as previous

This site would attach itself to the Chesterwell development and should not currently classified as part of it. Chesterwell is capped at 1,600 dwellings. PP5 would bring jeopardy to part of the Chesterwell Green infrastructure Strategy and add further traffic movement problems whichever access point was chosen. This site is believed to be part of Colchester Golf Club. In addition to the concerns expressed above it's development would mean unnecessary and inappropriate green land infill.

I object because the chesterwell site is already very big and more housing would add more pressure to our already struggling services and infrastructure. It would also increase traffic congestion.

Site PP5 is within the wider setting of the Grade II listed Braiswick farmhouse (LEN 1337395).

Initial assessment

While development at this site may be acceptable, we agree that a Heritage Impact Assessment (Proforma) will be necessary to confirm the site’s suitability from a historic environment perspective and to identify any mitigation measures or opportunities for enhancement. The resulting recommendations should then be incorporated into criterion ‘f’.

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policy PP5 because it is not justified, not effective, and not consistent with national planning policy.
PP5 represents unnecessary greenfield infill adjoining the Chesterwell development, which is already capped at 1,600 dwellings. The allocation extends development beyond planned limits without reassessing cumulative impacts or infrastructure capacity. It threatens the Chesterwell Green Infrastructure Strategy and the loss of land with biodiversity value. The proposal would also add traffic to an area already under pressure, with no clear evidence that highway or service capacity exists. PP5 is therefore not supported by proportionate evidence and should be removed.

Given the proximity of equestrian facilities (Armoury Farm and further into West Bergholt), we encourage any new PRoW connectivity additions to include multi-user routes (MURs) to ensure inclusivity for all non-motorised users. MURs function as public highways and are best defined as restricted byways—open to pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists, and users of non-motorised vehicles—or as bridleways, which permit access for pedestrians, horse riders, and cyclists. Bridleways are not just for horses and do not require any additional infrastructure beyond that of a cycleway. They do not cost more money.

The inclusion of a further 50 houses at Chesterwell is not sustainable as the infrastructure and schools don’t have capacity.

Please see LPP Representation Letters dated 12th January 2026

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

see attached

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.