as previous

The Parking strategy in new housing estates is poor and needs to realistically accept the need for parking, rather than making it difficult its cars parking dangerously on the streets/paths, making it difficult for buses/ emergency vehicles to access. Rapid transit systems do not work for people who have to travel further to these sites than they from their homes, to aid business growth in the town centre cost effective and accessible parking needs to be offered.

An edge of City car park should be provided to the south side, say the Middlewick area and the Kent Blaxill site area, so that cars can be left here and existing public transport then used to access the city centre

Park and Ride does not exist near either PP29 or PP17, where is the land locally for this which can be easily accessed from both sites, PP29 particularly is not on a public transport route.
Similarly, how will any 'rapid transport route' other than a bus be viable on A120 and B1408?

Parking is never adequate in new build developments.

PC3 should require new retail developments within the urban area of Colchester to enter into a Parking Partnership which standardises charges throughout the town. Such an approach will discourage car use and support the town centre by mitigating the advantage held by out of town centres.

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

You say the use of Park and Ride and Rapid Transit System will be encouraged, but how do you anticipate people getting the the transport hubs? I would assume this will mainly be by car.In the case of PP9 to get to Park and Ride that means cars using St John's Road which is already badly congested at peak times. I'm sure you are aware that newer residential developments invariably lack parking capacity resulting in extensive on street parking causing congestion, danger and a negative effect on the general feel of an area and the wellbeing of it's residents.

TWSL acknowledges the standards set out by the Parking Guidance and the flexibility afforded by draft Policy PC3, and will continue to monitor the view of parking standards to understand the potential impact on the layout of scheme.

Please refer to Lichfields written representations letter obo Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land, dated 14 January 2026.

Officer summary of full submission. See attachment with detailed comments on numerous policies:
The overall message is one of support for CCC undertaking a review of the adopted Local Plan to ensure an up to date plan prepared in accordance with the NPPF is in place. ECC will continue the on-going engagement with CCC, through the Duty (or any replacement), to assist progress of the Plan to Regulation 19 (the Pre-Submission Plan), particularly with regards the strategic and cross boundary implications, including cumulative issues and opportunities arising from growth to ensure that the infrastructure requirements are identified, quantified, costed and phased where appropriate. ECC service areas have clearly outlined where further collaborative work/assessment needs to be undertaken (e.g. education provision and ongoing transportation modelling) to refine and resolve an issue; and ECC will continue to be engaged, alongside NH, on the proposals which have an impact on the A12 strategic transport corridor, in particular A12 junctions 25 to 28, A12 widening and junction improvements, and the A120 Corridor Maks Tey to Braintree.

There is support for the Draft Plan’s vision which covers environmental, social and economic needs and emphasises healthy living environments and green networks, environmental protection and economic growth. There is support that the mandatory housing target will be met in full and exceeded over the Plan period in accordance with the NPPF, and that future employment needs will be met (noting that some clarifications are sought) by providing a range in scale of additional employment land supply. ECC provides strong support for policies related to net zero carbon (in operation and embodied), water efficiency, health and well-being, and the environment (green and blue infrastructure and BNG. Recommendations are made throughout the response on policy wording (including policy omissions) and justification to strengthen clarity, effectiveness and delivery.

There is strong support for the inclusion of site-specific Place Policies and references to infrastructure requirements, but these will need to be reviewed and confirmed with ECC following this consultation and the agreement of a final spatial strategy by CCC. It is noted there are some omissions in the Draft Plan such as the allocation of a new secondary school. On this issue, ECC acknowledges the requirement is stated in the Infrastructure Assessment Delivery Plan (Stage 3) for site allocation PP18 Land North of A120 Marks Tey; and in the Infrastructure Topic Paper prepared by CCC, where Appendix A lists the infrastructure requirements for the preferred options site allocations (including those for education). Land for the secondary school (and all education requirements) will need to be allocated in the Pre-Submission Plan.

The review of the IDP and full plan viability assessment are key documents for ECC engagement and input following this round of consultation. The Viability Assessment will need to be reviewed following consultation to ensure it can align with the most up to date evidence relating to the EPOA net zero development policies and its viability evidence. Mention is also made in the response to specific localities and sites – notably Marks Tey and Langham – where discussion needs to take place and recommendations are made to ensure effective delivery if these proposed allocations are taken forward to the Pre-Submission Plan.