as previous

The introduction to this policy states that the access for phase 2 Paddocks View will be from within the site with access off Plummers Road.
Please ensure that this is not changed at any part of the Planning Application stage and that the proposed access
is NOT accessed from Rams Farm Road .
It will be a shame to loose the nice countryside views ,but if the land owner no longer wants to farm the land then they will obviously sell to developers . Phase 1 was completed last year and some of the properties still have not been sold . Once development has been completed that the hedgerow is reinstated between Rams Farm and Paddocks View.

The site is potentially situated within the setting of nine Grade II listed buildings. As noted in the Council’s Heritage Impact Assessment Sift Report, these buildings are in close proximity, arranged around a historic green, including a farmhouse opposite and dispersed farms to the southeast, within an open landscape setting.

Initial assessment

While development could be acceptable, a full Heritage Impact Assessment will help to confirm the site’s suitability from a historic environment perspective and to identify appropriate mitigation measures or opportunities for enhancement. The resulting recommendations should then be incorporated into criteria ‘f’ of the policy.

Relentless development of a tiny rural village that simply doesn't have the capcity to support it. The ruinous impact on a rare beautiful location. The recent addition of 17 homes adjacent to your proposed new site has already wreaked havoc on the state of Rams Farm road, with site plant causing dangerous craters never properly reinstated. The local road infrastructure feeding Plummers Road comprises principally farm lanes and tracks destroyed by the already increasing traffic, to the point where private property is damaged by vehicles using driveways as passing places because designated ones have crumbled beyond use. Enough already.

As a resident of Plummers Road, I object to the proposed allocation of land east of Plummers Road, Fordham under Policy PP33.

1) The site appears to have been promoted through the Call for Sites process. While this demonstrates land availability, promotion alone does not establish suitability, sustainability, or necessity for allocation.

2) Fordham is a small rural settlement with a clearly defined character and limited infrastructure. Development east of Plummers Road represents an outward expansion beyond the existing built form into open countryside, rather than consolidation of the village, and would weaken the defined settlement boundary.

3) The scale of development proposed is not proportionate to the size and function of Fordham. Growth should be directed to locations with greater infrastructure capacity and accessibility.

4) Plummers Road and surrounding routes are constrained rural roads with limited pedestrian provision. Additional traffic arising from new housing raises concerns regarding highway safety, visibility, and suitability of access.

5) There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that existing infrastructure — including education, healthcare, drainage, utilities, and public transport — can support development of this scale without disproportionate impact.

6) The site currently forms part of the open rural setting of Fordham. Development would result in a harmful change to landscape character and the open countryside outlook along Plummers Road, further eroding the village’s rural setting.

7) The consultation documents do not adequately justify why this promoted site has been selected over more sustainable alternatives, including brownfield land or locations better connected to services.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that Policy PP33 be removed from the Local Plan and that housing delivery is directed to more sustainable and appropriate locations.

The volume of traffic is already unmanageable for Plummer Road which is filled with potholes and is in constant need of repair. 25 more homes would make the road dangerously busy for the families living here

I formally object to the proposed construction of additional housing in our village. The existing road network is already in a poor state of repair and is incapable of accommodating further traffic. Additional development would significantly increase congestion, particularly through Fordham, adversely affecting highway safety and residents’ quality of life. Furthermore, continued expansion threatens to undermine the rural character of the area and cause irreversible harm to the surrounding countryside

Once again no consideration to our village bringing more traffic to already a busy road through our village without the refurbishment of our roads and infrastructure urgently necessary

I live in new houses here and love the view if houses are build here the view will be gone , roads are terrible already pot holes etc buses can’t cope doctors full , new houses where we live still not sold , no shops here which makes more traffic’s to stanway which already is a traffic nightmare .

Houses on Paddock View still not sold! Why do we need 25 more.
The above is called Paddock view it won’t be with houses built behind it.
Don’t destroy more of the beautiful farmers fields, plant more fruit trees!!!
The roads are poor and can not cope with the traffic already using it. Especially when diverts are in place.

Fordham is getting far too busy with traffic and we are losing our countryside to housing developments. I have a horse stabled in Fordham and the traffic has been becoming dangerous down the roads and no longer safe for my horse. The increased developments will only increase traffic further and the roads are already difficult due to the amount of potholes and narrow lanes and increased traffic will only make this worse. Fordham is not a big enough village for mass scale development.

Firstly, a concern regarding the provision of 25 new homes when the previous development still has unsold properties several months after completion. Is there really a demand for another 25 homes?
Living alongside the existing road we are very aware of the volume of traffic it carries and with ongoing expansion of business at Fairfields, the Wormingford airfield and Colchester skip hire this is only going to get worse. Are there any plans to improve the road which is in a poor state.
The village has no shops or facilities.

We have just moved into our new house on the proposed site, the main draw was the view to the rear of the property and whist a appreciate by a new property you have to waiver your ability to object nothing appeared on our searches nor mentioned via the builder. We believe that this would be detrimental to our lifestyle and peace of the property and would increase too much traffic at rush hours on an already busy road. I would consider legal action if this took place
thanks

Noting the Preferred site on Plummers Road, the decision doesn’t mitigate the issues of:
- nearby planned increase in commercial property and associated known impacts on traffic
- overuse of Plummers Road and the surrounding roads leading to, for example, road collapse by Old Frith Place
- inadequate schooling and shops
- increase of property on Plummers Road of c300% from new developments and impacts on character plus the environment from noise and traffic.
- inadequate access to public transport
- unsafe footpaths, especially for children
This number of homes would be best added to a bigger existing development.

I object to opening up even more land for housing in Fordham.

The concern that the village cannot cope with even more traffic, the conditions of roads leading to and from Fordham are already a disgrace, caused by all the heavy traffic from local skip/potato factories etc.

That even more farmland will be eroded, indeed, there is another application to build units not half a mile from this proposed site, already under consideration, where will it end?

With no facilities to offer it’s not surprising that the new houses built in front of this plan have not sold.

Fordham, need these additional residential residences. However, there need to be supporting infrastructure in place prior to any builds, ie decent roads, footpaths, adequate bus service, Dr Surgery, Dentists, Sewerage facilities etc

I object to this allocation as it is unsound and inadequately evidenced. There is no demonstrable proof that safe vehicular access via Plummers Road can be achieved without unacceptable harm to highway capacity or safety, nor that safe pedestrian or active travel connections are deliverable in this rural location. The site is environmentally and landscape sensitive, yet the Plan relies on future mitigation and enhancement rather than evidence that mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain can be achieved or that development will genuinely contribute to the Essex Local Nature Recovery Strategy. The allocation is therefore unjustified, ineffective and premature.

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

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.