Marks tey is down on the plan for 2500 homes. This is simply not possible without causing severe issues to the current residences of the village. The A120 has very high traffic levels. There is simply no way that 5000 additional cars should be put onto this road. Most houses are now a 2 car household. There are no facilities in Marks Tey such as doctors or dentists, there is only one local convenience shop and petrol stations. It makes no sense to build 2500 homes in this area. To get out of the Marks tey round about currently is a nightmare. If you add all these new cars to the road the A120 will be at a standstill. There is also the issue of people coming into the Marks tey estate at one roundabout out and zooming through the estate to get to the second roundabout to try and beat the traffic. There is a school on the estate and a lot of elderly people and we do not need lots of extra cars whizzing through leading to accidents.

as previous

1. I endorse the views in the submission from my parish council, Aldham.
2. There is inadequate infrastructure provision - we need to use much more brownfield and vacant commercial properties in Colchester, so less car use. "The middle of nowhere" is not the best place for large housing estates, for many reasons.
3. Some, limited numbers of, social/affordable housing can be attached to local villages, they are what's most needed. Not these endless heartless estates with no infrastructure, in the middle of agricultural fields and other green belt. (e.g. next to A1124 near Eight Ash Green)
4. Also avoid ruining Colne Valley Landscape, see 3 above.
5. Pay attention to Local Nature Recovery Strategy, most essential .
6. Protect Roman River Valley, Aldham, Marks Tey, Great Tey and Little Tey.

As a local resident for many years, I am confident to say that the proposed housing allocation of 2500 homes near Marks Tey (per the draft New Local Plan) is not sustainable at all and that it should not be authorised.
1. As two much-needed projects of widening/improving A12 and A120 were cancelled, the current network of roads will not accommodate the new influx of cars if the development goes ahead. It will bring the roads to a standstill.
2. Such huge-scale development will overburden all local services: schools, doctors' surgeries, dentists, public transport, shops, also drainage system, sewage treatment and water supply, which have already reached the maximum of their capacity.
3. The proposed scale is out of character with the surrounding area, resulting in overcrowding of the site and a loss of open space.
4. The proposed development is on the designated Green Belt, so it will widely impact natural habitats and biodiversity: damage will be done to protected wildlife habitats, harm rare species, and affect mature trees on the sites.

I wish to comment about Policy PP17 (Marks Tey)and PP29 (Copford).
School Road Copford :-
School Road traffic at school times is congested, exacerbated by the rat run from Tiptree Road to London Road.300 houses means up to 600 extra cars.Trying to exit to the London Road is difficult now.
London Road,towards Stane Park traffic at times is at a standstill.
It already takes 30minutes or more just to exit Stane Park at times
Part of the Marks Tey development is in Copford which means an extra 600 homes which pours even more traffic onto the already congested A120 and the A12.
Now the government has scrapped the road improvements to the A120 and A12 together with the new access roundabout I don't see that the existing roads can cope.
The local sewage works is at capacity now.As is water supply.
This development is on farmland and adjacent to Pitts Wood which has nesting sites for rare species.
The number of homes proposed doubles the size of our village.
Are there other sites within the area that could accommodate some or all of the homes.
Public transport is limited to two buses an hour which run close together.
Regardless of what the Government think very few people will cycle to work
Marks Tey Station car parks are already at capacity and we have given up trying to travel anywhere by rail as we cannot park and from Church Road its to far to walk (now in our 80's).
Doctors,Dentists and Colchester Hospital cannot cope now with all the previous development.
Lexden,Stanway,Copford and Marks Tey villages are losing there identities and becoming one large sprawl.
There is no local support for developments of this size.
There is no way the local infrastructure can cope with the total number of homes (2,800,two sites in Marks Tey and Copford in total).
Copford School is nearly at capacity now.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Local Plan being considered for the above two sites.

I would like to think that the infrastructure will be put into place before these plans go any further.

At 82 years old and as a resident of Church Road Copford Colchester I am deeply concerned that the existing infrastructure is already failing and cannot support further development;
Our nearest bus route is well over one mile away.

My concerns for these sites are:-

Transport and Access

I live over one mile from the nearest bus route, making me dependent on my car.
However,local traffic conditions are becoming dangerous, On school Road the volume of traffic is so high that that vehicles are frequently driven onto the pavements

The Copford School is full now and if we have to go to our nearest shop for groceries we have to avoid the school times.
The volume of cars parked along School Road at these times is ridiculous.Cars are being driven along the pavements to get past, posing a direct threat to pedestrians

Strategic Infrastructure (Rail and Parking)

To attend vital medical appointments at UCLH in London, I rely on Marks tey Station. Recently the car park has been consistently full due to the number of cars causing us to miss trains. .Adding more residents without station parking
will make essential travel impossible for elderly residents,

Education and services

Copford school is currently at full capacity. The village lacks the basic retail infrastructure to support more home, travelling for groceries involves navigating the hazardous traffic conditions mentioned above.

Utilities and Healthcare.

Sewage. The sewage works at Hall Road are already at capacity and cannot sustain additional load.

Healthcare. Local G P surgeries, Dentists and Hospice are already over stretched, furthermore the local hospital is operating under extreme pressure with significant bed shortages. Adding hundreds of new residents will exacerbate this healthcare crisis.

I believe that significant infrastructure improvements _
specifically regarding road safety, sewage capacity and healthcare access - must be fully funded and completed before any further development is considered in this area.

We have serious concerns regarding the potential allocation of this site which includes the Medieval moat at Marks Tey Hall Scheduled Monument (LEN 1477794), and Grade II listed building, the Grade II* Marks Tey Hall South Barn (‎1224577), and Grade II listed Barn To North West Of Marks Tey Hall (‎1266768), and is within the wider setting of other Grade II listed buildings, including Doggets Hammer Farm (1266767), as well as the Copford Green Conservation Area.

Initial assessment

This site should not be allocated. Development within the setting of these designated heritage assets would almost certainly result in a loss of significance. In the case of Marks Tey Hall Scheduled Monument (LEN 1477794), and Grade II listed building, the Grade II* Marks Tey Hall South Barn (‎1224577), and Grade II listed Barn To North West Of Marks Tey Hall (‎1266768), mitigation is unlikely to be effective because the proposals would surround these assets on all sides, and the nature of the development (housing) means that any measures would have only very limited success. A full Heritage Impact Assessment will be essential to determine whether the site can be allocated. If this confirms that harm cannot be adequately mitigated, the site should not be allocated.

I write as the warden and thus lay head of the Church of St Andrew and the leader of the Marks Tey Heritage Project. I am very well aware of the traumas that the village has and is suffering from. Over 70 dwellings were lost to the coming of the railway, the dualling of the road to Feering in the 1930's and the 'Stanway By-pass' cutting through the heart of the village in the late 1960's. A further blight has been the increased levels of traffic on the A120 and A12. The village is badly segmented and for over 30 years I have been of the view that development centred within half a mile radius of the Coggeshall Road Roundabout could help address this problem. However the current proposals are enormous and flawed so creating problems and failing to address others. There needs to be a master plan The plan needs to address how there is safe access for pedestrians and cyclists to current key facilities the Church/Church Hall (used by the community), Parish Hall and grounds, Poplar Garden and Retail Centre, the School, the Shops and the Station. Each development area needs to show this - as the recent Dandara proposals did not. Review whether the right areas of land have been included to create a nuclear settlement , support existing facilities, and lead to a viable community. Proportionality should be key. Obvious errors include. Land off North Lane not included despite easy access to station. Flood risk minimal - an earth bank would resolve any risk Why no land off Wilsons Lane and Long Green - only short walk to School and Poplars. Why not some land off Dobbies Lane between A12 and Rail line Allow for indication of land for consideration such as the land East of the first part of Church lane - potentially facilitating access by bike and foot to the Station. Also land east of the Tey Road that could allow road changes. The extent of land to the south of the shops is excessive and numbers can be replaced from suggestions in the immediate points above. The plan needs to address shortage of parking at the Station - even with home working - often no spaces by 8am Need for additional parking for the current shops - on Monday 21" December two parking wardens were issuing tickets. The owners of the Marks Tey Hall site also own many of the buildings and the immediate land behind the shops Pylons route not shown or possibly accounted for. Demonstrate how the levels of noise and furnes from the increasing traffic can be reduced for residents The A120 and Junction 25 are no longer fit for purpose. The Local Plan has failed on this previously. A short term alternative could be a roundabout say close to the Tey Road and withtraffic taken through the allocated land north of the Coggeshall Road to rejoin the current A120 before the roundabout.

The Council need to recognise that the excessive housing provision has only succeeded in meeting housing needs elsewhere. In the Essex County Standard of December 19 there is a photograph of Councillor Julie Young and an article advising that in November there were 472 families in temporary accommodation. Social housing is frequently going to those from London.

Yours faithfully the

Andrew Waters43 London Road Copford Colchester CO6 1LG 23 December 2025 Dear Sirs Re: Local Plan Objections - Copford

The proposals within the Copford Boundary are excessive.

The extent of land accessed from Marks Tey with 900 houses is a threat and not justified on any good planning or community grounds. Much of this housing number can be substituted by other offered sites in Marks Tey and from others that are likely to come forward in the Plan's life - such as off North Lane Marks Tey, off Wilsons Lane, Long Green and Dobbies Lane. East of Tey Road and the first part of Church Lane. The full extent of the Marks Tey Hall site would simply be Urban Sprawl and not part of any welcoming sustainable community. The plan fails to recognise that small organic growth in rural villages is usually beneficial and helps to sustain those communities and their facilities. Traditionally the Council's developments plans used to indicate sites that would be favourably considered. This would ease pressure on a few settlements and give a chance for proportionality. The Plan needs to ensure local housing needs are actually met rather than those from elsewhere. In the Essex County Standard of December 19 we read that in November there were 472 families including 525 children in temporary accommodation. This is unacceptable considering the number of houses built. Social housing in the City area must be allocated to Colchester.

In regard to the School Road site north of the village Hall. There are a range of concerns Safe access onto School Road by 300 dwellings? More if additional land developed later. Unfortunately assurances by Highways are not trusted - eg Stane Park. Only a single access

Increased traffic problems in School Road at the junction with London Road and by the School around drop off and collection times Need for environmental protection for Pits Wood and from damage by over use

Doubts on the ability of the sewerage works to cope with the large increase in dwellings to be served (Stanway and Marks Tey) and still meet the coming raised discharged water quality standards. School capacity - has a small site Currently inadequate health provision in the area Current problems of getting about. London Road has narrow footpaths and due to traffic level fewer cyclists are using the road

The inclusion of the right mix of housing that meets actual local need. More 1 bed houses and maisonettes such as at Windmill Court and two and three bedroom bungalows for local elderly residents to downsize into

Poor transport links with A12 A120-high degree of traffic congestion likely.
Poor access to/from site added congestion on London Road and local road networks, possible conflict with Copford Nplan Policy CE5
No additional public transport
Housing crosses parish boundaries Copford/Marks Tey, will go against Copford Nplan Policy CEI and recent City Councils refusal of 165 homes in Tiptree
Approx 600 in Copford Parish not 'proportionate and could cause unacceptable harm to the rural nature of the area
Further separation of Marks Tey either side A12.
Insufficient water/sewage/school-notably secondary school places/gp/hospital/dentist provision
This sacrifices village identity for housing numbers

I am not against new homes but there is no infrastructure. The A120 is a nightmare and find it very difficult to get off the estate. The planned new houses will only make this worse. To use the buses we now have to get on the A120 which is very dangerous

PP17 Marks Tey. Stand alongside the A120 Coggeshall Road any working day and monitor the traffic. This road is over saturated withe vehicles already. How does placing new housing on it help? The road was described as being a major corridor for business in the region by highways about 10 years ago linking Stasted to the ports. There has been no improvement made to it since. Developing next to it would cause disruption to commercial traffic and damage the environment. It also increases the opportunity for more accidents on an already dangerous road. Please apply common sense!

See previous comments. A120 oversaturated with traffic. Development adds to congestion of major trunk road. Also destruction of natural environment. Sort A120 first.

I strongly object to the proposed two new developments in marks Tey with the potential of 2500 new dwellings build without any proposed new infrastructure to the two main roads in the village.
The A120 is already saturated with nearly 23000 vehicles using the road daily and nearly 90000 daily vehicles on the A12.
Adding a large amount of new homes will only makes the traffic and safety for local residents worse, a strong new plan is needed to address theses issues before any new build should be allowed , ideally with a A120 bypass as previously proposed .

I strongly object to your proposed plan to build 2500 homes off of the A120 at marks tey.
The A120 already has more traffic than it can handle and has a poor record with accidents and fatality's and the proposed site is already a bottle neck for traffic.
No further housing development should be permitted until the A120 is properly upgraded i.e. made a duel carriageway and a proper junction made between the A120 and A12.

Limit 50 maximum housing units built in Marks Tey & Copford area.
Why: -
Infrastructure can't cope, roads, schools, dentists, water, etc
Poor vehicle movement planning in the area causes movement difficulties, especially at weekends.
Poor infrastructure for moving on foot, by bicycle, etc
Planning for industrial units, NOT built, due to poor demand.
If completed, it adds a large movement of lorries, vans and cars.
Most property occupiers don’t live close to their work
Incompatible area for social housing.
Farmers are paid to save the countryside, Sustainable Farming Incentive, Countryside Stewardship, while councils destroy it with high-density housing developments.

With no proposed improvements for the A12 and A120, no development should take place. the A120 is known for severe congestion, slow journeys and unpredictable travel times based on government data March 2024, with over 22,600 movements a day, that is without all the additional traffic from other city developments.

The A12 is considered among the busiest A roads in the country and with the government cancelling its widening from Marks Tey to Chelmsford , this road is at over capacity. Pollution levels are constantly high and any frequent major disruption/accidents on these two roads causes all local roads to choke with traffic.

It is very easy to build on greenfield sites but this must not be at the detriment of the human and natural environment.

The railway network is at capacity and major commute times, and this already leads to car congestion with outside areas driving in and dropping off. We have already had a fatality.

As stated in 12.17 any deveopment must come with the ' proviso it can be demonstrated that additional vehicular movements can be accommodated on the A12 and A120 without significantly increasing congestion.' Non of the proposed development can proceed without development of the A12 and A120 which the government has shown no intention of providing funding for. It is already difficult to exit the estate because of the amoumt of traffic using the A120.
There will be increased vehicular movements in both the constuction and post construction of the proposed deveopment

PP18 & PP17.
I am a supporter of more housing within Marks Tey but must insist that it's very important to residents that we are presented with the so called comprehensive master plan. Many people in this community have views but sadly have little time or electronic abilities to respond to this consultation.
Please seriously consider active travel. Cycleways must be a priority for those who will have to leave their cars at home due to local road congestion.

As you state in your very first line that Colchester is surrounded by 'attractive villages and important distinctive landscapes'. Unfortunately by building endless houses our attractive village will be a thing of the past. The people in Marks Tey are fed up with the council trying to change the aesthetics of our villages by building thousands of houses and suffocating us with cars, congestion, no infrastructure to accommodate a minimum of 8000 extra cars and a minimum of an extra 2000 vehicles. We have no NHS dentist places and it's impossible to get a doctors appointment. No new primary or high schools are being built to accommodate these extra children. The A120 is at a standstill every morning and every evening - so an extra 2000 vehicles a day using it. Sort the A120, the extra schools and the extra doctors surgeries first. Nothing can be done to accomodate all these extra people into our part of the county unti the council sort the infrastructure first.

I totally object to having the village where I live mangled and mullered by money hungry councillors and house builders. It's bad enough that a traveller site has had the go ahead. absolutely irresponsible and lack of consideration given to the people that live here. shame on you!!!

Marks Tey A120 is already congested with traffic, 23 thousand vehicles daily congest along the A120 entering the village to the roundabout for the interchange, it is equally congested towards Braintree. There is no by pass planned. The village is cut in two by the A12, no development will bring the village together. Marks Tey is not a suitable area for development. The train station is a small station which serves to connect the Sudbury line to the main line. The proposed green field sites are home to many species. Marks Tey is a drought area.

I cannot see how this development follows the local plan.

The proposed development will not bring the village together, the two sites will only increase the size of the two halves of the village divided by the A12.

Without a master plan for the development of Marks Tey the proposed sites do not state how or support Nature and the environment. It is urban sprawl.

The proposed sites are green fields. It is important that villages remain as villages. Stanway has lost its village identity. These sites would connect Copford, Marks Tey and Aldham spoiling their character and the beauty of the countryside.

The entrance to the proposed site is onto London road by the shops. The area is already congested and acts as the A12 slip road. Marks Tey should not join up with Copford. Copford has already had development. The site is in a drought area. It will take away the character of a village. There is no Doctors to support extra people. Copford School is oversubscribed. The green fields are habitats.

Undue pressure on the A120 means this proposal is not practicable until through traffic has another route such as the proposed link road between Galleys Corner, Braintree and the A12.

Marks Tey is already a very busy small area. Where will the access to the site be? If it is intended to be directly onto the Roundabout on London Road, this will cause major congestion to an already congested area. If it is intended to be on the slip road to the A12, this is an area where there is already parking and congestion problems on a daily basis (not Sundays). The entrance/exit would need to be to the south of the development, not the north

Objection to Proposed 2,500 Homes – Marks Tey, Colchester Growth Area


Local Knowledge & Context

• Marks Tey is a small village with limited infrastructure, not a town.
• It already experiences traffic congestion, particularly at:
• A12 / A120 interchange
• Station Road and London Road
• Local services (schools, GP surgeries, parking, drainage) are already under pressure.
• Public transport is limited, leading to high car dependency.

Key Reasons for Objection

Transport & Traffic

• The A12/A120 junction is already overstretched, with frequent delays.
• 2,500 homes could add 5,000+ additional vehicles.
• Marks Tey railway station parking is insufficient and often full.
• Bus services are infrequent and unreliable, making sustainable travel unrealistic.
• Increased traffic will worsen:
• Air pollution
• Noise
• Road safety risks

2. Infrastructure Capacity

• GP surgeries and healthcare facilities are at or near capacity.
• Primary and secondary schools are already oversubscribed.
• No clear, funded plan for:
• New schools
• Medical facilities
• Community services
• Sewerage, drainage, and water infrastructure capacity is unclear.
• Increased flood risk due to loss of permeable greenfield land.

3. Environmental Impact

• Development is predominantly on greenfield agricultural land.
• Loss of wildlife habitats and biodiversity.
• Increased surface water runoff and flood risk.
• Urban sprawl threatens the rural setting of Marks Tey.

4. Impact on Village Character

• Scale of development would fundamentally change Marks Tey’s identity.
• Village would become an extension of Colchester rather than a distinct community.
• Loss of rural character, heritage, and community cohesion.

Concerns Over Scale

• 2,500 homes is disproportionate to the size and capacity of Marks Tey.
• Growth should be incremental and infrastructure-led, not speculative.
• Infrastructure delivery should precede, not follow, development.

Alternative Site Suggestions

Preferred Alternatives

• Brownfield land within Colchester:
• Makes use of existing infrastructure
• Supports regeneration
• Reduces pressure on rural villages
• Locations with:
• Established road capacity
• Frequent public transport
• Existing healthcare and education facilities

Justification

• More sustainable
• Less environmental damage
• Better access to jobs and services
• Aligns with national planning policy to prioritise brownfield land

Infrastructure Requirements (Currently Inadequate)

• Major upgrade to A12/A120 interchange
• Guaranteed funding for:
• New schools
• GP surgeries
• Public transport improvements
• Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS)
• Protection and provision of green spaces

Conclusion

• The proposed 2,500-home development in Marks Tey is unsustainable in its current form.
• Infrastructure, transport, and services are insufficient to support growth at this scale.
• The proposal risks permanent harm to the environment and village character.
• Development should be reconsidered, reduced, or relocated to more suitable sites.

To build properties anywhere near the A120 in marks tey would be horrendous.
Currently it can take 10 minutes to get out of my estate onto the A120 due to volume of traffic.
Building houses on the proposed land would create more traffic and cause even more build up of traffic on the A120 and surrounding areas of marks tey.
The A120 is already highlighted as a high accident rate on this road would cause even more accidents to occur.
Since building more properties in the Tollgate area the traffic has increased immensely and is an example of what it would be like if any more house are built in marks tey area.
The schools, utilities and roads would not be able to cope with the addition of more people.
I have lived in marks tey for 20 years and what was once a nice small village with fields in surrounding areas is turning into a gridlocked area which would be even worse with more properties being built.
Please do not let this application go through to build any more properties in Marks Tey or any surrounding areas.

Feering Parish Council response to Colchester City Council’s Regulation 18 Consultation regarding proposed allocations in Tiptree, Messing and Marks Tey. The Council is concerned that development near the B1023 and along the Inworth Road corridor would significantly increase traffic on an already congested and overstretched highway network, worsening safety and movement. With Government funding withdrawn for the A12 expansion, previously anticipated junction and infrastructure improvements may not be delivered, leaving cumulative impacts unmitigated. The Parish Council cannot support these allocations without clear, deliverable traffic mitigation. It also urges robust mitigation for congestion at A12 junction 25.