on outdoor sports facilities and playing fields. The policy therefore does not provide clear guidance on the approach to indoor sports provision. As Government policy in paragraphs 103 and 104 of the NPPF and Sport England’s policies are the same on indoor and outdoor sports provision it would be advocated that indoor sports facilities be included in the scope of Policy CS4 rather than other policies such as CS1/CS2 which refer to ‘Community Facilities’. The wording of the policy would need to be reviewed to address this including reference to the Indoor & Built Facilities Strategy Strtegy as well as the Playing Pitch Strategy.
• While criteria a-d of the policy are based on Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy criteria, as the scope of the policy is the protection of sports provision rather than just the protection of playing field provision, the wording is not considered to be appropriate for this policy because the criteria would not be applicable if a development was proposing the loss of an indoor sports facility or an outdoor sports facility that was not a playing field such as a MUGA, games court, bowls green, athletics track, golf course etc. To address this in the light of the above comments about indoor sports facility provision, it is suggested that that the wording of this part of the policy is similar to paragraph 104 of the NPPF as this is more generic and appropriate for the scope of this policy.
• It is suggested that ‘major’ is removed from the policy in relation to residential development because major is not defined in the policy and all residential development proposals regardless of their scale will generate a need for new sports provision. There is potential that the policy in its current form could be misinterpreted by applicants so that only strategic scale residential development would be expected to make provision for sport.
• It is suggested that ‘Active Essex’ is included in the list of bodies that the Council will work with in the policy as they play an important strategic role in protecting/enhancing/providing sports facilities plus deliver Sport England’s priorities locally.
• The policy or the reasoned justification should set out what will be used to inform financial contributions e.g. SPD, Playing Pitch Strategy/Built Facilities Strategy.

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

Object to Policy CS4 as currently drafted. The policy places disproportionate and unjustified
requirements on residential development, particularly smaller schemes.

The policy states that all major residential development must assess the ne for new sport provision. It should not be for individual development to assess the need for sport provision on their sites. This should be set out in the local plan to ensure that there is transparency about what is needed and ensure that any provision is fully accounted for within the viability assessment.

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.

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.