as previous

Why is the village expanding out sideways. When a more balanced and natural expansion would be down the Mersea road. This plan seems to be very ‘Abberton’ focused and very little to do with ‘Langenhoe’.
There is land along the Mersea road (below the school) that was always in the village development envelope until 2001 when it was inexplicably removed. Surely developing the village around its central facilities including the school would make for a better shape, and spread for our village. The proposed development is further away from services (sewer, water, mainroad) and spreading towards Fingringhoe and open countryside.

One of three access roads (probably the main one) to this site is Fingringhoe Road.

Main concern is additional vehicle traffic along Fingringhoe Road (a bus route) which currently gets very congested at the western end at certain times of the day due to parking both sides of the road related to people visiting the village shop on the corner/ junction of Fingringhoe Road and Mersea Road.

Additional traffic, related to people living at the potential new development ,entering Fingringhoe Road will only make the congestion worse. Traffic entering Fingringhoe Road from Mersea Road can make the situation at that end of Fingringhoe Road extremely dangerous due to the congestion that confronts traffic as it turns into Fingringhoe Road at speed, and makes it difficult and perilous for local residents entering and exiting their drive ways due to the need to manoeuvre around parked cars and needing to turn on the opposite side of the road into oncoming traffic. Ideally some form of parking restriction is necessary to move the congestion away from the junction and ensure there is not a build up of congestion very close to a juction with a main road.

A new development will also mean additional people will be visiting the village shop who will likely use (given the distance) and park vehicles at the western end of Fingringhoe Road only increasing the existing congestion and making the situation even more dangerous.

Separate correspondence regarding this matter has already passed between myself and Cllr Tom Cunningham, of Essex CC, North Essex Parking Partnership and Cllr Andrew Crayston of Abberton and Langenhoe Parish Council last June/ July. This is available on request. Unfortunately, there seems to be an inherent conflict between the location of the village shop and the congestion that it causes.

The site is potentially located within the setting of three Grade II listed buildings.

Initial assessment

While development at this site may be acceptable, a Heritage Impact Assessment will help 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 ‘g’ of the policy.

This seems to be the most logical place for further housing in the village and I would object to any other sites. it is quite enough for our village as we already have over 60 in the pipeline and our amenities are limited, sever capacity full, no medical facilities, poor connectivity and a need to protect the Coastal zone.
I am greatly concerned that the village envelope proposals do not reflect the facts and could lead to more "unplanned" housing.

The proposed Local Plan would allow overdevelopment along Peldon Road and Fingringhoe Road, leading to increased traffic and heightened safety risks on these roads and Mersea Road. The existing infrastructure is insufficient to support further housing development.

I object to ant proposed amendments to the local plan for abberton and langenhoe

Strong indication to include equestrians due to the semi-rural and rural location of this site. Ensure provision of green infrastructure connections and recreational access to the countryside. Horses stabled and ridden out at Peldon, Abberton, Langenhoe and Fingringhoe. Close links to Donyland Woods and restricted byway Byway 19 Fingringhoe is regularly used. Infrastructure must be designed as multi-user routes (MURs) to ensure inclusivity for all non-motorised users. MURs function as public highways and are best defined as restricted byways—open to pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists, and users of non-motorised vehicles—or as bridleways, which permit access for pedestrians, horse riders, and cyclists.

The Parish Council supports PP25 as the preferred site for Abberton and Langenhoe, subject to:
• The site boundary being correctly defined and development not extending beyond it.
• Stronger policy wording is required to ensure safe, continuous, adoptable pedestrian connections to the existing village footway network.
• Existing mature trees, hedgerows, and historic field boundaries must be retained through mandatory wording.
• Development must not proceed without confirmed wastewater treatment capacity at Fingringhoe Sewage Treatment Works, with appropriate phasing.
• The policy should also require assessment and mitigation of primary healthcare capacity to ensure infrastructure keeps pace with growth.

In particular I object to the proposed development in Langenhoe - view park PP25 due to poor road access and the number of homes proposed. I also object to the redrawing of local village boundaries ‘on a whim’ - this opens up the village for further development.
Policies ST2 and 4 must be uppermost in your minds and environment surveys must be carried out.
Whilst residents accept new housing is needed the number proposed for view park is excessive in a corner of Langenhoe and will result in over 100 cars in addition to the homes which will impact on the surrounding village . ST7 hasn’t been considered locally and again 50 properties on this land will have an impact on infrastructure and there seems to be no plans to address this .
In particular sewerage capacity, street lighting, road pavements and speed limits capacity of the local school, the boundary changes look for future growth which is a concern, the impact on countryside needs to be assessed

Insufficient consideration has been given to infrastrucure and local services

In view of the urgent need for housing caused by decades of under provision the inclusion of site PP25 View Park is supported, subject to appropriate conditions including:- existing mature trees, hedgerows and historic field boundaries must be retained by enforceable planning conditions. The 150m hedge to the eastern boundary contains 7 species and is vital for bird and wildlife.
When considering any subsequent planning application the desperate need for small bungalows should be provided, allowing local residents and others the opportunity to downsize thus making their family homes available to the next generation.

I (with my partner Liz Cooper) own land adjoining this plot (View Park), and our plot of land and house plot reside within the newly expanded settlement boundary.

I am (along with my partner) happy to support the proposed plans for View Park, and the expansion of the settlement boundary adjacent to it.

Aside from the excellent response from Abberton & Langenhoe Parish Council, which I totally support and agree with, my biggest concern is over the expansion of the village boundary (particularly along Glebe Lane & beyond the View Park site propsal). This unecessary expansion almost gives carte blance to further development without prior appropriate consultation, and I and my family strongly oppose this. We accept that the View Park development is "necessary", but note that 5 years ago the village was assessed as being able to "cope" with 50 additional homes, but work has commenced on at least 60 already!

Access to Medical facilities is already over capacity and S106 monies to expand existing facilities does not provide for NHS human resources to meet the need. Local schools are also likely to be oversubscribed. Additional traffic will severely compromise surrounding roads which are inadequately designed and maintained to safely accommodate additional daily traffic. These are minor rural roads converging onto a single main road. Existing utility infrastructure is inadequate; water pressure is not reliable & sewer capacity likely to be inadequate. The development is unlikely to provide enough affordable homes to satisfy the moral question.

Sewage capacity:
The Water Cycle study showed that the Fingringhoe wastewater treatment centre is currently almost at capacity, with a maximum additional capacity for only 125 houses. As such, this is the maximum number of houses which should be permitted in Abberton/Lanegnhoe and Fingringhoe.
Anglian Water acknowledge that an upgrade to the Fingringhoe wastewater treatment centre is needed. However, this is NOT in their current 5 year (2025-30) plan. As this is a fixed term – rather than a rolling plan – the very earliest that this upgrade could happen would be at some point between 2030-35.
As such it would NOT be appropriate to reallocate to Abberton/Langenhoe proposed housing from other villages which have large housebuilding allocations in the local plan.
Hedges and trees
It is important that hedges and trees should be retained – including the hedge which forms the parish boundary between Langenhoe and Fingringhoe – and is the eastern boundary of the proposed site.
Landscape
Whilst the edge of Langenhoe village can just be seen from locations to the south such as Mersea, any additional housing development to the south of the village, including to the south of Fingringhoe road – would adversely impact the rural landscape character to a significant extent.
Village envelope
The draft local plan has proposed extending the Langenhoe village envelope to take in both Langenhoe cricket ground and a number of houses, including two which are on Abberton Road, Fingringhoe – and so in Fingringhoe Parish. It is difficult to see any justification for extending the village envelope in this way without first consulting either the parish council or the local residents concerned.
Future risk of ribbon development
The proposed site is not ideal as it is currently the green space between the villages of Langenhoe and Fingringhoe. If the proposed site is given the go ahead – the council needs to take specific steps to ensure that green space exists between Langenhoe and the western part of Fingringhoe. If it failed to do this- it would risk ribbon development running from the south part of Peldon road, Abberton – right through to the eastern end of Fingringhoe – a distance of 5KM.

I strongly object to the proposed inclusion of land east of the cricket ground on Fingringhoe Road for approximately 50 new homes. My reasons are:

It will harm the rural character of Abberton and Langenhoe, which has already seen significant recent development.
The proposal is unsustainable: essential services (GP, NHS dentist, school) are overstretched, and minimal public transport means car dependency, increasing carbon emissions.
The site is at the end of my street, creating major traffic and safety risks, especially as there is no footpath along Fingringhoe Road.
It sets a precedent for further expansion, undermining community trust.
Construction will cause noise, dust, and disruption, and permanently reduce privacy and quiet enjoyment.

I therefore request that this site be removed from the Local Plan.

Policy PP25: View Park, Abberton and Langenhoe
50 houses
Sewage capacity:
The Water Cycle study showed that the Fingringhoe wastewater treatment centre is currently almost at capacity, with a maximum additional capacity for only 125 houses. As such, this is the maximum number of houses which should be permitted in Abberton/Lanegnhoe and Fingringhoe.
Anglian Water acknowledge that an upgrade to the Fingringhoe wastewater treatment centre is needed. However, this is NOT in their current 5 year (2025-30) plan. As this is a fixed term – rather than a rolling plan – the very earliest that this upgrade could happen would be at some point between 2030-35.
As such it would NOT be appropriate to reallocate to Abberton/Langenhoe proposed housing from other villages which have large housebuilding allocations in the local plan.
Hedges and trees
It is important that hedges and trees should be retained – including the hedge which forms the parish boundary between Langenhoe and Fingringhoe – and is the eastern boundary of the proposed site.
Landscape
Whilst the edge of Langenhoe village can just be seen from locations to the south such as Mersea, any additional housing development to the south of the village, including to the south of Fingringhoe road – would adversely impact the rural landscape character to a significant extent.
Village envelope
The draft local plan has proposed extending the Langenhoe village envelope to take in both Langenhoe cricket ground and a number of houses, including two which are on Abberton Road, Fingringhoe – and so in Fingringhoe Parish. It is difficult to see any justification for extending the village envelope in this way without first consulting either the parish council or the local residents concerned.
Future risk of ribbon development
The proposed site is not ideal as it is currently the green space between the villages of Langenhoe and Fingringhoe. If the proposed site is given the go ahead – the council needs to take specific steps to ensure that green space exists between Langenhoe and the western part of Fingringhoe. If it failed to do this- it would risk ribbon development running from the south part of Peldon road, Abberton – right through to the eastern end of Fingringhoe – a distance of 5KM.
Summary
There is no spare sewage treatment capacity for at least the next 5 years for more houses than this.
The proposed site is currently the green space between the villages of Langenhoe and Fingringhoe. If the proposed site is given the go ahead – the council needs to take specific steps to ensure that green space exists between Langenhoe and the western part of Fingringhoe. If it failed to do this- it would risk ribbon development running from the south part of Peldon road, Abberton – right through to the eastern end of Fingringhoe – a distance of 5KM.

Oxley House is an immediately deliverable, landscape-led extension to Abberton, with an already-consented junction onto Mersea Road capable of serving up to c.400 homes, giving a clear, safe and policy-compliant access solution. The 3.5ha site adjoins the settlement edge, has good walking links to village services and buses, and makes no contribution to coalescence. It is visually contained by existing vegetation and does not exhibit the key characteristics or sensitivities of the wider Coastal Farmland character area. Unlike View Park, it is mainly Grade 3b land, protecting better quality farmland while still providing c.50 homes, open space, SuDS and orchards

I am concerned about increasing boundary changes that will lead to yet more houses. The village agreed in the last round of planning that the 57 houses under construction was the maximum the village could withstand - given poor infrastructure, and lack of adequate gp provision. The roads in Abberton and Langenhoe are increasing congested, and subject to speeding with pet animals run over on a regular basis.

I further object to the new extended boundary off Peldon Road. The Peldon Road area is congested and a dangerous rat run - it’s only so long before someone is run over.

If the proposed developments are allowed to proceed it will put incredible pressure on the surrounging roads. The junction with the Mersea Road, Fingringhoe Road and the Layer Road is incredibly dangerous. It is impossible to see what traffic is coming from the Mersea direction and accidents are occuring regularly it is only a matter of time before we have a serious accident. The Layer Road is a narrow country road with no pavements, two cars can pass with care with nowhere for predestrians to go. Traffic does not abide by the speed limit. We have very poor road signage, We need more road calming mearures but these are never forthcoming.Our designated doctors is at Layer de la haye, there is no way of getting to this by public transport. Sewage is at full capacity. Our village school is already full. Our older children have to travel considerable distances. The only shop we have has been provided by the villagers themselves and is run completely by volunteers. As a village we receie very little from the council. I Don't agree with any more building without the infrastructure being greatly improved.

The allocation of land at View Park for approximately 50 dwellings is supported. The site is suitable for small-scale residential development and provides an opportunity to deliver housing that respects the rural character, retains landscape and biodiversity features, and integrates with the surrounding context.

This allocation can be delivered in the 0-5 year timeframe. It is important that the smaller and medium sized allocations are delivered early in the plan period to front load housing delivery.

However, some refinements are recommended to ensure the policy is practical, flexible, and deliverable, particularly given the scale of the site. See attachment

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

I write in relation to the proposal to develop Fingringhoe Road, Langenhoe, Colchester CO5 by building 50 homes east of the cricket pitch.

I have been unable to understand and navigate the website in order to lodge my comments and so therefore have used your email addresses identified in the leaflet mailed to my address.

I am absolutely amazed that the proposed development site would have adequate land to site 50 homes. Equally I would be amazed if anyone wanted to move there. Langenhoe quite frankly can no longer be described as a village and increasing the housing makes the area even less desirable to move to. There are no amenities close by, the "village" having lost its local shop and post office, no doctors' surgeries, no schooling nearby, no petrol station nearby and anyone living there has to be able to drive to access any amenities.

All that additional housing will do is to increase the burden of traffic on what was designed as a country road. The road is already used as a cut through with cars exceeding the speed limit on a very bad right hand bend. There will be no benefit to existing residents and the Council cannot seek to argue that amenities will become available because there will no other land available to develop any such facilities that the area lacks.

I own the property directly opposite the planned development and am concerned about the noise, inconvenience, and general disruption that will flow from such a huge development which undoubtedly will take a considerable period to complete.

My land encompasses the majority of the grass verge outside my perimeter fence (all bar about 1 foot from the highway), which I own and has been registered at the Land Registry which cannot be used for facilitating the development in any way. This I wish to be known from the outset because Colchester City Council may not be aware of my ownership of that land.



Mrs V Ball

Resident in Fingringhoe Road, Langenhoe

Objection to Proposed Settlement Boundary Extension and Housing Allocation at Fingringhoe Road, Langenhoe

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed inclusion of land east of the cricket ground on Fingringhoe Road within the settlement boundary and its allocation for approximately 50 new homes under the Preferred Options stage of the Local Plan.

Key Grounds for Objection

1. Harm to Village Character The proposed development would fundamentally alter the rural character and identity of Abberton and Langenhoe. Recent housing developments have already expanded the village footprint significantly; further growth is disproportionate and erodes the sense of community.

2. Sustainability and Infrastructure Failures This proposal is unsustainable because: Essential services are overstretched: The local GP has not accepted new patients since early 2025, NHS dental access is virtually impossible, and the school likely lacks capacity. Transport dependency: There is minimal public transport, so new residents will rely on cars, increasing congestion and carbon emissions. Climate impact: Car dependency and construction activity will raise emissions, undermining climate objectives. Adding 50 homes without addressing these constraints will worsen health, education, and transport pressures, forcing residents to travel further for basic services.

3. Traffic and Safety Risks The site is at the end of my street, meaning: Construction traffic will cause prolonged disruption, noise, and dust. Permanent increase in vehicle movements will compromise safety. Critically, there is no footpath from the proposed site along Fingringhoe Road, creating a serious hazard for pedestrians and children.

4. Precedent for Further Expansion Including this site sets a dangerous precedent for continued boundary creep, risking cumulative harm to the village's character and quality of life.5. Impact on Residential Amenity Existing residents will suffer: Loss of quiet enjoyment and privacy. Increased noise and disruption during construction. Permanent change to the nature of the street.

6. Community Trust This proposal disregards community wishes and risks eroding confidence in local planning processes.

For these reasons, I urge Colchester City Council to remove this site from the settlement boundary and housing allocation in the Local Plan. The proposal is unsustainable, disproportionate, and harmful to the character and well-being of our village.

Yours faithfully

Martin Clarke

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.