Regarding the plan for more homes in St Johns and Marks Tey. Where are all the cars going? The A120 at Marks Tey is nose to tail traffic almost all day everyday. St Johns road is extremely congested already, and Ipswich Road already queues from the St Johns Roundabout to the A12 every evening. Consider an extra 4,000 cars just in the St Johns area. Prioritising walking, cycling and buses is ridiculous as Colchester is increasingly a town for COMMUTERS. It's not full of people working in the town centre. Bus lanes and park and rides can't fix that.

I work for a GP surgery in the North East Essex area. The primary care system and NHS as a whole cannot stretch any further in increasing capacity. These projects offer little to no additional infrastructure for additional healthcare needs, not to mention education and other community facilities. The roads are already congested, particularly St John’s Road which is usually heavily laden with traffic.

Equally building on greenfield rather than brownfield sites is an unnecessary destruction of wildlife where there are numerous other brownfield sites across the town that would be better suited (if allied with suitable infrastructure).

To build 2000 houses in this area is a ludicrous idea. The roads in the area are already congested and this will make matters so much worse. The local doctors surgeries are already at capacity; the local schools are at capacity. This idea needs to be permanently shelved. We are already being encroached upon by Tendring District Council with the new developments on Bromley Road. Please give us all a break

Following points of objection
The existing infrastructure cannot cope with existing volume of traffic.
Flooding will be increased.
Environment damage to area. Crime rate increase. Pollution increase. Pressure on council from government in providing x number of dwellings without looking at the overall picture.

I have lived in the area for over 30 years and have used the neighbouring fields for walking and relaxation every year. Although I sympathise with the need for more housing, I feel that this area provides vital recreational space for the local community and has great value for wildlife in an otherwise nature-depleted area. It adjoins ancient woodland and is used by many residents. I feel that there are many other spaces more suitable for development.

To take away more natural habitat of all the wild animals we see on a daily basis is extremely hurtful and totally unnecessary

Building on this land will have a detrimental effect on Bullock Wood and the area, this is a valuable wildlife corridor and nesting area. The area does not have the infrastructure to deal with more housing, local roads are already backed up, the schools and doctors are already at capacity.
If we loose this local green space then it will be detrimental to the health of local residents many of whom use the area for recreation.

St Johns Fields is a green space that supports a wide range of wildlife and a cherished space for residents to walk. The loss of these fields would have a negative effect on mental health and wellbeing, reducing the quality of life.

Junction of St Johns Road and St Johns Close is gridlocked at peak times. 2000 homes would exacerbate this problem, creating unsafe and unsustainable traffic conditions.

Schools, doctors’ surgery, Colchester Hospital, local dentists, are already oversubscribed. The proposed development would place intolerable strain on these essential services, further reducing the quality of care and education available to residents.

The traffic is already horrendous around this area with the thought of another 2000 homes added to this issue is totally unacceptable, the infrastructure is not capable of this and its near on impossible to get a doctors appointment now

I write to register mine and my wife's objections to the proposed development of 2000 houses on the fields adjacent to Bullock woods.
It seems that this has been I'll thought out considering the infrastructure and the ecology of the area.
Bullock wood is a protected woodland and that amount of housing would destroy it. The infrastructure of Colchester is way overstretched. The Hospital cannot cope as is the same for doctors Surgery's, schools and that's not to mention the traffic problems.
The traffic from such a development would cause bigger bottlenecks in the Parsons Heath and St Johns Road area.
We regularly get emails from Anglia water about conserving water so how are 2000 houses going to help?
The next consideration is the A12 that is one big bottle neck, with no apparent plans to improve it as the funds aren't available.
Whilst we accept the country needs more housing it needs too be thought through properly and not just in this haphazard way.
We also need farmland too produce the food for an increasing population for without it we won't have an increasing population.

This site has no suitable access to the highway, whether it be Bromley Road or by crossing the railway line onto Manningtree Road. All that is needed is one good reason to shut down consideration of this site and access is clearly that reason. I look forward to it being removed for consideration.

This proposed development is very large, and will change the nature of the area. People walk in these fields because of their rural charm, and several public footpaths will be affected, if not destroyed, so walkers will lose their amenity, which could affect their mental health.

Furthermore, there are some very old trees around these fields, and many birds of prey, notably buzzards, have nests here. There would be negative impacts on these assets.

The site is extremely large and replaces almost all the local farming land. There are several known veteran Oaks within the site, as shown on Ancient Tree Inventory, and various birds of prey frequent the area including Red Kites, Kestrels, Sparrowhawks and Buzzards.

It also contains many footpaths, which are important for mental and physical health.

I believe it would be a much better use of the fields east and north of Welsh Wood to extend the wood itself, which is rather small. The resulting area - similar to Highwoods Country Park - would serve the people’s recreation much better.

Disruption, wildlife, schools, doctors, hospitals, urban sprawl, loss of amenities, congestion

I strongly object to Policy PP9. The proposed 2,000-home development will permanently destroy valuable countryside, woodlands and wildlife habitats, including areas near Bullock Wood SSSI and Salary Brook. Local infrastructure is already overstretched, and this scale of growth will worsen congestion on already busy roads and make access to doctors, dentists and school places even more difficult. The rural landscape and heritage settings will be irreversibly harmed, and mitigation measures cannot compensate for the loss of natural environment and increased pressure on local services. This development is unsustainable and will significantly reduce the quality of life for existing residents.

I object to PP9 proposal due to the unacceptable impact it will have on the surrounding area. Building 2,000 houses on this sensitive landscape will destroy local countryside, increase pressure on ancient woodland and wildlife, and threaten the ecological integrity of Welshwood. Existing roads are already congested, and this development will add significant traffic with no realistic mitigation. Local services such as water supplies, GPs, dentists and schools are overstretched, and additional demand will make them even harder to access. The scale of this development is unsustainable and will fundamentally change the character and quality of life in the area.

This development must not go ahead. We need to keep some green lands in Colchester. Colchester’s infrastructure cannot cope as it is. There is too traffic and insufficient infrastructure. There is already not enough schools, doctors and dentist in this area without adding more pressure to those residents

The site is home to a great variety of wildlife, including deer, and the application does not include a solid plan for any new parkland or woodland. Furthermore, Salary Brook would benefit greatly from its own country park running alongside it.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed building of 2000 homes in the St John’s area of Colchester.

Having moved to St John’s (Acorn Close) from Romford over 30 years ago I feel such an affection for our beautiful little corner of Colchester.

Of course, over the years I have seen many changes but the one constant and my complete ‘go to’ has always been our beautiful fields and ancient woodland (Bullock Wood). I go there daily to walk my dog and meet many friends there. I feel so fortunate that it is literally a 5-minute walk from my home. The location is very relevant to me as looking to the future, if I couldn’t drive, then where on earth would I walk to? This area houses numerous types of wildlife which need this habitat to survive.

The traffic has vastly increased over the years, and the congestion has impacted on all of us all, especially around St John’s Road, Ipswich Road, Highwoods Approach and the surrounding areas. The idea of even more traffic chaos and delays on our doorstep which at times really does impact significantly on our lives is totally unacceptable.

Although St John’s is an area within Colchester, I regard it as my area which I feel really protective and rather proud of. The thought that it could be destroyed forever, which is what would happen if the proposed housing plans were approved, is just incomprehensible to me.

If you haven’t seen the area in question yourselves then visit it and see for yourselves how unquestionably beautiful it is through all of the seasons and what an absolute escape it is from the mad world we live in. If you have seen the area, I cannot possibly understand how you could even contemplate destroying our beautiful ancient woodland and fields for ever, and indeed depriving future generations from being able to enjoy them as we do. Dense housing development is simply just not appealing, as it will destroy the landscape for ever.

In addition, the obvious issues relating to GP services, Dentists, Schools, Hospitals etc have not been addressed.

Unequivocally I object to the building proposals.

St John’s will ALWAYS SAY NO.

Having spent 25 years of my life in the area affected by this development I wish to object for the following reasons. This area has always considered countryside, outside the Colchester urban area, so it conflicts with national and local planning policy. The impact on the landscape will be immense; in 2005 the review of Countryside Conservation Areas recorded the Salary Brook valley as ‘high value’. It was designated as an Area of Landscape Conservation Importance. Please don’t allow this huge development to destroy what most definitely meets the criteria of ‘valued landscape’ as defined by NPFF paragraph 187(a).

This is an area of wildlife and natural beauty and should not be developed on , there are enough houses and cars around here already

I object to this as we require green spaces and country side in our area. Wild life will suffer along with residents mental health. We need our green space for dog walks etc. The infrastructure will not support the additional homes as already our roads, schools and medical needs are at breaking point

Colchester Local Plan – Regulation 18 Consultation: Policy PP9 – North East
Colchester
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to submit a formal objection to the proposed allocation of sites 10616,
10616a and 10616b within the emerging Colchester Local Plan. These sites appear under
Policy PP9: North-East Colchester and lie adjacent to the Welshwood Park area in fields
between Bromley Road and Shaw’s Farm, and fields next and/or adjacent to Bullock
Wood.
After reviewing the available evidence and the council’s consultation material, I believe
these allocations are unsound, unjustified, and inconsistent with national planning
policy.
My objections are set out below.
1. Environmental and Biodiversity Harm
1.1 Loss of Greenfield Land
All three sites comprise undeveloped greenfield land. Allocating such land without a
published Sustainability Appraisal or Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA)
undermines the evidence-based approach required by national policy.
1.2 Harm to Wildlife and Ecological Networks
The sites contain mature hedgerows, woodland edges, and wildlife corridors that support
local biodiversity. Development would fragment habitats and reduce ecological
connectivity, contrary to the Environment Act 2021 requirement for measurable
biodiversity net gain.
1.3 Absence of Environmental Assessment
No detailed environmental assessment has been published for these sites. Allocation
without this evidence is premature and procedurally unsound.
2. Landscape and Character Impact
2.1 Impact on Welshwood Park Character
Welshwood Park is defined by low-density housing, mature trees, and a semi-rural
setting. Development on adjacent fields would significantly erode this character and
introduce urbanisation into an area not suited to it.
2.2 Visual Intrusion
The sites occupy open and, in places, elevated positions. Development would be visually
intrusive from surrounding residential areas and public rights of way, conflicting with the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requirement to protect valued landscapes.
3. Transport and Access Constraints
3.1 Road Network Capacity
Local roads—including Ipswich Road and St John’s Road—already experience
congestion at peak times. Additional traƯic generated by these sites would worsen
congestion, increase air pollution, and raise road safety concerns.
The proposed access points to these sites can only come from Parson’s Heath Road and
Bromley Road. These are both single-track roads that both lead to busy roundabouts at
the junctions of Bromley Road and Harwich Road, and Parsons Heath Road and St Johns
Road.
According to 2021 census data for the Colchester area, which is already nearly 5 years
old, Colchester has a higher average number of cars per household at 1.37 than the
England and Wales average of 1.23. Below is a table from the 2021 census data set
showing the breakdown of car ownership in Colchester at the time.
No car 17.4%
1 car 41.8%
2 cars 29.2%
3+ 11.9%
This shows Colchester have above average, multi-car ownership, which adversely
impacts traƯic, congestion and infrastructure capacity.
Based on 2,000 new homes, this could mean upwards of 2,740 additional cars will be
seeking to use the already inadequate local infrastructure. This is exacerbated by the
withdrawal of funding by central government for the new A120 junction; see 3.2 below.
The impact of both construction traƯic and 2,000 new homes have not, in my opinion,
been considered or addressed at all in the council’s consultation material.
3.2 Loss of A120 Junction Funding Undermines Deliverability
The proposed development strategy for North-East Colchester has previously relied on
the delivery of a new junction onto the A120 to support growth in the Crockleford Heath
area. Central government has now withdrawn funding for this junction, removing a critical
piece of strategic transport infrastructure.
Without this junction, the wider North-East Colchester growth area no longer has a
credible transport solution. TraƯic from new development would be forced onto already
congested local roads such as Ipswich Road, St John’s Road and surrounding junctions.
The council therefore cannot demonstrate that the cumulative transport impacts of
development can be mitigated, nor that the necessary infrastructure can be delivered
within the plan period.
The National Planning Policy Framework requires that Local Plans allocate sites only
where infrastructure is deliverable and where there is a reasonable prospect of delivery.
With the A120 junction unfunded and no alternative scheme identified, the development
of sites 10616, 10616a and 10616b cannot be considered deliverable or sound.
3.2 Lack of Sustainable Transport Options
The area is poorly served by public transport, has limited cycling infrastructure, and lacks
safe pedestrian routes to key services. The proposed allocations therefore fail to support
sustainable travel, contrary to the aims of the Local Plan and the NPPF.
4. InsuƯicient Infrastructure Capacity
4.1 Education
Local primary and secondary schools are oversubscribed. No evidence has been
provided to demonstrate that additional school places can be delivered in a timely
manner.
4.2 Healthcare
GP surgeries in North-East Colchester are at capacity. Without confirmed investment in
healthcare infrastructure, further development would exacerbate existing pressures.
4.3 Utilities and Drainage
There is no published evidence that wastewater, electricity supply, or surface water
drainage systems can accommodate development on these sites.
5. Unsound Site Selection
5.1 Sites Not Yet Assessed
Colchester City Council has confirmed that Call for Sites submissions—including sites
10616, 10616a and 10616b—have not yet been assessed for suitability. Allocating them
at this stage is unjustified and inconsistent with the requirement for a robust evidence
base.
5.2 Failure to Demonstrate Reasonable Alternatives
The Local Plan must show that all reasonable alternatives have been assessed. Without
a published SLAA or Sustainability Appraisal, the council cannot demonstrate that these
sites represent the most appropriate strategy.
6. Flood Risk and Drainage Concerns
6.1 Surface Water Flooding
The sites include sloping land that drains toward existing residential areas. Development
risks increasing surface water runoƯ and overwhelming local drainage systems.
6.2 Lack of a Drainage Strategy
No drainage or Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) strategy has been published.
Allocation without this evidence is inconsistent with national policy on flood risk.
7. Conflict with National Planning Policy
The proposed allocations fail to meet several key NPPF requirements, including:
• Protecting the natural environment
• Minimising flood risk
• Promoting sustainable transport
• Ensuring adequate infrastructure
• Basing decisions on proportionate evidence
8. Failure to Meet Tests of Soundness
A Local Plan must be:
• Positively prepared
• Justified
• EƯective
• Consistent with national policy
These allocations fail multiple tests due to the lack of evidence, inadequate
infrastructure, environmental harm, and absence of proper assessment.

Additional 2000 homes in this area will severely impact on services Tendring built just over from salary brook due no housing plan. Builder still used Colchester sewage services
Road infrastructure inappropriate additional garden village with 9000 homes 🏠 n same area all be different authorities
Impact on conservation and open spaces and animal welfare

As the first Roman Capital of Britain, Colchester possesses many attractive historic locations which must be preserved for future generations.
The plan to erect buildings on the fields surrounding Welshwood Park should not proceed. Welsh Wood is a Nature Reserve which cannot be relocated elsewhere. The fields not only support biodiversity as home to small mammals, birds and invertebrates but also perform an ecological role as a conservation site. The open fields offer scenic views and walking routes for locals which are vital for wellbeing and leisure.
Buildings should not be erected on this ancient woodland.

This is beautiful wildlife and tree area. We already have traffic filled roads. Full schools, full doctors, no dentists. Full over run hospital. We cannot just keep adding houses with no infrastructure. It’s so basic yet but you keep allowing all these houses. We need green space for mental health. We need green space for exercise, for fresh air. We also need to be self sufficient as a country to keep costs down. Turning farm space into more houses for more people is just ramping up supermarket prices. Stop ruining Colchester!

l wish to oppose the plans to build 2,000 houses on this site. On St John's Estate there are very few open spaces, and places for children to play. If these plans go ahead there will be no open spaces.
The roads are all ready facing long queues, especially early morning and evening times. Also when the schools go and come home from school. If you build more homes on this fields it will become totally grid locked.
The Ipswich Road is already struggling with the volume of traffic and is often one long queue. St. John's Road is already used as rat run to get across town.
So putting it bluntly we are already at full compacity. The two schools in our area have long waiting lists for places. As l already stated we have very little wriggle room here, so please reconsider your plans.

I am writing to object
to Policy PP9 North East Colchester, to build residential housing on
this fine open space.
No one will gain from this development, except the developer,
who does not live here. From the illustrations I have seen, very few
first time buyer type of housing is planned, just four or five bedroom
houses for people moving out of London to work remotely from
home I have lived in this area for forty four years, walked all these pleasant nearby fields. I have seen adders scattering after being
shaken off the farmer's plough in the fields below Sadlers Farm, these fields are alive with this endangered species. I have also seen Perrigin
Falcons and Sparrow Hawks plunging on the prey below in the same area.
If this development goes ahead amd we upset the natural drainage
balance between this field and Bullock Wood, the Wood will soon die,
and all this other natural life will also go.

Anglian Water warned us earlier this year that Colchester would be in deficit as far as fresh water is concerned from last July, and the same company had no plans for major sewage upgrades I believe until
2052. So what are these new properties going to use to drink and flush their toilets?

Another result of this plan is the major traffic gridlock this
side of the city will suffer. There are no plans for any major road upgrades unless the developer pays for them, and that is most unlikely. So all traffic for Colchester or the A12 will have to come via Harwich Road, and we already are gridlocked three times a day at the two mini
roundabout between St. Johns Road, Harwich Road, and Bromley Road. At busy times we already have a two mile tailback. It is no excuse for the
council to say; walk, take a bus or cycle, when there are few buses that go past St Johns Road, no cycle tracks and the roads are too blocked for safe cycling.
Many people do not realise that the road between the A12 at Ipswich and Mannintree (A137), and from Manningtree to Colchester (a continuation of the A137, the Harwich Road), is the only relief road
available to the Authorities, especially south bound, that is rated as suitable for the heaviest of commercial trucks, when the A12 suffers from one of the frequent blockages that warrants a diversion be set up.
Thereby adding to the existing lengthy tailback. That will do a lot for Global Warming.

This is purely a political decision, and is being repeated all
over the south of the country, but here for the first time for many years we have a labour MP, and more local Labour councillors. When such developments are being forced on to local communities I cannot see this
Government retaining such a presence in the south of England for very long.

I am submitting our objection to the plans for St John’s Fields. I have lived in St John’s since the age of two and I am now 52 years old. I have regularly used the designated footpaths along those fields in that time due to parents owning dogs and then myself. The wildlife and space is much needed and desired. There are important species that deserve protecting.
I have seen the change from high woods being developed from fields all the way to the A12 yet the main infrastructure has not grown with it.
We are often stuck in traffic along St John’s road which has increased massively over the years and a possible further 2000 homes will only exacerbate it.
Please do not destroy this area this side of Colchester cannot cope with the extra housing, vehicles, loss of countryside.

I am writing to object to the fields surrounding Welshwood Park Road: PP9: North East Colchester being included as preferred option residential allocation in the new local plan. Site IDs 10616,10616a and 10616b.



My main objection to the suggestion of building in this area is that it would almost touch the Tendring planned garden community meaning that if this land was built on Colchester and Tendring would join at this point becoming one large sprawl of housing. Surely there must be a green belt of land between the two boroughs.



I think everyone that lives in Colchester is concerned by the ever increasing size of the city and the impact this has on the infrastructure of the city, in particular the road system which cannot cope with the additional cars as it is now, Journeys that used to take 10-15 minutes can now take 30-40 minutes and if anything goes wrong with the major routes the city comes to a standstill. The Tendring garden community will add pressure to the roads and all other amenities in that area and in Colchester generally.



My mother is a resident in the care home overlooking these fields which are considered countryside being currently outside the existing settlement boundary of the Colchester Urban Area, it would be a great loss to the residents to no longer be able to look out over these fields with the long views and opportunity to see the natural world and wildlife. Many of the residents are not able to venture out now so this is a valuable amenity for them in their final years.



I walk my dog in the valley overlooking the Bromley Road, it really is a special area with a rolling aspect unusual in the area and as such should be protected. I have been advised that in 1985, the Salary Brook Valley was specifically recorded as a Special Landscape Area by ECC, and it was designated as a Countryside Conservation Area by Colchester Borough Council.