as previous

This large site is located within the wider setting of a large number of listed buildings including two Grade listed churches.
Initial assessment
A full Heritage Impact Assessment will be essential to determine whether the site can be allocated, and to identify appropriate mitigation measures or opportunities for enhancement. The resulting recommendations should then be incorporated into criteria ‘l’ of Policy PP12.

The a120 can not cope with the currant volume of traffic more housing re marks tey and braintree will see this road at stand still more than moving traffic it already has accidents daily and is not fit for the volume it has already using it along with the a12 this side of colchester needs more thought on roads before more houses are built the evening gazett published the daily usage of the a120 recently and its around 21000 far more than in recent year with stanstead a bigger airport than before .

I am concerned that this is over development of the area.

No new development until A120 traffic resolved.

No development north of A120 (PP18) before the A120 has first been fully upgraded

No development north of A120 (PP18) before the A120 has first been fully upgraded

Comments as follows:
1. Positive to see the Roman River Corridor inclusion, and to see the high value Colne Valley landscapes recognised in the Landscape Character Assessment.
2. Positive to see mobility hubs and increased attempts at providing for sustainable transport.
3. Concern that the Brownfield Land Register remains very limited and focuses almost entirely on the urban area of Colchester. More should be done to proactively identify brownfield sites across the entire city boundary.
4. Concern that affordable housing delivery has only been 16% per annum on average for the past eight years and that the viability appraisals that accompany this plan must be rigrously tested to ensure that they are robust.
5. Concern that the strategy for Eight Ash Green results in car-dependent ribbon development along the 1124. Site PP32 should not be allocated. It represents unacceptable encroachment into the countryside.
6. Further concern that PP32 conflicts with the previous and latest Colchester Landscape Character Assesssments which seek to protect the Colne Valley. The site will be highly visible from Fordham and Chappel and cannot be screened. See attached by way of example. PP32 should not be allocated.
7. Allocation of Marks Tey North. All housing should be concentrated to the south of the site, in a high density development. Much of the Roman River must be kept inaccessible from residents and their dogs to ensure nature can flourish in the Nature Recovery area. The development must be safely connected to Marks Tey station by pedestrian and bike paths that do not use the polluted A120.
8. There should be minimum density requirements for all sites, not just urban ones.
9. The policy wording for conversions should change from 'only supported' to 'strongly supported.
10. There would be a policy to strongly support the bringing back of empty homes into use. An additional SA Monitoring indicator is required for number of homes brought back into use.

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.

1) Deer regularly move north of the A120 coggeshall to Aldham. Their routes should be taken into consideration when building north of the A120 at Marks Tey. They are slowly being squeezed with local developments surrounding them.

My comments made in my representation for PP17 are relevant for PP18 so these should be taken into account.
In addition there will be the need for the development of local facilities including Schools for pupils of age groups 3 to 16. The local primary and secondary schools are at capacity, some over subscribed so there will need to be additional education facilities provided.
There will a need for additional medical facilities, ie GP surgery provision, dental service provision and hospital provision. For all of these, it is difficult to get appointments already without any additional numbers of persons.
moving into the proposed developments. Will any of these requirements be ready for use during the building stage of the proposed development? in my opinion - of course not.

The A120 is congested with 23000 vehicles using it daily creating a bottle neck at Marks Tey. The village is already divided by the A12 and the A120. New developments cannot unite it. The access for the site will be onto the roundabout at Ashbury drive. This is already difficult to pull onto the A120 du traffic.
The rail station is small and serves to connect Sudbury to the main line. it would not be walkable in 15 minutes from the proposed sites. There is congestion at the Marks Tey interchange daily, traffic queues to join the A120 Braintree bound.

Undue pressure on Old London Road and the A12/A120 means this proposal is not practicable until through traffic has another route, i.e. implementation of the proposed bypass and widening of the A12.

Where will the access to the new development site be? If it is to be directly onto the A120 in Marks Tey, this is already a constant que of traffic in both directions to get through Marks Tey and the road infrastructure is not sufficient to take 1,000 more homes and the associated traffic. The access would need to be to the north of the development

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

The proposal of two new residential areas in the Marks Tey area is an absurd proposal!
I assume the planners have never travelled along the A120 from Marks Tey to Braintree and back - if they had, they would not be adding 2500 homes and vehicles to the area.
The A120 (MT -B) already has 23000 vehicle users a day, which could rise to 26000 with the addition of the proposed new homes. The road has not been fit for purpose in the 33 years I have lived in the village, a much needed by-pass has been long awaited.

Direct impact on equestrians. Known rural area with several private riding establishments and farms. Any connection within and throughout the site to Public Rights of Way for green infrastructure and recreational access to the countryside, including active travel connections, must include equestrian access. Direct impact on bridleway 10 and bridleway 20. Proposal to expand this into continuous circular off-road routes to access green space. Perimeter, circular, tracks are ideal. Additional riding opportunities will be required due to population growth and increased traffic. Riding opportunities will help offset population growth and demand for green space. PRoW connectivity should aim to connect villages and communities, thereby expanding the green corridor network. Additional riding opportunities are essential to protect the area's rural character. Horses can be easily incorporated into cycleways; there is no need for user segregation or additional costs.

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?

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.

1000 homes, of the 2500, proposed for Marks Tey are to be situated between the A120 and the railway line to Sudbury. We need to see a Master plan of how the infrastructure will be built to avoid having the access from these to come onto the already very congested A120. Another concern is children getting to the Primary school. It is too dangerous to cross the A120 and the other alternative is by car. This will increase the traffic around the school area 2 or 3 fold during the school run. Very dangerous for all attending the school.

Traffic is already the stuff of nightmares at rush hour. Bus service is minimal. Existing infrastructure will not cope with these 1000 houses, let alone another 1500 over the A12. There are birds of prey living in the area. What of Schools, hospital & other facilities? What evidence is there that such a large quantity of homes is needed in this area?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1.29 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 the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025.