FORMAL REPRESENTATION ; SUPPORT FOR SPATIAL STRATEGY (NORTH) & OBJECTION TO 'ALTERNATIVE SITES' (SOUTH)

Subject; Representation regarding the Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan ( Regulation 18) Re; Support for exclusion of Seven Star Green (south of A1124) and objection to Omission/Alternative sites' (site10264) [REDACTED]

Dear sir/Madam, We are writing in response to the preferred options local plan consultation. We wish to express strong support for the continued exclusion of Seven Star Green (south of 1124)

Seven Star Green is a valued part of the local landscape, the area supports established wildlife habitats and contributes to local biodiversity which would be lost with development. Some areas have no pavement or very narrow pavement creating dangerous conditions for pedestrians, increased housing would significantly heighten the risk.

Local GP surgeries, dentists and schools are already operating at or beyond capacity which would worsen without guaranteed infrastructure. The area already suffers with poor drainage, so this would place more pressure on existing measures.

Local roads are already busy, development would worsen congestion, increasing accident risk and pollution.

We were given very short notice of this with no onsite consultation. Development on this scale requires transparent consultation and adequate time for community engagement. We feel this conflicts with the principles and policies of the Neighbourhood plan.

We would like to submit the above to maintain the exclusion of Seven Star Green from development proposals.

I list below items I feel need addressing whilst considering this application:
- Congestion on the A1124
- The closest NHS dentist has a 2 year waiting list
- Capacity of the sewerage systems needs examining
- School busses are often full by the time they reach Eight Ash Green

Repositioning the site to the south of the A1124 opposite Fiddlers Folly would be a preferred location in relation to the ability to reduce the disruption to the traffic congestion. It would also preserve the view

I am encouraged that CCC will be insisting on Solar Panels, capturing rainwater and recycling grey water.

We write as residents of Seven Star Green, to object to the proposed allocation and development of land south of the A1124 as part of the Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan (Regulation 18).
1. Procedural Concerns and Local Democracy
We are deeply concerned that the consultation period (26 Nov 2025 – 14 Jan 2026) overlapped with the Christmas and New Year holidays, significantly reducing the effective time for residents to respond. This timing undermines the fairness required by the Gunning Principles, disadvantaging local stakeholders compared to professional developers. Furthermore, recent Parish Council discussions on “Alternative Sites” (south of A1124) lacked robust public engagement and appear to contradict the adopted Eight Ash Green Neighbourhood Plan (2019), which was supported by a democratic village vote.
2. Conflict with the Adopted Development Plan
The Eight Ash Green Neighbourhood Plan (Policy VSB1) and Village Design Statement explicitly exclude Seven Star Green and land south of the A1124 from the settlement boundary, in order to preserve the rural character of the hamlet. There is no clear or convincing justification to override this community-led policy, especially when sufficient land is allocated to the north (Policies PP31/PP32).
3. Technical and Environmental Constraints
Highway Safety and Sustainability: The southern frontage of the A1124 lacks a continuous footway, making pedestrian access unsafe—especially for children walking to Holy Trinity Primary School. There are no controlled crossings, and retrofitting is unfeasible without major disruption.
Landscape and Heritage Impact: The area is classified as “Farmland Plateau” and is visually sensitive. Development would encircle the historic Village Green (VG188), harming its rural setting and heritage value.
Drainage and Flooding: The underlying clay soils already cause surface water retention. Further development would exacerbate drainage issues, threatening existing homes.
Ecology and Biodiversity: The fields support protected species, including bats and Red Kites. Development would destroy essential habitats and foraging corridors, contrary to the Environment Act 2021.
Light Pollution and Rural Character: Introducing urban lighting would irreversibly alter the dark skies and rural tranquillity of Seven Star Green.
Agricultural Land and Food Security: The land is classified as Grade 2 (very good) agricultural land, which should be protected for food security as emphasized in the revised NPPF (Dec 2024).
Utilities Infrastructure: The local water supply is already under pressure; further development would worsen this situation.
4. Precedent and Settlement Boundary
Permitting development south of the A1124 would set a dangerous precedent, undermining the defensible boundary established by the Neighbourhood Plan and opening the door to further sprawl.
Formal Requests:
1. That the Council maintains its rejection all “Alternative” sites south of the A1124.
2. That the settlement boundary defined in the Eight Ash Green Neighbourhood Plan (Policy VSB1) is upheld as the permanent limit of development.
3. That our procedural objection regarding the consultation timing and process is formally recorded.

In summary, we support the City Council’s preferred options local plan PP31/32 and strongly object to alternative sites south of the A1124.

We understand that development plans are rarely met with total agreement by residents and that all that may be affected by such development should be given a fair and timely opportunity to voice opinions for consideration. As such, it should be noted that very little notice was given between the date of the "propsal" leaflets being dropped through our doors (early January 2026) giving residents less than a weeks notice that the Eight Ash Green Parish Council had arranged consultation meetings on 10 and 11 January for residents to "have their say", only days before the Colchester City Council's consultation deadline of 14 January 2026.

At the said meeting it was quite evident that the EAG Parish Council showed preference to support the "alternative sites" and was clearly voiced by one member of the Parish Council, to a number of residents, that they had already been in discussion with developers regarding the "alternative sites" development. These proposals and discussions had been undertaken without a local survey; referendum or public exhibition regarding their shift in policy. This deviates from the adopted Neighbourhood Plan (mutually agreed by the village and the Parish Council 2019) and has not taken into account: heritage impact (Seven Star Green is a Registered Village Green - VG188); habitation of protected wildlife (species of Bats and Red Kites; location of grade 2 agricultural land; increased flood risk; highway safety; increased pressure on infrastructure, it also contradicts Colchester City Council's sustainability appraisal (2025) which states "Seven Star Green is not considered "sustainable" as it is located south of Halsted Road and has been assessed by the Council's own Officers and discounted (grading it Red/Amber), nothing has indicated that this assessment has or should be upgraded and should be upheld.

We hereby request that it be noted that we, the residents of Greensleeves, Seven Star Green, support the Council's approach in the Preferred Options Local Plan to direct development growth to the locations north of the A1124 (policy PP31 and PP32) and formally oppose the inclusion of any "alternative sites" south of the A1124 which are contrary to the adopted Development Plan, notably the Eight Ash Green Neighbourhood Plan (2019)

This development will result in currently quite private properties on The Walk/The Rise being overlooked by potentially several properties. With the orientation of the properties, a new estate will hinder a lot of the natural light that we currently get coming across the field as it will be blocked by houses. Large noise disturbance to residents and wildlife.
There is not enough social infrastructure in place to cope with such an increase, doctors surgeries, bus availability, primary and secondary schools etc.
Turning off/on to Halstead road from/to Spring Lane is already hard enough.

Paragraph 12.31 - Eight Ash Green

As set out in Bloor Homes’ representations to draft Policy ST5 and ST5.2 there is a clear need for additional site allocations to be made to ensure that the new Local Plan is capable of meeting the minimum Standard Method housing need. At present, the strategic approach to building a robust supply is not justified and is inflexible. The proposed supply would not be capable of responding to changes in the housing market during the Plan period. Furthermore, the supply of proposed site allocations contains several sites where capacity (no. of dwellings) has been overestimated.

Moving forward towards the Pre-Submission stage it appears inevitable that, alongside reviewing the above matters, the Council will need to make additional site allocations for residential development. In making new site allocations the Council will need to follow their chosen Spatial Strategy to deliver growth and have due regard for the proposed Settlement Hierarchy which ranks existing settlements based on their sustainability credentials. As set out in Bloor Homes’ representations to draft Policy ST3, Eight Ash Green is a sustainable settlement capable of accommodating housing growth.

Bloor Homes notes that Eight Ash Green has been assigned two draft site allocations for residential development which have been assigned a capacity of approximately 180 and approximately 250 dwellings in the Pre-Submission Local Plan (POLP).

Over the course of 2025, Bloor Homes has had some engagement with the Parish Council regarding their ongoing promotion of the ‘Land south of Halstead Road, Eight Ash Green’. The site has a Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA) reference of ID10264 and is not currently identified as a draft site allocation. The feedback from this engagement has informed Bloor Homes’ decision to review the proposals put forward at the previous ‘Call for Sites’ stage in 2023/24. Parish Council representatives have confirmed to Bloor Homes that they see merit in the emerging proposals and they have requested the delivery of formal youth facilities as part of the development. In response to this request the submitted Masterplan supporting the representations provides a skate park. Bloor Homes are still flexible as to the type of facility that could be provided and would welcome further engagement on this matter in due course. Bloor Homes see this project as a unique opportunity for a housebuilder to work closely with the community and Parish Council to bring forward a high-quality development which would assist in addressing local needs.

A new and amended proposal is being promoted for allocation by these representations and supporting material. The site has increased in area to 15.96ha to include additional land parcels to the east. The additional land has been subject to previous assessment in the SLAA as standalone parcels. The parcels were identified as a potential area for growth by the Council, worthy of consideration, in the preparation of the now adopted Local Plan.

In light of the extension to the site a new Framework Masterplan has been prepared. The Masterplan demonstrates that the capacity of the site has risen to around 250 dwellings across a developable area of 6.95 hectares. This equates to a density of approximately 35 dwellings per hectare.

The Masterplan also now provides:

• A main access for vehicles and pedestrians located at the western end of the site off Halstead Road. A further potential pedestrian access is shown off Halstead Road at the eastern end of the site. The additional access point can deliver more convenient and direct access to the service provision located at the eastern end of the village (when compared to the original ID10264 proposals).

• The highway access strategy will include the provision of a new footway along the south side of Halstead Road and formal pedestrian crossing facilities. This will ensure the development integrates successfully with the local highway network and that there is a safe crossing facility for all users.

• A comprehensive green infrastructure and landscaping offer which includes public open space of varying typologies including: community parkland, skate park, amenity space, landscaping and water attenuation. The public open space will significantly exceed local policy requirements.

• A proposal which is capable of delivering on-site biodiversity enhancements and green infrastructure offer which can provide a positive and attractive buffer to the neighbouring Local Wildlife Site, to the south.

• Proposed new homes which can be delivered whilst respecting on-site utilities constraints and the amenity of existing dwellings adjacent to the site’s northern and eastern boundaries.

The site as identified on the submitted Site Location Plan, Masterplan and Vision Document is suitable, available and achievable. To demonstrate the suitability of the site, additional Technical Notes on Highways, Landscape, Ecology and Heritage have also been provided (emailed to the Council separately). The Council’s previous concerns regarding the site feeling isolated and not connected to the village have been addressed through the proposed site access strategy and extension of the site to include land parcels, to the east.

The site can help the Council deliver a robust housing supply to meet its Standard Method need. Indeed, as set out in representations to Policy ST5 and Table ST5.2 additional allocations are required to deliver a Local Plan capable of delivering its minimum housing requirement. The site proposal should be subject to a new SLAA appraisal and Sustainability Appraisal. These appraisals should then be published as part of or prior to the Pre-Submission Local Plan consultation. Bloor Homes believe that there is a clear and robust case for the site to be allocated for residential development in accordance with the Framework Masterplan provided.

The entirety of the site is suitable, available and deliverable. It is likely that the western half of the proposed development, previously promoted by Bloor under SLAA ID 10264, would come forward as an early phase given the location of the site access.

Bloor Homes will continue to progress their design and technical work and will look to deliver the site as soon as practically possible. Bloor Homes will also continue to proactively engage with Eight Ash Green Parish Council and would welcome further engagement with the City Council regarding the site and its potential to assist in meeting local housing needs. This point is particularly important as the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply; and the current shortfall in supply will substantially increase in February 2026 when the adopted Local Plan becomes five years old.

We’re concerned about the effects this site and the other proposed sites in Eight Ash Green will have on the traffic going towards the A12 particularly for existing residents trying to get out of their driveways at busy times of the day. The existing road infrastructure does not make provision for cycle paths and the bus service is inedaquate so this would put an immense strain on the road system. In addition to this no plans seem to be in place to increase the capacity of local doctors’ surgeries, schools etc in order to cater for the additional residents.

My address runs alongside PP31 which would mean a development on this land would completely overlook our property and garden. The house and that of our neighbours are historic, built around 1700, putting a new build development so close to these homes would alter the look of the area and have a detrimental impact on some of the oldest properties in the village.
Taking the historic nature of the buildings into account, having a development build so close could substantially affect the land these are built on causing irreversible damage to the fabric of the buildings as they are timber framed. The proposed PP31 is seperated by our properties and therefore some of the oldest properties within the village are going to be consumed by a modern development, again having a detrimental impact to their character.

PP31 runs on a slope, at the bottom has a brook which already has issues with flooding, building so close to this is only going to exacerbate this issue potentially leading to greater environmental issues.

We have engaged in discussions with the Parish Council, which has identified alternative sites within the village that are more appropriate for development. We believe the site south of Halstead Road would be a better option. This location is already bordered by trees and hedging, providing a more visually sympathetic setting for new construction. It would also preserve the village's green space, maintaining a balance between development and the natural landscape.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Objection to Proposed New Housing Development Sites in Eight Ash Green - Land South of Halstead Road (A1124) and Cumulative Impact of Local Plan Allocations

After attending the Eight Ash Green village consultation this weekend, I am writing to formally object to the identification of potential new housing development sites in Eight Ash Green, specifically the sites south of Halstead Road (A1124) being discussed in conjunction with Bloor Homes (land parallel to Foxes Farm) and Carla Homes (land parallel to Seven Star Green). I also wish to reiterate my opposition to the scale of development already proposed within the current Local Plan, one of which presently has a planning application.

These proposed sites would be in addition to the significant level of development already allocated or delivered in and around Eight Ash Green, namely:

PP32 - approximately 250 dwellings (north of Halstead Road), PP31 - approximately 180 dwellings (north of Halstead Road), and The Bellway Aspen Walk development of approximately 150 dwellings.

Taken together, this represents a level of growth that is wholly disproportionate to the size, character, and infrastructure capacity of Eight Ash Green.

The Eight Ash Green Local Plan Vision (November 2019) is explicit in its intent:

"The Vision for Eight Ash Green is that it should remain a small village located in a rural setting, mainly consisting of residential dwellings interspersed with open farmland.. Eight Ash Green should continue to enjoy wide open spaces within the village with uninterrupted views of the countryside. It should remain clearly separated from other nearby villages - it is not and should not become a suburb of either Stanway, Colchester or the proposed West Tey Garden Community/New Town."

The cumulative impact of the existing allocations, combined with the newly suggested sites south of Halstead Road, directly conflicts with this vision. Rather than preserving separationand rural character, the proposals would result in ribbon development along a major arterial route and materially alter the identity of the village.

I have been a resident of Eight Ash Green for six years. Since the completion of the Aspen Walk development, there has been a noticeable and sustained increase in traffic through the village, particularly along Halstead Road. Alongside this, day-to-day environmental issues such as dog fouling and general pressure on public spaces have increased, with little visible mitigation or enforcement. These may seem minor in isolation, but they are indicators of a settlement already under strain.

My family and I chose to live in Eight Ash Green specifically because of its rural setting, openness, and village character. While I fully recognise the need for new homes - indeed, my own daughter will one day need access to housing - there are locations far better suited to large-scale development than incremental ribbon expansion in a small rural village such as this.

Ribbon development has historically led to poor outcomes: increased car dependency, unsafe road conditions, fragmented communities, and infrastructure that permanently lags behind growth. Case studies across Essex and beyond show that development stretched along busy A-roads consistently performs worse in terms of safety, accessibility, and quality of life than well-planned, self-contained growth locations with appropriate infrastructure delivered up front.

At present, even without further development, Eight Ash Green faces several unresolved infrastructure and safety issues, including:

Poor and inadequate footpaths connecting Aspen Walk through the village along Halstead Road, which are wholly unsafe due to fast-moving and veering traffic, and a lack of continuous dropped kerbs. An unsafe bus stop opposite the Wood Lane junction. A bus stop already operating at capacity during morning peak times in relation to the number of buses available on the route, which local schools rely upon, with no additional provision further along near Aspen Walk towards Aldham. Excessive vehicle speeds along Halstead Road, with limited meaningful traffic- calming measures; roundabouts or equivalent interventions should be considered as a minimum requirement. Inadequate and poorly positioned 30mph signage, particularly at the village entrance from the Stanway roundabout where signage is partially obscured by trees.

These issues remain unresolved today and would be significantly exacerbated by the addition of several hundred further dwellings.It is also important to note that the recently completed Aspen Walk development has already been raised by residents as an example of unresolved post-development issues. These include poorly maintained communal grounds, a lack of adequate fencing around the children's play area, and ongoing parking problems along "John Flower Avenue" that is shortly to be adopted by the highway authority. These concerns do not provide confidence that future developments of greater scale would be delivered or managed to a higher standard, nor that long-term impacts would be effectively addressed once construction is complete.

While I acknowledge that the proposed Bloor Homes development's retention of open space, rural walks, and potential cycle routes could be seen as positives, these benefits do not outweigh the fundamental issues of access, safety, and infrastructure capacity. Development should only ever follow infrastructure provision, not precede it.

I will not support development in Eight Ash Green that falls outside the adopted Neighbourhood Plan. However, I am acutely aware of the current national policy direction and the pressure local authorities are under to meet housing targets. That said, the existence of national policy does not remove the responsibility to ensure development is appropriate, sustainable, and consistent with locally agreed visions.

In its current form, the scale and location of the proposed developments fail to meet these tests.

I respectfully ask that these additional sites south of Halstead Road be rejected, and that serious consideration be given to the cumulative impact of development already planned for Eight Ash Green before any further growth is contemplated.

Again this will cause ‘ribbon effect’ along the Halstead road and, in conjunction with site PP32, turn the village into a sprawl of roadside dwellings rather than a more consolidated community that could be achieved with better alternative sites available south of the A1124. This would also worsen the bottleneck of traffic that builds along that section of road near Wood Lane and the Esso garage.

Developing PP31 will create a near continuous housing strip along the North side of A1124, running from the A12 right through to Foxes Lane; This will significantly detract from the rural character of our district, and will present as a typical 'ribbon development' alongside this busy road. The alternative sites south of Halstead road (10264 and 10197) are much more preferable as they will be set back from the A1124 (mainly screened by the existing business strip) so can be developed with limited effect on the visual aesthetic of our village - in particular retaining views down into the valley (at PP31) which are an important facet of our rural/village setting
Furthermore :
> 10264 and 10197 are significantly larger (than PP31) - offering greater housing capacity which will help minimise need for further future expansions in our area
> Being larger they offer significantly more capacity to incorporate green infrastructure, and indeed developer plans for 10264 shown to us by EAG council already include significant green facilities
> Both the above points also compare much more favourably against 10760 - which as another alternative is even smaller again, with even less capacity and prospect for effective green infrastructure

Any development (such as PP31, or the alternative 10760) around the easterly section of A1124 near Spring Lane will exacerbate the traffic congestion issues that already plague this area - west-bound queues (to A12) often form right back to Turkey Cock Ln. Long queues also form on east-bound side due to difficulties turning right into Spring lane, all of which also leads to constant braking and accelerating which worsens noise and pollution. Due to its narrow and condensed structure (with businesses on each side) the spring lane junction cannot easily accommodate an adequately structured roundabout, so little can be done to ameliorate these traffic issues which will only get worse once village population is increased as planned. Introducing yet another new nearby junction into PP31 (or 10760), with significantly more traffic due to size of these proposed estates will make the congestion issues around this section of the A1124 even worse. The alternative sites south of Halstead road (10264 and 10197) are much more preferable as they are far further removed from this congestion area, and this more rural area of the A1124 can much more easily accommodate a roundabout if desired - furthermore a combined entrance (into 10264 and 10197) can easily be created directly opposite the recent development at Aspen Walk, meaning no new junction will be required - rather this existing junction can simply be extended to incorporate the new entranceway.

These sites south of halstead road (10264 and 10197) also provide easy recreational access to countryside and public paths around the daisy green area, so there is no loss of facility compared to PP31 (and compared to 10760 which is bounded by carriageways on all sides limiting ready access to public footpaths). 10264 and 10197 are also well positioned in terms of access to some of the main village facilities, in particular the local school - this compares to 10760 which is much farther separated from these facilities around Wood Lane.
When considering alternatives to PP31 - these sites south of halstead road (10264 and 10197) are also a significantly greater distance away from the A12 (than 10760), offering a more pleasant (rural, quiet) setting - which in turn will attract greater property values, and better socioeconomic outcomes generally for our village. Note there is almost no urban screening at all south of halstead facing out to the A12, so sites like 10760 will be significantly exposed to persistent highway noise (please try walking down blind lane to see for yourself how loud the A12 is here!)

This allocation was not supported by Eight Ash Green residents engaging in 2025 consultations about possible development sites. This development will exacerbate 'ribbon' style development and is not favoured.

This site is for 180 new homes and will contribute to the gridlocking of Halstead Road as a result of the cumulative impact of new housing along its length.

PP31 (c): Active travel to Tollgate District Centre does not/cannot exist to cross A12 Junction 26 safely given traffic volumes.

If ST3 used appropriate methodology, see my objection, then alternative urban sites would be preferred saving villages and green fields from over-development.

Colchester Local Plan Review Preferred Options

Eight Ash Green Parish Council statement

The Preferred Options produced by the City Council propose two sites totally 430 dwellings in Eight Ash Green (EAG). In early 2025 the Parish Council held two public consultations which were well attended the outcome being a total rejection of site PP31 and some support for site PP32.
Site PP31 was involved in a previous referendum as part of the evidence base for producing the Eight Ash Green Neighbourhood Plan (NP). In total there were ten sites involved in that process and PP31 came 10th. This has been fully explained previously but the site was proposed regardless.
PP32 has also been submitted as a preferred site however subsequently it became apparent this site was not in fact in Eight Ash Green but in Aldham parish. To maintain the rural nature of the villages and not dilute the coalescence in this area it is vitally important to maintain a green buffer between villages. Such a buffer would not exist with PP32.
After some months delay whilst an infrastructure report was progressed the consultation process began. Unfortunately, this was arranged over the Christmas and New Year holiday period which has caused a variety of problems. Nevertheless, the Parish Council have managed to arrange two public consultations on 10 and 11 January. Around 200 residents attended the consultations and their views are reflected in this submission.
We have strong reservations about PP31. As mentioned above it is very unpopular with residents. The site is outside the village boundary and it disregards the reasoning and polices set out in our NP. It would be a substantial ribbon development with houses on the roadside from entering to leaving the village as you travel west. It would take away the rural aspect and country views to the detriment of residents and visitors. There are substantial concerns regarding damage to Choats Wood, habitats and wildlife. Also, real concerns regarding drainage given the underground streams in that particular area. Added to that is the existence of the watercourse flowing at the bottom of the steep slope. Extra concrete from property foundations will prevent water absorption and add to any potential flooding which will have a detrimental Impact on the properties which back onto the stream from the opposite bank. Access to parts of the site is also a genuine concern.
In addition, we are very much against PP32. Aside from it creating coalescence to the neighbouring parish of Aldham, it again extends high impact urbanisation ribbon development out into a rurally valued open countryside setting. Far reaching views would be lost not just from within EAG but from Fordham replaced by unmitigable urban development. Management of resources would be difficult as this dormitory development would be in Aldham Parish but spatially seen as an estate stuck next to the natural settlement boundary Eight Ash Green. Development on this site would almost entirely surround the ancient woodland, The Woodland Trust has expressed serious concerns for the woodland should this proceed, habitats are in danger and three veteran trees are located on the site Changes to the water table, artificial light and encroachment access issues are already being experienced from the far smaller Aspen Walk site.
The addition of this site further out to the already poorly connected community at Aspen Walk would create a joined community of some 400 houses with no mention of any community amenities, additional transport capacity, provision for schooling or shops. Walking distances even to the limited services of EAG create and encourage a car centric development because of its distance from the village centre.
Much hard work went into producing a NP for EAG which brought forward 150 houses at Aspen Walk. Fully adopted by CCC, EAG NP balanced the need for housing growth but fundamentally supported our communities overriding decision to maintain its rural aspects and set this into the local plan 2017-2033. Those houses are only just becoming homes but the development is not yet complete. Residents rightly believe that EAG had ‘done its bit’ with this estate which added around 20% to the number of houses in the village. Looking at allocations around Colchester it seems inequitable that a further 430 houses have been allocated here, especially impactful given the clear intent and purpose set out by EAG NP. Our strong preference would be for no further immediate developments however we reluctantly accept there are Government policy demands for an increased number of builds in the Colchester area. However, we believe that many more central and brownfield multi- use sites including those with higher density should be used rather than prime agricultural land which will be lost forever. We would like the EAG allocation to be reviewed given these circumstances.
After CCC set out its preferred options, over the summer and autumn months the PC accepted separate invitations to meetings from Bloor Homes and Cala Homes each representing landowner sites south of Halstead Rd which were not preferred by CCC. These have been discussed with Planning.
Given the unsuitability of the proposed sites, we entered into discussions with Bloor and Cala on that basis having decided that we should take a pragmatic view as it is very likely that some development in EAG will be required. Bloor is proposing a 270 dwelling site south of Halstead Road opposite Aspen Walk. There is a possibility of the entry/exit to this development being moved to opposite the existing Aspen Walk exit thus making a substantial junction possible with a roundabout, crossings and bus stops. All of these were high on the list of resident concerns and would go some way to produce benefits from development. In addition, substantial green space is proposed within the plan which would be welcomed by Aspen Walk residents. The village would not be stretched towards Aldham. From the information available at present the PC felt this site could be a preferable alternative so was worthy of wider community discussion.
In turn, the site proposed by Cala opposite PP31 could accommodate 125 homes on the south side of Halstead Road. Here, like the Bloor Homes site, there are concerns regarding country views footpaths and traffic impact to the A1124. This part of the village suffers from high volumes of traffic flow in the mornings and evenings in particular with residents finding it difficult and often dangerous to exit onto the main road. Before this development could be considered further, residents would need to see a detailed plan showing the buffers between the site and existing buildings together with substantial traffic management proposals. These would need to include consideration to additional and better placed crossings and mini roundabouts.
During our most recent consultations we shared both of these possible alternative sites. There was approval by many residents for the Bloor Homes site over PP32 however strong opposition from residents of Seven Star Green and those south of the A1124 in respect of the Cala Homes site. Site PP 31 was again regarded as totally unacceptable.
The overriding concern and demand at the consultations was for a detailed proposal on infrastructure in a concise format and evidence that it was funded. An additional 430 houses imposed into a community that has no doctor in the vicinity and very little in the way of healthcare is of concern. Public transport provision is very poor already and no increase in capacity has come forward even with the uplift of 150 homes and the vast increase in car trips to the Tollgate/Stane Park facilities. Secondary school children and College students from Aspen Walk and the rest of the village have to walk to Wood Corner to get the bus and frequently the bus runs past them as it is already full. Even before Aspen Walk the majority of parents with children aged 11+ need to drive those children to school because our bus service has such limited capacity. This should have been anticipated and resolved at the time of development. The draft plan fails to recognise EAG with any active travel options nor does it improve in any way the ability to connect our community to the opportunities of employment, shopping and use of the facilities of Tollgate/Stane Park without car ownership. Walking routes along the A1124 are narrow and feel vulnerable to the traffic. Dedicated cycle provision is non existent and it’s just too dangerous an option to encourage cyclists onto the A1124. Transport is vitally important and a huge issue especially when the alternatives are just not viable options. The A1124 is very busy at present – doubling the population of the parishes along this route is simply not feasible without appropriate traffic management mitigation. Highways East acknowledge junction 26 is operating at capacity now with AM/PM queues impacting upon residents in EAG. Traffic flows through EAG are notably poor during peak times yet suggested mini roundabouts that could aid flow are continuously dismissed. Gaining access to the A1124 is very difficult at present from Spring lane, Jubilee Meadow, Blind Lane, Wood Lane and Aspen Walk. Highways East suggest new planning in the area needs to focus on modal shifts towards more active travel but as already mentioned there is nothing in the draft plan that recognises that need. There are also very real concerns about our future water and sewage systems with the proposed level of development, however it is the fundamental speed of change to the rural village setting, so cherished by many that inform our response to this local draft - and as noted rural preservation is a major consideration within frameworks provided forand by CCC.
It should be noted that at the public consultations 100% of respondents noted traffic volumes and pollution as a concern, 90% noted doctor availability and 80% noted schools/education. This must be addressed together with the very strong desire to retain the rural ambience of the village.
We believe that any development needs to be phased in line with appropriate infrastructure provision and with particular regard to vehicle movements. The pylon project is likely to create major transport challenges around our villages over the next few years.
We will be happy to continue to work closely with the Planning Department in an effort to agree a final plan that offers the best possible balance for all the residents of EAG.

Eight Ash Green Parish Council
14 January 2026

I object to this proposed development, on the grounds that the site indicated will disgorge too much traffic onto Halstead Road at an inflection point where there are already bus stops and junctions prior to the A12 roundabouts. The existing pedestrian crossings are already lethal and to add more junctions in will continue to make this perilous. In addition the bus stops located at Brick and Tile and Woods Corner where children wait to board buses for school are already full and fail to pick them up. This new development adds to the already choked area of Eight Ash Green.

The Parish have put a great deal of work into the Neighbourhood plan please listen to it

The proposed site PP31 in Eight Ash Green is located in an area within the CCC preferred option for house building in Eight Ash Green and within the local plan. I approve of this site for future housing development as it provides best use of the current village infrastructure such as schools and pavements.

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

Object
• Unreasonably short notice for consultation due to Christmas period and large size of the consultation allowing insufficient time for local debate. I first heard about the CCC plan on 9th January. I am on the CCC mailing list but did not receive notification of the plan when published on 8th December 2025. I like to request an extension of 1 month to 12th February to prepare a more comprehensive response.
• As per National, CCC policy and the EAG Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2033 - FF3: “any proposals offering to deliver 30% affordable housing in accordance with the expectations of the emerging Local Plan will be supported”. As there is a trend for London councils to buy up new out of town developments in order to meet their social housing needs. This would push out local residents’ ability to remain in the community. CCC and Parish Council should ensure affordable housing is retained for local residents.
• Compared to other locations, this location is not suitable to maintain the village aspect alongside the Colne Valley A1124 route. Eight Ash Green and Fordham Heath should not be merged by PP32 or an alternative possible site on the other side of the A1124 marked as PA31B. See image uploaded.
• PA32 and PA31A would be supported, given my points of objection in PP32 and will support more than the 430 target.
• There are only 2 buses a day into Tollgate shopping park. As there is less need to travel into town throughout the day, more frequent buses should stop in Tollgate.
• With the recent expansion of EAG of the Aspen Walk housing estate, no new services were provided other than a play area (now out of service) and a contribution towards the new EAG village fall. There were no new surgery capacity, bus service, schooling or local shops. Expanding this with a further 250 homes make the need for services even more urgent.
• Traffic on the A1124 is dire in the morning and evening especially at the Tollgate roundabout junction where recent traffic lights have had limited improvement. With further houses proposed in Fordham, Chapel, Aldham and this EAG proposal, traffic on the A1124 will be worse.
• Although referenced in part, limited consideration of the EAG village design statement and the neighbourhood plan has been evidenced in the CCC proposed plan. In particular proposal for the very recent 150-house development of Fiddlers Field included items FF1-FF10. Any new developments should incorporate these points that were developed over many months of consultation with the neighbourhood residents. In the section “Future Domestic Housing” those points are reiterated. The section on Coalescence clearly states: “Environment Policy 1 (EP1): Development beyond the settlement boundary of Eight Ash Green as defined on the Village Settlement Boundary Map resulting in coalescence between Eight Ash Green and neighbouring and existing and proposed settlements in adopted plans will not be supported.”. So why is site location PP31 proposed? Hence the alternative site of PA31A noted above would be more suitable. Again, I draw attention to all aspects of the detailed Neighbourhood plan and the Village Design Statement.
• The proposed site borders Choats Wood that house much diverse wildlife including bats, stag beetles, muntjacs, foxes, hares, pheasants and kites. Sightings have been reported to the relevant wildlife monitoring services. Wildlife will be impacted by this development. The woodland of Choats Wood is a woodland with a current tree preservation order.
• The site is sloped causing many drainage issues and possible flooding of the site.
• A recent brick-built tractor shed built on the proposed site is out of character and not aligned with the village design statement and neighbourhood plan and is more akin to a residential house placed outside of the village envelope. Was this considered when awarding planning permission?
• If the left-hand part of the proposed site were to access the A1124, this would be at a dangerous location just before the bend in the A1124.

• Unreasonably short notice for consultation due to Christmas period and large size of the consultation allowing insufficient time for local debate. I first heard about the CCC plan on 9th January. I am on the CCC mailing list but did not receive notification of the plan when published on 8th December 2025. I like to request an extension of 1 month to 12th February to prepare a more comprehensive response.
• As per National, CCC policy and the EAG Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2033 - FF3: “any proposals offering to deliver 30% affordable housing in accordance with the expectations of the emerging Local Plan will be supported”. As there is a trend for London councils to buy up new out of town developments in order to meet their social housing needs. This would push out local residents’ ability to remain in the community. CCC and Parish Council should ensure affordable housing is retained for local residents.
• Compared to other locations, this location is not suitable to maintain the village aspect alongside the Colne Valley A1124 route. Eight Ash Green and Fordham Heath should not be merged by PP32 or an alternative possible site on the other side of the A1124 marked as PA31B. See plan image uploaded.

• PA32 and PA31A would be supported, given my points of objection in PP32 and will support more than the 430 target.
• There are only 2 buses a day into Tollgate shopping park. As there is less need to travel into town throughout the day, more frequent buses should stop in Tollgate.
• With the recent expansion of EAG of the Aspen Walk housing estate, no new services were provided other than a play area (now out of service) and a contribution towards the new EAG village fall. There were no new surgery capacity, bus service, schooling or local shops. Expanding this with a further 250 homes make the need for services even more urgent.
• Traffic on the A1124 is dire in the morning and evening especially at the Tollgate roundabout junction where recent traffic lights have had limited improvement. With further houses proposed in Fordham, Chapel, Aldham and this EAG proposal, traffic on the A1124 will be worse.
• Although referenced in part, limited consideration of the EAG village design statement and the neighbourhood plan has been evidenced in the CCC proposed plan. In particular proposal for the very recent 150-house development of Fiddlers Field included items FF1-FF10. Any new developments should incorporate these points that were developed over many months of consultation with the neighbourhood residents. In the section “Future Domestic Housing” those points are reiterated. The section on Coalescence clearly states: “Environment Policy 1 (EP1): Development beyond the settlement boundary of Eight Ash Green as defined on the Village Settlement Boundary Map resulting in coalescence between Eight Ash Green and neighbouring and existing and proposed settlements in adopted plans will not be supported.”. So why is site location PP31 proposed? Hence the alternative site of PA31A noted above would be more suitable. Again, I draw attention to all aspects of the detailed Neighbourhood plan and the Village Design Statement.
• The proposed site borders Choats Wood that house much diverse wildlife including bats, stag beetles, muntjacs, foxes, hares, pheasants and kites. Sightings have been reported to the relevant wildlife monitoring services. Wildlife will be impacted by this development. The woodland of Choats Wood is a woodland with a current tree preservation order.
• The site is sloped causing many drainage issues and possible flooding of the site.
• A recent brick-built tractor shed built on the proposed site is out of character and not aligned with the village design statement and neighbourhood plan and is more akin to a residential house placed outside of the village envelope. Was this considered when awarding planning permission?
• If the left-hand part of the proposed site were to access the A1124, this would be at a dangerous location just before the bend in the A1124.

• Unreasonably short notice for consultation due to Christmas period and large size of the consultation allowing insufficient time for local debate. I first heard about the CCC plan on 9th January. I am on the CCC mailing list but did not receive notification of the plan when published on 8th December 2025. I like to request an extension of 1 month to 12th February to prepare a more comprehensive response.
• As per National, CCC policy and the EAG Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2033 - FF3: “any proposals offering to deliver 30% affordable housing in accordance with the expectations of the emerging Local Plan will be supported”. As there is a trend for London councils to buy up new out of town developments in order to meet their social housing needs. This would push out local residents’ ability to remain in the community. CCC and Parish Council should ensure affordable housing is retained for local residents.
• Compared to other locations, this location is not suitable to maintain the village aspect alongside the Colne Valley A1124 route. Eight Ash Green and Fordham Heath should not be merged by PP32 or an alternative possible site on the other side of the A1124 marked as PA31B. See plan image uploaded.

• PA32 and PA31A would be supported, given my points of objection in PP32 and will support more than the 430 target.
• There are only 2 buses a day into Tollgate shopping park. As there is less need to travel into town throughout the day, more frequent buses should stop in Tollgate.
• With the recent expansion of EAG of the Aspen Walk housing estate, no new services were provided other than a play area (now out of service) and a contribution towards the new EAG village fall. There were no new surgery capacity, bus service, schooling or local shops. Expanding this with a further 250 homes make the need for services even more urgent.
• Traffic on the A1124 is dire in the morning and evening especially at the Tollgate roundabout junction where recent traffic lights have had limited improvement. With further houses proposed in Fordham, Chapel, Aldham and this EAG proposal, traffic on the A1124 will be worse.
• Although referenced in part, limited consideration of the EAG village design statement and the neighbourhood plan has been evidenced in the CCC proposed plan. In particular proposal for the very recent 150-house development of Fiddlers Field included items FF1-FF10. Any new developments should incorporate these points that were developed over many months of consultation with the neighbourhood residents. In the section “Future Domestic Housing” those points are reiterated. The section on Coalescence clearly states: “Environment Policy 1 (EP1): Development beyond the settlement boundary of Eight Ash Green as defined on the Village Settlement Boundary Map resulting in coalescence between Eight Ash Green and neighbouring and existing and proposed settlements in adopted plans will not be supported.”. So why is site location PP31 proposed? Hence the alternative site of PA31A noted above would be more suitable. Again, I draw attention to all aspects of the detailed Neighbourhood plan and the Village Design Statement.
• The proposed site borders Choats Wood that house much diverse wildlife including bats, stag beetles, muntjacs, foxes, hares, pheasants and kites. Sightings have been reported to the relevant wildlife monitoring services. Wildlife will be impacted by this development. The woodland of Choats Wood is a woodland with a current tree preservation order.
• The site is sloped causing many drainage issues and possible flooding of the site.
• A recent brick-built tractor shed built on the proposed site is out of character and not aligned with the village design statement and neighbourhood plan and is more akin to a residential house placed outside of the village envelope. Was this considered when awarding planning permission?
• If the left-hand part of the proposed site were to access the A1124, this would be at a dangerous location just before the bend in the A1124.

White Colne Parish Council objects to the scale of the proposed allocation at Eight Ash Green. Development on this scale will increase traffic on local roads, particularly the A1124, negatively impacting adjacent parishes.

I have lived in Choats Wood for just over 29 years and would like to register my objections for the above proposed developments.

The two sites that have been proposed would contribute to the feeling of ‘ribbon development’ in the village which would definitely destroy the community feeling of Eight Ash Green. I understand that there are 2 more possible sites in the village to the South of the A1124 which would help to keep much more of a ‘village’ feel and balanced look to Eight Ash Green.

Unfortunately the development of these 2 possible alternative sites, like PP32 and PP31, would do nothing to help the volume of traffic on the A1124. Since the completion of the development called Aspen Walk off the Halstead Road, it has become increasingly difficult to exit both Wood Lane and Spring Lane onto Halstead Road due to greatly increased traffic. Also the traffic on approach to the A12 from Eight Ash Green continually backs up. It is beyond belief that all these extra properties should be built without any provision for improving the infrastructure. Even walking has become much more hazardous. As a person of ‘mature years’ I personally find it very daunting to use the pavement along the A1124 with so much traffic passing so close and I wouldn’t like to say they all adhere to the 30 miles an hour speed limit either.

Talking of infrastructure - what about the provision of schooling, doctors, dentists etc for all the new families that will be moving into the area, not to mention the fact that Colchester General Hospital is already working to capacity.

The Site

The Site lies on the northern side of Halstead Road, between Nimrod Cottages and the Eight Ash Green Dental Surgery, within the village of Eight Ash Green. The Site is currently in agricultural use.
The Site's frontage along Halstead Road is served by a footpath with streetlighting on either side of the carriageway, within the public highway. A drainage ditch, inside the Site boundary, lies behind the footpath, with one section supporting a low hedgerow.

The Site's continuous frontage is interrupted by an existing privately-owned, large two storey dwelling ('Alwyn'), that's set within a large residential curtilage. This property has a tall, coniferous hedge, almost fully enclosing the perimeter of the property. This property is excluded from the Site boundary/ Proposed Development.
The southern boundary of the Site is predominantly extensive, mature, woodland, serving to create a natural barrier to additional development beyond, and as a vegetated buffer that can help assimilate new development into the Site. Furthermore, the Site's topography falls from the southern boundary (Halstead Road) to this northern boundary, but then begins to rise beyond, creating a slight bowling effect for the Site. This will help to reduce potential landscape and visual impact of new development from longer distant views.
The Eight Ash Green Neighbourhood Plan 2017 - 2033 ('the Neighbourhood Plan'), adopted November 2019, notes that there are four distinct areas of residential housing within the village, namely:
¦ Spring Lane / Fordham Heath / Heathfields and Searle Way/The Walk and the Rise (medium density);
¦ Wood Lane and adjacent cul de sacs (low density);
¦ Fiddlers Folly/Porters Lane and Close (high density); and
¦ Seven Star Green (low density).

The 2017 physical survey of the village undertaken by the Neighbourhood Plan Group shows there are some 680 dwellings containing a mixture of housing types of:
¦ 252 detached houses (37%)
¦ 129 semi-detached houses (19%)
¦ 7 semi-detached bungalows (1%)
¦ 143 terraced houses (21%)
¦ 122 bungalows (18%)
¦ 27 flats (4%)

The following services and facilities are found within the village:

• Primary school
• Two dental surgeries
• Bakery and convenience store
• Convenience store
• Public house
• Fish and chip shop
• Petrol station and convenience store
• Hotel and leisure club
• Nursing home
• Childcare/ nursery
• Hairdresser
• Village hall
• Church
• Public parks, recreation grounds for cricket and football, and children's play area
• Allotments
• Various bus services, including bus stops in close proximity to the Site (on Halsted Road, close to the junction of Turkey Cock Lane and on Halsted Road, close to the junction with Jubilee Meadow). Routes 88, 88a and 83B provide connections between Eight Ash Green with Colchester and towns such as Halsted.
Additionally, there are a number of services and facilities within 2km of the Site's north-western boundary, including:

• Stane Retail Park (incl. foodstores, garden centre, furniture, outdoor clothing, pet store & vets, pharmacy, takeaways/drive-thus, coffee shop, pub, restaurants)
• Sainsbury's (foodstore, concessions, petrol filling station), pub
• Tollgate Retail Park (incl. discount shop, white goods / electrical, homeware, sportswear, toy store, pharmacy, restaurant/drive-thru
• Medical Centre

The Site is approximately 3km from a hospital, 4km from a High School, and 5km from Colchester train station.

The village and its surrounding catchment area is therefore well-served by services and facilities that will help to support new homes and their residents.

Constraints and Opportunities Analysis

Appendix 3 provides an extract from the Nimbus Mapping system, showing the Site in the context of known, relevant desktop constraints. All relevant constraints are listed down the left-hand side of the page. This high-level analysis shows there are no known, significant relevant constraints to new residential development here.
Appendices 4, 5 and 6 provide preliminary environmental and technical reports on ecology, landscape/heritage, highways and transport, and flood risk and drainage, respectively. These reports were prepared and submitted to inform the Call for Sites submission in January 2024, but have been re-provided here, for completeness. There are no known technical issues preventing residential development of approximately 150 homes on the Site.
Additional assessment, informed by the Council's local validation list for major residential development, are being undertaken to assess the technical and environmental baselines of various disciplines (e.g. ecology, drainage, heritage, transport, trees and hedges etc), alongside an assessment of potential impacts that the Proposed Development might create, and what mitigation can be applied to minimise / avoid harm.

Relevant Policy of the Draft Local Plan

The primary policy of relevance to the Site and the Proposed Development is Draft Policy PP31: Land North of Halstead Road and East of Wood Lane, Eight Ash Green, which states:

In addition to the infrastructure and mitigation requirements identified in Policy ST 7 and subject to compliance with all other relevant policies, development will be supported on land within the area identified on the policies map which provides:

a) Approximately 180 new dwellings of a mix and type of housing to meet evidenced needs and be compatible with surrounding development;

b} Safe and suitable site access to required highway design standards. The point of vehicular access is to be agreed with the Highway Authority and it will need to be demonstrated that the proposal would not be detrimental to highway capacity and safety;

c) Provide a safe pedestrian access to ensure connectivity within and throughout the site to existing footways and any public rights of way. Ensure provision of green infrastructure connections and recreational access to the countryside, also securing active travel links and connections to the settlement and to Tollgate District Centre;
d} Biodiversity mitigation must include a buffer to the watercourse and to the adjacent ancient woodland to protect it from recreational and other disturbance;
e) Onsite BNG measures should focus on buffering the woodland and providing watercourse enhancements, with other medium distinctiveness habitat (e.g. other neutral grassland};

f) Support will be given to delivering grassland habitat within or adjacent to the site to support the delivery of the strategic creation opportunities in the Essex LNRS;

g) Screening comprising locally appropriate tree belts, 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;

h) Development must conserve, and where appropriate, enhance the significance of heritage assets (including any contribution made by their settings). Designated heritage assets close to the allocated site includes two Grade II Listed Buildings as informed by the stage 1 HIA;
i) Contributions towards the provision of a new village hall in Eight Ash Green;

j) Any site specific infrastructure requirements from the /DP (likely to include education provision, highway mitigation, water and wastewater and specific community I open space provision).
All development Proposals within Eight Ash Green parish, will also be determined against the policies in the Eight Ash Green Neighbourhood Plan (adopted December 2019) where they are up to date and relevant.
Policy Interpretation and Emerging Design Response from the Proposed Development

This section seeks to explain how the emerging Proposed Development is responding positively to the expectations of draft Policy PP31, helping to provide confidence in suitability, availability and deliverability terms.

Approximately 180 new dwellings of a mix and type of housing to meet evidenced needs and be compatible with surrounding development;
An equitable split between the Site and the additional third-party owned parcel to the west of the Site, would suggest approximately 150 homes for the Site, which Bellway consider is achievable. The policy reference to 180 homes is not a minimum requirement and would need to be ultimately determined by detailed site investigation and analysis.

We would continue to support retaining the use of the terms 'approximately' and '180 new dwellings' in the policy wording.

The Proposed Development seeks to achieve 30% affordable housing, and housing mix is being informed by the latest Colchester Local Housing Needs Assessment.

Safe and suitable site access to required highway design standards. The point of vehicular access is to be agreed with the Highway Authority and it will need to be demonstrated that the proposal would not be detrimental to highway capacity and safety;

The transport and highways assessment work undertaken in December 2023 noted that from a geometric and visibility perspective, an access can be achieved from Halstead Road (A1124). Consideration has been given to the Essex Design Guide regarding Type of Access, Size, and location with regard to neighbouring junction.

Off-site highway impacts are not likely to be a significant concern, but this is subject to discussions with the local highway authority.

Provide a safe pedestrian access to ensure connectivity within and throughout the site to existing footways and any public rights of way. Ensure provision of green infrastructure connections and recreational access to the countryside, also securing active travel links and connections to the settlement and to Tollgate District Centre;

There is an existing Public Right of Way along the eastern edge of the Site that should be considered for connection into a scheme, if feasible/ achievable (i.e. accounting for landownership issues). However, from recent fieldwork, there are concerns about the ability to achieve a suitable crossing point over the drain/ditch in terms of landing points that wouldn't interfere with third party private land.
It is considered that the Site is located in a sustainable location, and suitable connections should be provided to the existing bus stop provision in the vicinity of the Site.

Biodiversity mitigation must include a buffer to the watercourse and to the adjacent ancient woodland to protect it from recreational and other disturbance;

A suitable buffer can be incorporated into any residential scheme coming forward.

Onsite BNG measures should focus on buffering the woodland and providing watercourse enhancements, with other medium distinctiveness habitat (e.g. other neutral grassland);

We consider BNG assessment at application stage is the most appropriate stage for establishing habitats and type of enhancements secured, and is unnecessary to include this within the policy.

Support will be given to delivering grassland habitat within or adjacent to the site to support the delivery of the strategic creation opportunities in the Essex LNRS;

Bellway does not object to exploring the inclusion of grassland habitat on Site as part of development proposals coming forward. However, Bellway is not in control of any other land adjacent to the Site where grassland could be delivered. It would be unreasonable for the policy to require work on third party land and would suggest 'or adjacent to the site' is removed from the policy wording.

Screening comprising locally appropriate tree belts, 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;

We have no issue with this part of the policy. Development must conserve, and where appropriate, enhance the significance of heritage assets (including any contribution made by their settings). Designated heritage assets close to the allocated site includes two Grade II Listed Buildings as informed by the stage 1 HIA;

It is noted that there are two grade II listed buildings (Bakery Cottage on the southern side of Halstead Road, and Malting House on Seven Star Green), and a detailed Heritage Assessment will be prepare to assess the significance of each, to consider any potential impact that might arise from the Proposed Development, and what mitigation (if any) should be considered.

Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the Malting House lies approximately 330m from Halstead Road and is surrounded by dense vegetation. Bakery Cottage is approximately 100m from the nearest Site boundary but is largely obscured by existing built form in the village. It is therefore considered that Proposed Development is unlikely to result in harm on these two listed buildings.
Contributions towards the provision of a new village hall in Eight Ash Green;

We have concerns about the wording of this element of the draft Policy. It is unclear where a new village hall would be provided, the specifications and budget cost of a new building are unknown, and the timings / mechanism of delivery have not been provided. Contributions are proposed to be shared with another housing allocation in the village (PP32 - for 250 homes), and therefore a proportionate, equitable split would be typically expected, determined by the actual quantum of new dwellings that obtain planning permission. However, it is noted that there is currently a live planning application (ref 251310) for this site, and there is the possibility that s106 contributions will not be obtained for this application if outline planning permission is secured.

In this situation, it would be wholly unreasonable to expect Bellway to cover the full cost of a new village hall, given that the Proposed Development would equate to only 33% of new development in the village (140 of the envisaged 430 homes).

Any site specific infrastructure requirements from the /DP (likely to include education provision, highway mitigation, water and wastewater and specific community I open space provision).
We have no issue with the principle of this requirement, but would welcome more detailed information and breakdown on the requirements for each allocation.

Conclusion

The Site is available, viable and deliverable and bringing it forward would assist in boosting both housing land supply and delivery in Colchester. The proposal would also bring forward some key benefits such as 30% affordable housing, the creation of areas of public open space, 10% Biodiversity net gain, the creation of new jobs during the construction period, and the creation of additional investment into the local economy and support of key services (including potential contributions towards a new hall for the village).

Bellway are supportive of draft Policy PP31 and have an agreement in place with the landowner to bring forward approximately 150 homes on 87% of the allocated land once planning permission is in place.

see attached

National Highways welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the 'draft Local Plan 2041 or the 'Preferred Options' for Colchester.

National Highways has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as a Strategic Highway Company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network(SRN). It is our role to maintain the safe and efficient operation of the SRN whilst acting as a delivery part to national economic growth.

Within this area the SRN comprises of the A12 and A120 between the A12 and the port of Harwich.

In responding to local plan consultation, we have regard to Dft Circular 01/2022 The Strategic Road Network and the delivery of sustainable development (the Circular) which sets out how interactions with the Strategic Road Network should be considered in the making of local plans.

In addition to the Dft Circular 01/2022 the response set out below is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other relevant policies.

Based upon our initial review of the reports and other supporting documents available to us we have identified the items below, where we require further information and or clarification to help in completing our review of the draft plan.

The plan commits to the delivery of approximately 20,800 homes and 41.7Ha of employment land over the plan period.

At present, based upon our review, National Highways is unable to determine whether the level of growth proposed can be accommodated on the SRN, as the transport evidence base and the Strategic Transport Assessment which support the plan are still being developed. While we have been involved in a number of meeting and discussions to date,, these have not yet reached a conclusion

It is anticipated that a final transport evidence base will be submitted in support of the plan. The provision of a robust transport evidence base will allow National Highways to work alongside the Local Highway Authorities using a clear and defined Reference Case. This will support the planning of mitigation measures to address the impacts of future developments, enable infrastructure delivery to support growth and identify appropriate mitigation alongside a strategy for funding.

Notwithstanding the above, work undertaken to date indicates that a number of locations on the SRN are already under stress, with particular concern at A12 junctions 25,26,28 and 29. In addition, sections of the main line are forecast to operate close to capacity during the plan period. A strategy to address these issues is currently being developed. National Highways also has concerns that the trip rates applied within the model may be optimistic and therefore could underestimate the impact of the Local Plan on the highway network. We note that not all forecast growth arises from the proposed Local Plan and that network conditions would remain challenging even in the absence of the Plans growth.

The work to date has assessed two scenarios, including one incorporating the A12 J19-J25 DCO improvement scheme, the funding for which was formally withdrawn in the summer of 2025. This change has necessitated a review of the Local Plan and its supporting evidence.

We welcome and fully support the Plans commitment to the delivery of an integrated and sustainable transport network, including measures to encourage modal shift to public transport and active travel. We recognise, however, that achieving a meaningful reduction in car dependence will be challenging. We welcome the commitment to Bus Rapid Transit, and emphasise that if development within the Plan is to come forward in a sustainable manner, the timing and coordinated delivery of development supporting infrastructure will be critical, noting that this remains a significant challenge for plan led growth.

Environmental transformation and climate change

It is noted that the submitted draft Local Plan and the identified site allocations will increase the number of residents living in close proximity to the SRN. As a result, it is likely that these locations will experience increased exposure to noise pollution from the SRN. National Highways will not support the provision of noise barriers located on its land as part of mitigation proposals.

The close proximity of development to the SRN also raises the potential for exceedances of air quality standards for which extraordinary measures such as a

permanent speed restriction may need to be considered. While it is acknowledged that air quality is expected to improve over time with the increasing uptake of fully

electric vehicles, this cannot be relied upon as the sole mitigation measure during the plan period.

Although several polices within the local plan require development to reduce Impacts on or improve local air quality, these provisions do not clearly address impacts arising specifically from the SRN, nor do they set out how any required mitigation would be identified and delivered. We will continue to work proactively with yourselves on these matters, however, we would recommend the inclusion of a specific policy mechanism that clearly identified:

how air quality and noise impacts associated with the SRN will be assessed and monitored: and
The range of potential interventions that may be required should adverse impacts be identified.

In addition, National Highways will not accept third party connections into its drainage systems. Development proposals must ensure that no additional surface water run off is discharged to the SRN drainage network Where necessary, drainage capacity will need to be fully assessed and upgraded by the developer to ensure no adverse impact on the SRN.

Health and Wellbeing

We support the policies which set out requirements for new developments to deliver inclusive, active and environmentally sustainable modes of travel, including measures to promote road safety and to manage the negative effects of road traffic on sustainable modes. We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with you to facilitate such travel particularly where there is an an interface with the SRN .

Lorry Parking

Lorry parking is a national problem, with particular pressures evident in East of England. National Highways would therefore welcome the investigation and allocation of a dedicated lorry parking facility within the Local Plan, ideally located in close proximity to the SRN. Where this is not achievable we would support the inclusion of a policy requirement for adequate lorry parking and overnight layover facilities to be provided as part of proposed employment sites and roadside service facilities. For context, we enclose a copy of AECOM report dated June 2019 (Appendix 2) which sets out the background evidence underpinning this request

Eight Ash Green and Copford,

National Highways is willing to work with the council and developers to explore opportunities to bring these sites forward. However, A12 J26 is currently operating very close to capacity and options for physical highway improvements at this location are extremely limited. The acceptability of development at this junction will therefore depend on whether queues on the slip road can be effectively managed to prevent interference with the A12. If this risk cannot be adequately mitigated, National Highways reserve the right to object to development at these sites, on the basis that it could give rise to a severe highway safety concern.

Marks Tey

The Plan identified three large site allocations. While the level of development proposed within the plan period does not represent the full quantum of development promoted for these sites, the principal of significantly larger scale development is established through allocation. Capacity on both the A12 and A120 is extremely constrained, and these corridors are not capable of accommodating additional growth without significant intervention. While it is acknowledged that Local Plan growth is only one contributory factor to existing and forecast congestion, there are currently no proposals for capacity enhancements on either route

Furthermore, development in close proximity to these corridors constrains opportunities for future improvements, particularly in the vicinity of A12 Junction 25, where land availability and operational flexibility is limited.

National Highways remains committed to continue to work with your authority in a collaborative and constructive manor to support the progression of the plan. We will continue to work with you to develop a clearer understanding of the impacts of proposed development upon the SRN and to explore whether, and how, such impacts could be accommodated.

We trust the above comments are helpful in informing the progression of your proposals and welcome continued engagement and discussion with the council on these matters.

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.