I object to the proposed development of St John’s Fields for the following reasons.
Damage to a very fragile eco system, the hydrology of the plateau will put Bullock wood at serious risk. Increased traffic flow
is a recipe for high pollution and grid lock.
It would have a devastating effect on bio diversity which there will be no recovery from. Excess flooding with no plan to alleviate this problem.
This is not the right area for such a development, and would be detrimental to this area of Colchester, environmental damage would be unrecoverable and devastating to the local area.

-Proposed plan shows development over our property and neighbours houses. Why?
-Moved to this location for the views over the fields and woodland, this will be lost.
-Speeding is a major issue along the A137 this will only get worse.
-devastation of existing wildlife paths.
-Skylarks are protected and there are 3no pairs which nest each year.
-ancient farming and woodland lost to urban sprawl
-Councils advised that if Garden community is built, no homes would be built here.
-No prior contact from CCC or notification of meetings or consultation- only found out from No boards.
Disgracefull, underhand approach

See our other comments.
Mainly disgraceful, underhand approach, back stepping approach from council.
We over look the area from a high up location and the view will be utterly devastated.

This housing development will take away a popular walking route for dog walkers, and create a ridiculous amount of traffic on an already busy area.

This is a beautiful space on the edge of the city and is entirely natural, a treasure for both the public and more importantly the wildlife. No matter what percentage open spec is claimed to have been allowed for within any plans, it will be impossible to deliver the natural beauty you can experience today. Please preserve this at all costs. I strongly object to any development in this area. Not for me, I am 63, but for my grand children. It is impossible for any development of any size to not damage the environment. Show some respect for what is not yours but every bodies and think past your/our lifetime. The environment must come first, no buts. Build IN the City, only.

I strongly oppose this development. There would be a detrimental effect on wildlife, the impact on Bullock Wood cannot be mitigated against. The increase in traffic on already gridlocked roads would be excessive. St Johns Rd is dangerously busy, I am unable to get in and out of my driveway easily most days. Several near misses happen regularly on this road, due to volumn of traffic.
More housing will impact flood risk to this area.
GP and Hospital facilities cannot cope with additional use.
Loss of wildlife corridor and impact on my quality of life along with my neighbours

Having lived in St John’s Road for 40 years the road traffic has increased substantially.In early mornings and late afternoon it’s a “ rat run”-already queues and traffic accelerating when turning in from the Rovers Tye roundabout danger lurks ,2000 ,homes maybe 4000 more cars and maybe 6000 more people ? Schools/ Medicals ?- ridiculous proposition! Plus loss of existing open spaces and footpaths ..oh dear

Having attended the town hall meeting for the local plan comittee on the 10th of November, the general opinion of the council was this is not the right place for a development but its better to have a bad plan than no plan. To me this is like being asked if you want a punch on the left arm or right!!! This plan would be a disaster to bullock woods and the surrounding wildlife. Road infrastructure is already at bursting point,water drainage/supply /sewage are at capacity. If we keep building on farm land, what future do we leave our children?

I cannot imagine a life where the green space around my home is destroyed. I grew up here. I walk my dogs here every week. It aids my mental health.
Bullock wood is an SSSI and absolutely must be protected.
The traffic in this area is atrocious. One set of "temporary" traffic lights on just one roundabout (i.e. Parsons Heath) causes major delays and it's clear the roads are struggling to cope as it is. Not to mention the fact that Colchester hospital is on its knees. I am aware that Colchester needs housing, but this is not the place.

Bullock Wood is an ancient protected woodland which has protected status. It is surrounded by Grade 2 agricultural land which is actively farmed and both host an array of wildlife including skylarks, kites and linnets. One end of Bullock Wood is already blocked off due to the development of the old Betts factory and therefore must remain open and protected to provide a green corridor along Welshwood and into Salary Brook. This beautiful landscape has great historical value and loss of this cannot be mitigated. The drainage system around these fields is what keeps the wood alive and concreting over this will kill Bullock Wood forever. I have read the councils own reports ,which give a negative impact on all elements apart from being able to provide housing. it would be total vandalism to build houses in this area just to get the numbers up due to the irreparable damage and this should be designated as a strategic open space instead. St John's Road, Parsons Heath, Harwich Road are already congested , they could not cope with potentially 4000 more cars and the Essex Highways report indicates there is no funding or credible solutions other than hoping that people walk and cycle more. Already roads around the fields get really flooded and this will only increase if the natural drainage from the field system is destroyed. I attended the Local Plan Committee on 10th November and the conclusions is that it was only voted through due to the desperation for numbers. As reported by councillors in the meeting and having read it and the accompanying documents it is just a wish list with no credible plans or solutions.

All CCC's evidence based reports, except housing need, state the negative impact development of this area will have on the landscape, environment, and biodiversity. The proposed development borders Bullock Wood, a site of special scientific interest. Research by Natural England, Forestry Commission, and Woodland Trust indicates that a substantial buffer zone around Bullock Wood is required to protect it from harm. The size of this zone impacts upon the financial viability of development. There are also issues with infrastructure; power, highway congestion, water supply, waste water disposal and treatment. The site is also in a minerals safeguarding zone.

The proposed development will irreversibly destroy the character of the high plateau landscape, losing the green boundary between Colchester and Tendring Councils. The land is heavy ;oan over a shallow layer of sand and gravel on London Clay. This results in an area that is very wet during the winter months with a perched water table. These conditions are essential to preserve Bullock Wood, an area of special scientific interest. Development will cause irreversible harm to the SSSI. There are also serious infrastructure issues associated with this propoed development as evidenced by CCC's evidence based reports.

I strongly object to housing PP9. Project Bullock Wood /wildlife - site of scientific/historical importance will be isolated/killed by development. Risk of overloading wastewater systems. No GP or new hospital planned. Queues to see Parsons Heath GP UNACCEPTABLE. Two hour wait to see paramedic. Waiting time to phone surgery unbelievable! A & E waiting times at hospital unacceptable. 94 year old mum had TWO DAY wait for a bed (died in 2 weeks). Building on farmland must be a last resort. Uk needs to grow its own food as global warming accelerates.
Transports solutions unacceptable for elderly/disabled who cannot cycle.

I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development (2000 dwellings) adjacent Bullock Wood (an SSSI). The main concerns are these:-
1 Lack of infrastructure plans. Road capacity in particular.
2 Further pressure being placed on local healthcare, schools etc.
3 Loss of amenity in terms of countryside (health benefits etc.)
4 Long lasting damage to ancient woodland.
The impact of further development should be considered in the context of the garden village development in the Ardleigh/Bromley/Elmstead areas. I have not seen evidence of this.

It’s a terrible idea the roads around St John’s ,parsons heath , and Ipswich road area are already running at full capacity at peak times . Lots of people from surrounding areas love to use the surrounding footpaths for exercise/dog walking etc as I have for the last 55 years not to mention the abundance of wildlife that rely the area for habitat .
Terrible idea to develop:destroy our fields

I strongly object to the allocation of Policy PP9 for up to 2,000 dwellings on St John’s Fields and the adjoining Welshwood area on the following grounds:
1. Irreversible Harm to Bullock Wood SSSI and Ancient Woodland
Bullock Wood is an Ancient Woodland and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) containing nationally rare plateau Alder wet woodland, ancient oak woodland and species-rich woodland edges. These habitats rely entirely on:
• Seasonal hydrology from the surrounding farmland
• Uninterrupted ecological connectivity
• Buffer zones free from noise, lighting and disturbance
Hydrology & Wet Woodland Failure
The Council’s own studies (Sustainability Appraisal, Biodiversity & BNG Study, Landscape Character Assessment) warn that altering runoff, field drains or soil infiltration on the east-facing slope will disrupt the water supply that sustains the plateau Alder communities. Any hydrological change risks permanent loss of the SSSI’s interest features, which—under NPPF Chapter 15—must be avoided, not mitigated after damage occurs.
Insufficient Buffers
Natural England advises that ancient woodland should have a 100 m buffer as a starting point to protect root zones, soils, hydrology and tranquillity. PP9 proposes no defined 100 m buffer, and the developable area extends directly up to the woodland edge. This is not compliant with Natural England, NPPF para 180, or best ecological practice.
Recreation, Noise & Lighting Impacts
The Council’s Biodiversity Study explicitly states that development would result in increased disturbance to the SSSI through:
• recreation pressure
• domestic pets
• noise and artificial lighting
• loss of tranquillity
• urbanisation of woodland edges
Mitigation options are acknowledged as inadequate.
Under NPPF 180(a), where adverse impacts on SSSIs are likely, development should not normally be permitted.
Policy PP9 fails this test.
2. Improper Application of the SLAA and Site Selection Methodology
The Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA) Methodology 2023 states that sites causing significant harm to biodiversity, especially those affecting SSSIs or irreplaceable habitats, should be considered unsuitable.
Despite this, St John’s Fields—immediately adjacent to an SSSI and containing sensitive ecological corridors—was nonetheless allocated. The SLAA tests have not been transparently applied, and the Council has not provided evidence that the site is appropriate for its location, as required by NPPF para 119 and 174.

3. Flood Risk and Drainage Failures
The Council’s Infrastructure Audit and Drainage Evidence confirm:
• The site lies on chalky boulder clay, a soil with very poor infiltration
• Two tributaries of the Salary Brook run directly through the development plateau
• Existing neighbourhoods downhill (St John’s Road, Mill Road, Bromley Road) already experience surface water flooding
• No designed and funded drainage strategy exists, particularly for managing the increased runoff from 2,000 houses, roads and hardstanding
NPPF para 159 requires sites to be proven safe from flooding before allocation. This requirement has not been met. Allocating a site requiring substantial future engineering works—none of which are designed, funded or guaranteed—fails basic soundness tests.

4. Transport Impacts Cannot Be Mitigated
The site has one vehicular outlet:
A137 / St John’s Road, already over capacity and characterised by:
• bottlenecks at Parsons Heath
• severe congestion at peak times
• no link to the A12 or A120
• residential roads being used as through-routes
Essex County Council has confirmed that the development will worsen traffic, and that no highway improvements are identified, funded or deliverable.
The cancellation of A12 widening worsens this position.
This makes PP9 non-compliant with NPPF para 110(b), which requires development to ensure safe and suitable access for all users. It also conflicts with para 111, which states that development should be refused where the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
For PP9, the impacts are undeniably severe and currently unmitigated.
5. Social Infrastructure Cannot Absorb 2,000 Homes
Evidence from the Council and local service providers shows:
• No secondary school exists in St John’s; the nearest schools are at or over capacity
• No land is secured for a secondary school within PP9
• GP practices are already overstretched
• Hospital capacity is a strategic function of central government; no funding is secured
• Police, social care and children’s services are already dealing with demand pressures
The Council has not demonstrated that essential infrastructure is deliverable before occupation, as required by NPPF para 73 and 122.
This makes PP9 unsound.

6. Loss of High-Quality Farmland, Green Corridors & Landscape Character
St John’s Fields forms part of the Langham Farmland Plateau landscape character area:
• high-quality agricultural soils
• intact hedgerow and ditch networks
• ecological corridors linking Bullock Wood to the wider countryside
• open plateau landscape forming an important setting to the SSSI
The Council’s own Landscape Character Assessment describes this as a sensitive landscape where large-scale development would cause high adverse effects.
Allocating the land directly contradicts this evidence.

7. Heritage, Historic Landscape & Setting
Historical records—including Chapman & André (1777), 19th-century OS mapping, and estate documentation—show that St John’s Fields and the surrounding landscape have been continuously farmed since medieval times, formerly forming part of the St John’s Abbey and later the Rebow/Wivenhoe Park Estate landscape.
This historic farmland contributes to the setting of Bullock Wood SSSI, long recognised as ecologically and historically important. The Local Plan fails to address the historic landscape value, conflicting with NPPF para 199–202.

8. The Allocation Is Not Sound
To be “sound”, a Local Plan policy must be:
• Justified – based on proportionate evidence
• Effective – deliverable and achievable
• Consistent with national policy
• Positively prepared
Policy PP9 fails on all four counts:
Soundness Test Failure
Justified Contradicts the Council’s own biodiversity, landscape, and hydrology evidence.
Effective No deliverable highway, drainage or school solutions.
Consistent with National Policy Fails NPPF tests for SSSIs, ancient woodland, flood risk, and transport.
Positively Prepared Ignores more sustainable and less harmful alternatives.
For these reasons, PP9 is unsound and should be removed from the Local Plan.
Conclusion
Given the significant, unmitigable, and irreversible harm identified across ecology, flood risk, transport, landscape, heritage, and social infrastructure — and the clear conflict with the Council’s own evidence and national policy — Policy PP9 should not proceed.
I therefore request that St John’s Fields / Welsh wood (Policy PP9) be withdrawn from the Local Plan.

I object to the proposed development in this area as it will reduce the availability of green space, drastically reduce the habitat for a great amount of wildlife.
Bullock wood should be preserved with ample space around to ensure the wood & wildlife can flourish & continue to survive.
Local residents need safe areas to walk, free from traffic to maintain wellbeing, healthy lifestyle.

Current infrastructure struggles with volume of traffic, St John’s road /Ipswich road clogged with traffic daily, the addition of this development will bring the roads to a standstill.
GP surgeries, dental practices are full to capacity.

I object that once again the area would be losing green space, vital to the wildlife within & important to the wellbeing of residents.
The ancient woodlands should be preserved ensuring the protection of wildlife that habitat within.
The fields are designated high quality for growing of crops.
The development greatly impacts an already congested road network & public transport.
Currently it can take thirty minutes to travel just one mile along St John’s rd/Ipswich road each morning.
Flooding within gardens and neighbouring access roads is already a regular occurrence which will be impacted further by an additional 2000 properties

Having lived on St Johns for over 25 years, as a family we object to the increase in housing.
Firstly the current road infrastructure is not coping with the flow of traffic. Colchester City as a whole is renowned for becoming at a standstill/gridlocked if there is an accident on the A12. This is becoming more regular and reports are often daily and impacts greatly on Ipswich Road, St Johns Road and Parsons Heath Road towards Ardleigh. St John's Road was a diversion route during the 2 years of rebuilding the Harwich Road and Ipswich Road roundabouts. Drivers have got used to using St Johns Road to cut through and the use of the road has increased greatly. Queues, morning, school run and evening are daily along St Johns Road, due to trying to get onto the Ipswich Road roundabout (Rover's Tye). With the addition of 2000 new homes this will increase the use of these roads substantially with a potential increase of a further 4000 vehicles. This will be both unhealthy with the increase in pollution and unsafe to both drivers and pedestrians, of whom already struggle to cross the St Johns Road.

Secondly, 2000 new homes means, approximately 8000 new residents, assuming families. The Doctors in this area are trying to manage appointments and our Colchester Hospital is already at breaking point, this is not only here but Nationwide and it is known that patients are being redirected to the Ipswich hospital. The Schools are again full, some students already in this area go to Manningtree, East Bergholt. The pressure already exists.

Thirdly, as previously mentioned the pollution of increase in housing, cars fumes will cause great damage to Bullock Wood SSSI; increase in flooding - many areas already floods e.g. Bullock Close and field off St Johns Road, always boggy throughout the winter. Also the killing of innocent wildlife of which they thrive in the wood and the fields.

Finally, the area designated for 2000 homes has been a place where residents enjoy walks with dogs/friends, running - running meets and to enjoy nature. With so much about trying to support mental health and well being this is the one place that so many current St John's residents go to. This will all be a lost!

I have lived in St. Johns Road for 35 years. I wish to object at the proposal of building on land adjacent to Bullock Wood.
The traffic has become significantly worse over the years, and would be unbearable with 2000 more houses in the area. The damage to Bullock Wood would be very disastrous to the area and the wildlife.
The local GP surgeries and hospital will been under significant pressure with more houses, as with schools.
There is no planned improvement to infrastructure, which will be detrimental to everybody in the locality.
Please don't allow this building.

It takes me close to 1 hour to home from work . 15 miles route 1 hour in the evening from cm7 to st johns co4 . St johns is bumper to bumper during school runs .
If the development goes ahead , St. Johns should be market with yellow lines so site cars can't park on the road obstructing all traffic even more .
I'm using all fields proposed everyday for walks, walking my dogs . It's a beautiful place that shouldn't be destroyed .
2000 houses will take more then 5 years to build as there is no company in UK with funds to build all of them at once . It will be done in lots .

Loss of community space for resident’s wellbeing and health.
No additional funding for roads and therefore increased traffic in NE Colchester results in more congestion.
Damage to Bullock Wood
Additional pressure on schools and health services.

I am writing to register my strong objection to the proposed development on the remaining
farm fields and green corridor of north Colchester, adjacent to Welshwood Park. This area is
not simply open land; it is a vital living landscape that supports wildlife, local food production,
and the wellbeing of the community. Once lost, it cannot be replaced.
1. Ecological and Wildlife Impact
This green corridor is home to a remarkable diversity of species. On a daily basis we see
swifts, crows, blue jays, woodpeckers, magpies, blackbirds, and various finches and tits. At
night, tawny owls can be heard calling from the mature trees. The hedgerows support
dormice, foxes, hedgehogs, and a range of lichens — delicate organisms that signal a
healthy ecosystem.
The landscape changes beautifully with the seasons, providing food, shelter, and breeding
habitat for wildlife throughout the year. In spring, wildflowers, blossom, and fresh growth
support pollinators; in summer, bees, butterflies, and birdsong make the area feel alive; in
autumn, hedgerows brim with rosehips, sloe berries, and blackberries that sustain birds and
small mammals; and even in winter, the calm stillness supports overwintering species.
The fields also create a unique microclimate. Early-morning fog provides vital moisture for
plants, insects, and lichens, contributing to the ecological richness of the area. Development
would disrupt this microclimate and fragment habitats that rely on continuity and maturity.
Wildlife cannot simply relocate elsewhere — these linked hedgerows, trees, and open fields
form an ecological network that would be irreparably damaged.
2. Importance of Hedgerows, Trees, and Landscape Character
The mature oaks, hawthorns, maples, wildflowers, and layered hedgerows give this area its
distinctive character. They are not decorative; they are functioning habitats essential for
wildlife survival. Removing or disrupting them for development would cause a cascade of
ecological loss.
The fields are also used regularly by feeding flocks of crows and other birds, demonstrating
how productive and biologically healthy this land is. Many of the moments residents most
value — such as swifts flying over the cornfields — are fleeting and difficult to capture in
photographs, yet their importance is profound and demonstrates the landscape’s vitality.
3. Loss of Local Food Production
These fields contribute to local agricultural production. If the land is lost to development, it
removes a source of local crops and reduces our rural sustainability. At a time when local
food networks are increasingly valued, removing productive farmland is counter-intuitive and
harmful.
4. Impacts on Residents’ Health and Wellbeing
The area provides essential mental and physical health benefits to residents. Our family
frequently walks through Welshwood Park and across the fields to the Pool of Tranquility. It
is a safe and restorative space where children can explore nature and where people of all
ages can breathe fresh air, experience the seasons, and enjoy natural “forest bathing”. Many
healthcare professionals now recognise the wellbeing value of spending time in nature; this
development would remove one of the last accessible places where residents can do this
daily.
The open, dark skies are another irreplaceable asset. At night we can see stars and
sometimes even planets — an experience that would be lost under increased streetlighting.
This additional light pollution would also harm nocturnal wildlife such as tawny owls, bats,
and insects.
5. Infrastructure Concerns
Local infrastructure is already under significant strain. Schools, GP surgeries, and road
networks in this part of Colchester are at or beyond capacity. Adding approximately 2000
new homes would worsen congestion, increase pressure on public services, and reduce
quality of life for existing residents. Development of this scale demands infrastructure that is
simply not present.
6. Irreversible Loss
Once this green corridor is built over, it will be gone forever. The landscape, wildlife habitats,
and agricultural functions cannot be recreated. The essential character of north Colchester
— and the wellbeing it provides to thousands of residents — will be permanently diminished.
Conclusion
I fully acknowledge the need for housing, but it should not come at the cost of destroying one
of the last remaining natural corridors in north Colchester. This area supports wildlife that
cannot advocate for itself, contributes to local food production, and sustains the physical and
mental health of the community. I therefore strongly urge the council to reject the proposed
development and to protect this vital landscape for current and future generations.
Thank you for considering my objection.

I oppose this proposal because it cannot guarantee safe or improved traffic flow on an already heavily congested road network. The development would cause significant harm to local nature, removing valuable arable farmland and putting ancient woodland at risk. There is still no clear plan for the essential infrastructure needed to support additional residents, meaning it will place even more pressure on already overstretched services such as GP provision. Overall, the impact on our environment, roads and community services would be severe and irreversible.

I am objecting to PP9 North East Colchester Site because it threatens valuable Grade 2 farmland, risks worsening sewage and flooding issues, endangers the nationally important Bullock Wood (SSSI), and could strain water supplies. The development would increase traffic and congestion, worsen road safety, and lacks adequate public transport. It also jeopardises a vital wildlife corridor, risking further environmental damage. These concerns highlight the need to preserve local resources and protect community wellbeing.

I wish to object to the proposed development of 2000 homes on the fields near Bullock Wood.
These fields include some of the highest quality agricultural land in the region. In the light of the increasing need to become self-sufficient in terms of British food production, it is worrying that it can apparently be built over like this.
The area also plays a vital role in supporting wildlife. I have often enjoyed the sight and sound of skylarks over the field near my house, and several other bird species. I have even seen yellowhammers in the area. And, of course, the proximity to Bullock Wood means that many other species of wildlife would be badly threatened by such a building project, and wildlife generally is already suffering severe declines, I understand that Bullock Wood is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and is an ancient woodland. The proximity of the proposed development will impact it badly.

The green space is not merely important for wildlife, though. It is deeply valued by the local community for offering the opportunity of exposure to nature through walks, and subsequent wellbeing. Such health benefits are vitally important these days.

I respectfully and strongly urge the Council to reconsider this proposal and seek alternatives that do not compromise our natural environment, agricultural heritage, and community health.

I wish to register my opposition to the proposed development.
I know you have received very clear and well argued points from the campaign group so I will not waste your time repeating them.
Suffice to say this is the wrong development in the wrong place.
I live on Highwoods and visit my patents daily on St John's Road.
The existing infrastructure and amenities are at capacity already in this part of the city.That along with the threat to wildlife, loss of farm land means you should reject this plan.

Main concern is the lack of infrastructure. The roads in the area are already far too busy.
Big reason is the effect on already stretched healthcare and school services
Loss of local community space.

Dear Planning Team,

We are writing to strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed development of 2000 homes on the fields near Bullock Wood particularly in the light of the fact that a large development of some 6000 houses is taking place quite nearby, which will already have a strong Impact on this area of Colchester.

This area of Colchester is such a blessing to all who live nearby and the greenery and wildlife in and around bullock Wood is of vital Importance to people's health and well being including mental health In an age where there is much being spoken about to do with health, both physical and mental. There is also a danger to health In the light of the fact that there will be the added pollution and noise which will be caused by the extra traffic needed to negotiate this area of Colchester and no amount of money will be able to compensate for the detrimental effect it will have on people's health both young and old alike.

Bullock Wood and the surrounding fields are full of Important wildlife and in an age where we are being asked to consider our environment and wildlife we believe this should be taken Into further consideration so that our future heritage will be preserved both for the good of ourselves and generations to come.

must Yours sincerely,

sprillare

N Millard (Mr) CB Millard (Mrs)

Protection of natural woodland is of national concern.
I refer to the article in the Telegraph 16th November 2025
"Ancient woodland are supposed to be our pride and joy; now we are destroying them.
What remains of Britains natural world is steadily being lost to the onslaught of new homes"