Great care should be taken to ensure cross valley views from the public realm on the south side of the valley are maintained - views that include the viaduct. In reality the development will need to be well screen with trees and kept as far east as possible to benefit from the existing screening in the landscape.

Please see attached summary in objection to the PP28 proposal for Junction proposal for Land west of Station Road.

I want to raise my significant concerns below for human safety and raise a
formal objection to Policy PP28.
: Quantum and mix of housing:
The proposal does not robustly demonstrate that the scale, mix, and type of
approximately 200 dwellings meet evidenced local housing needs or are
compatible with the character, density, and form of surrounding development.
The scheme appears overly intensive and risks suburbanising a predominantly
rural edge-of-settlement location.
: Highway access and capacity:
A complete Lack of Insufficient evidence has been provided via consultancy to
demonstrate that safe and suitable access can be achieved without detriment to
highway safety or capacity. I was presented with supported data that in excess of
8000 cars use the A1124 between business hours on Monday-Friday (8:00am5:00pm). As national Speed limit guidelines of 30mph are not upheld. on average
speeds are continued to be recorded between 40-50mph and are commonly
recognised as the average speed up taken. Due to the natural curvature of this
stretch of road adjuciant to the proposed link road entrance(A1124) and the
reduced width foot path this significantly increases the risk to pedestrians’ life
and will compromise the free and safe flow of traffic along this stretch of the
A1124. The Presented Developers Plan was poorly executed and did not indicate
changes to that effect.
The proposal fails to provide sufficient detail to demonstrate how the risk to
adjacent neighbouring properties will be mitigated as no viable proposal to
support safeguarding Vehicular Access to the neighbouring Properties can be
maintained. The pedestrian footpath and connectivity would be significantly
compromised on a stretch of the A1124 which has be recorded as a “danger to
life” as it reduces in width across this stretch of the route.
• Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and ecological connectivity:
The submitted BNG strategy does not adequately focus on buffering and
extending Acorn Wood LoWS or strengthening north-south ecological
connectivity, which is identified as an important ecological corridor
Opportunities for grassland creation, particularly given the site’s geology and
location on the Colne Valley slope, appear under-utilised.
• Landscape screening and rural character:
The proposed boundary treatments fail to demonstrate that sufficient locally
appropriate hedgerows and/or woodland planting will be delivered to sensitively
integrate the development into the surrounding landscape or reinforce rural
character.
• Enhanced open space provision:
The proposal does not convincingly demonstrate that “Enhanced Open Space”
substantively in excess of 10% of the allocation area will be delivered. The
provision of approximately 8 hectares for recreation, community use, and BNG is
either insufficiently detailed or appears compromised by competing land uses.
• Habitat creation aligned with Essex LNRS:
The scheme lacks a clear and deliverable strategy for the creation of standing
freshwater, woodland, or grassland habitats to support the strategic priorities of
the Essex Local Nature Recovery Strategy.
• Wastewater capacity and phasing:
There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate adequate wastewater treatment
capacity or an acceptable phasing strategy, nor reassurance that the proposal is
acceptable to both the Council and Anglian Water.
• Water efficiency and WRC impact mitigation:
The proposal fails to provide a comprehensive package of measures beyond
SuDS and basic water efficiency to mitigate impacts on Water Recycling Centre
capacity, including clear commitments to network flow removal, targeted
resident education, and meaningful reduction in potable water demand.
• Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) requirements:
The scheme does not adequately secure or phase site-specific infrastructure
requirements identified in the IDP, including education provision, highway
mitigation, water and wastewater infrastructure, and community and open
space facilities.
For the reasons I have set out above, the proposal does not comply with the sitespecific policy requirements, Policy ST7, or the wider development plan. I would also
welcome the Highways agency to compile a site report on their findings to support our
objections.

200 houses doubles the size of W Colne, transforming it into a small town with 400 additional cars. Link road proposed from site will create extraordinarily dangerous entry onto / exit from A1124. Public transport services for the New Wakes Colne hugely inadequate. Water & sewerage provision would need major upgrade. Development must be seen in connection with plans for neighbouring villages. Result will be destruction of the villages as they merge under this Local Plan.

Concerned about road safety, where the proposed link road joins the A1124. This is a simple junction on a bend and just up from another bend ,where there have been many traffic accidents. Also concerned that the development will increase run off and exasperate river flooding. In addition, the current water treatment facilities, barely cope with the current housing stock, as demonstrated by the frequency that the water company needs to manually pump out.

This will fundamentally change the character of the village changing it to a small town, with the associated increase in traffic, destruction of nature and agricultural land, and light pollution which will ruin the dark night skies.

The restriction of traffic in Station Road, will likely lead to an increase in traffic along Spring Gardens, traffic will not use the new road if they want to head East. Issues demonstrated by recent closures on A1124.

Water and drainage is already an issue, 200 new dwellings will strain the system more, with likely result of more pollution in the river.

The following response relates to land to the west of Station Road, Wakes Colne, proposed as Policy PP28 within the consultation document.

In summary, our clients have positively engaged with the Council to show that the site is deliverable without any insuperable constraints. As such, our clients support the continued allocation of the site within the emerging Local Plan draft policy PP28.

The purpose of this response in supporting the allocation is to evidence the work that we have undertaken in progressing the planning of the site and to demonstrate deliverability.

Attached with this response as Appendix 1 is a Vision Statement which has been prepared by Bluepencil Designs, Chartered Architects to set out the design intent for the development of the allocated land. In addition are a drainage report prepared by Anglian Water, together a proposed road layout for the bypass prepared by Ardent Consultant Engineers, Appendix 2. These will be summarized below.

In addition the following will also review ecology and landscape, heritage, drainage, transport, viability, engagement, and potential Section 106 headings.

The Site

The site subject of the allocation comprises approximately 16.8 hectares in single ownership by H C Percival Farms, and which is primarily in agricultural use. It comprises 2 broad land parcels to the north and south. To the south of the northern parcel and east of the southern parcel is existing residential development, with hedgerows and trees on the majority of the boundaries except for the southern parcel where the western allocation boundary run through existing agricultural land. This will be defined by advance planting once the alignment of the bypass is agreed.

To the north of the northern parcel is Acorn Wood, with Station Road along the eastern boundary, beyond which is the rail station, with services once an hour on average 7 days a week between Sudbury and Marks Tey. The latter connects with the main Norwich to London services.

To the south of the southern parcel is the A1124 which links Colchester to the south east with Halstead in the north west. In general the whole of the allocated land falls from the north to the south.
Land to the south of the A1124 fall within flood zones 2 and 3, but the allocated site falls within flood zone 1.

Design and Mix/Tenures

As set out in the attached Vision Statement, and as required by part a) of the draft policy the site is capable of accommodating 200 units at a density of just under 30 dwellings per hectare. This permits a mix of densities within the scheme but importantly not at densities that require more than 2 storey forms or an excess provision of flats. In particular, it allows for lower densities on the edges creating a landscape framework for the development of the site, maintaining its rural character.

The Vision Statement shows a broad design approach to the layout, with the provision in addition to housing of substantial open space and sports provision, in addition to drainage controls and a new bypass which will be detailed below.

The scheme will meet a range of housing needs to be agreed with the Council’s housing officer prior to the submission of an application, and will meet the Council’s affordable housing requirements. Importantly it will also include a proportion of housing for local housing needs, generated via a community or local housing trust. This has been discussed with both the Parish Councils in principle, and the landowner has also been in discussion with the developers who delivered the award-winning Lawford Housing Enterprise Trust.

Highways

Parts b), c) and d) of the proposed policy require that safe and suitable site access to required highway design standards and point of vehicle access, and to include provision of a link road between Station Road and the A1124 and stopping access along Station Road to through traffic.

It also requires the creation of an enhanced pedestrian priority route along the lower section of Station Road (where through traffic is restricted) to provide a safe route to the railway station, and finally to provide a safe pedestrian access to ensure connectivity within and throughout the site to existing footways and any public rights of way, particularly to the southwest of the site, together with provision of green infrastructure connections and recreational access to the countryside.

A key part of the proposals is the new bypass road which has been designed by Ardent Consultant Engineers and which enable links to the existing A1124 and Station Road to be designed to appropriate standards. Relevant technical details for the junctions and road specification are shown on the drawing.

In relation to other aspects, the drawing also initiates ideas on the following:

• potential change of priority for station road to cut off through
traffic and divert vehicles through the development spine road;
• signage to indicate station access and deter through route;
• potential to downgrade access junction to deter through route movements;
• potential to provide white lining extent of circa 1.2m footway within carriageway beyond the southern extent of the existing footway;
• station road to be pedestrianised and deter through route movements, details to be agreed with ECC;
• potential to upgrade southern A1124 crossing point with a proposed raised crossing point across junction (dropped kerbs and tactile paving).

The above are initial thoughts and will be the subject of further discussions with the Parish Councils and local community, together with ECC Highways. With regard to the latter, a draft pre-application request has been drafted.

Landscape

Parts e) and g) of the policy require that mature trees and hedgerows within the site should be retained, and that screening comprising locally appropriate hedgerows and/or woodland will be required along the site boundaries to ensure that development is sensitively integrated into the landscape to reflect and reinforce rural character.

The landowner has appointed David Jarvis Associates to prepare an assessment and LVIA in order to inform a detailed landscape strategy for the site. This will ensure the retention of trees and hedges on site boundaries, as well as substantial new landscaping both the establish an appropriately designed western boundary for the southern parcel, as well as within the site to create character and a landscape led approach to the overall design.

Ecology and BNG

Parts f) and i) require that onsite BNG measures should focus on buffering and extending the adjacent Acorn Wood LoWS and strengthening north to south connectivity which is identified as an important ecological corridor, and to identify suitable grassland creation. In particular it identifies that support will be given to delivering standing freshwater, woodland or grassland habitat to support the delivery of the strategic creation opportunities in the Essex LNRS.

The scheme includes the potential to extend Acorn Wood if required as well as to ensure appropriate management. It also includes areas of open space and grassland, as well as north -south planting to reinforce ecological connectivity. These matters are being explored and a survey undertaken of Acorn Wood by the Council has been requested.

Open Space

Part h) of the draft policy requires that 'Enhanced Open Space' substantively in excess of 10% of the allocation area must be provided as open space. This should include approximately 8 hectares within the site to provide recreation, community and BNG uses.

The proposed layout attached shows 8.12ha of open space, with in addition 0.82ha of SuDS/pond features, and existing and proposed landscaping.

Heritage

Part j) requires that development must conserve, and where appropriate, enhance the significance of heritage assets (including any contribution made by their settings). It states that designated heritage assets close to the allocated site includes A Conservation Area, eighteen Grade II, three Grade II*, one Grade I Listed Building and one Scheduled Monument as informed by the stage 1 HIA.

The location of these are all outside of the site and can be considered to be mitigated where required. A future application will include a heritage assessment to ensure that this requirement is met.

Drainage

Parts k) and l) of the draft policy require the demonstration of adequate capacity for managing wastewater including proposed phasing requirements or alternative solutions to the satisfaction of the Council and Anglian Water, together with a range of measures in addition to prioritising SuDs (Policy EN8) and water efficiency measures to reduce the risk on impact on the WRC capacity as a result of planned growth.

The details of this will be part of an application submission. However, the landowner has already commissioned a Pre-Planning Assessment Report from Anglian Water in April 2025 (Appendix 3) which is attached with this response.

This concludes that water supply connections are available, and that the site is within the catchment of Earls Colne water recycling centre (WRC), which currently can accommodate the additional flows generated by the proposed development. Earls Colne WRC is included within AWs Business Plan as a named growth scheme with investment delivery planned between 2025-2030. AW state that to ensure there is no pollution or deterioration in the receiving watercourse due to the development foul flows they recommend a planning condition is applied if permission is granted.

In terms of SuDS, it is clear that there is sufficient land within the scheme to ensure that an onsite solution can be proposed, and the draft layout plan within the Vision Statement includes a detention basin at the lowest point, as well as other smaller potential ponds/SuDs features within the development.

Section 106 Heads

Part m) of the draft policy requires that any site specific infrastructure requirements from the IDP (likely to include education provision, highway mitigation, water and wastewater and specific community / open space provision) should be provided by agreement.

Our research shows that in terms of education, the current Essex County Education School Organisational Plan shows the following for primary schools. They do not provide details on individual schools, rather group them together on an area basis for planning purposes. However, from Appendix 4 which provides background information on school and health capacity, which is being kept under review, there is capacity of between 26 and 39 pupils over the next 10 years.

Assuming the site is capable of delivering the 200 dwellings anticipated by Colchester and assuming 25% flats, this would generate 53 primary school places. As such there is not a number to justify a new school, but Essex Education would be looking for a contribution to fund the extra places needed above existing and predicted capacity.

In terms of secondary education, the figures from Essex Education show pupil generation on the basis of the assumptions above from the development would equate to 20 extra secondary school places, and there is clearly capacity.

In terms of GP surgeries, the position is as set out in appendix 4. It should be noted that the recommended patient list size per GP in most recent correspondence from NHS is 1750 patients.

According to our research there is current capacity in catchment GP surgeries, but the exact position will vary over time and be determined at application stage in liaison with the NHS.

Draft policy ST7 requires that all development must be supported by the provision of infrastructure, services and facilities that are identified as being needed to serve the needs arising from the development, and that 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.

It must further be demonstrated that all necessary infrastructure will be delivered at an appropriate time to meet the requirements of the development, and that such capacity will prove sustainable over time in physical and financial terms.

The landowner is willing to provide affordable housing in accordance with policy at the relevant time, as well as open space, new bypass, and any other policy requirements.

The viability of the site has been tested by Newmark consultants on behalf of Colchester City Council, and they have met with the landowners to discuss the details of the site. They are content that the site is viable despite the cost of the bypass and other policy requirements. This will continue to be the subject of review.

Community Engagement

The landowner and his advisors met with the Parish Councils at a joint meeting on 13th October, and have maintained a dialogue. The Parish Councils held an initial drop in exhibition with the community on 6th December. At this stage there was little to share in terms of a design except for the initial sketch provided at Call for Sites stage, and the draft bypass plan supplied with this response.

With regard to the latter, a note was displayed which stated that “The landowner and his advisors produced this initial sketch layout to help officers of the district council at the call for sites stage. The parish councils have met with the landowner who has agreed to work up the proposals in more detail and to hold a separate exhibition once complete. However, they are to hear from local residents on relevant matters that could be taken into account in drafting the proposal. It is likely that an exhibition will take place in February 2026.”

A note of initial comments made by residents is being considered by the landowners and their advisors. There is nothing fundamental in the feedback that we do not consider can be addressed, and a further exhibition is being scheduled for February. The results of this will be sent through to policy officers at the City Council.

Conclusions

As a consequence of the above, the site is clearly available and suitable for the scale and location of development proposed within draft Policy PP28 and is deliverable within a reasonable timescale to be able to contribute positively to the housing and related needs of the Local Plan.

Chappel Parish Council would like to support its neighbouring Parish, Wakes Colne in the objection to the proposed 200 houses. We understand that some amount of development is expected but this is excessive for such a small rural village and will also have a huge impact on Chappel residents.

Chappel Parish Council are particularly concerned regarding the huge increase to the village, highways, pedestrian access to facilities, water/sewage primary school & healthcare.

We would ask that Colchester City Council ask the developer to create a masterplan confirming how the proposed houses fit within the village and the other proposed developments.

This spoils the character of the area and double the size of village without improving current infrastructure. There is one very small village school. There is not a GP/medical centre in village. The local medical centre in Earls Colne is so busy it is extremely difficult to get an appointment. The A1124 that runs through the village is saturated and already dangerous - in winter it is a river. It cannot take a higher volume of traffic. The proposed site is very good agricultural land that produces good quality crops very year. It will have a derogatory effect on biodiversity.

this is a disgrace to build that many new houses in a small village to destroy it's character. The point is to enhance people's lives and this will be the opposite. The village is totally ill equipped for this many more people and cars, the village roads are narrow and dangerous proven by the death of a resident last year on station road. The school is way too small and won't be able to cope. How will this reflect and reinforce rural character? We can't get an appointment at the local doctors now. There must be better places to put these large developments than ruin our historic small villages.

I object to the application as it is has chosen the wrong site for a project of this scale, with an insufficient structural plan neglecting already overstretched infrastructures in water systems, NHS provision, education and traffic. The road rerouting plans will cause chaos on current routes. The scale of the project will cause light pollution and destroy vital ecosystems with habitat for wildlife as well as important agricultural land urgently needed to protect our nation's independence in food production. We must find more suitable brown field and urban sites rather than destroy the character of small rural communities.

Wakes Colne Parish Council objects to the proposed PP28 allocation of up to 200 homes west of Station Road, arguing it represents a disproportionate expansion of a small rural village with inadequate infrastructure. Key concerns include traffic and pedestrian safety, pressure on schools, healthcare, public transport, drainage, and flood risk, alongside loss of high-grade agricultural land and rural character. The Council highlights cumulative impacts with nearby developments and doubts infrastructure can be delivered sustainably. If progressed, development must be capped at 200 homes and provide clear benefits, strong infrastructure, environmental protection, and safeguards for heritage, landscape, and biodiversity.

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

Wakes Colne Parish Council objects to the proposed PP28 allocation of up to 200 homes west of Station Road, arguing it represents a disproportionate expansion of a small rural village with inadequate infrastructure. Key concerns include traffic and pedestrian safety, pressure on schools, healthcare, public transport, drainage, and flood risk, alongside loss of high-grade agricultural land and rural character. The Council highlights cumulative impacts with nearby developments and doubts infrastructure can be delivered sustainably. If progressed, development must be capped at 200 homes and provide clear benefits, strong infrastructure, environmental protection, and safeguards for heritage, landscape, and biodiversity.

White Colne Parish Council strongly objects to the scale of the proposed allocation at Wakes Colne. The site allocation lies directly adjacent to White Colne. The proposed allocation represents a substantial expansion disproportionate to the size and function of Wakes Colne, virtually doubling its population. Development on this scale will increase traffic on local roads, particularly the A1124, negatively impacting adjacent parishes. The Wakes Colne link road required under PP28 will channel more traffic directly onto the A1124, increasing congestion, noise and safety risks through White Colne.
Policy PP28 does not ensure that the entire area will not be developed. The Policy should state that 200 dwellings is the maximum allocation.
White Colne has experienced flooding incidents, which could be exacerbated by the increase in hardstanding and impermeable surfaces at the proposed development site.

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.