Please see the Langham Parish Council's Housing Needs Survey (HNS) conducted last year.
There is a massive mismatch between proposed growth and actual need, which is 4 or 5 houses a year not 67/year.
We are a village of approximately 300 dwellings, and the increase of 300% fails to comply
with the Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan, Regulation
18 Consultation, 2025. Langham is a village and this increase is disproportionate growth.

Langham is not well-connected and has poor roads that crumble into the roadside
ditches when large HGVs and buses traverse our country lanes. Our A12 entry to the
village, north-bound, is incredibly dangerous as it is a right-angled bend. Vehicles need
to brake substantially, from at least 70 mph on a short slipway after a Shell garage, and
turn into a 30 mph narrow road. Twice in the last couple of years vehicles have failed to make
this turn and crashed into a bungalow on the opposite side of the road, causing extensive
damage & distress for the owners.

We have few pavements around the village and many potholes in the roads and
pavements. This makes walking and cycling around the village very dangerous. There is no
safe route to Colchester for cyclists, even though the National Cycle Route 1 goes through
Langham. It is on a twisty, de-restricted road with potholes and poor visibility, certainly
too dangerous to cycle the only 4 miles to Colchester.

Public transport is extremely poor, which will mean there are likely to be more than an
extra 2000 cars on the roads around Langham.

The sewerage in Langham is dire. When there is a storm, our high water table and inflowing rainwater to our leaky sewers means the network of sewers is unable to cope, flooding homes and gardens and sometimes causing the underground electricity cables in the village to fail. This is totally unacceptable. We should not be expected to be flooded in homes (making houses uninhabitable for months), walk or drive through sewage, our gardens unusable, animals sick and to be without power for days. And this is now! An extra 900 houses will mean this will become an extremely common occurrence.

Currently, building has stalled in the village as plans require the Environmental Agency to sign them off. This has prevented more house-building until the WRC capacity has been increased or the leaky pipes widened or replaced. Why has the Environmental Agency been removed from future plans as a sign-off? For convenience.

We are approximately 800m from a Dark Skies area and the light pollution a 900 home estate will bring will severely impact this.

We do not have a doctors’ surgery in the village, nor a pharmacy. No secondary school and a small primary school. Just who is going to fund these requirements?

The proposed developments are incompatible with Langham’s historic dispersed, semi-linear settlement pattern. Inserting a single 900+ dwelling block at the village core would effectively redesign Langham into a small town, harming its landscape character, rural identity, and historic features. This is contrary to NPPF 35, and the allocations are therefore unsound. They should be removed from the Local Plan before the Regulation 19 stage.

The site is on prime agricultural land. When we are currently unable to produce food for ourselves, & rely on imports, this is very foolish. Poorer land should be chosen.

We have rare songbirds and wildlife in the area proposed. This will not be improved by 900 houses and the accompanying noise and traffic. We are a village, not a town.

Re Langham 900: Objections
Local GP services will struggle to see extra patients.

Sewage network does not have capacity for an additional 900 households.

Public transport is not frequent enough to meet local needs.

Access road off the A12 northbound to Langham is too short for additional traffic. Before this junction there is a Shell garage where traffic has to enter and leave close to this access.
Traffic waiting to turn off the A12 for Langham may cause traffic congestion at busy times and have the potential to cause accidents for approaching vehicles and those exiting the the Shell garage.

Smaller homes are required (see HNS from LPC). With the poor options for travel from Langham, these should be located within walking distance of the bus and rail stations to enable people to commute easily or for the elderly to reach the hospital and shops. We currently have gridlock in the outskirts of the city at rush hour and the A12 is often closed due to accidents. How will this allow Colchester to prosper?

The hospital and surgeries are already running at over capacity. With 900+ homes, where will these people be treated (& others in Colchester)?

The village is well connected with footpaths across the fields. The plan for 900 homes will obliterate these and yet suggests it is adding to the connectivity of the village. Poppycock!

As we are already struggling with water shortages, where is all the extra potable water coming from? The UK average & building regs are currently 135l/person/day. Some areas in the UK have managed to reduce their usage to 110l/person/day. This plan's water usage is set at 85l/person/day. How will this be achieved? No washing for weeks? We'll be a third world country!

I object to the proposed allocation under Policy PP37 due to the absence of a clearly defined, funded and timetabled infrastructure package proportionate to approximately 900 new dwellings. There is no confirmed provision for school capacity, GP or health services, public transport improvements, or wastewater upgrades prior to occupation. Highway impacts rely only on “not detrimental” tests, and infrastructure delivery is deferred to future masterplanning without binding triggers. This risks housing delivery significantly outpacing essential services and placing unacceptable pressure on existing communities.

It would be a travesty, and a major shame and disaster if 900 homes were built on all of Langham's green space. It would destroy local trust, reduce the amount of much needed footpaths, ruin the image of the village and local schools. The plans should NOT go ahead, whoever suggested sticking 900 houses on Langham's most like green spaces should be ashamed of themselves. We do not need new homes in every part of the countryside; we do not want new towns, or existing towns joining villages as an "urban sprawl", it is not right. On behalf of everyone who lives and works in Langham, we hope the council don't approve this application to ruin the image of the village as we know it and potentially deter future buyers from wanting to live in the older houses in the area.

I do not think the existing road network will cope with the addition of 900 dwellings. The roads are in a poor state of repair with many large potholes. In the summer there are many agricultural vehicles in the village. The roads are constantly being dug up to repair the water and sewage mains. Additional traffic on the roads will compound this problem and cause extensive delays for traffic during times of repairs. Park Lane is also a cut through for traffic heading towards the A12 from Colchester, the extra traffic created will potentially cause frustration and speeding traffic.

There will be a negative impact on the character of Langham as a village. 900 houses will double the existing amount of housing and the local roads are not adequate for the extra traffic. Langham Lane has constant pot holes and flooding issues and is a dangerous, unlit country lane.
The local primary school does not have enough capacity and the nearest secondary school in Highwoods is always oversubscribed as are the GP surgeries and dentists. Public transport is not often enough for commuting to work or school.
The loss of the green space is also detrimental.

(b) The development will have a serious detrimental impact on highway capacity as Langham lane (only non A12 route into the city) is already at capacity, is in constant need of repair due to the volume and size of vehicles using it, HGV, buses, agricultural vehicles etc, and there is no space to widen it or create a cycle lane. It is dangerous already. Park Lane is also already a dangerous and unsafe road with constant speeding, no footpaths, no lighting, and overuse at peak. More traffic from the new development on to Park Lane will exacerbate these issues.

(c) Langham Lane will need to be made fit for purpose. Widening to incorporate a cycle lane (to satisfy green credentials), properly repaired to cope with more traffic, probably requiring kerbs to prevent collapsing/potholes at the edges, all of which will be extremely expensive, even if possible. CPOs will be needed for increased land requirement. The A12 exit is not a proper junction (not even numbered), with a short deceleration lane and then 90 degrees into a narrow Park Lane. This will require a huge upgrade as Langham becomes a substantial conurbation. Houses will need to be CPO and demolished.

We strongly object to the proposed development of in excess of 900 new homes being built in Langham, Essex for many reasons.

Our primary objections are listed below and we believe they fall under (but are not limited to) your headings;

Chapter 2 - Vision and approach

Policy ST3 - Spatial Strategy

Policy ST7 - Infrastructure Delivery and Impact Mitigation

Policy ST8 - Place Shaping Principles

Policy PP37 - Land north of Park Lane, Langham

We note that the sheer volume of documentation contained within the consultation document makes it intimidating and difficult for concerned residents to navigate and object.

We feel this proposed scale of development is completely disproportionate in light of the present size of Langham and in particular the present infrastructure which cannot cope with the existing levels of houses, let alone the proposed increase in housing stock of over 350%.

1. Size of the development
There are currently approximately 350 houses in the village. These are largely based around Moor Road, Chapel Road, School Road and Wick Road. By building an additional 910 houses this would increase the properties to 1260 and likely increase the population by over 400%. Presently all the village has in terms of amenities is a volunteer run Community shop, along with a primary school and a pre school. Both the schools are already full and we understand that a new resident has not been able to send their child to the Primary school, due to lack of space, despite the child’s grandmother already living in the village for a number of years. There will be no option but for all the new pre school and Primary aged children that would be housed in the proposed new development to be driven to schools in Colchester.

2. Huge increase in traffic
At a time when the Government is committed to reducing carbon footprint in the area, the plans to place over 900 new homes in a rural community such as Langham is completely out of step with this policy as it will massively increase the use of cars in the village. There is only a very limited bus service which travels between Dedham and Colchester via Langham. The bus which takes the children to Colchester secondary schools at the moment is already full most mornings.
3. Sewerage and drainage issues Langham is already experiencing severe sewerage problems which are well known to Anglia Water and our MP, Sir Bernard Jenkin. Anglia Water admitted themselves that Langham is the second worst area in the whole of their region for sewerage leaks and flooding, with only one village in the Norfolk having a worse record.
>
> The present sewerage, drainage and water supply issues are very well known already with the old pipes and treatment plant completely inadequate for the present housing stock. Just in the past week there have been 2 leaks in Moor Road and we know from personal experience that Chapel Road is also a particularly bad area. Several residents have had raw sewage in their homes and gardens due to the dilapidated pipework. You only have to look along these roads to see the patchworks of repairs.

The situation with the drainage and sewerage is so bad that in a recent development in School Road the developer only built less than half the number of houses as they had difficulty in getting Anglia Water to service these houses. The size of this development was only due to be around 80 in total. This surely clearly demonstrates that to propose an additional 910 houses in the area will lead to unimaginable problems when the infrastructure cannot cope with just 22 new homes. Indeed, when a developer wanted to convert an old school building into flats recently, Anglia Water objected on the grounds that they could not service the new properties.

4. Unsuitability of Housing needs for the area
Langham is a rural community and as such does not have any facilities to speak of. This means that this is generally not desirable for families looking for local facilities on their doorstep. Lack of village facilities will increase the use of cars. We note that the reduced development in School Road struggled to sell. It took over three years for the houses to be occupied (sold and rented). Any such large development in Langham would be considered undesirable to local Colchester residents and probably have to be marketed to London or Chelmsford residents which would only increase the use of cars in contravention of government policy to reduce carbon emissions.

> In conclusion, we absolutely understand the need for new housing and the Government pressure on Councils to deliver. However, the proposed enormous development in Langham is completely disproportionate, dwarves the existing community and is unsustainable with the local infrastructure.


Yours faithfully

Nigel and Claire Matthews

Presently, we have around 300 homes in Langham. Increasing this number by 900 without heavy consideration of the consequences is irresponsible and unacceptable. The local plan has failed to consider how our infrastructure would support an additional 900 homes. We are already struggling with drainage and sewerage problems at 300 homes. Several residents have experienced flooding in their homes due to overflowing sewers and overloaded sewerage treatment works. I find it completely illogical and unethical to consider building a further 900 homes without first tackling the drainage and sewerage problems and supporting the residents who have been affected by flooding.

Without drastic changes to our drainage and sewerage systems, there is simply no way it will be able to support the local plan, and these new builds would not sell, because no one wants to live somewhere overrun by sewage.

I would also like to address the other infrastructure issues that mean we cannot support a further 900 homes. We have one primary school, which is nearly at capacity, and no secondary school. There is no pharmacy or GP surgery here and we have an inadequate bus service. Therefore, new residents would find access to education and healthcare is limited, and will likely have to drive into Colchester to access these necessities.

We have numerous potholes in the local area and the narrow roads in Langham, especially near the A12 and past the primary school would become incredibly unsafe, with no footpaths. One of the two main routes out of Langham, on Severalls, has been partially closed to one lane for safety reasons for the past five years, and causes severe traffic to existing users, especially during rush hour. With the traffic from 900 new homes, the village will be stuck in gridlock.

With only 3 buses a day to Colchester, this would cause a huge increase in the number of cars and traffic navigating Langham. I do not believe our strained roads would be able to cope. Road sides are already falling into the drainage ditches with the narrow lanes meaning buses and HGVs slip off the side and damage the edges.

The increase in traffic and residents will destroy the environment and the village atmosphere that we have built here. We are a quintessential rural community and I strongly believe that our community should be protected. Such a large increase in population would dissolve our close-knit community.

We have several horse riders in the village, who already feel unsafe on the roads due to careless drivers who do not overtake at an appropriate speed. With all the additional traffic this plan would bring in, they will likely be pushed off the roads entirely. Similarly, our local wildlife will be pushed away, as their habitat will be destroyed. The farming land is of high quality and is unable to be replaced. At a time when we need food security, this is ridiculous.