as previous

The site as marked on the call for sites map as Site 10082 covering a busy and pleasant walk/cycle route from New Braiswick Park to North Station and beyond, recently enhanced hedgerow and tree planting and most concerning, the Station car park itself. This is unnecessary infill creating serious parking issues elsewhere and bringing greater traffic volumes immediately onto North Station Roundabout. This is believed to be a speculative proposal not sourced by the landowners. Should there be some background proposals for fundamental redevelopment affecting North Station and its surrounds, MCC as a key local stakeholder should be made aware.

I object because this is a well used cycle and walking route for local people. It would cause parking problems and congestion, increase poor air quality and remove green space. This is not sustainable.

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policy PP6 because it is not justified, not effective, and not consistent with national planning policy.
PP6 represents inappropriate infill development that would remove a valued walking and cycling route linking New Braiswick Park to Colchester North Station, harming biodiversity and sustainable travel. The scale of development would increase traffic and congestion on Bergholt Road and at North Station Roundabout. The proposal appears speculative, with no clear evidence of deliverability or infrastructure capacity, and the policy does not show how these impacts would be mitigated. It should therefore be removed.

The sites outlined at north station car park is totally bonkers. Where are the visitors to the train station supposed to park. Access is also not suitable for housing as the area has poor infrastructure.

This area consists of some station car park and existing green land. I object to this being used to take even more green area away. In addition, the access to this area can only be via the station car park or Three Crowns road. This latter road already has a bad exit to Bergholt road with severely restricted sight lines and it would be dangerous to increase traffic on this minor residential road.

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 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

Our Colchester BID would like to see business uses maintained at street/ground floor level within the whole of the city centre/Primary Shopping Area. It would not object to upper floors above street/ground floor level being utilised as residential where appropriate. It may object to any change of use at street/ground floor level.
It would formally object to any HMO application within the city centre on the grounds of:
• Impact on commercial character and community cohesion
• Parking and traffic congestion
• Strain on local infrastructure
• Safety and anti-social behaviour (ASB)

and feels this use would be wholly inappropriate within the city centre/Primary Shopping Area. It would further insist that a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assessment be rigorously carried out before any final planning permission is granted.
Policy PP1: Britannia Car Park, Colchester
Our Colchester BID is unable to support the change of use of this car park to residential because it undermines the shared objective of a thriving, accessible and resilient city centre economy. The BID’s overriding priority is to safeguard the trading environment for businesses in Colchester city centre and the BID zone and to ensure policy decisions support, rather than weaken, that goal.
- Protecting city centre businesses
Our Colchester represents the collective interests of hundreds of levy-paying businesses whose success depends on reliable access for customers and staff. The proposed loss of centrally located spaces at Britannia Car Park would materially reduce capacity at the very point of access closest to key retail, hospitality, cultural and professional services in the BID area, increasing perceived and actual barriers to visiting the city centre.
City centre businesses already face structural pressures from online retail, out of town destinations and rising operating costs, and parking availability is a critical factor in decisions about where people shop, eat and spend leisure time. Any policy that removes a major provision of convenient parking without guaranteed, like for like alternatives risks depressing footfall, shortening dwell time and weakening business confidence across the BID zone.
- Policy context and regeneration aims
Our Colchester recognises and supports the Council’s wider objectives around climate action, sustainable transport and city centre regeneration, including the Positive Parking Strategy and related infrastructure upgrades. These objectives can and must be delivered in a way that keeps the city centre commercially viable, protects existing employment and underpins investment in new jobs and spaces within the BID area.
However, the redevelopment of Britannia Car Park must not proceed on the assumption that demand can simply be displaced to other locations or modes in the short to medium term. Even with planned improvements at alternative car parks and investment in public transport, the removal of this single asset represents a step change in capacity that will be felt most acutely by small and medium sized enterprises whose customers value proximity, convenience and perceived safety, particularly in the evening economy.
- Impact on staff, recruitment and inclusion
The BID is particularly concerned about the impact on employees working in the city centre, many of whom rely on Britannia Car Park for early morning, late night or shift pattern access when public transport options are limited. A substantial reduction in central parking risks making it harder for businesses to recruit and retain staff, raising costs and reducing the attractiveness of BID area employment compared with other locations.
There is also a risk that reduced central parking capacity will disproportionately affect workers and customers with mobility needs, caring responsibilities or safety concerns about travelling longer distances on foot, especially at night. Any policy change must therefore be assessed not only against environmental and transport metrics but also against equality, inclusion and safety impacts on those who depend on convenient access to the city centre.

- Colchester City Council research
Colchester City Council’s research may suggest that closing Britannia Car Park will not reduce total parking capacity across the wider city. Still, Our Colchester continues to believe the closure would significantly harm businesses, staff and customers in the city centre and BID zone. The core concern is not just how many spaces exist in total, but where those spaces are located, how easy they are to use, and what this means for the trading environment.
- Why “no net loss” still harms businesses
Even if overall city wide parking numbers remain stable on paper, removing spaces in one highly central, well used location changes behaviour in ways that affect businesses. Spaces that are further away, harder to find, or perceived as less safe in the evening are not equivalent for customers who want convenient access to shops, hospitality and services in the BID area.
“Spare” capacity in distant or less attractive car parks does not compensate for the loss of a major gateway site that many regular visitors habitually use. For time pressed visitors, families, older people and those travelling in from surrounding areas, added distance, complexity or uncertainty can be enough to deter a trip altogether or shorten their stay, directly impacting footfall and spend for city centre businesses.
- Challenging the assumptions in the Council’s evidence
The Council’s modelling appears to focus on typical occupancy across all city centre car parks, often showing spare capacity at certain times of day or week. However, this approach smooths out peak pressures and does not fully capture pinch points such as weekends, events, bad weather or the evening economy, when the convenience of a location like Britannia matters most.
There is also a difference between what is technically available and what people actually use in practice. Behavioural factors such as driver familiarity, signage, real time information, perceived safety and walking routes to key destinations are critical to how “usable” a space really is. If drivers struggle to find or feel comfortable using alternative car parks, the theoretical spare capacity will not translate into real world support for the BID area economy.
The BID is ready to work constructively with the Council, transport providers and developers to co design solutions that align with net zero and regeneration ambitions while protecting the commercial core that funds local services, supports thousands of jobs and underpins Colchester’s role as a leading city in the region. Until such safeguards are in place, Our Colchester must firmly oppose the closure of Britannia Car Park in its current form and will continue to advocate for policies that put the long term health of BID area businesses at the centre of decision making.


Policy PP2: Vineyard Gate, Colchester
Our Colchester BID is unable to support the change of use of this car park to residential because it undermines the shared objective of a thriving, accessible and resilient city centre economy. The BID’s overriding priority is to safeguard the trading environment for businesses in Colchester city centre and the BID zone and to ensure policy decisions support, rather than weaken, that goal.
- Protecting city centre businesses
Our Colchester represents the collective interests of hundreds of levy-paying businesses whose success depends on reliable access for customers and staff. The proposed loss of centrally located spaces at Vineyard Gate Car Park would materially reduce capacity at the very point of access closest to key retail, hospitality, cultural and professional services in the BID area, increasing perceived and actual barriers to visiting the city centre.
City centre businesses already face structural pressures from online retail, out of town destinations and rising operating costs, and parking availability is a critical factor in decisions about where people shop, eat and spend leisure time. Any policy that removes a major provision of convenient parking without guaranteed, like for like alternatives risks depressing footfall, shortening dwell time and weakening business confidence across the BID zone.
- Policy context and regeneration aims
Our Colchester recognises and supports the Council’s wider objectives around climate action, sustainable transport and city centre regeneration, including the Positive Parking Strategy and related infrastructure upgrades. These objectives can and must be delivered in a way that keeps the city centre commercially viable, protects existing employment and underpins investment in new jobs and spaces within the BID area.
However, the redevelopment of Vineyard Gate Car Park must not proceed on the assumption that demand can simply be displaced to other locations or modes in the short to medium term. Even with planned improvements at alternative car parks and investment in public transport, the removal of a single asset represents a step change in capacity that will be felt most acutely by small and medium sized enterprises whose customers value proximity, convenience and perceived safety, particularly in the evening economy.
- Impact on staff, recruitment and inclusion
The BID is particularly concerned about the impact on employees working in the city centre, many of whom rely on Vineyard Gate Car Park for early morning, late night or shift pattern access when public transport options are limited. A substantial reduction in central parking risks making it harder for businesses to recruit and retain staff, raising costs and reducing the attractiveness of BID area employment compared with other locations.
There is also a risk that reduced central parking capacity will disproportionately affect workers and customers with mobility needs, caring responsibilities or safety concerns about travelling longer distances on foot, especially at night. Any policy change must therefore be assessed not only against environmental and transport metrics but also against equality, inclusion and safety impacts on those who depend on convenient access to the city centre.

- Colchester City Council research
Colchester City Council’s research may suggest that closing Vineyard Gate Car Park will not reduce total parking capacity across the wider city. Still, Our Colchester continues to believe the closure would significantly harm businesses, staff and customers in the city centre and BID zone. The core concern is not just how many spaces exist in total, but where those spaces are located, how easy they are to use, and what this means for the trading environment.
- Why “no net loss” still harms businesses
Even if overall city wide parking numbers remain stable on paper, removing spaces in one highly central, well used location changes behaviour in ways that affect businesses. Spaces that are further away, harder to find, or perceived as less safe in the evening are not equivalent for customers who want convenient access to shops, hospitality and services in the BID area.
“Spare” capacity in distant or less attractive car parks does not compensate for the loss of a major gateway site that many regular visitors habitually use. For time pressed visitors, families, older people and those travelling in from surrounding areas, added distance, complexity or uncertainty can be enough to deter a trip altogether or shorten their stay, directly impacting footfall and spend for city centre businesses.
- Challenging the assumptions in the Council’s evidence
The Council’s modelling appears to focus on typical occupancy across all city centre car parks, often showing spare capacity at certain times of day or week. However, this approach smooths out peak pressures and does not fully capture pinch points such as weekends, events, bad weather or the evening economy, when the convenience of a location like Vineyard Gate matters most.
There is also a difference between what is technically available and what people actually use in practice. Behavioural factors such as driver familiarity, signage, real time information, perceived safety and walking routes to key destinations are critical to how “usable” a space really is. If drivers struggle to find or feel comfortable using alternative car parks, the theoretical spare capacity will not translate into real world support for the BID area economy.
The BID is ready to work constructively with the Council, transport providers and developers to co design solutions that align with net zero and regeneration ambitions while protecting the commercial core that funds local services, supports thousands of jobs and underpins Colchester’s role as a leading city in the region. Until such safeguards are in place, Our Colchester must firmly oppose the closure of Britannia Car Park in its current form and will continue to advocate for policies that put the long term health of BID area businesses at the centre of decision making.


Policy PP6: Land at Colchester North Station Mixed Used
This area is allocated mixed use, OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Policy OA4 Northern Gateway
a. Provision of approximately 650 new dwellings of a mix and type of housing to meet evidenced needs which is compatible with surrounding development;
b. Provision for employment on land north of Axial Way as shown on the policies map allocated for employment, primarily for office use within E class;
Reference b. OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre. We would consider the employment use to be for professional services/office provision.
Our Colchester welcomes the council’s requirements for any small retail / leisure uses within this local centre must be subject to the requirements of Policy E4 in respect of the sequential test and for proposals above 350sqm gross floorspace a retail impact assessment will also be required.
Policy PEP3 Land South of Tollgate West
Our Colchester BID would not like to see any more significant retail offered at this location. The existing Tollgate offering together with Stane Park are already a major retail attraction pulling custom away from the city centre/ Primary Shopping Area. Any further expansion of retail will significantly impact the economic viability of the city centre and pull even more custom away.
Policy PP9: North-East Colchester
Although this area is allocated as residential OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Policy PP10: Land South of Berechurch Hall Road, Colchester
Although this area is allocated as residential OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Growth and Opportunity Areas : Hythe Opportunity Areas consisting of : Policy OA1: King Edward Quay Opportunity Area/ Policy OA2: Land East of Hawkins Road Opportunity Area
These areas are likely to be allocated to residential, OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Marks Tey Growth Area consisting of : Policy PP18: Land North of A120, Marks Tey Growth Area: Policy PP18: Land North of A120, Marks Tey Growth Area
Although this area is allocated as residential OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Policy PEP5 Land South of A12, Marks Tey
This area is allocated to employment, OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Policy PEP6 Anderson's Site, Marks Tey
This area is allocated to employment, OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Policy PEP7 Highland Nursery, Tiptree
This area is allocated to employment, OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Policy PEP8 Land South of Factory Hill, Tiptree
This area is allocated to employment, OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Policy PP19: Land North of Oak Road, Tiptree
Although this area is allocated as residential OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.

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.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a duty on local authorities to reduce crime and
disorder within the community.
2. The National Planning Policy Framework 2024 requires the planning system to be plan
led, with plans contributing to the achievement of sustainable development - being shaped
by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan makers and infrastructure
providers, to set out the infrastructure contributions expected from development.
3. Essex Police is an essential social infrastructure provider in this respect, who works closely
with neighbourhoods to provide community safety, cohesion and policing in line with the
objectives and priorities set out in the Police & Crime Plan 2024-2028 to support the
creation of safe, strong, healthy, resilient and sustainable new communities.
4. With this in mind, Essex Police submitted evidence to inform the infrastructure scoping
process at the earlier (stakeholder) stages of the local plan review, linked to preparation of
the Colchester Infrastructure Audit & Delivery Plan (IADP) in December 2024 and June
2025, which is retained by the City Council as background documentation.
5. The IADP Stage 3 Report dated 24 October 2025 therefore outlines the Essex Police
infrastructure requirements to mitigate and manage the planned housing/ population
growth over the plan period to 2041.
6. The Essex Policing Model is outlined in the IADP and reproduced below for information.
Essex Policing Model
7. To use resources efficiently to address the incidence of crime and engage effectively with
the local community, Essex Police operates a ‘Local Policing Area’ (LPA) policing model.
8. Each Local Policing Area is resourced by a dedicated Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT),
consisting of Police Officers, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO’s), Community
Safety Engagement Officers, Children & Young Persons Officers and integrated local
partners and partnerships within co-located Community Safety Hubs.
9. This resourcing structure ensures that an appropriate level of response is coordinated at
the outset, ranging from a routine community safety/ cohesion deployment to a serious
crime response, to meet the community’s needs.
10. Both the construction and occupation phases of residential development lead to an
increase in the incidence of criminal activity . At the construction phase this includes property-based theft and vandalism, as
acknowledged by the Chartered Institute of Building in its publications concerning Crime in
the Construction Industry. Such incidents lead to an increased impact on police facilities
and a greater draw on Essex Police NPT resources.
12. At the occupation phase increased populations give rise to an increase in crime and
incidents against the person (e.g. violence, sexual, burglary, vehicle theft and criminal
damage). New residents would be the victims of such crime, leading to an increased impact
on police facilities and a greater draw on its NPT resources, including specialist unit support
officers.
13. Emerging new communities need to be integrated with existing communities, and an
appropriate level and duration of community safety, cohesion and policing would therefore
need to be provided across the occupation phases of developments.
14. Major new housing developments give rise to significant additional resource needs and
implications for NPT’s, (including specialist officers supporting the NPT’s), requiring
appropriate developer funding in order to mitigate and manage the community safety,
cohesion and policing requirements, including the crime impacts arising.
Police Infrastructure & Facilities (Police Facilities)
15. In the context of the Essex - wide plan making and development management processes,
police facilities are defined as follows;
❖ Additional or enhanced police station (Local Policing Team) floor space & facilities,
including fit out & refurbishment;
❖ Custody facilities;
❖ Mobile police stations;
❖ Communications, including ICT;
❖ Speed Camera/ Automatic Number Plate Recognition Technology;
❖ Police vehicles;
❖ Funding for additional staff resources, incorporating the recruitment, training,
equipping & tasking of Police Community Support Officers (PCSO’s) during the
construction phase of residential development, & recruitment, training equipping of Local Policing Team Officers (LPTO’s) during the occupation phase of
residential development;
16. The developer funded police facilities required to mitigate and manage the impact arising
on Essex Police service capacity (and related costs) are outlined in the IADP.
Local Plan Text & Policy Revisions
17. Essex Police is satisfied that the IADP reflects its budgetary evidence concerning the level
of developer funded police facilities required to mitigate and manage the planned housing/
population growth within the Colchester City Council area to 2041.
18. Essex Police is not currently satisfied, however, that the text and policies within the
Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation are sufficiently justified or
comprehensive, as they are not considered to;
❖ Identify Essex Police as an essential social infrastructure provider – requiring
developer funding in order to mitigate & manage the impacts arising from
planned housing/ population growth;
❖ Essex County Fire & Rescue Service & the East of England Ambulance Service NHS
Trust are also not identified as essential infrastructure providers;
❖ Provide sufficient clarity concerning the requirement for developer funded police
infrastructure/ facilities in association with the strategic housing sites >250
dwellings;
❖ Provide sufficient recognition concerning the definition of ‘infrastructure’ being
applicable to police infrastructure/ facilities (police facilities) – this position is
equally applicable to fire & rescue & ambulance facilities;
❖ Provide adequate recognition to the wider remit & role of Essex Police in providing
community safety, cohesion & policing in contributing to the delivery of sustainable
new communities, in addition to its duties as a Category 1 Responder under the
Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (i.e. its emergency service role) - this position is equally
applicable to fire & rescue & ambulance facilities;
19. A Schedule of Text & Policy Changes outline the changes sought to the draft text and
policies contained in the Preferred Options Local Plan, which is submitted as an
Accompanying Document.
20. In addition, 16 x form-based representations outline the changes sought, and are
submitted as Accompanying Documents.
21. Essex Police commend the changes sought in its representations which are considered
necessary to provide for a justified and comprehensive local plan, and look forward to
continuing its productive working relationship with the City Council and its retained consultants to that end