as previous

This site is located within the setting of the Grade II listed Newbarn, Farmyard Buildings Round Open Square (LEN 1223379), and potentially within the wider setting of several other listed buildings, although these are some distance away.

Initial assessment

While development could be acceptable, a proforma 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 ‘g’ and ‘h’ of the policy.

Great Tey roads often floods and has problems with the water supply and drainage.

PRoW must be designed as multi-user routes (MURs) to ensure inclusivity for all non-motorised users. MURs function as public highways and are best defined as restricted byways—open to pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists, and users of non-motorised vehicles—or as bridleways, which permit access for pedestrians, horse riders, and cyclists. New development will impact on Restricted Byway 65 Great Tey Restricted Byway 29 Chappel. Any new links should have the same status to ensure consistent access for all users.

This is "another field" allocated on the edge of a village, too distant from existing facilities (church, village hall, pub) for convenience. It ignores the recently adopted neighbourhood plan.

PP36 should include a requirement for a masterplan prepared by the developer before building work is started, showing connectivity, green spaces and benefits for the whole village (e.g. a local shop). it should be prepared with input from the neighbourhood plan and the Parish Council.

Aldham Parish Council is concerned the allocation of some 3500 new homes in the seven parishes west of Colchester will represent a potential doubling in the population of this mainly rural area over 15 years. The decisions to allocate sites across this area appears to have been arbitrary and have been made without assessment of the cumulative impact on the communities and social infrastructure of these villages, including schools and access to GPs. Furthermore, this cumulative impact will have real effect on the principal traffic routes - A12, A120 and A1124 as well as numerous smaller rural roads that are used extensively as short cuts to avoid congestion and are in reality now part of the highway network, despite their inadequacy. This assessment of cumulative impact also needs to take into account emerging proposals for development on the east side of Braintree District which will further compound the problems. The City Council need to engage with our communities to reassure them that level of development proposed can be adequately mitigated by ensuring the emerging Plan is strengthened and improved before a Reg.19 Draft is published.

The proposal would cause significant harm to the setting of my listed building, whose historic value depends on its rural, undeveloped surroundings. The site also drains directly into my wildlife pond, which may contain protected great crested newts; any construction, pollution or hydrological change risks damaging this habitat. Local infrastructure is already inadequate, with low water pressure, narrow roads and limited service capacity. The development would also introduce light pollution, undermining the area’s dark skies and rural character. Overall, the scheme represents overdevelopment that would materially damage heritage, ecology, landscape quality and local infrastructure.

Chappel Parish Council would like to support its neighbouring Parish, Great Tey in the objection to the proposed 125 houses. We understand that some amount of development is expected but this is excessive for such a small rural village who have already had recent development and will have an impact on Chappel residents.

We have raised issues such as highways and healthcare in our attachment. We would ask that Colchester City Council ask the developer to create a masterplan confirming how the proposed houses fit within the village and the other proposed developments.

Close to Byway 29 and 65.

Great Tey Parish Council objects to the proposed allocation of 125 homes at Earls Colne Road due to severe infrastructure constraints, very poor transport connectivity, and conflict with the adopted Neighbourhood Plan. The village’s low DfT connectivity score highlights its car‑dependent nature, meaning development would increase traffic and congestion. The site is also opposed locally and was not identified for growth in the Neighbourhood Plan. In addition, the proposal would result in the loss of high‑quality Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land, contrary to local policy and community priorities. The Council therefore requests that Policy PP36 be removed.

Great Tey Parish Council objects to the proposed allocation of 125 homes at Earls Colne Road due to severe infrastructure constraints, very poor transport connectivity, and conflict with the adopted Neighbourhood Plan. The village’s low DfT connectivity score highlights its car‑dependent nature, meaning development would increase traffic and congestion. The site is also opposed locally and was not identified for growth in the Neighbourhood Plan. In addition, the proposal would result in the loss of high‑quality Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land, contrary to local policy and community priorities. The Council therefore requests that Policy PP36 be removed.

Policy PP36: Land at Earls Colne Road, Great Tey

The allocation of land at Earls Colne Road for residential development is supported. The site is suitable for housing, can help meet evidenced housing needs, and provides an opportunity to deliver a well-designed development that respects the rural character and heritage of Great Tey.

This allocation can be delivered in the following timeframe:

• 0-5 years = 50 dwellings
• 6-10 years = 100 dwellings

However, some refinements are recommended to ensure the policy is practical, flexible, and deliverable. See attachment.

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

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

See attachment with detailed comments on numerous policies. Anglian Water welcomes the opportunity to contribute comments on the Draft
Local Plan for Colchester City Council. We consider that the Plan is well set out with in relation
to managing flood risk, surface water and wastewater, and enabling water efficiency. We
recognise the challenges for meeting the uplift in housing requirements and the
infrastructure required to help deliver future growth across the district, with the main
focus being Colchester and the larger towns.
We have raised some policy matters relating to consistency between policies addressing surface
water flood risk, water supply, and wastewater, and how these matters are attributed to site
allocation policies.
We look forward to continuing our positive and proactive discussions with the Council in
respect of our comments and the next iteration of the Local Plan, including supporting updates
to the evidence base if required

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

We support Policy ST5, which wish to make refinements to the housing number of the following site allocations:

• Land at Earls Colne Road, Great Tey – Change 125 dwellings to 150 dwellings
• Kelvedon Road, Messing – Change 25 dwellings to 30 dwellings
• Land at St Ives Road, Peldon - Change 25 dwellings to 30 dwellings

Policy ST5 would benefit from the inclusion of a larger allocation buffer to ensure delivery is robust and resilient over the plan period. See attachment.

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.