Quite unbelievable for this number of dwellings to be considered in what is already a grid locked road network already beset with HGV's accessing or bypassing the A12 and overnight HGV refuge.

Whilst the land may be visible on a map, the whole societal infrastructure from medical facilities, sewerage and water will need to be built from scratch.

2,000 homes in an already traffic bound area will mean least 4,000 car, just is unbelievable.

It is a myth people will walk or cycle to local amenities or transport hubs.

Where the jobs to support this increase is another mystery.

I am gutted and stressed to hear about the proposals to decimate the fields ,trees ,wildlife ( the foxes ,birds mum feeds daily)behind her home of 50 years. My sister and i grew up there, climbing trees, building dens, playing in the woods\ fields. Our dad passed away there. Her house will devalue, her life changed by noise, dust, machines, the light blocked. Common sense must prevail, once concreted up, it will never be the same for future generations. Go for a walk there, use your senses, don't let greed destroy our lives. I feel emotional ! PLEASE HELP US!

I wish to express my deep concern and distress over this proposal 10616,10616a, 106166b. Welshwood valley is an area of outstanding beauty, a green space used by dog walkers, ramblers ,residents, cyclists all year round. There is abundant wildlife, also to loose the farmlands when we need more food now. Harwich Road is at capacity, drs, hospital, schools, dentists full! I have lived here for 50 years and the thought of all this under cement is heartbreaking and causing me stress. The value of all our houses will plummet and the safety of this area will be lost forever!

Consultation Response: Infrastructure Provision, Phasing, and Settlement Impact
Preferred Options Local Plan – Regulation 18 (2025)
Policies concerned:
• PP37 – Land north of Park Lane, Langham
• PP9 – North-East Colchester
• PP18 – Land North of A120, Marks Tey Growth Area
• PP17 – Land South of A12, Marks Tey Growth Area
• PP10 – Land South of Berechurch Hall Road, Colchester
• PP19 – Land North of Oak Road, Tiptree
________________________________________
General Comment – Infrastructure Capacity and Sustainable Growth
I am concerned that the scale of housing growth proposed across the above sites represents a very substantial increase in population, yet the Preferred Options Local Plan does not provide firm, binding commitments from infrastructure providers to ensure that essential services are delivered before development is occupied.
Although Strategic Policy ST7 refers to infrastructure provision and the preparation of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), this approach relies heavily on future work, assumptions, and aspirations, rather than enforceable safeguards. Without clear delivery triggers, there is a significant risk that housing will be delivered ahead of infrastructure, placing unacceptable pressure on existing services and communities.
________________________________________
Langham (PP37) – Scale, Character and Village Identity
In addition to infrastructure concerns, Policy PP37 raises a fundamental issue regarding the scale of development proposed at Langham.
Langham is a small rural village, with limited services, infrastructure, and employment opportunities. The scale of housing proposed would represent a disproportionate increase in population, fundamentally altering the character, role, and function of the village. This would risk transforming Langham from a rural settlement into a commuter extension of Colchester, without the infrastructure, services, or employment base to support such a change.
The proposal would:
• Place significant additional pressure on already limited local services
• Increase reliance on private car travel, contrary to sustainable transport objectives
• Erode the distinct rural character and settlement hierarchy that the Local Plan is intended to protect
• Create long-term sustainability issues that cannot be resolved through infrastructure funding alone
Even with improved infrastructure, the scale and nature of development proposed is not commensurate with the existing size, role, or capacity of Langham, and therefore raises concerns about soundness and consistency with sustainable development principles.
________________________________________
Key Infrastructure Concerns Across All Sites
Across all six sites, there is insufficient certainty regarding provision for:
• Primary and secondary healthcare, including GP capacity
• Hospital services, particularly Colchester Hospital
• Education provision, including early years, primary and secondary school places
• Emergency services, including police, fire and ambulance response capacity
• Water supply and wastewater infrastructure, particularly given known water stress in North Essex
• Electricity and other utilities capacity
• Waste collection and disposal services
• Transport and accessibility, especially where growth is proposed in areas with limited public transport
Without firm commitments, these developments risk overburdening existing infrastructure and undermining community wellbeing.
________________________________________
Site-Specific Sensitivities
While this response applies to all six sites, particular concerns include:
• PP9 – North-East Colchester: cumulative impacts on GP provision and Colchester Hospital
• PP17 & PP18 – Marks Tey Growth Areas: scale of growth relative to existing health, education, and service capacity
• PP19 – Tiptree: limited village infrastructure, including GP provision, schools and wastewater capacity
• PP37 – Langham: scale of development fundamentally changing the nature and sustainability of the village
• PP10 – Berechurch Hall Road: cumulative impacts from existing and planned development in South Colchester
Generic infrastructure policies are insufficient to address these location-specific issues.
________________________________________
Required Changes to Make the Plan Sound
To ensure genuinely sustainable development, I request that the Local Plan is amended to include the following provisions for all six sites:
1. Infrastructure-First Policy Safeguards
Clear policy wording requiring that development does not commence or is not occupied unless the necessary supporting infrastructure has been secured, funded, and programmed for delivery.
2. Phased Housing Delivery Linked to Infrastructure Triggers
Each site policy should include explicit phasing limits, such that no more than an agreed number of dwellings can be occupied until:
• New or expanded GP facilities are operational
• Sufficient school places are available
• Water supply and wastewater upgrades are completed
• Emergency services confirm adequate capacity
3. Formal Commitments from Infrastructure Providers
Written confirmation should be required from:
• NHS Integrated Care Board and hospital trusts
• Essex County Council (education and highways)
• Essex Police
• Essex Fire & Rescue Service
• East of England Ambulance Service
• Anglian Water and other utility providers
Without such commitments, development should not proceed.
4. Site-Specific Infrastructure Schedules
Each policy (PP37, PP9, PP18, PP17, PP10 and PP19) should be supported by a clear infrastructure schedule setting out:
• What infrastructure is required
• Who will deliver it
• How it will be funded
• When it must be operational
• Which phase of housing it relates to
5. Use of Grampian-Style Conditions
The Plan should explicitly support Grampian planning conditions preventing occupation until off-site infrastructure is delivered and operational.
6. Ring-Fenced Developer Contributions
Developer contributions should be ring-fenced for the communities affected, with clear reporting on how and when funds are spent.
7. Water Stress and Wastewater Safeguards
No development should proceed without written confirmation that water supply and wastewater capacity are sufficient and will be delivered in advance of occupation.
________________________________________
Conclusion
In its current form, the Preferred Options Local Plan does not provide sufficient certainty that infrastructure will be delivered in advance of housing growth across these sites. In the case of Langham, the scale of development proposed also risks fundamentally changing the nature of the village in a way that cannot be mitigated through infrastructure provision alone.
I therefore request that the Council strengthens Strategic Policy ST7 and amends Policies PP37, PP9, PP18, PP17, PP10 and PP19 to ensure that development is appropriately scaled, infrastructure-led, and supported by firm, enforceable commitments. This is essential to protect existing communities and to ensure sustainable development across the borough.

I moved here from London to be closer to nature and get away from city life. I have been enjoying the rural scenery from my back garden for over 20 years and in this time I have come across many rare creatures that you do not see in busy built up housing estates. I am concerned about what will happen to these animals if this development goes a head and destroying the habitat of these creatures is irreversible. I feel it is a very important factor to consider if this development goes ahead or not. Nature should have a voice

I have been walking through these woods, footpaths and fields for over 50 years.
Here are my reasons:

Destruction of wildlife
Trees are required for air quality
Traffic from extra housing will make congestion and pollution even worse than it already is
People need to walk more in nature for mental and physical health
We need farmland for sustainable and secure food sources

Facilities will be even more overloaded

The world and economy might well change v soon - we need to plan for local food

Need more common sense!

Use brownfield sites and empty housing first. We are not NIMBYs, we're just sensible

Thanks

No possibility of road enhancement, local schools, gp surgeries and City hospital all over subscribed or at critical level. Massive threat to Bullock Wood SSSI as a result of changes to drainage and mass disruption. Loss of wildlife corridors I live next to the field facing Bullock Wood and enjoy many bird species in our garden and usual wild mammals. The loss of rural footpaths which bring much peace and pleasure to so many,. East Anglia is losing thousands of acres of prime farm land to solar farms so these fields must not follow. Green cites are healthier.

Objection to proposed PP9 development (North-East Colchester)

We are very concerned about the points of vehicular access to the proposed development. At least one such access (according to the site map) will be via Bromley Road. This road already provides two (Longridge and Hawthorn Avenue) of the only three access and egress points to the thousands of homes on Greenstead. Traffic using these points is in addition to that emanating onto Bromley Road from the new Bellway estate. Because of these issues, Bromley Road already suffers from serious congestion at certain times of the day. We have been passengers on a bus on this road which was completely gridlocked due to the volume of traffic and parked vehicles: the bus could not proceed forwards or backwards as a result - and this will not have been an isolated occurrence. What would happen in such a situation if an emergency vehicle was attempting to use the road for access does not bear thinking about. We are therefore very concerned that the proposed development will not increase the volume of traffic on Bromley Road to any appreciable extent.

I object to the inclusion of Sites 10616, 10616a, and 10616b under Policy PP9. Site 10616a was never promoted and fails the availability criteria; landowners were not consulted. The allocation conflicts with NPPF principles prioritising brownfield land and disregards sustainable development. Development would harm a valued landscape (Salary Brook Valley), impact biodiversity near Ancient Woodland and Local Wildlife Sites, and remove amenity space vital for community wellbeing. Infrastructure evidence shows severe deficits in highways, healthcare, water, and electricity, with no secured funding. I request these sites be removed and their Countryside designation retained to ensure a sound Local Plan.

This supersedes that submitted at 1.52pm today, a reference was incorrect. (NB by officer, 1.52pm rep deleted)
I object to the inclusion of sites 10616, 10616a, and 10616b under Policy PP9. 10616a was never promoted by landowners and fails the availability criteria; no consultation has taken place. The allocation conflicts with NPPF principles prioritising brownfield land and disregards sustainable development. Development would harm a valued landscape (Salary Brook Valley), impact biodiversity near Ancient Woodland and LoWS, and remove amenity space vital for community wellbeing. Infrastructure evidence shows severe deficits in highways, healthcare, water, and electricity, with no secured funding. I request these sites be removed and the Countryside designation retained.

We would like to object development in this area. There is already excessive development of the Garden Gateway along the A133 and Salary Brook which is causing an massive increase in traffic in the area. With the decision to not build a connecting road to the A120 all traffic will be diverted through st Johns. This is already having a detrimental effect to the area but with extra housing in the area this will be compounded further.

The fields are also home to a wide range of wildlife and natural life that should not be destroyed. Green space in and around Colchester is important to the environment we live in and provides people and animals with much needed open space. Bullock Woods, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), would also be adversely affected by any development on the fields and should be protected at any cost.

We also object on the ground that local health services will be stretched even further. Getting appointments at local surgeries is already extremely difficult and our hospital is in special measures. It's the councils responsibility to ensure the lifes are not put at risk by over developing our city and putting unnecessary pressure on our already stretched health centres in the local area. I hope you seriously consider that development in the Johns fields and at the back of Welshwood would be hugely detrimental to the local community, wildlife and infrastructure in the area.

Far too many house,the road network around colchester is awful and this will only add to the congestion ,not enough schools ,doctor surgeries ,dentists etc to cope with the increase.The general hospital is already overloaded with patients.

I have lived on St. John's Road for 39 years. Over that period I have seen the volume of cars increase expedencially. Building 2000 homes across the road will only increase the volume of traffic. Also it will be more difficult to get a doctors appointment.

Planning Objection - PP9: North-East Colchester

This submission constitutes a formal objection to the proposed development of the fields adjoining Bullock Wood and the wildlife corridors leading to Salary Brook. I am profoundly concerned about the long term environmental harm this scheme would cause, particularly to the neighbouring Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) at Bullock Wood, as well as the irreversible loss of a historic landscape that cannot be reclaimed once destroyed. In addition, local services and infrastructure are already under significant strain, and the introduction of 2,000 new properties, as outlined in the proposal, would only exacerbate these pressures.

Environmental Impact on Bullock Wood (SSSI) and the Surrounding Landscape

My family and I have spent more than 25 years walking Bullock Wood, the surrounding fields, and the paths down to Salary Brook and Crockleford. We have cherished the tranquillity, the abundance of wildlife, and the opportunity to share these places with others in the local community. Deer, birds of prey, foxes, woodpeckers, and countless other species are a familiar part of this landscape. The environmental and community impact of building on these fields would be profound and impossible to quantify.

The purpose of SSSI designation is to safeguard the nation’s most important and sensitive habitats, species, and geological features from harm. Bullock Wood’s SSSI status exists specifically to protect its ancient woodland ecology, its biodiversity, and the delicate environmental conditions that sustain them. Development of this scale, in such close proximity, risks undermining these protections through increased noise, artificial lighting, higher footfall, additional domestic pets, altered drainage patterns, and the destruction of established wildlife corridors. These pressures directly conflict with the statutory purpose of SSSI designation, which is to prevent precisely this kind of disturbance. Once such habitats are damaged, the loss is irreversible and cannot be mitigated or recreated elsewhere.
The fields beside Bullock Wood and those stretching down toward Salary Brook form a long established landscape, rich in biodiversity, cherished by the community, and one I am always proud to share with visitors. Building on these fields would strip away their ecological value, disrupt wildlife, and diminish an environment that local people deeply rely on and enjoy. Landscapes of this nature are irreplaceable; once they are gone, they are gone for good. No mitigation plan or landscaping scheme can recreate what has taken centuries to evolve.

Impact on Services and Infrastructure

The shortcomings in the proposed traffic mitigation measures are mirrored in the approach to essential public services. Local schools, GP surgeries, and associated community infrastructure are already operating at or beyond capacity, yet the proposal offers no clearly articulated, costed, or deliverable strategy to address this deficit. Instead, it relies on broad statements of intent rather than a defined implementation plan capable of meeting the substantial additional demand generated by 2,000 new dwellings.

In both transport and service provision, the reliance on theoretical modelling, optimistic assumptions, and unsubstantiated assurances falls markedly short of the robust, evidence based planning required by national and local policy. Without credible, enforceable, and fully funded mitigation, there is no reasonable basis on which to conclude that the development could proceed without causing significant and lasting harm to existing residents and the wider area.

Conclusion

It is clear that this proposal would result in significant and irreversible harm across multiple fronts. The development threatens the integrity of Bullock Wood SSSI, an irreplaceable ancient woodland whose statutory protections are fundamentally incompatible with large scale construction in such close proximity. It would permanently destroy a historic landscape that has shaped the character of this area for generations and cannot be recreated once lost. The transport and infrastructure assessments rely on unsubstantiated assumptions and lack credible, deliverable mitigation, offering no assurance that the severe pressures on local roads, schools, healthcare provision, and community services can be addressed in practice.

Taken together, these impacts represent a level of harm that is both substantial and unacceptable. For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the application should be refused.

I strongly object to the housing development on 10616 farmland. This green space is a vital haven for wildlife and its preservation is crucial for maintaining biodiversity. Moreover, the area's tranquil atmosphere and scenic views have a profound positive impact on residents' mental and physical health and wellbeing. The lack of infrastructure, including roads, doctors' surgeries and schools, raises serious concerns about the ability to support such a large influx of new residents. Additionally, the development would lead to urban sprawl, compromising the local amenity for walking and causing irreparable damage to trees and hedgerows. Reconsider this proposal.

Colchester, particularly to the east, is already suffering from severe road congestion. As a resident of a village east of the town, all access routes in, not just at peak times, is a problem. There have been several large housing developments built in the area - e.g. Elmstead Market, Wivenhoe, Great Bentley, Mistley - all of which are using roads that have seen no major improvements for years. This results in higher CO2 emission. Elmstead Market, for example is in the process of having approx 7000 new properties being built and this will also lead to more traffic approaching Colchester from the East. Basically, we are being swamped with housing but, due to lack of funds, the infrastructure and services are not improved accordingly.

Additional pressure on local services. Again, these are not being improved to cope with the growing population. This is putting more strain on the hospital, surgeries, schools, etc.

Destruction of natural wildlife habitats and the removal of native hedging and trees.

Damage to Bullock Woods a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Housing developments result in land being concreted over, affecting drainage, water table, etc.

Objection to the proposed allocation of St John’s Fields for up to 2,000 homes
I am a long standing resident of [REDACTED], living directly beside the St John’s Fields site. My home backs onto this landscape, and I experience the area’s traffic, environmental conditions, and community pressures every day. Based on this lived experience, I strongly object to the proposed allocation of this site for large scale housing.
1.Severe traffic and access impacts
St John’s Road and Ipswich Road are already heavily congested at peak times. As a resident who uses these routes daily, I regularly experience long queues, unsafe junction movements, and rat running through St John’s estate. Adding traffic from 2,000 homes would make the network unmanageable and materially worsen safety and air quality.
Why are you considering development of this area when there are existing plans and works started on the garden village site connecting the A120 and A133 and the Labour Government cancelling the previously agreed widening of the A12.
2. Pressure on schools and healthcare
Local schools and GP surgeries are already at or beyond capacity. There is no clear, funded plan showing how essential services would expand to meet the needs of thousands of new residents, especially as we are on the Council boundary.
3. Harm to Bullock Wood and local wildlife
The site sits immediately beside Bullock Wood SSSI, an ancient woodland we use and value as part of our local environment. Large scale development would increase disturbance, fragment habitats, and permanently damage the character of this protected area. Recent local projects, e.g. Growing in St John’s, have significantly increased the numbers of insects, butterflies, birds, wildlife and flora from the farm fields and surroundings.
4. Loss of valued green space and landscape setting
From our homes, we see and rely on the openness of St John’s Fields as part of the area’s character. Replacing this with dense housing would fundamentally alter the landscape and remove an important green buffer between existing neighbourhoods.
To lose these fields to house building would be a travesty, affecting so many rate payers’ lives, fitness, health and wellbeing. The open space provided me with perfect paths and field edges to run and train for triathlons. Nowadays, we use the same routes for long walks from home through to Salary Brook and return without having to use a car. During Covid lockdowns, these fields were an absolute godsend to our wellbeing and so greatly appreciated. We walked most days, as did so many other local residents.
5. Flooding and surface water concerns
Our cul de sac already experiences surface water issues during heavy rainfall. Developing this sloping farmland with hard surfaces would increase runoff and heighten flood risk for existing properties. There is a substantial amount of clay soil in this area which necessitated our property being built on piled foundations.
Conclusion
Based on daily lived experience, proximity to the site, and the clear environmental and infrastructure constraints, St John’s Fields is not a suitable or sustainable location for major development. I respectfully request that the Council remove this allocation from the emerging Local Plan.

My wife &I fully support objections made by others including StJohn's Residents' Association. Prime agricultural land should not be developed.
b. IS detrimental to highway capacity and safety. There is no way to make major highway improvements to St John's area of Colchester for 2,000 more homes especially as TCBGC's 7,500 homes having a major effect on traffic in north-east Colchester, all being geographically part of Colchester
d. Community facilities will need much extra staffing. Schools, GPs, hospital, ambulance service already over stretched.
g. Despite 'buffer zone', 2,000 houses adjacent to the Ancient Woodland will have a detrimental effect.

Relating to sites 10245, 10256, 10256a, 10616, 10616a, 10616b.

Objections
No extra schools being built/staffed
No extra hospitals being built /staffed
No new GP surgeries being built, the local Parsons Heath surgery has not been taking on new patients for some years.
More vehicles on the roads.
More difficulty parking.
Extra traffic congestion in the area.
I live on Parsons Heath and we have traffic queuing past our house at peak times. Difficult to get out of our driveway.
Extra sewage.
Extra refuge, waste and recycling.
More electricity demand on substation.
More demand on water supply
Increased carbon footprint
Building over public footpaths and pubic rights of way.
Loss of agricultural land.
Loss of green space.
Loss of greenfield land
Loss of hedgerows,
Harm to biodiversity.
Loss of wildlife including protected species.
Historically valued landscapes need protecting.
Ancient woodland.
Nature reserve
We walk daily in Welshwood, Bullock Wood, Wall's Wood, Salary Brook, using footpaths in sites 10245, 10256, 10256a, 10616, 10616a, 10616b and we don't want to lose this opportunity.
Creating urban sprawl.
Undesirable merging with Garden Village, Mill View development, Hollytree Walk, Fox Street, Ardleigh.
Dangerous access to Bromley Road and Fox Street/Parsons Heath.
Fields behind Welshwood behind Beehive are prone to flooding (currently flooded) poor drainage.

Further Considerations
Where will the entrances be to these sites?
Will homes be built with adequate parking?What percentage will be social housing?
Where will the inhabitants come from?
Where will the inhabitants find employment?
Do the big developers have to pay Colchester City Council tens of £K like private developers?
All new properties should be built with solar panels, integral rainwater collection for flushing toilets, and other sustainability, wildlife promotion (bat boxes etc)

I have lived on St Johns estate since 1980. I live on Green Lane, backing onto the proposed building site. It will be overlooking my single story property and cause a complete loss of privacy: potentially windows will look directly into my rooms and private rear garden.
It will cause Traffic and Parking Issues: congestion and potentially create dangerous access/exit points for vehicles.
It will have a huge Environmental Impact: destroying ancient woodland and habitat, removing green space, increase the risk of flooding.
I walk my dog over the fields and woods and it supports my mental health.

The build up of traffic on St Johns Road is already atrocious. It cannot support many thousands more vehicles using that road every day.

Relating to sites 10245, 10256, 10256a, 10616, 10616a, 10616b.

Objections
No extra schools being built/staffed
No extra hospitals being built /staffed
No new GP surgeries being built, the local Parsons Heath surgery has not been taking on new patients for some years.
More vehicles on the roads.
More difficulty parking.
Extra traffic congestion in the area.
I live on Parsons Heath and we have traffic queuing past our house at peak times. Difficult to get out of our driveway.
Extra sewage.
Extra refuge, waste and recycling.
More electricity demand on substation.
More demand on water supply
Increased carbon footprint
Building over public footpaths and pubic rights of way.
Loss of agricultural land.
Loss of green space.
Loss of greenfield land
Loss of hedgerows,
Harm to biodiversity.
Loss of wildlife including protected species.
Historically valued landscapes need protecting.
Ancient woodland.
Nature reserve
We walk daily in Welshwood, Bullock Wood, Wall's Wood, Salary Brook, using footpaths in sites 10245, 10256, 10256a, 10616, 10616a, 10616b and we don't want to lose this opportunity.
Creating urban sprawl.
Undesirable merging with Garden Village, Mill View development, Hollytree Walk, Fox Street, Ardleigh.
Dangerous access to Bromley Road and Fox Street/Parsons Heath.
Fields behind Welshwood behind Beehive are prone to flooding (currently flooded) poor drainage.

Further Considerations
Where will the entrances be to these sites?
Will homes be built with adequate parking?What percentage will be social housing?
Where will the inhabitants come from?
Where will the inhabitants find employment?
Do the big developers have to pay Colchester City Council tens of £K like private developers?
All new properties should be built with solar panels, integral rainwater collection for flushing toilets, and other sustainability, wildlife promotion (bat boxes etc)
Where will the bricks be sourced from? Europe??? Why not UK?
Will the developers be using local tradesman to cut down on carbon footprint and provide local employment?

This is a beautiful unspoilt valley surrounding prime agriculture land with outstanding wildlife plants woods etc
With an amazing bird life particulary the swifts which return every year .my property is on the edge of the field
And birdwatching is my hobby .this development will be devastating for houses boarding the fields and devalue all housing in the area. This valley is community hub for walkers and provides a haven of peace much needed in these times of increasing mental stress we desperately need to preserve these open fields to benefit the community

Relating to sites 10245, 10256, 10256a, 10616, 10616a, 10616b.

Objections
No extra schools being built/staffed
No extra hospitals being built /staffed
No new GP surgeries being built, the local Parsons Heath surgery has not been taking on new patients for some years.
More vehicles on the roads.
More difficulty parking.
Extra traffic congestion in the area.
I live on Parsons Heath and we have traffic queuing past our house at peak times. Difficult to get out of our driveway.
Extra sewage.
Extra refuge, waste and recycling.
More electricity demand on substation.
More demand on water supply
Increased carbon footprint
Building over public footpaths and pubic rights of way.
Loss of agricultural land.
Loss of green space.
Loss of greenfield land
Loss of hedgerows,
Harm to biodiversity.
Loss of wildlife including protected species.
Historically valued landscapes need protecting.
Ancient woodland.
Nature reserve
We walk daily in Welshwood, Bullock Wood, Wall's Wood, Salary Brook, using footpaths in sites 10245, 10256, 10256a, 10616, 10616a, 10616b and we don't want to lose this opportunity.
Creating urban sprawl.
Undesirable merging with Garden Village, Mill View development, Hollytree Walk, Fox Street, Ardleigh.
Dangerous access to Bromley Road and Fox Street/Parsons Heath.
Fields behind Welshwood behind Beehive are prone to flooding (currently flooded) poor drainage.

Further Considerations
Where will the entrances be to these sites?
Will homes be built with adequate parking?What percentage will be social housing?
Where will the inhabitants come from?
Where will the inhabitants find employment?
Do the big developers have to pay Colchester City Council tens of £K like private developers?
All new properties should be built with solar panels, integral rainwater collection for flushing toilets, and other sustainability, wildlife promotion (bat boxes etc)
Where will the bricks be sourced from? Europe??? Why not UK?
Will the developers be using local tradesman to cut down on carbon footprint and provide local employment?

[REDACTED]

Dear Sirs

I have been a resident of St Johns for nearly 30 years since we moved into our first family home in [REDACTED] and have had the privilege of living next to and using the fields for walking and recreation with my wife and children and our dog.

I have 2 children and fully understand the need for an appropriate housing plan in Colchester for future generations, but the development being considered neither addresses the type of houses needed nor takes into account the devastating and irreversible damage that will be caused to St Johns, Bollock wood and the surrounding area.

The environmental impact of building up to Bullock wood and losing not just valuable farm land but inhabited green space alone will be devastating without giving consideration to the natural beauty of the landscape used by all the local people for leisure.

At a time when mental health is such a massive issue an open space like this is vital to the community and cannot be understated.

Services such as water, waste and electricity in the area are already stretched to their limits and you have no available budget to invest into or improve the current facilities. I don’t believe that a developer will invest in new service or keep their promises to do so.

Since we moved in 30 years ago we have seen the traffic build to what feels like four times the original amount and our exit onto St johns road from Dunthorne Road has always been to say the least tricky due to poor visibility and no traffic slowing measures after several request from local residence for them to be looked at. A development of this size that you are considering with no investment from you or a developer will just make the situation even more dangerous as well as miserable for everyone trying to get to school or work in the morning.

With so many empty buildings around Colchester that could be renovated into affordable flats and housing (town for instance) and brown field spaces available, it’s a mystery why you would be giving such a devastating development consideration.

I ask you to look again at the information and evidence available from groups like
The St Johns save our field campaign. These local people understand the importance of that open space around St Johns and the impact this development will have for future generations. Your decision will change this space forever.

ARE YOU SURE YOU’RE MAKING THE RIGHT ONE!

Yours Sincerely
[REDACTED]

Dear Sirs

I have been a resident of St Johns for nearly 30 years since we moved into our first family home in Green Lane and have had the privilege of living next to and using the fields for walking and recreation with family and our dog.

I have 2 children and fully understand the need for an appropriate housing plan in Colchester for future generations, but the development being considered neither addresses the type of houses needed nor takes into account the devastating and irreversible damage that will be caused to St Johns, Bollock Wood and the surrounding area.

The environmental impact of building up to Bullock Wood and losing not just valuable farm land but inhabited green space alone will be devastating without giving consideration to the natural beauty of the landscape used by local people for leisure.

At a time when mental health is such a massive issue an open space like this is vital to the community and cannot be understated.

Services such as water, waste and electricity in the aera are already stretched to their limits and you have no available budget to invest into or improve the current facilities. I don’t believe that a developer will invest in new services or keep their promises to do so.

Since we moved in 30 years ago we have seen the traffic build to what feels like four times the original amount. Our exit onto St Johns road from Dunthorne Road has always been tricky, due to poor visibility and no traffic slowing measures after several requests from local residents for them to be looked at. A development of this size that you’re considering with no investment from you or a developer will just make the situation even more dangerous as well as miserable for everyone trying to get to school or work in the morning.

With so many empty buildings around Colchester that could be renovated into affordable flats and housing (town for instance) and brown field spaces available, it’s a mystery why you would be giving such a devastating development consideration.

I ask you to look again at the information and evidence available from groups like
The St Johns save our field campaign. We as local people understand the importance of that open space around St Johns and the impact this development will have for future generations. Your decision will change this space forever.

ARE YOU SURE YOU’RE MAKING THE RIGHT ONE!

Yours Sincerely
Mrs K J Wright

Date: 11th January 2025
From: [REDACTED]
Dear Planning Team,
I am writing to formally submit my objection to the inclusion of Site PP9 (land surrounding Bullock Wood and St John’s) in the Colchester Local Plan. While I understand the requirement for housing growth, the scale of this proposal—up to 2,000 homes—is unsustainable and represents an unacceptable threat to our local environment and infrastructure.
My objections are based on the following material considerations:
Environmental Impact and Bullock Wood
Bullock Wood is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and an irreplaceable ancient woodland.
Biodiversity Loss: The fields surrounding Bullock Wood act as a vital buffer zone and hunting ground for protected species, including bats, skylarks, and kestrels. Developing 2,000 homes right up to its perimeter will cause irreversible damage through light pollution, noise, and domestic pet predation.
Isolation of Habitats: This development would lead to the "coalescence" of urban areas, removing the green lung between St John's and the new Garden Community. Once this greenfield land is lost, it cannot be recovered.
Lack of Infrastructure
The PP9 proposal lacks a coherent infrastructure plan. A development of this size is not just a collection of houses; it is a new town.
Healthcare Crisis: Local GP surgeries are already at breaking point, with residents frequently waiting weeks for routine appointments. Adding roughly 5,000 new residents (based on 2,000 homes) without a committed, fully-funded plan for a new health centre is negligent. It is hard enough now getting a GP appointment at my local Surgery Parsons Heath Medical Practice.
Education and Services: There is no evidence that existing schools can absorb the projected increase in student numbers, nor is there a plan for new facilities to be built prior to the arrival of new residents.
Highways and Traffic Congestion
The road network in North East Colchester is already operating at or beyond capacity.
Pinch Points: The Harwich Road and Bromley Road are notorious for heavy tailbacks. The addition of thousands of daily vehicle movements from PP9, combined with the traffic from the nearby Garden Community, will lead to permanent gridlock.
Air Quality and Safety: Increased congestion will inevitably decrease air quality for current residents and increase the risk of accidents on roads that were never designed for this volume of traffic.
Impact on Mental Health and Community Well being
The fields and pathways surrounding Bullock Wood are a primary site for "green exercise" for hundreds of local residents.
Loss of Restorative Space: Numerous studies (including those by the NHS and the Woodland Trust) show that access to natural green space is critical for reducing stress, anxiety, and depression. For many of us, this area is the only accessible space where we can escape urban noise.
Dog Walking and Social Cohesion: This land is a vital hub for the local dog-walking community. Beyond the physical exercise, these daily walks foster social interaction and provide a sense of belonging that prevents social isolation.
Cumulative Stress: Forcing more residents into a dwindling amount of green space will lead to overcrowding of the remaining paths, destroying the tranquillity that makes this area a "green lung" for St John’s and the surrounding estates.
Conclusion
The PP9 allocation represents "the wrong development in the wrong place." It prioritises housing numbers over the preservation of ancient woodland and the well-being of the existing community. I urge the Council to remove this site from the Local Plan and instead focus on brownfield sites or areas where infrastructure is already planned and funded.
Please keep me informed of any further consultations or meetings regarding this site.
Yours faithfully,
[REDACTED]

This is my childhood home, I grew up there with my family, children and grandchildren. This will erase generations of memories, building dens, playing in the fields and the wildlife in the area including foxes, rabbits and birds. This will also reduce the property prices in the area which will have a negative impact on the residents and Welsh wood park/woodlands itself. The landscape is amazing and will not be able to support infrastructure of schools, doctors and dentists, they are already full! We oppose another concrete jungle ruining our local area. Please reconsider, land is more important than money.

[REDACTED]
PP9 North-East Colchester
Subject: Formal Objection to Policy PP9 – Proposed Strategic Site Allocation
Dear Colchester City Council – Planning Policy Team
I am writing to object to the proposed Policy PP9 within the Colchester Local Plan Preferred Options. While I acknowledge the need for sustainable growth, I have significant concerns regarding the scale, environmental impact, and infrastructure implications of this allocation.
I have been a resident of St John’s, Colchester for the past 22 years, living at [REDACTED]. To me and my family St John’s has always seemed like a self-contained village on the outskirts of Colchester, the introduction of a large-scale development of 2,000 dwellings will significantly alter the character of the area, increase traffic, and place pressure on green spaces and community facilities.
My objections to the proposed plan are outlined below:

Loss of Greenspace and Community Wellbeing
The proposed development under Policy PP9 will result in a significant reduction of accessible greenspace, which is vital for the physical and mental health of the community.
Green areas provide opportunities for exercise, relaxation, and social interaction, all of which are proven to reduce stress, anxiety, and depression. Their removal will increase feelings of isolation and confinement, particularly for vulnerable groups such as children, older residents, and those with mobility challenges. Furthermore, greenspaces improve air quality, reduce urban heat, and act as buffers against noise pollution—benefits that will be lost if these areas are replaced with dense housing. The absence of adequate natural environments will also diminish community cohesion, as parks and open spaces serve as social hubs where residents connect and build relationships.
Footpaths that were previously surrounded by natural landscapes may end up running alongside busy roads or through dense housing, making them less safe and less pleasant to use. Increased traffic and noise will discourage walking and cycling.

This erosion of wellbeing contradicts the NPPF’s emphasis on promoting healthy and inclusive communities and should be considered a major adverse impact of PP9.

Traffic Congestion, Pollution
The proposed development will significantly increase traffic volumes on key local routes, including St John’s Road, Harwich Road, Bromley Road, and Ipswich Road, which already experience peak-time congestion. These roads are not designed to absorb substantial additional flows without causing severe delays and safety risks. Moreover, with the Tendring Garden Village not connected to the A120, additional traffic will be funnelled through Greenstead and ultimately St John’s Road, compounding pressure on this corridor. The resulting increase in vehicle emissions and noise pollution will negatively affect air quality and public health—particularly for children, older residents, and those with respiratory or cardiovascular conditions—and will elevate stress and sleep disturbance for households along these routes. Elevated pollution and vibration from higher traffic volumes will also degrade the quality and tranquillity of nearby greenspaces and habitats linked to Salary Brook, reducing their ecological function and recreational value. Increased road traffic brings further risks to wildlife through habitat fragmentation, roadkill, and barrier effects that sever movement between Bullock Wood SSSI and local LoWS woodlands, undermining the habitat connectivity that PP9 seeks to enhance. This allocation will intensify congestion, worsen pollution exposure for residents, and inflict lasting harm on local biodiversity.

Impact on Wildlife and biodiversity
The proposed development under Policy PP9 will have a profound and detrimental effect on local wildlife. The site lies adjacent to ecologically sensitive areas, including Salary Brook, Bullock Wood SSSI, and Welsh Wood and Wall’s Wood LoWS, which provide vital habitats for numerous species.
Bullock Wood for Heritage and Nature
Bullock Wood is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and an ancient woodland of exceptional ecological and historical value. It represents a rare remnant of Colchester’s natural heritage, supporting diverse species and habitats that have developed over centuries. Ancient woodlands are irreplaceable; their soils, fungi networks, and biodiversity cannot be recreated through mitigation or new planting. Beyond its ecological role, Bullock Wood contributes to the cultural identity of the area, offering a sense of continuity and connection to the landscape’s history. Increased development nearby threatens this fragile ecosystem through habitat fragmentation, recreational disturbance, and pollution, undermining both its scientific importance and its role as a heritage asset. Protecting Bullock Wood is essential to preserving Colchester’s natural and cultural legacy for future generations.

Large-scale construction and increased human activity will fragment these habitats, disrupt ecological corridors, and increase the risk of recreational disturbance to protected sites. Species dependent on ancient woodland will face habitat loss and reduced connectivity, threatening biodiversity resilience. While PP9 mentions habitat creation and buffers, these measures are insufficient to offset the irreversible damage caused by such extensive development. The cumulative impact could lead to a decline in species populations and undermine the strategic biodiversity objectives for the area.

Flood vulnerability
Flooding is a major concern. Increased impermeable surfaces from 2,000 dwellings will raise peak flows and exceedance risks during extreme rainfall events, which are projected to become more frequent and intense. The policy lacks detail on how drainage systems will be designed to accommodate future climate allowances and how exceedance routes will prevent flooding of homes and critical infrastructure. Dunthorne Road, St Johns Road and Bullace Close are frequently flooding currently, this is only going to get worse with no solution to the problem.
Anglian Water’s capacity constraints combine these risks. The local Water Recycling Centre and sewer network already operate near capacity, and there is no clear commitment or phasing mechanism to ensure upgrades are delivered before occupation. Without this, foul water could backflow or discharge untreated during storm events, further harming water quality and public health. Dunthorne Road residents already report the pungent smell of sewage on a regular basis.

Access to services
The proposed development of 2,000 dwellings will place severe pressure on essential services. Local GP practices in Colchester already face significant strain, with long waiting times and limited capacity for same-day appointments. Adding thousands of new residents without guaranteed investment in new healthcare facilities will worsen access for both existing and new patients, increasing health inequalities and reducing quality of care. With St Johns being classed as an aging community, with almost one in four residents aged over 65, this highlights the strong demand for accessible amenities, healthcare, and age-friendly infrastructure across the ward.

Similarly, primary schools in the area, including St John’s Church of England Primary, are already operating at full capacity. Essex County Council forecasts a substantial shortfall in school places over the next decade, and PP9 does not provide clear, enforceable commitments to deliver new education infrastructure before occupation. This will lead to oversubscription, larger class sizes, and longer travel distances for families, undermining children’s education and community cohesion. Without binding phasing and funding mechanisms, the development will compromise access to vital services for the entire community.

Thank you for allowing me to raise by objections to PP9 being included in the Local Plan, I hope my comments and all the other residents who have objected will be taken seriously. St John’s is the wrong area to be planning for such a large-scale development. Please keep me updated on any further communications relating to the proposed development of this site.

Kind regards
[REDACTED]

We object on the grounds that we will lose our home, we live on the fields included in the plan. It has been a privilege to live for 42 years on open fields and being around nature. There are bats in the barn and numerous protected species. This is the last open space up to the boundary of North East Colchester. There are not enough doctors with the local resources full to breaking point. The traffic is backing up every day which contributes to pollution and poor air quality, also a risk of flooding. Once gone, gone forever, see sense.