I hereby object to Site PP9 ( North East Colchester- St Johns Fields/Welshwood)



My main objections to this site relate to local infrastructure, the proposed developments proximity to the Tendring Garden Community Development as well as the risk to damaging the local fields and woodland for the birds and animals that inhabit the area.



At the moment, several times a day, there is queueing traffic from the Ipswich Road/St Johns Road roundabout, often reaching back to Anthony Close at rush hour, with idling cars creating a dangerous environment for people walking and cycling to work and school. The same goes for the roundabout at the end of Harwich Road/Parsons Heath and St Johns Road with large queues of traffic coming to and from Ardleigh/Manningtree into Colchester. A large scale development on Harwich Road will case a massive increase in this load with many more commuters using these already over stretched routes.



The construction traffic alone trying to reach the site will be disruptive and exacerbate the queuing. I appreciated the suggestion that more people will walk and cycle, however the development is too far away from local schools for children and parents to use these methods to get there.



East Colchester will already be oversubscribed with vehicles during the construction and establishment of the Tendring Garden Community development, especially since the funding to connect that new development via a link road to the A120 has not been provided. This leaves another huge development using the same roads and access routes in this area creating severe congestion.



This site would place significant strain on local infrastructure, which is already under pressure. It is unthinkable to consider the huge increase in traffic which will have no direct access to major roads. Its close proximity to the new Tendring Garden Community development raises additional concerns, as the combined scale of these developments would negatively affect the surrounding road network and transport routes used by existing residents as well as residents such as myself who travel into Colchester from Ardleigh and am already severely impacted by traffic jams, which cause mental stress on a regular basis.



I am also concerned about the serious risk to local fields and woodland habitats, including the birds and animals that rely on them. The development could block an essential wildlife corridor and cause long-term harm to the health and longevity of the protected woodland.



This site is so well used by the local community and its disappearance would be a huge loss and have impact on residents mental health.

We do not need more development on the east of Colchester, we already have the TGCD and the pylons to consider.

I formally object to the proposed West Colchester development on St John’s Fields due to its significant and irreversible impacts.

The scheme threatens Bullock Wood, a nationally protected SSSI, through increased noise, light pollution, footfall, drainage disruption, and risks to wildlife, undermining its ancient woodland and biodiversity.

Existing traffic congestion on St John’s Road and Ipswich Road would worsen, further restricting access for residents.

Local schools are already under severe pressure, and additional housing would exacerbate shortages.

Colchester Hospital is overstretched, as evidenced by personal experience of corridor care during a life-threatening emergency, together with unacceptably long waiting lists to see consultants, and lacks capacity to serve an increased population.

Kind regards,

Deborah Hayes

Planning objection: PP9 North East Colchester – St John’s Fields

I wish to object to the inclusion of the fields adjacent to Bullock Wood being included in the proposed Colchester City Council development plan.

I have lived in Evergreen Drive for more than 45 years and remain grateful for the benefits of the wood, particularly regarding birdlife, it brings to our environment.

The wood continues to thrive, despite a lack of sensible management in the intervening decades, and with the fields adjacent offers a valuable sanctuary to numerous species of animals and birds as well as providing pleasant surroundings for dog walkers, ramblers and runners.

However, the future of the wood does rely on adequate water supply. Since Salary Brook, which runs in part behind Evergreen Drive, has largely dried up, the wood now depends upon water run-off from the adjacent fields. This would clearly cease if building was to take place so close to the wood.

I am also concerned that the infrastructure required to service so many new homes in this area would prove irrevocably disruptive – to wildlife, to the woodland itself and to the current residents.
Since I moved into Evergreen Drive, I have witnessed the development of the Highwoods estate; homes on the former Betts factory site; the extension of Severalls Business Park and other smaller enclaves of homes. During that expansion I have seen the installation of the roundabout at the junction of St John’s Road and Ipswich Road, but no other significant measure to aid the traffic flow.
Given the extensive traffic queues which now frequently accumulate along St John’s Road, I cannot see how any significant development in the adjacent areas can be considered unless substantial amendments are first made to the surrounding road network. This would probably have to entail further erosion of the fields and woodland to which I am strongly opposed.

As well as creating even busier roads a development of hundreds of homes will have a huge impact on local medical and education facilities. It is well known that green areas are very important for mental well-being and allowing such a resource to be destroyed would have a big impact.

I understand that Colchester City Council has an obligation to plan for the provision of new homes, but I feel that the St John’s Fields site is wholly unsuited to the numbers currently envisioned.

In summary: the inclusion of St John’s Fields in any future development plan would be catastrophic for the environment, for existing residents and for any potential occupants.

23rd November, 2025, To who it may concern,

I object to the new housing development because it will remove important Local green space that the community relies on for recreation, well being + wildlife. This development would mean losing one of the few natural areas in our neighbourhood which well reduce quality of life for the residents + our children in the future.

I'm concerned the new homes will also put extra pressure on already stretched secondary care services. Working in the local emergency department I can see first hand how stretched our hospitals are, Increasing waiting times making it even harder for local residents to get the care they need. I think until local Infrastructure t healthcare Improvements are made this development should not go ahead

I am happy for my details to be Included in the main planning objection.

kind regards Lauren chatfield

are writing on behalf of our client, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO), which is part of the
Ministry of Defence and is responsible for managing the military estate, including the provision of homes
for service personnel across the UK.
We submit representations to the Colchester Regulation 18 Local Plan Consultation covering multiple
DIO-owned sites and strategic concerns regarding the emerging Local Plan. These representations
have been prepared to assist Colchester City Council in developing an effective and deliverable plan
that recognises both local priorities and national defence requirements.
In line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) it is important that planning authorities and
development plans recognise that MOD Establishments are of strategic military importance to the UK.  It
is important that planning authorities consult with the MOD during the preparation of their plans and take
into account the need to safeguard operational sites.
To support the ongoing military training and operations within the City it is considered that the inclusion
of a specific policy in the Local Plan to recognise these requirements would be beneficial and accord
with national planning policy.
Paragraph 102 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) states that ‘planning
policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence
requirements including by ‘b) recognising and supporting development required for operational defence
and security purposes, and ensuring that operational sites are not affected adversely by the impact of
other development proposed in the area.’
Summary of Other Representations
Land South of Birch Brook
Our client is concerned with the proposed designation of this defence land as a Strategic Biodiversity
Area under Policy ST2. We object to this blanket designation which could prevent continued
operational use and future land release requirements, thereby conflicting with national defence
objectives as recognised in NPPF Paragraph 102b.
We also raise significant concerns regarding the spatial strategy's over-reliance on large, complex
strategic allocations in village locations, which introduces substantial delivery risks. We estimate that
approximately 2,970-3,695 dwellings from major strategic allocations are at medium to very high risk
of non-delivery within the Local Plan period. The Plan requires greater flexibility, contingency planning,
and a more diverse range of site sizes and locations to maintain housing supply resilience as supported
by the NPPF.
Middlewick Ranges
Whilst we acknowledge the proposed de-allocation of this 120-hectare site as a housing allocation,
our client objects to the dual designation as both Local Green Space under Policy GN3 and Strategic
Biodiversity Area under Policy ST2. This approach creates unnecessary policy duplication and
potential conflicts that could harm proper ecological management and enhancement.
The Local Green Space designation is also inappropriate for extensive tracts of land where the primary
value lies in biodiversity function rather than recreational or community use, contrary to National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraphs 106-108. We request removal of the Local Green
Space designation to avoid policy confusion and constraints on effective habitat management as
required by the NPPF.
DIO Berechurch
This 3.6 hectare site is being considered for operational defence use, potentially including Service
Family Accommodation (SFA) development to address urgent identified needs. We object to its
proposed inclusion within a Strategic Biodiversity Area designation, which lacks robust evidential
justification and fails to recognise the site's operational importance in accordance with NPPF
Paragraph 102b.
We also highlight that there is an established operational requirement for the site for military purposes,
this includes the need deliver new Service Family Accommodation (SFA) to meet a significant shortfall
in provision in Colchester, yet the Local Plan provides no recognition or policy support for this
requirement contrary to national defence priorities set out in NPPF Paragraph 102b.
The site also contains existing electrical infrastructure and is surrounded by development on three
sides, questioning its suitability as a biodiversity area. We emphasise the need for operational flexibility
to adapt to changing defence requirements without undue policy constraints. We recommend inclusion
of a specific Military Establishments policy to support development that enhances operational
capability and recognise SFA provision as essential workers housing.
Open Space Designations Merville Barracks
Our client objects to the proposed designation of two parcels within our clients’ estates (at Drury
Meadows and Montgomery Estate) as Open Space under Policy GN6. These sites, totalling
approximately 2.17 hectares, are suitable for SFA infill development and do not provide demonstrable
public recreational or amenity value, nor is there funding identified within the Local Plan evidence base
for the long term management and maintenance of this land as open space. The designations lack
robust justification as the sites were not assessed within the Council's Open Space Report (2023),
rendering the approach unsound.
We highlight that there is an urgent need in Colchester to deliver new SFA, yet the Local Plan provides
no recognition or policy support for this requirement contrary to national defence priorities set out in
NPPF Paragraph 102b. We also recommend inclusion of a specific Military Establishments policy to
support development that enhances operational capability and recognise SFA provision as essential
workers housing.
Key Requested Revisions
We respectfully request the following amendments to strengthen the Plan's deliverability and
soundness:
1. Remove Strategic Biodiversity designations from operational defence land (Land South
of Birch Brook and DIO Berechurch).
2. Remove Local Green Space designation from Middlewick Ranges to avoid policy
duplication and given it is an extensive tract of land and therefore unsuitable.
3. Remove Open Space designations from SFA estate land or provide policy flexibility for
SFA development.
4. Include specific policy recognition and support for general defence requirements and
Service Family Accommodation provision.
5. Incorporate greater flexibility and contingency planning within the spatial strategy.
6. Diversify housing supply through a broader range of site sizes and locations.
7. Establish clear triggers for releasing reserve sites to maintain housing supply
resilience.
Conclusion
The DIO remains committed to working collaboratively with Colchester City Council to ensure the
emerging Local Plan provides an appropriate and flexible framework that recognises both local
housing needs and national defence priorities. Our representations seek to strengthen the Plan's
effectiveness, deliverability, and resilience whilst ensuring that essential defence operations can
continue without unnecessary policy constraints.
We believe that addressing these concerns will result in a more robust and sounder Local Plan that
better serves the needs of Colchester's communities whilst fulfilling the Council's obligations to support
national defence requirements.
We look forward to your consideration of these matters and to continued engagement throughout the
Local Plan process.

1 INTRODUCTION
Context
Gladman Developments Ltd. (Gladman) welcome the opportunity to comment on the
Colchester City Council Preferred Options as part of the Local Plan Full Update and
request to be updated on future consultations and the progress of the Local Plan.
Gladman specialise in the promotion of strategic land for residential development
and associated community infrastructure and have considerable experience in
contributing to the development plan preparation process having made
representations on numerous planning documents throughout the UK alongside
participating in many Examinations in Public.
This submission provides Gladman’s formal representations to the Regulation 18
consultation.
Gladman Developments have several land interests in Colchester City’s authoritative
area which are being promoted through the emerging Local Plan Update. The
following sites were submitted to the Call for Sites and are considered to be suitable
and sustainable locations for development:
• Land off Baker’s Lane, Braiswick (around 100 dwellings, policy reference PP7)
• North-East Colchester (west of Harwich Road, cumulating approximately 750
of the total 2,000 dwellings of the entire allocation PP9)
• Land off Colchester Road, West Mersea (up to 100 dwellings)
• Land off Rowhedge Road, Colchester (up to 75 dwellings)
The sites are available, suitable, and deliverable for housing as summarised in Section
6 of this representation, and two of these sites (at Baker’s Lane and at Harwich Road)
are draft allocations. Gladman looks forward to engaging further with the Council as
the plan progresses.
This submission also has been produced largely utilising the 2024 NPPF (National
Planning Policy Framework) regulations recognising that the Council are seeking to
submit their Local Plan before the December 2026 deadline. We note that a revised
NPPF consultation has very recently been announced (on 16th December 2025), and
therefore the council will need to carefully consider any potential implications for the
emerging Local Plan.
One minor house-keeping comment would be that draft local plans are often very
long documents, and so it is useful for the reader to have access to the whole
document as one, single, PDF file. Unfortunately, the draft plan is not available in this
format and we found it difficult to navigate the document via the website portal,
which requires scrolling through the web pages. A single file that can be downloaded
is therefore requested for future consultations.
2 LEGAL COMPLIANCE
Duty to Cooperate
The Duty to Co-operate, as a legal test, has now been rescinded by the Levelling Up
and Regeneration Act, which received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023. However,
engaging with prescribed bodies on relevant strategic and cross boundary matters
remains an important part of the plan making process.
The revised Framework introduced a number of significant changes to how local
planning authorities are expected to cooperate including the preparation of
Statement(s) of Common Ground (SoCG) which are required to demonstrate that a
plan is based on effective cooperation and has been based on agreements made by
neighbouring authorities where cross boundary strategic issues are likely to exist.
Planning guidance sets out that local planning authorities should produce, maintain,
and update one or more Statement(s) of Common Ground (SoCG), throughout the
plan making process.
. The SoCG(s) should provide a written record of the progress made by the strategic planning authorities during the process of planning for
strategic cross-boundary matters and will need to demonstrate the measures local
authorities have taken to ensure cross boundary matters have been considered and
what actions are required to ensure issues are proactively dealt with e.g. unmet
housing needs.
Sustainability Appraisal
In accordance with Section 19 of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act,
policies set out in Local Plans must be subject to Sustainability Appraisal (SA).
Incorporating the requirements of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and
Programmes Regulations 2004, SA is a systematic process that should be undertaken
at each stage of the Plan’s preparation, assessing the effects of the Local Plan’s
proposals on sustainable development when judged against reasonable alternatives.
The Council should ensure that the results of the SA process conducted through the
preparation of the Local Plan clearly justify the policy choice made, including
proposed site allocations (or decisions not to allocate sites) when considered against
reasonable alternatives. In meeting the development needs of the area, it should be
clear from the results of the assessment why some policy options have been
progressed and others have been rejected.
The SA must demonstrate that a comprehensive testing of options has been
undertaken and that it provides evidence and reasoning as to why any reasonable
alternatives have not been pursued. A failure to adequately give reasons in the SA
could lead to a challenge of the Council’s position through the examination process.
The SA should inform plan making. Whilst exercising planning judgement on the
results of the SA in the Local Plan is expected, the SA should still clearly assess any
reasonable alternatives and clearly articulate the results of any such assessment.

3 NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE
National Planning Policy Framework
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning
policies for England and how these should be applied within which plan-making and
decision-taking. The NPPF requires plans to set out a vision and a framework for
future development and seek to address the strategic priorities for the area. Local
Plans should be prepared in line with procedural and legal requirements and will be
assessed on whether they are considered ‘sound’.
The National Planning Policy Framework sets out four tests that must be met for Local
Plans to be considered sound. In this regard, we submit that in order to prepare a
sound plan it is fundamental that it is:
• Positively Prepared – The Plan should be prepared on a strategy which seeks
to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements
including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is
reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.
• Justified – the plan should be an appropriate strategy, when considered
against the reasonable alternatives, based on a proportionate evidence base.
• Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on
effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and
• Consistent with National Policy – the plan should enable the delivery of
sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.
The NPPF reaffirms the Government’s commitment to ensuring up-to-date plans are
in place which provide a positive vision for the areas which they are responsible for,
to address housing, economic, social and environmental priorities and to help shape
the development of local communities for future generations.
To support the Government’s continued objective of significantly boosting the supply
of homes, it is important that the Colchester City Council Local Plan provides a sufficient amount and variety of land that can be brought forward, without delay, to
meet housing needs.
In determining the minimum number of homes needed, strategic plans should be
based upon a local housing needs assessment defined using the standard method,
unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify an alternative approach.
Once the minimum number of homes that are required is identified, the strategic
planning authority should have a clear understanding of the land available in their
area through the preparation of a strategic housing land availability assessment. In
this regard, paragraph 67 sets out specific guidance that local planning authorities
should take into account when identifying and meeting their housing needs. Annex
2 of the Framework (2024) defines the terms “deliverable” and “developable”.
Once a local planning authority has identified its housing needs, these needs should
be met as a minimum, unless any adverse impacts would significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits of doing so. This includes considering the
application of policies such as those relating to Green Belt and giving consideration
as to whether or not these provide a strong reason for restricting the overall scale,
type and distribution of development (paragraph 11b)i.). Where it is found that full
delivery of housing needs cannot be achieved (owing to conflict with specific policies
of the NPPF), Local Authorities are required to engage with their neighbours to ensure
that identified housing needs can be met in full.
As outlined in our Introduction section, a revised NPPF was announced on 16th
December 2025. In light of this, the council will need to ensure that any future
consultations for this draft Local Plan are compliant with this revised version. In the
interim, this rep has been submitted largely in conjunction with the 2024 version of
the NPPF.
Planning Practice Guidance
The need to plan for the sufficient delivery of homes is affirmed in the Written
Ministerial Statement (WMS) given by the then Deputy Prime Minister, and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner on 30 July
2024, in addition to the on-going consultation on proposed revisions to the
Framework and other changes to the planning system.
The WMS reaffirms that the country is in “the most acute housing crisis in living
memory” and is clear in its conclusion that “there is no time to waste. It is time to get
on with building 1.5 million homes”. These are now material considerations for plan
making and decision making and clearly set the tone and direction of the newly
elected Government.
4 REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION
Introduction
The sections that follow below include comments from Gladman on the overall
strategic approach taken by the council, as well as reviewing some of the proposed
policies and site allocations.
The minimum end date of the plan should be 15 years from adoption, as per
paragraph 22 of the Framework. At present, it is difficult to follow which year is the
starting point for the plan period – in the draft plan under para 2.14 it confirms the
plan period is 2025-2041, however in Section 14, Appendix A, Table 14.1 (when
confirming the new policies over the previous draft policies) it is stated that the plan
period is 2026-2041. The plan seemingly seeks to cover the period 2025 or 2026 to
2041, resulting in either 15 or 16 years being planned for. Clarity is sought on this
regarding the start date.
The most appropriate starting date of the two is 2026. The standard method is a
forward-looking assessment of need taking into account both under and oversupply
in its methodology and uses a base period that is required to start in from the year
that the housing need is calculated. In order to be consistent with national policy,
Gladman would recommend that the plan period to start in the most recent year in
which the housing need is calculated.

Additionally, our experience of Local Plan examinations suggests that delays to the
local plan-making process are inevitable, and so the plan period only going to 2041,
i.e. 15 or 16 years from the Regulation-18 consultation, is too short. It is advisable,
therefore, to look beyond 2041 to ensure that the required period is covered
regardless of any likely delays. It is suggested that the plan period be amended to at
least 2026-2043.
A Settlement Hierarchy for Colchester
Settlement Hierarchy
The settlement hierarchy is presented under draft policy ST3: Spatial Strategy, giving
5 separate tiers, as well as open countryside.
Gladman consider that the draft settlement hierarchy is appropriate for the growth
of the authoritative area for the plan period. The proportionate distribution of growth
is important to ensure that settlements – both large and small – remain sustainable
and that growth takes place in locations which can support it.
Gladman are promoting sites across the settlement hierarchy in Colchester (three
sites) as well as one in West Mersea, which has Large Settlement status in the draft
plan. These site promotions are suitable and sustainable locations due to the range
of services and facilities they provide, the sustainable public transport choices
available and quality of life they offer residents. New development in these locations
can contribute to the vitality and viability of local services, stimulate the local
economy through increased resident expenditure and support local education and
healthcare facilities through S106 and/or CIL contributions.
Housing Figures and Requirement and Growth Strategy
Draft policy ST5: Colchester’s Housing Need provides details of the housing numbers
required over the plan period, with the plan period here stated as being 2025-2041
(16 years). It confirms that at least 20,800 new homes are needed to meet the future
housing need, equating to 1,300 dwellings per year.

In determining the minimum number of homes needed, strategic plans should be
based upon a local housing needs assessment defined using the standard method,
unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify an alternative approach.
We note in draft policy ST5 that provision will be made for at least 20,800 new homes
across a range of tenures. These are broken down by: existing commitments, Tendring
Colchester Borders Garden Community, windfall and the local plan allocations. These
four give a combined estimated total of 21,106 dwellings.
These figures allow for a 308-dwelling buffer from the housing need, equating to a
1.48% buffer on what is needed over the 16-year period. This figure is far too low to
be sustainable and relies too heavily on all of the allocations coming forward with the
estimated dwellings numbers, as well as appropriate windfall levels being available. It
is advisable that this buffer is increased to provide more confidence that the housing
need is met.
In light of this, it is suggested that more sites should be identified in order to ensure
that the need of 20,800 is not met. The most appropriate way to approach this would
be to include a greater number of short-medium sized sites, as these not only assist
with the overall housing need but also greatly assist with delivery in the first few years
of a local plan.
Gladman is promoting such sites in West Mersea, which can accommodate around
100 dwellings, and off Rowhedge Road, Colchester, which can accommodate around
75 dwellings. Further detail on this can be found in Section 6: Site Submissions below.
Further, the need for affordable homes is a pressing issue, and the Council may wish
to pursue a higher housing requirement to maximise the delivery of affordable
homes. This approach has been progressed by East Riding of Yorkshire.
Draft Policy ST3 sets out the strategy for growth across the authority area. The
planned growth within the draft plan is concentrated in existing settlements in a
proportional manner to ensure that there are sustainable levels of growth in
appropriate locations (i.e. utilising the settlement hierarchy).
In principle, Gladman consider such an approach to be suitable, however, there are
elements of this which require review.
Whilst we agree with this proportionate approach, the numbers which add up to meet
the housing need across the plan period are so fine that it would appear that there
are several sites that the plan is lacking to ensure that the housing need is met. To
continue with the proportionate approach using the settlement hierarchy, we would
recommend that more small-medium sized sites are allocated across the settlements.
As advised, such sites assist with both the overall housing need and also greatly assist
with delivery in the first few years of a local plan. Having more planned development
will also take the pressure off the dependence for windfall development to come
forward. The windfall reliance accounts for around 10% of the housing need, which
in our experience in Examinations is not wholly supported by the Planning
Inspectorate. It is therefore advisable to allocate more sites to reduce the windfall
dependency.
In the first instance, we submit that such sites should come forward in the larger
settlements, such as Colchester and the Large Settlements, and that Gladman’s land
interests at Baker’s Lane, West Mersea and off Rowhedge Road, Colchester would be
ideally positioned to fulfil this role.
The Rowhedge Road site lies adjacent to the Colchester Urban Area, is sustainably
located in relation to the city’s services and amenities and further development in the
location can be successfully assimilated into the existing settlement and its
surroundings. In addition to its status as a Large Settlement, West Mersea is the only
designated Large Settlement in the hierarchy for some distance geographically, such
that growth here will help support the wider area as a growth hub, which helps
support the Small Settlements of East Mersea, Peldon, Great Wigborough and Salcott.
Further information on our sites in West Mersea and land off Rowhedge Road can be
found in Section 6 below.
Finally, whilst not strictly concerned with housing numbers and growth, Policy ST2:
Environment and Green Network Sites sits alongside the Local Plan’s other suite of proposed Strategic Policies, and seeks to identify “Strategic Areas that present the best
opportunities for habitat creation and enhancement aimed at improving biodiversity”,
which it states are shown on the policies maps as ‘strategic biodiversity areas’. The
policy goes on describe how these areas will be protected, with support given to
strengthening and enhancing connections between habitats to improve the
contribution to the biodiversity network.
As outlined above, Gladman submit that there may be a requirement to identify
additional sites to ensure Colchester’s housing needs are met. At this stage, we
therefore suggest that there may be a corresponding need to review any policies that
may be relevant to achieving this objective, which could include Policy ST2.
In this regard, we question whether the ‘protection’ of ‘strategic biodiversity areas’ is
appropriate (if this is what the policy is proposing), and query whether the Local Plan
should be taking a more balanced approach, which could recognise that development
proposals can often provide the opportunity to secure the long-term management
of green infrastructure. Gladman reserve the right to comment on this policy and any
supporting evidence base documents in response to future consultations.
Development Management Policies
Draft Policy GN5 – Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace
We generally agree with the principle of this policy, however Blackwater Estuaries
Special Protection Area is the main reason for our site in West Mersea not being
allocated for residential development. Given that there are mitigation measures
available under draft policy GN5, it is unclear why the site has been ruled out so
hastily.
Draft Policy LC3 – Coastal Areas
Policy LC3 seeks to take forward Colchester’s Coastal Protection Belt designation, as
presently covered by adopted Section 2 Local Plan Policy EN2. The policy advises that
in such areas of the borough an integrated approach to coastal management will be
promoted and development will only be supported if it meets certain criteria.
As detailed in Section 6 of these submissions below, Gladman are currently promoting
Land off Rowhedge Road, Colchester, which is situated within the Coastal Protection
Belt as defined on the Council’s draft Policies Map. The supporting text to Policy LC3
advises that its purpose “is to protect Colchester’s rural and undeveloped coastline from
inappropriate development that would adversely affect its rural, undeveloped and open
character…“. However, we question whether circumstances of the Rowhedge Road
site are consistent with these characteristics.
The Rowhedge Road site lies adjacent to the existing Colchester urban area, with
existing areas of development adjoining the site the south east and west, and existing
areas of woodland planting bordering the site to the north and east. Any
development in this location would be experienced as part of the existing built-up
area, would be well contained from its wider context, including the Colne Estuary, and
would be accompanied by a comprehensive framework of green infrastructure and
landscaping.
We therefore query how development in this location could adversely affect the rural,
undeveloped and open character of Colchester’s coastline, and how including the
Rowhedge Road site within the Coastal Protection Belt designation is consistent with
these aims. We would request that the inclusion of the Rowhedge Road site within
the Coastal Protection Belt designation is reviewed.
As detailed in Section 6 of these submissions, we submit that Land off Rowhedge
Road is well positioned to accommodate further residential development to meet
Colchester’s needs, and that it could do so successfully without adversely affecting to
the site’s setting and surroundings.
Draft Policy NZ1 – Net Zero Carbon Development (in operation)
We disagree with the need for this policy. Whilst we acknowledge the importance of
new dwellings being environmentally sustainable for future generations, such
requirements will be made under national policy, thus making a development
management policy on this aspect unnecessary. We would therefore request that this
policy be removed and left for the national building regulations to accommodate.

However, should this policy remain, we would request that instead of all dwellings,
that a percentage of dwellings per site be built out to the standards requested. This
would result in net-zero carbon dwellings still being built out, but without the
detriment of unaffordability for those seeking to buy, as ultimately the additional
costs incurred in making dwellings net-zero will be reflected in the house prices and
therefore the fall upon purchaser.
Draft Policy H6 – Self and Custom Build
We support this policy. Requesting 2% of large developments to be self/custom build
plots is appropriate, as this is a reasonable number and does not negatively impact
smaller schemes with mandatory self/custom build requirements, as the requirement
is only for schemes of 150+ dwellings. This is provided that the evidence supports
these figures.
We also agree with the 12-month turnaround time on the Self-Build Register, with
sales on the open market taking place after this period should the plot(s) not be
purchased.
5 SITE ALLOCATIONS
General Approach and Housing Trajectory
As above, the 20,800 dwellings required over the plan period are expected to come
forward in four possible ways: existing commitments, Tendring Colchester Borders
Garden Community, windfall and the local plan allocations.
Gladman agrees with the proportionate approach and agrees with the residential
allocations that have been included.
However, as outlined above, there is very little room for error in terms of housing
numbers (308 across the entire plan period). Given this tight margin, it would be
appropriate to seek further small to medium sized sites for allocation to assist with
these margins, as well as assure a 5-year housing land supply (as such sites tend to
come through in the early years of a local plan).

As advised, Gladman are promoting sites in West Mersea and Rowhedge Road which
are wholly appropriate to assist in this regard. Further details are in Section 6: Site
Submissions below.
6 SITE SUBMISSIONS
Land off Baker’s Lane, Braiswick
Land off Baker’s Lane is a highly sustainable location for growth in the draft local plan
and lies within the proposed settlement boundary for Colchester. This allocation
(reference PP7) is around 18.5 acres and can provide around 100 dwellings. Gladman
strongly support the inclusion of this site in the plan, and it is available, deliverable
and achievable to bring a positive level of residential development to the settlement.
The site lies in a natural direction of growth to the west of the settlement, with recent
development taking place to the east of the site. The site also lies within reasonable
walking distance of Colchester Train Station, as well as the nearby primary school and
nursey. Additionally, there are two public rights of way (PROWs) joining the site on
its western boundary, again emphasising the site’s strong pedestrian linkages to its
surrounding areas.
Gladman are seeking expert advice for pedestrian connections to the existing footway
on Baker’s Lane. We are also open to the possibility of a safe and appropriate
pedestrian crossing if required.
An appropriate buffer will be provided on any application for the Moat Farm Dyke
scheduled monument to the east of the site. We are currently liaising with experts on
this matter to ensure the best possible outcome for this aspect.
Highways access can easily be obtained along the western boundary of the site, with,
given the limited space along Baker’s Lane, pedestrian footpaths being available
within the site’s boundary as part of a future scheme.

A policy-compliant level of affordable housing will be provided, in a range of sizes
and tenures. The site will accommodate a range of house types and sizes informed
by local need.
The site acts as a crucial gatekeeper for future growth of Colchester in a westerly
direction, with possibilities to the south and west of this site becoming available after
development here at Baker’s Lane. Development of this site is therefore crucial for
any future growth of the settlement in a westerly direction.
North-East Colchester
As aforementioned, Gladman are promoting a 97-hectare site at North East
Colchester (west of Harwich Road) for a residential led development comprising
approximately 750 homes, a local centre, a two form entry primary school and
strategic green space. This site forms part of a larger site allocated for around 2,000
homes under draft Policy PP9. In accordance with the requirements of draft Policy
PP9, Gladman have worked alongside other land promoters and developers who own
or control land within the remit of Policy PP9 and have prepared a Masterplan
Framework jointly with Gleeson, but with input from other parties with smaller land
holdings, including Taylor Wimpey and Mrs Julie Clinch. The Draft Masterplan
Framework (‘the Framework’) can be found at Appendix 1, appended to this
submission’s email.
The purpose of the Framework is to articulate a vision for the future development of
North East Colchester. It seeks to set out shared objectives, spatial principles and
development aspirations that could guide the successful delivery of the site, aligning
with the requirements of national and local planning policy, including the
expectations of emerging Policy PP9. Following this Regulation 18 consultation,
further engagement with Colchester City Council and other key stakeholders will be
undertaken with regards to the content of the Framework.
The Framework is underpinned by a series of technical studies undertaken on
Gladman and Gleeson’s sites, forming a clear and strong evidence base to the proposals. Together these assessments have informed a constraints and
opportunities mapping exercise, which has assisted with preparing a deliverable
Masterplan that could accommodate the requirements and expectations of the draft
Policy PP9. This includes the expectation that the allocation would provide land for a
new primary school and a local centre. As discussed below, it is considered that the
Harwich Road site would be the optimum location to accommodate these facilities.
Gladman is supportive of the allocation of land west of Harwich Road as part of the
North East Colchester allocation. The Framework has been prepared jointly with
Gleeson to demonstrate that the site can viably deliver all of the requirements set out
by the policy. Each of these requirements in so far as that they relate to the Gladman
site are discussed in further detail below.
Land Uses and Infrastructure Provision
Draft Policy PP9 anticipates the delivery of approximately 2,000 new dwellings of a
mix and type of housing to meet evidenced needs which is compatible with
surrounding development. Applying a range of locally appropriate densities across
the Gladman site, around 750 dwellings could be delivered which would include 1-5
bedroomed homes in a range of house types.
As demonstrated by the Framework, the Gladman site will deliver a number of
additional services and facilities that will be available for new and existing residents.
A 1-hectare Local Centre will be delivered on-site, providing small scale retail and
community uses and offering economic and social benefits. A 2.1-hectare site for a
new two form entry primary school is also proposed by the Framework on the site,
increasing the offer of education facilities within the locality in accordance with the
emerging policy and the proposed requirements of the Local Education Authority.
The decision has been made to accommodate all community uses (local centre,
school and strategic open space) required by draft Policy PP9 on the Gladman
controlled site to the west of Harwich Road, as the physical attributes of the site, as
well as opportunities for safe and suitable access are most favourable compared with
other land parcels within the allocation. The proposed location within the centre of the Gladman site will ensure that the community uses and the proposed school can
benefit from strong frontage and visibility along the primary route from Harwich
Road. Gladman are therefore able to provide certainty around the delivery of this
necessary public infrastructure, as these uses will be proposed as part of a future
outline application submitted by Gladman, should the site be allocated within the
Local Plan.
Highways and Access
The Site is sustainably located in respect of access to facilities and services, including
public transport, with methods of travelling other than private car a viable option for
future occupiers. Furthermore, public transport connections could also be available
from within the site with the primary access route running through the development,
which will be of the necessary standard to accommodate a bus route connecting St
John’s Road to Harwich Road.
Draft Policy PP9 notes a requirement for safe and suitable site access to required
highway design standards. With regards to the Gladman site, the Framework propose
two primary access points off Harwich Road and one primary access point off St Johns
Road. Initial feasibility studies confirm that safe and suitable access can be provided
in these locations, supported by the introduction of traffic-calming measures to
Harwich Road to improve walkability and a creation of a new safe crossing at the
intersection with the active travel corridor.
In response to the requirement for the provision of active and sustainable travel and
ensuring connectivity with existing Public Rights of Way the Framework will deliver
an enhanced pedestrian and cycle network. As well as a primary active travel corridor
linking the Gladman site to the wider PP9 allocation. the Framework also illustrates
the provision of a secondary active‑travel route within the Gladman site, connecting
Bullace Close, Dunthorne Road and Harwich Road. These key networks will be
supported by a wider network of formal and informal footpaths that link the local
centre with dwellings within the site and surrounding communities.

Account has also been taken of land within the allocation to the north of the Gladman
site, which would require access to be taken through the Gladman site. The
Framework allows for vehicular and pedestrian access into this parcel to ensure
comprehensive development across the two sites.
Green and Blue Infrastructure Provision
Enhanced open space in excess of 10% of the total allocation area is required by draft
Policy PP9, including one area of ‘strategic’ open space, and multiple areas of
incidental open space. It is proposed that approximately 40% (38.12 hectares) of the
total PP9 allocation will be retained as green space, supplemented by additional POS
within development parcels.
The green and blue infrastructure strategy set out by the Framework brings together
existing woodland, hedgerows, trees, with new play spaces, amenity areas,
community growing spaces, SuDS features, natural and semi‑natural habitats, and a
connected path network. Their design and placement have been informed by
technical inputs and the ambition to create an integrated network that supports both
residents and biodiversity.
As demonstrated by the Framework, the Gladman site will accommodate an area of
strategic open space in the form of a new local park centred around an existing
mature oak tree which will act as a focal point for the new and existing residents. It
was agreed with all participating parties of the framework that the Gladman site was
the most appropriate location within the allocation for this community space due to
its flat topography, accessibility from existing surrounding communities (which will
be further enhanced) and the opportunity to create a community hub combined with
the local centre and school sites.
In response to the requirements of draft Policy PP9, an appropriate surface water
management strategy can be delivered. The Framework Plan identifies the indicative
location of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to attenuate surface water, which in
relation to the Gladman site are indicatively located along the northern site boundary
following the advice of Gladman’s flood risk and drainage consultant. To support this, an initial Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been undertaken to evaluate potential
flood risks associated with the proposed development and to recommend suitable
mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce flood risk to an acceptable level.
Protecting and enhancing Landscape Features
Draft Policy PP9 refers to a number of site-specific features which should be protected
and enhanced as part of future development proposals. Of particular relevance to the
Gladman site is the Bullock Wood SSI, is a designated ancient woodland which should
be appropriately buffered from development. The Framework demonstrates that
development will offset from Bullock Wood, allowing for a 15m wide corridor with
walking routes and incidental play, and a soft, informal green residential edge to the
ancient woodland. At the outline application stage, Gladman will seek to secure the
protection of the Ancient Woodland and retention of mature trees and hedgerows
within the site.
Summary
Gladman welcome the inclusion of the land at North East Colchester as a proposed
strategic allocation and hope the additional information provided within this
representation and enclosed Framework assists the Council in demonstrating that this
site is deliverable and suitable for an allocation in the Regulation 19 plan. The
Gladman site is wholly deliverable and can meet the site-specific requirements of
draft Policy PP9.
Land off Colchester Road, West Mersea
West Mersea is designated as a Large Settlement in the draft settlement hierarchy
(Policy ST3). With an estimated population of over 7,000, it is a highly sustainable
location for growth. Gladman are promoting land off Colchester Road for residential
development.
Land off Colchester Road (ref: 10748) is capable of delivering around 100 homes and
relevant community infrastructure. The entire site is approximately 12.5 acres, and it lies on the main access road into the settlement from the north. Colchester lies
around 5 miles from West Mersea, and given the site’s location the impact on the
roads in West Mersea will be minimal as most would head immediately north towards
the city.
The site comprises arable fields and 3 residential properties lying immediately to the
north-east of the site, with a fourth slightly further north, all on Paeony Chase. The
eastern and southern sides of the site run parallel with Colchester Road, with some
dwellings immediately to the site’s west and fields to the north-west. The site’s
location can be found in Figure 1 below. It is relatively flat in nature and has no flood
risk.
A policy-compliant level of affordable housing could be provided, in a range of sizes
and tenures. The site will accommodate a range of house types and sizes informed
by local need.
Suitable mitigation and precautionary measures will be implemented on site to
ensure that there are no significant adverse effects on ecology and 10% biodiversity
net gain can be achieved through new habitat creation and enhancement.
The negative impacts the site has been labelled with in the Sustainability Appraisal
are the impacts on Historic Environment and Landscape, with the latter presumably related to impacts on the estuary. However, whilst we acknowledge the importance
of such an environmental feature, this should not be a reason preventing this site for
allocation. In terms of proximity, the site lies several fields away from the estuary itself,
and there is already existing built form between the site and the estuary. The
aforementioned Paeony Chase consists of four dwellings, all of which lie closer to the
estuary than the site. There is therefore no additional encroachment to the estuary,
as the built form already exists – this site simply seeks to build up to the existing
dwellings.
Additionally, mitigations can easily be implemented on this site – its orthodox shape
allows for open space to be enjoyed to the north-west corner, thus maintaining a
buffer between any houses on this site to the estuary, whilst simultaneously allowing
for new and existing residents to enjoy the view of the estuary. Contrary to the site
assessments, residential development of this site can have a positive impact on the
estuary and given its location in the wider scheme of the settlement, its size and how
the settlement itself functions, makes it an ideal location for a sustainable residential
scheme.
There is one listed building near the site, which is the sole property on the northern
side of Paeony Chase. There is already built form between this building and the site,
meaning any visual impacts on the listed building from developing the site would be
minimal. Further, mitigation measures can be undertaken to minimise the any
potential impacts on the listed building.
Gladman have explored several assumptions concluded by the LPA pertaining to
residential land interests in the authoritative area. Fundamentally, Gladman do not
consider that the site at West Mersea should be discounted primarily due to potential
impacts made upon the estuary, and can provide the Council with information
regarding our design approaches to mitigate this harm. In the context of a significant
national housing crisis and a significant rise in market and affordable housing needs
in the District, Gladman do not consider it appropriate nor justified to discount the
site on the edge of a highly sustainable settlement without due consideration of how the site could be delivered through landscape-led design. We would welcome the
opportunity to discuss this site further, and the significant benefits it can deliver with
the Council.
Land off Rowhedge Road, Colchester
As discussed in our submissions above, Gladman are currently promoting Land off
Rowhedge Road, Colchester for residential development. The site extends to a total
area of 3.99ha, with the site’s location and the extent of the land under promotion by
Gladman shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2 Land off Rowhedge Road, Colchester - Location Plan
Located immediately adjacent to the Urban Area of Colchester, which forms the top
tier of the Council’s settlement hierarchy and the main focus for development within
the borough area, Gladman submit that Land off Rowhedge Road is ideally situated
to deliver residential growth to meet Colchester’s housing
Land off Rowhedge Road is not subject to any technical, landownership or viability
constraints that would preclude its development and delivery. This is further evidenced by the suite of technical assessments that have been prepared in support
of Gladman’s current planning application for the site (Colchester City Council ref:
251150) which is currently pending determination with the authority.
The remainder of this section describes the site’s suitability for development, taking
account of the technical studies that have been undertaken to inform its delivery to
date, and describes how it would represent a logical location for further sustainable
development.
New Homes
The site could accommodate up to 75 dwellings, delivering a range of market and
affordable homes to meet the borough’s housing needs. In accordance with the
Council’s emerging policy position, 30% of the homes would be delivered as
affordable housing. The proposals can be delivered at a density that makes efficient
use of the land whilst also being appropriate for the location and respecting its
character and surroundings.
Transport and Accessibility
Vehicular access to the site can be achieved from Rowhedge Road and will ensure
that both pedestrians and cyclists can access the site. Traffic surveys undertaken in
support of Gladman’s current application submission have shown that this access
could suitably accommodate the number of vehicle movements associated with the
proposals, whilst also demonstrating that the site’s development would not have an
unacceptable impact on the operation of the wider highway network or on highway
safety more broadly.
A good range of services and facilities can be accessed from the application site by
walking and cycling. The proposals lie in close proximity to the range of amenities
present within Old Heath, whilst also benefitting from access to the greater range of
facilities that are available in the wider Colchester urban area. The nearest bus stops
to the site are situated on Rowhedge Road with further bus stops located on
Fingringhoe Road. These stops are served by a regular service to Colchester city centre and also provide access to the wider bus network, as well as Colchester railway
station.
Ecology
The development of the Rowhedge Road site would not cause harm to any ecological
designations or protected species that cannot be addressed through appropriate
mitigation and enhancement measures. A comprehensive suite of ecology surveys
have the assessed the site’s potential to provide habitat for bats, badgers, dormice,
reptiles, riparian mammals and great crested newts; through the implementation of
precautionary working measures, habitat enhancement and accepted mitigation
methods, it has been concluded that no unacceptable impacts will arise in this
respect.
The proposed landscaping scheme for the proposals will help to improve the site’s
habitat structure and diversity. This could include new scrub planting, the retention
and enhancement of existing on-site hedgerows and woodland planting, and the
sowing of an appropriate grassland mix. Enhanced and created habitats will be
positively and appropriately managed to maximise their biodiversity value and the
contribution they can make to ecological networks. Biodiversity net gains would be
secured in accordance with national policy requirements.
Landscape
Gladman’s current application submission has been supported by the preparation of
a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). This describes how the site could
accommodate residential development without giving rise to any unacceptable
landscape and visual effects, whilst also concluded that it does not constitute or form
part of a ‘valued landscape’.
Submissions on the Rowhedge Road site’s identification as part of the Coastal
Protection Belt are provided in response to Policy LC3 in Section 4 of these
representations above. In this regard, it is questioned whether the inclusion whether
the coverage of the Rowhedge Road site by this designation is appropriately justified.
It is understood that the purpose of the Coastal Protection Belt is protect the
borough’s coastline from development that would adversely affect its rural,
undeveloped and open character. However, it is questioned whether the Rowhedge
Road site exhibits these characteristics. Development on the site would be
experienced as part of an existing, built-up developed area, would be accompanied
by a comprehensive framework of green infrastructure and landscaping, and would
be well contained from its wider context, including the Colne Estuary.
Historic Environment
Gladman’s current application submission has been supported by a Heritage Desk
Based Assessment (HDBA), describing how the development of the Rowhedge Road
site would not affect the setting or significance of any listed buildings or locally listed
buildings due to the absence of any historical functional associations and invisibility.
The HDBA also concludes that any archaeological interest in the site could be
addressed via archaeological recording, if this is deemed necessary.
Flooding and Drainage
A comprehensive Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has also been prepared in support of
Gladman’s current planning application. This identifies how the site could be safely
developed in relation to the risk of flooding. Any development would be situated
within Flood Zone 1, with no built development or other vulnerable uses at risk of
flooding from any other source.
A suitable drainage strategy delivered in accordance with Sustainable Urban Drainage
System (SuDS) principles would be provided, and would ensure the development of
the site would not give rise to an increased risk of flooding on-site or elsewhere. This
drainage strategy would also include a three-stage treatment train to ensure there
are no impacts on the receiving watercourse in relation to pollutants.
Infrastructure Provision
It is not anticipated that the proposals will give rise to any infrastructure deficiencies
that cannot be appropriately and adequately addressed. In this context. Gladman would be willing to enter into a Section 106 agreement with Colchester City and Essex
County Council to secure proportionate upgrades to infrastructure where these are
shown to be necessary to accommodate any development proposals.
Summary
As can be seen from the above summary, it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that
there are no infrastructure or technical constraints that would prevent the delivery of
a sustainable and acceptable residential development at Land off Rowhedge Road,
Colchester.
Gladman and the site’s owners would welcome the opportunity to work with the
authority’s officers to bring a suitable proposal for the site forward, and submit that
it would represent a suitable and sustainable location for further resident
development as part of the Council’s emerging Local Plan proposals.
7 CONCLUSIONS
Summary
Gladman have provided comments on a number of the issues that have been
identified in the Council’s consultation material and recommend that the matters
raised are carefully explored during the process of undertaking the new Local Plan.
Gladman are generally in support of the plan as drafted, with some key caveats
highlighted above in both the Development Management Policies section, as well as
sites not included for allocation.
The sites that have been selected as draft allocations are good options. Those which
Gladman are involved in at Baker’s Lane and North East Colchester are sustainable
sites that will strongly assist in meeting Colchester’s housing need. However, there is
a need to extend the plan period further to reduce the risk of it being too short (i.e.
under 15 years) and no longer being legally compliant.
Further, to extend by a few years requires more sites to be allocated to support the
extra years, which would help to increase the resilience of the Local Plan and the buffer between the planned supply of housing vs. identified needs. Gladman
proposes further small to medium sites to assist with this need, and these can be
captured in the first few years of the plan period, which can also assist greatly with
the 5-year housing land supply.
Gladman also request that a housing trajectory be published as soon as possible to
ensure appropriate levels of growth take place throughout the plan period.
We hope you have found these representations informative and useful towards the
preparation of the Colchester City Council Local Plan.
Gladman welcome any future engagement with the Council and if you would like to
discuss this representations or other matters, please contact us at
policy@gladman.co.uk.

see attached

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