The land allocated is enormous in comparison to many other site allocated , but yet the Council wish to serve this land by a small erosion of a narrow unused Agricultural Access and demolition of two small bungalows .

It is totally inconceivable to have potentially another possible 2000 vehicles joining to the Marks Tey interchange from the A12 slip road joining to the A120 link crossover and B1408 , together with cars wishing to join the A12 southbound down the road past the local stores joining to the A12 .

The road past the Local shops is already a hazard for parking for shops and drivers using the road as a starting grid for speeds joining the A12 .

The previous Local plan proposed but thrown out by Councillors , indicated two access points , one adjacent to the Turning Circle prior to the A12 , which is now removed . Totally unacceptable .

We object to this on Highway safety and suggest some experts from the Essex County Highways perhaps suggest suitable Road Infrastructure prior to allocating such large areas of land for Houses.

Without doubt there is only winner from this Local Plan consultation and that is the land owner who has developed a majority of their land along the London Road in Stanway / Copford and now Marks Tey.

We wait further sensible and considered proposals from Colchester City Council

Direct impact on equestrians. Known rural area with several private riding establishments bordering Easthope Road. Any connection within and throughout the site to Public Rights of Way to provide green infrastructure and recreational access to the countryside, including active travel connections to Copford Green, must include equestrians. Direct impact on bridleway 171, which is a popular, circular right of way for residents. Proposal to expand this into continuous circular off-road routes to access green space. Perimeter tracks are ideal. There are several restricted byways in the area that could be incorporated. Additional riding opportunities will be required due to population growth and increased traffic. East Thorpe Road is a narrow road with a national speed limit that adjoins the A12; any increase in off-road access for equestrians is considered essential and positive.

The plan is relying on two major arteries (A120 & A12) to carry all the traffic from 2500 houses with all the other major building around Colchester and Tendring the roads cannot cope with the volume . The has not got a central hub for the Village /Town. The suggestions are not community friendly , nothing in the plan suggest more facilities will be provided. The trebling of the size of Marks Tey will make it a small Town not a village . A Town without a centre or any history.
Suggested Changes: Improve the roads and footpath, divert the A120 before it gets to Marks Tey, Widen the A12. Create a green space to improve the air quality.

So where are the new roads to support the development in Marks Tey? Oh cancelled by central Government - the roads cannot cope now! Everyone knows it even you guys!!!!

What an utter joke these proposals are - you are all living in cloud coocoo land!

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, it is a heavily congested road and cannot accomodate further developments. The pollution, traffic noise and sheer volume of traffic makes it an unsafe, unpleasant and unhealthy area to walk or cycle.
The A12 is considered to be one of the busiest A roads in the country and with the government cancelling its widening from Marks Tey to Chelmsford, this road is well over capacity. Pollution levels are constantly high and frequent major disruption/accidents on this and the A120 brings all local roads to a standstill.
Heavy traffic congestion is a frequent occurance, causing severe problems to businesses, haulage/delivery companies and local residents.
Future development must not be at the detriment of the human and natural environment.
The railway network is at capacity, and this already leads to car congestion/parking issues with traffic driving in and dropping off. We have already had a fatality.
Why doesn't the Council develop the already abandoned areas in Stanway, ie Homebase and the old Sainsbury's site?

I am against the proposed new house developments off the A120 and behind the shops / post office area Marks Tey due to the unsuitable existing infrastructure (A120 and A12) these roads are already running at near capacity.
No proposals for new schools or doctor surgeries are suggested or more capacity at the Marks Tey train station.
An additional 2500 homes will create gridlock and danger for pedestrians/cyclists.

We ourselves have applied for planning permission for just one dwelling on our own private land for our daughter and son in law. They both work for the family business at this address in Church Lane, Little Tey.
This was rejected for various reasons even though as the were living in Ipswich this would have reduced the ammount of traffic on the local roads as their journeys to work would have not been necessay.

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.

When the A120 is improved then they could consider the houses At the moment if we want to go anywhere we have to queue to go towards Marks Tey etc.It is extremely dangerous to try & turn right onto the A 120.There has been numerous accidents with several fatalities. This was talked about improving it over 50 years ago, so building all these houses will only make things worse.

I assume that the plan to build 2500 homes in Marks Tey was made before the plan to re-route the A12 and A120 was dropped!

The A120 is a two lane trunk road which is heavily used and often highly congested. Tailbacks often occur to Elm Lane and sometimes beyond.

Currently, exit from the Marks Tey estate on to the A120 is not easy. Building 1000 homes north of the road with their increased traffic exiting on to the A120 would undoubtedly produce effective gridlock for this important trunk road.

A similar problem exists with the 1500 homes proposed to the south of the A12. The extra traffic would presumably exit on to the B1408 and join the busy roundabouts towards Marks Tey station or continue along the B1408 and join the traffic queues in the Tollgate area.

Had the plans for the re-routing of the A12 and the A120 gone ahead, traffic on the current stretch of A120 road between Marks Farm and Marks Tey would have been much reduced.

Similarly the proposed (now dropped) new roundabout at Marks Tey village shops would have allowed quicker access from the new homes there to the re-routed A12.

Infrastructure

Currently, Hospitals, Schools, Doctor’s Surgeries are full to capacity in the area. It is foolhardy to build more homes without expanding the health, education and other facilities in the area.


Environment

Most of the land suggested for the homes is high grade farmland. While there is no formal green belt around Colchester which would prevent building, it should be realised that loss of farmland equates to reduction in the self sufficiency of the nation. This results in the importation of food with all the environmental consequences. It makes sense not to build on high grade farmland.

Conclusion

Clearly, I believe that any plan to increase the number of houses in Marks Tey before upgrade of the A12 and A120 would have a detrimental effect on the current and proposed new residents.

The two areas of housing proposed for Marks Tey are in two completely different areas of the village. The village will be split in two as the A12 and A120 are between both areas so we need to see a Master plan in how the Council propose to bring both communities together. Both roads are extremely busy and dangerous to cross. Whilst we know that more housing has to be built, the number of properties proposed is too big for our village. Could they not build behind the existing estate on land there instead of the other side of A12.

We only have the one playing field in Marks Tey which will be insufficient for the number of people probably coming. I would like to see a master plan showing what the Council is proposing for enrichment and open spaces in the new developments otherwise there is going to be a lot of concrete which is something we don't want. How would these areas will be accessed without having to go on the A120 which is a very dangerous road to drive on and walk along. Cyclists can't cycle along it so cycle lanes would be an advantage.

Local Plan PP 17 & 18 takes no account of the traffic load thsatg will be imposed on the A12 and A120. These roads are already overloaded.

Coggeshall road (A120) is already at capacity with cars queuing throughout the day, not only at rush hour, additional houses will only exacerbate this issue. The decision to not widen the A120 and A12 will put additional strain on Coggeshall road if there are any issues with the main arterial roads, which then increases the risk to pedestrians as it is not only local traffic utilising the roads, but those vehicles normally only found on the arterial roads.

There is no additional capacity at local GP surgeries and Colchester general is consistently over capacity and unable to accept more patients. As an operational manager for the East of England Ambulance service I routinely witness a patient demand that is currently unable to be met, more houses are certainly not going to help this.

Object to the proposed volume of 1,500 homes at Marks Tey, of which 600 fall within the Copford parish. Combined with the 300 houses planned for Copford, this exceeds 900 new dwellings, more than doubling the parish size.
Following the cancellation of the A12 and A120 upgrades, the road network cannot sustain the resulting 3,000+ additional vehicles, leading to inevitable gridlock at the A12/A120 junctions and London Road. Furthermore, Marks Tey Station lacks the necessary parking and platform capacity to support this influx. Without confirmed sewage, water, and transport infrastructure, this scale of development is entirely unsustainable for the region.

The two major allocations at Marks Tey to deliver 2,500 new dwellings have not been justified. Their capacity represents 22.5% of the of the 11,089 new dwellings to be found over and above existing commitments and it is therefore crucial that there is a reasonable prospect for delivery.

Policies PP17 and PP18 explain and seek to justify the release of land for 1500 dwellings on land south of the A12 and for 1000 dwellings north of the A120. The allocations are essentially tentative because they are subject to: ".... the proviso that it can be demonstrated that additional vehicular movements can be safely accommodated on the A12 and A120 without significantly increasing congestion". (Paragraph 12.17). Whilst "significantly increasing congestion" is not defined, the Council concede that 2,500 dwellings would be significant and would impose unacceptable pressures on the existing network. Indeed, paragraph 12.19 states ".... it is not anticipated that all growth promoted can be accommodated without significant upgrades to the A12 and A120." The allocations are nevertheless being consciously promoted notwithstanding the fact that there is no current fiscal commitment to upgrading the A12 or re-aligning the A120 east of Braintree and no evidence has been adduced that such commitment might be forthcoming in future. The ability to deliver almost a quarter of the Plan's new housing provision at Marks Tey is therefore speculative.

The Opportunity Area designation for Marks Tey and its inclusion in Policy ST 3 (Spatial Strategy) is predicated on the possible ability to allow some development within the proposed allocations but this is " subject to further evidence being agreed with the highway authority and National Highways." (Paragraph 12.19). Again, the fact remains that it is not known at present if any new housing will be built within the Opportunity Area during the Plan period. Uncertainty remains, therefore, as to whether all, some or none of the envisaged capacity will be be deliverable as a contribution to the 11,089 dwelling requirement.

Some uncertainty and flexibility might be acceptable had the proposed development at Marks Tey been on a relatively small scale, but it is not when the proposals are of a strategic scale constituting almost a quarter of the total requirement. Contributions of such magnitude should be found in locations where it can be robustly demonstrated that the required and related infrastructure can be delivered with reasonable certainty, namely with a high level of confidence in terms of deliverability, which is far from the case at Marks Tey.

Furthermore, it is not considered that the proposed allocations pay appropriate regard to the form of the village but rather constitute amorphous blocks of development constituting urban sprawl which would be harmful to the village's setting and accentuate the divided, "two settlement" form either side of the A12. The Adopted Marks Tey Neighbourhood Plan envisages much smaller developments might be acceptable outside the existing settlement boundary to enable the village to grow organically and that should remain the right course not only environmentally but also to reflect the current uncertainty regarding highway improvements.

We therefore object to the allocations and to policies PP17 and PP18 on the following grounds:-


The Draft Plan and its Evidence Base have not justified the case for Marks Tey being identified as an Opportunity Area with allocations capable of making a significant contribution to housing needs within the Plan period. The allocations are speculative as it is not known if the they will be able to deliver all, some or none of the proposed housing capacity. The location of the proposed allocations and their a scale would be harmful to the form and setting of the village. Alternative proposals should be brought forward to provide for small scale, edge of village developments to enable the village to grow organically.

This policy needs significant amendment:

1. The proposed master plan for Marks Tey must be required to address its significant severance and access problems

2. A fully funded strategic solution to the A120 is essential before planning permission is given, (see note on transport attached). A local bypass for Marks Tey will leave the remainder of the road unsafe with severe congestion.

3. The allocated area is nearly twice the area required at 30dph and there is a risk of creepage. The plan should state that 1500 is a maximum.

The Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town, of which PP17 forms a substantial part, is justified in the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025 in 12.16 which states that Marks Tey is fragmented by the A12, the A120 and the railway, and 12.17 which states that large areas of land in and around Marks Tey have previously been promoted for development so there is an opportunity for Garden Village scale growth which could help reconnect the village.PP17 will do nothing to reconnect the village as it will be separated from the western part of the village by the A12, the A120 and the railways.

The previously promoted development referred to in 12.17, which was known as West Tey, was rejected by the Inspector when the Local Plan currently in force was submitted to the Inspector in 2017. This was largely because it was recognised that the existing A12 and A120 were at capacity and would not support a development of this size.

Assuming an average of two vehicles per household, PP17 will add approximately 3000 extra vehicles to these roads. This is in addition to the approximately 2000 extra vehicles that the development of PP18 will add. There is recognition that infrastructure improvements will be required in order to support development at the scale promoted by PP17.

This relies mainly on the proposed major upgrades to the A12 and A120. However, the upgrade to the A120 was pushed back to beyond 2030 by the previous government in 2023 and the current Government has confirmed that all plans to take it forward have been dropped. The upgrade to the A12 was cancelled by the current Government in July 2025. There is therefore no prospect of either of these schemes being delivered in the lifetime of the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025.

In regard to the benefits that the Marks Tey railway station brings, it is a very small station. It is only a significant stopping place one the main line from London to Colchester and beyond because it serves as the junction with the branch line to Sudbury. This is the only reason the fast trains stop there.

It is a long way from PP17 and the A12 and A120 need to be crossed to get to it, ruling out the likelihood of anyone walking from PP17 to it. Residents in PP17 will therefore commute to it by car. There is limited parking at the station which leads to existing residential roads and lanes nearby already being used for commuter parking. PP17 will vastly increase this problem.

There is also no disabled access between the north and south bound platforms at Marks Tey station which means changing trains between the Sudbury branch line and the mainline is difficult for those with impaired mobility. Likewise, anyone with impaired mobility who parks in either of the existing car parks will find themselves on the wrong side of the railway track either at the start of their journey or when they return. There is no mention of upgrading Marks Tey station in PP17.

12.17 also states PP17 could only go ahead on the proviso that it can be demonstrated that additional vehicular movements can be safely accommodated on the A12 and A120 without significantly increasing congestion. Without upgrades to these two major roads this proviso will not be met,

The Marks Tey Neighbourhood Plan, adopted in May 2022 after a Parish Referendum which was accepted by an overwhelming majority and legally accepted into the Local Plan, is completely overridden by PP17 as it outside the Marks Tey Neighbourhood Plan Settlement Area, thus making a mockery of 1.29, the electorate of Marks Tey Parish and the whole local plan process. It just demonstrates that Neighbourhood Plans and the residents that agreed them are to be treated with contempt and ignored.

12.19 accepts that all the growth promoted by PP17 cannot be accommodated without significant upgrades to the A12 and A120. It is intended to show that some development would be acceptable within the overall sites, subject to further evidence being agreed with the highway authority and National Highways. However as both the A120 and A12 are at capacity, evidence allowing some development will not be found within the lifetime of the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025.

EN9 fails for PP17 as it will increase light pollution both during the construction phases and when it is occupied.

GN6 fails for PP17 as it has public footpaths and bridleways which are part of the green network and will be destroyed by development there.

NZ3 fails for PP17 as Anglian Water has already stated that there is a lack of water for the existing population in the whole of East Anglia, both now and going forward, so there will be none to spare for any new development here. Already new developments suffer low water pressure and sometimes no water at all. An example is in Tiptree where the new development there runs out of water when the jam factory puts a demand on it.

H1 and H2 will fail for PP17. Developers will and already doing everything they can to avoid meeting policies such as these. They also do everything they can to get out of any promised infrastructure or community enhancements linked to their schemes, They prefer large three or more bedroom “executive” houses which are very expensive and maximise profits.

In December 2024, Colchester City Council submitted a response to the Government’s New Towns Taskforce Call for Evidence, identifying Marks Tey as a location worth exploring for significant growth. It was done without the knowledge of most Councillors, it was never discussed at the Local Plan Committee, or at any other public meeting, and even the senior Councillor in charge of Planning was either not aware of it or not supportive. No public consultation took place. It was the action of one planning officer acting with one senior councillor. It was only bright to public notice by a Freedom of Information request.

It was never clear if the 20,000 houses it would lead to, would count towards the Council’s housing target anyway. It was only withdrawn because once subjected to public scrutiny it was found those responsible for submitting it had no authority to do so. This action clearly shows that prejudice in favour of large-scale development at Marks Tey exists with certain senior officers and councillors at Colchester City Council so even before any other objections are taken into account, on this basis alone any proposal for the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town should be permanently withdrawn from the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025.

In conclusion, the Inspector will reject PP17 along with the rest of the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town, on the same grounds that West Tey was rejected in 2017, as none of the issues that led to that rejection have been addressed since then, nor will they be within the lifetime of the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025. Therefore, PP17 along with all other references to the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town, should be removed from the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025, to avoid the Council embarrassing itself by having it rejected yet again and avoid subjecting Marks Tey to decades of uncertainty and planning blight. The only proposal for Marks Tey that should be in the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025 is that its Settlement Boundaries should remain as they are.

I am objecting on the grounds of lack of infrastructure to support the building of 2,500 houses per the local plan for sites in Marks Tey. The comment in the proposal PP17 "on the proviso that it can be demonstrated that additional vehicular movements can be safely accommodated on the A12 and A120 without significantly increasing congestion." is disingenuous and cannot possibly have been written by anyone who's ever had the misfortune of trying to travel on either A road in the area. The A120 in a single lane road in many places linking Stansted (an international major London airport) and Harwich International Port. No other area in the country has such defective road infrastructure linking its ports. The roads cannot cope as it is and this is borne out by the number of fatal, serious and slight collisions recorded in the STATS19 data for the area. If additional houses are to be built we must have upgraded road, health and education infrastructure in the area. As it is kids from Marks Tey find the bus driving past them already full so they can't access that to college in Colchester, literally causing parents to have to drive them in or to the station. There are huge difficulties in accessing primary healthcare via GP's and dentists in the area (not helped by huge housebuilding in Stanway taking up all the capacity at surgeries there!). Secondary healthcare is even more tricky with many waiting a very long time for hospital treatment.
In terms of schools, the example of the failure by the developer to get the new school ready on time for those in the Chesterwell development in Colchester naturally prompts suspicion as to whether history will repeat itself in Marks Tey. I am also particularly concerned about landbanking by builders and piecemeal developments of houses at development sizes that look to evade s106 triggers. Finally, there is deep distrust in the area with regard to CCC's plans here as there is a sense that a choice has already been made and in what is felt to be an underhand way https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/25470786.call-better-communication-colchester-council/

If we are to have this scale of additional housing it must come with significant, fully funded road, health and education investment. 2500 houses is a lot of extra families and "need" to accommodate. It's a lot of extra vehicle movements. It's a lot of people who will need healthcare, education places and jobs. Right now the infrastructure is already not coping. I know it must be tempting to think "it'll all work out" but we need our council to stand up for the people who already live here and to ensure that any new homes do not exacerbate existing, well known and documented issues. Without fully funded infrastructure for transport, health and education there is little doubt that things will become very fraught, very quickly. There is a huge opportunity here - to build a new general hospital midway between Colchester General and Broomfield, both of which are well over capacity. It would also provide employment in the area and drive down waiting times so would be seen as a boon for people living on the west side. If planners were really canny they would make it an electives/orthapedic centre with few ambulances and also a co-located huge GP surgery with dentist to serve the new area.

The Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town, of which PP17 forms a substantial part, is justified in the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025 in 12.16 which states that Marks Tey is fragmented by the A12, the A120 and the railway, and 12.17 which states that large areas of land in and around Marks Tey have previously been promoted for development so there is an opportunity for Garden Village scale growth which could help reconnect the village.PP17 will do nothing to reconnect the village as it will be separated from the western part of the village by the A12, the A120 and the railways.

The previously promoted development referred to in 12.17, which was known as West Tey, was rejected by the Inspector when the Local Plan currently in force was submitted to the Inspector in 2017. This was largely because it was recognised that the existing A12 and A120 were at capacity and would not support a development of this size.

Assuming an average of two vehicles per household, PP17 will add approximately 3000 extra vehicles to these roads. This is in addition to the approximately 2000 extra vehicles that the development of PP18 will add. There is recognition that infrastructure improvements will be required in order to support development at the scale promoted by PP17.

This relies mainly on the proposed major upgrades to the A12 and A120. However, the upgrade to the A120 was pushed back to beyond 2030 by the previous government in 2023 and the current Government has confirmed that all plans to take it forward have been dropped. The upgrade to the A12 was cancelled by the current Government in July 2025. There is therefore no prospect of either of these schemes being delivered in the lifetime of the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025.

In regard to the benefits that the Marks Tey railway station brings, it is a very small station. It is only a significant stopping place on` the main line from London to Colchester and beyond because it serves as the junction with the branch line to Sudbury. This is the only reason the fast trains stop there.

It is a long way from PP17 and the A12 and A120 need to be crossed to get to it, ruling out the likelihood of anyone walking from PP17 to it. Residents in PP17 will therefore commute to it by car. There is limited parking at the station which leads to existing residential roads and lanes nearby already being used for commuter parking. PP17 will vastly increase this problem.

There is also no disabled access between the north and south bound platforms at Marks Tey station which means changing trains between the Sudbury branch line and the mainline is difficult for those with impaired mobility. Likewise, anyone with impaired mobility who parks in either of the existing car parks will find themselves on the wrong side of the railway track either at the start of their journey or when they return. There is no mention of upgrading Marks Tey station in PP17.

12.17 also states PP17 could only go ahead on the proviso that it can be demonstrated that additional vehicular movements can be safely accommodated on the A12 and A120 without significantly increasing congestion. Without upgrades to these two major roads this proviso will not be met,

The Marks Tey Neighbourhood Plan, adopted in May 2022 after a Parish Referendum which was accepted by an overwhelming majority and legally accepted into the Local Plan, is completely overridden by PP17 as it outside the Marks Tey Neighbourhood Plan Settlement Area, thus making a mockery of 1.29, the electorate of Marks Tey Parish and the whole local plan process. It just demonstrates that Neighbourhood Plans and the residents that agreed them are to be treated with contempt and ignored.

12.19 accepts that all the growth promoted by PP17 cannot be accommodated without significant upgrades to the A12 and A120. It is intended to show that some development would be acceptable within the overall sites, subject to further evidence being agreed with the highway authority and National Highways. However as both the A120 and A12 are at capacity, evidence allowing some development will not be found within the lifetime of the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025.

EN9 fails for PP17 as it will increase light pollution both during the construction phases and when it is occupied.

GN6 fails for PP17 as it has public footpaths and bridleways which are part of the green network and will be destroyed by development there.

NZ3 fails for PP17 as Anglian Water has already stated that there is a lack of water for the existing population in the whole of East Anglia, both now and going forward, so there will be none to spare for any new development here. Already new developments suffer low water pressure and sometimes no water at all. An example is in Tiptree where the new development there runs out of water when the jam factory puts a demand on it.

H1 and H2 will fail for PP17. Developers will and already doing everything they can to avoid meeting policies such as these. They also do everything they can to get out of any promised infrastructure or community enhancements linked to their schemes, They prefer large three or more bedroom “executive” houses which are very expensive and maximise profits.

In December 2024, Colchester City Council submitted a response to the Government’s New Towns Taskforce Call for Evidence, identifying Marks Tey as a location worth exploring for significant growth. It was done without the knowledge of most Councillors, it was never discussed at the Local Plan Committee, or at any other public meeting, and even the senior Councillor in charge of Planning was either not aware of it or not supportive. No public consultation took place. It was the action of one planning officer acting with one senior councillor. It was only bright to public notice by a Freedom of Information request.

It was never clear if the 20,000 houses it would lead to, would count towards the Council’s housing target anyway. It was only withdrawn because once subjected to public scrutiny it was found those responsible for submitting it had no authority to do so. This action clearly shows that prejudice in favour of large-scale development at Marks Tey exists with certain senior officers and councillors at Colchester City Council so even before any other objections are taken into account, on this basis alone any proposal for the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town should be permanently withdrawn from the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025.

In conclusion, the Inspector will reject PP17 along with the rest of the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town, on the same grounds that West Tey was rejected in 2017, as none of the issues that led to that rejection have been addressed since then, nor will they be within the lifetime of the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025. Therefore, PP17 along with all other references to the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town, should be removed from the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025, to avoid the Council embarrassing itself by having it rejected yet again and avoid subjecting Marks Tey to decades of uncertainty and planning blight. The only proposal for Marks Tey that should be in the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025 is that its Settlement Boundaries should remain as they are.

The Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town, of which PP17 forms a substantial part, is justified in the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025 in 12.16 which states that Marks Tey is fragmented by the A12, the A120 and the railway, and 12.17 which states that large areas of land in and around Marks Tey have previously been promoted for development so there is an opportunity for Garden Village scale growth which could help reconnect the village.PP17 will do nothing to reconnect the village as it will be separated from the western part of the village by the A12, the A120 and the railways.

The previously promoted development referred to in 12.17, which was known as West Tey, was rejected by the Inspector when the Local Plan currently in force was submitted to the Inspector in 2017. This was largely because it was recognised that the existing A12 and A120 were at capacity and would not support a development of this size.

Assuming an average of two vehicles per household, PP17 will add approximately 3000 extra vehicles to these roads. This is in addition to the approximately 2000 extra vehicles that the development of PP18 will add. There is recognition that infrastructure improvements will be required in order to support development at the scale promoted by PP17.

This relies mainly on the proposed major upgrades to the A12 and A120. However, the upgrade to the A120 was pushed back to beyond 2030 by the previous government in 2023 and the current Government has confirmed that all plans to take it forward have been dropped. The upgrade to the A12 was cancelled by the current Government in July 2025. There is therefore no prospect of either of these schemes being delivered in the lifetime of the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025.

In regard to the benefits that the Marks Tey railway station brings, it is a very small station. It is only a significant stopping place one the main line from London to Colchester and beyond because it serves as the junction with the branch line to Sudbury. This is the only reason the fast trains stop there.

It is a long way from PP17 and the A12 and A120 need to be crossed to get to it, ruling out the likelihood of anyone walking from PP17 to it. Residents in PP17 will therefore commute to it by car. There is limited parking at the station which leads to existing residential roads and lanes nearby already being used for commuter parking. PP17 will vastly increase this problem.

There is also no disabled access between the north and south bound platforms at Marks Tey station which means changing trains between the Sudbury branch line and the mainline is difficult for those with impaired mobility. Likewise, anyone with impaired mobility who parks in either of the existing car parks will find themselves on the wrong side of the railway track either at the start of their journey or when they return. There is no mention of upgrading Marks Tey station in PP17.

12.17 also states PP17 could only go ahead on the proviso that it can be demonstrated that additional vehicular movements can be safely accommodated on the A12 and A120 without significantly increasing congestion. Without upgrades to these two major roads this proviso will not be met.

In conclusion ST7 fails for PP17.

The Marks Tey Neighbourhood Plan, adopted in May 2022 after a Parish Referendum which was accepted by an overwhelming majority and legally accepted into the Local Plan, is completely overridden by PP17 as it outside the Marks Tey Neighbourhood Plan Settlement Area, thus making a mockery of 1.29, the electorate of Marks Tey Parish and the whole local plan process. It just demonstrates that Neighbourhood Plans and the residents that agreed them are to be treated with contempt and ignored.

12.19 accepts that all the growth promoted by PP17 cannot be accommodated without significant upgrades to the A12 and A120. It is intended to show that some development would be acceptable within the overall sites, subject to further evidence being agreed with the highway authority and National Highways. However as both the A120 and A12 are at capacity, evidence allowing some development will not be found within the lifetime of the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025.

EN9 fails for PP17 as it will increase light pollution both during the construction phases and when it is occupied.

GN6 fails for PP17 as it has public footpaths and bridleways which are part of the green network and will be destroyed by development there.

NZ3 fails for PP17 as Anglian Water has already stated that there is a lack of water for the existing population in the whole of East Anglia, both now and going forward, so there will be none to spare for any new development here. Already new developments suffer low water pressure and sometimes no water at all. An example is in Tiptree where the new development there runs out of water when the jam factory puts a demand on it.

H1 and H2 will fail for PP17. Developers will and already doing everything they can to avoid meeting policies such as these. They also do everything they can to get out of any promised infrastructure or community enhancements linked to their schemes, They prefer large three or more bedroom “executive” houses which are very expensive and maximise profits.

In December 2024, Colchester City Council submitted a response to the Government’s New Towns Taskforce Call for Evidence, identifying Marks Tey as a location worth exploring for significant growth. It was done without the knowledge of most Councillors, it was never discussed at the Local Plan Committee, or at any other public meeting, and even the senior Councillor in charge of Planning was either not aware of it or not supportive. No public consultation took place. It was the action of one planning officer acting with one senior councillor. It was only bright to public notice by a Freedom of Information request.

It was never clear if the 20,000 houses it would lead to, would count towards the Council’s housing target anyway. It was only withdrawn because once subjected to public scrutiny it was found those responsible for submitting it had no authority to do so. This action clearly shows that prejudice in favour of large-scale development at Marks Tey exists with certain senior officers and councillors at Colchester City Council so even before any other objections are taken into account, on this basis alone any proposal for the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town should be permanently withdrawn from the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025.

In conclusion, the Inspector will reject PP17 along with the rest of the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town, on the same grounds that West Tey was rejected in 2017, as none of the issues that led to that rejection have been addressed since then, nor will they be within the lifetime of the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025. Therefore, PP17 along with all other references to the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town, should be removed from the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025, to avoid the Council embarrassing itself by having it rejected yet again and avoid subjecting Marks Tey to decades of uncertainty and planning blight. The only proposal for Marks Tey that should be in the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025 is that its Settlement Boundaries should remain as they are.

With regard to the proposed changes to the local plan, whilst I understand that future housing targets have to be met, it is of course important that they are located where they would cause the least disruption to existing residents and with the most convenience to all.

To this end I am commentating in respect of Copford in particular.

It is vitally important that the local environment and character of the area are preserved. This would include among other things maintaining the separation of local parishes and the retention of the local countryside.

The proposal is for a large number of houses to be built in the Marks Tey area - approximately 1500 South East of the A12 (behind Marks Tey shops), of which 600 would be within the Copford boundary and 300 along School Road and either side of the village hall.

Prime Farmland

Most, if not all, of the land proposed for housing is good quality, productive farmland. It is very shortsighted indeed to destroy this by using it for housing when there are other areas that could be developed. It is clear from events in the news and as evidenced by the war in Ukraine, that we should be producing as much of our food as possible in the UK, preferably locally. Large areas of farmland have already been taken for the solar farm, so we must preserve what we have left.

Traffic

Traffic is a major concern. The A12 and A120 are both heavily congested, with daily queues along the A120. These have the inevitable consequence of bringing the roundabout where the A120 joins the A 12 at junction 24 to a standstill, making it

Page I 1difficult to leave the A12 from the Northbound carriageway. As it is reasonable to assume that many of the new households will want to travel to and from work along the A12 and/or A120, we can roughly estimate that the proposed new homes would bring another 1800 - 3600 cars into the equation (and that's without adding in the additional traffic from the other houses proposed in the area north of Marks Tey).

In addition to the congestion, we have to also consider the safety aspect, as the are constant (almost daily) accidents up and down the A12.

There was a proposal for widening the A12, but this has of course been scrapped. If this work on the A12 was considered necessary for even the existing housing, it is difficult to see how these roads would cope with the level of new homes proposed for the Copford area.

Anglian Water

I understand that the infrastructure, both with regard to the provision of clean drinking water and the processing of sewerage is pretty much at capacity. Further, we are told that there is no funding in Anglian Water's current 5 year plan for upgrades to the local infrastructure. Seemingly then, it will not support such a large number of houses.

Other Local Services

It is apparent that there has been a significant decline in the access to services provided by local health providers such as dentists, doctors etc. This seems to be predominantly to be as a result of the increase in population that has already taken place, so serious consideration would need to be given to how and if they could cope with such a large population increase.

With regard to the proposed site at School Road in particular:

Pitts Wood

Pitts wood is a protected and extremely valuable ancient woodland and wildlife habitat. It is home to nesting nightingales - a species that has suffered a decline of over 90% in recent decades due to habitat loss. Whilst there may be a proposal for a buffer zone, this will not stop the inevitable noise, traffic pollution, light pollution and disturbance for an increased number of local residents walking through there, as would be their right to do. There would likely be an increase in the number of dogs which of course would further disturb the wildlife in the woods.

Traffic

Page I 2I have previously mentioned the effect on the A12 and A120. But in respect of the School Road site there are other considerations. The only viable access is probably onto School Road itself. This will lead to almost all the addition 300 to 600 extra cars trying to leave via the T junction with London Road. This is a junction that is already very busy and that entails pulling into or across heavy traffic along London Road. This leads to obvious concerns regarding congestion and safety. It is not an option for traffic to be routed the other way towards Copford Green. With regard to public transport, I don't believe there are any buses along School Road, so anyone with out a car would need to walk to London Road.

Alternative Sites I understand that Colchester City Council has targets to meet so, as houses have to be built, I think that we must look to build on land that is not prime farmland and in particular priority must be given to sites around that are unfarmed.

Conclusion In summary my primary concerns in order of importance to me personally are: 1. Detrimental effects on Pitts Wood and its associated wildlife. 2. Destruction of prime farmland. 3. Increased traffic and congestion.

I hope I have expressed my concerns adequately and that they, along with the concerns of others, can be taken into account in the next draft of the plan. Regards Mrs F A Read

1) 1500 houses proposed plus 300 in copford and another 1000 in Marks tey would cause absolutely chaos on the A120,. The A120 being only two lanes has terrible delays and accidents. Any Road works or just one car breaks down absolutely chaos!
London road copford as well as school Road have so much traffic all ready this would cause, near by village, Not to be safe. plans need have less houses and better infrastructure. Schools, doctors, dentists, playgroups.
2)Using good quality farmland breaches the National planning policy favouring brownfield development.

I have lived in Marks Tey for 20 years. 10 years ago I started my own business working locally and over the last 5 years I have stopped travelling to Braintree & Colchester due to volume of traffic on the A120 travel time is too long. If more houses are built it would cause more disruption to the roads. A120 speed limit has been reduced to 50mph due to the amount of accidents and more traffic would increase this risk.
Extra houses built in the tollgate area have caused the volume of traffic to increase causing gridlock on the roads in Tollgate and surrounding areas.
The infrastructure of marks tey could not cope with extra people and extra vehicles.

The Councils view of Marks Tey as a sustainable location for development and the allocations under policies PP17 and PP18 are supported, however, we do have some concerns particularly in relation to the level of development that can be achieved within the plan period in light of the significant infrastructure improvements that are required for development of this scale, and which can often take some time to work through. This needs to be taken into consideration. In this regard it is suggested that alongside the extension of the plan period further allocations are required at Marks Tey in the short-term.

Per supporting documentation waste water treatment in the Copford Marks Tey area is inadequate for the housing proposed in the plan. Capacity flagged is 1600 homes by 2033. How will this limitation be managed across all the impacted sites and where is the plan to feed into Anglian Water's AMP9 planning to meet future need. With the scale of growth in the Marks Tey area there needs to be a Masterplan for the wider area to manage issues like this rather than see uncoordinated and potentially conflicting development

This idea of building near on 2500 homes in the Marks Tey area is nothing but a joke! Whilst i appreciate we're an expanding country and need more homes.... what we need more is a better infrastructure. The A120 is a road that is no longer fit for purpose... particularly between Marks Tey and Braintree.. On a regular basis it's gridlocked at both ends of the day...including some weekends. Invest in better roads and then look at building more homes. Now that the government have scrapped the A12 project of 3 lanes between Marks Tey and Boreham... this surely is an omen that more homes in the Marks Tey area would only cripple a weakened rooad network.

There is no infrastructure in Marks Tey for settlements on this scale. Already decided by previous planning inspector West Tey "debarkle. Same again with no A12. A12, A120 the B1048 already overloaded gridlocked. Shopping center at Tollgate busy times, takes 90 mins to get to home, Doctors Surgery full, Dentists full, Hospital 4 hours waiting, Schools full, Sewage treatment overloaded Copford, Sewage lorries take sludge away, Low water pressure London Road B1048, no parking shops we have in village.
project not sustainable without spending major and minor roads in area local parking for shops which are struggling because no parking.

Copford and Marks Tey are both already negatively impacted by the travel and road issues regularly presented by Stanway/Stane Park due to poor planning. To build the equivalent in Marks Tey would negatively bracket Copford in the middle, causing infrastructure issues as London Road already struggles with the traffic from the pre-existing sites and the A12/A120. Areas in Stanway, such as the estate next to Stane Park haven't been positively affected by a retail site next door, with increased anti social behaviours and noise causing house sales on this estate. Alongside the issues not addressed here re. Schools/doctors etc

Although this plan is smaller than the one rejected in 2020.

Uncertainty of A12/A120 improvements (2020), not even proposed upgrades going forward to these two major routes.
Employment in the area, has this been factored in to the new proposal.
The UK, particularly the South and East of England, faces significant and worsening water scarcity due to climate change, population growth, and increased demand.
Modern garden communities are just sprawling estates, lacking the integrated jobs, shops, and services needed to be truly self-sufficient, making them indistinguishable from typical developments.
Input from Colchester City Council, look at the RTS debacle.

I do not think that the number of homes proportionate to the size of the area. More than doubles the size of this parish. What plans are there to treat sewage as I’m not sure local sewage can cope. I do not believe that infrastructure and services will be delivered ahead of housing infrastructure, e.g Schools, GP’s, Shops, Dentists etc. Does the proposed development be in line with local housing needs?