as previous

The Road network at Stanway is already congested

There is a clear opportunity for this allocation to enhance the local access network. Bridleway 17 lies immediately north of the site, and Footpath 24 runs along the eastern boundary. A short linking section could connect these routes to create a safe, circular, multi‑user path around the development, supporting active travel and improving integration with the surrounding countryside.

The proposed village hall car park also provides a practical location for dedicated horse‑box parking or a small carriage stand, enabling wider community use of the improved access network and supporting inclusive rural movement.

Development of this site would remove the boundary between Fordham Heath and Eight Ash Green. The character of the separate villages would be lost to an urban sprawl from Tollgate to Fordham Heath. A large development was recently completed at Fordham Heath without adequate provision on the junction with the A1124 - a simple T junction is insufficient. Any further development needs to be concentrated in the existing village envelope with supporting infrastructure in place first.

This site was rejected in the current Neighbourhood Plan and in a village questionnaire used for the plan. Is this fully agreed plan now to be ignored?
Access to the A1124 is already difficult from Wood and Spring lanes and any obstruction on that road results in tailbacks right through the village.
The open nature of the village between EAG and Fordham Heath will be compromised.

I object to the PP31/PP32 (PP31 especially) for a number of reason.

The electrical supply, local water nor waste water infrastructure is sufficient to include the number of additional properties proposed on these sites (more egregiously on PP31). The alternative sites, which the local council will propose/has proposed, tie into newly built electrical, water/waste water infrastructure and so are capable of servicing these new homes to a better degree.

Halstead road is already over utilised and isn't capable of taking more traffic safely. It is highly congested during the mornings and evenings, which has already been aggravated by the new(ish) traffic lights on the roundabout over the A12, causing long tailbacks daily.

I also have privacy concerns for my property and family. The PP31 development is considerably higher than my property and so any new development there will look directly into my garden and house. With anything less than 6-8 meters fences, this would not be resolved, and I don't believe this has been taken into consideration. This will affect the entirety of that side of The Rise and The Walk houses.

The PP31 development directly contravenes the Village consultation which took place in February 2018 (http://eightashgreen.net/NP/NPv26sb03.htm).

New build houses are also unlikely to fit with the existing local architecture.

I also have concerns regarding the viability of the local footpath, concerns regarding the outflow of rain water (drainage) from the development and other lesser concerns.

I believe the Alternative proposals are a better fit for the village as a whole, and would urge Colchester City Council to defer to these alternative plans rather than push forward against local opposition to the PP31 and PP32 developmental plans.

If there must be development in the village, this space makes the most sense. The village is currently split into two separate areas with only one walking path between the two areas and that path along a very main road. To infill this area and allow a better walking route between the two residential areas would benefit the whole village.

I object to this proposal on material planning grounds. The site lies adjacent to The Heath, a highly valued local green space supporting important biodiversity. Increased residential use directly from this site, including additional pedestrians, children and dogs, would cause irreversible harm to sensitive habitats, contrary to NPPF requirements to protect and enhance biodiversity. Halstead Road already experiences significant traffic congestion, and access from Jubilee Meadow is unsafe; the development would exacerbate highway safety risks. The scale of development is incompatible with the established rural character of Eight Ash Green and would place unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure. The proposal conflicts with the clear vision expressed in the Village Plan.

Will create a solid development through village, no breaks and obscure picturesque views. Living on Halstead road currently significant dangers to pedestrians and cyclists due to current traffic volumes. Access to and from development will make this worse. increased traffic along the A1124 which is already very busy and difficult to cross on foot or exit ones drive. No gas main between Spring lane and Wood lane. Surface water drainage for Seven Star Green and Halstead Road runs under this proposed site and disturbance could mean flooding in Halstead Rd. General pressure on infrastructure seems not to be considered.

I object to PP31 for the following reasons: we recently purchased our house on Huxtables Lane with the view to living a semi-rural life. The new proposal would encroach right up to the heath in Fordham Heath and make the area even more congested. The road traffic noise, and therefore noise pollution, is already an issue and is audible at all points day and night from our house caused by the noise from Halsted Road. It is as noisy as the noise from the A12. To then add another 500 cars from the proposed estate would add dramatically to the noise pollution. Furthermore, in the mornings when heading to work, I can wait for 5 minutes to find a space to move out of Spring Lane, and this is turning left, let alone waiting to cross a lane of traffic if I were to need to turn right. Again, this is without the extra traffic from the new estates. Second: there doesn't appear to be any proposals for new infrastructure. I work in secondary education, and am well aware that Stanway school is full with a waiting list, as are the other schools in the area. The new doctor's surgery in the Tollgate area that was opened is failing (we are aware that there are major concerns with the running of the surgery and the service it delivers) and there are no spaces at NHS dentists in the area. The local primary schools are full, and not really in a position to expand. The alternative proposals put forward to be on the other side of Halsted road would be preferable, but this still does not address the main issues of traffic. A Friday night sees regular gridlock around Staine Park - it is not unreasonable to expect it to take 45 minutes to go from Marks and Spencer to the A12 roundabout - and all the extra houses along this road will only add to the issue. Because of the busy nature of Halsted road, other ways to get to this area, such as down Turkeycock Lane, become impossible as you cannot turn right out of here because of the constant stream of traffic. We know from other residents that they are having to take their lives into their own hands getting out of their drives because of the near constant flow of traffic. More houses would only add to this.

I object to planning proposalsPP31 and PP32. The area is totally overpopuated now, car journeys are a complete log jam most of the day, doctors, public transport are all overwhelmed. the village is being consuned by the city. Eight Ash Green is being transformed from rural to urban if these sites are aproved.

I support this as there is Alignment with the Settlement Boundary and Preferred Development Area The Neighbourhood Plan defines a clear Village Settlement Boundary (Policy VSB 1) that includes areas north of A1124 (incorporating sites like the original Fiddlers Field allocation) but explicitly excludes land south of A1124 (areas around Seven Star Green). Development proposals must respect this boundary, with a general presumption against building outside it unless exceptional circumstances apply. PP31 and PP32 sit north of the A1124, making them compatible with this boundary and the Plan's focus on consolidating growth around existing Eight Ash Green village cores.

Prevention of Coalescence and Maintenance of Separation from Neighboring Settlements The Plan's Vision (p. 11) and Policy EP1 (Coalescence, p. 39) emphasize keeping Eight Ash Green as a distinct rural village, clearly separated from Stanway, Colchester, and the proposed West Tey Garden Community/New Town. Development south of the A1124 risks narrowing or eliminating these physical and visual gaps, leading to urban sprawl and loss of countryside separation. PP31 and PP32, being north of the road, avoid this risk entirely and help reinforce the village's standalone identity.

Strong Community Preference and Evidence Base The Neighbourhood Plan reflects overwhelming community support (90%+ in consultations) for limited, integrated growth in one or a few well-chosen northern sites rather than dispersed or southern expansion. Residents prioritized avoiding sprawl, ribbon development, and southern extensions that would alter the village's rural character. PP31 and PP32 build on this by focusing growth in a sustainable medium settlement with existing services (primary school, shop, petrol station, village hall).

The site would make the village blend with other building and make a ribbon development that would take away the village character. The alternative sites being proposed near Turkey Cock Lane would help keep the village character

Having considered the plans for additional housing in Eight Ash Green, I would support the use of the sites PP31 and PP32 as suggested by the Colchester City Council

Our client objects to the draft allocation for approximately 180 dwellings at land north of Halstead Road and east of Wood Lane, Eight Ash Green on the basis that it will cause two settlements to coalesce.

Paragraph 12.31 in the Local Plan Regulation 18 document explains that “Eight Ash Green comprises three main areas of which two are considered sustainable and have a range of services and facilities: Eight Ash Green / Fordham Heath and Eight Ash Green / Choat’s Corner.” Notably the adopted Colchester Section 2 Local Plan Policies Map (2022) illustrates that these two areas are currently defined by distinct Settlement Boundaries, separated by a substantial area of countryside around Choat’s Wood.

The draft allocation to the north of Halstead Road and east of Wood Lane will infill a large part of the countryside gap between Eight Ash Green / Fordham Heath and Eight Ash Green / Choat’s Corner, physically merging these defined settlements into one another and causing them to lose their distinctiveness and individual identity.

This is contrary to the objective set out in paragraph 11(a) of the NPPF, which expects local plans to promote sustainable patterns of development.

In summary our client requests that the draft allocation to the north of Halstead Road and east of Wood Lane is removed from the emerging Local Plan and that these 180 dwellings are re-allocated elsewhere at more sustainable locations, including our client’s land adjacent to Nightingale Corner at The Folley, Layer de la Haye. This will ensure that the emerging Local Plan passes the ‘justified’ test of soundness (i.e. it comprises an appropriate strategy taking into account the reasonable alternatives) at paragraph 36 of the NPPF.

I am writing to object to the alternative sites being proposed for development in Eight Ash Green. Currently in the village plan seven star green has been removed from the village settlement as being unsustainable as it is located south of the Halstead Road. A previous planning application for a single dwelling in seven star green was rejected on this grounds and yet now there is the prospect of building hundreds of houses.
Thank you for your time
Nicole Hurst

As a resident of Fordham Heath for the past 29 years, I am writing to object to the proposed inclusion of sites PP31 and PP32 in Colchester’s draft Local Plan
.I believe they would: Give rise to an undesirable ribbon development for Eight Ash Green and Fordham Heath, and link them, through PP32, with neighbouring Aldham. The result would also be housing concentrated entirely on the north side of the A1124, giving a very unbalanced appearance;
Add even more vehicular pressure on the A1124, which is already extremely busy, carrying traffic into and out of Colchester. It is nigh-on impossible to walk along the abutting pavement which is narrow and overgrown. Pedestrians are forced to share any available pavement with cyclists fearful of using the A1124;
The developers behind PP32 seem to have “jumped the gun” on the forthcoming Local Plan by submitting their application early, seemingly attempting to preempt the LP consultation process;

The two-acre plot, separate to, but apparently part of PP31, is on a A1124 double bend which has seen its more than its fair share of accidents over the years, where vehicles have ended up in the adjacent ditch. The bends also mean that the A1124 vehicular access and egress from/onto the site would extremely difficult and narrow, if not impossible. I would request that, should PP31 be included in the local plan, the extant watercourse on the northern boundary, which has linked two ponds in the village for many years, be retained.
I am aware of other possible housing sites in the village which I believe would be more suitable than PP31 and PP32, being on the south side of the A1124 and creating, should they be developed, a more aesthetically pleasing and centred look to Eight Ash Green. If chosen over the two preferred options, there would be no ribbon development and no link-up with Aldham. The impact on the A1124 would remain, however.
>
Speaking generally, residents here and across the borough are extremely concerned that the unprecedented increase in housing imposed on Colchester and its villages comes without a single thought for the undoubted impact on - and the future of - primary and secondary schools, GP and dental surgeries, Colchester General Hospital and other vital services.

I am writing to formally object to the draft policy proposing new housing development in Eight Ash Green.
While I recognise the need to address housing demand within Colchester, I do not believe that the scale and location of development proposed for Eight Ash Green is appropriate, sustainable, or justified, for the reasons set out below.
1. Unsustainable Location and Lack of Infrastructure
Eight Ash Green is a small rural village with limited local services and facilities. There is no secondary school, limited access to healthcare, and very restricted local employment opportunities. As a result, any significant new housing would be heavily car-dependent, contrary to national and local planning objectives which seek to reduce reliance on private vehicles and promote sustainable development.
2. Highway Safety and Traffic Impact
The existing road network serving Eight Ash Green is already under pressure, particularly at peak times. Local roads are narrow, rural in character, and not designed to accommodate a substantial increase in traffic. The draft policy fails to adequately demonstrate how additional traffic generated by new housing would be safely accommodated without harm to highway safety or severe congestion.
3. Pressure on Existing Services
Existing infrastructure, including primary school capacity, drainage, healthcare provision, and public transport, is already limited. The draft policy does not provide sufficient evidence that the necessary infrastructure improvements would be delivered in a timely manner to support new development, risking a decline in quality of life for both existing and future residents.
4. Harm to Rural Character and Settlement Identity
Eight Ash Green has a distinct rural character and a clear settlement boundary. The proposed housing growth risks disproportionate expansion that would erode the village’s identity, harm its setting, and potentially lead to coalescence with nearby settlements. This would be contrary to policies aimed at protecting the character of rural communities.
5. Lack of Robust Evidence and Justification
The draft policy does not clearly demonstrate why Eight Ash Green has been selected for further housing growth over more sustainable locations with better access to services, employment, and public transport. Without robust evidence, the proposal appears unjustified and inconsistent with the principles of plan-led development.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I consider the draft policy for new housing in Eight Ash Green to be unsound, unsustainable, and contrary to both national and local planning objectives. I respectfully request that the Council reconsider this proposal and remove or significantly revise the policy to better reflect the constraints and character of Eight Ash Green.
Yours faithfully,
Yvonne & John Robinson

As per attachment
1. Introduction and Scope of Representation
This comprehensive planning representation is submitted in response to the Colchester City
Council Preferred Options Local Plan (Regulation 18) consultation. [REDACTED]
The representation is formulated to support the Council’s specific spatial strategy (allocating
Policies PP31 and PP32 to the north) while demonstrating that the inclusion of any "Alternative
Sites" proposed to the south of the A1124—specifically Site 10264—would be unsound,
legally non-compliant, and in direct conflict with the adopted Development Plan, most notably
the Eight Ash Green Neighbourhood Plan (2019).
[REDACTED]
The promotion of "Alternative Sites" seeks to fundamentally alter this context by allocating
land for residential use immediately "behind" (south/adjacent) the objector’s property. When
viewed alongside the preferred allocations "in front" (north), the cumulative effect would be
the total encirclement of [REDACTED] Seven Star Green by urban development, transforming
a historic rural hamlet into an enclosed suburban enclave. This represents a material change
in the living conditions of the residents and a degradation of the local environment that was
explicitly protected by the democratic vote of the village in 2019.
Executive Summary of Position:
The objectors wish to place on record a qualified endorsement of the Council’s specific
spatial strategy for Eight Ash Green, insofar as it correctly directs necessary growth to the
least sensitive locations north of the A1124 (Policies PP31 and PP32) and categorically
excludes the allocation of land south of the A1124.
Consequently, this submission serves two primary functions:
1. To support the soundness of the Council's decision to utilize the A1124 as a definitive
defensible boundary, aligning with the "Plan-Led" approach mandated by Section 38(6)
of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. To formally object to the inclusion of any "Alternative Sites" in the southern sector,
providing evidence that such allocations would be unsound, legally non-compliant with
the December 2024 NPPF, and contrary to the adopted Development Plan.
2. Procedural Objection: Violation of Gunning
Principles & Local Democracy
Prior to addressing the spatial merits, objection is raised regarding the timing and conduct of
this Regulation 18 consultation (26 Nov 2025 – 14 Jan 2026) and the failure of local
democratic representation.
2.1 The "Gunning Principles" (Fair Consultation)
It is a fundamental principle of public law, established in R v London Borough of Brent ex parte
Gunning, that consultation must be fair. The third Gunning Principle requires that "adequate
time must be given for consideration and response." Conducting a strategic consultation
heavily overlapping with the statutory Christmas and New Year holidays effectively removed
10-14 days of "working time" for residents to seek professional advice. This timing prejudices
lay stakeholders compared to professional land promoters who have resources to monitor
such consultations year-round.
2.2 Failure of Parish Council Representation
We further note with concern the conduct of the Parish Council meeting convened days
before the deadline. While the individual Councillors were courteous, the decision-making
process appears procedurally and technically flawed:
● Flawed Assessment Criteria: It was observed that the Parish Council’s apparent
support for "Alternative Sites" was predicated on a subjective assessment of "fewer
immediate neighbours affected" (a utilitarian headcount) rather than a robust objective
assessment of material planning constraints. Planning law requires sites to be assessed
on their technical merits (e.g., Heritage impact, Flood risk, Highway safety). Prioritizing
sites simply because they are less visible to the majority, while ignoring critical
constraints such as the impact on the Registered Village Green, protected Schedule 1
Species, and Highway Safety, constitutes a misapplication of the planning balance and
fails the test of soundness.
● Lack of Mandate: Any representation made by the Parish Council that deviates from the
adopted Neighbourhood Plan has been determined without meaningful public
engagement or a village-wide mandate. There has been no village survey, no referendum,
and no public exhibition regarding this specific shift in policy.
● Conflict with Neighbourhood Plan: If the Parish Council has signaled support for sites
south of the A1124, this stands in direct contradiction to their own "made" Policy VSB1
(which excludes this land). As there has been no subsequent referendum to authorize
this U-turn, such representations should be disregarded by the Inspector as they do not
reflect the legally adopted will of the community.
3. The Planning Case for the Exclusion of Southern
Sites
The exclusion of land south of the A1124 is not merely a preference; it is the only legally robust
position available to the Council.
3.1 Primacy of the Development Plan (NP & VDS)
The Eight Ash Green Neighbourhood Plan (EAGNP) was "made" in December 2019 and
remains part of the statutory Development Plan.
● Policy VSB1 (Village Settlement Boundary): The EAGNP explicitly redrew the boundary
to exclude Seven Star Green and the land south of the A1124. This was a deliberate
policy intervention to protect the rural character of the southern hamlet. This boundary
was not arbitrary; it was the result of extensive landscape analysis and community
consultation which confirmed the south side's unsuitability for growth.
● Village Design Statement (VDS): The adopted VDS identifies Seven Star Green as a
distinct "hamlet" typology that must be preserved from coalescence. Allocating the
"Alternative Sites" would breach the design codes set out in this supplementary planning
document, specifically those requiring the maintenance of the loose-knit rural grain that
defines the settlement edge.
● NPPF Paragraph 30: Confirms that once a neighbourhood plan is in force, its policies
take precedence. There is no "clear and convincing" justification provided by any party to
override the community's recent spatial strategy, particularly when sufficient land is
available elsewhere (Policies PP31/PP32).
3.2 The Sustainability Appraisal: Severance and Highway Safety
We endorse the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (SA) (2025), which states: "Seven Star
Green is not considered sustainable as it is located south of Halstead Road...". This finding is
supported by critical safety deficits:
● Active Travel England (ATE) "Critical Fail": ATE standing advice (2024) requires
footways to be a minimum of 2.0m wide for safe use. The southern frontage of the
A1124 (adjacent to the "Alternative Sites") possesses no continuous footway. Residents
would be forced to walk in the live carriageway or cross the 40mph strategic road to
access the northern pavement. Retrofitting a compliant footway here is physically
impossible without third-party land acquisition or narrowing the A1124, which would be
unacceptable to the Highway Authority.
● The School Run - Risk to Vulnerable Users: Allocating family housing to the South
would necessitate children crossing this busy 40mph strategic road to access Holy Trinity
Primary School. There are no controlled crossings (Zebra, Pelican, or Puffin) on this
stretch of road. This hazardous environment effectively removes the option of walking
to school for new families, forcing reliance on private cars. This directly contradicts NPPF
Paragraph 114, which mandates that development must prioritize pedestrian and cycle
movements and facilitate access to high-quality public transport.
● Unresolvable Conflict: To fix this, a developer would need to install new signalized
crossings. However, given the traffic volumes on the A1124, the introduction of traffic
lights or zebra crossings would severely disrupt the flow of this strategic distributor route,
causing unacceptable congestion, "stop-start" delays, and air quality issues. The site is
therefore trapped in a planning failure: it is unsafe for pedestrians without crossings, but
damaging to the highway network with them.
3.3 Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA) Confirmation
We note that the Council’s own technical officers have assessed the southern land (Site
10264) within the SLAA and graded it Red/Amber (Discounted). The specific reasoning—that
the site is "detached from the two main settlement areas"—is sound. We urge the Inspector to
uphold this technical assessment against developer pressure, as nothing has changed
physically on the ground to warrant an upgrade of this assessment.
4. Technical Constraints of the "Alternative Sites"
The specific land parcels promoting themselves as "Alternative Sites" south of the A1124
suffer from acute constraints that do not apply to the northern allocations.
4.1 Landscape Character: "Farmland Plateau"
The Colchester Borough Landscape Character Assessment (CBLCA) identifies this area as
Type B: Farmland Plateau.
● Key Characteristics: This character type is defined by open, elevated arable fields with
long views and a sensitivity to built form. It is distinct from the enclosed landscape to the
north of the village. The openness of these fields is integral to the setting of the hamlet.
● Policy ENV1 (Environment): Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires development to "conserve
and enhance" landscape character. The "Alternative Sites" would introduce high-density
suburban form into a landscape defined by its openness and rurality. This would result in
a jarring visual intrusion that fails to respect the established character type.
● Visual Impact: Unlike the enclosed sites to the North, the Southern sites are visually
prominent from multiple viewpoints. Development here would degrade the "rural edge"
transition that defines the entry to the village, replacing the soft green buffer with a hard
urban edge.
4.2 Heritage Impact: The "Encirclement" of VG188
Seven Star Green is a Registered Village Green (VG188). Its significance is defined not just
by the grass, but by its open agrarian setting.
● Encirclement: The "Alternative Sites" propose development on the fields immediately
behind [REDACTED] the Green. This would encircle the Green with modern housing,
transforming a historic rural common into a suburban amenity space. The loss of the
connection between the Green and the wider countryside would fundamentally harm its
heritage significance.
● NPPF Paragraph 215 (Zero Benefit Test): The December 2024 NPPF states that where
development leads to "less than substantial harm" to a heritage asset, it must be
weighed against public benefits.
○ The Test: As the Council can already demonstrate a robust housing supply through
Policies PP31/PP32 (North), there is zero additional public benefit to allocating the
southern sites.
○ The Result: With no public benefit to outweigh the identified harm to the setting of
the Village Green and Listed Buildings, the presumption must be to refuse allocation.
4.3 Hydrogeological and Drainage Constraints
● Geology: The underlying geology is Glacial Sand and Gravel over London Clay. This
specific stratification presents severe drainage challenges.
● SuDS Hierarchy Failure: The "SuDS Hierarchy" requires infiltration (soakaways) as the
priority solution. However, the heavy clay subsoil in this specific location renders
infiltration ineffective. The ground simply cannot absorb the volume of runoff generated
by a new housing estate.
● Local Evidence: Residents [REDACTED] currently experience significant surface water
retention ("bogginess") in gardens for extended periods during the winter. Replacing the
remaining absorbing farmland with impermeable hardstanding (roads and roofs) would
inevitably displace this surface water onto lower-lying residential curtilages. The site
cannot support a sustainable drainage strategy without pumping or massive attenuation,
which raises significant viability and long-term maintenance concerns.
4.4 Ecological Constraints: Protected Species & Functional Linkage
● Bats (Various Spp.): Residents [REDACTED] witness significant bat activity nightly within
the curtilage of the property and the adjacent fields. The hedgerows and tree belts
bordering the "Alternative Sites" provide essential foraging corridors. Development would
sever these corridors and introduce lighting that disrupts flight paths, constituting an
offence under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
● Red Kites (Milvus milvus): It is noted that Red Kites (Schedule 1, Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981) are nesting in the immediate vicinity. These birds are highly
sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season.
● Functional Linkage: The open fields of the "Alternative Sites" are not just empty space;
they provide the essential hunting ground ("Functional Linkage") for these species. Loss
of this foraging habitat would result in a net decline in biodiversity, failing the
Environment Act 2021 requirements for Biodiversity Net Gain.
4.5 Impact on Dark Skies and Rural Character
The hamlet of Seven Star Green is currently characterized by dark skies at night, consistent
with its rural setting.
● Light Pollution: The introduction of a housing estate would necessitate street lighting,
security lighting, and vehicle headlights. This would introduce artificial light into an area
that has historically remained dark.
● Harm: This would fundamentally alter the character of the hamlet from "rural" to
"suburban" and cause significant disturbance to the nocturnal wildlife (specifically bats)
identified in Section 4.4. This contravenes the NPPF requirement to limit the impact of
light pollution on intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.
4.6 Agricultural Land Classification and Food Security
● Grade 2 Land: The land south of the A1124 is mapped as Grade 2 (Very Good)
Agricultural Land. This is a finite national resource.
● NPPF Paragraph 181 (Dec 2024): The revised Framework explicitly emphasizes "food
security" and the economic benefits of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land. It
directs planning authorities to prioritize poorer quality land for development.
● Sequential Test: The Council is right to prioritize the fragmented land to the North (infill
between village and A12), which has lower agricultural utility, over the high-quality,
continuous productive arable land to the South.
4.7 Utilities Infrastructure: Proven Capacity Deficits
Paragraph 8 of the NPPF requires the provision of accessible local services.
● Existing Deficiency: The local water supply network is operating at hydraulic limits, with
residents experiencing notable pressure fluctuations during peak times. This indicates a
network under stress.
● Constraint: Adding significant housing load to this fragile spur without guaranteed,
pre-commencement reinforcement constitutes a direct threat to residential amenity. It is
unacceptable to degrade the service to existing residents to facilitate speculative
development.
5. Conclusion and Formal Request
The residents [REDACTED] support the Council's pragmatic approach in the Preferred Options
Local Plan. The northern sites (PP31/PP32) represent a logical "Grey Belt" style prioritization
of sustainable infill.
Conversely, the "Alternative Sites" south of the A1124 are legally obstructed by the
Neighbourhood Plan, ecologically sensitive, and severed from the village.
The "Precedent" Danger:
We caution the Council that the A1124 acts as the only logical defensible boundary for the
settlement. Permitting any development south of this road (at Seven Star Green) would set an
irreversible precedent, effectively unlocking the entire southern arable landscape for sprawl
and destroying the distinct character of the hamlet.
We formally request that:
1. The Council maintains its rejection of Site 10264 and all "Alternative" sites south of the
A1124.
2. The Settlement Boundary defined in the Eight Ash Green Neighbourhood Plan (Policy
VSB1) is upheld as the permanent limit of development.
3. The Procedural Objection regarding the Gunning Principles and consultation timing be
recorded.
This document constitutes a formal representation under Regulation 18 of the Town and
Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

Our client objects to the draft allocation for approximately 180 dwellings at land north of Halstead Road and east of Wood Lane, Eight Ash Green on the basis that it will cause two settlements to coalesce.

Paragraph 12.31 in the Local Plan Regulation 18 document explains that “Eight Ash Green comprises three main areas of which two are considered sustainable and have a range of services and facilities: Eight Ash Green / Fordham Heath and Eight Ash Green / Choat’s Corner.” Notably the adopted Colchester Section 2 Local Plan Policies Map (2022) illustrates that these two areas are currently defined by distinct Settlement Boundaries, separated by a substantial area of countryside around Choat’s Wood.

The draft allocation to the north of Halstead Road and east of Wood Lane will infill a large part of the countryside gap between Eight Ash Green / Fordham Heath and Eight Ash Green / Choat’s Corner, physically merging these defined settlements into one another and causing them to lose their distinctiveness and individual identity.

This is contrary to the objective set out in paragraph 11(a) of the NPPF, which expects local plans to promote sustainable patterns of development.

In summary our client requests that the draft allocation to the north of Halstead Road and east of Wood Lane is removed from the emerging Local Plan and that these 180 dwellings are re-allocated elsewhere at less harmful sites, including our client’s land at Tey Gardens, Little Tey. This will ensure that the emerging Local Plan passes the ‘justified’ test of soundness (i.e. it comprises an appropriate strategy taking into account the reasonable alternatives) at paragraph 36 of the NPPF.

2. Support
As a family, we strongly support the CBC local plan, with sites PP31/PP32 being selected to provide housing for the wider community. The site offers the best solution, given they are on the Northern side on A1124 Hasted Road. We are unsure what is motivating the Village Parish Council to try to disrupt the plans that are in place.

I support directing growth to PP31 and PP32 and excluding land south of Halstead Road (A1124). I object to any “alternative/omission” sites south of the A1124 adjoining Seven Star Green.

Neighbourhood Plan compliance: The Eight Ash Green Neighbourhood Plan (made 2019) deliberately removed Seven Star Green from the Settlement Boundary because it lies south of the A1124 and is physically separated from village facilities, making it unsustainable. Re‑allocating this land would reverse a recent, democratic plan‑led decision and undermine confidence in neighbourhood planning.

Defensible boundary: The A1124 is the logical permanent southern limit of built development. Crossing it would set a precedent for incremental sprawl into open countryside and erode the purpose of the village envelope.
Cumulative impact / encirclement: With PP31/PP32 to the north, any development to the south would encircle Seven Star Green, transforming a rural hamlet into a suburban enclave and causing irreversible harm to its setting and identity. The proposal must be assessed cumulatively, not in isolation.

Green space and character: Seven Star Green contributes openness, dark skies, and rural character. Development here would permanently erode these qualities and conflict with local landscape policy aims.
Requested outcome:

Support retaining PP31/PP32 as the preferred growth locations.
Object to any allocation or consideration of sites south of the A1124.
Maintain the A1124 as the permanent southern boundary and uphold the Neighbourhood Plan settlement boundary.

I would like to propose support of the continued exclusion of land at Seven Star Green (south of A1124)

This area suffers with continual traffic problems, it is virtually impossible for traffic to exit Seven Star Green onto the A1124 on a daily basis. The land there has very poor drainage and the end of Seven Star Green is continually flooded when it rains, with ditches overflowing into the road. The bends in the road are a dangerous blackspot for accidents.

The school in the village was built in 1978 and the capacity in the village has increased so much there is no room for more pupils. The local doctors surgeries in West Bergholt and Stanway are totally overloaded and it is virtually impossible to get appointments. The surrounding land is an area of very diverse wildlife , whose habitats are already dwindling in this village. I have lived here for 58 years and the decreasing habitat is all too obvious.

The Parish Council of Eight Ash Green has sprung this on us at very short notice (I am assuming this is a tactic to prevent people objecting to the areas they wish to be built on.

Please register my objection to housing being built on PP31 and the yellow area's for proposed additional housing, particularly the yellow area between PP31 and PP32. The road is extremely dangerous there and PP31 is total unsuitable with traffic and drainage problems.

More cars on an already incredible busy road. Turning in/out Spring Lane/Jubilee Meadow is a long wait and traffic gets backed up to the a12 roundabout. The country lanes (Argents Lane) cannot cope in these situations.
Since Aspen Walk has been built the car load along Halstead Road has more than doubled.
More pollution.
No extra Drs surgeries, no extra school placements - already over subscribed, no extra bus services, no local shop.

Losing the green open space and village appeal.

This area separates Aldham from Eight Ash Green, and hosts a wide area for farming and wild life. This would also impact privacy of those who live at The Rise and overlook the fields, as well create a loss of light for those in the Walk / Rise in the evenings. Furthermore, Halstead Road will continue to increase with congestion, as well as create difficulty for those who would exit the proposed housing estate onto the main road. PLEASE DO NOT BUILD HERE.

Eight Ash Green, There is neither the infrastructure or services which can presently support the plan. Traffic over capacity at peak times, foul & surface water drainage insufficient, Public transport, schools at near capacity, access to GP,'s. Assurances for public comment required on TIA's & EIA's before permissions granted. Looks like ribbon development by which CBC were rightly so much against. Urbanisation through the back door. Are these new properties to have solar panels, heat pumps & charging facilities? If not, Ed Silliband will be most upset! Extra cost?

We support Policy PP31 and Policy PP32: the original housing sites, logically infilling an area next to the existing village housing estates and amenities.

The alternative sites south of Halstead Rd have been proposed with short notice to the residents of Eight Ash Green, and do not comply with the Neighbourhood Plan as detailed in the previous section.

We formally request the Council maintains its rejection of the Site 10264 and all Alternative Sites South of the A1124

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.