Please use authentic Traditional Architecture Design Codes as illustrated in my PDF umbrella Representation as these will support all key stakeholders ranging from property owners to the Local Authority itself and the community on strong economic, ecological and environmental grounds. Place a Ban on demolition of buildings constructed prior to 1950 and grant full protection of historic buildings, be these listed, Non-Designated Heritage Assets or otherwise.

If homes are to be built in either PP29 or PP17 sites, they must be in accordance with Copford with Easthorpe Neighbourhood Plan Policies CE3/ CE4 and the detailed AECOM design notes which accompany the made plan-pages 14,17,30,26 and photos pages 15 to 28 are relevant

West Bergholt Parish Council supports this policy.

The policy is supported as it includes principles which encourage health and wellbeing including physical activity. Principles c) d), f), g), k) and l) are particularly supported in this regard and it is welcomed that principle k) specifically requires developments to demonstrate that Active Design principles will be integrated. The policy would also be consistent with Government planning policy especially in paragraphs 96 and 129 of the NPPF. It is considered that the policy could be improved by the following amendments being made:

• Principle c) could encourage the co-location of community facilities in new developments. The provision of facilities such as schools, shops, workplaces and strategic open spaces in close proximity to each other reduces the number of trips people to have to make and thereby encourages active travel.
• Principle f) could support creating opportunities for physical activity as well because safe and secure environments will encourage people to be active in them.
• Principle l) should refer to a network of multi functional green infrastructure, open space and landscape in recognition that multi-functional spaces will encourage use of them and thereby support physical activity by a range of groups within the community.

Design is subjective. There have been some houses built on Coast Road West Mersea which could, by an architect, be described as “cutting edge” but to anyone else they are monstrous bus shelters. Neighbours have to see them every day, architects move on the next project. The old saying “ Doctors bury their mistakes, architects grow creepers over them”if only!

Stanfords Colchester LLP has submitted detailed representations on this draft policy; please refer to the attached document.

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 PC6 is supported in principle, particularly the opening section which sets out a clear, balanced and positive expectation for high quality design, placemaking and amenity. This introductory paragraph broadly reflects national policy and is sufficient, in itself, to guide decision-making.

However, we object to the policy as drafted due to its excessive length, duplication with other Local Plan policies, and inclusion of detailed development management matters more appropriately addressed through guidance or Building Regulations.

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

Colchester Zoo supports the Council’s aspiration to promote high-quality, sustainable, and contextually appropriate design as set out within draft Policy PC6. However, the policy is overly prescriptive and inflexible, applying detailed requirements to all forms and scales of development without sufficient regard to site-specific circumstances, deliverability, or viability.
The policy contains a long list of detailed requirements covering design, amenity, placemaking, sustainability, active design, green infrastructure, internal standards, sprinkler systems, and more. While many objectives are commendable, the policy is drafted in a highly prescriptive and inflexible manner, applying to all developments regardless of scale, type, or context. The policy appears to impose prescriptive outcomes rather than design-led solutions suited to context and development type.
The NPPF (paragraph 16) requires policies to be positively prepared, effective, and sufficiently flexible to enable sustainable development. Blanket requirements for minor developments (e.g., all new build, extensions, or alterations) risk unnecessarily restricting otherwise acceptable development and may lead to inconsistent decision-making.
Within criterion r) the policy also duplicates control achieved under separate legislation i.e. Building Regulations, which risks creating unnecessary complexity and potential conflicts and this should be deleted.
Certain elements, such as references to 'positively respond to context' or 'help raise design standards' are ambiguous and subjective, reducing clarity and enforceability.
The final paragraph reads as if it is applying blanket approach to all developments requiring to be in accordance with submitted Masterplans and Design Codes, applying to all developments regardless of scale, type, or context. To remain fully consistent with the NPPF, the requirement to be 'in accordance with' masterplans and design codes should not be applied so rigidly that it prevents justified departures where material considerations indicate otherwise, as policies and codes must still allow for planning judgement (NPPF, paragraph 48).
Cumulatively, the policy imposes a high burden on development, which may undermine the delivery of otherwise sustainable schemes and conflict with the NPPF (2024, paragraphs 16 and 130), which requires policies to be positively prepared, effective, sufficiently flexible, and enable sustainable development.

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 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.

see attached

See Full Submission attachment

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.