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.

“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.”
Oysters as a Critical Economic and Cultural Resource:
i) Native oyster beds in the MCZ are central to local livelihoods, aquaculture tourism, and heritage activities.
ii) Any additional nutrient, chemical, or bacterial pollution from WRC effluent, CSO events, or cumulative housing discharges would degrade oyster beds.
iii) Such degradation would be catastrophic, halting recovery efforts, threatening oystermen’s livelihoods, and undermining aquaculture- based tourism, including oyster festivals, seafoodexperiences, and heritage tourism. Tourism and Recreational Impacts:
I) Degraded estuarine and coastal water quality would reduce the attractiveness of bathing waters, beaches, and recreational activities, harming local tourism revenue.
ii) Visitors are deterred by pollution events, bacterial spikes, or visibly degraded coastal environments, which directly impacts hotels, restaurants, and leisure providers.
Cumulative Impacts:
i) Existing and proposed housing (~600 homes) increase effluent load, with direct implications for oyster beds, estuarine ecology, and tourism.
ii) CSOs and WRC discharges exacerbate risks, particularly during storm events.
Policy Implications:
i) To comply with CS5, development must protect tourism assets: oyster beds, bathing waters, coastal recreation, and cultural heritage.
ii) Required measures include:
1. Full cumulative assessment of wastewater and CSO impacts.
27
2. Infrastructure upgrades at the WRC before development occupation.
3. Mitigation measures to prevent degradation of oyster beds, estuarine habitats, and recreational water quality.
Conclusion:
i)The downgrading or loss of oyster beds would be catastrophic for both Mersea Island and Colchester’s economy, tourism, and cultural heritage.
ii)Tourism and aquaculture must be explicitly prioritised in planning and infrastructure decisions.

West Bergholt Parish Council supports this policy.

The Council’s support for tourism, leisure, cultural, and heritage development within draft policy CS5 is welcomed. However, certain elements of the policy are overly prescriptive and potentially restrictive, which may undermine the objective of achieving sustainable development and conflict with the tests set out in NPPF (paragraph 16), particularly regarding the need for policies to be positively prepared, enabling sustainable development, and avoiding unnecessary duplication of other plan policies.
Criterion d) of the draft policy states that:
"d) Proposals that are likely to have an adverse impact on the integrity of habitats sites or the Dedham Vale National Landscape will not be supported".
The draft policy's blanket wording that development proposals with any adverse effects on the integrity of habitats sites or Dedham Vale National Landscape 'will not be supported' fails to reflect the mitigation-led approach of the Habitats Regulations and the language and balanced policy tests within the NPPF (paragraph 193). The policy should allow for impacts to be appropriately avoided or mitigated, rather than applying an absolute prohibition. In this regard the policy also appears to apply duplicate control that would be achieved through POLP Policy EN1 (Nature Conservation Designated Sites) conflicting with the tests set out in NPPF (paragraph 16), particularly regarding the need for policies to be positively prepared and designed to enable the delivery of sustainable development.
Criterion e) of the draft policy states that:
"e) In locations where residential use would be inappropriate, developments of visitor accommodation, where supported, will be limited by condition or legal agreement to holiday use only and/or certain periods of the year in order to prevent permanent or long-term occupation".
It is generally accepted that tourism is an important mechanism for delivering sustainable growth for both the local and national economy. It supports local communities by making local shops, services and transport connections economically viable and encourages the development of local products and services and both direct and indirect employment opportunities. The NPPF (paragraph 88) states that planning policies and decision should enable sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside.
While there may be seasonal variation in demand depending on location, activity type, and market segment, tourism in the UK is generally considered an all-year-round industry, and indeed its economic benefits need to be captured all year round. By restricting tourism development to certain periods of the year, the policy risks limiting economic potential and also viability of tourism related development and businesses.
While the need to control permanent occupation in unsustainable locations, where such is not fully justified, is recognised, it is considered that suitable control can be achieved through appropriate conditions, other than requiring a seasonal restriction, and such can achieve the appropriate level of control such that development would not otherwise undermine planning objectives. This is widely acknowledged by Planning Inspectors considering such issues at appeal and they often apply the following model condition, or similar, on positive determinations:
"The development shall be occupied as holiday accommodation only and shall not be occupied as a sole or main place of residence. An up-to-date register shall be kept at the holiday accommodation hereby permitted and be made available for inspection by the local planning authority upon request. The register shall contain details of the names of all of the occupiers of the accommodation, their main home addresses and their date of arrival and departure from the accommodation and shall make this information available at all reasonable times to the Local Planning Authority".
The above condition is widely adopted by many local planning authorities and, in itself, is sufficient to restrict occupancy of the development to holiday use. It provides a clear and enforceable mechanism should monitoring or enforcement be required, without the need for an additional, onerous condition imposing further restrictions on the period of occupation and restricting the operation of the tourism economy.

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.