It is not appropriate or safe to build 150 houses in Boxted. Straight road is a very small road with very poor compliance with the 30mph. To the point where it is currently unsafe to walk from my house to the school. The school is tiny and will be destroyed unless money and resource is given to expand it.

Boxted Cross area: This is a vital open space. A large variety of wildlife live in the area and they will lose habitat. There is only reference to studying wintering birds -more animals need to be surveyed such as badgers, deer and foxes. Vandals already have cut wires, left rubbish and gone on my woodland that adjoins this area, so this could increase with more housing. More pressure put on the green spaces such as the area of the old Walnut Farm. The village nature of Boxted Cross would be destroyed. The roads are not suitable for more traffic.

Fails to meet most City/Parish Council aims.
The site is in no way sustainable due to lack of public transport before 09:15, local employment, healthcare, shops & schooling.
No local safe cycle routes.
In light of above, most journey to & from site will be by car.
This is prime agricultural land.
Anglian Water confirm there is no sewerage capacity for this development.
Pricing will be well out of reach of the offspring of local villagers.
Site access will be unsafe due to being adjacent to a sharp bend with heavy school traffic.
Screening of the site will be unenforced.

as previous

The site is potentially located within the setting of a number of listed buildings, including 1 x Grade I, and 17 x Grade II.

Initial assessment

While development here could 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.

1: Use of agricultural land. This site has carried a crop continuously for at least 35 years (to my knowledge). It seems reckless when the subject of food security is being discussed in Parliament to build on productive farmland. The world is in a precarious state at the moment, and our food imports could be severely restricted in the future.
2: Your own draft plan includes the following - Development should avoid reduction of and encourage traditional farming practices (including traditional orchards), retaining and enhancing sense of place. They should also 'protect rural openness and sense of place'.
Development on Land classified as Agricultural Grade 1 (except for renewable energy projects) will not be permitted unless a landscape strategy, which would compensate for the loss or harm, is secured or where there are overriding public benefits arising from the development.
As the field borders the Dedham Vale (AONB) and is currently in agricultural use, I consider it doesn't meet your own criteria.
3: Essex highways department have objected twice in recent years to development with access onto Straight Road near the   bend before Boxted Cross. Indeed, they are in the process of improving the school signage to 'encourage safer traffic movements' which implies a present danger which will only increase with more housing in this area.
4: On a wider note, Anglian Water constantly object to further developments that will impact the Langham water recycling plant but your department continues to ignore them.
5: As a council, you have already fulfilled your government quota and have no need to increase the housing numbers in this region. This is according to your own Five-Year Housing Land Supply Statement 2025.

Objection to Proposed Development

I strongly object to this development due to the overwhelming volume of housing proposed for the area. In particular, the inclusion of 30% social housing raises significant concerns, as I believe it will fundamentally alter and potentially degrade the character of the village.
One of the main reasons we chose to move here was the village’s unique beauty and reputation for safety. If the proposed development proceeds, I am convinced these qualities will be lost, compromising both the aesthetic appeal and the secure environment that currently define the community. The safety of my children is paramount to me, and I do not believe it can be ensured if this plan is to be approved.
I am also concerned about the lack of appropriate amenities to support such an expansion. The local primary school is already oversubscribed, and there are no additional shops or medical facilities, such as doctors’ surgeries, planned to accommodate the increased population. This raises serious questions about how the needs of future residents will be met. Furthermore, the bridge crossing the A12 towards Severalls industrial estate remains unrepaired. This unresolved infrastructure problem highlights the inadequacy of current provisions and casts further doubt on the area’s readiness for further development.

Objection to Proposed Development
I am opposed to the proposed housing development in Boxted due to the large number of properties planned for such a small site. The sheer volume of new homes threatens to irreversibly alter the character of the village. Additionally, the number of social housing units is concerning, as we moved to Boxted seeking its village atmosphere and community spirit—qualities that would disappear if this development proceeded. According to the 2021 census, Boxted had just over 600 houses; with some increase since then, this plan would expand the village by around 20%, which I believe would be extremely harmful to both Boxted and surrounding communities.
I am also concerned about the lack of local amenities, such as doctors’ surgeries and shops, and note that the local school is already seriously oversubscribed. When considering these factors—and referencing the Colchester Local Plan Issues and Options 2023–2024—it becomes clear that residents do not currently have access to the facilities listed in official surveys, raising questions about why this site was selected in the first place, likely due to its flat terrain.
Another major issue is the absence of adequate transport links and the potential impact on rural roads. The proposed entrance to the site is situated on a bend, which seems unsafe to me. Local roads are narrow, and increased traffic could cause significant problems. Furthermore, the bridge over the A12 near Severals industrial estate—a vital connection to the city—has been unrepaired for more than six years. It seems illogical to plan a development on the far side of this bridge, especially considering the additional proposals for 900 homes in Langham and 250 in Horkesley.
Additionally, the development would mean losing another farmland field at a time when British farming faces an uncertain future. The field supports local wildlife, including deer, pheasants, jays, and woodpeckers that we regularly see among the treelines.
Finally, I am concerned about the negative impact on heritage housing and the devaluation of local properties. Many people have worked hard all their lives to live here, and this development risks destroying what they cherish most about Boxted.

The proposal for 150 houses is in conflict with the Boxted neighbour plan as agreed with Colchester Borough Council.
The proposed development is not required by the residents of Boxted and will turn Boxted into an urban area but it will not have the facilities that urban areas have, such as a bus services, doctors, sufficient schools, shops, post office, there is no employment or leisure facilities. The area does not have street lighting, walking and cycle paths and an increase in traffic with create many safety issues.
The proposed development of 150 houses is too concentrated for this area.

I write to formally object to the proposed development of 150 new residential homes near Boxted Cross. The scale of the development would have a significant and lasting negative impact on both existing and future residents, for the reasons set out below.

First, the development would lead to a substantial and unsustainable increase in traffic. With most households now owning at least two vehicles, and family homes often having three, the proposal could introduce 300 or more additional vehicles onto local roads which are extremely narrow and mostly without pavements. Boxted has very limited and unreliable public transport (time-tabled buses can be suspended without notice to cover school transport), no local employment, and no village amenities. This makes car ownership unavoidable for new residents and will significantly increase daily traffic movements.

There are also serious highway safety concerns regarding the proposed site access. Visibility is poor on the bend where the entrance would join Straight Road, and adding frequent vehicle movements at this point would increase the risk of accidents. This new junction would also cause significant light pollution for those living in the houses opposite the junction.

The local primary school is already at full capacity. Children living only a hundred metres away from St. Peter’s primary school are currently being sent to schools in neighbouring villages. There is no public transport for primary school children, meaning more car journeys which undermines any green initiatives.

The size and density of the proposal are wholly out of keeping with the existing village. One hundred and fifty homes represent a major and disproportionate expansion and would lead to the creeping urbanisation of Boxted. Approval of a scheme of this scale would also set an undesirable precedent for further large developments, risking urban sprawl towards Boxted and beyond.

The design and layout appear to follow a standard high-density estate model, with little consideration given to the rural setting. Boxted lies on the edge of the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Residents within the AONB would lose open views of fields and valleys and instead face a housing estate. This landscape is closely associated with John Constable, and any development should be designed with great sensitivity to its historic and environmental context. This proposal fails to do so.

The proposed site is poorly related to key day-to-day facilities and principal employment areas and represents an unsustainable location for development. The Colchester City Council New Local Plan to 2041 places significant emphasis on reducing carbon emissions and addressing climate change by directing development to locations that allow residents to access services, facilities, employment, and public transport by walking, cycling, or public transport, thereby minimising reliance on the private car. In this case, there is no post office, doctor’s surgery, village shop, employment, or frequent bus service within reasonable walking or cycling distance of the site. As a result, future residents would be heavily dependent on private vehicles for even the most basic daily needs. This car-dependent pattern of development would inevitably lead to increased vehicle movements and associated carbon emissions, directly conflicting with the Local Plan’s climate change, carbon reduction, and sustainable transport objectives.

The development would result in the loss of prime agricultural land at a time when food security is increasingly important. It would also undermine environmental initiatives, including the Dedham Vale Dark Skies policy, as estate lighting would inevitably increase light pollution.

Claims of a 10 percent net biodiversity gain are difficult to accept. Replacing a field with 150 houses, roads, driveways, and play areas leaves little genuine space for wildlife. Experience from nearby developments shows that artificial lawns and extensive hardstanding are likely outcomes.

The site borders a large private walnut orchard that currently supports a rich and diverse range of wildlife, including kingfishers, otters, buzzards, cormorants, and swans. In addition, skylarks are regular visitors to the proposed site and are known to nest there. Skylarks are a ground-nesting species that depend on open farmland, and the loss of this habitat would almost certainly result in their displacement. It is highly unlikely that this level of biodiversity would be maintained once a dense housing estate is built adjacent to and over the site.

Finally, this proposal offers no clear benefit to the village. A recent local survey demonstrates there is no desire among residents for a development of this scale. Smaller, more appropriate schemes could be considered, but this proposal is excessive and harmful.

For all these reasons, I strongly object to the application and urge the Council to refuse planning permission.

Place policy PP26 is allocating approximately 150 new homes on the land North of Boxted Straight Road. This development will be directly visible from the Dedham Vale National Landscape (DVNL) across the valley (approximately 0.7km to the North of the site); it will be visually intrusive, harm the rural character of the Dedham Vale, and it will adversely affect the tranquillity and Dark Skies of the National Landscape.

The enhanced duty under Section 85 of the CRoW Act states that relevant authorities “must seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty (National Landscapes)”.

NPPF states in chapter 15 paragraph 189 that: "Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes" and that "development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas".

Policy LC2 states: "Development will only be supported within or on land within the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape that: (b) Does not adversely affect the tranquillity and the National Landscapes good quality night/dark skies, taking account of guidance in The Dedham Vale National Landscape Lighting Design Guide". And "Applications for major development or in close proximity to the boundary of the Dedham Vale National Landscape will be refused unless in exceptional circumstances". There is thus a policy conflict between Policies LC2 and PP26.

The addition of approximately 150 homes in policy PP26 within the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape will significantly increase light pollution, affecting the Dark Skies Status. The addition of 150 homes will also affect the tranquillity and air quality of the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape with additional traffic on adjacent rural roads such as Carters Hill and Dedham Road. Impact assessments for lighting and pollution should therefore have been carried out before proposing policy PP26 to ensure there will be no residual impact on the Dark Skies Initiative and tranquillity of the Dedham Vale National Landscape. Assessments required to demonstrate that development on this site would not adversely impact the integrity of habitats of the Dedham Vale (there seems to be no mention of impact assessments within the Sustainability Appraisal with regard to the Dedham Vale National Landscape).

NPPF paragraph 187 states: “Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: e) preventing new development from contributing to ... unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution."

NPPF paragraph 198 states: "Planning policies should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects of pollution on... the natural environment" and to "b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason" and "c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation". NPPF paragraph 190 states: "Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape..."

Policy ST7 states: "Permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is sufficient and appropriate infrastructure capacity to support the development or that such capacity will be delivered by the proposal". And "An Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) is being prepared to inform and support the Local Plan." (3.64).

The Colchester Infrastructure Audit and Delivery Plan Stage 3 Report (IADP) produced in October 2025 for Colchester City Council shows that there is currently "No capacity" for any growth to 2041 for Langham Wastewater Recycling Centre (WRC) which supplies wastewater treatment to Boxted and Langham. The report states: "No current capacity - a solution to protect water quality is possible but there are no plans to improve the WRC... There will be phasing implications and no funding is secured". The report recommends that "Early phasing of growth in Dedham, West Bergholt, and Langham may be restricted until improvement plans are developed and funded for 2030 onwards" (AMP9 or AMP10).

The Sewerage & Surface Water Drainage Report submitted by Langham Parish Council demonstrates the concerning groundwater infiltration problems associated with annual rainfall outruns, and that "Langham WRC remains flow non-compliant". With reference to the report, it has been identified that there is a “need for a large water storage basin to regulate surface water discharge rates towards Black Brook”. Black Brook is at capacity now and has to be annually cleaned by the Environment Agency, where it reaches the centre of Dedham village two miles away. The frequency of flooding in Dedham has increased over recent years. The current lack of capacity at Langham WRC and flooding issues at Black Brook need to be addressed first before sites linked to this WRC can be considered as a viable option to prevent any further impact on the Dedham Vale National Landscape.

In summary, there appears to be no secured funding recorded for the Langham WRC, no capacity for future growth, nor is there an improvement plan for the short or longer term. Due to the proximity to the Dedham Vale National Landscape, it is of the utmost importance that the water quality and connected habitats are protected from potential flooding or wastewater spillage.

Thus, policy PP26 needs to address the significant adverse impact of development on the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape before proceeding. The Dedham Vale Society also supports the Objection Statement provided by Boxted Parish Council with regard to its concerns about landscape character, settlement boundaries, visual impact, and the conflicts with the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan.

Boxted is classed as a medium size in the emerging Local Plan. Development in Boxted is concentrated around 3 areas; Workhouse Hill, an area to the south of the parish to the west of Straight Road and at Boxted Cross which lies at the northern end of Straight Road. Development at Boxted Cross has grown in a linear manner around Straight Road/Carters Hill, Dedham Road/Cage Lane crossroads extending north eastwards as far as Cooks Lane. There is a primary school, community hall, café and recreations ground at Boxted Cross and St Petr Church to the north of Boxted Cross.

An allocation of 150 dwellings is being proposed at Boxted Cross on the north side of Straight Road. The boundary of the Dedham Vale National Landscape lies approximately 0.7km to the north of the site proposed for allocation at Boxted Cross. This site is considered to fall within the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape. There are open cross valley views of the site from Parsonage Hill to the north. Boxted Cross sits in an elevated position therefore development at the scale proposed will be highly visible from the Dedham Vale National Landscape in cross valley views from the north.

Paragraph 189 of the National Planning NPPF states that: "Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes" and that "development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas".

Draft Local Plan Policy LC2 states that ‘Development will only be supported within or on land within the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape’ that: (b) Does not adversely affect the tranquillity and the National Landscapes good quality night/dark skies, taking account of guidance in The Dedham Vale National Landscape Lighting Design Guide". The policy continues that ‘Applications for major development or near the boundary of the Dedham Vale National Landscape will be refused unless in exceptional circumstances’.

The addition of approximately 150 dwellings as proposed through policy PP26 has the potential to significantly increase light pollution levels within the setting of the National Landscape. This will directly impact tranquillity levels linked to increased light pollution from the proposed development. The addition of 150 new dwellings so close to the National Landscape also has the potential to further reduce tranquillity levels indirectly from an increase in traffic levels and traffic noise on the rural road network across the Dedham Vale National Landscape.

The exceptional circumstances have not been evidenced and the tranquillity of the National Landscape will be impacted.

Paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires Planning policies and decisions to ‘contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: e) preventing new development from contributing to ... unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution."

Paragraph 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that ‘Planning policies should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects of pollution on... the natural environment’ and to "b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason" and ‘c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation’.

Paragraph 190 states that: ‘Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape...’

Across the settlements of Boxted, Dedham Heath, Langham, and Great Horkesley a total of 1,488 new dwellings are being proposed. All of these settlements lie in the setting to the Dedham Vale National Landscape. Alone and accumulatively the potential for increased light pollution along the southern boundary to the National Landscape from these developments is very high.

It is not clear from the Sustainability Assessment how or if impacts on the National Landscape have been considered. Lighting and pollution impacts should have been more thoroughly considered to better understand effects on the tranquillity/Dark Skies and water quality and water management issues and show these might affect the Dedham Vale National Landscape. before promoting the allocation of site PP26. Completing such assessments would also help to demonstrate that the City Council has actively sought to meet its Duty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 200.

There is a high risk that this development at the scale proposed will have a significant adverse effect within the setting to the Dedham Vale National Landscape. It is considered that there is a policy conflict between paragraphs between paragraphs 187, 189 and 190 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the objectives of emerging Local Plan Policies LC2 and PP26.

In the previous Local Plan, the developments needs for Boxted were identified and delivered through the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan. An update to the Boxted Neighbourhood Plan is currently being prepared. While the updated Neighbourhood plan has not reached an advanced stage, work has been undertaken to identify housing needs going forward. Rather than pursuing the current PP26 allocation, it may be appropriate for the Council to continue working with Boxted Parish Council to identify a more appropriate level of housing growth linked to identified need in Boxted that better conserves and enhances the neighbouring Dedham Vale National Landscape.

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

Regrettable loss of good agricultural land by use of a greenfield site on the edge of Dedham Vale National Landscape resulting in both a visual and light polluting detriment to that rural landscape which will be visible across the valley.
Lack of capacity at Langham WRC.
The main roads in Boxted are already at capacity and in a poor state of repair from traffic traversing the area between the A134, the A12 and Colchester employment sites.
The scale of the development is at odds with Boxted NDP aim to keep Boxted village from coalescing with urban Colchester.

I object to Policies PP26 and PP37 due to their direct impacts on the Dedham Vale NL and their unsuitability for development due to lack of infrastructure and unsustainability of the sites, made worse by the impact of the number of houses proposed. I support the objections of the Dedham Vale Society and Boxted PC. Particularly that Policy PP26 conflicts with NPPF Paragraphs 187, 189 & 198, and draft local plan policies LC2 and ST7. Insufficient evidence or assessments to demonstrate no adverse impacts on Dark Skies, views, tranquillity, and congestion on rural roads within the Dedham Vale National Landscape.

SEE ATTACHED

SEE ATTACHMENTS

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.