No infrastructure, roads already too busy. Schools and GP’s oversubscribed and this will add to it. Houses in new estate are still not all sold, the junctions are dangerous.

The roads are already grid locked, the schools & dr's can't cope, the wildlife will suffer, the countryside will be lost...
And Colchester hospital is at breaking point.
More housing will be filled by London overspill, lots of people on benefits, not spending money in Colchester, just making Colchester more run down...
Save our green spaces, the town is spilling into the villages... I'm totally against it, and want to be informed of all public meetings.

This area has already been over developed with many houses having been built and there is no roads, surgeries, schools to this area that have been developed. The green space is needed and I don’t understand why we need more houses here. NHS can’t cope with more people brought into the area. I would categorically be against this development.

Object to more houses being built, the roads can mot handle more traffic, the doctors and hospital can nit handle current population nu.bers and neither can the schools

The proposed development in the adjacent field is totally unwarranted, it will mean more loss of green spaces and wildlife, it will create additional traffic congestion to our city, and put more strain on our communities and local services. We have just moved to this area and appreciate the peace and tranquility of the surrounding area and wildlife which include foxes, owls and a number of birds, which was the main reason for us moving to the area to retire as we were previously located near the A12 and stane park which has totally transformed the area and created horrendous traffic problems and air pollution

My husband and myself object to this development .
It is totally unsuitable for the amount of traffic it will generate in an already highly congested area. It would be even more dangerous and challenging at the Kent Blaxill roundabout to enter or leave
Layer de la Haye. There are already long queues of traffic tailing back from this roundabout on the B1026, Layer Road, Gosbecks Road and Berechurch hall Road.
This increased traffic would also have an impact on the health and well being of other road users - runners, pedestrians , horses cyclists , school community and others.

- Traffic & Transport: Increased congestion on Berechurch Hall Road and surrounding routes; need for road
upgrades.
- Green Space: Risk of losing open land and countryside character; reduced recreational areas.
- Infrastructure Strain: Added demand on schools, GP surgeries, and community facilities; risk of
overstretched services if infrastructure lags.
- Neighbourhood Character: Potential changes to estate feel and local identity as new developments expand.
Financial Impacts for Homeowners
- Near-Term (0-3 years):
- Construction disruption may flatten price growth temporarily.
- New supply could erode the 'new build premium' for recent estates.
- Medium-Term (5-10 years):
- If developments bring amenities (schools, shops, parks), property values likely stabilise and rise.
- Infrastructure improvements can enhance desirability and support price growth.
Long-Term (10+ years):

Unfortunately as of yet nothing has been said about the use / safety for horse riders. With all the new footpaths - can these be made to new bridleways, which is then accessible for all users?

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 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 remove Policy PP10 entirely from the Local Plan until robust, deliverable evidence can demonstrate that the development can proceed without causing unacceptable harm.

I am seriously concerned about access. I love opposite the site and bought our house for the safety of a quiet road with only 3 houses and no traffic. We have a toddler and baby on the way and are concerned about noise, safety and privacy. We also look onto the trees and field and are concerned what will be built immediately in front of our property obstructing our view.
Furthermore, the local wildlife would be at risk. We have witnessed bats, foxes, birds such as woodpeckers, goldfinches, bluetits and swifts living in the trees and field.

I am concerned this will over develop land near to the Roman River.

I am concerned that this is to close to the Roman River.

Concerns raised over points c, d, e and g.

Objection: The current planning application fails to include or adequately consider the needs of the equestrian community. Despite the significant economic, social, and recreational contributions of the equestrian sector in Essex, the proposal makes no specific provision for equestrian access or infrastructure. This omission is particularly concerning given that only 22% of Public Rights of Way are currently designated as bridleways, leaving equestrians—who are vulnerable road users—at increased risk on Essex's busy roads. With over 4,000 horses kept in Colchester and local businesses reliant on access to areas like Friday Woods and Gosbecks, inclusive planning is essential. The application should ensure the protection and enhancement of bridleways and guarantee safe, accessible routes for all user groups, including equestrians. To support all users, a circular Multi User Route (MUR) should be established to directly link Gosbecks and Friday Woods, ensuring safe, continuous off-road access for equestrians, cyclists, and walkers. Additionally, the creation of a community arena would provide significant benefits to local businesses and residents, supporting economic activity and promoting healthy, active lifestyles by safeguarding accessible green spaces.

Please supply schooling in additional to less housing to an already overpopulated city.

I object to this planning application on the grounds that it fails to make provision for equestrians. The submitted plans do not include any safe routes or considerations for horse riders, despite statistics showing thousands of road incidents involving horses and riders annually. With equestrian establishments in Essex under threat from overdevelopment, it is essential that new plans ensure safe access for all road users, including equestrians. Neglecting this group not only endangers riders and horses but also undermines the local equestrian economy and rural character. The application should be revised to address the needs of equestrians.

Object on the grounds that equestrian users, of which there any many in the area, have been completely ignored again in relation to the rights of way and access. Why does CBC always ignore this group? Always say they want to help, never do.

Preserving the semi-rural character of our area—particularly through robust planning policy and the enhancement of equestrian infrastructure—remains a critical concern for our community. England possesses 117,250 miles of recorded Public Rights of Way, yet alarmingly, just 22% are bridleways accessible to riders and only 5% are byways suitable for carriage drivers. Equestrians, who are among the most vulnerable road users on Essex’s increasingly busy roads, are therefore left with inadequate and unsafe options.

This planning application fails to acknowledge or provide for the needs of the existing equestrian community. Our semi-rural location is defined by its beautiful green spaces, which must be preserved and protected for current and future generations. As a local rider, I regularly use Gosbecks Archaeological Park and Friday Woods, both of which are accessed via Berechurch and Layer Road—routes shared by many equestrian households in these areas. The proposed development does not offer any improvements to equestrian infrastructure, nor does it provide safe access or connectivity for horse riders and carriage drivers. This oversight risks undermining the very character and accessibility that make our area unique and fails to support a significant segment of the local population.

I strongly object to this application on the grounds that it inadequately considers the needs of the equestrian community and neglects to provide essential infrastructure that would ensure safety, accessibility, and preservation of our semi-rural heritage.

I propose that a circular Multi User Route (MUR) should be established to directly link Gosbecks and Friday Woods, ensuring safe, continuous off-road access for equestrians, cyclists, and walkers. Additionally, the creation of a community arena would provide significant benefits to local businesses and residents, supporting economic activity and promoting healthy, active lifestyles by safeguarding accessible green spaces.

I wish to object to this based on several reasons.
1. Already the traffic in the area is awful on school runs
2. Us residents already can't get spaces in dentist and doctors
3. The maypole green junction. (See below for further)
4. School spaces for in demand schools for us already living here
5. We don't need any more houses crushed in here we are losing our green spaces.

If this really has to go ahead please please put traffic lights at the maypole green junction for bounstead road, berechurch road and berechurch hall road. I drive this way everyday several times and daily there is several crashes and near misses from people flying across. My parents got in a severe car accident here due to someone flying across not realising it's a junction. If you increase traffic flow you need to sort something out here as I panic driving with my kids in the car past here everyday but have no choice as its the way to school.

Building more houses on this plot of land will impact on Layer de la Haye. It is already difficult getting out of the village in the morning due to the volume of cars using Berechurch Hall Road due to the new houses already built and this will add to it. We don’t need houses built on every patch of green that is still available so please stop ruining Colchester and allow its current residents to enjoy some open space. The hospital and schools are full. Sort this first before adding to the problem.

The new planned buildings are going to alter the ecosystems of the surrounding area and would also jeopardise the tranquility of our development and as well as that of neighbouring buildings and developments hence I object and hereby suggest that the council finds a new location elsewhere for the planned development.

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.

Berechurch Hall Road already cannot cope with volume of traffic. What will be provision for water supply /waste water disposal. Proposed site is rich in bird life and provides a wildlife corridor from Gosbecks to Friday Woods. We live on a brownfield development and these should be exhausted before encroaching on the natural environment

I live on Bounstead Road, this will force us to move from our lovely safe quiet area. The roadworks, building works, increased traffic and noise will be unbearable. Thanks colchester council for pushing more locals away. I was born here and this city is sadly destroyed. We dont need more houses, we need more green spaces.

The land at the back of the current development was not supposed to be built on. Any building on this land would have a detrimental impact on the 2 new developments already here and the traffic would cause chaos as it is said there would only be 1 road in which is already there. Locally the area would not be able to handle all these additional houses. Public transport in the area is poor and local public services are at breaking point.

This area connects a number of places where people have traditionally walked, ridden horses and cycled for many many years. I see reference to footpaths and cycleway but bridleways appear to be absent. This is one of the few areas locally where people can ride safely with minimal roadwork which in today's road conditions is extremely dangerous. Please ensure that the interests of horse riders are protected too.

We should not be building houses on farmland, we need food.
Bounstead Road, Gosbecks Road, Berechurch Road all very busy roads, cannot take more traffic.
Doctor surgerys /Colchester hospital all full without lots more people.
Leave our Countryside alone.

Way too many number of houses proposed. There is not enough schools, or hospitals to cater for such a big community. With traffic already bad as it is, it will be even worse getting around.
The crime rate will also increase with that kind of development

Just moved here and we’re not told about these extra properties,

This is perhaps the worst place suggested in the entire local plan. With the proximity to stables, public footpaths, bridleways, and leisure facilities. A further 875 houses on top of all the other recent and historic developments. This area is oversubscribed with very little new infrastructure. The same two schools remain, doctors surgeries have closed since (Layer Road). Gosbecks, Simons Lane, Solus, and St Michaels to name a few have been built on. Enough is enough.

Severe road congestion by 875-1700 additional cars in Berechurch Hall Road, Gosbecks Rd/Layer road as well as dangerous layout
Junction Maldon Road and Warren Lane also unacceptable and dangerous
Berechurch Hall Road floods and pedestrians get soaked by cars exceeding speed limit.
Lack of open space already so this area would be better utilised for this purpose.
Congestion around Stanway with extra people going to Supermarkets/A12 or retail park.
Replacement tree numbers an issue as St.Michaels Place disgracefully only planted less than 50 trees on site.
Loss of biodiversity two species of Woodpeckers nest nearby plus other wildlife.