Please refer to submitted representation.
The Site at land north of the A120 Coggeshall Road is a suitable and deliverable site for housing
development. It is strategically positioned along the A120 in close proximity to Marks Tey railway
station.
5.2 The Site is within a strategic location adjacent to the A120 and within reasonable walking distance
of the railway station ensuring excellent connectivity. Early delivery of approximately 130 homes
would provide a strong signal of confidence in the wider allocation (PP18), demonstrating that the
Garden Village concept is achievable and can be phased without prejudice to the long-term
masterplan.
5.3 A scheme can be developed for the Site which will ensure that where possible existing trees will be
retained, particularly those along the western and eastern boundaries of the Site. Areas of open
space can be incorporated, including play spaces and informal spaces. Bringing forward the Site
initially will contribute positively to housing supply at a time when Colchester’s five-year land supply
is marginal, and supports the plan-led approach by addressing immediate housing needs while
remaining consistent with the broader vision for the Marks Tey Growth Area.
5.4 A pre-application request has been undertaken (ref. 251337) and work is underway on a planning
application for the Site. Technical work has been undertaken that our client would be willing to
engage with the Council on as part of the Local Plan process.
5.5 In summary, the Site is suitable, available, and achievable within the plan period. Its early delivery
would strengthen Colchester’s housing trajectory, provide tangible community benefits, and
underpin the credibility of the wider allocation. This representation therefore supports Policy PP18
subject to the recommended refinements, ensuring flexibility, clarity, and deliverability across the
plan period.

See attachment with detailed comments on numerous policies. Anglian Water welcomes the opportunity to contribute comments on the Draft
Local Plan for Colchester City Council. We consider that the Plan is well set out with in relation
to managing flood risk, surface water and wastewater, and enabling water efficiency. We
recognise the challenges for meeting the uplift in housing requirements and the
infrastructure required to help deliver future growth across the district, with the main
focus being Colchester and the larger towns.
We have raised some policy matters relating to consistency between policies addressing surface
water flood risk, water supply, and wastewater, and how these matters are attributed to site
allocation policies.
We look forward to continuing our positive and proactive discussions with the Council in
respect of our comments and the next iteration of the Local Plan, including supporting updates
to the evidence base if required

If this project is completed one a whole, cohesive site it could provide excellent benefits to both existing and new residents. Transport links to the station, cycle paths and roads are integral to its success. The addition of a large green space could greatly improve quality of life and give the area a much needed area for recreation and walking. As the A120 is already congested, I feel the addition of a school, shops and medical facilities is essential. Biodiversity and environmental management along the river will also be very important to consider.

With sufficient infrastructure, this development has the potential to be of real benefit to residents of Marks Tey new and old and breathe new life and prosperity into the area. Excellent access to to rail and road infrastructure at the heart of this, but access to green spaces alongside footpaths, sports facilities and infrastructure are essential for this to succeed.

Support:
The site allowsimproved access to the Roman River Valley.
Ther is walkable access to bus and Rail.
Size means appropriate design can internalise many traffic movements.
Highway safety of acesses and existing estate junctions could improve if associated with modifying existing A120 mini-roundabouts
Design allows improvement of ecologically important features and connction between these especially the important Roman River Valley, the low lying meadows and woodland.
The main housing area at Marks Tey on the estate could benefit from the facilities and green space of this site as it lies close to the long northern boundary of the estate.

Very surprised to see a reference to "TCBGC" in point 12.4 and "opportunity for garden village scale growth" in 12.17. This is a proposal that has twice been found to be unviable by the Planning Inspectorate. The concept of this being a "strategic location" is completely undermined by the scale of the recognised "infrastructure improvements" and no plan to widen the A12.
LP priorities are brownfield over greenfield, small developments and low/zero carbon. Come on Colchester - let's forget this car-dependent, archaic behemoth and look at sites where we can achieve the great LP ambitions!

This response has been submitted on behalf of National Grid in relation to the Norwich to Tilbury Project (Planning Inspectorate Reference EN020027). We want to offer our observations in relation to the proposed allocation at Land North of A120, Marks Tey Growth Area (Policy PP18).

About National Grid

National Grid Electricity Transmission plc owns, builds and maintains the national high-voltage electricity transmission system throughout England and Wales.

The transmission network connects the power from where it is generated to the regional Distribution Network Operators (DNO) who then supply businesses and homes.

National Grid holds the Transmission Licence for England and Wales, and their statutory duty is to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity transmission and to facilitate competition in the generation and supply of electricity, as set out in the Electricity Act 1989.

National Grid is working to build a cleaner, fairer, and more affordable energy system that serves everyone, powering the future of our homes, transport, and industry. The Norwich to Tilbury Project would support the UK’s net zero target through the connection in East Anglia of new low carbon energy generation, and by reinforcing the local transmission network.

The Norwich to Tilbury Project comprises reinforcement of the transmission network between the existing Norwich Main Substation in Norfolk and Tilbury Substation in Essex, via Bramford Substation, the new East Anglia Connection Node (EACN) Substation and the new Tilbury North Substation.

The reinforcement is needed because the existing transmission network, even with current upgrading, will not have sufficient capacity for the new renewable energy (a substantial proportion of which would be generated by offshore wind) that is expected to connect to the network over the next 10 years and beyond. Completion of the Project, together with other new reinforcements across the country, will meet this future energy transmission demand both in East Anglia and across the UK.

The Norwich to Tilbury Project is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), and National Grid is seeking development consent under statutory procedures set by government. NSIPs are projects of certain types, over a certain size, which are considered by the government to be of national importance, hence permission to build them needs to be given at a national level, by the relevant Secretary of State (in this case the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero). Instead of applying to the local authority for planning permission, the developer must apply to the Planning Inspectorate for a Development Consent Order (DCO) that would grant development consent.

On 29 August 2025, National Grid submitted an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate. The Examining Authority (consisting of one or more examining inspectors), after a period of public examination, would make their recommendation to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who in turn would decide on whether development consent should be granted for the Project. Following submission, the Planning Inspectorate accepted the application for examination on 26 September 2025.

Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

In reviewing the Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation we note that the Norwich to Tilbury Project will interact with Land North of A120, Marks Tey Growth Area. We would offer our observations as follows and would welcome the opportunity to discuss further the interaction between the Norwich to Tilbury Project and the proposed allocation.

Overhead electricity lines can be successfully co-located with development provided that the statutory safety clearances are maintained in accordance with the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002. National Grid has produced its Design Guidelines for development near high voltage overhead lines, which set out these statutory safety clearances and provide detailed guidance for developers on how successful co-location can be achieved in practice.

Accordingly, National Grid does not consider that the Norwich to Tilbury Project would adversely affect the delivery of the proposed site allocations, subject to the future development of those sites having full regard to this guidance. In this context, National Grid recommends that the policies relevant to these allocations explicitly reference the need to comply with both the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 and National Grid’s Design Guidelines for Development Near Pylons and High Voltage Overhead Power Lines, in order to facilitate successful development, should the Norwich to Tilbury Project Development Consent Order be granted.

Policy PP18: Land North of A120, Marks Tey Growth Area

The Colchester City Preferred Options Local Plan identifies the Land North of A120, Marks Tey Growth Area (Policy PP18) as a Garden Village scale allocation for mixed-use development.

In reviewing the proposed Policy PP18, we note that it is recommended that the whole site is masterplanned and the consultation does not include a proposed site layout. The policy description identifies the site has capacity for 1,000 new dwellings but in excess of 10% of the allocation area must be provided as open space.

The Norwich to Tilbury Project crosses the proposed allocations with a 400kV overhead line and two new pylons in the northern section of the Marks Tey Growth Area. The figure below shows the proposed route alongside the proposed allocation.

There should be no reason why the proposed allocation for land north of the A120 cannot be successfully developed alongside the Norwich to Tilbury Project. However, in order to ensure that this is the case and that developers are aware of the matters to consider when developing in proximity to overhead lines, National Grid strongly recommends that the relevant policies refer to both the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 and National Grid’s Design Guidelines for Development Near Pylons and High Voltage Overhead Power Lines which will assist the developers in this regard. In addition to this National Grid is willing to meet with both the LPA and the site developers to discuss the development of the sites to ensure a mutually beneficial outcome.

National Grid is willing to engage with the developer promoting this site and will continue to engage with Colchester City Council to ensure that a route to facilitate the construction and operation of the proposed transmission infrastructure is safeguarded.

As you will be aware, on 16th December 2025, the Government published a consultation seeking views on the revised version of the NPPF. The consultation runs until 10th March 2026 and it is anticipated that an amended version will be published in 2026. Notwithstanding its current draft status, the Colchester City Council should be aware that draft policies W1 (Planning for Energy and Water) W2 (Securing renewable and low carbon energy, and electricity network infrastructure) and W3 (Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Development and Electricity Network Infrastructure) in combination add support to the role and function of NGET insofar as the administering of its responsibilities is concerned, including expansion of the existing electricity network where required.
The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) also concludes that there is a critical national priority (CNP) for the provision of nationally significant low carbon infrastructure including electricity infrastructure to meet the Clean Power 2030 mission and net zero.

The LPA should be cognisant of what appears to be a positive shift in favour of projects such as Norwich to Tilbury in the emerging NPPF, along with existing guidance within National Policy Statement EN-1, therefore the proposed Local Plan should apply weight to the provision of infrastructure improvement and expansion and ensure that the proposed allocations do not unduly impact upon current and proposed infrastructure projects.

This site could provide a cycle and pedestrian link to the rail station avoiding the A120. There are existing link roads onto the A12 and the A120 providing routes to Colchester, Chelmsford, Ipswich, and Braintree. The master plan could provide views of the church, and there will be important and useful green space towards the Roman River for residents (including the existing populace). The existing estate will be linked into PP18 providing a better focus for the community.

The two mini roundabouts are a nightmare off the A120. Access to popular nurseries are a nightmare in and out. Anymore accesses and exists to the A120 cannot be tolerated ie: more crashes . The A120 must be improved. Also give way signs at the mini roundabouts should be reinstated they were removed as they slowed down traffic.
Proper pavements along the A120 from popular nurseries to A12 exit . Also a Zebra crossing is required at all bus stops on the A120

The A120 is constantly very busy emergency services have trouble getting through all the time . eg: Lorries + Deliveries.
Services as Doctor Surgeries are already full. Walking along the A120 to the Station and Shops is risky as paths are narrow and certainly cannot cycle on the A120. If there are going to be a large number of housing to be built causing roads to breakdown and need resurfacing. And then at least 2 car per new house wanting to get onto the A120 probably have a queue as this is the situation now. Schooling is another consideration drop offs always block the road on the estate and running their car with fumes coming out not good for children and adults. As mentioned problems with Doctors surgeries its hard enough now. There are not the facilities available to have more houses &homes. We always have to wait for ages to get onto the A120 its our only option to get home as all on the estate, due to how busy the road is.
Changes required:
Don't build large numbers of houses off the A120 -Road is not big enough , paths are not good as not wide enough to get away from lorries, delivery vehicles and fumes

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.

The Preferred Options rely greatly on Marks Tey to provide a disproportionate amount of the extra facilities required by the City yet it gives no detail on how that will be provided, to what standards, supported by what infrastructure, and in what phases. This gives no proof that this can be delivered and thus puts the whole Local Plan at risk (like 5 years ago). This could be approached by withdrawing the specific allocated sites and committing to a wholistic development plan for the area with aspired standards to be shared, discussed and agreed with the local community. Also development in Marks Tey split across the A12 without solving the division and separation of the A12 simply will further split the parish and commits the same mistakes made 50 odd years ago with the Marks Tey estate plus leading to likely cojoining with Copford. Is this what is intended - if so tell the community.

We agree that Marks Tey will grow but we feel strongly that the proposed plan is not the way to do it.
Marks Tey needs a detailed overall development plan to predict the extent of its growth and how that will be achieved.
This plan will need to propose infrastructure planning and growth prior to choosing sites for new housing.
Traffic planning must form a key role in this planning as our roads are under huge pressure already by the A12 and A120.
The proposed sites and plan will not work for Marks Tey and its surrounding villages.

We agree that Marks Tey will grow but we feel strongly that the proposed plan is not the way to do it.
Marks Tey needs a detailed overall development plan to predict the extent of its growth and how that will be achieved.
This plan will need to propose infrastructure planning and growth prior to choosing sites for new housing.
Traffic planning must form a key role in this planning as our roads are under huge pressure already by the A12 and A120.
The proposed sites and plan will not work for Marks Tey and its surrounding villages.

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


Local Knowledge & Context

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

Key Reasons for Objection

Transport & Traffic

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

2. Infrastructure Capacity

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

3. Environmental Impact

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

4. Impact on Village Character

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

Concerns Over Scale

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

Alternative Site Suggestions

Preferred Alternatives

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

Justification

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

Infrastructure Requirements (Currently Inadequate)

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

Conclusion

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

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.

See full text of the attachment for each policy which in some cases add extra information that couldn't be included fully in the rep summary.

are writing on behalf of our client, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO), which is part of the
Ministry of Defence and is responsible for managing the military estate, including the provision of homes
for service personnel across the UK.
We submit representations to the Colchester Regulation 18 Local Plan Consultation covering multiple
DIO-owned sites and strategic concerns regarding the emerging Local Plan. These representations
have been prepared to assist Colchester City Council in developing an effective and deliverable plan
that recognises both local priorities and national defence requirements.
In line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) it is important that planning authorities and
development plans recognise that MOD Establishments are of strategic military importance to the UK.  It
is important that planning authorities consult with the MOD during the preparation of their plans and take
into account the need to safeguard operational sites.
To support the ongoing military training and operations within the City it is considered that the inclusion
of a specific policy in the Local Plan to recognise these requirements would be beneficial and accord
with national planning policy.
Paragraph 102 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) states that ‘planning
policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence
requirements including by ‘b) recognising and supporting development required for operational defence
and security purposes, and ensuring that operational sites are not affected adversely by the impact of
other development proposed in the area.’
Summary of Other Representations
Land South of Birch Brook
Our client is concerned with the proposed designation of this defence land as a Strategic Biodiversity
Area under Policy ST2. We object to this blanket designation which could prevent continued
operational use and future land release requirements, thereby conflicting with national defence
objectives as recognised in NPPF Paragraph 102b.
We also raise significant concerns regarding the spatial strategy's over-reliance on large, complex
strategic allocations in village locations, which introduces substantial delivery risks. We estimate that
approximately 2,970-3,695 dwellings from major strategic allocations are at medium to very high risk
of non-delivery within the Local Plan period. The Plan requires greater flexibility, contingency planning,
and a more diverse range of site sizes and locations to maintain housing supply resilience as supported
by the NPPF.
Middlewick Ranges
Whilst we acknowledge the proposed de-allocation of this 120-hectare site as a housing allocation,
our client objects to the dual designation as both Local Green Space under Policy GN3 and Strategic
Biodiversity Area under Policy ST2. This approach creates unnecessary policy duplication and
potential conflicts that could harm proper ecological management and enhancement.
The Local Green Space designation is also inappropriate for extensive tracts of land where the primary
value lies in biodiversity function rather than recreational or community use, contrary to National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraphs 106-108. We request removal of the Local Green
Space designation to avoid policy confusion and constraints on effective habitat management as
required by the NPPF.
DIO Berechurch
This 3.6 hectare site is being considered for operational defence use, potentially including Service
Family Accommodation (SFA) development to address urgent identified needs. We object to its
proposed inclusion within a Strategic Biodiversity Area designation, which lacks robust evidential
justification and fails to recognise the site's operational importance in accordance with NPPF
Paragraph 102b.
We also highlight that there is an established operational requirement for the site for military purposes,
this includes the need deliver new Service Family Accommodation (SFA) to meet a significant shortfall
in provision in Colchester, yet the Local Plan provides no recognition or policy support for this
requirement contrary to national defence priorities set out in NPPF Paragraph 102b.
The site also contains existing electrical infrastructure and is surrounded by development on three
sides, questioning its suitability as a biodiversity area. We emphasise the need for operational flexibility
to adapt to changing defence requirements without undue policy constraints. We recommend inclusion
of a specific Military Establishments policy to support development that enhances operational
capability and recognise SFA provision as essential workers housing.
Open Space Designations Merville Barracks
Our client objects to the proposed designation of two parcels within our clients’ estates (at Drury
Meadows and Montgomery Estate) as Open Space under Policy GN6. These sites, totalling
approximately 2.17 hectares, are suitable for SFA infill development and do not provide demonstrable
public recreational or amenity value, nor is there funding identified within the Local Plan evidence base
for the long term management and maintenance of this land as open space. The designations lack
robust justification as the sites were not assessed within the Council's Open Space Report (2023),
rendering the approach unsound.
We highlight that there is an urgent need in Colchester to deliver new SFA, yet the Local Plan provides
no recognition or policy support for this requirement contrary to national defence priorities set out in
NPPF Paragraph 102b. We also recommend inclusion of a specific Military Establishments policy to
support development that enhances operational capability and recognise SFA provision as essential
workers housing.
Key Requested Revisions
We respectfully request the following amendments to strengthen the Plan's deliverability and
soundness:
1. Remove Strategic Biodiversity designations from operational defence land (Land South
of Birch Brook and DIO Berechurch).
2. Remove Local Green Space designation from Middlewick Ranges to avoid policy
duplication and given it is an extensive tract of land and therefore unsuitable.
3. Remove Open Space designations from SFA estate land or provide policy flexibility for
SFA development.
4. Include specific policy recognition and support for general defence requirements and
Service Family Accommodation provision.
5. Incorporate greater flexibility and contingency planning within the spatial strategy.
6. Diversify housing supply through a broader range of site sizes and locations.
7. Establish clear triggers for releasing reserve sites to maintain housing supply
resilience.
Conclusion
The DIO remains committed to working collaboratively with Colchester City Council to ensure the
emerging Local Plan provides an appropriate and flexible framework that recognises both local
housing needs and national defence priorities. Our representations seek to strengthen the Plan's
effectiveness, deliverability, and resilience whilst ensuring that essential defence operations can
continue without unnecessary policy constraints.
We believe that addressing these concerns will result in a more robust and sounder Local Plan that
better serves the needs of Colchester's communities whilst fulfilling the Council's obligations to support
national defence requirements.
We look forward to your consideration of these matters and to continued engagement throughout the
Local Plan process.

see attached

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.

SEE ATTACHED

see attached

Our Colchester BID would like to see business uses maintained at street/ground floor level within the whole of the city centre/Primary Shopping Area. It would not object to upper floors above street/ground floor level being utilised as residential where appropriate. It may object to any change of use at street/ground floor level.
It would formally object to any HMO application within the city centre on the grounds of:
• Impact on commercial character and community cohesion
• Parking and traffic congestion
• Strain on local infrastructure
• Safety and anti-social behaviour (ASB)

and feels this use would be wholly inappropriate within the city centre/Primary Shopping Area. It would further insist that a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assessment be rigorously carried out before any final planning permission is granted.
Policy PP1: Britannia Car Park, Colchester
Our Colchester BID is unable to support the change of use of this car park to residential because it undermines the shared objective of a thriving, accessible and resilient city centre economy. The BID’s overriding priority is to safeguard the trading environment for businesses in Colchester city centre and the BID zone and to ensure policy decisions support, rather than weaken, that goal.
- Protecting city centre businesses
Our Colchester represents the collective interests of hundreds of levy-paying businesses whose success depends on reliable access for customers and staff. The proposed loss of centrally located spaces at Britannia Car Park would materially reduce capacity at the very point of access closest to key retail, hospitality, cultural and professional services in the BID area, increasing perceived and actual barriers to visiting the city centre.
City centre businesses already face structural pressures from online retail, out of town destinations and rising operating costs, and parking availability is a critical factor in decisions about where people shop, eat and spend leisure time. Any policy that removes a major provision of convenient parking without guaranteed, like for like alternatives risks depressing footfall, shortening dwell time and weakening business confidence across the BID zone.
- Policy context and regeneration aims
Our Colchester recognises and supports the Council’s wider objectives around climate action, sustainable transport and city centre regeneration, including the Positive Parking Strategy and related infrastructure upgrades. These objectives can and must be delivered in a way that keeps the city centre commercially viable, protects existing employment and underpins investment in new jobs and spaces within the BID area.
However, the redevelopment of Britannia Car Park must not proceed on the assumption that demand can simply be displaced to other locations or modes in the short to medium term. Even with planned improvements at alternative car parks and investment in public transport, the removal of this single asset represents a step change in capacity that will be felt most acutely by small and medium sized enterprises whose customers value proximity, convenience and perceived safety, particularly in the evening economy.
- Impact on staff, recruitment and inclusion
The BID is particularly concerned about the impact on employees working in the city centre, many of whom rely on Britannia Car Park for early morning, late night or shift pattern access when public transport options are limited. A substantial reduction in central parking risks making it harder for businesses to recruit and retain staff, raising costs and reducing the attractiveness of BID area employment compared with other locations.
There is also a risk that reduced central parking capacity will disproportionately affect workers and customers with mobility needs, caring responsibilities or safety concerns about travelling longer distances on foot, especially at night. Any policy change must therefore be assessed not only against environmental and transport metrics but also against equality, inclusion and safety impacts on those who depend on convenient access to the city centre.

- Colchester City Council research
Colchester City Council’s research may suggest that closing Britannia Car Park will not reduce total parking capacity across the wider city. Still, Our Colchester continues to believe the closure would significantly harm businesses, staff and customers in the city centre and BID zone. The core concern is not just how many spaces exist in total, but where those spaces are located, how easy they are to use, and what this means for the trading environment.
- Why “no net loss” still harms businesses
Even if overall city wide parking numbers remain stable on paper, removing spaces in one highly central, well used location changes behaviour in ways that affect businesses. Spaces that are further away, harder to find, or perceived as less safe in the evening are not equivalent for customers who want convenient access to shops, hospitality and services in the BID area.
“Spare” capacity in distant or less attractive car parks does not compensate for the loss of a major gateway site that many regular visitors habitually use. For time pressed visitors, families, older people and those travelling in from surrounding areas, added distance, complexity or uncertainty can be enough to deter a trip altogether or shorten their stay, directly impacting footfall and spend for city centre businesses.
- Challenging the assumptions in the Council’s evidence
The Council’s modelling appears to focus on typical occupancy across all city centre car parks, often showing spare capacity at certain times of day or week. However, this approach smooths out peak pressures and does not fully capture pinch points such as weekends, events, bad weather or the evening economy, when the convenience of a location like Britannia matters most.
There is also a difference between what is technically available and what people actually use in practice. Behavioural factors such as driver familiarity, signage, real time information, perceived safety and walking routes to key destinations are critical to how “usable” a space really is. If drivers struggle to find or feel comfortable using alternative car parks, the theoretical spare capacity will not translate into real world support for the BID area economy.
The BID is ready to work constructively with the Council, transport providers and developers to co design solutions that align with net zero and regeneration ambitions while protecting the commercial core that funds local services, supports thousands of jobs and underpins Colchester’s role as a leading city in the region. Until such safeguards are in place, Our Colchester must firmly oppose the closure of Britannia Car Park in its current form and will continue to advocate for policies that put the long term health of BID area businesses at the centre of decision making.


Policy PP2: Vineyard Gate, Colchester
Our Colchester BID is unable to support the change of use of this car park to residential because it undermines the shared objective of a thriving, accessible and resilient city centre economy. The BID’s overriding priority is to safeguard the trading environment for businesses in Colchester city centre and the BID zone and to ensure policy decisions support, rather than weaken, that goal.
- Protecting city centre businesses
Our Colchester represents the collective interests of hundreds of levy-paying businesses whose success depends on reliable access for customers and staff. The proposed loss of centrally located spaces at Vineyard Gate Car Park would materially reduce capacity at the very point of access closest to key retail, hospitality, cultural and professional services in the BID area, increasing perceived and actual barriers to visiting the city centre.
City centre businesses already face structural pressures from online retail, out of town destinations and rising operating costs, and parking availability is a critical factor in decisions about where people shop, eat and spend leisure time. Any policy that removes a major provision of convenient parking without guaranteed, like for like alternatives risks depressing footfall, shortening dwell time and weakening business confidence across the BID zone.
- Policy context and regeneration aims
Our Colchester recognises and supports the Council’s wider objectives around climate action, sustainable transport and city centre regeneration, including the Positive Parking Strategy and related infrastructure upgrades. These objectives can and must be delivered in a way that keeps the city centre commercially viable, protects existing employment and underpins investment in new jobs and spaces within the BID area.
However, the redevelopment of Vineyard Gate Car Park must not proceed on the assumption that demand can simply be displaced to other locations or modes in the short to medium term. Even with planned improvements at alternative car parks and investment in public transport, the removal of a single asset represents a step change in capacity that will be felt most acutely by small and medium sized enterprises whose customers value proximity, convenience and perceived safety, particularly in the evening economy.
- Impact on staff, recruitment and inclusion
The BID is particularly concerned about the impact on employees working in the city centre, many of whom rely on Vineyard Gate Car Park for early morning, late night or shift pattern access when public transport options are limited. A substantial reduction in central parking risks making it harder for businesses to recruit and retain staff, raising costs and reducing the attractiveness of BID area employment compared with other locations.
There is also a risk that reduced central parking capacity will disproportionately affect workers and customers with mobility needs, caring responsibilities or safety concerns about travelling longer distances on foot, especially at night. Any policy change must therefore be assessed not only against environmental and transport metrics but also against equality, inclusion and safety impacts on those who depend on convenient access to the city centre.

- Colchester City Council research
Colchester City Council’s research may suggest that closing Vineyard Gate Car Park will not reduce total parking capacity across the wider city. Still, Our Colchester continues to believe the closure would significantly harm businesses, staff and customers in the city centre and BID zone. The core concern is not just how many spaces exist in total, but where those spaces are located, how easy they are to use, and what this means for the trading environment.
- Why “no net loss” still harms businesses
Even if overall city wide parking numbers remain stable on paper, removing spaces in one highly central, well used location changes behaviour in ways that affect businesses. Spaces that are further away, harder to find, or perceived as less safe in the evening are not equivalent for customers who want convenient access to shops, hospitality and services in the BID area.
“Spare” capacity in distant or less attractive car parks does not compensate for the loss of a major gateway site that many regular visitors habitually use. For time pressed visitors, families, older people and those travelling in from surrounding areas, added distance, complexity or uncertainty can be enough to deter a trip altogether or shorten their stay, directly impacting footfall and spend for city centre businesses.
- Challenging the assumptions in the Council’s evidence
The Council’s modelling appears to focus on typical occupancy across all city centre car parks, often showing spare capacity at certain times of day or week. However, this approach smooths out peak pressures and does not fully capture pinch points such as weekends, events, bad weather or the evening economy, when the convenience of a location like Vineyard Gate matters most.
There is also a difference between what is technically available and what people actually use in practice. Behavioural factors such as driver familiarity, signage, real time information, perceived safety and walking routes to key destinations are critical to how “usable” a space really is. If drivers struggle to find or feel comfortable using alternative car parks, the theoretical spare capacity will not translate into real world support for the BID area economy.
The BID is ready to work constructively with the Council, transport providers and developers to co design solutions that align with net zero and regeneration ambitions while protecting the commercial core that funds local services, supports thousands of jobs and underpins Colchester’s role as a leading city in the region. Until such safeguards are in place, Our Colchester must firmly oppose the closure of Britannia Car Park in its current form and will continue to advocate for policies that put the long term health of BID area businesses at the centre of decision making.


Policy PP6: Land at Colchester North Station Mixed Used
This area is allocated mixed use, OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Policy OA4 Northern Gateway
a. Provision of approximately 650 new dwellings of a mix and type of housing to meet evidenced needs which is compatible with surrounding development;
b. Provision for employment on land north of Axial Way as shown on the policies map allocated for employment, primarily for office use within E class;
Reference b. OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre. We would consider the employment use to be for professional services/office provision.
Our Colchester welcomes the council’s requirements for any small retail / leisure uses within this local centre must be subject to the requirements of Policy E4 in respect of the sequential test and for proposals above 350sqm gross floorspace a retail impact assessment will also be required.
Policy PEP3 Land South of Tollgate West
Our Colchester BID would not like to see any more significant retail offered at this location. The existing Tollgate offering together with Stane Park are already a major retail attraction pulling custom away from the city centre/ Primary Shopping Area. Any further expansion of retail will significantly impact the economic viability of the city centre and pull even more custom away.
Policy PP9: North-East Colchester
Although this area is allocated as residential OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Policy PP10: Land South of Berechurch Hall Road, Colchester
Although this area is allocated as residential OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Growth and Opportunity Areas : Hythe Opportunity Areas consisting of : Policy OA1: King Edward Quay Opportunity Area/ Policy OA2: Land East of Hawkins Road Opportunity Area
These areas are likely to be allocated to residential, OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Marks Tey Growth Area consisting of : Policy PP18: Land North of A120, Marks Tey Growth Area: Policy PP18: Land North of A120, Marks Tey Growth Area
Although this area is allocated as residential OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Policy PEP5 Land South of A12, Marks Tey
This area is allocated to employment, OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Policy PEP6 Anderson's Site, Marks Tey
This area is allocated to employment, OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Policy PEP7 Highland Nursery, Tiptree
This area is allocated to employment, OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Policy PEP8 Land South of Factory Hill, Tiptree
This area is allocated to employment, OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.
Policy PP19: Land North of Oak Road, Tiptree
Although this area is allocated as residential OurColchester BID would not like to see any significant retail development offered at this site as it would threaten and likely dilute the retail offering of the city centre.

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.

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.

See Full Submission attachment

Officer summary of full submission. See attachment with detailed comments on numerous policies:
The overall message is one of support for CCC undertaking a review of the adopted Local Plan to ensure an up to date plan prepared in accordance with the NPPF is in place. ECC will continue the on-going engagement with CCC, through the Duty (or any replacement), to assist progress of the Plan to Regulation 19 (the Pre-Submission Plan), particularly with regards the strategic and cross boundary implications, including cumulative issues and opportunities arising from growth to ensure that the infrastructure requirements are identified, quantified, costed and phased where appropriate. ECC service areas have clearly outlined where further collaborative work/assessment needs to be undertaken (e.g. education provision and ongoing transportation modelling) to refine and resolve an issue; and ECC will continue to be engaged, alongside NH, on the proposals which have an impact on the A12 strategic transport corridor, in particular A12 junctions 25 to 28, A12 widening and junction improvements, and the A120 Corridor Maks Tey to Braintree.

There is support for the Draft Plan’s vision which covers environmental, social and economic needs and emphasises healthy living environments and green networks, environmental protection and economic growth. There is support that the mandatory housing target will be met in full and exceeded over the Plan period in accordance with the NPPF, and that future employment needs will be met (noting that some clarifications are sought) by providing a range in scale of additional employment land supply. ECC provides strong support for policies related to net zero carbon (in operation and embodied), water efficiency, health and well-being, and the environment (green and blue infrastructure and BNG. Recommendations are made throughout the response on policy wording (including policy omissions) and justification to strengthen clarity, effectiveness and delivery.

There is strong support for the inclusion of site-specific Place Policies and references to infrastructure requirements, but these will need to be reviewed and confirmed with ECC following this consultation and the agreement of a final spatial strategy by CCC. It is noted there are some omissions in the Draft Plan such as the allocation of a new secondary school. On this issue, ECC acknowledges the requirement is stated in the Infrastructure Assessment Delivery Plan (Stage 3) for site allocation PP18 Land North of A120 Marks Tey; and in the Infrastructure Topic Paper prepared by CCC, where Appendix A lists the infrastructure requirements for the preferred options site allocations (including those for education). Land for the secondary school (and all education requirements) will need to be allocated in the Pre-Submission Plan.

The review of the IDP and full plan viability assessment are key documents for ECC engagement and input following this round of consultation. The Viability Assessment will need to be reviewed following consultation to ensure it can align with the most up to date evidence relating to the EPOA net zero development policies and its viability evidence. Mention is also made in the response to specific localities and sites – notably Marks Tey and Langham – where discussion needs to take place and recommendations are made to ensure effective delivery if these proposed allocations are taken forward to the Pre-Submission Plan.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a duty on local authorities to reduce crime and
disorder within the community.
2. The National Planning Policy Framework 2024 requires the planning system to be plan
led, with plans contributing to the achievement of sustainable development - being shaped
by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan makers and infrastructure
providers, to set out the infrastructure contributions expected from development.
3. Essex Police is an essential social infrastructure provider in this respect, who works closely
with neighbourhoods to provide community safety, cohesion and policing in line with the
objectives and priorities set out in the Police & Crime Plan 2024-2028 to support the
creation of safe, strong, healthy, resilient and sustainable new communities.
4. With this in mind, Essex Police submitted evidence to inform the infrastructure scoping
process at the earlier (stakeholder) stages of the local plan review, linked to preparation of
the Colchester Infrastructure Audit & Delivery Plan (IADP) in December 2024 and June
2025, which is retained by the City Council as background documentation.
5. The IADP Stage 3 Report dated 24 October 2025 therefore outlines the Essex Police
infrastructure requirements to mitigate and manage the planned housing/ population
growth over the plan period to 2041.
6. The Essex Policing Model is outlined in the IADP and reproduced below for information.
Essex Policing Model
7. To use resources efficiently to address the incidence of crime and engage effectively with
the local community, Essex Police operates a ‘Local Policing Area’ (LPA) policing model.
8. Each Local Policing Area is resourced by a dedicated Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT),
consisting of Police Officers, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO’s), Community
Safety Engagement Officers, Children & Young Persons Officers and integrated local
partners and partnerships within co-located Community Safety Hubs.
9. This resourcing structure ensures that an appropriate level of response is coordinated at
the outset, ranging from a routine community safety/ cohesion deployment to a serious
crime response, to meet the community’s needs.
10. Both the construction and occupation phases of residential development lead to an
increase in the incidence of criminal activity . At the construction phase this includes property-based theft and vandalism, as
acknowledged by the Chartered Institute of Building in its publications concerning Crime in
the Construction Industry. Such incidents lead to an increased impact on police facilities
and a greater draw on Essex Police NPT resources.
12. At the occupation phase increased populations give rise to an increase in crime and
incidents against the person (e.g. violence, sexual, burglary, vehicle theft and criminal
damage). New residents would be the victims of such crime, leading to an increased impact
on police facilities and a greater draw on its NPT resources, including specialist unit support
officers.
13. Emerging new communities need to be integrated with existing communities, and an
appropriate level and duration of community safety, cohesion and policing would therefore
need to be provided across the occupation phases of developments.
14. Major new housing developments give rise to significant additional resource needs and
implications for NPT’s, (including specialist officers supporting the NPT’s), requiring
appropriate developer funding in order to mitigate and manage the community safety,
cohesion and policing requirements, including the crime impacts arising.
Police Infrastructure & Facilities (Police Facilities)
15. In the context of the Essex - wide plan making and development management processes,
police facilities are defined as follows;
❖ Additional or enhanced police station (Local Policing Team) floor space & facilities,
including fit out & refurbishment;
❖ Custody facilities;
❖ Mobile police stations;
❖ Communications, including ICT;
❖ Speed Camera/ Automatic Number Plate Recognition Technology;
❖ Police vehicles;
❖ Funding for additional staff resources, incorporating the recruitment, training,
equipping & tasking of Police Community Support Officers (PCSO’s) during the
construction phase of residential development, & recruitment, training equipping of Local Policing Team Officers (LPTO’s) during the occupation phase of
residential development;
16. The developer funded police facilities required to mitigate and manage the impact arising
on Essex Police service capacity (and related costs) are outlined in the IADP.
Local Plan Text & Policy Revisions
17. Essex Police is satisfied that the IADP reflects its budgetary evidence concerning the level
of developer funded police facilities required to mitigate and manage the planned housing/
population growth within the Colchester City Council area to 2041.
18. Essex Police is not currently satisfied, however, that the text and policies within the
Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation are sufficiently justified or
comprehensive, as they are not considered to;
❖ Identify Essex Police as an essential social infrastructure provider – requiring
developer funding in order to mitigate & manage the impacts arising from
planned housing/ population growth;
❖ Essex County Fire & Rescue Service & the East of England Ambulance Service NHS
Trust are also not identified as essential infrastructure providers;
❖ Provide sufficient clarity concerning the requirement for developer funded police
infrastructure/ facilities in association with the strategic housing sites >250
dwellings;
❖ Provide sufficient recognition concerning the definition of ‘infrastructure’ being
applicable to police infrastructure/ facilities (police facilities) – this position is
equally applicable to fire & rescue & ambulance facilities;
❖ Provide adequate recognition to the wider remit & role of Essex Police in providing
community safety, cohesion & policing in contributing to the delivery of sustainable
new communities, in addition to its duties as a Category 1 Responder under the
Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (i.e. its emergency service role) - this position is equally
applicable to fire & rescue & ambulance facilities;
19. A Schedule of Text & Policy Changes outline the changes sought to the draft text and
policies contained in the Preferred Options Local Plan, which is submitted as an
Accompanying Document.
20. In addition, 16 x form-based representations outline the changes sought, and are
submitted as Accompanying Documents.
21. Essex Police commend the changes sought in its representations which are considered
necessary to provide for a justified and comprehensive local plan, and look forward to
continuing its productive working relationship with the City Council and its retained consultants to that end

See full attachment
Officer summary:
Network Rail (NR) is the statutory owner and operator of the national rail infrastructure in England, Scotland and Wales. NR’s focus is on safely and efficiently operating, maintaining, and growing the railway. At this stage, NR has provided both important general and site-specific comments on the Colchester Local Plan.

NR welcomes the recognition and support for enhancements to railway infrastructure and public transport provision within the proposed Local Plan, particularly in relation to and around Colchester, Colchester Town and Marks Tey stations. NR has engaged in discussions with internal stakeholders in relation to this consultation.

NR looks forward to working collaboratively with Colchester Borough Council (CBC) and advises working with wider industry partners in the development of this Colchester Planning Policy, future policy and development. To ensure that the necessary rail infrastructure improvements can be effectively delivered in support of the Plan’s objectives.

Comments provided on (see full attachment):
1) Development and Freight
a. Freight Sites – Strategic Importance for Policy and Development
b. Local Freight and Development Sites
2) Railway Infrastructure
a. Site Specific Level Crossings
3) Strategic Planning
a. Wider Network Comments
b. Future Site Specific Comments – Additional NR Policy Responses Planning Policy
4) Further Consultation Requirement, and Future Policy Engagement
5) Asset Protection (ASPRO)
a. Appendix A – ASPRO Informative