Please ensure that routes developed for walking and cycling are inclusive to include horse riders where appropriate.

The Berechurch development is close to networks of existing Bridleways in Layer, Birch via Gosbecks Archeological site and Layer. Any development should not impact these.

The proposed development would increase traffic on an already busy road which would need a lot of work to take the extra traffic
Also schools and doctors in the area are overwhelmed already
A cycle path was put in place at great expense with only 1 in 10 riders using it
The hospital is at choking point with only 500 beds in a city with over two hundred thousand people
Surely we should look at the infrastructure first as there’s way to much development in Colchester without the needed infrastructure to support this development

I strongly object to the proposed development of over 800 new homes due to insufficient local infrastructure. GP surgeries and NHS services are already under pressure, and local schools lack the capacity to accommodate the significant increase in demand. The village road network is congested and unsuitable for the additional traffic this development would generate, worsening safety and air quality. There is no clear or guaranteed provision for the necessary improvements to healthcare, education, or transport. Approving this development without adequate infrastructure would be unsustainable and detrimental to the village.

Direct impact on equestrians. Over 4000 horses are stabled in the Colchester area, with a high concentration in the CO2 area due to the extensive riding network at Gosbecks Archaeological Park, Friday Woods and Berechurch MOD land. Direct impact on road safety and accessibility. Horses use Layer Road, Berechurch Road and Bounstead Road to access the above-named sites. Construction workers should be made aware of any potential hazards. To link the development to Gosbecks, a bridleway already exists at the top of Layer Road; it is popular and frequently used by horses, walkers, and cyclists. It passes directly by a livery yard (Oaklyn Stables) and is the route used by their liveries to access hacking (riding out) and horse exercise around the park. To access Friday Woods by bike, the nearest entrance will be public bridleway 171. It would therefore make sense to have all linking routes as bridleways or multi-user routes MURS. As this development directly impacts equestrians and local riding opportunities, expanding the riding network will enable the equestrian community to support the development and encourage new residents to be healthy, fit, and active by providing equal access to green space. There is a local business, Colchester Riding School, that is directly opposite the development. A community arena will help the riding school cope with Colchester's growing population and new residents, providing good tourism opportunities. They rely on Friday Woods to exercise the horses and hack out for clients; therefore, adding a horse-friendly linking path will help them access more riding routes and safeguard the business. A multi-user, circular, off-road route around the development perimeter is ideal for linking all users. There are multiple livery yards down Oliver's Lane that would also benefit from this increased accessibility.

As a horse rider there are no bridleways currently marked on the current plans. The roads will get even busier & more dangerous to be on. As a horse rider who currently rides at gosbecks & Friday woods our routes to get there will be so much busier. We don’t want to be riding on the roads & cars drivers certainly do not want the inconvenience of us on the roads. It’s becoming harder & harder to exercise our horses with new builds bringing more traffic. Understandably, we are unable to prevent new housing but please could you consider building into your infrastructure bridleways. We really do not want to be riding on busy roads & the new housing will inevitably bring a lot more traffic The general public driving past a horse do not understand that a horse is a flight animal that if spooked can be unpredictable on the roads. We frequently already have to contend with dogs chasing us at gosbecks which has become busier & busier with dog walkers. The new housing will bring a lot more dog walkers & cars to the area so for the safety of all please take into consideration that bridleways really are imperative.

I strongly objec to the additional 875 houses being proposed for Friday Woods. As a resident of Layer-de-La-Haye, I have been living opposite the ongoing Denbury homes site with 70 new houses still being built down The Folley (not yet completed) This has already made a considerable impact to the lovely village of Layer especially the roads. So far there are about 20 houses completed but not fully occupied. The increased traffic and noise has been considerable. Country roads not designed for this increase in traffic, resulting in many dangerous potholes, drains being blocked and surface water after heavy rain not draining away. There is no respect for wildlife, I’ve noticed daily dead wildlife along this and surrounding roads, including muntjacs, badgers and squirrels. It has made dog walking and cycling very dangerous along this road which used to be a pleasure. The noise whilst the building work is taking place has totally impacted village life. I believe accessing The Folley from my driveway can be dangerous, because the 30 mile speed limit is not being adhered to and once houses are occupied there will be many more cars/vans, The primary school and GP surgery can surely not cope with additional pupils and patients. The roads and access around Friday woods is not suitable for more traffic, especially with 875 new homes.

Have witnessed several accidents in Berechurch Hall Road in last 2 years as traffic increases due to housebuilding. Bounstead Rd crossing currently very dangerous, Bounstead Rd not appropriate for increased traffic.

The area requires green space and to allow the community to not feel squeezed or enclosed. The development will also affect the value of the development which has just been built. People including I brought homes here based on the green space around it.

This constant buillding of new houses without putting in place adequate facilities and infrastructure is bringing Colchester to a standstill. Furthermore this will result in the destruction of flora, fauna and wildlife habitat. Eventually there will be no farmland, green and or recreational spaces left and our wildlife, meadows, flowers etc will all dissappear.

I object this plan

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 live on Berechurch Road, keep my horse on Olivers Lane and ride on the bridleways around Gosbecks Archaeological Park. I also walk my dogs in this area. So many new houses have already been built locally, resulting in increased traffic. I feel unsafe riding on Essex roads to link to other bridleways in the area. Please consider designing Multi User Routes (MURs) so that horse riders are included. Bridleways are not just for horses - they don't require any additional infrastructure above a cycleway. They do not cost more money. To link the permissive bridleways on Layer Road with Friday Woods would enable safer access for horse riders, cyclists and walkers, and create better links to green spaces. A lack of knowledge about equestrian user groups is not sufficient basis for discrimination. Thank you for reading my comments. I am grateful for the permissive bridleways that have been created on Gosbecks Archaeological Park, but more are needed to prevent accidents on the roads for horses and riders.

This is green belt land and is far from any facilities meaning residents will need to drive to access facilities such as tollgate and town centre. Nothing within walking distance. Berechurch hall road is very busy at commuting times and is dangerous in the unlit section with frequent near misses and accidents. With 875 houses this will bring over 1000 additional cars to an already busy area.

This huge proposed development will only bring further strain on an area struggling to support local residents. The main Berechurch Hall Road is inadequate for the volume of current traffic and Bounstead Road is a tiny road already a danger to any pedestrians or horse riders. There is no mention of needed infrastructure like doctors and schools.
The nearby woodland has no adequate car parking and this will increase the traffic in the area and make it dangerous for those that pay to use it for safe horse riding- the whole proposal is inadequate!

Having another 1500- 2000 cars being resident along Berechurch hall road is ridiculous, the roads into town and to Stanway/A12 struggle everyday at the moment! Also public services cannot deal with the increased population, schools are already at bursting and lack of doctors and dentists in the area do not support the existing community so putting more people in this bottle kneck of Colchester is utter madness

Having read about the proposed development and living on the Layer Road, I do not think that 875 houses can be viable. The road is served by a mini roundabout and this is already heavily congested at peak times. It is also wonderful to see greenery in this area, which would be spoilt by erecting seemingly unnecessary housing.

Policy PP10 Comments for Consultation
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.
PP10 Consultation Objection Summary (97 words)
I object to Policy PP10 due to the disproportionate scale of development proposed south
of Berechurch Hall Road and its unacceptable impacts on existing residents,
infrastructure, and the environment. The allocation of approximately 875 dwellings relies
on uncertain future mitigation and fails to demonstrate deliverable solutions for highway
access, construction traffic, wastewater capacity, and community infrastructure. The
development would result in the permanent loss of valued green space and harm to
biodiversity in an environmentally sensitive location. The policy does not adequately
protect residential amenity or provide certainty that infrastructure will be delivered in step
with development.

The allocation of 875 new dwellings immediately adjacent to an established residential estate represents an excessive and inappropriate scale of development. There is heavy traffic and congestion on Berechurch road already so will just add to it and effect the surrounding area. The road infrastructure will struggle. Open green space is highly valued and should be kept as green space.

I’m concerned that the green space, in the area is decreasing far too much and this development is getting close to areas of natural beauty. Also the road network and infrastructure in area struggles to cope currently and this level of development will heavily impact this area.

Strongly object. Layer de la Haye is one of the few remaining villages close to Colchester that retains a village feel. However the ever increasing volume of traffic is eroding this. Layer is a hub for horse riders as it has several accessible off road areas. However none of these link up so we are forced to ride on the road to access them. I do not feel safe riding on the roads and the proposed development with make this increasingly dangerous. No provision seems to have been made for horse owners yet again!

A site of 875 dwellings should consider on-site provision for outdoor sports facilities like allocations PP17 and PP18 due to the scale of additional demand generated. If this is not possible, financial contributions should be identified towards local strategically important projects identified in the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy in consultation with the Council’s Sports Facilities Delivery Group.

Congested , busy as it is.

The estate is busy as it is it will be a health and safety issue on the roads.

I object to Policy PP10 due to the disproportionate scale of development proposed south
of Berechurch Hall Road and its unacceptable impacts on existing residents,
infrastructure, and the environment. The allocation of approximately 875 dwellings relies
on uncertain future mitigation and fails to demonstrate deliverable solutions for highway
access, construction traffic, wastewater capacity, and community infrastructure. The
development would result in the permanent loss of valued green space and harm to
biodiversity in an environmentally sensitive location. The policy does not adequately
protect residential amenity or provide certainty that infrastructure will be delivered in step With development.

This is the comment I used to object:

I object to Policy PP10 due to the disproportionate scale of development proposed south
of Berechurch Hall Road and its unacceptable impacts on existing residents,
infrastructure, and the environment. The allocation of approximately 875 dwellings relies
on uncertain future mitigation and fails to demonstrate deliverable solutions for highway
access, construction traffic, wastewater capacity, and community infrastructure. The
development would result in the permanent loss of valued green space and harm to
biodiversity in an environmentally sensitive location. The policy does not adequately
protect residential amenity or provide certainty that infrastructure will be delivered in step with development.

Whilst recognising the need for additional housing, the land identified under Policy PP10 is Grade 2 agricultural land, which should be afforded protection as per the NPPF. The Local Plan Committee in deciding to go to this stage of consultation did so on the basis of that the evidence base identified the land as Grade 3b.

Should the site be included, then I make the following observations:

a) 875 homes seems to be too high a density given the semi rural location.
b) The Policy should be stronger in terms of not only protecting tree belts and hedgerows (PP10 h), but strengthening and enhancing them to provide the structural landscape framework for the development to respect its connection with the rural area beyond, as Colchester transitions from urban to rural in this location.
c) The enhancement of east - west connections is supported PP10 d. These connections should be in place prior to the new housing coming forward.
d) Berechurch Hall Road which provides a key connection with the town, is poor. This road needs to be used to access local bus services and walking/cycling connections. In the location of PP10, along most of its route, the road is narrow, traffic exceeds the 30mph speed limit on a frequent basis and the footpaths, which are also very narrow, are only (mostly) on one side of the road. It is also poorly lit. This makes the road an unattractive and unsafe route and limits the appropriate connectivity with PP10 unless that the road can be significantly improved.

Traffic congestion.
Permanent loss of green space which will fundamentally diminish the quality of life for the surrounding community.

Policy PP10, in its current form, is fundamentally unsound. It promotes a quantum of development that is excessive, poorly justified, and undeliverable without causing serious and enduring harm to existing residents, local infrastructure, the natural environment, and the established character of the area. The policy is underpinned by high‑level mitigation aspirations rather than clear evidence of deliverability, certainty, or proportionality to the scale of growth proposed.

Planning Objection – Key Concerns

The proposed allocation under Policy PP10 is fundamentally flawed and, if delivered as proposed, will cause lasting harm to existing residents, local infrastructure, the natural environment and the character of the area. The policy relies heavily on future mitigation measures without demonstrating that these are deliverable, timely or proportionate to the scale of development.

Scale and Impact on Existing Residents

The proposal for approximately 875 new dwellings immediately adjacent to an established residential estate is significantly out of scale with the surrounding area. It fails to adequately consider the cumulative impact on existing residents, including increased noise, air and light pollution, loss of privacy, and the permanent loss of outlook over open green space. The development would fundamentally alter the character of the area and significantly erode residential amenity.

Highway Capacity and Construction Impacts

The local road network, including Berechurch Hall Road, already experiences severe congestion, particularly at peak times. The policy provides no clear or credible solution for accommodating the long-term construction traffic associated with a development of this size. Access arrangements are deferred to future assessments, transferring risk to existing residents and failing to demonstrate that safe, practical and deliverable access can be achieved.

Loss of Green Space and Environmental Harm

The site currently provides valuable open green space that contributes to the area’s semi-rural character and ecological value. Its development would result in an irreversible loss of this land. Proposed biodiversity and green corridor measures do not adequately compensate for the loss of an established landscape. The need for mitigation to protect nearby sensitive habitats further highlights concerns over the suitability of this site for large-scale development.

Infrastructure and Deliverability

The policy relies on future provision of infrastructure, including highways, education and wastewater capacity, with no certainty that this will be delivered in a timely or sufficient manner. There is insufficient evidence that existing infrastructure can accommodate the proposed level of growth.

Community Engagement

While community engagement is referenced, it occurs only after the principle of development has been established, limiting residents’ ability to meaningfully influence whether this development is appropriate in the first place.

I object to Policy PP10 due to the disproportionate scale of development proposed south
of Berechurch Hall Road and its unacceptable impacts on existing residents,
infrastructure, and the environment.
The allocation of approximately 875 dwellings relies
on uncertain future mitigation and fails to demonstrate deliverable solutions for highway
access, construction traffic, wastewater capacity, and community infrastructure. The
development would result in the permanent loss of valued green space and nature.
We brought a house on this plot under the understanding that this land was going to be left without houses or any development as told by permission

Policy PP10 is unsound because it places a large housing allocation in an environmentally sensitive and infrastructure‑constrained area. The proposal for around 875 homes would increase congestion, strain wastewater systems and remove valued green space. The site lies next to the Roman River Valley Site of Special Scientific Interest, yet biodiversity measures are treated as procedural rather than meaningful. Construction traffic, noise and loss of outlook would significantly harm existing residents. Key infrastructure is deferred to later plans, offering no certainty. The policy should be withdrawn until clear evidence shows development can proceed without unacceptable harm.