This is a huge development. As a resident of layer de la Haye, at peak traffic times it can take a very long time to get out of the village due to the constant stream of traffic the cars from the village have to give way to coming out of berechurch road. This development will make this situation many times worse.

Berechurch Hall Road is already heavily congested at peak times, with dangerous junctions at either end and with Bounstead Rd / Berechurch Road; It is beyond belief that you are recommending nearly 1000 extra houses with all the additional vehicle movements that implies without a major upgrade to what is effectively the City’s southern ring road.

as previous

The site currently provides important green space and wildlife habitat, and the application fails to adequately demonstrate how biodiversity loss would be avoided or mitigated.

875 homes is a lot. The south lacks services that the north and west enjoy. Those living on this plot will all need to drive. No employment, no facilities. Only a Lidl.
Berechurch rd is a rat run.
To imagine residents will cycle or walk is not realistic. More cars are bound to head west, south and east.
As well as Mersea Rd and Gosbecks, Layer Rd running down into pinch point along narrow Butt Rd arriving at Maldon Rd roundabout will be under pressure.
The bus service along that route is lousy.
A more general scheme is needed.

This regarded as a potentially significant site. It is within the Roman River Valley (RRV) conservation zone as was, and Colchester Council does recognise the significance of the RRV. It is also between the sensitive sites of Gosbecks and Friday Woods. For these reasons CNHS would strongly advocate a thorough, 12 months, independent ecological examination of the proposed site.

Policy PP10 – Formal Objection
Fundamental Unsoundness of Allocation
Policy PP10, as currently drafted, is fundamentally unsound. It proposes a scale of development
that is disproportionate, inadequately evidenced, and incapable of being delivered without
causing significant and lasting harm to existing residents, local infrastructure, the natural
environment, and the established character of the area. The policy relies on aspirational
mitigation measures without demonstrating deliverability, certainty, or proportionality to the
magnitude of growth proposed.
Scale of Development and Impact on Existing Communities
• The allocation of approximately 875 new dwellings immediately adjacent to an
established residential estate represents an excessive and inappropriate scale of
development.
• The policy fails to assess the cumulative impacts on residents’ quality of life, including
noise, air pollution, light pollution, and the permanent loss of outlook onto open green
space.
• Existing homes were marketed and developed with an implicit understanding of their
semi-rural setting. The proposed development would materially alter the character of
the area and erode residential amenity in a way that is wholly unacceptable.
Highway Capacity, Construction Traffic and Access Constraints
• The policy’s reliance on access “via the adjoining development” is vague, untested, and
insufficiently robust.
• Berechurch Hall Road and the surrounding network already suffer from congestion at
peak times. Introducing construction traffic for a scheme of this magnitude—lasting
potentially many years—would cause severe disruption and safety risks.
• No evidence is provided that safe, practical, and deliverable access solutions exist.
Instead, the policy defers this to future assessments, transferring risk from developers
to residents.
Loss of Green Space and Environmental Harm
• The land south of Berechurch Hall Road is a valued open green space, contributing to the
semi-rural character, ecological value, and informal recreation of the community. Its loss
would be irreversible and irreplaceable.
• References to Biodiversity Net Gain and green corridors are inadequate. Engineered or
fragmented corridors cannot replicate the ecological and amenity value of established
open landscapes.
• The proximity to the Roman River Valley SSSI and sensitive wintering bird habitats
underscores the ecological inappropriateness of this allocation.
Infrastructure Reliance and Uncertain Delivery
• Policy PP10 places heavy reliance on future infrastructure provision—education,
highways, wastewater, and community facilities—deferred to later stages.
• This approach provides no certainty that infrastructure will be delivered in a timely or
sufficient manner. Past experience in Colchester demonstrates that infrastructure
routinely lags behind development, leaving communities to absorb the impacts.
• No evidence is provided that existing services, particularly wastewater and road
networks, can realistically accommodate the proposed growth.
Masterplanning and Community Engagement
• While the policy requires masterplanning and community engagement, this occurs after
the principle of development has already been established.
• This reduces engagement to matters of layout rather than principle, denying residents
meaningful influence over whether development should take place at all.
Conclusion
Policy PP10 is unsound and should be withdrawn or substantially revised. It:
• Over-allocates housing in an environmentally sensitive and infrastructure-constrained
location.
• Relies on uncertain, deferred, and aspirational mitigation measures.
• Fails to protect the amenity of existing residents.
• Risks cumulative impacts—construction disruption, traffic congestion, environmental
degradation, and permanent loss of green space—that will fundamentally diminish the
quality of life for the surrounding community.
For these reasons, we strongly object to Policy PP10 and urge that it be reconsidered in full

am writing to formally object to Policy PP10 – Land South of Berechurch Hall Road, as
set out in the emerging Colchester Local Plan to 2041.
While I acknowledge the need for housing delivery within Colchester, this allocation, as
currently proposed, is fundamentally flawed and will result in significant and lasting harm
to existing residents, local infrastructure, the natural environment, and the character of the
surrounding area. The policy relies heavily on aspirational mitigation measures without
demonstrating deliverability, certainty, or proportionality to the scale of development
proposed.
Scale of Development and Impact on Existing Communities
Policy PP10 proposes approximately 875 new dwellings immediately adjacent to an
existing and recently completed residential estate. This represents a development of a
scale that is wholly disproportionate to the current capacity of the surrounding area. The
policy fails to adequately consider the cumulative impact this quantum of housing will
have on existing residents’ quality of life, including noise, air pollution, light pollution, and
the permanent loss of outlook onto open green space.
The existing estate was marketed and developed with an implicit understanding of its
setting and relationship to surrounding land. The introduction of a large-scale housing
development directly behind established homes will materially alter the character of the
area and significantly erode residential amenity.
Highway Capacity, Construction Traffic and Access Constraints
Policy PP10 states that access will be achieved “via the adjoining development” and that
proposals must demonstrate no detriment to highway capacity or safety. This requirement
is deeply concerning and insufficiently robust.
Berechurch Hall Road and the surrounding local road network already experience major
congestion, particularly at peak times. The policy provides no clarity on how construction
traffic for a development of this magnitude—potentially lasting many years—will be
managed without severe disruption to existing residents. There is a clear logistical barrier
to safely accommodating heavy goods vehicles, construction plant, and workforce traffic
through or adjacent to existing residential streets.
The policy places undue reliance on future assessments rather than demonstrating at
allocation stage that safe, practical and deliverable access solutions exist. This approach
transfers risk from the developer to local residents.
Loss of Green Space and Environmental Harm
The land south of Berechurch Hall Road currently serves as an important area of open
green space, contributing to the semi-rural character of the area and providing ecological
value and informal recreational benefit. Its development will result in an irreversible loss of
green space at a time when access to nature, biodiversity, and climate resilience are
increasingly recognised as critical to public wellbeing.
Although Policy PP10 references Biodiversity Net Gain and connectivity between
Gosbecks and Friday Woods, these measures do not compensate for the permanent loss
of existing natural land. The notion that engineered or fragmented green corridors can
replace an established open landscape is not supported by evidence and risks reducing
biodiversity to a tick-box exercise rather than delivering meaningful environmental
enhancement.
Furthermore, mitigation relating to recreational disturbance of the Roman River Valley
SSSI and wintering bird habitats highlights the ecological sensitivity of the area, raising
serious questions as to whether this site is appropriate for development at all at the scale
proposed.
Infrastructure Reliance and Uncertain Delivery
Policy PP10 places heavy reliance on future infrastructure provision, including education,
highways, wastewater capacity, and community facilities, much of which is deferred to
the Infrastructure Delivery Plan or later masterplanning stages.
This approach offers no certainty to existing residents that infrastructure will be delivered
in a timely or sufficient manner. Experience across Colchester demonstrates that
infrastructure often lags behind development, leaving communities to absorb the impacts.
The policy fails to demonstrate that existing services—particularly wastewater
infrastructure and road networks—can realistically accommodate the proposed growth.
Masterplanning and Community Engagement
While the policy requires a comprehensive masterplan and community engagement, this
comes after the principle of development has already been established. This limits the
ability of local residents to meaningfully influence whether development should take
place, reducing engagement to matters of layout rather than principle.
Conclusion
In summary, Policy PP10 is unsound as currently drafted. It over-allocates housing in an
environmentally sensitive and infrastructure-constrained location, relies on uncertain
future mitigation, and fails to adequately protect the amenity of existing residents. The
cumulative impacts of construction disruption, traffic, environmental degradation, and
loss of green space will fundamentally diminish the quality of life for the surrounding
community.
I urge the Council to reconsider this allocation, reduce its scale significantly, or remove it
entirely from the Local Plan until robust, deliverable evidence can demonstrate that the development can proceed without causing unacceptable harm

We have serious concerns regarding the possible allocation of this site, which lies adjacent to the Gosbecks Iron Age and Romano-British Scheduled Monument (LEN 1002180). Given its proximity, there is a strong likelihood of archaeological remains of schedulable quality within the development area, as well as potential impacts arising from development within its setting.
Due to this sensitivity, a full Heritage Impact Assessment, rather than the Proforma HIA recommended by the Sift Report, will be essential before the next draft of the Plan. This assessment should determine whether the site is suitable from a historic environment perspective and identify any mitigation measures or opportunities for enhancement to be incorporated into criterion ‘i’. We will continue to work closely with the Council and provide more detailed advice as further information emerges.

Initial assessment

Effects uncertain. A full Heritage Impact Assessment will be necessary to determine whether the site can be allocated. If this evidence demonstrates that harm cannot be adequately mitigated, PP10 should not be allocated.

The amount of housing in Colchester is ridiculous, there is no infrastructure for it, the roads are too busy for it in this area, the wildlife will also suffer, I would never of bought her if I knew of these ridiculous plans. Please do not allow this ridiculous proposal in this area, traffic / pollution will be worse of here and I would move if these proposals are accepted.

The area has been over developed with no additional amenities. The double round about junction at kent blaxil is dangerous and the roads are unable to cope with more traffic. The historic area of Roman fields will be compromised with an estate of this scale.

The area is already over populated, struggling to get doctors, appointments etc, not to mention schools are over run. St Michael's place still struggling to sell the houses that have been built there which are still empty, the council has already brought 7 more social housing on the estate, which is more than what was agreed by the developer.
This new development would ruin the local beauty of the land, causing more traffic in an already very congested part of Colchester. It seems no thought has gone into this at all, just greed of developers and councillors!

I wish to formally object to the proposed development of approximately 875 residential dwellings on farmland directly behind my property.

While I recognise the need for new housing, the scale and location of this proposal would result in significant and unacceptable harm that is not justified by the benefits claimed. My objection is based on the following material planning considerations.

Firstly, the site is currently open agricultural land that contributes to the rural character and setting of the area. Its development would result in the permanent loss of countryside and productive farmland, fundamentally altering the character of the locality and leading to urban sprawl rather than proportionate or sustainable growth.

Secondly, the proposed scale of 800 dwellings represents clear overdevelopment in relation to the existing settlement pattern. The density and mass of the development would be out of keeping with the surrounding area and would place excessive pressure on infrastructure that was not designed to support development of this magnitude.

Thirdly, due to the site’s immediate proximity to my property, the proposal would cause serious harm to residential amenity. This includes loss of privacy through overlooking, increased noise and disturbance, light pollution, and visual intrusion. The cumulative impact of these factors would significantly reduce the quality of life for existing residents.

In addition, the development would generate a substantial increase in traffic on local roads that are already congested at peak times. Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the existing highway network can safely accommodate this level of additional traffic without causing further congestion, safety concerns, and environmental harm. Local services such as schools, GP surgeries, and utilities are also unlikely to have sufficient capacity to support this level of growth.

This additional development will worsen an already poor traffic situation on Beerchurch Hall Road. It is extremely difficult to currently leave the estate and if you add another 1000+ cars it will become impossible. On top of that the traffic at the roundabout at the end of the road already has poor traffic at rush hour. It is also farmland you are proposing to build on which should be protected and adds much needed character to the area. There are not sufficient facilities in the area currently eg schools, GPS, Shops to support the current network without adding 875 homes.

I object to the proposed development on land south of Berechurch Hall Road as it does not comply with Policy PP10. The scale and layout represent overdevelopment and are out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area. The proposal would add pressure to an already busy road network, with insufficient evidence that traffic impacts can be safely managed. There is also a lack of clear, enforceable commitments for the timely delivery of necessary infrastructure. The development would harm residential amenity and result in an unacceptable loss of openness. Planning permission should therefore be refused.

This is absolute madness clearly who ever things this is a good idea does not live near the area. Traffic is ridiculous already and all this will do is make the roads more unsafe than they are now. We need our green land for children not just these land owners to get rich. I really really hope my comment helps to stop this development. It’s outrageous to think this is a good idea

The recent st Micheals development has already increased demand on the roads, byways, schools and local Drs. To add another 800 homes would be irresponsible and detrimental to those already in the area- also detracting the local wildlife etc

As a resident of layer de la Haye, I 100% object to this plan. During busy periods, getting out of the village across the double mini roundabouts at the end of berechurch road can be extremely difficult and traffic can back up quite a large distance. Adding another say 1000 drivers into the vicinity would make this an even worse task. I also chose to live in Layer because it is a village with its own identity. This new development will bring us ever closer towards being just another suburb of the city.

Houses here is sadly inevitable.
When this happens maypole green junction needs a major overhaul as it is so dangerous already. A cycle path linking to BHR is essential. Ideally a cycle path/area on bounstead to make it safer.nedd ro be conscious of parking as people will inevitably park there to then walk to Friday woods etc.

Having lived in Colchester my whole life, i am disgusted at the small amount of greenspace left. I am actively looking to move and we were interested in a house closeby due to the greenspace. If this goes ahead then there is no way we will be moving here. Start looking at the area, nature and the infrastructure rather than money!

Key Reasons for Objection
My objection is based on the following fundamental planning concerns, which in my view render the proposed allocation unsound and unjustified at this stage.
1. Severe and Existing Traffic Congestion
Berechurch Hall Road already experiences sustained congestion for extended periods every day, particularly between Layer Road and past Friday Woods, with traffic frequently at a standstill during peak morning and evening hours.
This congestion is not occasional — it is a daily, well-established condition. Introducing traffic associated with approximately 875 additional homes, together with construction traffic, would significantly worsen an already critical situation.
The local road network is clearly operating at or beyond capacity, and there is no convincing evidence at this stage that it can safely or realistically accommodate development of this scale.
2. Unsuitable Use of Existing Residential Roads for Access
The proposal indicates access through or adjacent to existing residential estates, including St Michael’s Place, which were never designed to function as distributor roads for large-scale development.
Routing additional daily traffic — and years of heavy construction vehicles — through established residential streets raises serious concerns regarding:
Highway safety
Pedestrian and cyclist safety
Emergency vehicle access
Noise, vibration and air quality impacts
This approach conflicts with basic principles of sustainable and safe highway design.
3. Construction Impact: Noise, Air Pollution and Prolonged Disruption
The construction of a development of this scale would likely take many years, during which residents would be exposed to:
Continuous construction noise
Dust and reduced air quality
Regular HGV movements through residential areas
Given the proximity of existing homes to the site, these impacts would be significant, unavoidable and long-lasting, resulting in a substantial loss of residential amenity.
4. Air Quality and Health Impacts
Increased traffic volumes on already congested roads will inevitably lead to:
Higher vehicle emissions
Deterioration in local air quality
Increased noise pollution
These impacts raise legitimate concerns for public health, particularly for children, older residents and those with respiratory conditions.
5. Lack of Supporting Infrastructure
There is currently no clear evidence that the necessary supporting infrastructure exists — or can realistically be delivered — to support an additional 875 homes, including:
School places
GP surgeries and NHS capacity
Dental services
Public transport provision
Without firm, deliverable infrastructure commitments, the proposal risks placing unacceptable pressure on services that are already stretched.
6. Failure to Properly Consider Cumulative Impact
It is unclear whether the cumulative impact of this proposal has been assessed alongside:
Existing congestion issues
Other nearby or planned developments
Assessing this site in isolation fails to reflect real-world conditions and significantly underestimates the true impact on the local area.
7. Conclusion
For the reasons above, the proposed allocation is neither justified nor sustainable in its current form. At a minimum, the scale, access arrangements and infrastructure assumptions require fundamental reassessment before this site can be considered appropriate for allocation.

We were assured no building would go ahead for at least 5 years after moving and it will potentially hurt wild life on farm filed and the view.

The current highway infrastructure in the locality of the proposed housing is already busy and is of at a standstill during school and work commute times. 875 with 1 car per household will put added pressure on to the area. The proposed build land currently supports a wide range of wildlife and has the potential to affect nesting, roosting and wider habitat. In the locality there are areas of archaeological significance it is hoped any surveys will prevent building over any significant sites of interest.

Policy PP10 is unsound and should be withdrawn or substantially revised. It:
• Over-allocates housing in an environmentally sensitive and infrastructure-constrained location.
• Relies on uncertain, deferred, and aspirational mitigation measures.
• Fails to protect the amenity of existing residents.
• Risks cumulative impacts—construction disruption, traffic congestion, environmental degradation, and permanent loss of green space—that will fundamentally diminish the quality of life for the surrounding community.

The lack of recognition of how tiny the access will be, the destruction of green spaces, no details of any mitigations proposed, no plan for extra GPs, dentists, parks for children, nurseries. This will create additional burden for all existing residents.

Policy PP10 is fundamentally unsound and should be withdrawn or substantially revised. It proposes an excessive scale of development that is disproportionate to the location and inadequately supported by evidence. The allocation would cause significant harm to existing residents through loss of amenity, increased congestion, environmental degradation, and irreversible loss of valued green space. The policy relies on uncertain and deferred infrastructure and mitigation measures, transferring risk to the community. It fails to address cumulative impacts or protect the established character and environmental sensitivity of the area.

I strongly object to the proposal for 875 homes to be built next to my estate. I worked with blood, sweat and sacrifice to buy my first home, believing this area offered long-term stability. This development threatens that. The scale will inevitably damage property values, making it harder for residents like me to sell without loss. Local schools are already oversubscribed, and the surrounding roads are congested daily; adding hundreds more households will push infrastructure beyond breaking point. This proposal shows little regard for existing residents and the promises made when we invested our futures here.

I object to the proposed allocations because the Plan does not currently demonstrate that sufficient supporting infrastructure will be delivered in a timely and coordinated way to accommodate the scale of development proposed. While reference is made to the Infrastructure Audit and Delivery Plan, key elements remain incomplete and rely on future work, assumptions and developer led mitigation. The cumulative impact of approximately 875 dwellings on transport, wastewater capacity, healthcare, education and other community services has not been adequately evidenced. Without clear phasing, funding and delivery mechanisms, there is a risk that housing delivery will outpace infrastructure provision.

Too many houses are being built. Persimmon did not inform us of any future building behind us. Animal life will be disrupted. In reality though, you’ve already made your minds up to build so is it worth conducting such an exercise

Traffic is already very busy on gosbecks and around the estate, with cars parked out on James Ward Road and for the people on the new estate to use the same entrance as we do, traffic will be congested. No further doctors or dentists for these people to join. No consideration for noise pollution for existing residents. Infact we have not been taken into consideration at all. Waste management will too be poor.