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 objection to further new homes being built in the village of Eight Ash Green but if government policy if forcing us to have further housing, the I would prefer PP32 out of the new areas being looked at. I would also ask that S106 contributions from the developer go towards the parish council and how they best see these contributions being spent in the village

I objection to the allocation of PP31 for PP31 on the basis that there is another proposed site PEP9 Bullbanks Farm that would be more suitable for a housing development. This section of Halstead Road is already too busy with traffic, and would over develop this section of the village/green belt

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.

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?

The Parish Council strongly objects to the allocation of this site for 250 new homes within the Parish of Aldham. The extension of Eight Ash Green along the north side of Halstead Road as proposed would create a form of ribbon development that would stretch 1.27 miles along the northside of the A1124, almost coalescing with the outlying parts of the much smaller village of Aldham and doubling the number of houses in the Parish. The development of the site would create a separate community with the recent new housing adjoining at Aspen Walk that would be remote from the centre of the village, creating an imbalance to the built form of Eight Ash Green.

The development of this site for 250 homes, overlooking the Colne Valley to the north, would create an intrusive urban form into views across, into and out of this important local landscape feature, including from PRoW and the village of Fordham on the other side of the valley. The Landscape Impact Analysis submitted with the current application recognises this impact as ‘Moderate’ across a distance of 850m but the mitigation is limited and the photographic evidence does not accurately convey the impact.

Fiddlers Wood, a Local Wildlife Site, adjoins the site along the northern boundary and the cumulative impact of development of the adjoining site has not been fully assessed in making this allocation and would mean that this Ancient Woodland would become almost surrounded by housing and liable to degradation from over use of PRoW through the wood by dog walking and an increased prevalence of domestic cats.

The allocation fails to include and assess the impact of the other sites along the A1124 that are proposed , namely 180 dwellings on land elsewhere in Eight Ash Green and 235 at Chappel & Wakes Colne. It is anticipated allocations at Earls Colne and Halstead in the emerging Braintree Local Plan will also add to the impact. Furthermore, given congestion on the A120 at Marks Tey the proposed allocation of 125 dwellings at Gt Tey will impact on the A1124 and the village of Aldham as drivers seek to avoid using the A120 to access Colchester. No further development in the villages west of Colchester should be granted until the cumulative impact of the 3600 new dwellings proposed in the Preferred Options have been adequately assessed and a plan for mitigation agreed.

Bus services along the A1124 are inadequate and the distance of the site from any facilities in the village will simply encourage a car dependent development contrary to national and local policies. The level of traffic and narrow carriageway through parts of Eight Ash Green make walking and cycling unattractive on the A1124 and the distance from the western end of the site to the primary school will only encourage car journeys. The Parish Council is aware that Eight Ash Green Parish Council also objects to this allocation and considers there are sites better located in the village that should be allocated in place of this site. Aldham Parish Council supports this initiative and shares the belief there is a better alternative on land to the south of Halstead Road, which could deliver similar numbers. Concerns that alternative sites on the south side of Halstead Road would be unsafe are overstated. A roundabout junction to allow access to the south at the junction of the A1124 at John Flower Way could easily be combined with a safe crossing in what will become an urbanised part of the village.

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.

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)

continuation of current estate - although infrastructure needs to be considered. Bus availability/frequency, schools, local shops within walking distance. Can surrounding roads be improved to prevent all traffic having to go down halstead road

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 off their driveways at busy times of the day. The existing road infrastructure does not make provision for cycle paths and the bus service is inadequate 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.

I object to Proposals PP31 &PP32 ad Other Proposed Sites in Eight Ash Green

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.

Would cause ‘ribbon effect’ for the village which is exactly what residents do not want.
Would destroy the most beautiful aspect of the village with rolling countryside over the Colne valley.
There are better alternative sites available south of the A1124 opposite the new Aspen Walk development which would form more cohesive feel to the village and is more likely to attract small businesses for locals eg. Tesco Express
Overlaps with Aldham village boundary - does this count as their new build quota? Will EAG then be required to provide yet more new housing?

Richborough supports the allocation of this site and broadly agrees with the drafted sitespecific Policy wording.

Richborough submitted an outline planning application at this site in June 2025 for up to 250 dwellings (application reference: 251310). The comments below provide Richborough’s views on the proposed policy and outlines how the applicant addressed the emerging policy requirements through the application submission:

"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 250 new dwellings of a mix and type of housing to meet evidenced needs and be compatible with surrounding development;"
Richborough supports the proposed capacity of 250 dwellings at this site. The application is made in outline and therefore the housing mix is not being determined at this stage. The submitted Design and Access Statement and Planning Statement confirm that the site can accommodate a range of house types and sizes that meets local housing needs
and delivers affordable housing at a rate of 30% (70% social rented and 30% shared ownership) which is compliant with emerging Policy H2. The delivery of 30% affordable housing in this location will help meet the affordable housing need identified in the Local Housing Needs Assessment

"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;"
Richborough supports this element of the Policy.

The application is submitted alongside a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan which include an assessment of the proposed development on highway capacity, outline how active and sustainable travel measures will be incorporated into the development and demonstrate how the site can be safely accessed by vehicle, including waste vehicles.

The applicant is continuing to engage with ECC Highways as part of the application process and expect to resolve all outstanding queries.

"c) Provide 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;"
Richborough supports the inclusion of this requirement.

The proposed development retains the existing Public Right of Way through the site and provides links to the existing footpath from the site through Fiddlers Wood. The Landscape Strategy Plan submitted with the application also shows a series of footpaths through the site and open space for the enjoyment of residents. This includes a circular path round the proposed development parcels and a circular route around the SUDS basins at the northern extent of the site.

The applicant has given consideration to how active and sustainable travel links could be improved by the development. Through discussions with ECC Highways the applicant has agreed to provide two new bus stops on Halstead Road to ensure the existing bus services are accessible and usable for the new residents. These services will enable residents to reach Tollgate District Centre.

"d) The adjacent Fiddlers Wood Co43 LoWS (ancient woodland) must be safeguarded, buffered and protected from recreational pressure associated with new housing;"
The applicant supports the inclusion of this requirement.

The application is submitted alongside an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA). The application documents have demonstrated how impacts on Fiddlers Wood from the proposed development are to be minimised.

Appendix E of the Sustainability Appraisal confirms in respect of the application site: “The Biodiversity Protection and BNG Study concluded that development would lead to harm to biodiversity. The site has low ecological value, but is adjacent to Co43 Fiddlers Wood, which consists of Ancient Wood Irreplaceable Habitat and Priority Habitat. A buffer is required to avoid harm to the ancient woodland.”

The applicant has proposed a 30m development buffer is proposed to the Ancient Woodland which will comprise dense scrub and tree planting at the 15m closest to the woodland. This prevents the root protection areas from damage as well as reducing the likelihood of house pets venturing into the woodland.

The existing footpath link through the Woodland is to be retained although there is not anticipated to be any additional recreational pressure on the woodland as the footpath is clearly defined and the Ancient Woodland is subject to management plans to reduce recreational impacts.

ECC Ecology have raised no objection to the proposed development and the applicant is working towards addressing the outstanding queries from the Woodland Trust.

"e) Onsite BNG measures should focus on creating woodland, scrub and grassland habitats as buffers to the adjacent ancient woodland. New boundary hedgerows should be planted in gaps and the condition of existing hedgerows should be enhanced;"
Richborough supports the inclusion of this requirement.

The application is supported by a Biodiversity Net Gain Metric assessment, an EcIA and a Landscape Strategy Plan which demonstrate the sites suitability for large areas of soft landscaping, including improvements required to achieve a biodiversity net gain onsite.

A final planting plan and schedule will be submitted to the Council for agreement with a future reserved matters application.

The Environment Agency and ECC Ecology have raised no objection to the proposed development.

"f) Support will be given to delivering grassland or woodland habitat within or adjacent to the site to support the delivery of the strategic creation opportunities in the Essex LNRS;"
Richborough supports the inclusion of this requirement.

The application is supported by a BNG Metric assessment which includes grassland and woodland as an “on-site habitat” to be created. Further details of onsite planting will be agreed as part of a future reserved matters application.

"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;"
Richborough supports the inclusion of this requirement.

The applicant has submitted a Landscape Strategy Plan to demonstrate how the site could feasibly accommodate the level of development proposed with a suitable landscaping strategy. The Landscape strategy accommodates both the retention of trees (including two veteran), as well as the provision of additional planting across key areas of the site:
• Provision of additional landscaping at the edges of the development that helps screen the new dwellings from local and long-range views whilst also retaining key views out of the application site;
• Provision of a green buffer to the Public Right of Way through the site,
• The delivery of a central green corridor in a north south direction to retain views north,
• Provision of a 30m buffer to the Ancient Woodland in the form of a hard 15m buffer of mixed native scrub and a further 15m of mixed scrub, grassland, Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), scattered trees and native hedgerow.

The applicant has also had regard to the Landscape Character Assessment (2025) and the opportunities and strategy relative to the Great Tey Farmland Plateau LCA, within which lies Eight Ash Green. The Assessment identifies a potential issue in the form of “poorly integrated settlements edges which are exposed in the relatively open landscape”. The
applicant has proactively worked with ECC Landscape as part of the application to increase the amount of planting proposed on the northern boundary of the residential development parcels help screen the development from long-range views and to help create a new strong settlement edge.

The Assessment also references an increase in extent and quality of field boundaries and re-introducing traditional orchards as part of the Landscape Strategy for the LCA. The Landscape Strategy Plan forming part of the planning application shows the provision of a community orchard on the western boundary and supplementary planting to enhance the existing site/field boundaries.

The Council’s Tree Officer has raised no objection to the proposed development and the applicant is continuing to engage with ECC Landscape.

"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 three Grade II Listed Buildings as informed by the stage 1 HIA;"
Richborough would recommend removing the final sentence of this element of the Policy as it is unclear and therefore not effective. The Council’s Stage 1 HIA does not list or identify the heritage assets considered to affect the emerging allocations, neither does it provide any commentary or justification for what effects the proposed development may
have on the Listed Buildings. The inclusion of the first sentence ensures a heritage assessment is undertaken to support any application. There is therefore no need for the second sentence unless there is a particular heritage asset or potential heritage impact of concern.

The application is supported by a Heritage Assessment which summarises the results of a detailed assessment of designated heritage assets in the surrounds of the site. This identifies two assets in the vicinity of the site for further assessment on the basis of distance and intervisibility. These assets are the Grade II Listed Mantills Farmhouse and
the Grade I Listed Church of All Saints at Fordham. A third asset, Grade II Listed Fiddlers Farmhouse lies 220m east of the site but is beyond Fiddler’s Wood and residential development so the application site is not considered to contribute to the heritage significance of Fiddlers Farmhouse.

The land within the application site lies to the north of Mantills Farmhouse, beyond intervening mature vegetation which limits any visibility between the two. There is also no known historical or functional association between the land within the application site and the heritage asset. The land within the site is not considered to contribute to the heritage
significance of Mantills Farmhouse through setting and will result in no harm to its heritage significance.

There are views towards the Grade I Listed Church of All Saints from the wider landscape which allow the location of the asset and the settlement of Fordham to be understood, but do not allow for its architectural and historic interest to be experienced, including from within the site. On this basis, the land within the site is not considered to contribute to the
heritage significance of the church.

There are no outstanding heritage concerns or queries from statutory consultees.

"i) Liaise with ECC as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority on mineral and waste"
Richborough notes the site is within a Mineral Safeguarding Area for salt extraction. The applicant engaged with ECC Minerals and Waste during the determination of the application and it was agreed that the extractable area of the site falls below the 5ha threshold due to the onsite constraints in the form of an underground gas pipe and its easement, a HSE exclusion zone and a 30m easement to the adjacent Ancient Woodland.

The ECC Minerals and Waste team agreed that there was no requirement to submit a Minerals Resource Assessment to support the application.

Richborough notes therefore that the inclusion of this requirement may be unnecessary.

"j) Contributions towards the provision of a new village hall in Eight Ash Green."
The applicant does not oppose this request but notes that there is an existing village hall in Aldham and Eight Ash Green. There has been no request for a contribution towards a new village hall as part of the application consultation process.

"k) Any site-specific infrastructure requirements from the IDP (likely to include education provision, highway mitigation, water and wastewater and specific community / open space provision)."
Statutory consultees have requested financial contributions as part of the application process and the applicant has considered these requests having regard to their compliance with the CIL tests. The applicant is agreeable to securing financial contributions via a Section 106 Agreement which will be drafted in due course.

"l) Before granting planning consent, wintering bird surveys will be undertaken at the appropriate time of year to identify any offsite functional habitat. In the unlikely event that significant numbers are identified, development must firstly avoid impacts. Where this is not possible, development must be phased to deliver habitat creation and management either on or off-site to mitigate any significant impacts. Any such habitat must be provided and fully functional before any development takes place which would affect significant numbers of SPA birds."
Richborough questions the necessity of this element of the site specific Policy as it appears to duplicate the requirements of emerging Policy EN3 which expects the submission of appropriate ecological surveys with planning applications.

The EcIA submitted with the application confirms that the site is located outside the Zone of Influence (ZoI) of four statutory protected sites that are designated for significant assemblages of over wintering bird species. Non-breeding ‘wintering’ birds are typically wild fowl such as ducks and geese which migrate to the UK over winter (October to
February). All designated sites within the ZoI are designated for migratory duck species or native waterfowl, none are designated for populations of geese. No aquatic habitat was present that could support duck or other waterfowl species nor are any large lakes within 2km of the site. The terrestrial habit on-site was unsuitable for ducks and waterfowl being
primarily active arable fields.

The EcIA concluded that the site is unlikely to form functionally linked land to any designated sites due to the distance of the site from suitable wintering bird receptors and the unsuitability of the habitats present (due to regular management). Non-breeding ‘wintering’ birds were considered to be likely absent and further surveys were scoped out of the assessment.

The Environment Agency and ECC Ecology have raised no objection to the proposed development.

This site is not in Eight Ash Green and lies in the Aldham Parish Council boundary. This allocation is not supported by the parish councils.

This allocation promotes coalescence of villages contrary to ST4 (3.31). It imperils the neighbouring ancient woodland, which will be affected by surface water run-off and hazards arising from house-building and eventual habitation of the properties. This conflicts with PP32 (d).

Halstead Road will be gridlocked by the cumulative impact of new housing along its length.

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

If more houses are required in the village then this is a better place for them as it elongates the stretch of the village and does not bunch everything up together. I would prefer that the money that the council receives be used for the good of the village, so I would suggest that rather than a skate park or similar unsupervised/unstructured activity that the parish council consider building a structure which could be used by Army/Air Cadets and/or Scouts as the village hall already has a programme and demand to join cadets is high.

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.

PP32 is a natural extension of the most recent development at Aspen Walk, so is in keeping with the progression of this section of the village - which continues to makes good sense in terms of ready footway access to the main village facilities around Wood Lane, in particular the local school.
It also offers the greatest housing capacity of all the proposed sites, which will help to minimise the need for further future expansions in our area - and will enable maximal incorporation of green infrastructure within the site.

PP32 is also closely adjacent to the nearby sites south of Halstead road (10264 and 10197), so makes good sense as a paired development alongside 10264/10197, rather than developing disparately with spring lane area (PP31) for all the reasons I have explained (please see my objections against site PP31, where I outline the issues around congestion and junctioning affecting both PP31 and 10760 - as well as other limitations of 10760 including its smaller housing capacity with less space for green infrastructure, proximity to unscreened A12 noise, and lack of recreational access to countryside).

PP32 can be developed without detracting from the rural character of our village - in particular by retaining views down into the valley (at PP31) which are an important facet of our village aesthetic upon first entering the township from the A12. Its more rural location also makes junctioning onto the A1124 much more practical, with easier facilitation of a roundabout if needed, and by keeping traffic movements much farther back away from the already problematic Spring lane congestion area (development around which would otherwise exacerbate existing traffic/queueing issues).

PP32's more rural aspect, and its significant distance away from the A12 offers a more pleasant setting (views, quiet) - which in turn will attract greater property values, and better socioeconomic outcomes generally for our village.

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

• 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 best suited to maintain the village aspect alongside the Colne Valley A1124 route. Eight Ash Green and Fordham Heath should not be merged by PP31 or an alternative possible site on the other side of the A1124. See my response to PP32 ref. PA31B and image uploaded.
• There are only 2 buses a day into Tollgate shopping centre. As there is less needed 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 hall. No new surgery capacity, bus services, schooling or local shops were offered. Expanding this with a further 180 homes make the need for services even more urgent.
• There is no alignment with the proposed plan to place 50 m pylons, construction work that will border the pylon project. An offshore power distribution network will support more house building locations. Site marketing material makes no mention of this in any simulated site plans.
• Traffic on the A1124 is dire in the morning and evening especially at the Tollgate roundabout junction where recent traffic lights have had some but limited improvement. With a further housing proposed in Fordham, Chapel, Aldham, and this EAG proposal, traffic on the A1124 will be even 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 recent 150-house development of Fiddlers Field (now named Aspen Walk) 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. I draw attention to all aspects of the detailed Neighbourhood plan and the Village Design Statement.
• PP31 is in the Aldham village envelope whilst its impact lies in EAG parish. The village boundary should be redrawn such that EAG will benefit from and funding benefits and its allocation to the 450-house target.
• PA32 combined with an alternative PA31A supported in this objection to PP31 will support more than the 450 target.
• If comments taken into consideration, will support this proposed site as in general agreement that additional housing is needed.
• The site reduce drainage that supplies Fiddlers Wood.
• Protected ancient forest trees will be too close and be impacted by the proposed site.

• 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 best suited to maintain the village aspect alongside the Colne Valley A1124 route. Eight Ash Green and Fordham Heath should not be merged by PP31 or an alternative possible site on the other side of the A1124. See my response to PP32 ref. PA31B and image uploaded.
• There are only 2 buses a day into Tollgate shopping centre. As there is less needed 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 hall. No new surgery capacity, bus services, schooling or local shops were offered. Expanding this with a further 180 homes make the need for services even more urgent.
• There is no alignment with the proposed plan to place 50 m pylons, construction work that will border the pylon project. An offshore power distribution network will support more house building locations. Site marketing material makes no mention of this in any simulated site plans.
• Traffic on the A1124 is dire in the morning and evening especially at the Tollgate roundabout junction where recent traffic lights have had some but limited improvement. With a further housing proposed in Fordham, Chapel, Aldham, and this EAG proposal, traffic on the A1124 will be even 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 recent 150-house development of Fiddlers Field (now named Aspen Walk) 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. I draw attention to all aspects of the detailed Neighbourhood plan and the Village Design Statement.
• PP31 is in the Aldham village envelope whilst its impact lies in EAG parish. The village boundary should be redrawn such that EAG will benefit from and funding benefits and its allocation to the 450-house target.
• PA32 combined with an alternative PA31A supported in this objection to PP31 will support more than the 450 target.
• If comments taken into consideration, will support this proposed site as in general agreement that additional housing is needed.
• The site reduce drainage that supplies Fiddlers Wood.
• Protected ancient forest trees will be too close and be impacted by the proposed site.

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.

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

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.

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.