I wish to strongly object to the proposal to build 900 houses in the centre of our village.

I have read the detailed report submitted by Langham Parish Council and whole heartedly support the objections raised. It covers in great detail every aspect of why this proposal is totally unsustainable.

I really don’t think I can add any further comment without repeating all that’s been said in LPC’s report.

To the Planning Team,
I am a 20-year-old currently studying Urban Planning at the University of Westminster from the village, and I wish to register my opposition to 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 latest Colchester Local Plan, specifically Section 2, Chapter 2: Vision and Approach, and the following provisions:
Policy ST1: Health and Wellbeing: The policy ignores the detrimental impact to the health and wellbeing of the existing residents of Langham who moved to this village for its green open spaces and direct connection with wildlife and the rural environment. The area for development will obliterate all of this and open landscape views, which are good for the soul, will be replaced with a sea of bricks. A development of this scale will create a car culture - contradictory of our climate and sustainability goals.
Policy ST3 – Spatial Strategy: Langham is classified as an “Other Village,” intended for modest expansion only. The magnitude of this project far exceeds what is appropriate for the area and does not align with ST3.
Policy ST4: Development in the Countryside: The policy states “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, valued landscapes, the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and visual amenity.” 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 its rural nature. This removes the greenbelt, creating an ongoing suburbia - an enlarged Colchester, not an independent village. A physical merging of identities.
Policy ST7 – Infrastructure Delivery and Impact Mitigation: The proposal does not provide sufficient infrastructure and fails to address the negative effects on local amenities and transportation. However, I understand this may change with concrete proposals so am happy for this to be addressed later.
Policy ST8 – Place Shaping Principles: The development overlooks the unique qualities, landscape, and identity of the local community.
Please work with developers and make building on brownfield and grey belt more financially viable. These are the sort of sites that are perfect for development - not the countryside, the lungs of our country. Fields should not be surrendered, when sites such as the former Homebase Stanway, old bus depot, and vast surplus surface parking in city centre and retail parks remain undeveloped. Just because this is an easy fix for your mistakes, and the failures of government planning shouldn't mean we should sacrifice or valuable green spaces. I understand you are under strict targets from higher bodies, however you should be working with them or pressuring them to make it easier for developers and councils to build on vacant land in out city centres - far more sustainable. I care deeply for both Langham and Colchester, and one day id love to work on the planning team - i've applied in the past. Its important we make these correct decisions now than leave them to people like me in the future.

My objections are not limited to the policies specifically referred to above. Having read all the policies, I found this too overwhelming, and upsetting, to comment on each individually. Overall, the application does not support the Local Plan’s goal for balanced and sustainable growth and should therefore be declined.
Thank you for your attention to this objection.

I wish to object most strongly to the proposed building of over 900 new houses in the centre of Langham.
I have read thoroughly the statements about, and objections to, this Draft Policy , written by Langham Parish Council. It is an extremely detailed document, and covers everything that I would want to say about the proposed development . It highlights ALL the problems that this would bring to our small rural village, and so, it seems unnecessary for me to go over them all again in this email. It seems illogical that a development like this should even have been considered to be a viable proposition in the first place.
I reiterate now my absolute objection to the whole application.

are writing on behalf of our client, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO), which is part of the
Ministry of Defence and is responsible for managing the military estate, including the provision of homes
for service personnel across the UK.
We submit representations to the Colchester Regulation 18 Local Plan Consultation covering multiple
DIO-owned sites and strategic concerns regarding the emerging Local Plan. These representations
have been prepared to assist Colchester City Council in developing an effective and deliverable plan
that recognises both local priorities and national defence requirements.
In line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) it is important that planning authorities and
development plans recognise that MOD Establishments are of strategic military importance to the UK.  It
is important that planning authorities consult with the MOD during the preparation of their plans and take
into account the need to safeguard operational sites.
To support the ongoing military training and operations within the City it is considered that the inclusion
of a specific policy in the Local Plan to recognise these requirements would be beneficial and accord
with national planning policy.
Paragraph 102 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) states that ‘planning
policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence
requirements including by ‘b) recognising and supporting development required for operational defence
and security purposes, and ensuring that operational sites are not affected adversely by the impact of
other development proposed in the area.’
Summary of Other Representations
Land South of Birch Brook
Our client is concerned with the proposed designation of this defence land as a Strategic Biodiversity
Area under Policy ST2. We object to this blanket designation which could prevent continued
operational use and future land release requirements, thereby conflicting with national defence
objectives as recognised in NPPF Paragraph 102b.
We also raise significant concerns regarding the spatial strategy's over-reliance on large, complex
strategic allocations in village locations, which introduces substantial delivery risks. We estimate that
approximately 2,970-3,695 dwellings from major strategic allocations are at medium to very high risk
of non-delivery within the Local Plan period. The Plan requires greater flexibility, contingency planning,
and a more diverse range of site sizes and locations to maintain housing supply resilience as supported
by the NPPF.
Middlewick Ranges
Whilst we acknowledge the proposed de-allocation of this 120-hectare site as a housing allocation,
our client objects to the dual designation as both Local Green Space under Policy GN3 and Strategic
Biodiversity Area under Policy ST2. This approach creates unnecessary policy duplication and
potential conflicts that could harm proper ecological management and enhancement.
The Local Green Space designation is also inappropriate for extensive tracts of land where the primary
value lies in biodiversity function rather than recreational or community use, contrary to National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraphs 106-108. We request removal of the Local Green
Space designation to avoid policy confusion and constraints on effective habitat management as
required by the NPPF.
DIO Berechurch
This 3.6 hectare site is being considered for operational defence use, potentially including Service
Family Accommodation (SFA) development to address urgent identified needs. We object to its
proposed inclusion within a Strategic Biodiversity Area designation, which lacks robust evidential
justification and fails to recognise the site's operational importance in accordance with NPPF
Paragraph 102b.
We also highlight that there is an established operational requirement for the site for military purposes,
this includes the need deliver new Service Family Accommodation (SFA) to meet a significant shortfall
in provision in Colchester, yet the Local Plan provides no recognition or policy support for this
requirement contrary to national defence priorities set out in NPPF Paragraph 102b.
The site also contains existing electrical infrastructure and is surrounded by development on three
sides, questioning its suitability as a biodiversity area. We emphasise the need for operational flexibility
to adapt to changing defence requirements without undue policy constraints. We recommend inclusion
of a specific Military Establishments policy to support development that enhances operational
capability and recognise SFA provision as essential workers housing.
Open Space Designations Merville Barracks
Our client objects to the proposed designation of two parcels within our clients’ estates (at Drury
Meadows and Montgomery Estate) as Open Space under Policy GN6. These sites, totalling
approximately 2.17 hectares, are suitable for SFA infill development and do not provide demonstrable
public recreational or amenity value, nor is there funding identified within the Local Plan evidence base
for the long term management and maintenance of this land as open space. The designations lack
robust justification as the sites were not assessed within the Council's Open Space Report (2023),
rendering the approach unsound.
We highlight that there is an urgent need in Colchester to deliver new SFA, yet the Local Plan provides
no recognition or policy support for this requirement contrary to national defence priorities set out in
NPPF Paragraph 102b. We also recommend inclusion of a specific Military Establishments policy to
support development that enhances operational capability and recognise SFA provision as essential
workers housing.
Key Requested Revisions
We respectfully request the following amendments to strengthen the Plan's deliverability and
soundness:
1. Remove Strategic Biodiversity designations from operational defence land (Land South
of Birch Brook and DIO Berechurch).
2. Remove Local Green Space designation from Middlewick Ranges to avoid policy
duplication and given it is an extensive tract of land and therefore unsuitable.
3. Remove Open Space designations from SFA estate land or provide policy flexibility for
SFA development.
4. Include specific policy recognition and support for general defence requirements and
Service Family Accommodation provision.
5. Incorporate greater flexibility and contingency planning within the spatial strategy.
6. Diversify housing supply through a broader range of site sizes and locations.
7. Establish clear triggers for releasing reserve sites to maintain housing supply
resilience.
Conclusion
The DIO remains committed to working collaboratively with Colchester City Council to ensure the
emerging Local Plan provides an appropriate and flexible framework that recognises both local
housing needs and national defence priorities. Our representations seek to strengthen the Plan's
effectiveness, deliverability, and resilience whilst ensuring that essential defence operations can
continue without unnecessary policy constraints.
We believe that addressing these concerns will result in a more robust and sounder Local Plan that
better serves the needs of Colchester's communities whilst fulfilling the Council's obligations to support
national defence requirements.
We look forward to your consideration of these matters and to continued engagement throughout the
Local Plan process.

Promotion of land at land to the south of Ivy Lodge Road, Great Horkesley as a residential site allocation.

We would like to see this footpath (see map attached) earmarked for a full cycleway to link Langham Lane with the path into the Northern Gateway.

Realistically this section of Severalls Lane is likely to remain busy with cars.

Should Langham Lane be made subject to a “residents only” filter as part of the proposed housing development, then this short section of path could provide a safe way to join the Northern Gateway path network.

See Full Submission 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.

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.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a duty on local authorities to reduce crime and
disorder within the community.
2. The National Planning Policy Framework 2024 requires the planning system to be plan
led, with plans contributing to the achievement of sustainable development - being shaped
by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan makers and infrastructure
providers, to set out the infrastructure contributions expected from development.
3. Essex Police is an essential social infrastructure provider in this respect, who works closely
with neighbourhoods to provide community safety, cohesion and policing in line with the
objectives and priorities set out in the Police & Crime Plan 2024-2028 to support the
creation of safe, strong, healthy, resilient and sustainable new communities.
4. With this in mind, Essex Police submitted evidence to inform the infrastructure scoping
process at the earlier (stakeholder) stages of the local plan review, linked to preparation of
the Colchester Infrastructure Audit & Delivery Plan (IADP) in December 2024 and June
2025, which is retained by the City Council as background documentation.
5. The IADP Stage 3 Report dated 24 October 2025 therefore outlines the Essex Police
infrastructure requirements to mitigate and manage the planned housing/ population
growth over the plan period to 2041.
6. The Essex Policing Model is outlined in the IADP and reproduced below for information.
Essex Policing Model
7. To use resources efficiently to address the incidence of crime and engage effectively with
the local community, Essex Police operates a ‘Local Policing Area’ (LPA) policing model.
8. Each Local Policing Area is resourced by a dedicated Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT),
consisting of Police Officers, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO’s), Community
Safety Engagement Officers, Children & Young Persons Officers and integrated local
partners and partnerships within co-located Community Safety Hubs.
9. This resourcing structure ensures that an appropriate level of response is coordinated at
the outset, ranging from a routine community safety/ cohesion deployment to a serious
crime response, to meet the community’s needs.
10. Both the construction and occupation phases of residential development lead to an
increase in the incidence of criminal activity . At the construction phase this includes property-based theft and vandalism, as
acknowledged by the Chartered Institute of Building in its publications concerning Crime in
the Construction Industry. Such incidents lead to an increased impact on police facilities
and a greater draw on Essex Police NPT resources.
12. At the occupation phase increased populations give rise to an increase in crime and
incidents against the person (e.g. violence, sexual, burglary, vehicle theft and criminal
damage). New residents would be the victims of such crime, leading to an increased impact
on police facilities and a greater draw on its NPT resources, including specialist unit support
officers.
13. Emerging new communities need to be integrated with existing communities, and an
appropriate level and duration of community safety, cohesion and policing would therefore
need to be provided across the occupation phases of developments.
14. Major new housing developments give rise to significant additional resource needs and
implications for NPT’s, (including specialist officers supporting the NPT’s), requiring
appropriate developer funding in order to mitigate and manage the community safety,
cohesion and policing requirements, including the crime impacts arising.
Police Infrastructure & Facilities (Police Facilities)
15. In the context of the Essex - wide plan making and development management processes,
police facilities are defined as follows;
❖ Additional or enhanced police station (Local Policing Team) floor space & facilities,
including fit out & refurbishment;
❖ Custody facilities;
❖ Mobile police stations;
❖ Communications, including ICT;
❖ Speed Camera/ Automatic Number Plate Recognition Technology;
❖ Police vehicles;
❖ Funding for additional staff resources, incorporating the recruitment, training,
equipping & tasking of Police Community Support Officers (PCSO’s) during the
construction phase of residential development, & recruitment, training equipping of Local Policing Team Officers (LPTO’s) during the occupation phase of
residential development;
16. The developer funded police facilities required to mitigate and manage the impact arising
on Essex Police service capacity (and related costs) are outlined in the IADP.
Local Plan Text & Policy Revisions
17. Essex Police is satisfied that the IADP reflects its budgetary evidence concerning the level
of developer funded police facilities required to mitigate and manage the planned housing/
population growth within the Colchester City Council area to 2041.
18. Essex Police is not currently satisfied, however, that the text and policies within the
Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation are sufficiently justified or
comprehensive, as they are not considered to;
❖ Identify Essex Police as an essential social infrastructure provider – requiring
developer funding in order to mitigate & manage the impacts arising from
planned housing/ population growth;
❖ Essex County Fire & Rescue Service & the East of England Ambulance Service NHS
Trust are also not identified as essential infrastructure providers;
❖ Provide sufficient clarity concerning the requirement for developer funded police
infrastructure/ facilities in association with the strategic housing sites >250
dwellings;
❖ Provide sufficient recognition concerning the definition of ‘infrastructure’ being
applicable to police infrastructure/ facilities (police facilities) – this position is
equally applicable to fire & rescue & ambulance facilities;
❖ Provide adequate recognition to the wider remit & role of Essex Police in providing
community safety, cohesion & policing in contributing to the delivery of sustainable
new communities, in addition to its duties as a Category 1 Responder under the
Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (i.e. its emergency service role) - this position is equally
applicable to fire & rescue & ambulance facilities;
19. A Schedule of Text & Policy Changes outline the changes sought to the draft text and
policies contained in the Preferred Options Local Plan, which is submitted as an
Accompanying Document.
20. In addition, 16 x form-based representations outline the changes sought, and are
submitted as Accompanying Documents.
21. Essex Police commend the changes sought in its representations which are considered
necessary to provide for a justified and comprehensive local plan, and look forward to
continuing its productive working relationship with the City Council and its retained consultants to that end