The Councils view of Marks Tey as a sustainable location for development and the allocations under policies PP17 and PP18 are supported, however, we do have some concerns particularly in relation to the level of development that can be achieved within the plan period in light of the significant infrastructure improvements that are required for development of this scale, and which can often take some time to work through. This needs to be taken into consideration. In this regard it is suggested that alongside the extension of the plan period further allocations are required at Marks Tey in the short-term.

Policy PC2 sits alongside multiple other Local Plan policies addressing movement, design, climate change, health, air quality and electric vehicle infrastructure. Taken together, these policies impose overlapping and sometimes competing requirements, with PC2 adding further detailed obligations that are more appropriately dealt with through supporting text or development management guidance.

As drafted, the policy lacks prioritisation and does not recognise the need to balance active travel aspirations against viability, site constraints and other policy objectives.

West Mersea Island - 8 miles from the center of Colchester - is uniquely placed to deliver a failure of environmentally sustainable transport or inclusive transport for an ever-enlarged community.

The Island does not provide an on-island sustainable environment, necessitating travel to Colchester for healthcare, shopping, education and specialist healthcare - all via a single route onto the Island which regularly floods making it impassable - all to the amazement of City Council planners who are in denial that West Mersea is indeed and Island.

Bus services are increasingly unreliable leading to real travel poverty for elderly or disadvantaged residents!

Colchester Zoo supports the Council’s objectives of promoting active and sustainable travel set out within draft policy PC2 in principle. However, the policy is drafted in an overly prescriptive and inflexible manner, applying blanket requirements to all forms and scales of development without sufficient regard to site-specific circumstances, deliverability or viability.
The NPPF (2024, paragraph 109) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making; this important distinction is not reflected in the draft policy. Accordingly, the policy’s approach conflicts with the NPPF requirement for policies to be positively prepared, effective and sufficiently flexible (paragraph 16).
The policy embeds detailed technical standards and external guidance directly into policy, leading to unnecessary duplication, reduced flexibility and a risk of rapid obsolescence.
The policy mandates the submission of Transport Assessments and Travel Plans by strict reference to county guidance (the specific guidance being unclear, thereby creating ambiguity), rather than allowing the exercise of planning judgement based on:
• The nature of the development;
• Local highway conditions; and
• The realistic potential to influence travel behaviour.
This risks exceeding the proportionality principles embedded in national policy and NPPG transport guidance, which seek to avoid unnecessary technical work where impacts are modest or clearly acceptable (NPPG Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 42-004-20140306). The policy therefore risks undermining the delivery of otherwise sustainable development, and conflicts with the requirement in paragraph 16 of the NPPF for policies to be positively prepared, effective and flexible, and risks creating unnecessary barriers to delivery.

Love the active and sustainable travel ambition!
Please consider impact of development on existing routes. Two Copford examples:
- 50 new homes in Hall Road. Hall Road is not wide enough for construction traffic or for residents' cars to pass. Manned traffic management including for pedestrians has been necessary for the entire development, demonstrating that it probably wasn't an appropriate site. [pls consider in relation to 10548]
- c800m of Birch Road widened far beyond tarmac edges by 2000 lorries in solar plant construction. Tarmac crumbling and banks destroyed. No longer safe to cycle as a result of "green" initiative.

Dear Sirs,

Once again the Borough seems to have produced a plan without any reference to the possibility of creating a footbridge between the settlements of Wivenhoe and Rowhedge, with populations of 7,350 and 2,487 respectively, surely enough to justify such a bridge? Ideally such a bridge would be suitable for cyclists too. I would suggest that the bridge would run between the green area between the Ye Olde Albion and Anchor pubs in Rowhedge and across to the sea wall path that runs north from Wivenhoe. The width of the river at this points cannot be much more than 40 metres or so.

The plan should call for a consultation and feasability exercise to assess the planning impacts arising from such a bridge and indeed address the technical challenges. Possibly the bridge itself could be funded by way of s.106 contributions? Such a bridge would among other matters mean that Rowhedge residents would have "sustainable" access to Wivenhoe train station; and Wivenhoe residents could access central Colchester - including Lexden's schools - much more easily by sustainable means. It would therefore take pressure off the highway network and reduce car use.

I appreciate that river navigation issues would need to be considered. To address this ideally such a bridge would be lifting. Of course this would increase the cost but it would certinaly be technically possible, and given that the bridge would be relatively light weight - and designed to carry light weight traffic - this surely wouldn't be difficult?

I understand that Wivenhoe Town Council objected to this idea some years ago. I do not know theh reasons for their objections. However, given that such a bridge wouldn't really be visible from Wivnhoe's water-front, I cannot believe that it would cause much by way of visual harm to the town but of course environmental concerns would need to be addressed.

Such a link has historical precdents: Officers may be aware that such a bridge was built in WW1 but was removed after the war; see attached picture. In the 18th century a ford existed between Fingringhoe and Wivenhoe and remants of that can be seen today. It would also, subject to access constraints, presumably be very easy to install some sort of bridge across the tidal barrier but I do not seriously suggest that as a solution.

In summary, I would therefore ask members to include the planning for such a bridge in the next version of the plan. I would venture to suggest that it might be easier to facilitate the erection of the bridge following the proposed local government re-organisation whe the Borough is unified with some of its neighbouring authorities and has a unitary structure, meaning that it has control over highway matters too.

I would ask that this reprentation is taken into account and either a seprate policy duly formulated to address this matter, or that the proposal is included as part of this policy.

Yours faithfully,

[NAME REDACTED]

Please see comments in document submitted across a variety of policy areas.

Hopkins Homes are pleased to see that the Council has identified the land north of
Colchester Road as a site-specific allocation and included Policy PP43 within the Preferred
Options consultation draft.
We agree with the Council that the site is a suitable location for future residential
development and can be delivered within the plan period to make a significant contribution to
housing delivery and meeting the housing needs of Colchester.

Please see attached document for the rest of our representations.

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.

Site specific allocation PP14 covers a variety of land parcels and sites that are adjacent to one another, but we are concerned that it will be very difficult for the policy to be truly delivered in a meaningful manner due to the land ownership arrangements and no mechanism within the policy for the site to come forward in a piecemeal manner.

We have attached our detailed response for the site.

National Highways welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the 'draft Local Plan 2041 or the 'Preferred Options' for Colchester.

National Highways has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as a Strategic Highway Company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network(SRN). It is our role to maintain the safe and efficient operation of the SRN whilst acting as a delivery part to national economic growth.

Within this area the SRN comprises of the A12 and A120 between the A12 and the port of Harwich.

In responding to local plan consultation, we have regard to Dft Circular 01/2022 The Strategic Road Network and the delivery of sustainable development (the Circular) which sets out how interactions with the Strategic Road Network should be considered in the making of local plans.

In addition to the Dft Circular 01/2022 the response set out below is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other relevant policies.

Based upon our initial review of the reports and other supporting documents available to us we have identified the items below, where we require further information and or clarification to help in completing our review of the draft plan.

The plan commits to the delivery of approximately 20,800 homes and 41.7Ha of employment land over the plan period.

At present, based upon our review, National Highways is unable to determine whether the level of growth proposed can be accommodated on the SRN, as the transport evidence base and the Strategic Transport Assessment which support the plan are still being developed. While we have been involved in a number of meeting and discussions to date,, these have not yet reached a conclusion

It is anticipated that a final transport evidence base will be submitted in support of the plan. The provision of a robust transport evidence base will allow National Highways to work alongside the Local Highway Authorities using a clear and defined Reference Case. This will support the planning of mitigation measures to address the impacts of future developments, enable infrastructure delivery to support growth and identify appropriate mitigation alongside a strategy for funding.

Notwithstanding the above, work undertaken to date indicates that a number of locations on the SRN are already under stress, with particular concern at A12 junctions 25,26,28 and 29. In addition, sections of the main line are forecast to operate close to capacity during the plan period. A strategy to address these issues is currently being developed. National Highways also has concerns that the trip rates applied within the model may be optimistic and therefore could underestimate the impact of the Local Plan on the highway network. We note that not all forecast growth arises from the proposed Local Plan and that network conditions would remain challenging even in the absence of the Plans growth.

The work to date has assessed two scenarios, including one incorporating the A12 J19-J25 DCO improvement scheme, the funding for which was formally withdrawn in the summer of 2025. This change has necessitated a review of the Local Plan and its supporting evidence.

We welcome and fully support the Plans commitment to the delivery of an integrated and sustainable transport network, including measures to encourage modal shift to public transport and active travel. We recognise, however, that achieving a meaningful reduction in car dependence will be challenging. We welcome the commitment to Bus Rapid Transit, and emphasise that if development within the Plan is to come forward in a sustainable manner, the timing and coordinated delivery of development supporting infrastructure will be critical, noting that this remains a significant challenge for plan led growth.

Environmental transformation and climate change

It is noted that the submitted draft Local Plan and the identified site allocations will increase the number of residents living in close proximity to the SRN. As a result, it is likely that these locations will experience increased exposure to noise pollution from the SRN. National Highways will not support the provision of noise barriers located on its land as part of mitigation proposals.

The close proximity of development to the SRN also raises the potential for exceedances of air quality standards for which extraordinary measures such as a

permanent speed restriction may need to be considered. While it is acknowledged that air quality is expected to improve over time with the increasing uptake of fully

electric vehicles, this cannot be relied upon as the sole mitigation measure during the plan period.

Although several polices within the local plan require development to reduce Impacts on or improve local air quality, these provisions do not clearly address impacts arising specifically from the SRN, nor do they set out how any required mitigation would be identified and delivered. We will continue to work proactively with yourselves on these matters, however, we would recommend the inclusion of a specific policy mechanism that clearly identified:

how air quality and noise impacts associated with the SRN will be assessed and monitored: and
The range of potential interventions that may be required should adverse impacts be identified.

In addition, National Highways will not accept third party connections into its drainage systems. Development proposals must ensure that no additional surface water run off is discharged to the SRN drainage network Where necessary, drainage capacity will need to be fully assessed and upgraded by the developer to ensure no adverse impact on the SRN.

Health and Wellbeing

We support the policies which set out requirements for new developments to deliver inclusive, active and environmentally sustainable modes of travel, including measures to promote road safety and to manage the negative effects of road traffic on sustainable modes. We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with you to facilitate such travel particularly where there is an an interface with the SRN .

Lorry Parking

Lorry parking is a national problem, with particular pressures evident in East of England. National Highways would therefore welcome the investigation and allocation of a dedicated lorry parking facility within the Local Plan, ideally located in close proximity to the SRN. Where this is not achievable we would support the inclusion of a policy requirement for adequate lorry parking and overnight layover facilities to be provided as part of proposed employment sites and roadside service facilities. For context, we enclose a copy of AECOM report dated June 2019 (Appendix 2) which sets out the background evidence underpinning this request

Eight Ash Green and Copford,

National Highways is willing to work with the council and developers to explore opportunities to bring these sites forward. However, A12 J26 is currently operating very close to capacity and options for physical highway improvements at this location are extremely limited. The acceptability of development at this junction will therefore depend on whether queues on the slip road can be effectively managed to prevent interference with the A12. If this risk cannot be adequately mitigated, National Highways reserve the right to object to development at these sites, on the basis that it could give rise to a severe highway safety concern.

Marks Tey

The Plan identified three large site allocations. While the level of development proposed within the plan period does not represent the full quantum of development promoted for these sites, the principal of significantly larger scale development is established through allocation. Capacity on both the A12 and A120 is extremely constrained, and these corridors are not capable of accommodating additional growth without significant intervention. While it is acknowledged that Local Plan growth is only one contributory factor to existing and forecast congestion, there are currently no proposals for capacity enhancements on either route

Furthermore, development in close proximity to these corridors constrains opportunities for future improvements, particularly in the vicinity of A12 Junction 25, where land availability and operational flexibility is limited.

National Highways remains committed to continue to work with your authority in a collaborative and constructive manor to support the progression of the plan. We will continue to work with you to develop a clearer understanding of the impacts of proposed development upon the SRN and to explore whether, and how, such impacts could be accommodated.

We trust the above comments are helpful in informing the progression of your proposals and welcome continued engagement and discussion with the council on these matters.

See Full Submission attachment

We would like to see this footpath (see map attached) earmarked for a full cycleway to link Langham Lane with the path into the Northern Gateway.

Realistically this section of Severalls Lane is likely to remain busy with cars.

Should Langham Lane be made subject to a “residents only” filter as part of the proposed housing development, then this short section of path could provide a safe way to join the Northern Gateway path network.

Colchester Mile End & Highwoods
Motor traffic filtering is needed on Mile End Road/Nayland Road to prevent drivers rat-running; The route across High Woods from Turner Road to Brinkley Grove Road need to be upgraded to allow all-year use.; Foot/cycleways should be added on the north of Mill Road adjacent to the former rugby field.

Any development on the station car park site should include a remodelling of the station plaza to move all private motor traffic parking and taxis to the west of the north-side station building.
There should be improvements to roundabouts at the North Station entrance to provide improved access to/from North Station from all directions. Access to the foot/cycle bridge from the east is problematic: could this be straightened?
The station site is currently a cut-through for children going to North School and St Helena from the Tufnell Way estate. It needs to be made far safer and more attractive.

Colchester Parsons Heath and East Gates
The Harwich Road and Ipswich Road/Avenue of Remembrance roundabouts need to be redeveloped to encourage north-south cycling (as rebuilt in the 2010s, these form a virtually impenetrable barrier).
Improvements need to be made to the east-west route beside A133 from New Elmstead to London Road roundabout in Lexden.

Colchester Wivenhoe St Andrews (includes Greenstead)
Improvements to east-west route beside A133 from New Elmstead to London Road roundabout in Lexden. Better cycle connections from Greenstead to St Andrew’s Avenue and Greenstead Road.

Colchester Maypole (includes Berechurch)
See our observations on reducing the attractiveness of some roads for motor vehicle drivers and stopping rat runs.

Colchester Drury (includes Lexden)
Improvements to east-west route beside A133 from New Elmstead to London Road roundabout in Lexden. This could include a southside cycle route along Cymbeline Way to improve access to Glen Avenue and remove conflicts at the Spring Lane roundabout.

Consideration should be given to making Church Lane one-way for cars. This would allow the provision of a dedicated cycleway and footway.

Spring Lane/Bakers Lane: See our observations on reducing the attractiveness of country lanes for motor vehicle drivers and stopping rat runs.

Stanway and Pyefleet (mainly for Stanway)
Colchester Zoo needs improvements for people accessing the attraction by bus, cycle and foot. While a cycle route across the fields to the south is feasible, a fully segregated cycleway alongside Maldon Road from Shrub End to Heckfordbridge would be best.
A review of cycle and foot access to Stane Park and Tollgate retail park is needed. This could be done by way of supplementary planning guidance but needs to be within the planning system. There have been several issues with accessing Sainsbury’s from the Essex Yeomanry Way crossing.
Consideration needs to be given for improvements to the Tollgate roundabout to take cyclists from the Lucy Lane estate (and underpass from Eight Ash Green) into Tollgate.
Consideration needs to be given to how to improve cycle and foot access across the Lexden Road “barrier” to the Winstree Road schools with the aim of reducing the number of motorists making the school run..

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment

See Full Submission attachment