as previous

Tiptree Parish Council supports this policy, including the delivery of a health hub. The inclusion of land at the Bonnie Blue pub will require access from the current development area at Elms Farm (rather than from Oak Road).

You have glossed over too many important (for those actually living there) issues, you need to address them "realistically" then I could support your plans - Education, Healthcare, Sewerage, traffic impact mitigation.
Building the houses is the easy part, living in the houses build, if not properly resourced will not be so easy.

This large site is located within the wider setting of a number listed buildings, including the Grade II* Messing Park (LEN 1224649).

Initial assessment

Effects uncertain. A full Heritage Impact Assessment will be essential to confirm the site’s suitability from a historic environment perspective and to identify appropriate mitigation measures or opportunities for enhancement. The resulting recommendations should then be incorporated into criteria ‘k’ of the policy.

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

This comment on PP19 applies inter alia to PP20, PP21, PP22, PEP7 & PEP8 to varying degrees.

It is good to see the clause "Development must not discharge surface water to the foul sewer network". However, with such a large development, dependency on Tiptree Sewage Works (TSW) will increase. Unless abated by additional processing and water recycling, despite the foul/surface separation clause, outflow and overflow instances will inevitably increase. If this occurs to coincide with a high tide, the risk of Salcott flooding and extent thereof would increase as a result of this development. Appropriate TSW improvements must be mandated.

The proposed 66‑acre Country Park in this proposal presents a significant opportunity to enhance inclusive access for local communities. PRoW 3 runs close to the site and provides a key link into the Country Park. Designing connections to PROW 3 as multi‑user routes would support safe, accessible movement for walkers, cyclists and equestrians. A relevant precedent exists at Hole Farm in Brentwood, where a bridleway was incorporated around the perimeter of the new Country Park to act as a safe multi‑user corridor and a functional firewall. A similar approach here would help create a coherent, connected and inclusive off‑road network.

Consultation Response: Infrastructure Provision, Phasing, and Settlement Impact
Preferred Options Local Plan – Regulation 18 (2025)
Policies concerned:
• PP37 – Land north of Park Lane, Langham
• PP9 – North-East Colchester
• PP18 – Land North of A120, Marks Tey Growth Area
• PP17 – Land South of A12, Marks Tey Growth Area
• PP10 – Land South of Berechurch Hall Road, Colchester
• PP19 – Land North of Oak Road, Tiptree
________________________________________
General Comment – Infrastructure Capacity and Sustainable Growth
I am concerned that the scale of housing growth proposed across the above sites represents a very substantial increase in population, yet the Preferred Options Local Plan does not provide firm, binding commitments from infrastructure providers to ensure that essential services are delivered before development is occupied.
Although Strategic Policy ST7 refers to infrastructure provision and the preparation of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), this approach relies heavily on future work, assumptions, and aspirations, rather than enforceable safeguards. Without clear delivery triggers, there is a significant risk that housing will be delivered ahead of infrastructure, placing unacceptable pressure on existing services and communities.
________________________________________
Langham (PP37) – Scale, Character and Village Identity
In addition to infrastructure concerns, Policy PP37 raises a fundamental issue regarding the scale of development proposed at Langham.
Langham is a small rural village, with limited services, infrastructure, and employment opportunities. The scale of housing proposed would represent a disproportionate increase in population, fundamentally altering the character, role, and function of the village. This would risk transforming Langham from a rural settlement into a commuter extension of Colchester, without the infrastructure, services, or employment base to support such a change.
The proposal would:
• Place significant additional pressure on already limited local services
• Increase reliance on private car travel, contrary to sustainable transport objectives
• Erode the distinct rural character and settlement hierarchy that the Local Plan is intended to protect
• Create long-term sustainability issues that cannot be resolved through infrastructure funding alone
Even with improved infrastructure, the scale and nature of development proposed is not commensurate with the existing size, role, or capacity of Langham, and therefore raises concerns about soundness and consistency with sustainable development principles.
________________________________________
Key Infrastructure Concerns Across All Sites
Across all six sites, there is insufficient certainty regarding provision for:
• Primary and secondary healthcare, including GP capacity
• Hospital services, particularly Colchester Hospital
• Education provision, including early years, primary and secondary school places
• Emergency services, including police, fire and ambulance response capacity
• Water supply and wastewater infrastructure, particularly given known water stress in North Essex
• Electricity and other utilities capacity
• Waste collection and disposal services
• Transport and accessibility, especially where growth is proposed in areas with limited public transport
Without firm commitments, these developments risk overburdening existing infrastructure and undermining community wellbeing.
________________________________________
Site-Specific Sensitivities
While this response applies to all six sites, particular concerns include:
• PP9 – North-East Colchester: cumulative impacts on GP provision and Colchester Hospital
• PP17 & PP18 – Marks Tey Growth Areas: scale of growth relative to existing health, education, and service capacity
• PP19 – Tiptree: limited village infrastructure, including GP provision, schools and wastewater capacity
• PP37 – Langham: scale of development fundamentally changing the nature and sustainability of the village
• PP10 – Berechurch Hall Road: cumulative impacts from existing and planned development in South Colchester
Generic infrastructure policies are insufficient to address these location-specific issues.
________________________________________
Required Changes to Make the Plan Sound
To ensure genuinely sustainable development, I request that the Local Plan is amended to include the following provisions for all six sites:
1. Infrastructure-First Policy Safeguards
Clear policy wording requiring that development does not commence or is not occupied unless the necessary supporting infrastructure has been secured, funded, and programmed for delivery.
2. Phased Housing Delivery Linked to Infrastructure Triggers
Each site policy should include explicit phasing limits, such that no more than an agreed number of dwellings can be occupied until:
• New or expanded GP facilities are operational
• Sufficient school places are available
• Water supply and wastewater upgrades are completed
• Emergency services confirm adequate capacity
3. Formal Commitments from Infrastructure Providers
Written confirmation should be required from:
• NHS Integrated Care Board and hospital trusts
• Essex County Council (education and highways)
• Essex Police
• Essex Fire & Rescue Service
• East of England Ambulance Service
• Anglian Water and other utility providers
Without such commitments, development should not proceed.
4. Site-Specific Infrastructure Schedules
Each policy (PP37, PP9, PP18, PP17, PP10 and PP19) should be supported by a clear infrastructure schedule setting out:
• What infrastructure is required
• Who will deliver it
• How it will be funded
• When it must be operational
• Which phase of housing it relates to
5. Use of Grampian-Style Conditions
The Plan should explicitly support Grampian planning conditions preventing occupation until off-site infrastructure is delivered and operational.
6. Ring-Fenced Developer Contributions
Developer contributions should be ring-fenced for the communities affected, with clear reporting on how and when funds are spent.
7. Water Stress and Wastewater Safeguards
No development should proceed without written confirmation that water supply and wastewater capacity are sufficient and will be delivered in advance of occupation.
________________________________________
Conclusion
In its current form, the Preferred Options Local Plan does not provide sufficient certainty that infrastructure will be delivered in advance of housing growth across these sites. In the case of Langham, the scale of development proposed also risks fundamentally changing the nature of the village in a way that cannot be mitigated through infrastructure provision alone.
I therefore request that the Council strengthens Strategic Policy ST7 and amends Policies PP37, PP9, PP18, PP17, PP10 and PP19 to ensure that development is appropriately scaled, infrastructure-led, and supported by firm, enforceable commitments. This is essential to protect existing communities and to ensure sustainable development across the borough.

Messing cum Inworth Parish Council (McIPC) submits this formal representation on Policies ST5,
PP19 and PP48 in Colchester City Council’s ‘Preferred Options Draft Local Plan’.
McIPC also submits formal representation on the following Evidence Base and Supporting
Documents:
• Summary of Sites Evidence Colchester Local Plan. October 2025 - Policy PP19
• Summary of Sites Evidence Colchester Local Plan. October 2025 - Policy PP48
It has strong concerns as follows:
Policy ST5 Colchester’s Housing Needs
Paragraph 3.51 States that allocation PP19 includes land within Tiptree Parish and Messing
cum Inworth Parish. McIPC believe the entire allocation for PP19 is within the Messing cum
Inworth Parish, including the proposed 27 hectares of open space. McIPC therefore welcomes
the opportunity to comment below.
Policy PP19 - Summary of MCiPC Concerns:
McIPC has concerns regarding this 600-house allocation that borders Tiptree but sits within
McIPC, opposite the woodland band separating Tiptree from Messing, as follows:.
● Traffic from this site could cut through Messing and along New Road.
● The plan does NOT include any mitigation to stop rat-running into Messing roads.
● The site is admitted to be in Messing-cum-Inworth Parish, even though it functionally serves
Tiptree.
The Policy sets out mandatory requirements as follows:
● 600 new dwellings and required Northern Link Road (B1022 ↔ B1023).
● Delivery of a Tiptree Country Park (27 ha).
● Must buffer Eden Wood and Inworth Wood.
● Provides pedestrian links and green corridors.
● Consideration to the inclusion of a mobility hub.
● Warns of possible heritage and archaeology impacts.
● Requires a detailed masterplan developed with the community.
Summary of Sites Evidence Colchester Local Plan October 2025 Policy
PP19
This acknowledges:
● Some highways constraints, but “not significant enough” to stop deliverability.
● Harm to biodiversity due to ancient woodland proximity.
● Need buffers and retention of hedgerows including a “green lane”.
● The site lies in Messing-cum-Inworth Parish, not inside the Tiptree Parish boundary.
● Greenfield land.
Site allocated in Policy PP19 Tiptree (but allocation in Messing cum
Inworth Parish Council) – Land North of Oak Road
The evidence summary for this site notes only minor “constraints” on highway access. Policy
PP19 proposes 600 homes and explicitly requires delivering the northern link road as per the
Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan. This link road would relieve Tiptree centre. However, until this
is built, new traffic from this development could divert through New Road into Messing. This
narrow country lane is very unsuitable.
McIPC request that strict traffic mitigation is required, and any planning permission for this
allocation should require a construction traffic management plan preventing heavy vehicles
from using the country lanes leading into Messing. Weight limits should be imposed on
Messing village roads during works. This should be a stipulation of the Master Plan or included
in Policy PP19.
The policy’s encouragement of a “mobility hub” or public transport provision is welcomed, as
there are no local bus services.
McIPC agree with the requirement in PP19 that the link road should be delivered, but McIPC
request that no additional traffic is routed through Messing’s country lanes whilst awaiting
the completion of the link road.
Environmental points are also noted, with the site containing parts of Eden Wood and Inworth
Wood (ancient woodland and Local Wildlife Sites). The Preferred Options allocation excludes
the Eden Wood area, and PP19 mandates buffering both protected woodland and retaining
the “green lane” hedgerow network. McIPC consider that these ecological safeguards must be
enforced, with no encroachment and the creation of meaningful buffers, and the proposed
27 ha country park to benefit the local area.
McIPC welcome the opportunity to be involved from the early stages of the consultation
process for the Masterplan for this development.
Policy PP48 - Summary of MCiPC Concerns:
McIPC has strong concerns for:
● Transport: No bus service, unsafe roads, long walking distances to bus stops.
● Traffic impacts: Narrow lanes; high volumes; Oak Road Tiptree traffic also likely to use New
Road → Messing → Inworth Road.
● Flooding: 2015 surface-water problems affecting site 10634.
● Sewage capacity: Pumping station frequently fails; tanker reliance.
● Heritage: Conservation Area and danger of HGVs on the tight bend near the churchyard wall.
● Services: School oversubscribed; poor electricity and internet.
The Policy sets out mandatory requirements as follows:
● Approximately 25 dwellings, compatible with surrounding development.
● Access from Kelvedon Road and must not harm highway safety or be detrimental to highway
capacity
● Require pedestrian links to existing footways and green infrastructure connections.
● Must provide 1.7 ha open space (important for drainage and buffering).
● Must deliver standing freshwater habitat (supports McIPC’s drainage concerns).
● Requires screening with hedgerows/woodland to preserve rural character.
● Must conserve heritage assets (Conservation Area and many listed buildings).
● Must not discharge surface water to foul sewer (aligns with McIPC’s concerns over sewer
capacity).
● Wintering bird surveys required.
Summary of Sites Evidence Colchester Local Plan October 2025 Policy
PP48
The Site passes SLAA Stages 1 & 2 under site allocation 10634
Issues noted:
● Some access constraints but deemed manageable.
● No potential harm to heritage assets(although it does state that a Proforma Heritage Impact
Assessment is required)
● Opportunities for green infrastructure.
● States site is a logical extension, reduced in size from what was promoted
McIPC however note the following issues with The Sites Evidence Document:
● It does not identify flood risk as a constraint.
● It identifies access issues. – (But not significant enough to affect deliverability)
● It identifies no heritage or character issues
● It does not identify any issues relating to density and impact on character
●It does not identify issues with utility provision.
Settlement Evidence Stage 1 - November 2024 Document
McIPC would like to clarify that although the population of the parish of Messing-cum-Inworth
is circa 166 households, 34 of these households are located in Inworth. The village of Messing
has only 132 households
The 2017 Settlement Boundary Review identified the sewage, drainage and surface water
capacity and (surface water) flooding issues that would need to be addressed if any
development were proposed. This was not identified in the November 2024 Settlement
Evidence Stage 1 Report. The 2017 Settlement Boundary Review stated that Messing should
only be considered for limited small-scale growth. It concluded that an earlier promoted site
for 21 houses was too large and vehicular access would be difficult to achieve. Messing was
not considered sustainable or suitable for planned housing growth. Since 2017, none of these
facts have changed.
Policy PP48 – Kelvedon Road, Messing
McIPC consider the City Council’s evidence presents an overly optimistic view of the site’s
suitability and its lack of harm.
The City Council’s Summary of Sites Evidence (October 2025) states that highway constraints
are “not significant enough to affect deliverability”, that there are “no known issues with utility
provision”, and that no adverse heritage or archaeological impacts are anticipated. It also
concludes that the site would form a “logical extension to the village.”
a) Transportation and Accessibility
● The Local Plan’s description of bus access and bus stop locations is factually inaccurate.
Colchester Preferred Options Local Plan document (Point 5.424) includes the statement “Site
10634 is located some distance from a railway station and cycling route, although it is close to
multiple bus stops”. McIPC would like to clarify that the closest bus stops are 0.9 miles (20
minute walk), 1.1 miles (25 minute walk) and 1.2 miles (25 minute walk)
● Walking routes to bus stops pose measurable safety risks. The village is served by narrow,
twisting country lanes with no pavement and a 60mph speed limit.
● The site (PP48) fundamentally conflicts with Paragraphs 109 to 118 of the NPPF and also
Colchester’s sustainable transport policy. With just 2 buses per week, (both on the same day)
and a road network that is conducive to neither cyclists nor pedestrians, cars are the only
practical means of transport. Siting development in the village goes against Colchester City
Council transport policies and objectives. Policy PC2 (Active and Sustainable Travel) states “All
new development should be planned around a network of safe and accessible active travel
routes, creating places that maximise opportunities for active and sustainable travel”.
● To achieve compliance with sustainability duties and requirements in accordance with
National and Local Planning Policy, the proposed policy should require the submission of a
Travel Plan (Paragraph 118 of the NPPF).
b) Road Infrastructure and Traffic
● The City Council’s evidence underestimates the severity of local road constraints and does
not account for the combined impact of committed developments in Tiptree, Feering and
Kelvedon. (NPPF paragraph 116 refers to the cumulative impact on highway safety….taking
into account all reasonable future scenarios). High volumes of traffic from Land North of Oak
Road, (PP19 allocation for 600 houses) is likely to use New Road as a cut through to Messing
and onto the Inworth Road. This road is VERY narrow and totally unsuitable for traffic volumes.
● Local traffic volumes are already high. The levels of development included in the Local Plan
for the Tiptree area, added with the plans that Braintree District Council are working on for
the development of Feering and Kelvedon, will lead to a large increase in vehicle traffic in the
district. There are already pinch points creating long delays at peak times at the Blue Anchor
and Factory Corner in Tiptree. With no plans to increase the current road infrastructure, there
is no doubt that delays will become more frequent and more widespread.
● The road network servicing Messing village is largely narrow single-track with passing places
forced from farmer’s fields, unadopted and therefore not maintained (with large potholes and
ditches presenting major dangers to road users). This road network also presents specific
dangers to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. Junctions leading onto local B-roads are also
narrow with impeded sight lines. On the assumption that each dwelling will have at least 2
vehicles, the proposal for 25 dwellings in Messing village will represent a significant increase
in traffic volume in the surrounding road network, especially when the almost total lack of
public transport is taken into account
● McIPC strongly request that a weight limit for vehicles entering and leaving the conservation
areas should be enforced during the construction phase.
McIPC request explicit traffic mitigation, including:
● A highways-led review of New Road
● Safety measures prior to progression of the Tiptree Oak Road allocation (PP19) and sites
already consented in Oak Road.
● Construction-phase restrictions to protect the Messing Conservation Area
c) District traffic management
McIPC note that no mitigations are currently proposed in response to the cancellation of the
A12 rebuild project. McIPC also note that Hinds Bridge (a narrow historic bridge, that does not
allow for large vehicles to pass) on the B1023 in Inworth is also excluded from any mitigations.
This is an ancient brick-arch bridge built in 1850 and closed for repairs in 2018 by Essex
Highways because the structure was sub-standard and failed assessment.
d) Heritage and Village Character
● McIPC are concerned that the general level of development throughout the district will have
an adverse effect on the centre of Messing, which is a Conservation Area with a high density
of Listed Buildings. As set out in paragraphs 202 to 214 of the NPPF, Designated Heritage
Assets and Conservation Areas need to be protected. The village already sees elevated traffic
levels when there are problems with the A12. Messing has had issues with HGVs attempting
to pass on the double bend by the church. Swept path analysis shows that this is impossible
due to the curtilage listed churchyard wall located in the inside of the double bend. McIPC
request that provision is made to ensure that HVGs are not permitted as through traffic in the
village centre.
e) Flooding and Surface Water Management
●The site (PP48/10634) has a documented history of surface water run-off problems. In 2015
Essex Highways investigated incidents of surface water flooding in Messing. (See Messing
Flood Study Report 2015 and its Appendices attached). Site 10634 was identified as a source
of the problematic surface water run-off. The Essex Highways Flood Study Report (January
2015) made a number of recommendations (including some relating to site 10634) to resolve
the problems. These mitigation works were undertaken, including works on site PP48/10634
(see Appendix D of the Flood Study Report). Any development work on site 10634 needs to
ensure that the mitigation works are not affected, otherwise this could cause surface water
flooding issues for both the site and the village.
● McIPC request that a site-specific drainage strategy, informed by the Essex Highways 2015
evidence, is a mandatory requirement for this site allocation. McIPC requests that clear
maintenance responsibilities are set out as policy, including a program of works, maintenance
and clarification as to who will take future maintenance responsibilities. In addition, discharge
of surface water from the development should be carefully designed so as not to add to the
local risk of flooding.
● McIPC would like to query why the historic surface water flooding issues and mitigation
works were not identified in the Settlement Evidence for this site.
f) Sewage Capacity
● Messing village is served by a sewage pumping station in Lodge Road. Sewage trucks are
frequently used to deal with excess volume, and residents have been informed that the
pumping station is at capacity and suffers from frequent failures. Further residential
development in Messing will require Anglian Water to increase the reliability and the capacity
of this pumping station to avoid environmental damage to the locality.
g) Density and number of units proposed
● The site allocation is for around 25 dwellings. McIPC request that the final number of
dwellings is determined through a detailed design process to ensure that the scheme reflects
the established character, grain, and density of the surrounding settlement. Any development
needs to integrate sensitively with the adjacent built form, maintain appropriate spacing, and
respect the transition between the settlement edge and the more open rural landscape
beyond.
● McIPC calculates the housing density along the section of School Road that directly backs
onto site 10634 at 23 houses per hectare. The nearby Collins Green development is calculated
at 14 houses per hectare, and the Messing Green development at 18 houses per hectare
(excluding the Green itself). Site 10634 should be designed to provide a density no greater
than the existing immediate area and definitely no more than 25 dwellings in total.
● There is an identified housing need arising from a recent survey carried out in conjunction
with the RCCE. We expect that this need would be satisfied within the stated 25 dwellings.
● Sufficient on-site parking should be included in the development to allow for the expected
3 vehicles per dwelling to avoid vehicle parking on the narrow lanes and village streets.
● The site will include green space of 1.7 hectares. The responsibility for maintaining this,
including the existing ditch, all hedges, trees, gardens and grassland, should rest with the
occupants of the new dwellings (perhaps via a management company) and not fall to existing
residents via the precept.
● Ideally, the green space should be a wetland area (swale/mere) to accommodate the
additional run-off that will result from the new development. This would help to prevent
surface water flooding issues at lower points in the village, including the area surrounding the
village hall. The wetland area would have the added benefit of increasing biodiversity, and if
the wetland area is sited between the existing houses in School Road and the new
development, the impact on the rural nature of the area will be lessened.
h) Utilities, schools and medical facilities
● Medical facilities
Messing residents make use of medical services in either Kelvedon or Tiptree. McIPC
understand that capacity is very limited for new patients in both locations. Although the scale
of development planned for site 10634 is relatively small, planned developments elsewhere
in Tiptree will make the provision of additional medical services a clear and urgent
requirement.
● Electricity supply
The existing supply to the village is unstable and residents report intermittent dimming of
lights. Additional development within the village is likely to exacerbate the situation unless
remedial work is completed.
● Data connectivity
Residents report frequent outages and slow running of broadband services. Further capacity
will be required to support the planned development.
● Education
Messing School provides for ages 5-11 – there is no nursery or pre-school service. The school
is currently over-subscribed. Alternative schools are available in Tiptree or in Kelvedon, several
miles away. The closest secondary school to the village is Thurstable in Tiptree. The majority
of village children aged 11+ attend that school. Other than those attending the village school,
pupils travelling to school are subject to the difficulties described in the Road Infrastructure
section above.
Messing-cum-Inworth Parish Council stands ready to work with the Planning department
and any subsequent developers to ensure that, should the proposed development proceed,
it is successful for both new and existing village residents

I live, keep and ride my horse, walk my dogs and cycle in and around Tiptree. Green spaces are very important to me and currently I do not feel safe as I have to ride and walk on busy roads. I cannot even get to the Heath which is 5 metres from the end of my drive due to the road. Any new green spaces/PROWs must be designed as multiuser routes. Bridleways do not cost more money and I would like to see horse friendly routes in and around Tiptree linked together for the benefit of many horseriders in Tiptree.

A site of 600 dwellings should consider on-site provision for outdoor sports facilities like allocations PP17 and PP18 due to the scale of additional demand generated and the expected lack of opportunities for providing new capacity in the local area e.g. provision for cricket as there are no cricket pitches in Tiptree. The opportunity to create such provision in the proposed Tiptree Country Park could be explored. If this is not possible, financial contributions should be identified towards local strategically important projects identified in the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy in consultation with the Council’s Sports Facilities Delivery Group.

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.

These comments relate to Tiptree in general and to other site policies; however, as this represents the principal site allocation within the draft plan, my observations focus primarily on this proposal.

While the draft plan proposes a very substantial increase in housing numbers for Tiptree, which will inevitably place significant pressure on existing local infrastructure, I acknowledge that it broadly reflects the objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan in terms of the preferred direction of future expansion. Although this alignment is not always reflected in the scale of development proposed, it is evident in principle.

On this basis, and when compared with alternative options, the proposal has my reluctant support.

I also support the overall principles set out in the detailed policies (a–o). However, several of these require further clarification and strengthening before the plan proceeds to the next stage.

Policy N – Health / Medical Provision
Policy N requires substantial reinforcement in relation to the delivery of a medical facility. The current wording — “There is an expectation that the development will include the delivery of a health/community building on land set aside in earlier phases of the development” — is not sufficiently robust or enforceable.

This should be replaced with a more prescriptive requirement, such as:
“Prior to any planning permission being granted for housing, planning permission must be granted and funding secured for a new medical facility on land set aside from previous development.”

Given the scale of development proposed, a clear, binding requirement for healthcare provision is essential.

Policy D – Walking and Cycling Infrastructure
Policy D is welcomed in principle. However, it must be recognised that walking routes within Tiptree are currently sub-optimal. This is largely due to limited land ownership by the Highways Authority along several roads, resulting in inadequate width for standard pavements, or in some cases, the absence of pavements altogether, and a lack of dedicated cycling infrastructure.

This reflects Tiptree’s historic rural road layout. While solutions may be challenging to deliver, they are nevertheless essential if sustainable transport routes from new developments to the town centre are to function effectively. Any proposed improvements must be realistic, deliverable, and supported by land availability and design feasibility.

Public and Active Transport Beyond Tiptree
It is unclear whether the limited availability of public and active transport services beyond Tiptree has been fully considered in the wider strategy. While daytime public transport exists, there are no services to or from Colchester after 19:00, and none towards Maldon after 18:30.

Cycling routes to Colchester and Maldon via the B1022 are unlit, narrow, and located on high-speed roads, making them unsafe for many potential cyclists. Similar issues apply to routes towards the A12 and the mainline rail station at Kelvedon.

Although the plan refers to potential cycling infrastructure along the B1023 towards Kelvedon, it is unclear whether sufficient land is within the ownership of the Highways Authority to enable delivery. This must be tested for feasibility at the design stage before such proposals are included in the Local Plan.

Conclusion
In summary, while the overall direction of the proposed allocation broadly aligns with the Neighbourhood Plan, the scale of development and the current lack of guaranteed infrastructure provision raise significant concerns. Strengthening the policies on healthcare, walking and cycling, and external transport connectivity is essential to ensure the development is sustainable and deliverable.

I am concerned that the language around the medical centre is not robust enough, and the walking/cycle provisions may not be properly resourced/ connected. I believe that it needs to be required.

Kelvedon Parish Council strongly object to the inclusion of policy PP19 Land north of Oak Road Tiptree due to the excessive number of incremental vehicle movements that this will generate through Kelvedon to access the A12 southbound and the train station junction, notwithstanding the return traffic). This development will be in addition to those sites already allocated through the recently adopted Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan and those speculative applications that have gained planning approval. Existing highways infrastructure is struggling to support current activity levels and further stress without suitable mitigation raises significant safety concerns as the High Street and Feering Hill are not designed for this throughput.
The Inworth Road leading to Gore Pit Junction/Blue Anchor Feering is heavily congested in the morning and evening rush hours, extending as far back as the Kelvedon Road for Messing. The traffic then queues through Feering and Kelvedon to access the train station or the A12 southbound. This impacts on the Conservation Areas of the historic villages of Kelvedon and Feering as well as the physical fabric of over 100 Listed buildings along the length of the High Street, Feering Hill and Inworth Road. The withdrawal of funding for the upgrading of the A12 would have removed and reduced this congestion with the provision of a new junction 24. Without this provision the allocation of this proposed site PP19 Land North of Oak Road will significantly add to this current issue impacting on the daily lives of residents in Kelvedon and Feering leading to significant harm (traffic congestion and air quality). In addition, there are insufficient and infrequent bus services between the two villages which do not complement the full extent of train timetable either. The site is therefore not sustainable and should be removed from the emerging Local Plan.

On 06 October 2025 Braintree District Council’s Planning Sub-Committee agreed to allocate a site (known as Kings Dene) for 5,000 dwellings to the west of Kelvedon in the Braintree Local Plan. The proposals would include dwellings, employment floorspace, local centres and a mixed-use district centre, a range of community facilities, primary and secondary education facilities and open space including a country park. 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.

The allocation of land north of Oak Road, Tiptree for residential-led development is supported. The site represents a logical and sustainable extension to the settlement, capable of delivering a significant quantum of housing alongside strategic green infrastructure, biodiversity enhancements and landscape mitigation, including the proposed Tiptree Country Park.

However, a number of refinements are required to ensure the policy is justified, proportionate and effective, and to avoid unnecessary constraints on delivery. See attachment.

The largest 'village' in the UK - it can no longer have this title! 600 new homes - with roads already extremely congested and access to the A12 difficult due to one way routes at busy times. Green spaces need to be included and maintained, existing footpaths and bridleways need to link to new routes included in the planning process with thought given to vulnerable users - walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

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

This site allows the completion of the link road outlined in the Neighbourhood Plan. This is an important piece of infrastructure for Tiptree. The country park provides an effective barrier to keep Tiptree and Messing cum Inworth as separate communities.

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.

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.

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