The roads around the proposed development already cannot cope with the amount of traffic. You have no adequate transport solutions for this development. Hospital cannot cope with the extra residents. Local GP surgery full, it has no more capacity. Bullock Wood would be disturbed by building works, become surrounded and isolated. I have witnessed the damaged already done by new residents invading from the Betts Factory site. We cannot allow this ancient woodland, its history, and wildlife to be destroyed. Footpaths across the fields are a wonderful asset for Colchester’s residents. Do not destroy our countryside and farmland.

My husband and I moved to the Salary Close estate due to the Welsh Wood and it's surrounding walks. During COVID the area surrounding us gave great support to many people and it's a great environment for the children to grow up around. Don't take this away from us. It's a historic woodland along with surrounding area. Don't suffocate it or reduce it's presence of beauty or stifle it with the fumes you'd add to the area

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed residential development north of Bromley Road (Site ID: 10616). While I appreciate the need for additional housing in Colchester, the scale and location of this development raise serious concerns that I believe cannot be overlooked.

1. Overwhelmed Local Infrastructure:
The proposed development will add hundreds of new homes to an area where infrastructure is already stretched. Local hospitals, GP surgeries, and schools are nearing capacity, and the surrounding road network, including Bromley Road, is not designed to handle such a substantial increase in traffic. Without significant investment in healthcare, education, and transport infrastructure prior to development, this project risks creating severe congestion, overburdened medical services, and reduced access to essential community facilities. The well-being of both current and future residents will be compromised.

2. Critical Environmental and Ecological Concerns:
The northeast and southern sloped farmland adjacent to the Welsh Wood Conservation Area is an essential source of groundwater that sustains the forest ecosystem. This area plays a vital role in maintaining ecological balance and supporting biodiversity within the conservation zone. Converting this land into residential development would destroy natural waterways and disrupt underground water systems, resulting in irreversible damage to the conservation area. The loss of these resources threatens the long-term health of the forest and its wildlife, undermining years of conservation efforts.

3. Irreplaceable Community and Environmental Value:
Welsh Wood and its surrounding farmland are not just ecological assets; they also provide recreational, aesthetic, and cultural value to the local community. Allowing this development would permanently alter the character of the area, reducing green space and the natural buffer that protects both wildlife and residents from environmental hazards.

In conclusion, I urge the Colchester City Council to take the voices of local residents seriously and reject or fundamentally reconsider this proposal. Housing expansion should never come at the cost of public health, safety, or the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources. I strongly recommend that any development plans in this area prioritize sustainable growth, environmental preservation, and proper infrastructure planning.

Thank you for your attention to my concerns. I trust that the Council will carefully weigh the impact of this development on the community and the environment before making a final decision. I would also like to be informed of any decisions or public hearings regarding this proposal. Please could you keep me posted.

I wish to object to further housing development in the northeast area of Colchester for the following reasons:
Access roads into the east of Colchester are already congested - e.g Ipswich Road, Harwich Road, Clingoe Hill, etc - and further development will only add to the problem. The roads have seen no major improvements, presumably due to lack of funding. Elmstead Market is in the process of having an additional 700 homes built, with no access to the A133. Some of the residents will, undoubtedly, approach Colchester from Bromley Road which, in turn, connects with Harwich Road, Parsons Heath and Welshwood Park.
Affect on local wildlife habitats, with native hedging and trees being removed.
Additional pressures on services, such as the hospital, doctors surgeries, etc. Colchester Hospital, in particular, has almost outgrown the current site.
Concern about the effect the developments will have on the actual land, drainage, water tables etc.
Lost of rural landscape.

I am extremely concerned about the destruction of habitat for birds and other animals and wildlife generally. The field at the back is a haven for skylarks, so g and mistletoe thrush; field fare also great/blue/coal and long tail tits; Dunnock; wren and goldcrest; Also hedgehog and Adder. Finally butterflies inc. rare meadow brown. Buttercups are also in the field

My objections refers to 10616, 10616a and 10616b. The land proposed as sites are areas that have excellent biodiversity and habitats for a wide range of animals. We see bats in our garden, hedgehogs using the safe 'corridors,' two varieties of woodpecker that return year after year with their young as three examples. These species alone need quiet and areas with reduced populations to thrive. The impact of a large amount of housing is bound to be destructive for their habitats and possibly survival. New housing areas with small woods or green spaces left amongst the housing risk land locking local wildlife too. These areas contain Ancient Woods, Local Wildlife sites and should be protected rather than put at risk.
The proposed sites are very close to the Garden Community and risk a merging of communities. Including 10616 risks Urban Sprawl.
FLooding is another area of concern as the site in partially within Flood Zone 1 and close to FLood zone 2/3. Increasing the amount of concrete and hard surfaces means the water has nowhere to go. We are experiencing more floods and extreme weather conditions as a country so why would we build on areas at increased risk?

I wish to object to Policy PP9, site IDs10616, 10616a and 10616b on the basis of Urban Sprawl, Absence of Local Resources, Loss of Farmland and my Right to light.
My reasons are attached.

Building on St. John’s Fields will not only be detrimental to wildlife but adversely impact on the physical and mental health of myself and my family who frequently use this open space for exercise and dog walking.
Secondly building 2000 houses will dramatically increase traffic congestion and pollution in an area where there is often slow moving traffic.
No thought has been given to additional GP services which will be needed.
Please do not allow building on these fields as this will remove a valuable green space and be disastrous for the local community.

I strongly object to PP9 and request its removal from the proposed Local Plan. This allocation is unsound under the NPPF tests of soundness and will cause irreversible harm to Colchester’s environment, heritage, and community wellbeing. It is not justified, not effective, and not consistent with national policy.

Delete PP9 from the Local Plan and re-distribute growth to urban intensification and opportunity areas (City Centre, Hythe, Magdalen Street) and smaller, less environmentally sensitive sites along existing transport corridors.

Reasons for Objection:

Irreversible damage to Bullock Wood SSSI and ancient woodland - Any development near this site will disrupt the drainage system essential for its survival. There is no solution for this—once damaged, the impact is permanent.

Loss of green corridor and biodiversity - The area provides vital connectivity for wildlife. Fragmentation will threaten species survival and undermine nature recovery.

Destruction of local landscape and heritage - The character and historic setting of North-East Colchester cannot be mitigated. This is a unique environment that will be lost forever.

Lack of infrastructure - There is no committed funding for major road upgrades. Traffic congestion in North-East Colchester is already severe; adding 2,000 homes will make congestion worse.

Pressure on healthcare and schools - Existing services are overstretched. PP9 will add thousands of residents without guaranteed provision for education and health facilities.

Loss of community space and wellbeing benefits -This countryside is regularly used by my family for walks, fitness, fresh air, and mental health. PP9 will be detrimental to our quality of life.

Policy Conflicts and Soundness Issues:

No proportionate evidence or reasonable alternatives have been presented. Infrastructure, biodiversity mitigation, and minerals issues are deferred to later stages.

Delivery depends on unresolved transport, water, and ecological constraints. No clear phasing or funding mechanisms exist.

Conflicts with NPPF requirements to protect irreplaceable habitats, direct growth to sustainable locations, and align development with infrastructure.

I think it's a very bad move to build on the land it has alot of wildlife and a natural beauty I just hope there will be more support to help to stop the building on this land

"The highest areas of sensitivity are receiving the lowest levels of growth in this Local Plan.", but PP9 has the largest housing allocation, at 2000, but is in a very sensitive natural area, as it is bordered by Bullock Wood SSSI, Welsh Wood LoWS and Wall's Wood LoWS. Additionally Salary Brook would be affected. Also just to the west, with very little separation is The Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community. I thought the whole idea of the Garden Community was to stop the need for extra urban sprawl in this area, not add to it!

I have lived in St John’s for 59 years and have used the area to play as a child as have my own children. I have walked all my dogs over the fields and still do . I need to get out somewhere quiet and beautiful for my mental health . The traffic is bad on St John’s road on a daily basis without adding more housing . The hospital and doctors cannot cope and this will only make matters worse.
We cannot afford to lose anymore green space on St John’s .

The proposed development will not improve my life and cramming 2000 more houses into the last few acres adjoining Tendring will create ridiculous amounts of traffic on already saturated and poor B roads, overwhelm already stretched GP local services and create a miserable experience for residents. We enjoy already fragile Woodpeckers, Buzzards, Sparrowhawks, Blackcaps, Stag Beatles, Hedgehogs and slow worms in and around our garden. They will be pushed out. Thousands of tons of concrete forced onto productive farmland will be an ecological disaster. This is a highly prized area of stunning beauty that will be obliterated. Utter madness.

PP9: North East Colchester Site ID 10616,10616a and 10616b should be removed from the the Colchester City Council proposed Local Plan for the reason on the attached file: -
PP9: North East Colchester Site ID: 10616, 10616a and 10616b should be removed from the City Council proposed Local Plan for the following reasons: -

The Tendring Colchester Boarders Garden Community plan shows the proposed development of Salary Brook Valley site ID 10616 would be so close that Colchester and the Garden Community would merge with virtually no gap between settlements.

The existing settlement boundary does not include the fields proposed for development in site 10616. This settlement boundary should not be ignored.

Under previous Colchester Borough administrations Salary Brook Valley was designated a Countryside Conservation Area, and recommended as an Area of Landscape Conservation Importance. More recently the Landscape Character Assessment identified Salary Brook Valley should be considered High Landscape Value.

The loss of recreational space with Public Footpaths for walking and cycling, used by the Ramblers and other walking groups. People’s mental health benefits by being able to exercise walking beside the ancient hedgerows and trees (recorded on the Woodland Trust website) with wild life and bird song. Salary brook valley is the route for swans, geese and ducks flying between the river Colne and Ardleigh reservoir, development could isolate birds on Ardleigh Reservoir from the river Colne.
Welsh Wood Local Wildlife Site would become sterile of wild animals as deer and fox use the hedgerows and crops to link to Salary Brook and the woods along its banks.

Access to the proposed site is by small B roads and a single small A road all of which merge into the Harwich Road which is already unable to take the current volume of traffic.
As Colchester does not have plans to increase employment in the city the residents of any new development would have to use existing busy roads to access the A12 or the station to get to their employment in other towns as the proposed location does not have access to public transport, causing more congestion and air pollution in the city due to the undesirable increase of cars use. There are no adequate plans to improve the transport links in the North East of Colchester.

Doctor’s surgeries and dentist practices are already at capacity, developers are unlikely to want to build these, causing more problems for existing services.
Have the network providers for electricity, gas and water been asked if there are adequate supply and resource without putting the rest of Colchester at risk.
Additionally has the Nation Health Service budget been adjusted to cope with additional demand. This development seems to satisfy Government demands with little thought to the detrimental impact on Colchester residents.

I object to Policy PP9: North-East Colchester for the following reasons:
1) Very significant noise, light, visual and privacy impact on existing private dwellings located on Grayling Drive and Barbel Road backing directly onto PP9 identified land between Welshwood and Bromley Road.
2) Loss and damage of agricultural land, open space and habitats. Mitigation measures will never replace loss.
3) Increased traffic congestion at the top of Bromley Road with Harwich Road/Parsons Heath and increased road safety concerns around Crockleford Mill/Hill area.
4) There has been no active engagement with the local residents of Grayling Drive and Barbel Road.

I object to Policy PP9: North-East Colchester for the following reasons:
1) Very significant noise, light, visual and privacy impact on existing private dwellings located on Grayling Drive and Barbel Road backing directly onto PP9 identified land between Welshwood and Bromley Road.
2) Loss and damage of agricultural land, open space and habitats. Mitigation measures will never replace loss.
3) Increased traffic congestion at the top of Bromley Road with Harwich Road/Parsons Heath and increased road safety concerns around Crockleford Mill/Hill area.
4) There has been no active engagement with the local residents of Grayling Drive and Barbel Road.

The need to provide for housing development is not challenged. However, this proposed development does not take appropriate account of the impact on the surrounding extensive area. My comments follow:
1 The land proposed for development has been identified as 'high value landscape'.
2 The land under consideration has been classified as Grade 2 and 3, meaning that it has high agricultural value. As the national population increases, the need for agricultural land will come under increasing pressure. This land should be preserved, not used for construction.
3 The proposed land is extensively used for necessary recreation, including walking and cycling.
4 The proposed land includes important wildlife sanctuary. My personal experience includes sightings of muntjac deer and foxes in this area.
5 The proposed land includes woodland classified as Ancient Woodland. These areas contribute to essential social wellbeing.
6 The proposed development would put significant stress on road usage and traffic management, especially as the development of the A12 has been set back. The Bromley Road/Harwich Road area already experiences traffic congestions at points where there is no opportunity to develope or improve the junctions. The Bromley Road heading east would become a major roadway if this development were to take place. The road is narrow and has a number of steep inclines and tight bends and there is little opportunity to improve these.

PP9, 10616,1016a,10661b salary brook valley should be green area between existing Colchester boundary and Garden development where the ancient Welsh Wood can be 'green lung' going through to Bullock Wood. Pheasants, muntjacs, foxes currently in garden. Access by bridge over railway line inadequate. Loss of daily walk for health on fields. Not a brown site but valuable farmland. Access to GP and health services put under more pressure by greater population locally. The Salary Brook valley is the small break between Colchester and Garden village development. The proposal to build on the fields destroys this.

My wife and I have lived here since 1980. We love the outlook from our house to Bullock Wood & Fox Street and the open space it provides along with the resulting wildlife. Traffic in St Johns Road has increased a lot and becomes gridlocked very often now. The local infrastructure cannot cope with extra capacity of more cars or people at Schools, Doctors Surgeries and Dentists. The green space is very much needed in the stressful times we are living in. The additional cars if electric will need charging (2000 points) and the houses heat pumps. No pavement parking.

Objection to the North East Colchester PP9 Development (St John’s Fields / Welshwood site)
The ecological integrity of the ancient woodland of Bullock Wood depends on connectivity with the surrounding landscape, including hedgerows, ditches, field margins and open land that support daily wildlife movement.
The fragmentation of these connections would result in significant adverse effects, contrary to Local Plan policies that seek to protect ecological networks and irreplaceable habitats. Impacts would include increased wildlife mortality, disruption of nesting and foraging corridors, declines in pollinators, and degradation of sensitive soil, fungal and plant systems. Such harm cannot be mitigated or compensated

While I recognise the need for new housing, I have serious concerns about the scale and location of this development and the significant negative impacts it is likely to have on the local area. My objections are outlined below.

Firstly, the additional traffic generated by a development of this size will place unacceptable pressure on an already congested road network. Local roads in and around Colchester regularly experience delays during peak hours, and the introduction of traffic associated with 2,000 new households will inevitably worsen congestion, increase journey times, and raise road safety concerns for residents, pedestrians, and cyclists. I am not satisfied that the current infrastructure is capable of accommodating this level of additional traffic without substantial and clearly defined mitigation measures.

Secondly, the development will place severe strain on local services, particularly schools, healthcare facilities, and other essential community resources. Schools in Colchester are already operating close to or at capacity, and it is unclear how the needs of the significant number of new families this development will bring can be adequately met. Similar concerns apply to GP surgeries, dental services, and other public services, which are already under pressure.



Finally, I am deeply concerned about the impact of the proposed development on Bullock Wood through which the development or its associated access routes will pass alongside. This woodland is an important environmental and heritage asset, providing local biodiversity value. Any loss or degradation of this historic woodland would be irreversible and would significantly harm the character and natural environment of the area. I do not believe that this impact has been sufficiently justified or mitigated.

Given the scale of the proposal and the cumulative impact on traffic, local services, and the natural environment.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my objection.

I strongly object to this proposal as it extends development beyond the existing settlement boundary into open countryside, contrary to national and local planning policy and the principle of prioritising brownfield land. The site forms part of the Salary Brook valley, a landscape consistently recognised as being of high value, and its loss would permanently harm biodiversity. The cumulative impact alongside nearby developments risks settlement coalescence. Infrastructure, healthcare, roads and utilities are already operating beyond capacity. It is already difficult to get out of the road at rush hour and there is no way of expanding the roads capacity.

I strongly object to this planning application. This development would irreversibly destroy agricultural land and threaten an invaluable protected woodland. For over twenty years i have walked these footpaths with my dogs, children and now grandchildren, witnessing the areas rich biodiversity and community value. The woodland represents irreplaceable history and ecology that no development can replace when lost. The scale of construction would devastate local wildlife, increase traffic congestion, strain an already strained infrastructure and erase the rural character that defines our community.
I urge the council to reject this harmful proposal.

Anyone who can confidently predict future rainfall patterns is probably either a fool or a liar, or both, so I don't see how you can say that an area will be free from a flooding risk. What you can confidently say though is that tarmacing and concreting over a grrenfield site will increase the flood risk both on and adjacent to the developed site due to increased run off speeds. These effects could be felt some distance away due to a change in natural water course flow rates. Natural solutions are increasingly being used to slow flow rates. On PP9 my concern is that building over farmland will have an adverse effect on ancient woodland, that relies on a natural flow of water drainage from the surrounding fields, and Salary Brook, where a faster run off will cause damage and possible flooding.

I enjoy regular walks in this beautiful area and want to be able to continue that. Being amongst nature has so many benefits both mentally and physically. With already stretched schools, doctors and the hospital, the development will put a huge extra strain on those services. The additional traffic will also cause more congestion on our already busy roads.

A site of approximately 2,000 dwellings which is one of the largest allocations in the plan should make on-site provision for sports facilities like allocations PP17 and PP18. The additional demand associated with the scale of development will be difficult to be met by improving the capacity of nearby facilities in the local area especially as this is located close to the Garden Community which will not be able to meet all of its demand on-site. An additional policy requirement is therefore requested which requires formal and informal sport and leisure provision to be provided on-site. An open space, sport and recreation strategy should also be prepared to support development proposals which aligns with an approved masterplan in order to provide a strategic framework for considering open space, sport and recreation provision in future planning applications. This approach would be justified by the Council’s sports evidence base, Policy CS4: Sports Provision and Government policy in the NPPF especially paragraph 103.

I wish to object to the planning of 2 thousand homes on the fields behind Green Lane for the following reasons;

59 years ago I was born in Dunthorne Road & still live here today, I get so much pleasure walking these fields on a very regular basis.

This would totally destroy all the nature & wildlife.

The Skylark (on endangered list) uses these fields every year as it's breeding ground.

I fear the survival of the ancient woodland.

Surrounding roads are already too congested.

Every week, well over 100 walkers (a lot with dogs) use pathways around the fields.

All of the PP9 proposal is on permanently tended agricultural land - does the council have the right to acquire this for housing development?
Much of the infrastructure does not exist for a new development of this size - surrounding roads, schools, doctors surgeries and pharmacies are already operating at (or beyond) full capacity.

I object to the development of homes on this land as an existing local resident. My concerns are:
-The loss of natural habitat and agricultural land, I personally enjoy walking around the countryside which greatly benefits my mental health.
-Increase in litter, which is already a big problem.
-Increase in traffic, which is already awful on St Johns Road and Ipswich Road. Any further development must consider additional access to the A12 & A120.
-Lack of provision of sufficient local services, including GP services and school places.

Building 2000 homes on such a beautiful space will not only destroy the forest but take away - The open space - the peace & quiet - the escape from day to day busyness - the landscape - the wildlife - the bird songs - the sunsets over our tree - the dog walks - the safe space - the different seasons in the fields - the nature/birds/animals that find there way from the fields into my garden. The local doctors, schools, supermarkets, roads are pushed to compacity already. The drainage is awful now. Please DONT destroy our fields!!!