Please please do not disturb this land. Leave the wildlife alone. Leave the countryside alone. Use empty homes and brown field sites first. Plus Colchester hospital cannot cope with current population numbers. Have you been to a and e recently. It's crazy. The closure of the walk-in centre was immoral and has created more problems. Let's get the infrastructure sorted first. Build a new fit for purpose hospital first. Not more and more homes. Enough

I fully object to Policy PP9: North‑East Colchester. The proposed development is unsound: local roads and infrastructure cannot safely support increased traffic; essential services such as schools and GPs are already overstretched; and water, power and sewage capacity is insufficient. The site includes virgin woodland of high conservation value , home to protected species including newts, badger set, and increased footfall will accelerate vandalism and ecological collapse. The valley is prone to flooding/known subsidence, making it unsuitable for construction. This development would permanently scar a valued landscape. Under English planning rights, I request refusal of this application in full.

Loss of space-I walk with my children round the fields and woods. Natural places to walk are becoming more limited. This is site ID 10616, 10616a and 10616b.
Loss of nature/animals-on our walks we have seen many animals, which would disappear. Squirrels, deers, butterflies, grass snakes, dragonflies and dung beetles
Congestion-increased traffic to area and around area, so getting into town/villages will be more congested and difficult

As a 56‑year‑old local woman I strongly object to Policy PP9: North‑East Colchester. The proposal would overwhelm inadequate roads, water, power and sewage; schools and GP services are already stretched. It provides insufficient green space, worsening social and mental health by removing access to nature. Rare virgin woodland, home to newts and vital insects, faces vandalism and ecological collapse. Lowlands flood and fields show subsidence, making building unsafe. I assert my rights under English planning law to object and demand this application be refused.

As a 20‑year‑old local woman I strongly object to Policy PP9: The scheme will irreparably damage virgin woodland, destroying habitat for newts, insects and other wildlife; increased access will bring vandalism and rampant dog fouling that will decimate ground flora and spread disease. Loss of hedgerows green space harms community wellbeing. Lowlands flood in the valley and fields show subsidence, and infrastructure cannot cope. I exercise my rights under English planning law to object and demand refusal of this proposal to protect our environment and public health. It is totally inappropriate for this dense building of dwellings rather than homes.

Loss of wildlife & their habitat. This is so bad for the environment. So saying improved green space, walking & biking is a joke. Also its bad for mental health losing countryside. Air pollution will increase which is bad for our health.
Overcrowded schools, Drs, Hospitals & roads. Colchester is already at burtsing point. The roads are awful, conjested and full of potholes. Huge health waiting lists. Not enough jobs.

We do not want extra building work and pollution destroying our beautiful woodlands. We have peaceful walks and enjoy the nature. Do not ruin it and conjest the area.

The site appears to be within the wider setting of several Grade II listed buildings.

Initial assessment

While development at this site may be acceptable, a Heritage Impact Assessment (Proforma) will be essential to confirm the site’s suitability from a historic environment perspective and to identify appropriate mitigation measures or opportunities for enhancement. The resulting recommendations should then be incorporated into criterion ‘m’.

How on earth can anyone see Bromley Road access supporting this project is beyond me, let alone the other local infrastructure. This was totally ignored on a previous local development (at the inquest local people explained about previous fatality and the harrowing experience and loss of love ones). Government might be setting targets for developments but that doesn't mean ignoring what's plain and obvious as noted above.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed housing development at Welshwood Valley and to the inclusion of this land within the emerging Local Plan under Planning Policy PP9: North-East Colchester, specifically Site IDs 10616, 10616a and 10616b.

My primary concern is the severe lack of supporting infrastructure in Colchester, which has been continuously built upon without the necessary investment to support existing and future residents. Roads in and around Colchester are already heavily congested, and additional housing in this location would significantly worsen traffic problems, increasing journey times and air pollution. The local road network is not capable of accommodating further large-scale development without major upgrades, which have not been adequately addressed within this proposal or within previously approved developments in the area.

There is also a clear and ongoing shortage of essential services, including education, healthcare, sports facilities, and other community amenities. Local schools are already oversubscribed, GP surgeries and wider NHS services are under significant strain, and access to sports and recreational facilities is increasingly limited. Continued development across Colchester without corresponding infrastructure provision has directly contributed to these issues. Allocating Welshwood Valley for housing under Policy PP9 would further exacerbate these existing pressures.

In assessing infrastructure capacity, insufficient weight has been given to the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community (TCBGC), planned for land east of Colchester. With a development plan adopted in mid-2025 and an anticipated 7,500+ new homes, this garden community will inevitably rely on Colchester’s existing facilities and infrastructure, particularly in the early and medium term. The cumulative impact of these additional homes and residents on roads, healthcare, education, and community facilities is not yet fully understood and has not been adequately accounted for within this emerging Local Plan. While Colchester may appear able to cope at present, the combined impact of the TCBGC alongside further allocations such as Welshwood Valley risks overwhelming infrastructure capacity.

In addition, development of Site IDs 10616, 10616a and 10616b would have a harmful and irreversible impact on the local environment. Welshwood Valley forms part of an important green corridor used by wildlife, supporting animal movement and local biodiversity. Building on this land would fragment habitats, reduce biodiversity, and permanently damage the natural landscape. The loss of this green space would also negatively affect residents’ wellbeing and access to natural environments.

Furthermore, the proposed development raises serious concerns regarding flood risk. The land currently plays an important role in natural water absorption and surface water management. Development would increase surface water runoff into Salary Brook, heightening the risk of flooding downstream, particularly during periods of heavy rainfall. This would place existing homes, infrastructure, and the wider environment at increased risk.

In summary, the inclusion of Welshwood Valley within the Local Plan under Policy PP9 is unsustainable. It fails to adequately consider the cumulative impact of existing development and the forthcoming TCBGC, does not address the long-standing lack of infrastructure in Colchester, and would worsen traffic congestion and service pressures, harm the environment, disrupt vital wildlife corridors, and increase flood risk associated with Salary Brook. For these material planning reasons, I strongly urge the planning authority to remove Site IDs 10616, 10616a and 10616b from the Local Plan and to refuse any related development proposals.

Yours faithfully,
Vanessa Ryan

The roads can't handle the amount of traffic as it stands. The road leading to Harwich road is horrific to get through at the best of times. Quite often at a stand still. Even more so with diversions.
The countryside and wildlife will be effect negatively. We choose to live here, to be out of town and in the countryside. To build more houses is absurd! The doctors, dentist and school can't handle this.

There is far too much building in Colchester. There are no extra schools, drs, dentists, the infrastructure & the hospital cannot cope with all the extra people.
DO NOT build on Welshwood Valley it’s a beautiful area for fauna that needs protecting.

Not enough provision for education past primary the nearest high school will be full already. No mention of doctors or dentist nearest dentist is already at capacity. Roads are already struggling at peak hours and can end in gridlock with just a minor accident or works taking place. Adding 2000 houses will inevitably end up with more cars regardless of any plans for extra public transport. Will these houses be truly affordable or will profit over people take precedent? How sustainable will the properties be and what effect will these have on the environment and habitat of the area?

There is no doctors, no dentist and no childcare places, if you create one preschool and primary that wouldn't be enough for the amount of people that could potentially live there. The area is used alot by walkers to get out in nature, myself included, where are they supposed to go. The surrounding roads are already very busy with traffic heading to and from the A12 off Ipswich Road and these plans would make it worse. There are plenty of houses available to buy, people can't afford them and building more to sit empty isn't going to help the situation.

There is already a garden community being built close by which will put additional pressure on services that are already over-subscribed. Don't need another 2k houses here

I strongly object to the mass building plans. I have been a resident in Colchester for 3+ years now, and it already struggles with heavy traffic, lack of accessible road routes, long wait times for GPs and also having recently been a patient at the Colchester Hopsital, it is clear that further residents will drastically increase what are already extremely long NHS times - the hospital is majorly stretched already, add more residents and that stretch increases.

As well as this, I strongly disagree with the environmental damage to the green spaces and importantly the disturbance of wildlife in the area. The works are right next to a nature reserve which is detrimental to local wildlife.

As well as my own beliefs to why this building plan should not move forward, I strongly align with the thoughts of the St John’s residents association:

Damage to Bullock Woods a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) as any building
any where near this ancient woodland will damage the drainage system the woodland relies on for survival - there is no solution for this and it is irreversible

Damage to the local landscape and ecology including its heritage which can ’t be mitigated against

Loss of green corridor essential for wildlife to survive

Lack of infrastructure. There is no additional funding for the roads that would need to be built and therefore traffic around North East Colchester will be even more gridlocked

Additional pressure on healthcare and school services

Loss of valuable community space for residents' wellbeing and health.

The town is already stretched of resource, has poor roads & traffic, and long hospital wait times. All things that will drastically get worse if these houses are built.

I strongly object.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed housing development in St John’s, Colchester. Here are my objections: loss of valuable green open spaces and the significant negative impact this development would have on local wildlife and surrounding woodland. The land in question is an important natural habitat that supports a wide variety of wildlife. The area provides essential shelter, breeding ground and food sources and its destruction would lead to irreversible harm to local biodiversity. The development also threatens the integrity of the adjacent Bullock wood. Woodland is crucial for carbon absorption, air quality, flood prevention and climate regulation. This green area also provides recreation, mental wellbeing and connection to nature for the local community.
This development would also lead to substantial increase in traffic on roads that are already heavily used. The local roads are not designed to accommodate this level of traffic, which would increase congestion, noise, pollution and road safety risks.
Furthermore, there is insufficient infrastructure in the area to support a development of any size. Local GP surgery is operating at full capacity, schools are under significant pressure.

I object to this development due to several concerns: loss of green open space which supports a variety of wildlife, providing shelter, breeding grounds and food sources, its destruction would lead to irreversible harm to local biodiversity. The development threatens the adjacent Bullock wood, which is crucial for carbon absorption, air quality, flood prevention and climate regulation. The area also offers opportunities for recreation, mental wellbeing and connection to nature for the local community. The development would also lead to a substantial increase in traffic volumes on roads that are already heavily used. There would be an increase in congestion, pollution, noise and road safety risks for local residents. There is insufficient infrastructure to support a development of any size: GP’s at full capacity, local schools under significant pressure.

Colchester CC recently proudly printed they had exceeded their housebuilding target and were the fastest growing in the country. If they had said the best strategic planning in the country perhaps that's a reason for an announcement. The area for proposed development is important to most existing residents, children and dog walkers. Offering ways to vary enjoying the outside from Woods, hedgerows, fields, meadows and streams. Already roads around the area are at or near gridlock at times. The new Garden community is not full yet and this proposal would join with that influx of people, children and cars.

I object to including sites 10616, 10616A, 10616B.
This land is outside the settlement boundary and there are brownfield sites that should be included instead.
It is farmland, Grade 2 and 3 needed for food security. Development of this land would cause coalescence with the Garden Community.
It is a high value landscape, home to veteran trees and valuable flora and fauna, including skylarks.
It is a beautiful amenity of hundred of walkers, both local and further afield.
The area is badly served by road infrastructure at present which would be impacted severely by any further development

I object to the proposal on the grounds that it fails to demonstrate compliance with Policy PP9 regarding the protection of Welsh Wood as Ancient Woodland. Insufficient information has been provided on buffer zones, mitigation of recreational pressure, noise and lighting impacts, and long-term biodiversity protection. The proposal does not clearly show how woodland buffering, habitat connectivity, and biodiversity net gain objectives will be delivered without harm to Welsh Wood. Until these matters are fully assessed and secured, the development should be refused or deferred.

It's very sad today that I have to object to such a sad thing that you could even consider building houses on the Welsh woods. It's home to so many animals and no one should ever take that away. I move here knowing that I have a safe place for my mental wellbeing taking my dog out every day enjoying the lovely place I have chosen to live. Please don't let them destroy my world and the animals around me .

I wish to object to sites 10616,10616a and 10616b being included in the Local Plan.
There are strong reasons on a number of grounds including a red risk for coalescence ( the New Garden Community of 7000 houses bordering this land), loss of valued landscape, biodiversity, ecology and amenity space. Further there are great constraints on access to the site and sustainable travel from it. It lacks transport and health infrastructure. There are flood risks, risks to mineral safeguarding and questions over water supply.
It fails the test for soundness and should be removed.

am writing as an individual to formally object to Policy PP9 – North-East Colchester in the Regulation 18 Preferred Options Local Plan, specifically in relation to Site IDs 10616, 10616a and 10616b.
While I recognise that the Development Plan may bring some reliefs on housing needs, I believe it does not properly take into account existing development, the sensitivity of the landscape, evidence on housing delivery, or the combined impact on communities at the edge of the countryside. As a result, the proposals conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
My reasons for objection are set out below.
1. Traffic impacts on Bromley Road and St John’s Road
Bromley Road and St John’s Road already suffer from heavy traffic, noise, and safety problems, especially at busy times of day. The scale of development proposed in the Crockleford community area and developments around Bromley Roads, Welshwood Areas would add a large number of extra vehicle movements. However, the Local Plan does not include sustainable road layouts instead, the proposals assume that residents of new housing built on agricultural land will use Bromley Road or routes linking to St John’s Road to reach the A12. These roads are already close to capacity. More traffic would lead to worse congestion, more noise, increased rat-running through residential streets, and reduced road safety.
2. Loss of valuable agricultural lands behind and alongside Bromley Road, open space and footpaths
The proposal would result in the loss of agricultural lands, cut through open countryside footpaths, and disrupt existing farming activity in order to connect new development to St John’s Road.
This loss of productive farmland and open countryside is not properly justified and weakens the clear boundary between urban Colchester and the rural landscape of Ardleigh. It conflicts with national policy that seeks to protect the character and beauty of the countryside.
Agricultural land behind and alongside Bromley Road, much of it on sloping ground, has been identified for housing despite being highly sensitive and poorly served by public transport. Developing this land would lead to:
Loss of privacy for existing homes due to new housing being built on higher ground;
Damage to wildlife habitats and biodiversity;
Expansion of the urban area into the countryside;
Increased traffic and constant noise on roads linking to the A12, including St John’s Road.
Taken together, these impacts would cause lasting harm to the character of the area and to the quality of life of existing residents.
3. Risk of coalescence and urban sprawl
The size, density, and location of development proposed under Policy PP9 create a real risk that Colchester’s urban area will spread into the surrounding countryside. This would blur the separation between settlements and lead to continuous development where there is currently a clear transition from town to countryside.
Such coalescence would permanently change the character of the Crockleford and Ardleigh border area. The plan does not clearly explain how this harm would be avoided and lessen the current red risk of coalescence.
4. Surface water flooding and Salary Brook
The proposed development is close to Salary Brook, an area expected to suffer from risk of surface water flooding within 5 years according to recent survey carried out by Groundsure (available upon request) . The Local Plan does not clearly show how additional hard surfaces from new development would avoid increasing runoff or flood risk, particularly as heavy rainfall becomes more frequent due to climate change.
Without a clear and detailed drainage and flood-risk strategy for this area, the proposals cannot be considered safe or sustainable.
5. Impact on biodiversity and woodland near Welshwood
The Welshwood area is an important local asset, providing woodland habitat, wildlife value, and green space. Policy PP9 does not include strong enough protections to prevent loss or fragmentation of these habitats. It is also unclear how genuine biodiversity net gain would be delivered in practice.
6. Doubts about housing need and delivery
There are already approved developments in the area, including Bellway new-build homes and the Mill View development, where properties have remained empty or unsold for several years. This raises questions about the need to release further greenfield and agricultural land for housing.
Allowing more development in sensitive countryside locations while existing homes remain unoccupied suggests that housing delivery assumptions may not be realistic or well-evidenced.
Conclusion
For these reasons, I believe that Policy PP9 and related parts of the Development Plan are not sound, as they are not justified, not effective, and not consistent with national planning policy.
Your faithfully,



Linda Hance

Increasingly we are surrounded by buildings and losing green space and natural areas. I am Increasingly struggling to deal with the level of noise and traffic and I am sure I am not alone in this. I moved to an area that allowed me to access quiet areas on foot however the council has allowed multiple estates and developments that impact on quality of life and health. Further development would be contary to the government 10year plan for health and increase pollution and environmental damage to natural habitat that is already struggling.

This site is wholly unstable for the number of new homes planned to be built.
Firstly, the existing infrastructure does not support the current levels of traffic using this area in a daily basis . We have people going to Ipswich via Manningtree in one direction and access to the A12 in the other direction- the roads are regularly gridlocked particularly when there are accidents on the A12. Pollution is horrific during peak travel times . In addition, doctors surgeries, the hospital, pharmacies and schools are already stretched to breaking point . I suspect the houses will also go to people coming in from London rather than local families. We do not want this development.

Concerns about water - supply, drainage, sewerage. Loss of arable land and beauty spot. Colchester is already overpopulated without enough infrastructure to support. This will devalue existing property and create extra traffic. These green outskirts of the town are a haven for nature and necessary for pure air and the wellbeing of residents in so many ways.

I object because:-
Bullock wood has a diverse range of fauna and animals that need to be left undisturbed.
The surrounding area is used by walkers de-stressing from modern life.
With so many properties there will be more light as well as noise pollution.
With 2000 houses there will be around 4000 more cars. Bringing already congested St. Johns roads to a grind.
The nearby schools, doctors surgeries and dentists are already at breaking point without any more people living in the area.
Although given city status Colchester is a town with roads not suited to heavy traffic.

I object on the grounds of loosing open space for wildlife. More and more space is being lost and the wildlife eco structure will not be able to maintain it's ability to survive. It's not just my grandchildren who will loose out on the ability to walk in the countryside but their children to. A great deal of people have open access along footpaths to walk in the countryside which will be lost once built on. There are many derelict patches of ground that could be used within and around the town before tearing up the countryside and pushing the access to open countryside within walking distance away from the people of Colchester.

• Very limited access onto a narrow single lane road already accessed by a recent housing development. This part of Bromley Road is narrow and winding making access onto it difficult due to visibility issues and the speed at which many motorists drive on this stretch.
• Traffic build up already occurs (due to vehicles and a Zebra crossing used by families) at peak times when schools are in session.
• Concerns over children’s safety when , for example, walking to and from school as the result of increased traffic on the Bromley Road, often traveling at speeds exceeding the national limit.
• The Salary Brook Valley recorded as a Special Landscape Area by ECC in 1985 & the review of countryside Conservation Areas recorded it as ‘high value’ in 2005 designating it as an Area of Landscape Conservation importance.
• These and other references suggest that this land is of high value and capable of being designated a ‘valued landscape’.
• NPPF paragraph 187(a) creates the concept of ‘valued landscapes’. This states that in planning policies and decisions, ‘valued landscapes’ should be protected and enhanced.
• Development would remove valuable access to green space for walking, cycling and wildlife observation.
• Land adjacent to local wildlife area, namely Welsh Wood.