I am writing to object to this proposal.
Such a large development, nearly 3 times the current number of dwellings in the centre of Langham, would completely destroy the nature of the village.
It would mean the loss of prime agricultural land needed to help the country to be more self- sufficient in food.
There is no proven requirement for extra housing in Langham, as shown by the failure to sell the partially completed development in Discovery Way.
The infrastructure is not capable of supporting the proposed development. The sewage system is already overloaded, mains water pipes are continually breaking, the local bus service is infrequent and the primary school is full.

We fully support Langham Parish Council with their strong reasoned objections in their documentation opposing the strategic allocation as unsuitable being financially non-viable and absolutely non sustainable.
The ST3 stating that ‘existing settlements maintain their distinctive character and role’ does not apply to Langham. The heart of our unique rural village with its community centre, clubs, Pre-school, Primary school and community shop run by local volunteers in which we have lived and contributed to for over thirty years would be completely destroyed and replaced by a densely concentrated urban settlement.
The ST8 ‘d’ regarding water efficiency is not sustainable. The ongoing sewerage infrastructure problems are unresolved. Extreme levels of groundwater infiltration in Langham result in sewerage flooding incidents in wet weather (confirmed by village meeting with Anglia Water in 2024). Anglia Water have no strategic infrastructure plans for Langham WRC between now and 2050 which does not align with ST7 or 3.62 on the infrastructure.
ST8 does not align with the fact that the proposal development of totally disproportionate housing numbers will likely add 2,000 cars to our village – a massive traffic growth with no plans to upgrade our village roads. There do not seem to be any plans to upgrade the exit from A12 to Park Lane which is a very dangerous junction nor Birchwood Road/Wick Road junction which suffers from restricted visibility. Langham does not have access to most important daily needs due to its remote location so there will be even more reliance on cars to access eg healthcare.
There is inadequate public transport with a bus service, the 81/81A buses only operating Monday-Saturday with two hours between. The early bus at 7.39am and the one late bus leaving the railway station at 17.49 is not feasible for commuters.
Cycling is dangerous along narrow country lanes and no funding seems to be secured for expensive cycling connections.

Please leave our historic community village alone and ensure that you fully read the document from Langham Parish Council with the respect it deserves and ensure that common sense prevails with the understanding that your proposal is completely unsustainable with inadequate infrastructure.

Current sewage provision in Langham is already at capacity
900 homes is a massive expansion which would overwhelm current infrastructure and potentially quadruple the size of the village which is unsustainable
Such expansion would destroy the character of Langham as a rural village and turn it into a suburb of Colchester
There is minimum public transport available in the village to support the increase in population
The current school is not adequate to provide for increased education needs
Development will lead to loss of prime farmland when the UK should be growing more not less of its own food

I strongly object to the proposed allocated detailed. The scale of development is grossly disproportionate to Langham’s size, imposing almost a tripling of the village with no relation to local housing need and in clear conflict with the settlement hierarchy. The allocation is unsupported by evidence, favouring a poorly connected, highly car-dependent location over more sustainable alternatives. It is undeliverable due to unresolved wastewater, school capacity, highway safety and funding constraints, with no secured infrastructure solutions. The proposal also causes unacceptable harm to landscape, heritage, biodiversity and climate objectives, and relies on legally unsound, unsecured mitigation.

Policy PP37: Land North of Park Lane, Langham

Langham is classed as medium sized in the settlement hierarchy. Langham includes two areas of settlement, Langham Moor and St. Margaret’s Cross, linked by School Road. Langham is located close to the A12. A former WWII airfield lies between the two areas. The village contains a mixture of historic properties, farmhouses and more recent developments. In terms of facilities Langham has a public house, a community café, a community shop, community centre, recreation ground, a playground, football pitches and tennis courts.

An allocation of approximately 900 new dwellings is being proposed on land to the north of Park Lane in Langham. An existing allocation of 10 dwellings on land to the west of Wick Lane is being carried forward from the adopted Colchester Local Plan Section 2. This response is focused on the larger proposed allocation to the north of Park Lane. The boundary of the Dedham Vale National Landscape lies approximately 0.4km to the east (separated by the A12) and approximately 0.8km north of the large site proposed for allocation. Given the proximity to the National Landscape, the proposed allocated is considered to fall within the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape.

While the National Landscape team recognise that the proximity to the A12 makes this an attractive location for growth along a strategic transport corridor, an allocation for 900 dwellings is considered too high for Langham for several reasons.

Given the proximity to the National Landscape boundary, the National Landscape team considers that the addition of approximately 900 dwellings as proposed through policy PP37 has the potential to indirectly impact and reduce tranquillity levels in the National Landscape linked to the inevitable increase in traffic levels and traffic noise on the rural road network of the Dedham Vale National Landscape and from increased visitor pressure for recreational activities.

Paragraph 189 of the National Planning NPPF states that: "Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes" and that "development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas".

Draft Local Plan Policy LC2 states that ’Development will only be supported within or on land within the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape that: (b) Does not adversely affect the tranquillity and the National Landscapes good quality night/dark skies, taking account of guidance in The Dedham Vale National Landscape Lighting Design Guide.’ The policy continues that ‘Applications for major development or near the boundary of the Dedham Vale National Landscape will be refused unless in exceptional circumstances.’

The exceptional circumstances have not been evidenced, and tranquillity levels will be impacted.

Paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires ‘Planning policies and decisions to ‘contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: e) preventing new development from contributing to ... unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution.’

Paragraph 198 of the National Landscape states that ‘Planning policies should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects of pollution on... the natural environment" and to "b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason" and ‘c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation’.

Paragraph 190 states that: ‘Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape...’

It is not clear from the Sustainability Assessment how or if impacts on the National Landscape have been considered. The scale of development being proposed at Langham, could have a significant negative impact within the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape.

Across the settlements of Boxted, Dedham Heath, Langham, and Great Horkesley a total of 1,488 new dwellings are being proposed. Alone and accumulatively the potential for increased light pollution along the southern boundary to the Dedham Vale National Landscape from these developments is very high.

The National Landscape team considers that lighting and pollution impacts should have been more thoroughly considered before promoting the allocation of site PP37 to better understand effects on the tranquillity/Dark Skies and water quality and water management issues and show these might affect the Dedham Vale National Landscape. Completing such assessments would also demonstrate that the City Council has actively sought to meet its Duty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 200.

For these reasons it is considered that there is a policy conflict between paragraphs 187, 189, 190 and 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the objectives of emerging Local Plan Policies LC2 and PP37.

Langham Parish Council’s Landscape and Heritage Report states that the area of farmland proposed for allocation forms ‘the historic landscape core of Langham village, separating Langham Moor and Langham Wick. It contributes to the open rural sense of place that frames the historic lanes and listed buildings’ around the village. The site proposed for allocation in PP37 contributes to this visual openness, provides recreational access to the countryside and maintains the separate identities of Langham Moor and Langham Wick.

Policy ST4 states that ‘The Council will consider the requirement for new development within the countryside to meet identified development needs in accordance with Colchester's spatial strategy while supporting the vitality of rural communities. This will be balanced against ensuring development does not have an adverse impact on the different roles and relationships between settlements and their separate identities". The policy continues that ‘Proposals must consider the role the landscape plays as an open buffer between settlements or areas of a settlement, and the resulting sense of separation and distinctive identity’.

Development on this site at this scale would have a significant adverse impact on local landscape character and the settlement morphology. It is considered that there is a conflict between policies ST4, LC1 and Policy PP37.



In terms of infrastructure Policy ST7 is relevant. Policy ST7 states that ‘Permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is sufficient and appropriate infrastructure capacity to support the development or that such capacity will be delivered by the proposal.

The Colchester Infrastructure Audit and Delivery Plan Stage 3 Report (IADP) produced in October 2025 for Colchester City Council shows that there is currently ‘No capacity’ for any growth to 2041 for Langham Wastewater Recycling Centre (WRC) which also provides wastewater treatment to Boxted. The report confirms ' a solution to protect water quality is possible but there are no plans to improve the WRC... There will be phasing implications, and no funding is secured’. The report recommends that ‘Early phasing of growth in Dedham….. and Langham is restricted until improvement plans are developed and funded for 2030 onwards" (AMP9 or AMP10).



In addition to the WRC capacity issues Langham Parish Council’s Sewerage & Surface Water Drainage Report identified groundwater infiltration problems associated with annual rainfall outruns, and states that ‘Langham WRC remains flow non-compliant'. The report identified the ‘need for a large water storage basin to regulate surface water discharge towards Black Brook’. This has further landscape implications given the proximity to the Dedham Vale National Landscape.

The apparent lack of headroom capacity at the Langham WRC to accommodate the growth proposed at Langham, the lack of planned upgrades to the Langham WRC and the lack of secured funding for any works needed at the Langham WRC conflicts with the objectives of policy ST7 and raises questions around the ability to deliver this site within the plan period. If this site is retained in the Submission Local Plan more evidence is needed to demonstrate that the WRC and surface water management issues can be resolved in a timely manner to protect areas beyond the site, including land and waterways within the Dedham Vale National against potential flooding or wastewater spillage.

<redacted> Park lane is dangerous enough with lorries and transport using this as a turn around for the A12 without visiting the village. With no set pathways this will become treacherous. More housing will bring a lot more traffic without the infrastructure in place to deal with extra traffic and whilst making it safe.
At present the sewage infrastructure blocks often with over use and again would be unsustainable with more housing.

Our client has an interest in part (c20acres at the eastern end of the designated area, close to or abutting the existing Langham settlement housing and the primary school and other community services) and representing c 20% of the whole PP37 allocation area.

We are supportive of the Council's spatial allocation strategy and approach of where they are proposing new housing, including the c 900 dwellings on the land in Langham, subject of policy PP37.

We would like to make two important observations, clarifications and suggested changes.

First, the land falls in two separate ownerships with different promotors, and has a number of different access points. It is quite capable of phased delivery to allow housing to come forward earlier. We therefore suggest and propose that the Council do not insist on a comprehensive Masterplan plan being agreed for the whole area in entirety before an application is lodged, but instead seek plans for the two contiguous elements that ensure that vehicular, cycleway and pedestrian connectivity and linkage is achievable between the two areas, and a joined up approach taken towards viable solutions, in respect of infrastructure and services/utility provisions. We consider that the area in which our client has an interest has scope to accommodate c 200+ mixed tenure dwellings with appropriate open space and estate roads, deliverable as an independent phase.

Secondly, our client has obtained advices from engineers, Superstructures, who have carried out a high level review of feasible foul water sewage management options for the land concerned. They have indicated that there are three viable ad feasible options to serve the proposed allocation area. These include an onsite Foul Water Treatment Plant sized to accommodate flows from approximately 200 dwellings, a pumped connection to Anglia Water's network to ultimately link into the East Bergholt treatment plant or into an upgraded existing facility at Boxsted. This later option requires AWA to accept their statutory obligation to provide appropriate facilities to serve new consented housing. It is considered that the overall scheme ought to be able to generate the financial contributions necessary to meet the costs of the later two options, ensuring that the scheme is deliverable within the plan period.

Unsuitable / unstainable location for major housing growth
Poor transport connections and lack of sustainable transport choice / potential
Environmental harms
Harms to existing community, heritage, National Landscape
Aviation and public safety considerations
Lack of plan with funding proposals to deliver essential infrastructure upgrades
lack of plan with funding proposals to deliver sustainable local community amenities.
One of my concerns is inadequate sewerage and drainage and the impact on health! I have attached a letter to support this.

The addition of 900 new dwellings in Langham is disproportionate to the size of the existing village. The proposed plan does not seem to address the increased traffic on the Park Lane road which already suffers from a lack of lighting and pavement leading to safety issues. The turn off onto Park Lane is already a dangerously tight turn off of the A12 which has resulted in a couple of vehicles going into a house on Park Lane which I now believe is uninhabited due to the damage done.

The transport links for Langham are already extremely limited and 900 houses will mean that better bus routes need to be put in place to address the increased number of residents who will have limited access to amenities such as shops, hospitals etc for which they will need to travel. The 93 bus from Colchester to Langham stops on the A12 and the access along Park Lane is dangerous for users of this bus due to lack of lighting, pavement and cars coming at high speed off of the A12 onto Park Lane.

Langham already suffers from poor drainage and a lack of mainline gas to some residents. School Road has had multiple issues with sewage/water drainage which will only get considerably worse with the increased number of residents. Electricity has also a basic infrastructure which has had some issues over the last few years. Does the proposal have sufficient provision for the improvement of the utility networks?

Langham only has a small community shop which has limited provisions for supporting residents. The nearest Doctors surgery is I would imagine in Ardleigh. Access to supermarkets or medical services will require car or bus travel (which is very limited). Increased use of cars in out of Langham will strain an already tired network of roads. Are there any provisions for local shops or surgeries?

My objection to PP37 Land North of Park Lane

Langham is a small village community comprising of approximately 475 houses (some 350 in the centre where the proposed development is sited) a small primary school, a small pre-school (term time only no wrap around care) a community run shop and community centre. The implementation of PP37 would therefore mean the increased use of private vehicles in order for families to access these facilities outside the village including Doctors, Dentist, secondary schools, full day-care and leisure facilities. The village already has a high use of cars as the infrastructure does not support the use of public transport therefore the building of some 900 new houses in Langham (PP37) is directly contrary to plan's desire 'designed to minimise the need for car travel'

The environmental impact of implementing PP37 will be vast. It will destroy prime agricultural land at a time when the nation's food security is of prime importance along side the destruction of some very beautiful ancient footpaths and hedgerows. The possible introduction of street lighting within such a development, if none, the lighting from homes would be enough to pollute the environment. There doesn't appear to have been any study with regard to the destruction of habits for wildlife, such as Badgers & Bats. This will impact the natural environment. NPPF 189 says developments should be sensitively located and designed to avoid adverse impacts on the areas. The proposed development of this scale at the centre of a rural community can hardly be described as sensitively located to avoid adverse impact particularly when you consider the village of Langham lies alongside the Dedham Vale National Landscape, this coupled with the style of the development which is in direct contrast to the way in which the village has been developed over time.

The disposal of sewage from existing houses and businesses in Langham is under immense strain. Some properties have been flooded by sewage on a regular basis, roads flooded and drains blocked. The Langham sewage treatment works also serve part of Boxted (neighbouring village) with the additional proposed 900 plus dwellings in Langham plus an additional development in Boxted will completely overwhelm the disposal of sewage thus leading to a public health disaster.

The entrance and exit from the proposed development (PP37) will be onto an already extremely busy road particularly at peak commuting times when the traffic on Langham Lane, Park Road, Wick Road, Moor Road & School Road (the heart of the village) as well as Birchwood Road really overwhelms the village. It is used as a 'cut through' and is heavily increased when the A12 (which is frequent) is blocked. There are very few pavements within the village and the ones that do exist tend to be on one side of the road so this will be an additional hazard for the increase in population.

There has been no consultation regarding PP37 with the local community which is direct opposition to NPPF16 which describes the need for 'early, proportionate an effective engagement between plan-makers and communities' No such consultation has taken place.

I strongly object to PP37 and wish my objection be taken into consideration.

I concur with reasons outlined by our Local Parish Council and object to the proposal to allocate the land adjacent to Park Lane for the development of approximately 900 houses. Whilst it is accepted that more houses need to be built, this is simply the wrong place to do so. A Sustainable development would not be achieved in this location at that density. The infrastructure is not in place, the roads are not sufficient, and the A12 junction is dangerous, these are examples of issues that should be considered and evidenced before any site, let alone this one, is considered.

The number of homes in this allocation is totally disproportional to the size of the Langham and will result in a very uneven distribution of housing numbers among the Medium Settlements. There is no justification for taking this approach.

Proposed change(s):

The allocation should be reduced from 900 to a maximum of 500. The 400 homes displaced should be allocated to the other Medium Settlements, including West Bergholt, in proportion to their actual size (as measured by population size).

Particularly with respect to Environmental Harms and Harms to Community Heritage and National Landscape, I support the reasoned objections put forward by Langham Parish Council (Sections 3 and 5 of the LPC submission.) My view of the Dedham AONB designation and the planned housing development is exactly as set out by LPC. Essentially the line of the boundary is artificial in terms of the totality of the landscape context within which this designated area sits. In simple terms if one was to build houses shops and high-rise offices up to the edge of the ANOB, would it still be and area of outstanding natural beauty – clearly not and yet CCC seems prepared to start this process of destruction?

I object to Policies PP26 and PP37 due to their direct impacts on the Dedham Vale NL and their unsuitability for development due to lack of infrastructure and unsustainability of the sites, made worse by the impact of the number of houses proposed. I support the objections of the Dedham Vale Society and Boxted PC. Particularly that Policy PP26 conflicts with NPPF Paragraphs 187, 189 & 198, and draft local plan policies LC2 and ST7. Insufficient evidence or assessments to demonstrate no adverse impacts on Dark Skies, views, tranquillity, and congestion on rural roads within the Dedham Vale National Landscape.

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

Unsuitable/unstainable location for major housing growth
Poor transport connections and lack of sustainable transport choice/potential
Environmental harm
Harm to existing community, heritage, national landscape
Aviation and public safety considerations
Lack of funding proposals to deliver essential infrastructure upgrades
Lack of funding proposals to deliver sustainable local community amenities
Breach of settlement Hierarchy (Policy ST3)
Breach of Place Shaping Principles (Policy ST8)
Breach of Landscape and Open Space Policies (LC1 & GN6)
Non-compliance with CCC’s Climate and Net Zer Goals
Non-compliance with CCC’s Transport Modal Shirt Imperative

My name is Emma Scofield. I am a resident of Langham who wishes to express her strong objection to the plan for 900 Houses north of Park Lane.

The scheme contradicts the attitudes and beliefs of the local residents. Our representatives should reflect the opinions of their residents, and act in the interest of not just the populace, but our environment and our future. The latter point is particularly pertinent to me as a young person. It will our responsibility to deal with the consequences of this development.

Having read some of the Strategic Policies, I have found clear indications of this overlooking and ignoring the needs of the residents and their environment. I have provided examples of some of my objections below:

ST1 Health and Wellbeing & ST4 Development in the Countryside & ST8 Place Shaping Principles:
900 houses will not fit within Langham. Construction will produce light, noise and waste pollution. Our beautiful countryside will be shut away into small pockets, and severly damaged. This is a complete contradiction to the policies promises of consideration of our climate, green space, and our people.

ST7 Infrastructure Delivery and Impact Mitigation:
900 houses will significantly increase the demand for health and education services as well as transport and commercial services. The 900 Houses Plan does not acknowledge the extent of these requirements nor the consequences of their construction on the village

wish to register my opposition to the Local Plan and the planned construction of 900 new homes north of Park Lane in Langham. This scheme is at odds with the principles and policies outlined in the Colchester Local Plan (2017–2033), specifically Section 2, Chapter 2: Vision and Approach, and the following provisions:

•     Policy ST1: Health and Wellbeing: The policy ignores the crucial feature of a village, especially Langham, which has plenty of green open spaces and opportunities to connect with wildlife and the calm environment. A calm, green village is beneficial to mental health, physical health and people's wellbeing. The plans to strip the fields and build many houses, acts against ST1 and puts people's health at risk. Langham will no longer be a peaceful open green village for an escape of a busy life in cities or in general

•     Policy ST3 – Spatial Strategy: Langham is a quiet village and should remain that way as they aren't many of these left. New policies do not align with ST3, Langham cannot handle the expansion discussed.

•     Policy ST4: Development in the Countryside: The nature of the proposed development is completely at odds with this policy as 900 new homes would destroy Langham as a village and it would completely lose it’s rural nature.

•     Policy ST8 – Place Shaping Principles: The development overlooks the unique qualities, landscape, and identity of the local community. The beauty of a village is its greenery and uniqueness. Building 900 houses, ruins its identity and transforms a lovely village into a mass housing estate.

•     Policy EN6 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment: The project would negatively impact the historic assets and heritage of Langham. Something we should take pride in preserving as an old country with a large history.

•     Policy LC1 – Landscape: The plan would permanently change the countryside and break the visual connection between the village and its rural surroundings.

•     Policy PP37 – Development in Rural Areas – Langham: Large developments are unsuitable for Langham’s status and rural nature.

My objections are not limited to the policies specifically referred to above, many of my reasoning for objections are similar, as the action to build 900 houses has as same overall impact. Overall, the application does not support the Local Plan’s goal for balanced and sustainable growth and should therefore be declined. As a young (17yrs) member of Langham community, it makes me deeply upset at the possibility of the plan to go through as my home is being wrecked for unnecessarily developments that the quiet lovely village I live in will not be able to support. And as environmental issues are being more prominent over these last years to see continuation of stripping up the green from this country and planet is greatly disappointing. I beg that the opinions of the residents are being listened to and acted upon and that as a youth, you will not destroy the countryside and leave the consequences in the hand of us.

This proposal represents over 8% of the entire proposed new build for the city and surrounding areas, and nearly 30% of ‘medium’ and ‘small’ settlements. This is utterly disproportionate. The delivery of the existing new development failed its promised to upgrade the water recycling centre, resulting in reduced water pressure and flooding for many. How will this be addressed along with necessary improvements to infrastructure and access to services such as healthcare, education and road/transport without having a negative environmental impact and utterly spoiling our community? I do not see how this can all be achieved in Langham.

Please refer to the comments in the word document and supplementary evidence submitted alongside this.

We feel that 900 extra house will mean Langham is no longer a village. We currently have ongoing issues with sewage, mains water, increase in traffic will create even more issues on the narrow roads around the village. We the increase in housing and traffic will impact on environment. Final the last planning permission for house in the village(School road) was not completed due to sewage issues and the lack of people wanting to buy the houses

1) Summary of my objection
I object to Policy PP37 because it proposes a very large development in a small rural village without clear, deliverable evidence that essential infrastructure can cope—especially sewage/wastewater capacity, surface water and groundwater flooding, traffic impacts, and public transport and local services. In my view, the policy is not currently “effective” or “justified” because too many key risks are deferred to later stages, and residents already experience the very problems this growth would worsen.

2) Detailed reasons for objection
A. Wastewater / sewage capacity is not demonstrably deliverable at plan stage

Policy PP37 itself recognises that wastewater treatment capacity and “adequate capacity for managing wastewater” must be demonstrated, including potential phasing triggers and “alternative solutions.”

As a resident, I am concerned this wording effectively admits that capacity may not currently be available, yet the plan still allocates around 900 dwellings. This is a very significant increase for Langham and risks making the plan undeliverable or causing serious environmental and amenity impacts if infrastructure upgrades do not happen in time.

National policy expects plans to set out the infrastructure contributions needed (including flood and water management) and not undermine deliverability (NPPF paragraph 35). Plans also need to be “effective – deliverable over the plan period” (NPPF paragraph 36).

What I am asking for:

The allocation should be reduced in scale and/or phased so that development cannot proceed until wastewater capacity is confirmed and delivered in practice (not just “confirmed” in principle).

The Local Plan should be explicit about what upgrades are required, who will deliver them, and when, rather than relying mainly on future developer discussions.

B. Surface water / groundwater flooding and drainage risk (including existing problems) are not adequately addressed

Langham experiences localised flooding and drainage problems. In particular, Wick Road is affected when water runs off surrounding fields and flows into gardens. Even if that specific issue relates more directly to nearby land, the key point is that the village already has drainage pinch points and high groundwater sensitivity; adding large areas of roofs, roads and hardstanding can worsen runoff unless solutions are designed and maintained properly for the long term.

National guidance is clear that “flood risk” includes direct rainfall/surface water, rising groundwater, and overwhelmed sewers and drainage systems (Planning Practice Guidance – Flood risk and coastal change).
The NPPF requires a sequential, risk-based approach to steering development to areas of lowest flood risk (NPPF paragraphs 173–175) and requires development to be safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere, incorporating SuDS unless clearly inappropriate (NPPF paragraphs 181–182).

Although PP37 refers to SuDS and water-efficiency measures, it does not give residents confidence that:

existing downstream flooding locations will not be worsened, and

SuDS will be designed to handle extreme rainfall and high groundwater conditions, with secured maintenance.

What I am asking for:

The policy should require a plan-level commitment that surface water will be managed on-site to greenfield (or better) runoff rates, with explicit long-term maintenance arrangements, and with clear protection for known local flooding receptors.

The allocation should be reconsidered or reduced if evidence shows that safe drainage cannot be achieved without harming existing homes.

C. Traffic impacts and road safety: scale is likely to increase car dependency

A development of ~900 homes will generate a large number of additional daily trips. In a rural location with limited public transport, the realistic outcome is more car traffic, including at peak commuting and school times.

The NPPF requires transport issues to be considered from early plan-making, promoting walking/cycling and public transport (NPPF paragraph 109), and focusing significant development on locations that are or can be made sustainable, offering a genuine choice of transport modes (NPPF paragraph 110).
When allocating sites, plans should ensure safe and suitable access and that impacts on the transport network can be mitigated (NPPF paragraph 115).

PP37 requires safe access and that proposals would not be detrimental to highway capacity and safety, and it references mitigation on the Strategic Road Network.
However, for residents the key issue is that the Plan should demonstrate—at allocation stage—that the necessary mitigation is realistic and funded, rather than leaving uncertainty.

What I am asking for:

Stronger plan-level requirements for public transport improvements, safe walking/cycling connectivity to village facilities, and highway mitigation that is clearly deliverable.

Consider reducing the overall scale if sustainable transport measures are not credible for this location.

D. Loss of countryside/greenspace and pressure on existing recreation areas

PP37 requires “Enhanced Open Space” in excess of 10% of the allocation area.
While I welcome that intention, residents will still experience a significant loss of open countryside and rural setting, and existing village recreation areas and footpaths are likely to face increased pressure.

National policy says access to high-quality open space is important and plans should be based on robust assessments of need (NPPF paragraph 103) and protect public rights of way and access (NPPF paragraph 105).
The NPPF also recognises the benefits of countryside and ecosystem services, including soils and best and most versatile agricultural land (NPPF paragraph 187).

What I am asking for:

The Plan should show that open space provision is genuinely usable, accessible and sufficient, not just a percentage on paper.

Stronger landscape buffers and protection of key views/character, and clear mitigation for increased recreational pressure.

E. Lack of local infrastructure and limited public transport (sustainability concern)

Langham has limited facilities and services compared with larger settlements. Without significant new infrastructure (and frequent, reliable public transport), a development of this scale risks creating a community that is highly car-dependent and places additional pressure on already-stretched local services.

This conflicts with the NPPF’s emphasis on aligning growth and infrastructure (NPPF paragraph 11(a)) and on deliverable infrastructure contributions through the plan (NPPF paragraph 35).

What I am asking for:

A clearer infrastructure strategy for Langham that matches the scale of growth, including public transport and community infrastructure, before committing to 900 dwellings.

3) What change I am requesting

I ask Colchester City Council to amend Policy PP37 by either:

Reducing the allocation, so growth is proportionate to Langham’s infrastructure capacity; and/or

Introducing firm, binding phasing limits so that occupation is capped until:

*wastewater treatment capacity is delivered and operational,

*drainage/flood mitigation is designed, implemented and maintained,

*and transport mitigation and sustainable transport measures are in place and effective; and

Requiring the supporting evidence/IDP to specify what infrastructure is needed, who will deliver it, and when, consistent with NPPF paragraphs 35–36.

4) Closing

I appreciate the need for new homes, but the scale proposed in PP37 feels too large for Langham without clear, deliverable infrastructure solutions. I ask the Council to reconsider the allocation and ensure that wastewater, drainage/flood risk, transport and local services are realistically addressed at Local Plan stage, not left mainly to later planning applications.

proposed Planning for 900 houses in the Village of Langham

I wish to object to the above for the reasons listed below:-

1. Inadequate sewage facilities.- At present this is carted away most nights.
2. Use of Green Field Sites – using good quality farmland
3. Present roads cannot support such a large development – narrow main roads which cannot be easily widened.
4. More cars – inadequate public transport
5. 900 houses double the approx. number of residential addresses therefore disproportionate to be built in small village like Langham..
6. Lack of Community facilities -school & surgery

Therefore, this proposed development would over whelm all the present facilities and should not be considered for such a large expansion.

⸻

Comment on Housing Numbers, Deliverability and Examination Risk

This Regulation 18 consultation is the critical stage at which the Council must test whether the standard method housing requirement can be realistically delivered within the plan period in light of known, plan-wide infrastructure constraints. Evidence from Anglian Water that strategic wastewater upgrades are unlikely to be available until around 2050 raises a serious and unresolved issue of deliverability that cannot be lawfully deferred to later stages or addressed through aspiration. National policy requires housing numbers to be grounded in realistic delivery, not assumed future solutions. If this issue is not addressed transparently at Regulation 18, the Council risks advancing a Plan that is vulnerable at Regulation 19 and at examination on the grounds of effectiveness and justification.

We write on behalf of our client, [NAME REDACTED], in response to the Council's latest Regulation
18 consultation (November 2025). The current consultation starts to identify the Council's preferred options for growth, including identifying site allocations to meet housing needs.
[NAME REDACTED] has land interests in Langham, adjoining Park Lane to the south, with School Road to the north and Wick Road to the east (see Appendix A). The Site, measuring circa. 8 hectares, forms part of an identified allocation through Policy PP37 (Land North of Park Lane) as a preferred option for residential development.
Notwithstanding [NAME REDACTED] specific land interests, this response has been prepared in objective terms, in response to the current consultation and the supporting evidence base.
Response to Regulation 18 Consultation

Vision for Colchester

The overarching vision for the emerging Plan seeks to improve the quality of life for communities, create a better environment and contribute to healthy lifestyles. Emphasis is placed on the maximising opportunities through well connected green networks, as well as preserving and enhancing Colchester's identity. The main themes of the Local Plan vision include healthy and diverse places, welcoming inclusive communities, being well-connected and being sustainable. These themes are supported by a range of objectives, together forming a framework for how the vision of the Plan will be achieved.

Throughout the vision, its objectives and aims there is a common theme of supporting development which addresses needs and creates great places to live, work and play, whilst aiding the transition to net zero.
We support the vision identified by the Council, which can best be achieved through the adoption of an up-to-date Local Plan which seeks to meet housing and other growth needs in full in sustainable locations across the District.
Housing Needs and Requirements

Paragraph 62 of the NPPF states that to determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method. This further identifies that in addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for.

The Council correctly identify the starting point for calculating minimum housing needs is the Standard Method (2024). This requires across the Plan period 2025 - 2041, the delivery of 20,800 homes, as a minimum. We support the acknowledgment that the Standard Method is a starting point for considering the housing requirement, this is justified and consistent with the NPPF.

Through the Sustainable Appraisal Report (SA, February 2025), the Council has determined there are no exceptional circumstances which justify a lower housing need. We consider this position is justified.
The Council has also established through the SA and Housing Topic Paper (November 2025) that there is no justification of increasing housing needs as a result unmet needs of neighbouring authorities or based on economic growth aspirations or infrastructure ambitions.

However, the Local Housing Needs Assessment (LNA, September 2024) highlights, based on the previous Standard Method, there is a considerable affordable housing needs of 877 affordable homes per annum. This affordable need is now likely greater reflecting the increase in minimum housing needs. The LNA concludes that affordable housing delivery should be maximised where opportunities arise. This is not considered in the SA with it instead concluding "that in the absence of the wider evidence justifying a lower, or higher level of growth, variation of the Standard Method requirement is not justified".

We consider further work should be completed by the Council to establish whether an increase in the housing requirement is achievable.

Plan Period

Para 22 of the NPPF is clear that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15- year period from adoption. Where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns form part of the strategy for the area, policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years), to take into account the likely timescale for delivery.

The new Local Plan proposes a Plan period from April 2025 to March 2041, i.e. 16-years with the final monitoring year being 2040/41. This would require the Plan to be adopted before end of March 2027. This is considered unlikely on the basis of the Council's current Local Development Scheme.
We recommend the Plan period be extended by 2 years to ensure the required 15-year period post adoption is achieved, in order to avoid any soundness issues.

Spatial Strategy

The Plan identifies a proposed spatial strategy indicating this provides the framework for how the housing and employment needs will be metthrough allocations.
The Council's chosen hierarchy directs growth first to the urban area of Colchester, as the most sustainable location in the Plan area. Following this, it prioritises the growth and opportunity areas and then the most sustainable and accessible locations close to transport corridors and existing centres. This includes an "appropriate level" of growth allocated within the large, medium and some small settlements.
The settlement hierarchy remains an important part of the Plan, ensuring development can come forward in a sustainable manner whilst maximising the potential of the most sustainable settlements. This is consistent with the NPPF which states policies and decisions should guide development towards sustainable solutions, and states significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable.
We are supportive of the approach to direct growth to the sustainable locations, notably those on or close to the main A road routes which cross through the District. The Council however needs to ensure sufficient justification is provided to support its distribution of development between settlements, including how the presence (or absence) of services and facilities have influenced this and proximity to transport corridors. For the reasons
as set out below, we consider the preferred options for Langham have been robustly justified.

The Plan should include a housing trajectory which identifies when sites are expected to deliver homes, ensuring housing needs are achieved across the Plan period including in the short (next 5-years) and medium (5 -10 years) periods.

Langham

Langham includes two areas of settlement, Langham Moor and St. Margaret's Cross, linked by School Road. Langham contains a primary school, public house, a community cafe, a community shop, community centre, recreation ground, a playground, football pitches and tennis courts. It lies close to the A12 trunk road and is highly accessible via the road network to Colchester and other hubs nearby. The village is located outside of the Dedham Vale National Landscape which is to the north and east. The village is therefore well placed as an existing sustainable settlement with capacity to grow.
The SA acknowledges this, confirming that Langham is a sustainable settlement. The SA, Plan and wider evidence base classifies Langham as a medium settlement. We support this view.
Not only does Langham already have a good range of facilities and services, but this and other infrastructure requirements (i.e. junction improvements) can be supplemented through development.
The Colchester Settlement Evidence Stage 2 (Oct 2025) illustrates the existing and preferred options for settlement boundaries, and for Langham it is proposed to extend this to include land to the north of Park Lane joining the two settlements. We are supportive of this change as it is a logical extension providing new sustainable links between the separate parts of the village.

The Site and Land North of Park Lane

The Site (Appendix A) abuts the existing settlement edge of Langham along its northern boundary, and is within close proximity along its eastern boundary. Residential properties are located to the east along Wick Road, as well as to the north along School Road/St. Margarets Cross, where the pre-school, primary school, post office, football club, tennis courts and community centre are also located (all of which are within walking distance of the Site).

Land directly to the north of the Site has recently been developed for 46 dwellings and associate public open space through application ref. 191830. Land to the west of the Site comprises agricultural land but is part of the same proposed allocation.

The Site, as a discreet parcel on its own (circa. 8 hectares), has capacity to support circa. 150 - 200 homes within vehicular access to be taken from Park Lane. Pedestrian and cycle access could be provided to the north, through the new development which includes a link to the public right of way which runs along (inside) the northern boundary of the Site. This will help ensure sustainable movement is prioritised, with future residents being able to easily and directly walk to the existing facilities of the village.

The Council's evidence base, through the SLAA and Summary of Sites Evidence (October 2025) assesses the Site as part of the much larger Land north of Park Lane, Langham proposed allocation (ref. 10664 / PP37). The Site has not been assessed on its own.

The assessment concludes the proposed allocation area is a suitable location for residential development. Whilst some potential constraints are identified, these can be readily addressed through design or mitigation, these do not affect deliverability. Further, there are no known overriding constraints with respect to utility / service provision, neighbouring uses, or landscape or nature conservation. The Site and wider allocation are wholly located within Flood Zone 1 and not located within a Critical Drainage Area.

Whilst the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (and associated Evidence Base) identifies existing foul drainage capacity constraints locally for Langham, this highlights there are likely to be solutions in place for this in the medium term. Alongside this, work is being undertaken to consider any other potential on-site or off-site solutions. We expect there will be deliverable and viable options to enable delivery on the Site in the short-term.

We therefore consider the Council's assessment of the Land north of Park Lane to be sound. We therefore support the identification of this land as a proposed allocation through Policy PP37. Nevertheless, it should be noted we consider the conclusions would equally apply to the Site on its own.

Policy PP37 (Land North of Park Lane) identifies the Site and wider land to the west to deliver approximately 900 new dwellings to include safe and suitable access in a location to be agreed with impacts, including on the strategic highway network and other infrastructure, to be satisfactorily mitigated. We consider this is readily achievable, and the allocation can deliver high-quality new development which aligns with the Council's aspirations. We consider a scheme could be designed sensitively which respects the character of the area and would not be significantly harmful to the wider landscape, including the nearby National Landscape.
The Policy identifies that proposals for the site will only be supported where they accord with a comprehensive masterplan in relation to the entire allocation, which has been agreed with the Council prior to submission of any planning application. Whilst we will seek to work collaboratively with the promoter of the land that forms the remainder of the allocation, we consider the Site could come forward separate to the wider allocation. It forms a discreet parcel adjoining the existing settlement boundary, with clear and obvious links to the south (via road) and north (via pedestrian routes). The ability for delivery to be achieved on the Site in the first 5-years of the Plan may be undermined if there are delays associated with the larger remainder of the allocation to the west. The policy wording should be tweaked to allow for the Site to come forward separately so long as it does not undermine the ability of the wider allocation to deliver a high-quality development.

Summary and Next Steps

As set out in these Representations, whilst further work should be undertaken to fully justify the approach proposed we support the Council's aspirations to proactively plan for growth, through the adoption of an up-to-date Plan. We look forward to discussing this further with the Council in due course, and are happy to provide any further information which may assist in the Council's ongoing consideration of the Site as part of this Plan-making process.

I would like to object very strongly indeed to the proposed 900 we are told you would like to build in Langham

We are a rural village on the edge of the Dedham Vale and have not more space for such an enormous amount of development.

The roads are totally unsuitable, badly maintained and too small to cope with the volume we have now let alone 900 more dwellings with at lease 2 cars per home if not more due to scarce public transport. There have been no road upgrades in the last 40 years except the A12 and the local roads are FULL.

The sewage system has been absolutely unable to cope with demand for years, insect a way as it has to be empties by lorry even day.

It is time we all said NO to huge rural development without local infrastructure - roads, hospitals, surgeries and rural road upgrades.

Colchester Local Plan.

Comments on Land north of Park Lane, Langham

I object to the proposed allocation of 910 homes in Langham for the following reasons:

a. Growth - -The allocation imposes extreme disproportionate growth ie 192% growth over existing homes. The "Parish Housing Needs Assessment" highlights a genuine need of 60 - 120 homes. b. Amenities - Existing facilities within the village will be overwhelmed. Subsequently, alternative centrally located facilities would be required to support this proposal creating further unnecessary development outside the proposed development

area. C. Transport - Existing transport links are by poorly maintained small country roads/lanes with infrequent bus services. Car use is already the highest in Colchester. Langham scores 34 on DfT Connectivity Tool making it less well connected and sustainable than a number of other local villages who have significantly smaller allocations and higher DfT scores ie superior connectivity. d. Infrastructure - The current infrastructure and services are vulnerable at present and cannot even support completion of approved developments within the village. e. Environment Harms - This development would see the loss of 40 Ha of Grade 2 agricultural land when there is evidence that we need to maintain UK food production levels. There would also be impacts on wildlife including the severing of recognised wildlife habitat corridors.

Summary - Statements made throughout the proposal for the 910 homes in Langham are akin to "kicking the can down the road". They are non- compliant with both Colchester Council's own strategies and National Planning Policies. They would also clearly fail to meet the stated Vision, Themes & Objectives. Financial impacts and investment by external parties in respect of infrastructure and amenities have not been considered/evaluated.

Gary Cole

4 Orchard Cottages, Wick Road, Langham, Colchester CO4 5PQ

14th January 2026 - 12.00 hours.