This is a good location with good access to the village resources - it is proportionate to the size of the village and is to be welcomed unlike the other proposed site in wakes colne.

Looks strong and reliable plans but only questions are over if it will impact traffic on surrounding country lanes which are populated with young people and animals.

as previous

This is a sensible site to add to the village. This is proportionate to the village unlike the other proposed site in wakes Colne. These villages share amenities so should be looked at together not as individual locations.

The site is located within the setting of a number of Grade II listed buildings, and potentially within the setting of the Chappel Conservation Area.

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 ‘f’ of the policy.

Overdevelopment for small village; poor road access; when taking into account proposed substantial development at neighbouring Wakes Colne there is inadequate services infrastructure and local schools and doctors. If granted there would have to be adequate affordable homes and social homes development in the context of both developments.

Please see attached file regarding heritage assets - thank you.

There is a lack of key infrastructure.
Infrequent and unreliable buses that are often full by the time they get to the village in peak hours.
Either no or unsafe pedestrian routes.
Lack of cycle routes.
Busy main road with no crossings.
Expensive and infrequent train service inaccessible at Marks Tey to anyone with mobility issues.
Lack of key services. No pharmacy, GP. Shop is very small. No cafes. One pub.

This site has been allocated for some time but progress has been slow. More officer support is needed to progress small developments like this through the system.

The proposed development does not comply with Policy PC2 Active and Sustainable Travel of the proposed local plan.

Point f of PC2 of the local plan requires that the development should be linked to surrounding walking, cycling and public transport networks, and improve connectivity to adjoining areas and key destinations. The proposal does not demonstrate how this is to be done. Key destinations in the villages include the primary school, railway station, bus stops, businesses (shop and pub at Chappel Corner, Wakes Colne Business Park). Connectivity is made difficult by the fact that Chappel and Wakes Colne does not currently have any walking and cycling networks linking these key destinations that would meet modern standards of safety and convenience. Connectivity is further degraded by the fact that the villages lack key infrastructure (GP Surgery, Pharmacy, Supermarkets) which necessitates travel to neighbouring towns to access. The proposal must consider the adequacy of existing or proposed active travel and public transport links to these destinations.

Local residents and the parish councils have campaigned for improved pedestrian infrastructure on The Street, Station Road, Chappel Corner, along with crossing points for the A1124 for around 25 years, but have been consistently refused by Essex County Council. There is therefore deep scepticism about some of the provisions outlined in this proposal. The fact is that infrastructure for pedestrians could be added to these locations now, and not be dependent on proposed developments. If that was the case the development would have a much better chance of being able to demonstrate compliance with PC2.

Key areas for improvement relevant to this proposal.

Pedestrian access to public transport and local amenities from this site depends on The Street. This road has no pedestrian infrastructure, with the road shared between pedestrians, cars, many parked cars etc. To demonstrate connectivity substantial improvements would need to be made to The Street.

The villages are divided by a very busy road, the A1124, with no pedestrian crossing infrastructure beyond a small refuge at Chappel Corner. To enable connectivity with local amenities and public transport (a requirement of PC2) a safe and convenient crossing point is needed.

Local bus services are infrequent and often unreliable. They cannot fairly be described as "high quality" (point g of PC2) or an attractive alternative to a car. The proposal does not make it clear how residents would access the bus services.

There is a train station (which currently has accessibility issues due the need to use Station Road). The train service is currently reliable and regular enough to be of some use, however it is prohibitively expensive for local journeys (to Colchester or Sudbury for example). It must also be noted that the interchange to the wider network (Marks Tey Station) is not accessible to wheelchair users or others with reduced mobility due to the lack of a step free way to move between platforms 0 and 2. Therefore the development fails to address item c of PC2, namely to "Support the provision of infrastructure to encourage active and sustainable modes of travel that are inclusive and accessible to all".

In the vision you said Well-connected
- Better public transport corridors to reduce congestion and increase active travel making cycling and walking more attractive.
- Create communities which reduce the need to travel, particularly by car for most of their daily needs

If someone wants to shop they'll most likely require a car to get there. Many residents here have the opportunity to use the train to shop in Sudbury or Colchester but many do not due to the trains only running once an hour. The bus service is also not very often so shopping in Earls Colne is also difficult. Earls Colne is the closest place to go for a bigger shop, the post office is good but doesn't stock many things you need. However the access to Earls Colne to shop is very difficult for those that need to walk / cycle as it would involve walking along a 60mph NSL road which has currently no footpath / cycling infrastructure.

I feel this being proposed here goes completely against the vision of being well connected as the current infrastructure and location relies completely on the use of car as part of daily life. This is shown by the amount of cars per household of this area. The area requires lots of investment to not be car dependant and this doesn't offer any.

Aldham Parish Council is concerned the allocation of some 3500 new homes in the seven parishes west of Colchester will represent a potential doubling in the population of this mainly rural area over 15 years. The decisions to allocate sites across this area appears to have been arbitrary and have been made without assessment of the cumulative impact on the communities and social infrastructure of these villages, including schools and access to GPs. Furthermore, this cumulative impact will have real effect on the principal traffic routes - A12, A120 and A1124 as well as numerous smaller rural roads that are used extensively as short cuts to avoid congestion and are in reality now part of the highway network, despite their inadequacy. This assessment of cumulative impact also needs to take into account emerging proposals for development on the east side of Braintree District which will further compound the problems. The City Council need to engage with our communities to reassure them that the level of development proposed can be adequately mitigated by ensuring the emerging Plan is strengthened and improved before a Reg.19 Draft is published.

The policy seems sensible

While acceptable in principle, Chappel Parish Council would appreciate working closely with Colchester City Council and the developer in order to help mitigate the impact of this development in the rural village of Chappel.

Chappel raises points in its attachment issues such as Highways, Parking, Footpaths, Public Transport, Social Housing, Types of Housing, Flooding, Water/Sewage, Health Care and Design.

Colchester must also be mindful of the impact of developments in neighbouring parishes having a knock-on effect with regards to infrastructure and a linked-up plan with consultation should be progressed.

The proposed houses will be up the hill from where I live on the Street in Chappel. I recognise the need for more affordable housing and accept that it is a shared community responsibility. I ask that if this plan is to go ahead, then serious consideration is given to:
Water issues: while these properties are not in the flood zone, run off, especially from hard surfaces, will be increased. Further down the hill we get regular flood alerts and sometimes flood warnings. It is important that any development does not increase the risk of flooding, which can cut off access to our homes or prevent us accessing the village shop and local public transport
Pedestrian safety: I hope that improved provision for pedestrians can be part of the development scheme. The current lack of pavement and narrow street do not feel safe to me as a pedestrian and it feels as if people use their cars because it is not safe to access the school and local facilities on foot, adding to the risk I face as a oedestrian. The risk is not just from cars but large agricultural vehicles. I used to be a cyclist but decided it is not safe to cycle here because of the narrow lanes, poor visibility and large agricultural vehicles. Provision to make cycling safer would also be very welcome.
Sewage: when the river is high (frequently in winter), the drains are often noisy if not overflowing. Any development would require an upgrade to sewage provision on the Street.

PP27 - Proposal to Build 35 Houses on Land to the South of Swan Grove on Chappel Hill
The proposed construction density on this site is excessive having regard to its size and position at the edge of Chappel village. It is noteworthy that planning permission was previously granted for a handful of houses (8, I believe) on the entire site into which it is now proposed to fit 35 houses.

There is also a risk that a development which replaces green fields with a large concrete surface area will add to the level of seasonal flooding downhill on the Chappel floodplain.

The site of the proposed development is itself ldownstream from Direct Meats from which discharge has previously been noted to emanate.

I therefore object to this proposal.

PP28 - Proposal to Build 200 Houses on Land to the West of Station Road in Wakes Colne
The current estimated population of Wakes Colne is 500 people, spread over 2,000 acres (approximately 3.2 sq. miles). The construction of 200 new homes in a field west of Station Road would create a development of a scale and intensity wholly disproportionate to the current size and spread of this village. The proposed development would, assuming occupancy rates of 2 adult and 1 child per home, effectively double the population of the village upon completion. That is objectively a staggering increase and it would have a de-stabilising effect on the local community. Even if Wakes Colne were taken as a whole with the neighbouring village of Chappel, the effect would be a hugely disproportinate population increase of 33%.

Furthermore, while the proposal does take account of the nearby single-track branch line railway station (oddly referring to it as part of a ‘transport key corridor’), it fails to take account of the fact that the village – along with the neighbouring village of Chappel - is served by no more amenities than a compact cornershop/post office, a pub, a green area, a village hall and a primary school. Of these amenities, all but one are on the opposite side of the busy A1124. Meanwhile the nearest GP facility, which I understand is already oversubscribed, is located in Earls Colne, approximately 3.3 miles away.

On transport, an assumption appears implied that proximity to the branch line will result in most work-related journeys being undertaken by train. However, even assuming that each household shares just 1 car which is driven daily by a remaining home occupant, the result would be an additional 200 cars seeking to join/leave or cross over the A1124 in Chappel, many at peak times, twice per day. The resulting traffic would create significant congestion at the narrow bottleneck junction from Station Road onto the A1124, as well as on the Lane Road junction with the A1124, assuming it is opened up for access. If the latter occurs, the new development would likely take on the nature of a ‘rat run’ for cars travelling from Station Road towards Earls Colne.

It is my view that the latter proposal, as it stands, is ill-advised, arbitrary, capricious and wholly disregards the ethos of the village and its residents. It also disregards the greenfield nature of the site. A reasonable compromise might be a development of no more than 50 homes. I therefore strongly oppose this proposal.


PP27 and PP28
Both the above proposed developments should be seen against the backdrop of a recent large housing development at Eight Ash Green, very large on-going developments in the Copford/Stanway area, and enormous developments in Dunmow and north Chelmsford, as well as other proposed developments set out in the Draft Plan. It would appear that the scale of building in Essex has already reached epidemic proportions and there should be little additional need for Colchester City Council to push to add to construction in this area.

Finally, the Council should bear in mind that as its environmental adviser, Land Use Consultants (LUC), is not a wholly ‘independent adviser’, its views may be assumed coloured by the Council’s drive to build. Accordingly, in instances where the merits of a proposal are borderline at best, the Council should firmly re-assess the proposal and strongly consider declining to proceed with it.

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

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.