Iinclusion of 10616 will cause loss of strategic countryside gap between Colchester and next development the garden community
(The Salary Brook valley is beautiful and is recorded as of high landscape value.
There will be a loss of amenity space, I exercise and daily walk the valley and Welshwood which has beautiful spring bluebells
Bullock wood and Welshwood are two ends of a natural corridor for much life including deer which travel between them often through our garden.
Infrastructure constraints. Access to the North field from Harwich Road is dangerous crossing a railway near a humpback bridge.

We reside on St Johns Road and the current traffic density is already far too much for a minor estate road. Northbound traffic is constantly queuing from the Rovers Tye roundabout past our property towards Christopher Road particularly during "rush hour" and school opening/closing times. Similarly we often see queuing traffic on the southbound side of St Johns Road heading to Parsons Heath. Furthermore, as pensioners, a substantial increase in population would severely hamper our ability to obtain doctors appointments in our local GP practice. We often walk around the Bullock Wood area and enjoy looking at the local wildlife.

Please see attached detail representation.
Summary and Conclusions:
It is Welshwood Park residents view that as proposed the draft Local Plan is currently ‘unsound’. They
have significant concerns relating to draft policy PP9: East Colchester, particularly relating to land
south of the rail line. The allocation lacks justification and is not supported by sufficient evidence.
4.2 It is Welshwood Park residents view, supported with detailed evidence, that the land south of the rail
line has significant landscape and biodiversity value and should be protected well into the future for
the benefit of the City. Coalescences between the east of Colchester and the new Garden
Community is a significant concern for residents and addressing this issue is completely absent from
draft policy PP9. As drafted, development within draft allocation PP9 will have a significant adverse
impacts on landscape, biodiversity and result in visual coalescence with the new Garden Community.
This is in complete contradiction to the Local Plan aims and objectives. It is a highly valued and loved
area and must not be lost forever to development.
4.3 Welshwood Park residents have provided constructive amendments, based on evidence, on how we
consider that the Council can amend the Local Plan, particularly policy PP9, to make it ‘sound’ and
meet all its Local Plan aims and objectives.
4.4 We hope that the Council will review our representation in detail and take on board our views.
Welshwood Park residents are willing to work in partnership with the Council to ensure they deliver
a ‘sound’ Local Plan.

I have read the proposal to allocate land at PP9: North East Colchester with care, and object on the following grounds.

Land availability
The Plan proceeds on the assumption that access can be secured across land which is neither in single ownership nor promoted through the Call for Sites. No evidence is offered to support this assumption. One is asked simply to believe that third-party land will become available at the appropriate moment, at the appropriate price, and without impediment.

Coalescence and settlement identity
The Council’s own assessment identifies this site as high risk for coalescence. That warning appears to have been noted and then ignored. When viewed alongside the scale of the nearby garden community, allocation of this land would complete the process of outward sprawl and remove what remains of the countryside gap.

If the purpose of settlement boundaries is to mean anything at all, it is hard to see how this proposal can be reconciled with them.

Biodiversity
The site sits adjacent to Welsh Wood and Wall’s Wood, an area regularly home to species of birds featured on threatened lists (redwings and skylarks are just two witnessed in the last few months). Reference is made to mitigation and enhancement, but in the abstract; no convincing explanation is offered as to how existing ecological function would be preserved, let alone improved, once development pressure is introduced.

Landscape impact
The land forms part of the Salary Brook valley - an area long recognised for its landscape sensitivity. The Plan’s assessment treats this as an inconvenience rather than a constraint. The effect of development would be to replace open valley landscape with built form, permanently and irreversibly. This harm is neither minor nor incidental. It is central to the character of the area.

Public amenity
The site is used for walking and is crossed by public paths. It is an widely used local venue to birdspot. The loss of this amenity is acknowledged only in passing. No serious attempt is made to weigh this loss against the benefits of allocation. Residents will be left with no meaningful green areas in safe walking distance to exercise.

Infrastructure
The Plan recognises existing pressure on medical services, transport and utilities, and yet proposes further growth without firm commitments, funding certainty or delivery mechanisms. To assert that infrastructure will follow is not the same as demonstrating that it can. The junction of Parsons Heath and St John’s Road is built for a bygone era, already crippled at rush hour and offers no scope to be improved. The Bromley Rd / Harwich Rd / Parsons Heath junction is no different. The Plan is dislocated from the practical consequences of its proposals. The addition of thousands of vehicles to the local road network is treated as a theoretical exercise, rather than a daily reality for those who will experience the resulting congestion.

The Plan also repeats a familiar error in local planning in modern times: the creation of inward-looking residential enclaves served by a single point of access. Such layouts offer no meaningful relief to surrounding roads and add severe strain to the existing network.

This approach stands in contrast to established areas of Colchester, such as Shrub End and Prettygate, where through-routes connect neighbourhoods and distribute traffic across the wider network. Those historic patterns were not accidental; they reflect an understanding that permeability and choice of movement are essential to avoiding pressure being concentrated at a single junction.

Conclusion
In short, this allocation is not shown to be deliverable, justified or consistent with national policy. It would cause clear and lasting harm to landscape character and settlement form, and it is advanced without the evidence required to support it.

I therefore object to the inclusion of Sites 10616, 10616a and 10616b within the Local Plan and request that the allocation be withdrawn and the existing settlement boundary retained.

I OBJECT to this development. I live on St John’s Road. Traffic is constant, it’s difficult to get out of my drive due to queues of traffic. I have to queue to go to work (not walkable) & again when I return. I dread to think how bad the air quality already is! I struggle to get a doctor/dentist appointment already & if I need to go to hospital, it’s impossible to park.There are not many green spaces left & having the fields/woods to walk is invaluable to me. The area will come to a standstill if this goes ahead.

This valuable green space provides a place for mental well being, peace and tranquillity. It’s regularly used by walkers and dog walkers. It’s an oasis within a large housing estate and the infrastructure around it cannot support further development. There is already serious congestion most times of the day.

The Salary Brook valley is the natural boundary between Colchester and the Garden Community. This Policy and IDS10616 significantly reduces the space between them. The planned growth of the Garden Community makes complete sense; the inevitably haphazard growth in infrastructure needed by PP9 will not be nearly as effective in meeting needs, and will be more expensive. PP9 could substantially affect the successful development of the Garden Community. From a strategic planning perspective the housing needs of NE Colchester would be much better met by an expanded and more rapidly developed Garden Community

I object to this proposal as the area you are suggesting is a quiet natural place that has existed for many years. I have lived in the area for 29 years, grew up playing in this area. It is an open space full of wildlife something which is constantly being taken away. It is an area for people to escape and assist with mental health. For dog walking, fitness, walking and agriculture. The traffic in the area is already poor and unsustainable. The city is already struggling with medical facilities and this will be a further burden.

I am objecting to this development due to the damaging impact this will have on Bullock Wood - on both the woodland and wildlife, but also the drainage. There has been no solution suggested for this and to permanently damage a SSSI is both negligent to our environment and its history, and to the quality of life of the people who live here.
We live on Green Lane and regularly see areas of flooding - eg on Dunthorne Road or Bullace Close, where it is clear that the current system cannot cope, let alone adding all these new houses in.

The proposal to build on these fields will if it goes ahead have a detrimental impact upon wildlife. It will destroy natural corridors and habitat for numerous bird species and other animals. Bullock wood is an SSSI ancient woodland with it's own unique eco system. To build 2000 houses around this area will cause damage to this woodland. The impact of housing being on top of Bullock wood will adversely affect drainage and the eco system. The housing and people living there will create waste products and refuse which is likely to impinge upon the woodland. The fields are an important open space for people to be in nature and are positive for mental health and wellbeing of individuals. The fields all around the area are an important green space in an already very built up city. The extra strain upon an already overly congested road system with all the extra cars on the road from new housing here will be huge. It will make journeys harder for a lot of people. The local Drs surgeries are already at capacity and to have to cater for that many more people is going to place untold strain upon services. There is some need for housing, however, using green space such as this is not conducive to the environment and we already have overstretched services in this area. I urge you to reconsider as this will not have a positive impact on this area if building goes ahead for the above reasons. I am sure there are many other reasons not to go ahead which I am sure other objectors have imparted to you.

Dear Planning Policy Team,

I OBJECT to the proposed allocation of Site ID 10616 – Land north of Bromley Road, Colchester within the Preferred Options Local Plan.

My objection is based on the following material planning considerations, with reference to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and relevant Colchester Local Plan objectives.

---

1. Impact on Wildlife and Biodiversity (NPPF Sections 8 & 15)

Paragraphs 174, 175 and 180 of the NPPF require planning policies to avoid harm to biodiversity, protect priority habitats and species, and maintain ecological networks.

The site supports a wide range of protected and priority species and functions as an important wildlife corridor. I have personally observed the following species on and around the land: badgers, foxes, nesting buzzards with young, kestrels, red kites, jays, woodpeckers (including nesting birds), several species of bats, reptiles such as grass snakes and slow worms, barn owls, tawny owls, and water voles.

The presence of these species demonstrates that the site has high ecological value. Development of this scale would cause habitat loss, fragmentation, disturbance, and displacement that cannot be adequately avoided or mitigated, contrary to NPPF paragraph 180(a).

---

2. Harm to Trees, Ancient Trees, and Woodland (NPPF Paragraph 180(c))

The site contains mature trees and areas of woodland that contribute significantly to biodiversity, landscape character, and climate resilience. Some trees may qualify as ancient or veteran trees, which the NPPF identifies as irreplaceable habitats.

Paragraph 180(c) states that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons, which have not been demonstrated for this allocation.

---

3. Streams, Waterways, and Associated Habitats (NPPF Paragraphs 174 & 180)

The land contains streams and watercourses that support sensitive habitats and species including water voles, badgers, woodpeckers, foxes, deer, and nesting buzzards.

Development would risk pollution, altered hydrology, and ecological degradation, contrary to NPPF paragraph 174(a).

---

4. Flood Risk and Loss of Permeable Land (NPPF Paragraphs 159 & 174(e))

Although the site itself may not lie within a formal flood zone, it currently functions as permeable greenfield land that absorbs surface water and regulates natural drainage.

Development would significantly reduce permeability, increasing surface water runoff and flood risk downstream, where existing residential properties are located closer to the main salary stream. This would conflict with NPPF paragraph 159, which requires development to avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere, and paragraph 174(e) which seeks climate resilience.

---

5. Transport, Traffic, and Cumulative Highway Impacts (NPPF Section 9)

Paragraphs 104, 105 and 110 of the NPPF require development to prioritise sustainable transport and ensure cumulative impacts on the transport network are acceptable.

Bromley Road already experiences significant congestion due to recent housing developments, which will be further exacerbated by planned growth in Ardleigh and Elmstead Market. Parsons Heath and Harwich Road already suffer from congestion and are primary routes into Colchester and to the railway station for cars, buses, cyclists, and pedestrians.

The Local Plan fails to adequately assess the cumulative impact of existing, consented, and proposed development on these routes, contrary to NPPF paragraph 110(a).

---

6. Unsustainable Location and Car Dependency (NPPF Paragraphs 104 & 105)

The site is not located where future residents could reasonably meet daily needs by walking, cycling, or public transport. As a result, development would be inherently car-dependent, increasing congestion, emissions, and pressure on already constrained roads.

---

7. Loss of Valued Greenfield Land Used by the Community (NPPF Section 8)

Paragraphs 92 and 98 of the NPPF emphasise the importance of access to open space to support physical and mental wellbeing.

This land is used informally by the local community for walking, recreation, and connection with nature. Its loss would remove an important green space that supports mental health, wellbeing, and quality of life.

---

8. Alignment with Colchester Local Plan Objectives (Supporting Policy Context)

In addition to conflicts with national policy, the allocation of Site ID 10616 is inconsistent with Colchester Local Plan objectives that seek to:

- Protect and enhance biodiversity and green infrastructure
- Safeguard valued landscapes and countryside character
- Ensure development is supported by adequate transport and community infrastructure
- Promote healthy, sustainable communities

The inclusion of this site undermines these locally defined priorities by allocating ecologically valuable greenfield land in a location constrained by highway capacity and infrastructure limitations.

---

9. Lack of Evidence and Failure of Plan Soundness (NPPF Paragraph 35)

The allocation of Site ID 10616 is not supported by proportionate or robust evidence, as required by NPPF paragraph 35, which states that Local Plans must be justified, effective, and consistent with national policy.

In particular:
- No detailed ecological survey evidence has been provided despite clear indicators of protected species
- No funded or deliverable highways mitigation strategy is identified
- No clear infrastructure delivery plan demonstrates impacts can be adequately addressed

The site therefore cannot be demonstrated to be justified or effective, rendering the Plan unsound.

---

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above — including unacceptable ecological harm, loss of irreplaceable habitats, increased downstream flood risk, severe cumulative highway impacts, unsustainable location, loss of valued community green space, and lack of supporting evidence — the allocation of Site ID 10616 is not consistent with the NPPF or Colchester Local Plan objectives.

I therefore strongly request that Site ID 10616 is removed from the Local Plan, and that alternative, more sustainable sites are considered.

Yours sincerely,

[NAME AND ADDRESS REDACTED]

Objection Summary: The Plan is Unsound
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of the site referenced above. I consider
the Local Plan to be UNSOUND on the grounds that it is Not Justified, Not Effective, and
Inconsistent with National Policy.
The allocation fails to acknowledge critical evidence within the Council's own technical library,
specifically regarding coalescence, landscape value, and infrastructure deliverability.

My objection is for Earth and Humanity. We are not the only species on this Earth, plant and animal life has as an equal right to be here. If humanity is really serious about saving the planet we must cease development on natural land. Should we continue to abuse our position as the dominate species and rape the earth, we may be creating a new uninhabitable planet for our current humanity. We hear daily about global warming and every house built, from the manufacture of its materials, to its long term use and habitation only accelerates this problem.

I strongly object to the proposed plans. The Colchester and St John’s area infrastructure cannot cope with the sheer amount of houses which are planned to be built. It’s so important to have untouched areas of nature for the wildlife and for the community to enjoy, losing an area like this will be detrimental to so many people.

We have too many houses in Colchester. The roads are too busy now, constant roadworks, constant traffic jams that cause so many delays. This area should not be sacrificed for more housing adding to current issues. It’s a lovely area for dog walking and calmness.

I'm extremely concerned about the plans. These fields represent an important part of our community. There would be significant damage to wildlife if houses are built here. Congestion around the St Johns area is already out of control, and introducing another 2000 houses will make this unbearable. Further to this, GP surgeries and local schools are stretched currently. The infrastructure simply is not in place to support the plans.

I'm very concerned about the houses being built on these fields. This area is already incredibly congested and the roads cannot handle anymore vehicles. Not only that but the fields are so important for the local community to connect with each other and with nature. Keeping green spaces like this helps to stave off the mental health epidemic. Woodland and field like this are slowly disappearing along with the very important wildlife that comes with it so it would be heartbreaking to see this well loved field disappear.

I object to this plan for a number of reasons. There is no provision for additional schools, doctors or extending of the hospital services to cater for these additional houses.

The current road infrastructure is barely fit for purpose. The council have admitted there is no room for improvement.

The fields act as a drainage basin for the protected woodland. To tarmac over these would have a detrimental impact to wildlife as well as increasing local flooding.

There are numerous other brownfield sites around Colchester which are vacant surely these should be targeted over farmland.

This should not happen because;
Loss of green space & social value
Reduced biodiversity, loss of wildlife corridors , destruction of SSI site
The area is water stressed now, water companies will not support
Local amenities/services are severely stretched already, there is no evidence of infrastructure planning. There is a 400 million deficit in funding for infrastructure with no plausible solution
Transport/traffic - there will be 4000 more vehicle movements. The Council model that more people will use already poor public transport is flawed
Planning vandalism, the houses built will not support those that are homeless or in temporary accommodation

In my view this proposal is at worst planning Vandalism and best political theatre.
I have provided long a detailed correspondence to my local councillors and MP. If you want to see a long, detailed list of objects please cross reference these documents

The planned house building scheme is in my opinion has not taken into account that the road access from St johns rd is constantly conjested already at school time, the morning commute, and the return evening traffic.
Access if it were at the Ardleigh rd end would jus move the problem further to the east of the proposed site.
The doctors surgery can't cope with the volume that is currently in place with no room for it to expand it's services and the same can be said of the nearby schools. 2000 new homes NO

I am writing to formally object to the above local plan consultation. I have lived on the St John's Estate for over 20 years now and am very familiar with the proposed site and the surrounding area.
I believe the proposal to build 2000 homes in North Colchester, specifically the fields around Bullock Wood, should be refused for the following reasons: 

* Infrastructure: Colchester, specifically north Colchester already suffers from inadequate local services from the GP surgery to dentists, with many local residents unable to register at Parson's Heath GP surgery or the dental practice on Ipswich Road. Residents, including myself have to travel to Mile End and Abbeyfields for a dentist and GP surgery. Additionally the waiting times at Colchester General Hospital are ever increasing, despite continual improvements to the hospital by East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust. Another 2000 homes will only exasperate this problem, causing further issues for current residents.
Many of the schools local to St John's are at capacity and often oversubscribed, with no capacity for the quantity of new homes proposed.

Traffic: St John's Road is a main access route to the A12 and is regularly gridlocked at rush hour and other times such as, late morning and early afternoons. (photographs have been taken of the congestion by residents of St John's Estate). An additional 2000 will make the traffic issues totally unmanageable and unacceptable. I understand there is no additional funding for roads in connection with this proposed site, therefore there is no plan to elevate an already present issue. The current road surfaces through St John's Estate are littered with potholes and despite remedial repairs the potholes repeatedly return. Increasing the traffic flow over these roads will only further this problem.
Consideration also has to be given to the potential 7500 - 9000 homes being built at the new Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community (TCBGC) near Elmstead Market, which will substantially increase the number of commuters and further gridlock the already poor road network through North Colchester.
Currently there is only one Zebra Crossing on St John's Estate, which is on St John's Road, the current volume of traffic presents a risk to local children walking to school and the wider pedestrian community. An additional 2000 homes, with potentially 2 cars per household will substantially increase the risk of harm to those pedestrian's, particularly children.

Amenity impact:
Local residents are lucky to have Bullock Woods within walking distance of our homes, it is an ancient Site of Special Scientific Interest, estimated to have been established around 800 years ago. Any building work and housing developments built near the site will likely damage the drainage system which is essential for the woodlands survival. Any damage caused to the wood is likely irreversible and would be a travesty after its 800 year existence. The fields surrounding Bullock Wood provide an escape for local residents, allowing improved health and wellbeing. The loss of this landscape will have a detrimental effect on residents, wildlife, habitats and protected trees due to the loss of the green corridor.
Lastly this development will present a further flood risk to the residents of St John's Estate. The fields surrounding Bullock Wood act as natural drainage, any development or building work would disrupt this and put the surrounding area at an increased risk of flooding. St John's Estate, as well as other parts of Colchester, are recorded as at "risk of flooding from surface water (RoFSW)" on the Environment Agency website. Any development will only exacerbate this risk.

I urge the Council to consider these points when making their decision.

Kind regards

I am Christian Meikle and I have lived with my wife ADDRESS REMOVED. . My property backs on to the Stubbs Farm fields.

My concerns are:

Traffic upon leaving Welshwood Park Road is already extremely busy from Monday to Saturday. If I drive to the station in normal business hours then it can take 40 mins to drive the 3 miles to the station. If the number of houses proposed are built the traffic will be even worse which will add to time, congestion, pollution (and wildlife) and risk to pedestrians.

The general travel infrastructure will also not be able to cope.

There will be insufficient doctor and school facilities in the area to meet the considerable number of new houses.

There Welshwood Park reserve will suffer considerably from the building of houses, pollution and foot fall.

The Welshwood Park area has considerable wildlife; Muntjak, squirrels, various birds, rabbits and bats. In addition it is likely to impact on biodiversity such as trees, plants, flowers etc. All of which would be put at considerable risk if the level of build and the proximity of the build were to go ahead.

The level of build will also add to considerable urban spread across what are currently fields and countryside and farm land, which would be a terrible shame.

It will negatively affect on walks in the countryside as there are several rights of way etc passing over the land in question.

There are also further infrastructure risks in respect of sufficient electric and water supplies.

For all the above reasons I strongly object to the plan.

I OBJECT to the proposed allocation of Site ID 10616 – Land north of Bromley Road, Colchester in the Preferred Options Local Plan.

My objection is based on the following material planning considerations:

• Impact on wildlife and biodiversity – The land supports a wide range of wildlife, including birds of prey, bats, badgers, reptiles, and water voles. Development would result in the loss and fragmentation of valuable habitats, contrary to national planning policy.

• Traffic congestion and road safety – Bromley Road, Parsons Heath and Harwich Road already experience congestion, which has worsened due to recent housing developments. Additional homes on this site would significantly increase traffic on roads that are already over capacity, affecting cars, buses, cyclists, and pedestrians.

• Loss of valued greenfield land – This land is used by the local community as accessible open space for walking and enjoying nature. Its loss would negatively affect local wellbeing and quality of life.

For these reasons, I request that Site ID 10616 is removed from the Local Plan and that alternative, more suitable sites are considered.

Yours sincerely,
<Redacted Name> & <Redacted Name>

I am writing to formally object to the proposed local plan consultation concerning the development of 2,000 homes in North Colchester, specifically on the fields surrounding Bullock Wood. Having lived on the St John’s Estate for over 10 years, I am well acquainted with the area and the potential impacts of this proposal.

My objection is based on the following key concerns:

Regarding Infrastructure, North Colchester already faces significant challenges with local services.
1) Waiting times at Colchester General Hospital continue to rise despite ongoing improvements by the East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust.
2) Many residents, including myself, are unable to register with the nearby Parson’s Heath GP surgery or the dental practice on Ipswich Road, necessitating travel to Abbeyfields for healthcare.
3) Local schools are also at or beyond capacity, with no current provision to accommodate the influx of new students.
The addition of 2,000 homes will only exacerbate these pressures.

Traffic:
St John’s Road, a primary access route to the A12, experiences frequent gridlock from 7am in the morning and increases through rush hours and other times of the day, such as late mornings and early afternoons. This issue has been documented and formally logged with the council by residents and supported with photographs.

The proposed development will significantly worsen traffic conditions, yet there is no allocated funding to improve road infrastructure in connection with this site. Aditionally existing road surfaces are already damaged by potholes that repeatedly reappear despite repairs, and increased traffic will accelerate this deterioration.

Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community (TCBGC), with plans for 7,500 to 9,000 homes, will add further strain to the road network. Currently, only one zebra crossing exists on St John’s Estate, posing safety risks to pedestrians, especially children. The increase in vehicles—potentially two per household—will heighten these risks.

Amenity Impact:
Bullock Wood, an ancient Site of Special Scientific Interest estimated to be around 800 years old, is a treasured natural asset within walking distance of local residents. Development near this site would negatively affect local wildlife, habitats, protected trees, and the overall green corridor. The surrounding fields provide vital green space that supports residents’ health and wellbeing.

Flood Risk:
The fields around Bullock Wood serve as natural drainage for the area. Development here would disrupt this function, increasing the risk of flooding for St John’s Estate and other parts of Colchester. The Environment Agency currently lists these areas as at risk of surface water flooding, and further construction would only worsen this threat.

I respectfully urge the Council to carefully consider these concerns before making a decision on this proposal.

Dear Planning Policy Team,

I OBJECT to the proposed allocation of Site ID 10616 – Land north of Bromley Road, Colchester in the Preferred Options Local Plan.

My objection is based on the following material planning considerations:

• Impact on wildlife and biodiversity – The land supports a wide range of wildlife, including birds of prey, bats, badgers, reptiles, and water voles. Development would result in the loss and fragmentation of valuable habitats, contrary to national planning policy.

• Traffic congestion and road safety – Bromley Road, Parsons Heath and Harwich Road already experience congestion, which has worsened due to recent housing developments. Additional homes on this site would significantly increase traffic on roads that are already over capacity, affecting cars, buses, cyclists, and pedestrians.

• Loss of valued greenfield land – This land is used by the local community as accessible open space for walking and enjoying nature. Its loss would negatively affect local wellbeing and quality of life.

For these reasons, I request that Site ID 10616 is removed from the Local Plan and that alternative, more suitable sites are considered.
[NAME REDACTED]

Dear Planning Policy Team,

I OBJECT to the proposed allocation of Site ID 10616 – Land north of Bromley Road, Colchester in the Preferred Options Local Plan.

My objection is based on the following material planning considerations:

1. Biodiversity and Wildlife Impact
The land supports a wide range of wildlife and functions as an important ecological corridor. Species regularly observed in the area include badgers, bats, owls, birds of prey, reptiles, and water voles. The loss and fragmentation of this habitat would cause significant harm that cannot be adequately mitigated, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs 174 and 180.

2. Traffic Congestion and Highway Capacity
Bromley Road already suffers from congestion due to recent housing developments, and this will worsen with planned growth in Ardleigh and Elmstead Market. Parsons Heath and Harwich Road are also already heavily congested. These routes are key access roads into Colchester and to the railway station for cars, buses, cyclists, and pedestrians. The existing road infrastructure cannot safely accommodate additional development, contrary to NPPF paragraph 110.

3. Loss of Valued Greenfield Space and Wellbeing Impacts
This land is used informally by the local community as accessible greenfield space for walking and enjoying nature. Its loss would negatively affect local residents’ mental health and wellbeing, conflicting with the NPPF’s objective of creating healthy and inclusive communities (paragraphs 92 and 98).

Conclusion
For these reasons, the allocation of Site ID 10616 is not consistent with national planning policy, and I request that the site is removed from the Local Plan.

Have today taken photographs of a large lake which has appearedat the bottom of the Welshwood Field where proposed building should be.. Please take this on board in addition to my earlier comments

I strongly Object to the proposed allocation of Site ID 10616 Land north of Bromley Road, in the preferred Options Local Plan.
The land supports a range of wildlife to include birds, birds of prey, reptiles, badgers, bats & voles. Development would mean the loss of this valuable natural habitat which is against national planning policy.
The area is not fit for any further traffic congestion. Bromley Road, Harwich Road, Parsons Heath and St. Johns already suffer excessive traffic congestion following recent housing developments. Additional development would significantly impact further, increasing traffic on these local roads that are currently already over capacity to unsustainable levels.
The loss of this valued greenfield land used by the local community as accessible open space for enjoying nature and walking would negatively impact their quality of life and wellbeing.
For these reasons I request that Site ID 10616 is removed from the Local plan and that alternative, more suitable sites are considered for development.

Dear Planning Policy Team,

I OBJECT to the proposed allocation of Site ID 10616 – Land north of Bromley Road, Colchester in the Preferred Options Local Plan.

My objection is based on the following material planning considerations:

• Impact on wildlife and biodiversity – The land supports a wide range of wildlife, including birds of prey, bats, badgers, reptiles, and water voles. Development would result in the loss and fragmentation of valuable habitats, contrary to national planning policy.
• Traffic congestion and road safety – Bromley Road, Parsons Heath and Harwich Road already experience congestion, which has worsened due to recent housing developments. Additional homes on this site would significantly increase traffic on roads that are already over capacity, affecting cars, buses, cyclists, and pedestrians.

• Loss of valued greenfield land – This land is used by the local community as accessible open space for walking and enjoying nature. Its loss would negatively affect local wellbeing and quality of life.

For these reasons, I request that Site ID 10616 is removed from the Local Plan and that alternative, more suitable sites are considered.

<Redacted address>