This policy needs significant amendment:

1. A requirement that planning permission and full funding is in place for the new A120 between Braintree and the A12 is in place before any planning permission is given
2. A requirement that the RTS extension (£37m) and Colchester West Park and Choose are planned and funded before planning permission is given.

The allocated area is nearly triple the area required for 1500 dwellings at 30dph, presumably to accommodate BNG, SUDS, ancillary infrastructure and protection for the Roman River environs. It must be clear that 1000 is a maximum and that all those items will be included in the masterplan.

The Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town, of which PP18 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.PP18 will do nothing to reconnect the village as it will be separated from the eastern parts 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, PP18 will add approximately 2000 extra vehicles to these roads. This is in addition to the approximately 3000 extra vehicles that the development of PP17 will add. There is recognition that infrastructure improvements will be required in order to support development at the scale promoted by PP18.

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.

To get there from PP18 currently involves walking along the side of the busy A120. Even if a pedestrian walks on the footway as far as possible from the kerb, in heavy rain, they will be drenched from the bow waves of vehicles passing through the deep puddles in the kerb. I have personally experienced this.

Residents in PP18 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. PP18 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 PP18.

12.17 also states PP18 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 PP18 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 PP18 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.

EN8 fails for PP18 as it has areas classified as Flood Zones 2 and 3 within it. To the south of these zones and to the north of the A120, land not classified as a flood zone, where development will occur, is currently agricultural fields which often have standing water on them after periods of heavy rain. Development will inhibit runoff leading to this standing water not only flooding the new development but also being displaced to the south onto the A120 and the existing village beyond.

EN9 fails for PP18 as it will increase light pollution both during the construction phases and when it is occupied.

GN6 fails for PP18 as it has public footpaths and bridleways which are part of the green network and will be destroyed by development there.

LC1 fails for PP18 as the Marks Tey Neighbourhood Plan 2022 defines several Locally Important Views within the areas of these proposals.

NZ3 fails for PP18 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 a 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 PP18. 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.
CS5 will fail for PP18. There is an SSSI within it. Has an EN3 Local Wildlife site within it. Even if these specific areas are not developed, the adjacent development will likely destroy them as wildlife will not be able to enter or leave them and will be subjected to a huge increase in pollution including from noise and light which has proven negative effects on wildlife.

Policy PC2 Colchester City Council has a poor record of providing this as the existing cycle routes are fragmented and difficult to access so get very little use. The Northern Gateway RTS has been an expensive failure which was delivered over budget and way behind schedule and has achieved nothing. There is no indication this will change Once councils are merged it will get worse. Also, there are no plans indicated to build such a system for Marks Tey or how it would be funded. Marks Tey will have large extra developments but will still have to struggle with the existing at capacity roads and very limited bus service.

Colchester City Council has a poor record of meeting the ambitions of PC4 as evidenced by all recent developments in the City Council area. There is no indication this will change. Once councils are merged it will get worse.

Colchester City Council has a poor record of meeting the ambitions of PC6 as evidenced by all recent developments in the City Council area. There is no indication this will change. Once councils are merged it will get worse.

Properties in Marks Tey used to sell quickly, but since the initial announcement of the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town last year, sales of properties have slowed considerably as no one wants to move to a village that might become part of the urban sprawl of Greater Colchester.

The route of the proposed Norwich to Tilbury electricity power line passes right through PP18 yet there is no mention of it in the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025. If the power line is installed there will be cables suspended from 50m high pylons right across the site. Already properties along the proposed cable route have seen a significant reduction in their value so it is clear that it will be difficult to sell any dwellings that are built near them as no one wants a pylon or suspended power cables on or near their property so developers whose only motivation is profit, will be unwilling to build in PP18. If the development in PP18 is built first it will be impossible to build the power line there as there will be no access for construction vehicles. The residents of Marks Tey want neither the power line nor the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town as neither brings any benefit to them.

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 PP18 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, PP18 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 PP18 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.PP18 will do nothing to reconnect the village as it will be separated from the eastern parts 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, PP18 will add approximately 2000 extra vehicles to these roads. This is in addition to the approximately 3000 extra vehicles that the development of PP17 will add. There is recognition that infrastructure improvements will be required in order to support development at the scale promoted by PP18.

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.

To get there from PP18 currently involves walking along the side of the busy A120. Even if a pedestrian walks on the footway as far as possible from the kerb, in heavy rain, they will be drenched from the bow waves of vehicles passing through the deep puddles in the kerb. I have personally experienced this.

Residents in PP18 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. PP18 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 PP18.

12.17 also states PP18 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 PP18 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 PP18 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.

EN8 fails for PP18 as it has areas classified as Flood Zones 2 and 3 within it. To the south of these zones and to the north of the A120, land not classified as a flood zone, where development will occur, is currently agricultural fields which often have standing water on them after periods of heavy rain. Development will inhibit runoff leading to this standing water not only flooding the new development but also being displaced to the south onto the A120 and the existing village beyond.

EN9 fails for PP18 as it will increase light pollution both during the construction phases and when it is occupied.

GN6 fails for PP18 as it has public footpaths and bridleways which are part of the green network and will be destroyed by development there.

LC1 fails for PP18 as the Marks Tey Neighbourhood Plan 2022 defines several Locally Important Views within the areas of these proposals.

NZ3 fails for PP18 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 a 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 PP18. 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.
CS5 will fail for PP18. There is an SSSI within it. Has an EN3 Local Wildlife site within it. Even if these specific areas are not developed, the adjacent development will likely destroy them as wildlife will not be able to enter or leave them and will be subjected to a huge increase in pollution including from noise and light which has proven negative effects on wildlife.

Policy PC2 Colchester City Council has a poor record of providing this as the existing cycle routes are fragmented and difficult to access so get very little use. The Northern Gateway RTS has been an expensive failure which was delivered over budget and way behind schedule and has achieved nothing. There is no indication this will change Once councils are merged it will get worse. Also, there are no plans indicated to build such a system for Marks Tey or how it would be funded. Marks Tey will have large extra developments but will still have to struggle with the existing at capacity roads and very limited bus service.

Colchester City Council has a poor record of meeting the ambitions of PC4 as evidenced by all recent developments in the City Council area. There is no indication this will change. Once councils are merged it will get worse.

Colchester City Council has a poor record of meeting the ambitions of PC6 as evidenced by all recent developments in the City Council area. There is no indication this will change. Once councils are merged it will get worse.

Properties in Marks Tey used to sell quickly, but since the initial announcement of the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town last year, sales of properties have slowed considerably as no one wants to move to a village that might become part of the urban sprawl of Greater Colchester.

The route of the proposed Norwich to Tilbury electricity power line passes right through PP18 yet there is no mention of it in the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025. If the power line is installed there will be cables suspended from 50m high pylons right across the site. Already properties along the proposed cable route have seen a significant reduction in their value so it is clear that it will be difficult to sell any dwellings that are built near them as no one wants a pylon or suspended power cables on or near their property so developers whose only motivation is profit, will be unwilling to build in PP18. If the development in PP18 is built first it will be impossible to build the power line there as there will be no access for construction vehicles. The residents of Marks Tey want neither the power line nor the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town as neither brings any benefit to them.

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 PP18 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, PP18 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 PP18 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.PP18 will do nothing to reconnect the village as it will be separated from the eastern parts 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, PP18 will add approximately 2000 extra vehicles to these roads. This is in addition to the approximately 3000 extra vehicles that the development of PP17 will add. There is recognition that infrastructure improvements will be required in order to support development at the scale promoted by PP18.

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.

To get there from PP18 currently involves walking along the side of the busy A120. Even if a pedestrian walks on the footway as far as possible from the kerb, in heavy rain, they will be drenched from the bow waves of vehicles passing through the deep puddles in the kerb. I have personally experienced this.

Residents in PP18 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. PP18 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 PP18.

12.17 also states PP18 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 PP18.

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 PP18 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 PP18 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.

EN8 fails for PP18 as it has areas classified as Flood Zones 2 and 3 within it. To the south of these zones and to the north of the A120, land not classified as a flood zone, where development will occur, is currently agricultural fields which often have standing water on them after periods of heavy rain. Development will inhibit runoff leading to this standing water not only flooding the new development but also being displaced to the south onto the A120 and the existing village beyond.

EN9 fails for PP18 as it will increase light pollution both during the construction phases and when it is occupied.

GN6 fails for PP18 as it has public footpaths and bridleways which are part of the green network and will be destroyed by development there.

LC1 fails for PP18 as the Marks Tey Neighbourhood Plan 2022 defines several Locally Important Views within the areas of these proposals.

NZ3 fails for PP18 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 a 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 PP18. 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.

CS5 will fail for PP18. There is an SSSI within it. Has an EN3 Local Wildlife site within it. Even if these specific areas are not developed, the adjacent development will likely destroy them as wildlife will not be able to enter or leave them and will be subjected to a huge increase in pollution including from noise and light which has proven negative effects on wildlife.

Policy PC2 Colchester City Council has a poor record of providing this as the existing cycle routes are fragmented and difficult to access so get very little use. The Northern Gateway RTS has been an expensive failure which was delivered over budget and way behind schedule and has achieved nothing. There is no indication this will change Once councils are merged it will get worse. Also, there are no plans indicated to build such a system for Marks Tey or how it would be funded. Marks Tey will have large extra developments but will still have to struggle with the existing at capacity roads and very limited bus service.

Colchester City Council has a poor record of meeting the ambitions of PC4 as evidenced by all recent developments in the City Council area. There is no indication this will change. Once councils are merged it will get worse.

Colchester City Council has a poor record of meeting the ambitions of PC6 as evidenced by all recent developments in the City Council area. There is no indication this will change. Once councils are merged it will get worse.

Properties in Marks Tey used to sell quickly, but since the initial announcement of the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town last year, sales of properties have slowed considerably as no one wants to move to a village that might become part of the urban sprawl of Greater Colchester.

The route of the proposed Norwich to Tilbury electricity power line passes right through PP18 yet there is no mention of it in the Preferred Options Local Plan 2025. If the power line is installed there will be cables suspended from 50m high pylons right across the site. Already properties along the proposed cable route have seen a significant reduction in their value so it is clear that it will be difficult to sell any dwellings that are built near them as no one wants a pylon or suspended power cables on or near their property so developers whose only motivation is profit, will be unwilling to build in PP18. If the development in PP18 is built first it will be impossible to build the power line there as there will be no access for construction vehicles. The residents of Marks Tey want neither the power line nor the Marks Tey Growth Area /New Town as neither brings any benefit to them.

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 PP18 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, PP18 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.

Currently there is not enough infrastructure in place to support the increase in number of houses. Marks Tey has no doctors nor dentist, and waiting lists in nearby locations are difficult to get on to. The local senior schools are struggling with the large numbers, and a new senior school would need to be built. The A120 is horrdenous for residentants living on the Marks Tey estaste to get out especially at communiting times, but also during the day. You hope you don't have an accident while turning right into the estate, numbers of people have had accidents, and sometimes you have to stop in the middle of the road as people don't stop for you. The 1000 houses leading on to the A120 could easily mean 2000 more cars. The queues leading to the roundabout by the railway station can sometimes be a few miles long, and common for them to be ending outside of Marks Tey. The A120 and its network is not built for the current amount of cars. The upgrading plans of the A12, which were cancelled, and linking the A120 to it earlier may have helped eleviate the issues but it was cancelled yet again - I seem to remember schemes for this have been going on for over 40 years some getting to public consultation but always being cancelled. Stanway with the new shopping centre is horrible due to the car park being unable to cope with the amount of traffic - there are times that is can take you over forty minutes regularly to get out of the car park and the road network around there blocks up especially on a Friday afternoon or Saturday morning. I know people who lived in the new houses at Stanway near the shopping centre who have moved out due to the traffic.

I object to the proposal of the amount of new homes North of a120 at Marks Tey. The upgrade of the a120 and a12 has been stopped , and having experience driving daily on both roads is horrendous. The a120 cannot cope with amount and size of vehicles. This is my main concern and the loss of beautiful countryside, wildlife. West Tey was scrapped so how can this proposal be better..its worse. Nothing on this scale would be an improvement but totally detrimental to the area.

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

The A120 cannot cope with the current traffic and the improvements have now been cancelled by the current government. You cannot be serious about the Marks Tey development- it would be a disaster.

There needs to be a masterplan for the proposed Marks Tey development adjacent to the A120. This not only needs to address the housing mix, but also the need to re-route the A120 at that point since it is already very heavily used and any additional pressure on it is likely to have health implications ( vehicle fumes) and economic impacts for companies whose vehicles have to negotiate the route to and from all manner of locations. infrastructure relating to new development will need to meet the needs of the expanded community - inc. shops , schools and leisure facilities.

PP17 to be read with PP18. These forced enlargements of the village of Marks Tey are trebling the size of the settlement. It is acknowledged that the village is already split by the highways and railway.

There is no attempt by the planners to bring cohesion and connectivity, especially for pedestrians. It is unlikely that developers will have these aims in mind even when applying the conditions for use of space. Consideration must be given to binding the north and south areas of development by oversailing or diverting the highways before any development is progressed.

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.

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.

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.

The context and assumptions behind the Marks Tey Growth Area have been completely altered by the decision to abandon the A12 improvements and the absence of any long term solution for the A120, which takes account of any further development to the east in Braintree District. However, given limited options the long term potential for growth at Marks Tey is recognised. A clear set of criteria for relating any growth at Marks Tey to improvements to the A12 and A120 is needed at the outset to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity. The vague references in the supporting text paras.12.16 - 12.19 to 'an opportunity for Garden Village scale growth' needs further defining and strengthening to provide both clarity and a long term vision, with an indication of an appropriate scale of development for the Plan period to 2041 and beyond. This needs to be informed by a comprehensive set of broad master plan principles that would replace Policies PP17 and 18. The Master Plan should demonstrate if, or how, development north of A120 and south of the A12 can form a coherent community with successful placemaking and how any development deals with the A120 and access to the Rail Station. Whilst the overall scale would need to be substantially less than the previous 'Garden Community' the Council already has an extensive library of background information and evidence to draw on to assist this process. The current allocations in PP17, PP18 are arbitrary, based on land ownership rather than any place making principles or vision and should be withdrawn. PEP5 is probably undeliverable as currently shown following the A12 decision. The residents of not just Marks Tey but of all the villages on the west side of Colchester deserve a better Plan than this. Aldham Parish is aware of, and supports, work that has been undertaken on behalf of Marks Tey Parish Council on some options for how proposed development at Marks Tey could be shaped. We encourage the City Council to work with local communities to ensure the Reg.19 Draft proposals for Marks Tey can be supported.
With specific reference to the allocation shown for PP18, the northern half of the site lies within the Parish of Aldham and much of it within the Roman River Valley that has designation in the Local Nature Recovery Strategy. Much of this area should be protected from development as Strategic Green Space, and of sufficient scale to allow a range of suitable habitats. This should be more explicit in any policy that includes this land. The current reference to 'substantively more than 10%' in PP18 does not reflect this and needs much better definition and any policy supporting an allocation north of the A120 should be underpinned by some key master planning principles that show how the garden village ambition could be achieved. This could include altering the boundaries to PP18 to better relate it to place making principles, including access to and development around Marks Tey station.

The provision of public open space to accommodate formal and informal sport and leisure as required by requirement b) of the policy is supported as a development of 1,000 dwellings would justify on-site provision for sports facilities. The additional demand associated with the scale of development will be difficult to be met by improving the capacity of nearby facilities in the local area. The policy could be improved by requiring the provision of an open space, sport and recreation strategy to be prepared to support development proposals which aligns with an approved masterplan in order to provide a strategic framework for considering open space, sport and recreation provision in future planning applications. Such a strategy could also consider the needs of potential longer term growth outside of the Local Plan period. This approach would be justified by the Council’s sports evidence base, Policy CS4: Sports Provision and Government policy in the NPPF especially paragraph 103.

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.

As a resident of Feering I object to development of this scale without the pre requisite of completion of A12 and A120 improvements, and other community based capacity available for education, medical practices and local shops. The combined impact of the proposed development in tiptree and selves on Feering ( e.g current plan for 5000 new dwelling in Kelvedon kings dene)

This is far too large a development for the site. FPs should be upgraded to multi-user routes.

The Colchester site allocation policies and the infrastructure policy should make it possible to secure adequate infrastructure to support the proposed growth. However, it will be important for this mitigation to consider planned development in Colchester and Braintree districts in a coordinated way.

Green space needs to be considered protecting existing footpaths, bridleways, PRoW and new ones included which link to existing paths. Safe off road access for vulnerable users - walking, cycling and horse riders - needs to be included in the planning process.

We support the Draft Site Allocation Policy PP18: Land North of A120, Marks Tey Growth Area, which proposes a mixed use development comprising approx. 1,000 new dwellings. The allocation will make an important contribution to meeting Colchester’s housing needs both within the plan period and beyond.

Within the policy it sets out the following:

“It will be important when planning for the first phase of development that the whole site area is masterplanned to ensure residential development is supported by infrastructure including schools, community facilities and open space.”

The development will be comprehensively masterplanned to ensure residential development is supported by appropriate infrastructure. The policy sets out “including schools, community facilities and open space.” For the scale of development it is not considered the reference to “schools” is sufficiently precise. A development of this scale would typically generate demand for a single primary school with secondary education needs more appropriately address through strategic provision or off-site capacity enhancements. The use of the plural term “schools” introduces ambiguity and implies more on than one school which is not supported by evidence and could adversely affect deliverability. To ensure clarity and effectiveness as required by paragraph 36 of the NPPF 2024 it is recommended that the wording be amended to refer to “a primary school”.

The policy also states that:

“…development will be supported on land to the south of the larger site identified on the policies map which provides within the plan period.”

It is not considered that restricting development support only to the southern part of the site is justified and effective, particularly given the allocation’s role as a Growth Area. This wording risks unnecessarily constraining comprehensive and coordinated delivery across the site and could undermine effective phasing. It is therefore recommended that the policy be amended to state:

“Development will be supported towards the south and centre of the site”

Paragraph a, of the policy states:

“Approximately 1,000 new dwellings of a mix and type of housing to meet evidenced needs which is compatible with surrounding development.”

We support the delivery of approximately 1,000 dwellings to meet evidenced housing needs, however, the wording “compatible with surrounding development” is undefined and this wording could introduce ambiguity and constrain appropriate design and density.

It is therefore recommended that paragraph a. be reworded as follows:

“Approximately 1,000 new dwellings of a mix and type of housing to meet evidenced needs, and to deliver a high-quality and well-designed development in accordance with this policy and other policies in the development plan.”

In relation to paragraph c. this sets out:

“Substantively in excess of 10% of the allocation area must be provided as open space.”

We support the need for open space on the site although it is considered this wording “Substantively in excess…” lacks clarify and is not effective. It is recommended this is replaced with a clear requirement, for example:

“A minimum of 10% of the allocation area shall be provided as public open space.”

The scheme will be masterplanned to ensure the residential development is supported by appropriate infrastructure and provide high quality, sustainable development.

I accept the need for housing and understand why Marks Tey is seen as a development area, but before piecemeal development takes place which leaves master planning to developers, I feel strongly that a much larger plan should be made for the whole area which takes future growth and infrastructure into account, so these sites should not be procedded with until that has taken place.

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.

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.

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!

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.

I agree with the objectives. I have concerns that building plans for houses in Marks Tey will not meet some of those objectives, namely sustainable and well connected.

- we have ongoing issues with rats on the estate due to the ongoing issues with water pipes which need repair due to the poor construction when first built. This work disturbs the rats and they come into garages and gardens. The impact on wildlife and residents should be carefully risk assessed
- I am concerned that the drainage systems for sewage and surface water will not cope with 1500 homes which will cause flooding and health risks from waste water
- to be well-connected, Marks Tey needs a GP surgery and dentist - which it doesnt have
- Marks Tey rail station car parks are full to capacity every day. Cycling and walking to the station are dangerous options due to narrow path and heavy traffic
- the A120 is very busy and traffic is often slow making it difficult to leave the estate and area to get to A12. There needs to be viable exits from any new estate onto A12 and other key road to avoid detrimental impact to A120

The priority is to ensure all the land North of the A120 is developed as a single cohesive site with excellent links to the facilities provided. The provision of green space and access to the Roman Rive for walking and enjoying nature, sports facilities, a village green, cycle and walkingpaths to the station will benefit both those residents of the new development and the current residents of Marks Tey. Providing facilities such as a school, medical and shopping on site will reduce the necessity for car journeys by those who live there and minimise adding to the already busy A120.

Support proximity to Marks Tey Station means PP18 ideally suited to deliver transport benefits. Access to the station that avoids using the A120 road bridge needs Council support to deliver.
Support the concept of a growth area. Needs careful master planning to deliver a cohesive development. I oppose any early application on site as premature
The PP18 site can make a significant contribution to extending the Roman River Conservation corridor giving major environmental and amenity benefits. Support green space allocation significantly above 10%
PP18 must enable internal active transport trails to link to the existing PROW like bridleway BR20123.