I live on West Mersea. The planned house building works will affect me more than anyone, as I am sandwiched in between the two proposed sites. I have lived at [REDACTED], for the last 25 years and have built a wildlife haven - Badgers, deer, owls, bats, wild ducks, etc. The road outside my property has a constant stream of traffic and noise. How on earth these two sites have been put forward is beyond me. I would stand to make a large sum of money if I to put in planning for my 3 acre site, but I cannnot take this away from nature. This island cannot cope with more development, especially West Mersea and especially not on the Colchester Road. Please give nature a chance.

These plans I object too on the grounds that there isn’t the infrastructure as it is the doctors don’t have the capacity as it is, the concern the sewage plant can’t cope with damaging effect to the water ways, as well as not enough capacity at the school and effecting the ecology of the island

I wish to express my concerns at the proposals for housing development at West Mersea.
I will be brief:
1) Lack of (short term) infrastructure regarding schooling, policing, medical services, roads, sewage, water, dental practices, ambulance services, air ambulance services, fire engine services, employment opportunities, parking, public transport services, etc, etc.

2) Lack of (Long term) infrastructure regarding rising tide levels, coastal erosion, sewage disposal, road access in case of nuclear incident at Bradwell, single road access for many '000's of people, and the massive safety issues this would entail,

As you may sense, I am very opposed to these proposals and wish to support the very positive Conservative stance on these issues. I would therefore be obliged if you would be kind enough to include my objections to those you have already formulated, on behalf of the Party.

The latest advice from the IPCC is sea levels in Essex will rise by 60cm by 2060 and 1m by 2100. This will result in the Strood and low lying roads eg Pete Tye bridge in flooding and being impassable on the majority of tides. As traffic queues on very high tides can already stretch to Abberton, adding more houses with cars together with more frequent flooding would result in traffic chaos. The existing height of these roads (+3m ODN) would need to be raised by 2m for a length of 2.5km at an estimated cost of £20 million.

With regard to Mersea. I would like you to take into account that the existing infrastructure does in no way support any further development.
Doctor's surgery has been closed to any new patients.
The water supply system simply cannot cope with the existing population, at times during the summer my supply is a trickle
The sewerage is system is not able to cope, over the last few years the untreated discharges have risen exponentionally, the result is the estuary water quality has significantly reduced during this time,
this cannot continue to happen as it will decimate the local Oyster industry.

No more houses
The doctors can not take patients
During the summer there is a huge amount of tourists as sending in the island which the island cannot take let alone more residents
Sewage
Water pressure is not good enough
Also it’s another green space gone

The positioning of houses on Mersea in the local plan is not feasible:
1. There are no frequent bus routes as mentioned above. These may run once an hour if you are lucky and when the strood is covered at high water springs - they do not run at all.
2. Both the doctors and the dentists are full and not accepting any further patients. The nearest alternatives, if available, being some 6 miles away. You are then governed by the tides as to when you can attend.
3. The sewage plant is incapable of dealing with the sewage as it is.
4. What is forgotten is that there are a number of residents on the holiday camp sites that are not taken into consideration as no council tax is paid.
5. Mersea is cut off from the mainland at high water springs which limits the availability of emergency services

Please be advised I am totally against the local plan because:
A) local doctor surgery already closed to new patients. Where are new home owners going to get health care. B) sewerage/water supply barely copes with existing population especially in summer. C) already inadequate dental facilities. D) limited public transport . E) additional traffic on an area of the island with narrow access roads. I hope you will look at this situation sensibly and not just build houses because there happens to be spare land.

I support Mersea Council objections to large scale developments, in particular the issues regarding medical service provision. The GP surgery patient list is currently closed to new registrations (since July 2024) as they cannot accommodate the continuing increase in patient numbers and maintain services to existing registered patients within the premises currently available. Despite efforts to increase capacity this has not been achieved to date. The NHS Ten Year Plan requires more health services to be made available in community settings, it is not clear how this will be achieved with existing health care premises on Mersea Island

Too much development for
Island facilities ; parking in village sewage , doctors
Access to island limited due to tide
No new doctors registration allowed ( we have lived here since 1999 and have had to register off island when needing to change GP from Tollesbury due to being in 2 different health authority areas)
Dangerous access from Dawes lane to East Mersea Road if view obscured by new development - highways must take this into account - is bad now if vegetation grows too high.
New housing too expensive for local people - need affordable by new development .

A summary of my objection is below.
West Mersea Town Council has made clear that the scale of development proposed under Policy PP23 is not sustainable.
For the reasons set out in the attached document, Policy PP23 is unsound as it is not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, and not consistent with national planning policy.
I respectfully request that the proposed allocation east of Dawes Lane is removed, and that future housing provision for West Mersea is reconsidered only following comprehensive infrastructure, environmental, flood risk, and emergency access assessments.
Please see attached document for details and justification.

PP23. The continual growth in traffic originating from Mersea where it is likely there will be 300 additional houses built will significantly affect Abberton and Langenhoe, notably along the B1025, where footpaths, pedestrian crossings, and speed control measures are insufficient. Additionally, minor roads experience excessive usage as alternative routes towards Colchester and the A12.

Our unique island has tidal flooding on the Strood causing before new build long waits to get on and off the island.
Sewers cannot cope even now and overflow into the sea affecting shellfish and bathers
Medical practice is at present closed to new patients and will remain so for occupants of new build.
Public transport limited and affected by Strood flooding.
Utility infrastructure is already strained including wifi.
East Road which will be used to exit and enter island for new build is narrow and unsuitable for heavy traffic.
Additional housing of this amount on Mersea is not sustainable.

I object to plan policy PP23. As an island settlement the current infrastructure is being made unsustainable by the new housing being built

Any future development large or small, should only be allowed after the following
1 completion of utility infrastructure, already under pressure
2 increase in medical facilities, already under pressure
3 raising StrooD, providing unhindered access.
4 creation of new parking, car behind library often full with road parking causing problems
5 increase in school capacity
6 existing roads to be widened

The old saying, you can’t put a quart into a pint pot, springs to mind.

Here is my objection to the proposed further development of Dawes Lane.

I have tried to address key issues in the plan (you must adimit it's quite a weighty document for a lay person to get to grips with).

I do this by copying sections from the plan and adding my objections inside "-->" and "<--"



Approach to the Local Plan

"2.2 The way places are planned, designed and built can have a significant influence over health and wellbeing. All development should be designed to provide opportunities for healthy lifestyles and contribute to the creation of healthier and inclusive communities and help to reduce health inequalities for people of all ages and abilities through placemaking. The Council will continue to work with partners and health providers to improve and promote healthier and active lifestyles for our residents and communities. Health and wellbeing outcomes are embedded throughout the policies in the Local Plan. "

-->
The fact that it is repeatedly pointed out how the medical facilities on Mersea are woefully inadequate. Neither the Doctors Surgery or Dentist have been accepting new NHS patients for years now. This fact alone was completely ignored on the previous Dawes Lane Build.

It makes the statement "Health and wellbeing outcomes are embedded throughout the policies in the Local Plan." requires explanation in the context of the additional Dawes Lane development. (.. and probably for the current one too!)

Given that Mersea has an ageing population that will require more medical support it seems frivolous to just keep building more houses without *explicitly* requiring the addition of new medical capability.

<--


3. Strategic Policies

3.1 In accordance with the NPPF paragraph 20, this plan includes Strategic Policies which set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places and make sufficient provision for:

a) homes (including affordable housing),

-->
There are plenty of expensive homes on Mersea for sale, if *anything* needs to be done it's to build genuinely affordable homes.

Looking at the recent developments the vast majority of the new properties are expensive and beyond the means of low paid workers. Surely this frenzy of house building should be addressing that real issue?.

The commitment to the actual number of affordable housing is vauge at best or is NOT committing to a sufficiently high mix of affordable houses.

<--



employment, retail, leisure and other commercial development;

-->
For the additional Dawes Lane development I don't really see anything other than just building more houses so this point isn't really being addressed at all - much like the lack of medical facilities.

Those that have jobs will almost certainly have to work off Mersea - the bus service is slow and infrequent and so most will have to drive. The B1025 into Colchester is already very congested at peak times.
<--



b) infrastructure for transport

-->
Dawes Lane - The clue is potentially in the name. The average number of cars per household in Essex is 1.38 . Given that the majority of the houses that are proposed to be built will be targetted at the somewhat better off that figure is likely to be higher.

This comes to approximately an additional 415 vehicles ON TOP of the same number from the curent development. That is nearly a thousand additional vehicles utilising a small road and loading the minor roads throughout Mersea.

It's too far to walk (for most) to get to the shops and other facilities in West Mersea - all these cars will be used to get to those facilities.

In addition, at one end of Dawes Lane is East Road which is already a bottleneck for traffic. At the other end we get onto the road that runs to the Strood - in itself a bottleneck due to the tides.

Perhaps if the plans included concrete plans that explicitly include the build of shops and medical facilities in East Mersea this might be more viable and relieve the need to 'head west'.

Without addressing the transport issues this plan is a disaster.
<--

, telecommunications, security, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat);

-->
I see nothing regarding coastal change management - the sea wall to the south of Mersea is in a terrible condition and is already collapsing e.g. the breach near the Youth Camp.
<--


c) community facilities (such as health, education and cultural infrastructure);

--> Great ideas and something to aspire to but the reality of the plan as proposed provides nothing for Mersea just more houses and so should be rejected.

Policy ST1

F) Provide access for all to health facilities and services, a range of employment opportunities, and sport and recreation facilities.

-->
Keeps apprearing but no matter how many times these honorable ideas are propsed the reality is that the plan does not address these for West Mersea and should be rejected.
<--

Policy PP23 : Land East Dawes Lane

A) Approximately 300 new dwellings of a mix and type of housing to meet evidenced needs and which is compatible with surrounding development;

-->
What does 'approximately' mean in this context?? This is a poor definition and should be more clearly stated. e.g 300 +/- 2%

Similarly the breakdown of the types (cost) of each of those dwelling is not clearly stated but should be for the plan to be properly defined.

<--


E) Enhanced provision of open space of at least 5 hectares must be provided within the site and this open space must link with the open space within the approved scheme at Dawes Lane and connect through to The Glebe as indicated on the policies map;

-->

Who pays for the maintenance of this open space? - there was a cynical offer of the existing Dawes Lane development's open space to the council for £1 - the aim of the developer was clearly to offload the obligation to maintain that space.

Current residents complain that the management company of that space is poor and doesn't maintain the existing area properly.

Clearly this model doesn't seem to work very well and should be much more clearly defined - e.g. how the maintenance of the area is managed and what will be done if it is not maintained properly. ie properly defined legal commitments.

Until this is defined the plan is incomplete and shoul dbe rejected.

<--

I) Support will be given to delivering standing freshwater habitat within or adjacent to the site to support the delivery of the strategic creation opportunities in the Essex LNRS;

-->
Far too vauge a commitment. Until this is more clearly defined as to exactly what that 'support' comprises the plan is incomplete.
<--




-->

In summary :-

Mersea Island is a unique place.

The population is getting older and will require more not less medical support. It seems crazy to propose to build yet more houses when there clearly isn't the infrastructure in place to properly cope with those already here.

The road infrastructure is such that the volume of traffic it handles is already significantly stretched.

During the summer when caravanners and other tourists flood the island the situation already gets riduculous.

There is not enough parking at the best of times but in summer cars park and block the roads - in some cases with potentially critical obstruction for emergency vehicles.

With more houses being built in Colchester there will of course be even more people wanting to visit Mersea (Although that might change when they find just how packed it is!.)

There is nothing in the plan that creates any more jobs on Mersea (except for the developers building the houses) and yet that is one of the defined goals. Workers will have to travel off Island creating more pollution and making traffic worse not better.

With the main shops and facilities being in West Mersea new residents from the proposed plan will add yet more traffic to the conjestion. Everything has to head west and the roads are really not up to it and neither are the facilities when they get there.

The honorable goals that are stated are poorly defined with no concrete substance to them. The plan must be more specific as to what the practical real intent will be.

Even if the lack of infrastructure and facilities is ignored (again) then if nothing else there is universal recognition that the majority of housing need is for affordable housing and yet the commitment to that type of housing is not explicitly defined.

I think I saw a figure of 30% somewhere which means 70% won't be affordable idf anything it should be the other way round.

There is a dissonance between what everyone knows (in the broad sense) as to what type of housing is required and the weak proposal defined in the plan.

What should also be included in the plan is what profit the developers stand to make from this and if it's significant (which I am sure it will be otherwise they wouldn't do it) then maybe the council should look at ways of funding such developments itself?

I sincerely hope that you will provide some sort of responses to the issues that people are raising.

I have concerns over access to health and social care for residents. Having moved to Mersea Island just over a year ago, my husband and I have been unable to register at the local GP practice as it is closed to new patients. On Mersea Island close to 50% of people are over the age of 65, much higher than the national average. Building a further 300 properties on Dawes Lane east, in addition to the 200+ in the last plan, will only exacerbate the problem. There is no secondary school on the island - issue of high cost to access schools off the island, plus congestion on The Strood, being the only road on and off the island, which is also subject to flooding. Other transport issues - There is no direct bus to Colchester Station for commuters and shoppers. Environmental issues - sewage and the effect of storm discharges on the oyster industry. Economic issues - lack of employment on the island. Impact of tourism - many tourists visit the island during the summer. Concern over capacity of island to cope with the extra population. Island issues - rising sea levels mean that in 25 years time The Strood will be flooded on twice as many days a month as now. The island is home to many rare species of bird that will be impacted by overpopulation. Emergency evacuation issues - again this will be impacted by overpopulation.

I am commenting on Policy PP23 because West Mersea cannot support further large‑scale development. The B1025 already operates over capacity, and The Strood’s tidal closure restricts safe, reliable access for residents and emergency services. Healthcare provision is stretched, and wastewater infrastructure is at or near capacity. Mersea is surrounded by nationally protected designations (SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar, MCZ) which require stronger safeguards. Policies ST1, ST2, ST7, EN1 and LC1 must be applied more robustly. Development at Dawes Lane is not sustainable without addressing these constraints.

Mersea is an island; the one road onto it regularly floods at high Spring Tides making access unpredictable for cars, public buses, school buses (no secondary school on the island) and emergency vehicles.
Utilities are under severe pressure with increasing housing: water pressure is low and there is already occasional overspill from the sewage treatment works. The GP surgery has had to close it's books to new residents. There may be a case for some smaller lower cost housing for local people but so much of the recent newbuild has been large homes out of reach to young local adults.

I very strongly object to further 300 houses.
Tidal flooding. Unbelievable dangerous traffic congestion on Strood, possible death could occur. Sounds ridiculous but chaotic and unpredictable behaviour occurs. Happens a lot. Public transport/emergency vehicles stopped when tide over Strood.
Waste water issue. Swimming - sewage smell detected in places, oyster/shellfish farming put in jeopardy
Doctor's surgery numbers unsustainable - list closed
Sports facilities/childrens play areas not adequate
Supermarkets chaotically crowded carparks not adequate. Tesco carpark is insane.
Roads within island and public car parking inadequate. Potholes.
Grossly unfair to holidaymakers. Sacrosanct for mental health
Holidaymakers swell numbers at times.

I am commenting on Policy PP23 because West Mersea cannot support further large‑scale development. The B1025 already operates over capacity, and The Strood’s tidal closure restricts safe, reliable access for residents and emergency services. Healthcare provision is stretched, and wastewater infrastructure is at or near capacity. Mersea is surrounded by nationally protected designations (SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar, MCZ) which require stronger safeguards. Policies ST1, ST2, ST7, EN1 and LC1 must be applied more robustly. Development at Dawes Lane is not sustainable without addressing these constraints.

I am commenting on Policy PP23 because West Mersea cannot support further large‑scale development. The B1025 already operates over capacity, and The Strood’s tidal closure restricts safe, reliable access for residents and emergency services. Healthcare provision is stretched, and wastewater infrastructure is at or near capacity. Mersea is surrounded by nationally protected designations (SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar, MCZ) which require stronger safeguards. Policies ST1, ST2, ST7, EN1 and LC1 must be applied more robustly. Development at Dawes Lane is not sustainable without addressing these constraints.

We moved to Mersea in December 2025 and have objection to 300 dwellings being built in West Mersea. Since we moved here, doctors nor dentist have no capacity for new applicants. The roads and infrastructure seem to be at full capacity and this is exacerbated when the Strood floods or peak holiday times. There have been various significant environmental issues raised, that have not been answered. My daughter struggles to go college as buses are infrequent and not available when Strood floods. Mersea Island is a remote location and should not be a tick box for unsustainable, arguably unjustified, building.

I am commenting on Policy PP23 because West Mersea cannot support further large-scale development. The proposal is detrimental to highway capacity and safety as the B1025 is already taking too much traffic and it is a nightmare getting on and off the Strood, particulary at high tide, when emergency services are also affected. Healthcare is stretched, the surgery are not taking on any more patients and we already have severe problems with wastewater infrastructure. Consideration has to be given to the fact that resources are stretched even further in the summer months when caravan parks are at full capacity.

We moved to Mersea in December 2024 and have objection to 300 dwellings being built in West Mersea. Since we moved here, doctors have no capacity for new applicants nor dentist. The roads and utility infrastructure seem to be at full capacity and this is exacerbated when the Strood floods or peak holiday times. There have been significant environmental issues raised, that have not been answered. My daughter struggles travelling to college as buses are infrequent and not available when Strood floods. Mersea Island is a natural remote location which should not be compromised for unsustainable, arguably unjustified, building.

Overdevelopment would be a disaster for this small island for reasons that many have already mentioned.
Schools, GP, dentist, water supply. Road conditions aren’t great around the island and certainly not adequate on Dawes Lane.
It would not enhance this lovely place any means and as someone else has mentioned it’d end up another Canvey Island.

Mersea Island Society comments on the Colchester City Council Regulation 18 Consultation - Preferred Options Local Plan 2025
A Statement Outlining Concerns and Objections
Introduction
The Society was formed to preserve, safeguard and promote the characteristics of Mersea Island for the benefit of all, to arrange open discussion whenever it appears necessary to obtain a consensus of public opinion and to provide opportunities to gain factual knowledge from lectures, visits and discussion of this great island.

Mersea Island Society Committee wishes to formally express its opposition to the current draft Local Plan for Colchester. This statement outlines the principal concerns and objections that the Committee has identified, highlighting the potential impact on Mersea Island and its residents.
Key Concerns
1. Pressure on Local Infrastructure
2. Environmental Impact
3. Overdevelopment and Community Character
4. Lack of Meaningful Consultation
Summary of Objections
• Inadequate consideration of infrastructure limitations.
• Insufficient measures to protect the environment and manage flood risk.
• Overambitious housing targets that threaten the community’s character.
• Poor consultation and lack of engagement with Mersea residents and stakeholders.
Conclusion
In light of these concerns, Mersea Island Society urges Colchester City Council to reconsider the draft Local Plan. The Society requests a thorough review of the proposals as they relate to Mersea Island, with genuine engagement with the local community, robust environmental protections, and a realistic approach to infrastructure capacity. The Society remains committed to working constructively with all stakeholders to achieve a sustainable future for Mersea Island and the wider Colchester area.
The Society is concerned that the consultation process has not been sufficiently inclusive or transparent. There appears to be a lack of engagement with the specific needs and circumstances of Mersea Island.
The draft Local Plan proposes a level of housing growth that the Society believes is disproportionate to the size and character of Mersea Island. Such development risks altering the identity of the community, placing a strain on local services and undermining the qualities that make Mersea a desirable place to live and visit.
Mersea Island is a unique and fragile environment, home to diverse wildlife and protected habitats. The Society is deeply concerned that the scale and nature of the proposed developments threaten local biodiversity and undermine environmental protections. There is a risk of increased flooding and erosion, and the plan does not provide sufficient safeguards for the island’s distinctive landscape and ecology.
The Society is not opposed to very limited growth and for priority for housing to be given to local particularly young people but an additional 300 houses on top of the 200+ from the last local plan is unstainable.
The proposed development sites in the draft Local Plan would place significant additional pressure on the island’s already limited infrastructure. Concerns include the capacity of local roads, particularly the Strood causeway, as well as water supply, drainage, and waste management systems. The Society believes that these issues have not been adequately addressed within the plan nor the considerable pressure that arise from occupation of caravans. Neighbourhood Plan (2021) indicates there are 1,905 static caravans and lodges.

The Society will comment on specific texts in the Consultative Document. These to include comments on the evidence lacking in the consultation documents about the capacity for growth of West Mersea; provision of medical care and the aging population on the island; adequacy of the local Water Treatment Centre; our island position and flooding on the Strood severely affecting entry to and from the island; threats to environment resulting from overdevelopment; the site allocation on Dawes Lane; bus links and transport connectivity; ongoing consideration to SMR’s being located at the former nuclear power station at Bradwell, and the huge gap in money available for infrastructure improvements.
The Society urges that these comments be considered when further consideration is given. Mersea in many ways is unique and its future needs safeguarding,
Mersea Island Society Committee January 2026

The Society says that wholly insufficient attention has been given to Mersea being an island.

Place Policies PP23

If despite these objections to the proposal, an allocation is made, the footways from the site provision needs to be made for safe access.
This development’s open space which should be the north of the developed area and should be left within the Coastal Belt Protection designated area so that no further development of site may occur at a later date. It is wholly unacceptable that no improvements have been made to the junction of Dawes Lane with East Road since a new development in 2023.

BRADWELL
NPPF Policy 162 &172, 178

Attention is drawn to Govt. policy announced in June 2024. As stated, there will be a “New era for nuclear power as Rolls-Royce SMR selected as preferred bidder to build country’s first small modular reactors.” Attention drawn to the possible inclusion of the previous nuclear plant at Bradwell being a site for an SMR. Nearby Maldon District Council has an existing policy to encourage further nuclear development on the site stating, “The Council will strongly support the principle of the development of a new nuclear power station at Bradwell-on-Sea.” There is concern that at present there is no evacuation policy in existence and the decommissioned plant has already a substantial storage of spent fuel with inherent safety risks lasting over 100 years. Therefore in addition substantial issues would arise from an SMR at Bradwell. An SMR would be less than 2 miles across the sea from West Mersea.

I am commenting on Policy PP23 because West Mersea cannot support further large‑scale development. The B1025 already operates over capacity, and The Strood’s tidal closure restricts safe, reliable access for residents and emergency services. Healthcare provision is overstretched, and wastewater infrastructure is at or near capacity. Mersea is surrounded by nationally protected designations (SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar, MCZ) which require stronger safeguards. Policies ST1, ST2, ST7, EN1 and LC1 must be applied more robustly. Development at Dawes Lane is not sustainable without addressing these constraints.

I am commenting on Policy PP23 because West Mersea cannot support further large‑scale development. The B1025 already operates over capacity, and The Strood’s tidal closure restricts safe, reliable access for residents and emergency services. Healthcare provision is stretched, and wastewater infrastructure is at or near capacity. Mersea is surrounded by nationally protected designations (SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar, MCZ) which require stronger safeguards. Policies ST1, ST2, ST7, EN1 and LC1 must be applied more robustly. Development at Dawes Lane is not sustainable without addressing these constraints.

I would not object in principle to more homes being built in Mersea; and this area seems appropriate for growth of the village.

However, given that no infrastructure improvements have been put in place for key services to support the recent large developments in the area, I must object to addition of more homes.

While it is not the responsibility of CCC to provide services, in particular expanded health facilities, it would be crazy to simply ignore the existing shortfall and take a 'cover your hands with your ears and pretend the issue does not exist' approach. No new residents can register for local healthcare. If we add 300 more homes, this will add another thousand or so residents who also cannot access healthcare locally.

While Mersea Surgery is not accepting new patients, other local doctors services are also overwhelmed; and off island facilities will be increasingly overwhelmed if both Mersea and Tiptree developments proceed.

While the healthcare shortage remains, any development of new housing would be unfair to both existing residents, and new.

Of course we are all also aware of the shortage of other critical facilities such as the ongoing issues with the island sewage station.

I am commenting on Policy23 because West Mersea cannot support further large-scale development. The B1025 already operates over capacity and The Strood's tidal closure restricts safe, reliable access for residents and emergency services. Healthcare provision is stretched and wastewater infrastructure is at, or near, capacity. Mersea is surrounded by nationally protected designations (SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar, MCZ) which require stronger safeguards. Policies ST1, ST2, ST7, EN1 and LC1 must be applied more robustly. Development at Dawes Lane is not sustainable without addressing these constraints.