I strongly disagree with the plan to surround a triple SSSI with 2000 houses, which will destroy this environment, and create a urban environment, which will effectively render the area alien to the current wildlife on this site.
The catastrophic decision to make Colchester a city, enables this sort of reckless development possible, and loss of habitats.
I would suggest that large housing developments
never render any benefits to anyone other than speculative developers.

I am objecting to these plans as they don not take into account the wishes of the local residents.
There is no budget for any infastructure to make this plan viable.
There will be traffic chaos on the congested roads and it could be more dangerous for children getting to school. Also the overloaded local healthcare and schools won’t be able to cope with such an influx.
The woods themselves have been a haven for local residents and nature lovers. This natural space for well being would be ruined and eventually die off if this was allowed to go ahead.

I object:-
Bullock Wood is an irreplaceable nationally protected site with its sustainability uniquely tied to the local fields.
Proposed site inc grade 2 agricultural land with protected species.
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, a reduction in our air quality.
Area is already water stressed with infrastructure under pressure. This development risks overloading wastewater treatments leading to increased risk of flooding.
I TOTALLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT GOING AHEAD

1. Farm land producing crops should not be built on.
2. Welsh Wood a remnant of ancient woodland, has existed since prehistoric times and the wildlife it supports together with ancient hedges in the adjacent fields would be damaged by significantly increased footfall (as was evident during Covid). The footpaths crossing the wood and fields provide pleasure to many walkers without the need for a car journey.
3.Surrounding roads struggle to cope with current traffic.
4.Hospital and local surgery are under severe strain.
5. Colchester Council in the past advocated a "Green Corridor" be established on this land, not housing.

-The city settlement boundary will be increased to accomodate continuously ugly and sterile urban sprawl from the Garden Community to the City.

-A great loss of public amenity. I have been a regular dog walker around these fields for over 40 years. Hundreds of people rely on them for recreation.

-Irreparable damage to ancient woodland, trees and hedgerows.

-Loss of a lovely valley landscape, designated by ECC as a "Special Landscape Area", CBC: " Countryside Conservation Area".

-Serious detrimental effect on wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors.

-Loss of good agricultural land which continuously provides one or two crops a year.

I strongly object to the proposed 2000 housing development on farmland 10616. The scheme would cause urban sprawl, harming the local amenity for walking and damaging hedgerows. The impact on wildlife, & biodiversity including protected species like skylarks and buzzards, is a significant concern. The development lacks necessary infrastructure, including doctors' surgeries and schools, to support the additional population. ECC have designated this as a 'special landscape area' and CBC have designated it as a 'countryside conservation area'. This green space supports our family's health and mental wellbeing as we regularly use it for dog walking and leisure.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of land adjacent to Welsh Wood, Wall’s Wood, and Salary Brook. The areas referred to as
PP9: North East Colchester. Site IDs: 10616, 10616a and 10616b in the local plans
I am objecting to these plans based on the following reasons
Along with many of the local communities here, my family have enjoyed the charming landscape for walking and observing the diverse wildlife that live in this countryside for many years.
The development of thousands of homes will not only destroy this biodiversity but also bring in additional burden on the land with soil erosion and impaction, destruction of habitats for many species of wildlife. The woodland of Welshwood are ancient woodlands and the adjoining lands add character to the countryside. Development of any kind in these lands will disturb these woodlands and they will be subjected to ongoing damage and harm from increased pollution.
The existing infrastructure is not adequate to support the current communities living around the Bromley Road, Parsons Heath, St Johns’s and Greenstead. The traffic around these areas has steadily grown heavy over the past few years especially with the new development off the Bromley Road. The traffic is so heavy and Bromley Road and St John’s road being the only through routes to the rest of Colchester and the A12, the travel times have doubled. There is not enough public transport available to travel within Colchester from these areas. This will lead to an exponential increase in traffic from the new housing with significant impact on the already weak infrastructure
The local GP surgeries are already struggling to cater for the needs of the existing population. With nationwide shortages in medical and allied healthcare staff it will be impossible to take on additional patients or to consider setting up additional GP surgeries.
Therefore I request that the council to reject the planning application for the aforementioned sites and consider designating these areas as areas of conservation.

This cannot be allowed to go ahead. The loss of wildlife, increased traffic, lack of doctors and dentists

Planning Objection: PP9 North East Colchester Development – St John’s Fields
I wish to express my objection to the proposed development on St John’s Fields. I am gravely concerned about the environmental harm the proposed development would cause. It would destroy a very important area for wildlife and residents of north east Colchester.

Impact on Bullock Wood (SSSI)
A survey is needed, but also a thorough literature search regarding the effects of buffers around ancient woodland, taking into account the Langham high plateau water table. I am concerned that there will be unintended consequences of developing this land for housing at this scale.
Bullock Wood is a nationally protected SSSI, recognised for its ancient woodland, biodiversity, and ecological significance. Development to this extent in close proximity to the woodland must endanger its special properties. Increased vehicle noise, light, water level change and the breaking up of wildlife corridors will threaten the qualities that the SSSI designation is intended to protect.

Loss of Landscape near the wooded area
St John’s Fields form part of a much loved and appreciated open space in north east Colchester. The loss of these fields to houses would be such a retrograde step in terms of memories and stories across generations. No matter how much we try, we can never capture all this in mitigation or landscaping schemes – when it goes, it is lost for ever.

Water-stress and overloading wastewater treatment systems
All future major developments in this area will depend on the Anglian Water Strategic Pipeline which was started in 2021 but has faced delays. It is a critical infrastructure project in enhancing this region’s resilience to water scarcity and until completed and found to be successful and adequate, we are in a precarious position regarding water supply. Large scale development does not fit well into this uncertain situation.

The mitigations suggested, e.g. demonstrate adequate capacity for managing waste water, lack detail and could so easily be disastrous once development starts. I am not at all convinced that adequate consideration has been given to both water provision and wastewater disposal. According to Colchester City Council’s own Infrastructure Audit and Delivery Report Anglian Water’s sewer network and wastewater treatment works are already near or at capacity.
Also, I understand that Anglian Water is to place responsibility on developers to approach the water company and negotiate upgrades themselves. It seems to me that there is no requirement that the infrastructure will be built before homes are occupied and developers will have no indication of costs or timescales. We need to know what upgrades are needed, accurate costed plans, realistic delivery timescales and funding secured before any development begins.
Personal Health and Wellbeing
I use these fields as a local easily accessible place to walk for health and wellbeing. The benefits provided in terms of regular exercise and connection with nature cannot be measured but are very significant to me.
Concerns Regarding Traffic Mitigation Claims
I can’t find evidence of realistic and practical traffic solutions for St John’s Fields in the proposal. The entry point or points are not yet agreed but if these are on the A137 or St John’s Road, they would cause significant increase at busy times and would have a detrimental effect on safety for road users and road capacity. As a local resident, I am certain far more consideration is needed regarding mitigations and they need to be extensive to solve the traffic problems. Provision of active and sustainable travel and passenger transport are meaningless proposals without details being provided.
Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Development Plan Document (DPD) was formally adopted in June 2025 but as yet, the impact of this development on traffic to the north east of Colchester is unknown as it has yet to start. The expectations of the rapid transit system appear to be overoptimistic in what it will achieve regarding mitigating congestion. We need to know the full effect that development will have before considering more. The DPD for the Garden requires that the development must be designed with active travel and high frequency public transport at its core. Significant development in the north east of Colchester needs the same standards to be met if we are to avoid huge traffic congestion and lower health outcomes.
No works have been identified to fix the current congestion and road flooding issues, let alone the impact of thousands more vehicles.

Provision of Education and Healthcare Facilities
Whilst point ‘r’ includes a 2.1ha site allocation for Primary school and Early Years, I saw no discussion of need for community healthcare provision such as GP or dentist provision or increase in hospital capacity. To ignore these on the grounds that they are the responsibility of national government I find unacceptable and worrying.
Conclusion
It seems to me that the allocation of St John’s Fields for housing is unwise due to the significant harm it would cause to the local environment in respect of ecology; hydrology; landscape, air quality; community wellbeing; road capacity and heritage. This area should be maintained as an essential buffer to Bullock Wood and Ardleigh.

I am writing as a local resident to formally object to Policy PP9 within the proposed North Colchester Local Plan.

My concerns relate to the significant pressure this proposal would place on already overstretched infrastructure, the lack of credible mitigation for traffic impacts, the threat posed to environmentally sensitive land adjoining Bullock Wood SSSI, and the absence of robust and comprehensive evidence around drainage and ecology.

Traffic congestion in and around the local estate is already severe, particularly at peak times, and has a noticeable impact on residents’ daily lives. Policy PP9 does not provide sufficient detail or certainty as to how this level of development would be supported by appropriate transport infrastructure. The absence of a clear, funded and deliverable strategy is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which requires development to be supported by adequate infrastructure and not to result in severe residual cumulative impacts on the road network.

The environmental implications of the proposal are particularly troubling given the site’s proximity to Bullock Wood, a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The NPPF is clear that development likely to have an adverse effect on an SSSI should not normally be permitted, and that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Increased housing in such close proximity risks disturbance, recreational pressure, pollution and habitat fragmentation, all of which could undermine the integrity of this protected site.

I am aware that ecological surveys have been undertaken; however, I have serious concerns about their adequacy. Information shared by St John’s Residents Association indicates that some surveys were carried out at inappropriate times of year and in a limited or inconsistent manner. As a result, I question the legitimacy of relying on these findings to justify allocation of the site. Both the NPPF and emerging local policy emphasise the importance of robust evidence and measurable biodiversity net gain. Short-term or seasonal surveys do not adequately reflect the ecological value of land that functions as a wildlife corridor throughout the year. At a minimum, surveys should be undertaken across a full annual cycle to properly understand species presence, movement and habitat use, particularly given the proximity of an SSSI.

I would also like to emphasise my personal connection to this land. My home backs directly onto the fields in question, and I see their value on a daily basis. Beyond their ecological importance, these fields provide a sense of openness, tranquillity and connection to nature that is increasingly rare. They are well used by residents from across Colchester for walking, quiet recreation and general wellbeing. The NPPF recognises the importance of access to high-quality open spaces for health and wellbeing, and this informal but well-established use should not be overlooked simply because the land is not formally designated as public open space.

There is also a concerning lack of detail regarding drainage and surface water management. Local residents are already aware of how sensitive the area can be during periods of heavy rainfall. Without a clear and credible drainage strategy, there is a real risk that further development would exacerbate surface water issues and place additional strain on existing systems, contrary to the NPPF’s requirement to steer development away from areas at risk of flooding and to ensure it does not increase flood risk elsewhere.

Finally, I note that other sites, such as Middlewick, have been proposed for exclusion from development due to their ecological significance. Given the presence of Bullock Wood SSSI and the role of this land as a year-round wildlife corridor, I believe the same reasoning should apply here. The allocation of this site under Policy PP9 appears inconsistent with both national policy and the council’s approach to protecting sensitive environments.

For all of the above reasons, I believe Policy PP9 is unsound as currently proposed and that this site should be removed from allocation. I urge the council to reconsider this policy in light of infrastructure constraints, environmental protections, and the lived experience of those who reside closest to the land.

Growing up in Welshwood Park was a truly special experience — a childhood spent outdoors from dawn to dusk, exploring every inch of the valley. This place shaped who I am. Even now, decades later, I’m amazed to see the bats still following the very same flight paths they did 30 years ago. The valley remains a beautiful, unspoilt part of our community, close to town yet full of wildlife and peace. It’s enjoyed by people from Roach Vale, Longridge, and Greenstead alike — a shared natural space that means so much to so many. I feel incredibly lucky that it has remained (almost) as it was when I was young, and it brings me real joy to see my nephews experiencing the same sense of wonder and freedom that I did

I write to object to the proposed allocation of land at St John’s Fields / Welshwood, Site PP9, for housing development within the draft local plan.
The Council’s own evidence demonstrates that the site performs poorly against key sustainability objectives. While I understand there are housing targets set, it is not right to build houses in unsuitable areas just to meet a target set by the Government. This is irresponsible and developments need to be sustainable and thought through thoroughly.
Of particular concern is the site’s immediate adjacency to Bullock Wood SSSI. Such close development will have a detrimental and irreversible impact on the site. The fields as they are act as a buffer zone and even with ‘improved open spaces’ and ‘enhanced habitat creation to support wildlife’ promises in the plans, you simply cannot improve on what there is now.
From your evidence, it appears that the vast number of dwellings is the primary justification for the allocation. In addition to the concerns outlined above, it is worth noting that the site is relatively isolated from the city centre, rail services and other major facilities. While you may propose some new facilities within the development, we can safely assume that 2,000 houses will add potentially around 4,000 cars to our local roads and this development will be car-dependent due to its location. Even with walking and bus routes implemented, people will still depend on a car - it’s too far to walk into the city centre, to hilly for a bike and a return bus trip will soon rack up in cost if more than one person is travelling.



The existing roads cannot cope with this especially in rush hour where they are gridlocked. We are already going to have to deal with the new Colchester/Tendring Garden Community which will add extra pressure to this area impacting the quality of life for existing residents. I am also concerned about air quality/pollution, loss of green space for exercise and mental wellbeing, impact on local services such as schools (primary and secondary), GP’s, hospital and emergency services and the fact that the site has scored ‘amber’ against the Critical Drainage category.



Taken together, these issues indicate that St John’s Fields/Welshwood in North East Colchester is not a sustainable or proportionate response to development needs. I urge you to reconsider and look at other options, preferably on brownfield sites and to be more creative such as refurbing sites.



The fact that the St John’s Residents Association has been resurrected as a result of this proposal and residents have donated to a fund to commission a professional report goes to show how much local residents care about their local fields and green space. A quick look at the vast number of comments on the Council’s Facebook post from 19 December 2025 about this proposal also shows there is little public support for this. I urge you to listen and respect your local residents.

I believe these proposed developments are totally unsuitable to an area is already heavily impacted by traffic and insufficient infrastructure,where will all the additional resources be constructed to support the huge influx of people, and the A12 and A120 have had proposed improvements cancelled,both are rated as dangerous and these developments will only increase the deaths and serious injuries already occurring on a regular basis.

I wish to object most strongly 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, close to the wood itself, for more than 45 years and remain grateful for the benefits, particularly regarding birdlife, it brings to our environment.
Indeed, I was involved in the residents’ campaign which successfully overturned plans to build houses and a community centre on Bullock Wood itself around 40 years ago. This resulted in the wood being granted SSSI status.
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 – as in my own case – runners.
However, the future of the wood relies upon 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 in such close proximity 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, as you have probably gathered by now, I am strongly opposed.
It is also obvious that a development of hundreds of homes will have an impact on the requirement for medical and education facilities. I doubt whether the teams at Parsons Heath Medical Practice and St John’s C of E, Friars Grove and Parsons Heath Schools will ever be in a position to deal with what is likely to be a large influx of new clients.
I accept that Colchester City Council has an obligation to plan for the provision of new homes, but the St John’s Fields site is wholly unsuited to the numbers currently envisioned.
It would make more sense to revisit and redevelop sites already within the city’s development envelope. I am aware of sites in the area of the Hythe, for example, which have scope for numerous homes. Indeed, in the city centre, the former Debenham’s building could be repurposed to accommodate dozens of apartments.
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.

The fields in question form a vital wildlife corridor from Salary Brook through to Bullock Wood which should be cherished and preserved. The field adjacent to Bullock Wood has been a haven for ground-nesting skylarks for at least two decades. No creation of new open spaces or wildlife patches can mitigate against the impact that development will have on this vital green lung of Colchester. The field margins and paths are walked daily by scores of residents throughout the year enhancing their mental health and physical well being which will be destroyed if the fields are lost.

I am totally against the suggested building on this site.
1 This is an area where wildlife in all its forms flourishes
2 It is a natural wildlife corridor from Bullock Wood, to Welshwood and on to Salary Brook
3 Access to the site will create more congestion, pollution and traffic delays
4 Facilities now are overstretched: lack of school spaces, no spaces in surgeries, road infrastructure is diabolical
5 This is Grade 2 farmland which needs to help our country to provide food, not to be built on to make a big profit for developers

lived here for 34 years and enjoy daily walks there. There have been a number of concerns about the proposal raised at our resident’s association meetings:-

We believe the following has not been considered:–

• There are no proposed plans about roads, drainage and water. The local infrastructure is already under pressure, with limited capacity to supply water to additional housing and there is additional risk of overloading wastewater treatment systems, leading to increased risk of flooding and pollution.

• Local GP practices are oversubscribed and the proposed plan includes no funding for healthcare provision.

• A development of 2,000 new homes could add 4,000 new vehicles to the local roads. St John’s Road, Ipswich Road, Harwich Road are already congested at peak times and considerably busy at others, there is no clear plan or funding for infrastructure and we don’t believe the roads have the capacity to take the extra vehicles.

Our green spaces are important for wildlife and places to go to escape the hustle and bustle of everyday life. Walks in countryside are known to reduce cortisol (the stress hormone) and boost serotonin for our wellbeing and mental health.

Ancient woods like Bullock Wood survive because they are connected by hedgerows, ditches and open land that wildlife use every day. By fragmenting the landscape, wildlife cannot survive.

Please reconsider. My understanding is that developments often proceed, houses are built, and due to lack of funding, the commitments outlined above are not fully implemented.

I strongly object to the potential allocation of St John’s Fields (arable land by Bullock Woods and Welshwood Park) for housing development within Colchester’s Local Plan. I believe the proposed development would result in significant, irreversible harm to the natural environment, local infrastructure, and community wellbeing, which cannot be adequately mitigated. This includes;
1. Irreversible Damage to Bullock Wood SSSI
Bullock Wood is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and ancient woodland of national importance. Any development in close proximity to this site would disrupt the delicate hydrology and drainage systems upon which the woodland depends. These systems have developed over centuries and cannot be recreated or protected through engineering solutions. Damage to this environment would be permanent and irreversible, directly contradicting national planning policy on the protection of SSSIs and ancient woodland.
2. Harm to Landscape, Ecology and Heritage
The development of St John’s Fields would cause substantial harm to the local landscape character, biodiversity, and ecological networks, as well as the area’s natural and historic heritage. The open setting and environmental value of this land cannot be replaced or compensated for elsewhere. Proposed mitigation measures would be insufficient to address the scale and permanence of the damage.
3. Loss of a Critical Green Wildlife Corridor
St John’s Fields forms part of an essential green corridor that enables wildlife to move between habitats, supporting biodiversity and species survival. Development would fragment this corridor, leading to habitat loss and ecological decline, in direct conflict with environmental sustainability objectives.
4. Inadequate Infrastructure and Severe Traffic Impact
There is no clear or funded infrastructure plan to support the significant increase in traffic that housing development would generate. The surrounding road network in North East Colchester is already heavily congested, and without guaranteed funding for new or upgraded roads, traffic conditions would deteriorate further.
5. Unsustainable Pressure on Healthcare and Education
Local healthcare services and schools are already under considerable strain. The proposed development would place additional pressure on GP surgeries, hospitals, and educational provision, without clear evidence that sufficient capacity or funding will be delivered alongside new housing.
6. Loss of Valuable Community Green Space
St John’s Fields is a vital community space that supports residents’ physical and mental wellbeing. The loss of this accessible green space would negatively impact public health, reduce opportunities for recreation, and undermine the quality of life for existing and future residents.
Conclusion
The inclusion of St John’s Fields in the Local Plan is unsustainable and unjustified. The environmental damage, infrastructure shortfalls, and loss of community assets far outweigh any potential benefits. I urge the Council to remove St John’s Fields from the Local Plan and prioritise development on more suitable, less harmful sites.

I object to Local Plan allocation PP9: North East Colchester (Sites 10616, 10616a, 10616b). The site is outside the settlement boundary and would extend development into countryside without adequate justification. It would increase cumulative impacts and coalescence risk, harm the Salary Brook Valley landscape, reduce valued recreation routes/green space, and risk loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. There are unresolved constraints on deliverability/land control, biodiversity impacts, infrastructure capacity (health, highways, utilities and water), flood risk/drainage, and climate sustainability due to likely car dependency.

Unneeded
In the immediate area of the proposed Welshwood Valley Development (Policy PP9), 145 homes have recently been built (Bellway Hollytree Walk Housing), and plans for another 7,000 to 9,000 homes (TCBGCD). There is no need for another 2,000 homes in that same area.

Negative Environmental Impact
The Welshwood Valley development would result in the Welshwood Nature Reserve being surrounded by urban buildings.

Exceed capacity of local services
PP9 appears to be an infill development with no integral plans to improve services, support, nature, employment, etc. It should have the same standards and aims as the TCBGCD.

Whilst I understand the need for the provision of additional housing in Colchester and I am supportive of sustainable growth, the scale of development proposed does not seem sustainable and would be difficult to achieve within the constraints of existing infrastructure and services.

Some elements of the development would be welcomed, including:
- Additional / improved open space (improvements to the environment around Salary Brook and Bullock wood and new Open Spaces)
- The proposed Local Centre and community facilities
- The focus on environment and sustainability, particularly habitat creation and BNG. However, due to the scale of the development there would undoubtably be an overall degradation of the environment.

Areas of concern include:

Transport:
- Road infrastructure and Public Transport is already inadequate. The Parsons Heath junctions with St John's Road, Harwich Road and Bromley Road have significant congestion at peak times. St Johns Road and Harwich Road are additionally constrained due to on-road parking which impacts traffic flow. Recent roadworks in the area have caused very significant congestion over a prolonged period.
- Links to the A12 and A120 are poor and the A137 has no direct access to these. The A137 is routinely used as a diversion route for the A12.
- Public Transport along the A137 corridor is very poor and subject to delays caused by congestion. Existing bus services, primarily the No. 1, 2 & 3 routes are focused on serving Greenstead and St John's.
- The Garden Village development between the A120 and Elmstead will already exacerbate existing transport issues - especially as there is currently no defined date (or funding?) for the completion of the A133 -->A120 Link Road.

Services:
- Schools and education facilities are inadequate and will require investment.
- Health services including GP surgeries and Dentist are at or over capacity.
- A new Local Centre would be welcomed, but North East Colchester is poorly served generally by larger retail and leisure facilities - with many of these moving away from the City Centre to Stanway / Northern Gateway.

Environment:
- A development of this scale will reduce access to the Countryside and without careful attention to buffer zones, habitat creation, water runoff etc will be detrimental to Bullock Wood, Welshwood and Salary Brook.
- Access to nearby existing open spaces will be significantly impacted. Local Footpaths providing access to open space in and around Welshwood, Bullock Wood and Salary Brook will no longer be accessible or will be moved. There is already limited access to public open space in this area (Welshwood and the Countryside Primarily - there are no other parks) so the loss of these areas will be detrimental.
- Flooding has been a problem on the A137 at Parsons Heath historically, due to issues with drainage through Welshwood on land owned by CCC, ECC and Anglian Water. Additional development could exacerbate this.

Objection:: PP9: North East Colchester Site IDs: 10616, 10616a & 10616b
This area is countryside as it is out of the Colchester Urban area. The site is partially within flood zone 1, and some being adjacent to flood zones 2/3. Parsons Heath Medical practice do not have the capacity to accommodate this, it's very hard to get a doctors appointment as it is. The land is next to two local wildlife sites. Traffic is a issue as it is on the school runs in the mornings. As well as the facts, the surrounding land is very good for mental health. I myself walk there everyday, as well as lots of other people.

Hello, i am writting in regards to 10616, 10616a and 10616b in this prposed plan. I have lived on and off in the area for most of my 33 years living. These feilds have given me many a happy memorry. Not only has it provided some gorgeous cenic views with all the florna and forna around, but, been a place to exercise, and get fresh air along the many pulic footpaths. All the trees/hedgerows and fields should be precerved for the future and i know, It will be greatly missed, not only buy myself but everyone in the local area.

Hello
I object to the construction of 2000 houses on the land around Bullock wood fields. We spend a lot of time as a family walking our dog over there and enjoying the space and sense of freedom that the area provides.
The traffic on the already congested roads around here will be absolutely intolerable, St Johns road is at a stand still both ends of the working day already. Trying to get a doctors appointment is already difficult without another 8000 potential people living within half a mile away. The whole idea of this is absolutely preposterous.

I grew up in Welshwood Park Road. I was privileged to have that beautiful view and the fields to walk beside as part of my childhood. I object to development that will strip all that away. It is important to preserve these spaces- my children now enjoy that same wonderful experience visiting the old family home. I also raise concern for loss of habitats and the impact it will have on the natural world.

Building on this space will affect wildlife and the wood. It will ruin a beautiful area of Colchester and bring more traffic and people to a town that is already struggling to serve the population with NHS services, schools and other essential infrastructure. These homes need to be supplied with water - how will Anglian Water ensure there is enough? It is a travesty to build on this area. Colchester is big enough already and is being ruined.

Why do you need to build in this area of arable land when thousands of new builds are also being built around us!!!!!
We do not have enough facilities to accommodate this amount of people as our doctors dentists and hospitals are full to the brim.
Also taking habit away from our wildlife.
The traffic will increase and cause chaos in and around the area.

Our national government has demanded that Colchester City Council should come up with a plan that would accommodate the building of thousands more dwellings in the area than is viable.

Colchester City Council’s first duty is to serve, to look after the interests, of the people of Colchester and the outlying districts for which it has oversight. It is extremely regrettable that the council, under pressure and threat of being usurped by government, has opted to comply with this demand.

Has there been any attempt to push back on this unrealistic demand? None that I have heard of. Rather, residents have been recommended to simply roll over and accept the inevitable. The threat is that government will take control out of the hands of the local council, and that would lead to – well, who knows what? Like lemmings, we are being invited to throw ourselves over the cliff, to avoid the spectacle of being bulldozed over.

There is widespread dismay and anger over the council’s proposed plan. The issues raised against it range from the destruction of valuable amenity and farm land, to very practical problems of gridlocked roads, inadequate sewerage, water security, electricity supply, hospital services, school provision and public transport.

When these subjects are raised, the response has been at best vague and worst, to kick the can down the road with assurances that, “these things will be dealt with at a later date.”

Will they? Really? People are unconvinced. They know that the reality is that, in bowing to government pressure, the council is attempting to do what can’t be done. They know you can’t get a quart into a pint pot.

The trouble is that every step along this impossible path takes us further away from a rethink. A better, more visionary plan for the future. We only need to look around the area at what has been built in recent times, to see what developers think would do the trick. Is this the best way forward?
Faced with such an overhaul of our local environment, we surely ought to be trying to enhance it, rather than swap our landscape for treeless grids of living units. This may sound like a worst-case scenario, but if the numbers of houses suggested for the different areas in the council’s plan were to go forward, there would be little opportunity for much else.

One of Colchester’s best assets is Highwoods Country Park. It was under threat from development a few years ago. Thanks to Bob Russell and others who stood against it, that would be unthinkable now. And now, what Colchester needs, especially if development is going to happen, is more green space.

Existing woodlands should be expanded not diminished. More amenity land should be made available, not buried for ever under concrete. This is even more important in the face of large-scale development. Quality of life really matters. It should not, must not, be viewed as a luxury. Outdoor space, trees (big ones!) birdsong, views of the horizon…we really do need these things.

By including land established as beyond the settlement boundary in the currently proposed plan, the council is making an invitation to developers to take up option agreements they have with landowners and to extend their land portfolios even further.

There is concern within national government at the amount of land in the UK held – ‘banked’ as the saying is, by large corporations. One thing seems certain; allowing huge tracts of our surrounding undeveloped land to be owned by a handful of developers would make it a lot less likely in the future to become amenity land.

It's easy to be defeatist these days. We think as individuals we don’t matter. We don’t count. No one really cares. Everything we’re presented with is a done deal. It’s tempting to hope that development will just takes years to begin. I’m not immune from that myself.

I’m in my eightieth year. Would development of the fields behind my house begin in my lifetime? I hope not. Not on the scale proposed. Good farmland smothered in concrete. Woodlands degraded –Wall’s Wood across the valley, already planned to be eaten into by the Garden Community development, under pressure from the other side. Welshwood, where I find inspiration for my books, and many others find their own inspiration, inevitably degraded by its proximity to 1200 new houses. (A planning officer stated at a public meeting, that a buffer of only 15 meters was the legal requirement.) Wildlife corridors and hedgerows with magnificent veteran trees disrupted or ripped out. I’d hate to see it.
All of which leaves me open to the accusation of nimbyism. The government has tended to brand all objections to its brazen disregard for planning regulations as nimbyism. If you can paint a person’s opposition to a plan as nimbyism, job done. There’s no need to take their point of view seriously.

But wait a minute; this isn’t my back yard we’re talking about. It’s Colchester’s. And it’s not just the back yard either. It's the front, the back and the roads that run everywhere in between. Nor is it just Colchester. It’s all the other areas under threat from this plan. It’s Marks Tey. It’s Mersea. It’s Langham, where only 900 residents would be swamped with the building of 900 new houses. Nimbyism, it is not.

I can’t help but wonder what has happened within the council itself? I find it hard to believe that the council leaders think this is a great idea for our area. Yet we have not heard of any serious efforts to change the government’s mind about what Colchester and its surrounding villages can reasonably be expected to accept.

I pity the poor people in the planning department. They must live in or around Colchester. They must know that what they are being required to offer as a way forward, is unrealistic.

Have they visited the sites that are in the plan? Could anyone, looking across the valley toward Salary Brook think this is just the place to build 1200 houses? (It would be dismaying to think that sites have been chosen by looking at maps.) They must wish more effort had been put into resistance. It should be still. Rethinking would not be climbing down. It would be progress.

We have a Labour member of parliament for Colchester. Pam Cox is genial, intelligent and has an air of authority about her. I voted for her. I would like to think she is strongly making our case in Westminster. This demand from government, that we somehow assimilate thousands more people all needing houses, cars, schools, GP surgeries, hospital access, not to mention water, sewerage, power supply, public transport…and all without any commitment whatsoever to infrastructure…it’s just not on.

The idea of building 1.5 million new homes within this parliament, to fuel growth and economic prosperity, is proving to be hugely over-optimistic and unachievable. The government is likely to end up with a fair amount of egg on its face in 2029. Such an undertaking surely requires a great deal more preparation and planning than it seems to have been given.

Ideally, such projects should not even be politicised. Yet here we are, with, massive disruption being caused up and down the land, with councils being required to meet impossible demands that they comply, or else…

Colchester City Council has said it wants to hear what we think of the proposed plan. I think I have made my thoughts clear. For clarity, I’ll add some more concise points.

1. Locally, I object to the creation of coalescence, the erosion of community identities particularly the proposed building of 1200 houses virtually abutting Tendring’s already approved Garden Community.

2. I object to the over-riding of existing planning policies simply to facilitate the council’s plan. For example, the proposal to allow building on land beyond the existing settlement boundary for the Colchester Urban Area, currently rightly valued as, and designated as, Countryside. It is a dangerous slippery slope to allow settled norms to be altered for expediency.

3. I am concerned at the accidental or otherwise, misrepresentation of farmland as being of poorer grade than it actually is. For example, the fields north of the Bromley Road, earmarked for the possible building of 1200 dwellings, being classified as Grade 3b, when they are, in fact, Grade 2 and 3.

4. I strongly oppose the current plan with its stubbornly insistent separation from infrastructure. Is this plan really a serious proposal or is it a complicated subterfuge – a way of seeming to comply with government? Is it simply the can being given a hoofing great kick down the road? Even with infrastructure this plan would present enormous problems. Without infrastructure, it surely could not even be begun.

The proposed development contains a number of existing public footpaths, including Footpaths 242, 111, 108, 109 and 110, which run through and around the site. There are also a number of nearby equestrian centres and livery yards, meaning this location could create the opportunity for these routes to be used by equestrians as well as walkers and cyclists. Designing these paths as multi‑user routes would support inclusive access and improve the wider network, creating a safer and more connected off‑road route system in this part of Colchester.
Supporting evidence on benefits of multi‑user routes is provided in the uploaded document.

Objections to sites 10616, 10616a & 10616b
2000 dwellings in addition to the planned 7,500 garden village dwellings will bring the existent traffic congestion on Bromley Road, Parsons Heath and St John’s road to complete gridlock. The roads cannot be widened to accommodate additional traffic; there are houses either side
NB: The detrimental impact of additional traffic was acknowledged at the garden community consultation meetings by the CBC officers hosting the meeting. Why build more?
This is a well used recreation area for families
There is an abundance of wildlife including foxes, deer, rabbits, a large variety of birds