TA will be the silver bullet here for everyone

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policy PC4 because it promotes increased densities without sufficient regard to local character, infrastructure capacity, or environmental constraints. The policy lacks clear thresholds or safeguards to prevent overdevelopment in sensitive or semi-rural locations (e.g. Braiswick). This risks inappropriate density, pressure on services, and harm to local character. The policy is not justified by site-specific evidence and may result in development that is inconsistent with sustainable placemaking

For PP17 the likely density of 300 homes will significantly affect and damage the rural nature of the area could be seen as in conflict with the Copford Nplan Policies CE1 and CE2a.

Use brownfield sites first.

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.

Colchester is already over populated

The number of dwellings proposed in Marks Tey will double or even treble the population and create a small town. What is the Master plan for access to and from the dwellings as the existing infrastucture of the A12 and A120 will not support the possible number of extra vehicles. The village will be split in two so how are the communities supposed to integrate with each other as the two roads are between the developments. Why couldn't the land behind the existing estate be developed instead of over the other side of the A12?

Policy PC4 should require higher densities near to transport hubs in line with new NPPF. The viability appraisals should assume 35dph as for the garden community not 30dph which adversely affects viability.

Very low densities of 10-20 dph are proposed for the strategic sites. The plan should EITHER indicate that the allocation is a maximum OR the land allocated should be reduced to the amount needed, something that will significantly improve viability and prevent creepage.

If this isn't done we can expect to see inefficient viability appraisals and pressure for even bigger housing numbers without the supporting infrastructure.

As written this policy will favour developments that give residents less travel choices. Whilst point b requires developers to demonstrate the adequacy of the local road network, there is no matching requirement to demonstrate the adequacy of the local active/sustainable/public transport network. Whilst the first part of point b (on roads) is specific and requires evidence, the second part of point b (on other transport options) is vague and only refers to "scope to enhance", which could mean anything.

Point b should be re-written to refer only to the local road network, and an additional point should be added, as

"The adequacy of and access to the local active, sustainable, and public transport network to accommodate the traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development (that has been supported by evidence)."

West Bergholt Parish Council supports this policy.

The proposal to construct 300 houses off Dawes Lane, West Mersea puts excessive pressure on theexisting infrastructure. Water and sewerage capacity will not cater for this additional overload; the oyster beds in the estuary are already suffering from this pollution. Local medical services are already unable to meet the needs of the current community with new residents finding it hard to find a doctors’ surgery even off the island. In addition utilities services are unable to cope with existing demand, 300 new houses equals at least another 600 cars with the obvious affect on pollution, air quality and road safety.

The policy should include specific density targets for those sites close to sustainable transport options and facilities to assist meeting modal shift targets and to minimise the amount of allocated land required. Elsewhere, and particularly on greenfield sites close to adjoining Small and Medium Settlements, densities should reflect the existing form and character of the settlement.

It looks like this Policy will be quite supportive of high density development. I know the modern way is to cram in as many homes as possible due to land availabilty and pricing, but this is awful for wildlife as any gardens are small and often lack connection, as the trend is away from straight rows of homes to lots of twists and turns. Therefore no wildlife corridors, and as you have identified greenfield sites for most of the allocations wildlife that has already been pushed out by development has no way of re-establishing itself in the area. In condition (b) who will be responsible for providing evidence of traffic volumes to determine the effect on the local road network? In your Sustainabilty Appraisal Report transport was only assessed on the basis of distances from railway stations, bus stops and cycle paths, which wasn't much use in determining the real world impact on the road network.

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.

We support this policy seeking to enable densities that make efficient use of land and the recognition that development densities that support sustainable transport and help sustain local amenities will be supported. The policy sets out:

“Developments with higher densities, that contrast with surroundings densities, will be supported where the wider development provides for public benefits in excess of standard policy requirements (e.g. >30% affordable housing, >10% POS, exemplar standard of design and placemaking). Benefits will need to outweigh any detrimental impacts arising from the increase in density and any resulting harm.”

It is considered requiring public benefits in excess of standard policy requirement where higher densities are proposed does not align with the NPPF 2024. Using explicit figures of more than 30% affordable housing and more than 10% Public open space in practice will be treated as an expected requirement. Paragraph 129 of the NPPF 2024 seeks to make efficient use of land which takes into account promoting change. The wording “contrast” with surrounding density is unclear and at present the wording is not justified, effective or positively prepared as set out in paragraph 36 of the NPPF 2024 and is recommended is reworded as follows:

“Higher density development that exceeds surrounding densities will be supported where it is appropriately located, demonstrates a high standard of design and placemaking, and where any adverse impacts are adequately mitigated.”

See attachment with detailed comments on numerous policies. Anglian Water welcomes the opportunity to contribute comments on the Draft
Local Plan for Colchester City Council. We consider that the Plan is well set out with in relation
to managing flood risk, surface water and wastewater, and enabling water efficiency. We
recognise the challenges for meeting the uplift in housing requirements and the
infrastructure required to help deliver future growth across the district, with the main
focus being Colchester and the larger towns.
We have raised some policy matters relating to consistency between policies addressing surface
water flood risk, water supply, and wastewater, and how these matters are attributed to site
allocation policies.
We look forward to continuing our positive and proactive discussions with the Council in
respect of our comments and the next iteration of the Local Plan, including supporting updates
to the evidence base if required

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 attached

SEE ATTACHED