Regarding the plan for more homes in St Johns and Marks Tey. Where are all the cars going? The A120 at Marks Tey is nose to tail traffic almost all day everyday. St Johns road is extremely congested already, and Ipswich Road already queues from the St Johns Roundabout to the A12 every evening. Consider an extra 4,000 cars just in the St Johns area. Prioritising walking, cycling and buses is ridiculous as Colchester is increasingly a town for COMMUTERS. It's not full of people working in the town centre. Bus lanes and park and rides can't fix that.

Object- need LOTS of Free Car Parking to boost economic growth

need lots of free car parking to boost economic growth as much as possible

We need a footpath on The Folley which is where the planned building will occur. This is a narrow road with bends and not at all safe for pedestrians, cyclist or horses. A solution is to put a path inside any new development to increase safety.
Additionally, the High Road where it meets Kingsford Bridge has now become a danger as the footpath has fallen away onto the river and is too narrow for pedestrians, cyclists and horses to safely negotiate alongside motorised vehicles.
There are three problem bridges into this village, which are all difficult to navigate safely.

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policy PC2 as it relies on assumptions that sustainable travel options can be delivered where existing infrastructure is constrained. Many allocated sites depend on narrow rural roads or routes without safe pedestrian or cycle facilities (e.g. PP7). The policy does not demonstrate how safe, continuous, and practical walking and cycling routes will be delivered, risking increased car dependency and undermining sustainable travel objectives.

Try to walk or cycle from Langham and you will probably be killed, the village is already a 'rat run' with vehicles cutting through to the A12. Yet another example of why Langham is not in any way suitable for a development of this scale.

The principles are laudable, the reality is that many of them are not achievable. PP29 and PP17 the amount of potential vehicle use generated by both sites together with existing congestion on local roads means safe cycling routes on existing roads are not feasible. The lack of public transport serving PP17 means that car use will be the main way residents get around.
The UKs biggest car club has just announced it will be closing and there appears to be little evidence of large us of any local car clubs.
Walking on narrow footpaths from both sites is also dangerous

This is a priority!

The public transport links to Layer de la Haye are extremely poor. An infrequent bus service makes it inaccessible for residents with increased needs. There must be a travel plan developed that supports the green agenda (less cars on the road, more footpaths, safer pedestrians, cycling and horse riding). Many roads in Layer de la Haye are narrow with bends in places and no footpath so pedestrians/cyclists/horse riders must regularly jump out of the way of vehicles travelling too fast and too close. Safety is reducing with the new housing already being built.

Colchester should focus on adding new train stations at Stanway and north Colchester. Trams should be introduced and funded. bus travel needs to be subsidised to enable it to be more affordable. how about an underground rail system?

Comments as follows:
1. Positive to see the Roman River Corridor inclusion, and to see the high value Colne Valley landscapes recognised in the Landscape Character Assessment.
2. Positive to see mobility hubs and increased attempts at providing for sustainable transport.
3. Concern that the Brownfield Land Register remains very limited and focuses almost entirely on the urban area of Colchester. More should be done to proactively identify brownfield sites across the entire city boundary.
4. Concern that affordable housing delivery has only been 16% per annum on average for the past eight years and that the viability appraisals that accompany this plan must be rigrously tested to ensure that they are robust.
5. Concern that the strategy for Eight Ash Green results in car-dependent ribbon development along the 1124. Site PP32 should not be allocated. It represents unacceptable encroachment into the countryside.
6. Further concern that PP32 conflicts with the previous and latest Colchester Landscape Character Assesssments which seek to protect the Colne Valley. The site will be highly visible from Fordham and Chappel and cannot be screened. See attached by way of example. PP32 should not be allocated.
7. Allocation of Marks Tey North. All housing should be concentrated to the south of the site, in a high density development. Much of the Roman River must be kept inaccessible from residents and their dogs to ensure nature can flourish in the Nature Recovery area. The development must be safely connected to Marks Tey station by pedestrian and bike paths that do not use the polluted A120.
8. There should be minimum density requirements for all sites, not just urban ones.
9. The policy wording for conversions should change from 'only supported' to 'strongly supported.
10. There would be a policy to strongly support the bringing back of empty homes into use. An additional SA Monitoring indicator is required for number of homes brought back into use.

PC2 focuses solely on walking and cycling, with no mention of Public Rights of Way, bridleways, byways, equestrian access, or multi-user routes, despite Essex County Council's statutory duties and the requirements of the Essex Rights of Way Improvement Plan and National Planning Policy Framework for inclusive access. This omission is particularly concerning given Colchester’s rural areas. PC2 should explicitly reference the PRoW network, commit to safeguarding and developing multi-user routes, and require development proposals to improve access for all non-motorised users, including equestrians. This alignment would ensure active travel policies are inclusive and support safe, sustainable movement throughout Colchester.

The proposals for Langham, PP37 and PP38, do not comply with these criteria nor those of the mandatory transport principles in the National Policy Planning Framework. That is:
-prioritise walking, cycling and public transport over cars
-reduce reliance on cars by placing developments close to existing services, amenities and transport infrastructure
-improving accessibility by ensuring that new developments are well connected to public transport networks, cycle lanes and pedestrian routes
Langham is accessed by a network of narrow country lanes with no pavements or street lighting. Langham Lane and Park Lane are used by heavy farm and industrial traffic as well as speeding car drivers, making them dangerous for walking and cycling.
There is a very limited bus service. The 81 bus route provides 6 buses a day (none on Sundays or Bank Holidays) at roughly 2 hour intervals. The timetable is impossible for commuting from Colchester to London. Its infrequency makes it unviable for hospital or other appointments. There is no public transport to Severalls Industrial Park, 3 miles away, nor to Ardleigh GP surgery, 3.2 miles away nor to the Park and Ride 4.5 miles away.
The 93 bus to Ipswich is accessed at the slip road onto the A12 northbound. There is no corresponding bus stop on the other side of the A12 for return journeys.
Colchester and Manningtree train stations are each 5.8 miles away.
This Local Plan fails to secure adequate connectivity and there is no provision for funding any of the transport infrastructure improvemnts which would be needed to comply with the NPPF's mandatory requirements.

Active and Sustainable Travel Policy PC2

There is no data provided concerning the Strood. Last Local Plan indicated some 7,500 vehicles coming on to the island between 0700 hours and 1900 hours. It is requested that there should be a traffic survey before any decisions are taken on housing allocation. We draw attention to Lidar Display map from Environment Agency. Seek that more work is undertaken to examine the extent of global warming and the impact upon Mersea. The bus service is unreliable when high tides impact and data relied upon by the City Council is inaccurate.

Policy PC2 is inadequate for the scale of modal shift required to accommodate 26% population growth. The problem is not quantified and there are no substantial economic incentives for the significant changes in behaviour required.

Instead the problem appears to be smoothed over and there is an implicit assumption that congestion will eventually force people to abandon their cars.

The plan needs a statement on how much additional congestion is acceptable, a funded programme of road improvements and clear links between housing numbers, traffic generation and specific junction and corridor upgrades. See attached paper

The intent of this policy is good, aiming to give more transport choice for residents and enable people unable to drive to travel independently. The need to provide safe travel alternatives to cars is highlighted in the UK Government’s just released Road Safety Strategy. Currently there are far too many existing and proposed developments (particularly in rural parts of the borough) that give residents little or no choice but to travel by private motor car for the majority of journeys.This has a disproportionate negative impact on some groups (e.g. children and disabled people who are less likely, or unable, to drive). It also results in increased use of private motor cars, leading to congestion and reduced quality of life for existing residents.

By failing to place enough weight on connectivity beyond the boundaries of new development the policy risks further embedding car dependency. The policy should be strengthened to include the requirement that new developments must be connected to viable and accessible active/public travel routes. The same requirements for connectivity applied in PC4 in terms of adequacy of the local road network should be applied to the adequacy of the local active/public transport networks. In the absence of these networks, new developments should be used to fund the creation of them and demonstrate that residents of the new development can safely reach key local facilities (schools, shops, employment, healthcare) using accessible active or public transport.

Suggested changes:

“All new development should be planned around a network of safe and accessible active travel routes …” needs to be changes to “All new development must be planned around a network of safe and accessible active travel routes … ”

"Proposals for development should:" needs to be changed to "Proposals for development must:"

Points a to e are all good as is. Points h to k are all good as is.

Points f and g however fall short in instances where there is no or inadequate existing local active and sustainable travel infrastructure, no relevant Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan, nor high quality public transport infrastructure. This is the case for many developments proposed in the local plan on rural sites.

Point f could be re-written as
"The development must be linked to local community assets and public transport networks. The travel plan must demonstrate (with evidence) that trips to key local amenities (schools, shops, employment, and healthcare) can be achieved safely and conveniently by all residents including children and wheelchair users without reliance on a private motor vehicle. Reference should also be made to the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure plan."

Point g could be re-written as:
"The development plan must demonstrate (with evidence) that the existing, or proposed, public transport infrastructure is sufficient to enable all residents to access essential amenities (secondary schools, colleges, employment, hospitals) without reliance on a private motor vehicle."

Welcome requirements for active travel infrastructure at new developments

Marks Tey however is woefully underequipped for large scale development:
- A120 is already heavily congested and Marks Tey offers few alternative routing options
- has an assessment of crowding on peak trains been undertaken?
- lack of bus priority into Colchester - London and Lexden Road
- station roundabout pinch point : what will be done? Affects not only cars but bus users and freight too

The aims and ambition are supported but the policy as drafted is
weak and does not set out a clear vision or contain sufficient detail to
deliver the transport infrastructure necessary to mitigate the impact
of proposed development over the next 15 years. There should be a
clear commitment to the modal shift that is recommended in the
Jacobs Report 2025 as well as key elements of the IADP , with
measurable targets for what needs to be delivered by whom and
when and any phasing required to ensure infrastructure keeps pace
with development. The scale of development is not dissimilar to that
previously proposed for the Garden Community at West Tey but over a shorter time scale. This demonstrates the scale of the challenge and the potential risks of the Plan being unsound if strong enough policies
are not in place. Representations have been made elsewhere on the
need for an urgent review as to whether the Council can satisfy an
Inspector at Reg.19 that the Plan will be deliverable relying solely on
s106 agreements, or whether CIL is a more appropriate mechanism
to deliver the infrastructure and mitigation required. In either case a
clearer set of requirements drawn from the evidence base need to be
included in the policy, related to individual sites and especially the larger strategic sites to ensure there is no ambiguity when it comes to negotiations on individual sites

The aims and ambition are supported but the policy as drafted is weak and does not set out a clear vision or contain sufficient detail to deliver the transport and other infrastructure necessary to mitigate the impact of proposed development over the next 15 years. There should be a clear commitment to the modal shift that is recommended in the Jacobs Report 2025 as well as key elements of the IADP, with measurable targets for what needs to be delivered by whom and when and any phasing required to ensure infrastructure keeps pace with development. The scale of development is not dissimilar to that proposed for the Garden Community at West Tey but over a shorter time scale. This demonstrates the scale of the challenge and the potential risks of the Plan being unsound if strong enough policies are not in place. Representations have been made elsewhere on the need for an urgent review as to whether the Council can satisfy an Inspector at Reg.19 that the Plan will be deliverable relying solely on s106 agreements, or whether CIL is a more appropriate mechanism to deliver the infrastructure and mitigation required. In either case a clearer set of requirements drawn from the evidence base need to be related to individual sites, and especially the larger strategic sites, to ensure there is no ambiguity when it comes to negotiations on individual sites

TRANSPORT
Colchester Local Plan Review: Further Transport Evidence 28th October 2025
2.4 Conclusion, This chapter has set the scene for the transport analysis impacts from preferred site allocations. It has considered the vision and objectives at national, regional and local levels to provide a framework to guide the assessment of transport issues and mitigation measures in line with NPPF guidance. The chapter has also provided information on the scale of housing and employment growth in the preferred site allocations, which will be additional to reference case growth at allocations within the adopted plan (2017-2033) and at TCBGC. The following chapter (3) introduces the transport model North Essex Model (NEMo), and explains how household and jobs growth is used to derive BaU growth in trips to input into the model. NEMo outputs are then summarised to understand the BaU unmitigated transport impact of this growth.
Figure 2.2 Shows West Mersea Site PP23 but does not cover the access route onto Island and therefore in Findings does not show total blockage of the access to the Island because of Tides/sea water covering and blocking the highway (see also para. B.2 below). Is a ferry service to be provided for access ?!
Figure 4.2 indicates change to Bus Route on Island. This entails the Bus going via Dawes lane to the west of the proposed new development.
Firstly Dawes Lane is not wide enough or suitable to accommodate a Bus (Konectbus state “It is unlikely that we would be able to run buses along Dawes lane due to the junction with East Road being quite tight.” Also the issue of being less than 5.0 metre width in places but more important is disenfranchising all those living/staying beyond Dawes Lane as the bus now goes via Chapman Lane which wider and more suitable route, picking up all those at the east end of West Mersea, Waldegraves Caravan site entrance and Blue Row stop. This is not a good idea and should be rejected.
4.3.1. Walking access/footway to the village from the PP23 east of Dawes Lane needs to be constructed and upgraded at it’s southern end onto East Road. Also the provision of a new footway on the north side of East Road from the development going west to join with the existing footway.
6.5 Conclusion does not address total blockage of the B1025 at the Strood Causeway onto Mersea Island for periods of few minutes to possibly 2 to 3 hours or more. This both predictable through tide table reference but also unpredictable due tidal surges both higher and lower actual tide heights.
A Policy context supporting the vision-led approach
A.5 ECC Climate Action Plan
Para 16, 162 & 163 also 170, 171 & 173 of NPPF No mention of Sea Level rise effecting people movement, land sinkage and collapsing seawalls. These development proposals seem to pay little attention to NPPF policies quoted.
A.6 ECC Local Transport Plan
“• people and goods can get where they need to go efficiently and sustainably
• everyone should have good sustainable access to work, education and training, essential services and leisure activities, wherever in the county they live “
Not possible with a tidal access road which is impassable at times
A.7 Local implementation plans
“• other sustainable travel measures, promotion and community projects to overcome the challenges and barriers faced by many residents and their perceptions of active travel”
Not possible because of the Strood Causeway
B Method for assessing the acceptability of transport impact from preferred site allocations
B.1 Strategic versus detailed
“Traditional approaches to acceptability of local plan development often focus on using level of service (LoS), volume/capacity (V/C) and queue length indicators around junctions. At the preferred options, plan making, Regulation 18 stage of local plan preparation there is risk that sole use of these indicators would tilt plans to highway schemes at the expense of the vision for sustainable transport; and put focus on specific problem locations while losing sight of the strategic tapestry of the transport network, and the cumulative impact of how people and goods move through the network using all modes. At the Regulation 19 stage and in site-specific, developer-led transport assessments, LoS , V/C and queue length indicators have their role – ideally when used to test the effectiveness of mitigation measures to strike the right balance between pedestrian, cycle, bus, car and goods vehicle movements aligned with a sustainable transport vision. It is also appropriate that they are considered at key junctions such as found on the strategic road network managed by National Highways (NH). However, at the Regulation 18 stage, a more strategic approach is recommended, aligned with the intent of the NPPF and the draft LTP4. “
B.2 Assessment of keeping people and goods moving (theory and method)
For Mersea Island there is no mention made of complete blockage of B1025 due to tides covering the road and making it impassible, Queuing traffic can be an issue with some 600* vehicles an hour movements both on and off the Island.
* Last monitoring for Present Local Plan 2021/2033 indicated some 7500 vehicles coming onto the Island and also 7500 vehicles off the Island between 0700hrs and 1900hrs. Of which 1870 come from using the Lower Road Peldon.
WMTC request that traffic survey count it carried out at The Strood B1025 to properly asses the present traffic numbers.
This year 2026 the tide during the day time is predicted to be over 5m on 102 occasions covering the period from approx. 1030hrs to 1630hrs. WMTC understood that Firstbus did not run to Mersea when the high tide is predicted (to be 5m +) but the bus will not go as far as Mersea for a period of up to 3 hrs.
This practice shows that the bus timetable and actual running of the bus could be affected during any period covering from approximately 1000hrs in the morning till approximately 1700hrs in the evening. The Firstbus electronic board ( run by CCC) at the Colchester lay-by bus station does not usually reflect the actual bus cancellation or delays. At the Mersea end there is no announcement boards and the web site is seldom updated. 31
Firstbus has advised that at the periods of High Tides the buses will be diverted and stop at Peldon. However Konectbus (Seasiders) who run the other service are only contracted by Essex County Council to provide a service to Peldon, presumably their coming onto the Island is for commercial reason. If ECC is abolished in a couple of years will the new Unitary Authority finance this Peldon service and onto Mersea. The company has stated “Our policy on high tides across the Strood is to leave 45 minutes on either side of a high tide to allow the road to clear before we send any buses over.” What they do not state is the issue of traffic build up which can also snarl up vehicle movements on and off the Island.
Firstbus provide an about Hourly service to and from West Mersea to Colchester from 0642 till 2310 i.e. some 17 buses per weekday and Saturdays and two hourly Sundays some 7 buses. The evening 4 buses are supported by Essex County Council. Konectbus provide a service to Colchester via the B1025 via Peldon about 5 buses a day from 0937 till 1637hrs.
This does not also take into account the stoppages due to the unpredicted tides being above 5m+, and therefore Public Transport on and off the Island is totally unpredictable and unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The queuing traffic is also a nuisance to business for deliveries and access of staff.
B1025 ACCESS ROAD TO MERSEA OVER TIDAL CAUSEWAY KNOWN AS THE STROOD
Mersea is situated at the end of the B1025, its only access roadway, which crosses a tidal causeway and needs serious consideration. The roadway is covered by seawater when the tides are predicted to be 4.65m or higher above chart datum. Tides of about 5.9m. which is some 1.25 m of water above the road surface. Weather and atmospheric conditions can increase or decrease the coverage both in time and height. The road can be wet for just a few minutes or impassable for up to 3+ hours. In the worst case such as 5/6th December 20131 when there was double surge at high tide, this tide was only 30mm less height than the 1953 disaster East Coast flood height at Mersea (1 Earth Science Review southern north sea storm surge). The bigger/higher tides occur around midday and midnight, that is twice every twenty four hours. During busier holiday times the mainland side traffic can back up over 4 to 5 kilometres. The CCC's own Sustainability Report states that climate change is likely to cause increases in tidal surge heights of between 97mm and 115mm. Also the land is sinking at the rate of 1mm per year during the twentieth century. During the periods of the higher tides the Fire Service deploy onto the Island an extra Fire vehicle to back up the local retained Fire service on the Island (When tide predicted to exceed 5.2m). The Emergency services do have contingency plans for evacuation of casualties from the Island, which does take place on a regular basis. The B1025 is also near/below sea level were it crosses Pete Tye common some 300 metres from the seawall off the Pyefleet channel. This seawall was topped and breached in the 1953 flood and the roadway here remained covered and impassable for many days. The Government has indicated any future developments should not be situated in areas vulnerable to flooding. Whilst very few houses on the Island are liable to flooding, however the only access to the Island does flood on a regular basis through out the year.
The Causeway onto the Island would need to be raised to 6.5 metres above Chart Datum (4.5m above OD) to ensure the unlikely coverage by the sea. This would require 1.65 Km of road to be raised by some 2 metres, whilst still keeping access to the Island open at most times. The present Causeway construction is not substantial having grown by addition of material since Saxon times, and any large storm tidal surge may easily overwhelm and breach the roadway which is only protected by some stones placed either side, last done some years ago. Any road works through this sensitive protected area would also be an issue.
The Essex County Council has installed physical tide gauges at either end and in the middle which show depth of the water when you reach them! There are notices either end of the causeway stating “Danger when tide covers the footway” hardly explicit as to the issue that vehicles will likely get stuck if the water is too deep and salt water will seriously damage the vehicle as it is so corrosive to metal, electrics/electronics, brakes and wheel bearings.
It is an ongoing problem for all 999 services as they regularly being called to the Strood to help
stranded motorist and people trapped in vehicles as the tide rises around them and sometimes the vehicle floats.
33
Newspaper cutting Essex County Standard February 1953
Lidar Display map from Environment Agency in 20224.30m Above Ordnance Datum Network Digital Terrain Model.jpg from EA
The Blue area is the area below 4.3m OD
This Lidar map above shows the equivalent area flooded (coloured Blue) in 1953 when the tidal surge was approximately 4.3 metres above Ordnance Datum or 6.9 m Chart Datum high tide. (Chart Datum is approx. 2.61m below Ordnance datum (Newlyn). The uncertainty associated with
this value in the model is ±0.07m). Note that a lot of the mud/earth seawalls are now under water which would indicate that since being built after the 1953 flood the Lidar map indicates have now slumped in height. This should raise questions about how the flooding data has been prepared. Also the original height of the seawalls was to meet a requirement of a 1 in 100 years “event” back in 1953. However we now know that sea level rise is increasing by some 2 now 4mm per year, added to which the land is sinking in the Southeast at approx. 1mm per year and therefore an “event” must be more imminent.
As with the B1025, main roads in West Mersea follow historic tracks being similarly narrow in parts as is normal for rural village locations that have developed into small towns. These roads are just
Adequate for the existing population but are not during the summer months when the population can more than double due to the number of visitors, caravanners and campers. (under caravans it shows the number of Caravan tourist on an August Bank Holiday weekend can increase the population to some 13,000+-) The current static population being approximately 7220 (2021 census data) and to which must be added those visitors from the surrounding areas that is East Mersea, Peldon and Langenhoe, these being distinct from “holiday” visitors. As a result of this influx of all types of visitors, especially during the summer months there is considerable congestion and parking is at a premium.
There is no secondary school on the island. The nearest secondary schools are Thomas Lord Audley School in Colchester at 12 Km and Thurstable School in Tiptree at 19 Km. Transport facilities for pupils are therefore important. Transport to Thurstable and other schools except Thomas Lord Audley involves a cost to parents. There is no direct link from West Mersea to Tiptree and special buses are currently required for pupils attending the Thurstable School.
For pictorial information regarding West Mersea see Google map under (amended) showing the
B1025 route to Colchester, together with the approximate position of the main line railway station and hospital to the north and to which can be added the Park and Ride location.
35
The importance of the B1025 cannot be overestimated, and despite the possibility of being criticised for repetition, whilst West Mersea has certain local facilities, other facilities, for example secondary schools, hospitals, major shops, main line railway services, major sports facilities, swimming pool, all require a journey to Colchester (or Tiptree). Colchester is some 8 to 9 miles away (approx. 13km). It is because of these that transport facilities are so important.
The Office for National Statistics shows that of 3,183 persons who go to work form West Mersea.
The use of Public Transport is low, 7% compared to 67% driving, or passenger in a car or van.
(Colchester 61.1%).
A recent Public Transport review reported that only 15% of traffic was commuting 85% was local out of town shopping, school runs and pleasure. The possible reason for this is obviously one of convenience but also due to the lack of and unreliability of the local bus service together with higher cost. With a more frequent bus service, lower cost more travellers may use public transport but these improvements cannot overcome the unreliability of the service because of the High tides on the Strood crossing.
It is also noted that journeys made from West Mersea taken from the same source, Office for National Statistics, highlights the lack of employment opportunities in West Mersea. A situation that is unlikely to improve and which will increase the strain on existing travel facilities due to new residents having to travel off the Island to find employment. In any infrastructure the movement of people and goods is important and frequent transport facilities are needed in any large development. This is hardly a frequent bus service as suggested in Colchester's original plan. Additionally when the causeway is flooded buses terminate in the adjoining village of Peldon which is some 6 kilometres from the centre of West Mersea. Therefore in these circumstances West Mersea has no bus service. A monthly notice used to be issued by the bus operator showing the buses that were cancelled during the month ahead in 2016. Note these buses are cancelled due to predicted tides and not on weather and actual water conditions which may further affect the ability to cross. However this practice has since ceased.
Traffic Distribution from the Evidence Base Further Transport Evidence October 2025
4.8 The following residential development traffic distribution for has been agreed with ECC during the
pre-application process.
4.9 It is considered that the main desire line for vehicular traffic during the AM and PM peak periods is
towards Colchester i.e. departing Mersea Island. The 2011 Census Data has been examined for
West Mersea (Mid Layer Super Output Area – E02004526) to establish the distance that residents
travel to work. The Census output report is attached at Appendix K and is summarised below:
•Less than 2km 24%
•2km – 5km 4%
•5km – 10km 5%
•10km – 20km 46%
•20km – 30km 4%
•30km – 40km 6%
•40km – 60 km 2%
•Over 60km 10%
4.10 For the purpose of this assessment it is considered that all work that requires travelling (i.e. not
working from home) under 5km are on Mersea Island and all work destinations over 5km are not on
Mersea Island. Therefore, around 29% of commuting trips are on Mersea Island and 71% of
commuting trips are off Mersea Island.
4.11 In addition, the 2011 Census data has been examined to determine the method of travel to work for
West Mersea. The results are attached at Appendix K and summarised below:
•Train 5%
•Bus 2%
•Taxi 0%
•Motorcycle 0%
•Driving a car / van 74%
•Car passenger 5%
•Bicycle 3%
•Walking 9%
•Other 1%
4.12 Due to the nature and location of West Mersea car usage is the predominant mode of travel for
commuting journeys. This indicates that the majority of people who work away from Mersea Island
(71%) will travel by car whilst some people who work on Mersea Island (East Mersea for example)
will also travel by car, although walking and cycling to work (12%) is high and can therefore be
encouraged through good design and sustainable development location.
4.13 However, not all vehicle movements from residential developments during the peak hours are
commuting journeys. Some journeys are associated with taking children to / from school, shopping
and leisure and these will primarily be journeys undertaken on Mersea Island.
The school run noted above should also apply to secondary and higher education OFF the Island
37
From the WMNP Residential Survey in 2019, in which 656 residents responded, we know that nearly 28% of residents responding did a daily journey across the Strood and back with 0.3% using a bicycle. The survey also showed 19% used a pedal Bicycle as their most regular means of transport on the Island. Only some 6.5% use the bus daily of whom 61% had senior citizen bus passes with 90.5% walking to the bus stop.
The other issue that needs consideration is the evacuation of the Island in case something goes wrong with Bradwell Nuclear Power station, either from the existing mothballed site or from any new Modular Small Reactors proposed for the existing nuclear sites, such as Bradwell. Below the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Ed Miliband statement to Parliament Tuesday 10th June 2025
“Secondly, small modular reactors offer a huge industrial opportunity for our country, and we are determined to harness Britain’s nuclear expertise to win the global race to lead in this new technology. I can inform the House that following a rigorous two-year competition, today Rolls-Royce SMR has been selected as the preferred bidder to develop the UK’s first SMRs, subject to final Government approvals and contract signature. This initial project could create up to 3,000 skilled jobs and power the equivalent of around 3 million homes.
In the spending review, we are committing to the public investment needed to get the SMR programme off the ground, with more than £2.5 billion in funding over the period. The project will be delivered by Great British Energy Nuclear, a publicly owned company headquartered in Warrington—an allied company to Great British Energy, which is headquartered in Aberdeen. Subject to Government approvals, the contracts will be signed later this year. Our aim is to deliver one of Europe’s first SMR fleets, leading the world in the nuclear technologies of the future, with more good jobs and energy security funded and made possible by this Labour Government.
BRADWELL
NPPF Policy 162 &172, 178
These policies deal with the need to take account nationally significant infrastructure, mitigation of major hazards and consequences of major accidents. Also across local boundaries co-operation. We do not believe that these policies have been fully taken into consideration within the DLP and therefore conclude the plan is unsound. In February 2015 Maldon District council replied to a cross boundary questionnaire as following:
“There will be implications for Maldon from proportional settlement growth at Tiptree and West
Mersea which are settlements close to the boundary with Maldon DC. This issue should be
elaborated upon going forward and we would be keen to work with Colchester on the plans for
growth in these towns as they emerge.”
We are not aware that further consultation on the expansion of housing and caravans has taken
place and we at Mersea are concerned because Maldon DC has a policy D4 in which the last
Paragraph states “The Council (MDC) will strongly support the principle of the development of a new nuclear power station at Bradwell-on-Sea.” Colchester Council is opposed to a new nuclear power station at Bradwell.
In 2013, the ONR has accepted a report that there are no longer any reasonably foreseeable events which could lead to a radiation emergency with off-site consequences which require the local authority to maintain an off-site emergency plan the ONR assessed this and concurred with these conclusions.
However the site still has an active nuclear waste storage facility which is vulnerable to both flooding and any hostile action.
In October 2016 GNF, a joint venture between China General Nuclear Power Corporation and French
firm EDF, submitted a Generic Design Assessment for the UKHDR100 nuclear technology. The
assessment process is expected to take five years. If the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the
Environment Agency approve GNF’s application, it will mark the next step forward in securing
planning permission to build the plant.
Any further Nuclear Power station at Bradwell will lead to a potential increase in risk of a radiation emergency particularly to the community of Mersea Island which is in the prevailing direction of the and down wind of the Bradwell site by some 4Km across the open water.
It is logical for the Colchester Borough Council to anticipate such an occurrence and urgently create an updated off-site emergency plan. It is axiomatic that any emergency plan must include
comprehensive and well thought out proposals for the mass evacuation of the entire population of
Mersea Island, via a single two lane highway regularly flooded at high tides.
Before any consideration can be given to any planning proposal (which if granted will result in a substantial increase in the population of Mersea Island), the Secretary of State must be in a position to review Council’s off-site emergency plan specifically in relation to a radiation emergency and the inevitable off-site consequences. If that plan is not now in place, any suggestion of the inclusion of the 300 homes within the emerging Local Plan would be premature.
The Office of the Nuclear Regulator (ONR) has stated that the revised Sizewell off-site Emergency
Plan will require the priority evacuation of holiday makers. This should be followed in any future
planning of evacuation plans.
LIDAR MAP @ +4.3m ODN showing the area around the existing power station and store. Here again one can see the topping of the seawalls around the site and the flooding it causes.
39

Below are details from the Sizewell/Suffolk Emergency Plan:
41
Below is the map showing Mersea Island with the Sizewell DEPZ superimposed on top, in green,
and the 2.4 Km radius, in red, is also shown.
Below are extract of details from the Sizewell Emergency Plan.
The ONR revised the Sizewell Detailed Emergency Planning Zone (DEPZ) in April 2014. The revised area is a land component based primarily on 6 figure postcodes located around a circular radius of approximately 2.4km with an extended boundary that includes the town of Leiston and part of the village of Aldringham. A rectangular seaward component commences at the points where the land component reaches the coast and extends 2km out to sea
1 . Countermeasures within the DEPZ are pre-arranged/issued for immediate implementation for
certain identifiable groups within 1km from the site. All identifiable groups within the DEPZ are
provided with prior information.
25.3.3 Evacuation. Where the risk to public health posed by an off site release of radioactive
contamination is predicted or has been identified through radiation monitoring to be beyond the short term protection which sheltering affords, the SCG on advice from the STAC may decide to evacuate areas around the site. Detailed evacuation arrangements for the DEPZ are at APPENDIX K and the Police will take the lead in implementing any evacuation action. Areas advised to evacuate will be identified by post codes. The MCC will lead on communicating evacuation arrangements to affected people.
Evacuation is not automatic on declaration of an Off Site Nuclear Emergency and will only be used
where radiation monitoring and modelling has identified a potential risk to public health that requires people to be moved in order to avert effective dose of at least 30mSv.
However, people using the beach and occupying the Beach View Holiday Park will be advised to immediately evacuate by the Police due to being afforded less protection than more substantial dwellings.
DEPZ - Where evacuation is required in the DEPZ, this will be communicated via TV and radio and
will make use of the NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Sizewell Off Site Emergency Plan Issue 3.5
dated Feb 17 29 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED evacuation arrangements provided in prior
information. Further detail on evacuation arrangements is at APPENDIX K. EEPZ - Where a risk to people beyond the DEPZ is predicted, the STAC may advise the SCG to evacuate certain sectors to avert dose. This advice will be passed via radio and TV.
Once a Nuclear Emergency has been declared it difficult to understand how the visitors and caravanners will be evacuated first, potentially many thousands, before the inhabitants. If the emergency is broadcast or on the internet surely the whole Island will want to evacuate and without
military control in place very quickly the scene could turn very nasty.

West Bergholt Parish Council supports this policy. See Photos: LexdenRdAtFirminsCloseJunction.jpg LexdenRdAtNewChurchRdJunction.jpg, NewChurchRdNearChurchYard.jpg, LexdenRdNearOrpenHall.jpg

With regard to West Mersea this objective does nit hold water. Access and egress title island is governed by tides and, given the current state of the roads, cycling is an option only for those with youth and fitness in their favour.

In documents provided I can't find any information on the impact of the New Local Plan on Marks Tey Station. The car park here is often full and surely demand will only increase and facilities for disabled passengers to cross to the London bound platform are non existent as MPs have pointed out are examples. Surely the station impact needs to be studied to establish infrastructure need and cost. This should be part of a wider Masterplan for the Marks Tey area as, for instance, altering A12 A120 J25 northside can't be done without factoring in impact on the station

We agree with the stated basic aim that “All new development should be planned around a network of safe and accessible active travel routes”.

We support the principle of improved walking, cycling, and public transport, but reject a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores settlement patterns and lived reality.

Many proposed allocations—particularly in rural and semi-rural communities—are not located where a genuine choice of transport modes exists. The overwhelming majority of journeys from these sites will continue to be made by car, regardless of aspiration.

We are also concerned that many site allocations appear to have been selected before the completion of key infrastructure and transport evidence, and on the assumption that major strategic schemes—particularly the A12 upgrade—would proceed.

This raises serious questions. Essex County Council has previously described the A12 upgrade as essential for housing growth and economic prosperity, yet the draft plan now appears to proceed as if it is optional or no longer required, without providing robust evidence to justify that change in position.

The A12 is already over capacity along with the A120 and the Colchester area is frequently beset by delays and congestion. This provides unreliable journey times with people unable to get to work, businesses unable to get to their customers and goods unable to be delivered. This is an inevitable constraint on the economic growth of the area (a stated aim of the plan) and makes it more difficult for businesses to prosper. We believe this plan will only make the situation worse

The Conservative Group is not persuaded that the transport evidence underpinning the spatial strategy is either current or realistic, particularly given the well-documented congestion on the A12, A120, and local road network.

We would also ask what consideration has been given to allocations from Braintree District Council as regards Junction 25 of the A12.

We also note that many of the larger public transport projects listed are either uncosted, unfunded or have not been tested for practical deliverability.

Whilst we support the provision of better walking and cycling routes together with improved public transport we also question the balance between the funding of those compared to road transport improvements in the plan.

The plan’s infrastructure delivery plan allocates £195m for cycle paths, £35m for walking routes and £13m for mobility hubs. However, it only allocates £67m for public transport (most of which is unfunded and unproven to be deliverable such as the proposed Marks Tey RTS) and a paltry £52m for highways..
.
We support the policy of “Incorporate infrastructure provision for charging electric vehicles in line with the latest guidance and standards, and make provision for charging electric bicycles” but those must be clearly defined. In particular the provision of a low powered (AC) charging point should be a minimum of 32 amps (7.36kW) via a “Type 2” untethered connection and the definition of a “fast charger” should also be defined for which we would recommend 150kW CCS type connection.

We would also comment on the general definition of “low or zero carbon” travel and travel modes which have a detrimental effect on air quality. The UK has legislated that by 2030 the sale of non-hybrid or BEV (battery electric vehicle) cars and light goods vehicles will be banned with an increasing requirement of the percentage of the market to be such vehicles between now and 2030 (set at 30% in 2026). By 2035 the sale of all non-zero emissions cars will be banned. Furthermore the Government has stated that they plan for all electricity in the UK to be zero carbon generated by 2030.

With the average lifespan of a vehicle in the UK being just over ten years before scrapping, by the plan's end a significant majority of vehicles on the road will be zero emission and zero carbon in use. We would therefore suggest that by the plan’s end cars and light goods vehicles will effectively be “zero carbon” transport and have no effect on air quality and the plan should recognise that.

Before the plan can progress the following much be addresses:

- Rebalancing of transport investment, including explicit recognition of the essential role of the A12 and A120.
- Realistic treatment of rural and semi-rural travel patterns.
- Recognition is given to that fact that cars cars and light goods vehicles will to all intents and purposes be zero carbon and zero emission forms of transport within the plan period.
- EV car and cycling charging provision is clearly defined.

See Full Submission attachment

Policy PC2 is supported for the following reasons:
• It gives priority in new developments to active travel modes.
• It requires developments to be designed to be attractive for active travel.
• It supports the infrastructure required to encourage active travel.
The policy would therefore support physical activity by encouraging developments to be designed to support active travel modes. The above policy requirements would accord with Sport England’s Uniting the Movement Strategy and Active Design Guidance and would also be consistent with Government planning policy especially in paragraphs 96 and 129 of the NPPF.

Wivenhoe Town Council response to CCC Local Plan Reg 18 consultation – January 2026

Contents

Background
Site specific comments
General comments
Biodiversity impact
Biodiversity significance
Comments on biodiversity site selection
Transport
Viability
Employment
Comments on the wider Local Plan
Conclusion

Background.

This background is intended as an introduction for members of our community with no prior knowledge of the planning system. The Wivenhoe Neighbourhood Plan (WNP) is current, adopted policy of both WTC and CCC.

Both the WNP and the citywide plan, the Local plan (‘LP’) must be reviewed every 5 years. Both are current policy.

A Neighbourhood Plan is produced independently of the LP process by local groups. They can receive an overview from CCC to ensure they align with the LP.

The decision not to review the WNP before the site allocations was announced was the right one because a reviewed NP will have to be adopted by the city council. However, we do not have to accept what has been put forward by the city council.

Both the NP and the LP must comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It should be noted that national policy has changed since the current NP and LP were created.

The Reg 18 consultation is the opportunity to respond to site allocations and all other aspects of CCC’s draft proposals in order for appropriate changes to be embedded prior to the reg 19 consultation. This can involve changes to draft policy and site allocations.
Once the LPA is satisfied that the local plan is ready for examination it will conduct the reg 19 consultation which is done on behalf of the Secretary of State, who will appoint a government inspector to test the plan’s soundness. These are:
Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.
Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.
Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities.
Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.
Developers can also use the reg 19 consultation as an opportunity to put forward additional sites. This is when the site at Middlewick was introduced to the current local plan last time.
WTC does not believe that the current iteration of the emerging LP meets the soundness test, primarily because it does not meet with national policy, in part because the infrastructure assessment is flawed (it does not account for the negative impact of the TCBGC on Wivenhoe and the viability is at best highly questionable) and in part because it is not justified in a local context.
Site specific comments (on 10756 - Land North of the fire station)

This site provides a separation from other settlements, views towards the river, and across green fields.

Criteria (not exclusive) by which it fails the SLAA assessment are: -

• The sites are outside the existing settlement boundary, breaching policy WIV 14.
• The university have a proposal to fill the whole of the Coalescence gap with solar panels creating policy non-compliant coalescence.
• The site would have to directly access the main arterial road through Wivenhoe: Across the cycle lane which we are trying to encourage more use of.
• The site is Greenfield.
• It is Grade 2 agricultural land.
• The site is approximately 0.5km from a registered park land (Constable country) and will be visible from it.
• The site is within a Minerals Safeguarding Area.
• The site is within the Coalescence Breaks (WNP policy WIV4) See figure 1 and 1 a
• The site overlaps the River Colne Special Character Area. See figure 2 and 2a
• The site is constricted for development because of overhead pylons. See figure 3


Fig 1 Fig 1a



Fig 2


. Fig 2a




Fig 3


Additional issues with this allocation include, but are not limited to
• The green buffer does not carry round the whole of Wivenhoe which is our stated preference – see Figure 3 picture b – area 2 and 8 should join via the ‘Wivenhoe Landscape area’ and the ‘Wivenhoe borders’. The Wivenhoe Plan for Nature, which informs our Wivenhoe Neighbourhood Plan, goes into greater detail on the desperate requirement for a green corridor and is supported by third party environmental reports (which we can share on request)
• Wivenhoe has a train station, is on a major bus route and has enhanced cycle provision. In principle one of the best places for modal shift, yet it has not achieved any measurable success. Despite being one of the best places in the sub-region to establish modal shift it has not, and never will improve as there are no local jobs, local pay is low on a national scale and school places are short – more cycle provision will never fix these fundamental issues and 50% modal shift is self-evidently unobtainable.
• Buses in this corridor (and the wider context of Wivenhoe to Colchester and beyond) will always be slow and unpunctual at the very times when modal shift is most desired.
• Whole project viability is of grave concern. These concerns are not limited to the 100’s of millions of unfunded infrastructure elements in the viability assessment. Specifically, the only additional funding earmarked for Wivenhoe we can find appears to be for a mobility hub. S106 funding will need to be tailored for infrastructure we need, not what ECC want. Considerably more research needs to be done by WTC regarding this element but it is not an area of focus before the reg 19 consultation.
• The five-year review of WNP plan is on hold until this allocation is justified, creating longer term policy issues.
• The strategic biodiversity sites must be accounted for within the Wivenhoe Plan for Nature which is an emerging policy document within the WNP framework.

General Comments

Wivenhoe’s Neighbourhood Plan allocates sites for housing until 2033. These sites were based on sound evidence and this plan has been adopted as policy by Colchester.

Our NP established, as evidenced in policy, that there is insufficient infrastructure to sustain any additional homes, above and beyond the 250 new dwellings proposed in 2016. Even if it was reasonable to acknowledge the 41% uplift in housing numbers introduced by government, this should only take our existing allocation of 250 up by 102 and not 175.

The unused care facility land at the existing Cala Homes site is designated as employment land by WTC. It is viewed as a windfall site for the NP post 2033 and should not be considered in the LP.

The current situation is that there is no possibility of expanding existing infrastructure, either practically or financially to build more than the 250 allocated (now mostly built) in the current plan. E.g.:
• There is not sufficient employment within the town, and the plan offers no employment sites. This plan must reflect diminishing jobs at the University of Essex and the likely failure of the Knowledge Gateway in the context of the inability of the University to expand.
• Greater Anglia do not plan to improve the frequency of trains and commuter trains are almost always full past Colchester. We also have insufficient parking near our conservation area located train station.
• The A133 has been identified as the city’s most restricted route into the town. There are no guarantees the link road will arrive to alleviate this or even if it will hold the additional capacity required to service the traffic generating scheme of the TCBGC.
• All local primary school years are full following the development created by the NP. This does not factor in that the TCBGC will not receive a primary school for many years and ECC intend to use Wivenhoe’s stretched to capacity schools for early TCBGC residents (see purpose of school streets scheme)
• The bus service is limited, and crucially made slower and less desirable, by destinations and the increased congestion along the routes. 25 years ago, the bus took 15 minutes to Colchester town centre. The bus station to the Co-Op is now 24 minutes on the 87 and 32-52 minutes on the 51. We fail to see how this can be sold as an improvement to encourage modal shift.
• There are no NHS dentist places between here and the coast.
• There will soon be pressure from the new town on all our services and facilities. We have very limited capacity in our GP surgery (enough for the current NP only) but the new town will be within our GP’s catchment. NB Our GP surgery is in the conservation area and has no parking and constrained access.
• We have an acute shortage of playing fields for our own local clubs, however, there is no timescale for the university or the new town to build additional facilities. CCC LP’s have maxed out Wivenhoe’s infrastructure – in short there is nothing more for you to take.
• The nearest secondary school is over 2km away and we have heard examples of our preferred school (the Colne) turning students away even when they have siblings already attending.
• The five-year review of WNP plan is on hold until this allocation is justified, creating longer term policy issues.
• The strategic biodiversity sites must be accounted for within the Wivenhoe Plan for Nature which is an emerging policy document within the WNP framework.

Biodiversity impact/economic opportunity/strategic context
The town’s emerging Nature Plan identifies the natural resources surrounding Wivenhoe as a mosaic of habitats surrounding the town. Each on its own is a crucial resource for wildlife; each is a component of the town’s rural character.
Together they create a strategic wildlife corridor.
This assemblage of habitats reinforces the social and ecological benefit of the existing coalescence gap.
It uses the planning concept of “strategic green gaps” to establish “coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.” (from the NPPF)

All sites lie within the Zone of Influence for the Colne Estuary SPA and RAMSAR sites about recreational pressures.


Site specific Biodiversity significance
• Migration route and daily corridor for birds to/from the Colne flyway and feeding grounds: (birds of prey, waders & wildfowl).
• Fields host breeding Skylarks, fields and hedgerow host Cetti’s Warbler (schedule 1 species) and Nightingales (suspected breeding in 2021).
• Mature hedgerows provide foraging/transit for bats (includes European protected Barbastelle, recorded in neighbouring site summer 2023) and important land-based connectivity features across the length of the town’s Coalescence Gap.
• Margins hold populations of Common Lizard
• Rich abundance and diversity of wildflowers and rare specialist plants including Fleabane.
• Potential return of Turtle Doves (schedule 1 recent breeder).

Comments on selection for strategic biodiversity sites

We warmly welcome the selection of these strategic biodiversity sites. We have been working, via the WNP, the Planning Committee, the Plan for Nature and our Environment Committee to protect these vital habitats and we wish to make it clear we wish to work with CCC to continue to enhance these habitats. It is critical to the biodiversity, and the success of these sites, that the nature corridors are managed and not destroyed by the housing site allocation. This is noted above under site specific comments but repeated here for context, the green buffer does not surround the whole of Wivenhoe which is our stated preference – see Figure 3 picture b – 2 and 8 should join via the ‘Wivenhoe Landscape area’ and the ‘Wivenhoe borders’.

Colchester City Strategic Biodiversity Assessment - Area - 8. 5.36 to 5.38.
Between the eastern edge of Wivenhoe and the City border is a buffer of land with existing or potential value for biodiversity. At the southern end, to the south of the railway line, is part of a large block of coastal grazing marsh within the Upper Colne Marshes SSSI, which provides a link to the Roman River Valley (Area 1) and the River Colne (Area 2).
Between the railway line and Alresford Road, the valley slope of the Colne estuary is currently under arable cultivation, but sits on a superficial deposit of Kesgrave sands and gravels that would make it particularly suitable for habitat creation measures aimed at acid grassland or open mosaic habitats.
North of Alresford Road is Wivenhoe Pit, from which the same Kesgrave deposits (and others underlying them) have been extracted. This area is now a varied landscape of woodland, grassland scrub, lakes and open mosaic habitat with considerable biodiversity value. The older part of the site is designated as Co161, but most is not currently managed with nature conservation in mind and so there is opportunity to enhance the distinctiveness and condition of some of the habitats.


Sites of special scientific interest and local wildlife sites

Figure 2, Designated nature conservation sites in Colchester, is a clear visual aid to understanding that Wivenhoe is surrounded by significant nature assets (including woodland and river as well as SSSI and LoWs) and that there is no space for houses and nature corridors. We believe, and can demonstrate, that these sites are equally as biodiverse as Middlewick and they are certainly as important to our residents.
Viability
There is an estimated £400 million shortfall in the viability of the LP. It remains unclear how this affects Wivenhoe. The value accrued by the selected site in s106 would be radically less than what would be required in terms of infrastructure uplift given the infrastructure deficit in Wivenhoe as described across this submission.
Transport
The LP aspiring to 50% modal shift is just an expedient as it is the only way you can massage the traffic figures and we are bored of pointing out why it will not work. We will not dwell on it here as throughout the planning process for the last local plan we pointed out its myriad flaws. The rate of cycling to work in Colchester peaks at around 2% in the summer yet ECC\CCC have been working on modal shift for a decade. It is clearly not a success. We want to know why a back-up plan or backstop for when modal shift inevitably fails is going to be seriously discussed as this policy condemns Colchester to ever worsening gridlock.
Driving out of Wivenhoe at or near peak times only serves to add traffic to the already highly congested Clingoe Hill\A133. The burden of existing and planned overdevelopment has more than accounted for any capacity perceived to exist in a desktop study.
Buses
Buses are slowest when they are most needed, at commuting times. Morning travel times between the middle of Wivenhoe and Colchester can take over 50 minutes. Buses only serve Colchester and outlaying employment areas either cannot be reached or require changes.
Cycling
WTC Travel & Transport Working Group have added the following comments.
Colchester is surrounded by very dangerous major roundabouts on all sides. There is no East-West cycle route through the town centre. Until these fundamental issues are resolved (as they have been in Chelmsford, Norwich, etc, etc) cycling will remain an unattractive option.
The LP admits that walking to work, college, etc, will not be an alternative option for most drivers.
Employment
The new residents are not buying £400k-plus two bed houses on local wages – they are almost all existing commuters from beyond Colchester and most by road – the houses will add additional car journeys through to the A133 and Colchester. It is not uncommon to find residents who drive to London to work as the train is too costly and largely impractical. These houses are not for existing local residents – most are sold by developer campaigns in London and along the A12.
There is very limited provision for employment in Wivenhoe and we urge you to consider the impact that hundreds of forecast job losses at the University will have on Wivenhoe – these will not be replaced with local jobs and residents will be forced to seek work further away and most likely travel by car.
Our NP factored in two employment sites (both care facilities) and one was not delivered.
The wider LP seeks 21,000 new jobs over the plan period. With AI, automation, the A12 being recognised as the worst road in the country and the failure of the Government to fund the widening scheme, the over expansion and subsequent decline of the sub-region’s biggest private employer – the University of Essex- this is simply absurd. Colchester City Council promised one job per house at the TCBGC – their track record in this area will never engender confidence.
We wish to reiterate that it makes more sense to build at high density near the A12 rather than forcing additional traffic though Colchester from the Tendring side.
Comments on the wider Local Plan
The Local Plan will fail, as the last one did with the botched attempt at creating three new towns, if it does not accept reality. We note that new towns were CCC’s vision of the future of strategic planning until you got one. With no little irony or vindication, we note that they have admitted this failure by not even considering a new town in this local plan. We urge CCC to learn the lessons from the abject failure of over promising and under delivering that dogged the last local plan, we especially wish to reference the clear divide with reality and this iteration.
Conclusions
Whilst we are broadly content with the strategic biodiversity sites, we strongly object to any additional housing being allocated to Wivenhoe. The allocated site does not meet with local policy nor is it consistent with national planning policy. It is not justified. It does not meet with the WNP and it hinders the progress of future iterations of the WNP. It must be removed ahead of reg 19. We note that Tendring have the courtesy to not allocate housing numbers to Elmstead Market and they state this is because of the negative and unsustainable effect of TCBGC on existing community infrastructure. That courtesy must be extended to us, especially when viewed through the prism of consistency when the two councils are set to be merged via LGR.
We remind Colchester City Council that this response must always be held in the context that we have the traffic generation scheme at TCBGC, which will leech our amenities, greenspace, road space and infrastructure.
These site-specific policy inconsistencies are laid out on page 5. We draw your attention particularly to our ‘village envelope’ and we remind you that WTC have always considered this to be our red line as we have a long-standing fundamental aim to ensure against coalescence.
Wivenhoe is surrounded by the natural break created by the A133, our coalescence break, a river, SSI sites, LOWS, roman woodland and rules around our conservation area and sites of historical importance. There is simply no room left for this level of development and what little there is must be reserved for the WNP, for example the Cala Homes windfall site cited above.
The general site comments, on page 4 highlight how the plan is not justified nor positively prepared and this is further evidenced with comments on additional issues on page 10. This is not an exhaustive list and we retain the right to draw on these matters and others, should we need to represent ourselves at the reg 19 hearing.

Dawes Lane is not suitable for walking or cycling. When the current development is completed cycling and walking will be dangerous, another 300 homes would make it lethal.. without major road improvements the proposed development would not meet the criteria.

I am particularly concerned about the A12 and A120 and junction 25.
Cycling is unpleasant due to potholes, width of roads and volume of traffic.
Walking is unpleasant due to width of paths and poor quality.
Bus services are poor as they are dependent on A12 and A120 traffic.
There is no room for bus or cycle lanes.
With thousands more houses being proposed in Marks Tey and Copford it is inevitable that there will be thousands more cars using junction 25 alone and no improvements are to be made.
Sustainable travel is just not possible in the area.

The Policy is great in theory, but we all know that the car will be the main travel source, particularly for any development on the outer edge of the city such as PP9. I note that in the Suspainability Appraisal Report under Assessment SA4 Travel that car use was not even considered, only train, bus and bicycle.