I object to the proposed housing development due to its negative impact on the local area. The existing road network already experiences congestion, and additional housing will worsen traffic and road safety. The development would result in the loss of valuable green space and remove a well-used walking route that I regularly use with my children, harming local wellbeing. Local infrastructure, including the hospital, GP surgeries, schools and roads, is already overstretched and unable to cope with current demand. Adding more homes and residents without significant infrastructure improvements will place further strain on services and reduce residents’ quality of life.

PP9: North East Colchester Objection.
Site IDs: 10616, 10616a and 10616b.
The valley from Welshwood Park Road down to Salary Brook and up the other side is truly lovely. In a county that is so flat these pockets of delight need to be preserved. I, myself, have lived on the edge of the valley my whole life long. I grew up playing in the brook, the hedgerows, climbing the trees and making dens in the ditches. This safe haven was then enjoyed by my own three children and, now, by my grandchildren. Also, I am a foster carer and many of the children I look after have never been in a field or a hedgerow and love to pick blackberries, climb trees, play in the brook, have picnics and summer walks around the area. They even like to make mud angels in winter! It really adds something to their quality of life We teach them all about the nature and make countryside treasure hunts for them to identify the flora and fauna. Development would take all of this away, not only for all the children that are currently enjoying the valley but also for the children yet to come.
The valley is not only enjoyed by the residents of Welshwood Park but also the many, many people that walk there taking in the magnificent countryside. In fact, in 1985, the Salary Brook Valley was specifically recorded as a Special Landscape Area by Essex County Council, and it was designated as a Countryside Conservation Area by Colchester Borough Council. This is an early indicator and confirmation that previous generations found this area to be special. In 2005, the Review of Countryside Conservation Areas recorded the valley of the Salary Brook as ‘high value’, recommending it was designated as an Area of Landscape Conservation Importance and, in the more recent Landscape Character Assessment of 2024, LUC identify that the A6: Ardleigh River Valley (the valley of the Salary Brook), should be considered high landscape value. The farmland in the valley has had many different crops over the years, my favourites being the swaying barley and corn and blue borridge.
The valley is also the home of much wildlife. With its mature hedge rows it is the home to thousands of birds and animals. I, personally, have seen foxes, deer of different species, hare, badgers, green and spotted woodpeckers, birds of prey and over 30 species of bird. Many of the oaks are ancient. One oak, known to me as the Lightning Tree, is the one that many generations of children have enjoyed playing in and on.
The valley is also outside of the urbanisation area for many reasons as discussed above, but also because it is designated farmland and access to it would put massive pressure on the already overloaded road systems, dentists, doctors, hospital, water supply etc. Contradicts NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) principles on sustainable development and prioritising brownfield land. Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA) Stage 2 discounted brownfield sites include site IDs 10946, 10947, 10963, 10973, 10975, 11008.
The Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA) Stage 2 report identifies the site as a red risk for coalescence, a ‘significant contribution to coalescence’. This is mostly owing to the Garden Community which is nearing the final stages before development commences. Inclusion of this site in the local plan, and extending the settlement boundary will mean development up to City Council Boundary. This will result in a merging of settlements. Inclusion of 10616 will cause urban sprawl and loss of strategic gaps between settlements. This is basic common sense. The new Garden Community itself is a worry for everybody on this side of Colchester.
In conclusion, developing the area is not only a massive loss to people and to the flora and fauna but also puts huge pressure on an already overloaded infrastructure. I beg you to agree that the allocation should be removed, and the settlement boundary should not be changed but remain as existing.

Traffic is terrible now never mind more houses
Can't get into drs, dentist or local school now.
We need the country side to walk ,
Bromley road is so dangerous road especially trying to cross it with children,
Parking
Shops
All overcrowded

Site 10616 Welshwood Valley, is prime ariable farmland, which provides a vital green link for wildlife movement. Also with many footpaths, it is an area for recreation vital for good mental health. The surrounding area doesn't have the infrastructure to support more development.

I am writing to object to Policy PP9: North East Colchester, at sites
10616, 10616a and 10616b.
My reasons for objecting are the loss of amenity space, climate change
and sustainability. I personally use the site for the recreational
value of walking, and am aware that many other residents do the same;
the development would destroy these green spaces regularly used by the
community.
I object to this allocation and request that the existing settlement
boundary be maintained.

I object as:-
Proposed site includes grade 2 agricultural land with protected species.
Bullock Wood is an irreplaceable nationally protected site with its sustainability uniquely tied to local fields.
Area is already water stressed with infrastructure under pressure. This development risks overloading wastewater treatments leading to increased flooding risk.
Local GPs already oversubscribed.
Local roads are already heavily congested and cannot cope with extra traffic leading to even more congestion with increased journey times and reduction in air quality.
Green space is at the very heart of our community and exposure can reduce stress.
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY OBJECT TO THIS SITE

I object to the building of 2000 homes in this area.
This is a major dog walking route and is one of only a few accessible areas of green space left around this part of Colchester.
I also feel the isolated areas of woodland would be massively affected by the number of people who be using them and impact all the wildlife like Deer, Foxes and birds.

I object to the building of housing estate in this area of natual beauty

This plan should not be allowed as it is detrimental to the area and existing residents health and wellbeing. Increased traffic flow, increased pollution and ingress into a very fragile ecosystem. There is no viable infrastructure to deal with an extra 2000 homes, the damage to the environment would become irreversible to the local communities,

I object to the proposed building of 2000 homes on St John’s fields as it would have a significant impact on the local population and community. The adverse effects on the environment and waterways would be devastating and irreversible leading to increased flooding and pollution. The infrastructure would not be able to cope with the increased water demand and sewage removal. The increased flooding risk would have a significant impact on Bullock Wood endangering rare plant and animal life. The potential impact on Bullock Wood would be significant and put the ancient woodland at significant risk.

I object to the proposed building of 2000 houses on St John’s fields. There is no real spatial strategy for this area. There is no viable infrastructure in place, no allowance for urban sprawl and the damage it will do to the local area. Wildlife access routes and green pathways will be obliterated. Bullock Wood would be irreversibly damaged beyond recovery.

The proposed development of St John’s fields should be refused as the detrimental effects it would have on the local area would be devastating and irreversible leading. Many people’s health and wellbeing would be adversely affected if such a development was allowed to happen. The health and vitality of the area would be severely threatened and would result in devastating consequences and impacts on the SSSI of Bullock Wood which has very rare plant and wildlife. This ancient woodland would be damaged beyond recognition and the loss of this historic habitat and woodland would a national tragedy.

There is no provision for extra or new foul water removal from the area. The current water treatment plant is already under severe pressure and could not cope with the development adequately. Further to this the extra water run off would increase the amount of flooding in the area. This area already regularly floods and the extra houses would only exacerbate this problem.
The water table would be dramatically altered which would have a devastating impact on Bullock Woods very fragile ecosystem and the possibility of loss of habitats green path ways for wildlife.

Another 2000 homes will adversely impact nature, ancient woodlands, the current residents and their quality of life; this space is used for play, exercise, dog walking and general well-being; its loss can only have detrimental effects.
Another 4000+ vehicles will further congest an already overloaded area with added pollution and even longer journey times, particularly during daily commuting and school hours.
Despite the mitigations claimed below, prior experience shows that these will not be delivered and further burden will continue to be placed on the existing transport, hospital, surgery, school and shopping facilities.

Having lived all my life in St John’s. We have walked the footpaths and enjoyed the nature and surrounding woodland for over forty years. Our infrastructure also can simply not take the new housing.

For these reasons, I consider Policy PP9 and related development proposals unsound. They are not justified, not effective, and fail to comply with national planning policy. I respectfully object the plan Colchester Council proposed.
Traffic pressures on Bromley Road and St John’s Road
Loss of farmland, open space, and footpath networks
Development on sloping land along Bromley Road
Risk of urban sprawl and settlement coalescence
Surface water flooding risk near Salary Brook
Impacts on biodiversity and woodland in Welshwood
Questionable housing need and delivery assumptions

The proposed area is farming land which links woodlands at Bullockwood, Welshwood and Walls Wood. Isolating woodland leads to a reduction of wildlife and a deterioration in biodiversity. The area has a substantial traffic problem. When we moved to St John’s Road in 2000 there were rarely traffic jams. Now there are traffic queues every morning, and frequent jams later in the day too. 2,000 houses in the area would create a huge traffic problem. The pandemic showed how important green space is for people’s health. These fields are a vital resource and should not be built on.

The proposed buildings will cause environmental damage and loss to an eco sanctuary woodland that has been there for 1000 years. No supporting infrastructure to meet increased demands eg Dr's or Schools. Increased air pollution on already congested roads. Loss of agricultural land needed to feed UK population. Concerns about inadequate drainage and water supplies that have not been addressed.
This is not a suitable location for 2000 houses.

Planning Objection: West Colchester Development – St John’s Fields
I am writing to formally object to the proposed West Colchester development on St John’s Fields. My concerns focus on the irreversible environmental harm this scheme would cause—particularly to the adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) at Bullock Wood—and the permanent loss of a historic landscape that cannot be replaced once destroyed.
Impact on Bullock Wood (SSSI)
Bullock Wood is a nationally protected SSSI, recognised for its ancient woodland characteristics, biodiversity, and ecological sensitivity. Development of this scale, in such close proximity, poses a serious risk to the woodland’s integrity. Increased noise, light pollution, footfall, drainage disruption, and the fragmentation of wildlife corridors all threaten the very qualities that the SSSI designation is intended to safeguard. Once these habitats are disturbed, the damage is permanent and cannot be undone.
Irrecoverable Loss of Landscape
St John’s Fields is part of a long established landscape that has shaped the character of this area for generations. Building over these fields would erase not only their ecological value but also their cultural and historical significance. Landscapes of this kind, once lost, are lost forever. No amount of mitigation or landscaping can recreate what has taken centuries to form.
Personal Connection and Long-Term Stewardship
I have walked these woods and fields for the last fifty years, as both man and boy. I know their rhythms, their wildlife, and their quiet importance to the community. My objection is grounded not only in policy and environmental concern, but in half a century of lived experience that makes clear how unique and irreplaceable this place truly is.
Concerns Regarding Traffic Mitigation Claims
I have read Colchester City Council’s proposed mitigation measures for road congestion associated with this development. In my view, these proposals amount to executive noise rather than practical, deliverable solutions. They rely heavily on theoretical modelling and optimistic assumptions, with little evidence of real world implementation or enforceability. Anyone familiar with the existing traffic pressures in this part of Colchester will recognise that the suggested mitigations fall far short of what would be required.
A Call for Ground-Level Understanding
It would greatly benefit decision makers to step away from their screens and actually walk the fields and surrounding lanes. Only by experiencing the landscape first-hand—the narrow roads, the natural gradients, the wildlife corridors, the tranquillity of the fields—can one fully appreciate what stands to be lost. Planning decisions of this magnitude should be informed by lived reality, not solely by desktop assessments.
Conclusion
For these reasons—the threat to Bullock Wood SSSI, the irreversible loss of a historic landscape, the inadequacy of traffic mitigation proposals, and the profound local value of this environment—I strongly urge that this application be refused for the local Colchester plan.

Having dog walked here for over 30 years the area around Bullocks wood is of great importance for the physical and mental health of many of the local residents. Local infrastructure will also struggle to sustain the planned number of new housing. The proposed fields are presently being used agriculturally to provide for the wider benefit of society.

Formal Planning Objection Letter – West Colchester Development (St John’s Fields)
I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed West Colchester development on St John’s Fields. This application presents significant and unacceptable risks to the local environment, the integrity of designated ecological assets, and the already overstretched infrastructure serving this part of Colchester. For the reasons set out below, I strongly urge that the application be refused.

1. Impact on Bullock Wood SSSI
Bullock Wood is a nationally protected Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), recognised for its ancient woodland characteristics, biodiversity, and ecological sensitivity. The proposed development sits in immediate proximity to this irreplaceable habitat.
Key concerns include:
- Increased noise, light, and human disturbance
- Disruption of natural drainage patterns
- Fragmentation of wildlife corridors
- Long‑term degradation of ancient woodland soils and microclimates
The SSSI designation exists precisely to prevent harm of this nature. Once these habitats are disturbed, the damage is permanent and cannot be reversed. The development fails to demonstrate that the SSSI can be protected to the standard required by national policy.

2. Irreversible Loss of Historic Landscape
St John’s Fields forms part of a long‑established landscape that has shaped the character and identity of this area for generations. Its open fields, natural gradients, and wildlife corridors contribute to the rural setting that separates the community from the urban sprawl of central Colchester.
This landscape:
- Holds ecological value as part of a wider green network
- Supports local wildlife movement between Bullock Wood and surrounding habitats
- Represents a cultural and historical asset valued by residents
Once built over, this landscape is lost forever. No mitigation, landscaping, or “green buffers” can recreate what has taken centuries to develop.

3. Severe Infrastructure Constraints
The most pressing and immediate concern is the inability of local infrastructure to support further large‑scale development. The area is already struggling to meet the needs of its existing population.
3.1 Road Network Capacity
Local roads—including St John’s Road, Ipswich Road, and the surrounding junctions—are already operating beyond capacity. Daily congestion, long queues, and slow-moving traffic are routine. The proposed mitigation measures rely heavily on modelling assumptions rather than deliverable, enforceable solutions.
Residents with long experience of these roads know that:
- Peak‑time congestion is already severe
- Minor incidents cause disproportionate delays
- The road layout cannot be expanded without major disruption
- Additional vehicle movements from a development of this scale would overwhelm the network
The mitigation proposals do not address these realities.
3.2 Healthcare Provision
Residents in this area already struggle to access essential healthcare services. It is increasingly difficult to secure:
- GP appointments
- NHS dental appointments
- Routine hospital consultations
- Community health services
Adding thousands of new residents without guaranteed, funded, and deliverable healthcare expansion will worsen an already critical situation. The application does not provide credible evidence that local health infrastructure can absorb the additional demand.

4. Lived Experience and Local Knowledge
I have walked these fields and surrounding lanes for 32 years, gaining a deep understanding of their rhythms, wildlife, and community value. This long-term familiarity makes it clear that the landscape is unique, sensitive, and already under pressure from incremental development.
Planning decisions of this magnitude should be informed not only by desktop assessments but by genuine ground-level understanding. A site visit would make the constraints and sensitivities immediately apparent.

5. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined—
- the threat to Bullock Wood SSSI,
- the irreversible loss of a historic landscape,
- the severe and unresolved infrastructure pressures,
- and the lack of credible mitigation for traffic and healthcare capacity—
this application is unsound, unsustainable, and contrary to the long-term interests of the local community.
I therefore respectfully request that the West Colchester development on St John’s Fields be refused.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development in our neighbourhood.
First and foremost, the proposed development is simply too large for our area. The increase in population density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion in an already overcrowded area, noise pollution and strain on our public services. Additionally, the construction of this project would result in significant environmental damage, destroying natural habitats and putting wildlife at risk.
It would also drastically alter the aesthetic of our area, replacing the existing greenery and open spaces with a monolithic, high-density housing complex.
Finally, I am deeply concerned about the impact this development would have on property values in the surrounding area.
In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed housing development.

I object to the proposed housing development. Building near Bullock Woods, a designated SSSI, will cause irreversible harm to the ancient woodland and its fragile ecology. The removal of the vital green corridor will endanger local wildlife and reduce access to valued open space for families. The area also lacks the infrastructure needed to support additional housing. Residents in St Johns already face severe congestion along St John’s Road and surrounding routes. With no funding allocated for essential road upgrades, the development will worsen existing gridlock and place further strain on an already overburdened network.

As quoted in The Telegraph, November 2025, historic woodland is of national importance and is being eroded by the development of housing.
We also believe there has been sightings of bats in the vicinity.

These green fields 10616, 10616a 10616b are:
-the only buffer between Colchester and the proposed Garden Village, any building work will create an ugly urban sprawl
- a well used amenity by people from a wide local area eg St Johns, Greenstead, Harwich Road
- the last wildlife corridor on this side of our city, it links several local woods with Salary Brook {a council recognised specail area}
- home to a wide variety of natual species
- prime productive arable land
The local infrastructure, doctors, dentist,hospital, roads, cannot take any more large scale housing projects.

I strongly object to the North East Colchester development. Building on this vital countryside will be devastating to our community and the wildlife that relies on it for survival.
The proposal to build on this historic habitat is directly at odds with key elements of Colchester City Council's vision with regards to protecting undeveloped countryside, increasing resilience to climate change, creating walkable communities, and reducing traffic congestion.
Developing this land would represent an assault on the wellbeing of the local community who use its amenities for physical exercise, maintaining good mental health, and connecting with neighbours. For our community, the fields are the only green space we can walk to in the area. Without this opportunity to access nature readily, many will be forced to drive further afield severing the relationships we have with our local area, our community and the wildlife that resides there.
The land in question is next to Bullock Wood- an ancient woodland home to many animal and plant species. Wildlife, including deer, bats, and birds, use both the wood and surrounding fields to survive and thrive. Developing the fields without disturbing these ecosystems will be impossible as many animals use the fields as a corridor to other important habitats. There are no mitigation measures that can preserve the habitats as they are now.
Finally, as a resident of 25 years I observe the traffic on St Johns road daily (and the fumes as a pedestrian). It is increasingly congested at peak hours and the proposed development would overwhelm the local infrastructure. 2000 more homes could feasibly add 4000 more cars to our roads, which would be unsustainable and impact the local air quality.
It is incomprehensible that the North East fields have been included in the local plan. Developing this untouched and vital green space would be a travesty for the community and future generations.

This location is not suitable for any additional housing and will impact the natural environment irreparably. We also don't have the infrastructure to accommodate any additional housing especially to this volume

The infrastructure in Colchester is just not there for the amount being built around it. This is a rural part of town and it’s going to be absolutely destroyed with development.

We write to strongly object to the above sites being included in the Local Plan. As currently drafted, the allocation of PP9 Sites 10616, 10616a and 10616b fails the Local Plan soundness tests and are inconsistent with national planning policy.
We therefore request that the allocation of these sites is removed from the plan and the existing settlement boundary for North East Colchester is retained.
Specific areas of concern are detailed in the attached document.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed West Colchester Development-St Johns Fields. This scheme would cause irreversible environmental harm ,in particular to the adjacent site of special interest (SSSI) which is Bullock Wood. Loss of this beautiful historic landscape once destroyed is irreplaceable.

Impact on Bullock Wood
Our beautiful woodland is nationally protected SSSI ,recognised for its biodiversity and ecological sensitivity. Development of such scales in such close proximity ,poses serious risk to the woodlands integrity. Increased noise, light pollution ,footfall ,drainage disruption and fragmenting the wildlife corridors all threaten the qualities that the SSSI designation intended to safeguard. Once these habitats are disturbed the damage is permanent and cannot be reinstated.

Loss of landscape
St Johns fields is part of a long established landscape that has shaped the character of the area for generations. Development of our fields would erase the ecological value as well as historical significance . Landscapes of this kind once gone is lost forever..No amount of mitigation or landscaping can recreate what has formed over centuries.

Concerns regarding Traffic mitigation claims
I have read with interest Colchester City Councils proposed mitigation measures for road congestion associated with the proposed development In my view the proposals pay lip service to the problems rather than practical solutions. St Johns Road cannot cope with the through traffic at peak times at the moment. Adding another 2000 homes will only exacerbate this situation.

Infrastructure
The proposed development would place additional pressure on our health service, schools social care and emergency services. The local GP practice has no capacity for new patients and dentistry only available to private patients. As you are aware the general hospital has long waiting lists and those who are unfortunate enough to require emergency admissions can spend time in corridors waiting for a bed to be available. Any promises made by developers to build additional surgeries or schools cannot man them! Colchester is over populated. I suggest that those seated at the desks making the proposals get out into the community and engage with those who fully understand the impact of the proposal. Look first hand at the landscape, the narrow lanes, the gradient of the land, the wildlife and tranquillity. Fully appreciate the reality of what we would lose .How stretched our available resources would be.

My own personal connection to the area spans fifty years. I have walked the woods and fields daily . Our community shares the joy of the wildlife and brings enrichment to our lives. How sad that we would not wish to protect this for the mental health of generations to come. This area of beauty is unique and irreplaceable. So little of our heritage is left in Colchester.

To conclude I am strongly opposed to this development. I am urging planners to refuse the application for inclusion in the local plan.