The proposed plan to build 900 new homes in Langham is impractical and harmful to both the current residents and the environment. The lack of adequate infrastructure, including drainage, schools, healthcare facilities, and transportation, makes it impossible for the village to support such a drastic expansion. The strain on local roads, increased traffic, and loss of our rural community atmosphere would irreversibly harm the quality of life for existing residents and endanger both wildlife and safety. I urge the planning committee to reconsider this proposal and prioritise solutions to our current infrastructure issues before any further development is allowed.

The scale of the proposed development is totally disproportionate to the current and historic settlement.
Safe access is only available from the A12 - all other roads leading to the development site are narrow, often single track roads.
Infrastructure issues are already impacting residents and there appears to be no obvious solution to the waste water concerns.

Langham is a small village with a great community spirit. 900 houses would ruin that community.
The roads are not sufficient to handle the extra traffic.
There are no doctors.
The school is full.
The sewerage works cannot cope now.

Poor drainage in area. Overwhelm d sewerage system. Loss of wildlife habitats. Loss of green lung. Increased traffic on rural roads. Local pedestrians including dog walkers & horseriders put a risk. We need more bridleways

Currently Langham Village does not have the required infrastructure to support the number of properties and people who live in them. The water and sewage system is constantly failing and the sewage works cannot cope with the current load. We do not have GP surgery and the ones close by already have more patients than they can cope with. The road system is narrow country lanes which will not support an increase of 900 to 1200 vehicles and the current bus system cannot provide a reasonable travel capability. In addition the village only has a small school and a small village shop. In summary the project has not been thought through as demonstrated by the two current building projects that have not progressed due to the failing infrastructure and lack of potential purchasers.

The proposed site of the 900 will back onto my field where livestock/horses are kept.

Completely disproportionate proposal considering the size and nature of Langham. To increase the population of a village by 300%, in the heart of the landscape is unthinkable. The parish council make many valid objections as to why this development shouldnt take place. Traffic, damage to environment, insufficient infrastructure and the complete death of village life for the residents here. The proposals at Boxted were proportionately smaller and were rejected on the basis that were too large for the existing nature of the village. The proposes at langham are even worse. Its absurd.

In the last 5 years North Essex has seen rapid housing development to villages & small towns. In Dedham we are now living with the repercussions of this ie irresponsible speeding traffic, GP surgeries & NHS Hospital Trust over stretched.
This plan for Langham is in no way sympathetic to its existing residents. The Plan ruthlessly doubles the size of the village due to its proximity to the A12.
It’s impact on already congested/increased traffic in our village lanes will be massive & ruin our right to live in quiet village settings.

Broader context of decision to build up to 900 dwellings on proposed site:
Research also shows that there are enough brownfield sites in England to build 1.4 million new homes, indicating that the government can move towards its UK-wide target of 1.5 million new homes more quickly while protecting more greenfield land. Over half of these homes already have some form of planning permission. https://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/state-of-brownfield-2025/

Broader context of decision to build up to 900 dwellings on proposed site:
Governance and regulation of waste water management by agencies responsible for ensuring safety and environmental protection are failing to fulfil their duties at the current level of development, the proposed plans for development in Colchester in general and hugely disproportionate plans for Langham in particular without additional strengthening of safeguards will lead to further failures in regulatory compliance.
https://www.theoep.org.uk/report/oep-reports-investigation-regulation-combined-sewer-overflows

Broader context of decision to build up to 900 dwellings on proposed site:
The proposal to build on Grade 2 agricultural is contrary to the UK government food strategy for England, considering the wider UK food system (Sustainable and resilient supply: 4. Greater preparedness for supply chain shocks, disruption, and impacts of chronic risks). This strategy at a time of unprecedented geopolitical uncertainty is at best ill-considered.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-uk-government-food-strategy-for-england/a-uk-government-food-strategy-for-england-considering-the-wider-uk-food-system

LANGHAM IS UNSUITABLE/UNSUSTAINABLE LOCATION FOR MAJOR HOUSING GROWTH

The proposal is totally disproportionate to the existing community, infrastructure and amenities. Langham parish currently has 473 residential properties of which circa 350 are within the core village and the remaining 120-odd houses situated more remotely in the surrounding rural countryside. The proposed development would therefore increase the residential stock in Langham Moor and Wick from 350 houses to 1260 houses, representing a growth ratio of 360% in housing stock.
The corresponding population growth ratio would almost certainly exceed 400%. The existing limited local village facilities will be totally overwhelmed by this level of population growth. These existing facilities (Community Centre, volunteer-run Community Shop, Pre-School, Recreation Ground and Children’s Play Area)) are all located along School Road outside the northern boundary of the proposed development.
Any provision of alternative new more centrally located facilities would inevitably disrupt and threaten the ongoing viability of these current facilities.
Comparing draft policies PP9 (North-East Colchester, 2,000 homes) and PP37 (Langham, 900 new homes) it becomes clear that there are no plans to build a new local centre in Langham, whereas in NE Colchester, policy PP9 para d) proposes “Provision of a new local centre to serve the new and existing local community, this may include provision of retail, commercial and community facilities at an appropriate scale, relevant to the role and function of a local centre and the communities it is intended to serve”.
This absence of any suitable local centre in Langham will exacerbate the existing high car dependency within the village: for work commuting, school runs, shopping access, healthcare access and other services access.

CCC’s February 2025 Transport Evidence Report recognises the following NPPF mandated key transport principles:

PRIORITISING SUSTAINABLE MODES: The NPPF encourages planning decisions that prioritise walking, cycling, and public transport over car travel

REDUCING RELIANCE ON CARS: Developments should be designed to minimise the need for car travel by locating them close to existing services, amenities, and transport infrastructure

IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY: New developments should be well-connected to public transport networks, cycle lanes, and pedestrian routes

ADDRESSING TRAVEL DEMAND: Planning applications should assess the potential transport impacts of the development and propose measures to mitigate any negative effects Addressing Travel Demand: Planning applications should assess the potential transport impacts of the development and propose measures to mitigate any negative effects.

The does not meet the test of any of the above principles.

The development will not only impact Langham negatively; it will have an adverse effect on setting of adjacent Dedham Vale National Landscape where one third of the land area of Langham Parish sits within the Dedham Vale National Landscape, and the proposed site sits within 400m of the boundary on the eastern side, and within 800m of the boundary on the northern side.
Another point on unsuitability is the Boxted airfield. The proposal is incompatible with NPPF (para 111f) requirement for Planning policies to recognise the importance of maintaining a national network of general aviation airfields in accordance with the Government’s General Aviation Strategy.

Of interest is the work undertaken by Newmark for CCC that states as a site strength that “Minimal abnormal costs identified” and “National Highways have expressed no concerns”. Noting the many very real infrastructure issues this statement from Newmark strongly suggests a lack of due diligence in their strategic site assessment.

The development plan propose to building 900 properties thereby trebling the size of Langham. With an estimate of 2 adults and 1 child this will put impossible pressures on the current sewage system and highways. Growth that Langham cannot absorb. Inadequate bus service, the village roads not fit for current purpose, senior schools miles away, small primary school, no doctors and little employment. The time has come for the Council to issue a detailed plan as to how these issues are to be addressed with the sources of required capital clearly stated.

ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE

There will be a loss of 40 hectares of prime Grade 2 agricultural land
Colchester City council appears not to publish or track any statistics about agricultural land use shares and trends across its area, which is disappointing in the national context of monitoring trends in UK food production security (eg. The UK Food Security Index introduced by DEFRA in 2024).

Severing of a recognised wildlife habitat corridor including rare bat species, nightingales and skylarks
Roughly half of the proposed development site sits within various Strategic Opportunities areas designated in the Greater Essex Local Nature Recovery Strategy.
Ecological surveys undertaken for recent small developments adjacent to the proposed large new development site have identified and observed 5 different bat species, nightingales, skylarks and badgers among other species. The mature hedgerows running through the site provide extensive habitat support, and whilst it is proposed to retain most or all of these hedges, the habitat disruption both during construction and afterwards (when the hedgerow habitats will have become fragmented and disconnected) will be severe.
Increased effluent pollution damage to Black Brook and downstream River Stour .

At a February 2024 public meeting in Langham (attended by our MP) Anglian Water formally confirmed that the Langham sewerage catchment area suffered from extreme levels of groundwater infiltration. The worst in their entire network in fact, barring a handful of low-lying catchments in the Norfolk Broads. As a result, wet weather periods lead to hydraulic overload causing sewage flooding incidents both in Langham village and at the WRC itself, where overflows pass directly into the Black Brook without going through all the treatment tanks.
APPENDIX 6: LANGHAM WRC COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT provides an example of this, in a report issued by the Environment Agency following a routine inspection visit in December 2023.
The Black Brook water quality was tested in September 2025 as part of the Great UK Water Blitz citizen science program, at a location some 800m downstream of the WRC discharge point. The results showed very high levels of nitrate (5-10 mg/L) and phosphate (0.2-0.5mg/L) pollution. This is highly suggestive of human sewage pollution from the WRC (given that the upstream Black Brook does not sit close to many agricultural fields subject to fertiliser run-off).
The Black Brook is a tributary of the River Stour, which it connects to in Dedham, very close to a water abstraction zone (SPZ1)

I object to this proposal as a direct neighbour of the proposed site. The position of our property is metres from one of the proposed access roads. The increase in traffic that we have already seen over 25 years is an accident waiting to happen in our village. The Langham Parish Council response covers all the points that I as a member of the community am concerned about and we as residents have already experienced major issues over a number of years from the lack of sewerage and drainage provision in Langham.

THERE WILL BE CONSIDERABLE HARM TO EXISTING COMMUNITY, HERITAGE AND NATIONAL LANDSCAPE

Disproportionate growth does not allow for the existing community to evolve, adapt and integrate. It will instead be disrupted and largely destroyed. It will not just be a case of adding 900 new homes to an infrastructure that is already in place and that is adequate or scalable to cater for the new demand. Such an infrastructure does not exist.
Substantial population growth in Langham will render the current services completely inadequate such that new facilities will be required, both bigger than existing, but also of a wider range.
The new development will not be part of the village per se but would be an urban sprawl alongside the village with serious logistical issues about joining the two into one cohesive community. Partial services on each side of the divide seeking to provide a complete services solution for Langham would lead to accessibility issues leading to increased traffic on the village roads as the option of walking being unattractive.
The outcome for residents is the erosion of rural village life, a loss of identity, and the introduction of hardship for elderly, less physically mobile, or residents without access to vehicles unable to access basic needs.

These central farmland sites form the historic landscape core of the village, separating Langham Moor and Langham Wick and providing the open rural sense of place that frames historic lanes and listed buildings. This land has shaped Langham’s identity since the Middle Ages . Development of this scale would fundamentally alter the landscape form, character, and rural identity of the village, conflicting with NPPF 130, 135.

The proposed allocation would urbanise the parish, introducing a town-sized block visible from School Road, Park Lane, Moor Road, Wick Road, and multiple footpaths. Long-established hedgerows, historic field boundaries, and traditional field patterns would be lost or subordinated. Continuous built form, engineered roads, and street lighting would intrude into a tranquil, open landscape and into views toward the Dedham National Landscape, Langham sitting in the setting of the protected landscape, contrary to NPPF 130–135, 191.

The footpaths crossing and surrounding PP37/PP38 are well-used and highly valued for recreation, rural tranquillity, and connection to the historic village core. Development here would erode the sense of place and diminish community enjoyment, conflicting with NPPF 130.

PP37 and PP38 lie within the historic airfield landscape, extending north to the USA air force
Station 150 Monument and south to the Boxted Air Museum. Together, these sites form a single historic heritage landscape. Development would harm the setting of these assets, compromise the historic understanding and experience of the airfield, and intrude into visual corridors across the parish, in conflict with NPPF 130–135, 200–209. The Monument and historical timeline information board is where respect to the American airmen who died in WW2, while based at the internationally famous Station150, is paid annually on Remembrance Day. It is a peaceful spot, chosen as a convenient resting place for footpath walkers and because it sits symbolically by the main runway of the airfield from which young men took off to risk their lives. Langham was host to thousands of American servicemen in WW2 and the Monument and its environs are precious both to the people of Langham and to the descendants of Americans who served at Station 150.
From the end of WW2 to the present day there have been frequent visits to the Monument by American families thus reinforcing the intrinsic value of this ‘undesignated ’site. (Para 201, 208- 209).

The northern extremities of Station 150’s main runway and perimeter track extended across Park Lane into PP37, which therefore forms a single entity with the remainder of the old airfield, now farmed land, south of Park Lane. The significance of this airfield landscape must be assessed and considered.

The Draft Plan provides no landscape-led or heritage evidence to support these allocations. There is no Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, historic landscape character assessment, settlement pattern study, tranquillity analysis, or landscape capacity assessment. Without this proportionate evidence, the allocations fail the tests of soundness required by NPPF para 35.

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.

Broader context of decision to build up to 900 dwellings on proposed site:
The proposals are contrary to the strategic aims of the Carbon Budget and Growth Delivery Plan. The percentage of new developments in rural areas increased from 17.5% in 2009–11 to 26.0% in 2021–23, containing the most car-dependent housing. New dwellings in rural areas in the East of England account for some of the highest increases year-on-year since 2009 (41.4% in 2021-2023)* CCC’s proposals reference an unqualified aim to “securing active travel links and connections to the settlement”.
*New Economics Foundation.
https://neweconomics.org/2024/11/trapped-behind-the-wheel

LACK OF PLAN WITH FUNDING PROPOSALS TO DELIVER ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES
In Langham there is a longstanding and well documented problem of overloaded sewage treatment works and sewer network. In September 2017, Colchester Borough Council, Anglian Water and the Environment Agency signed a Joint Position Statement following the publication of the December 2016 Water Cycle Study. This report recommended that new housing growth needed to be phased in line with infrastructure improvements to ensure that Langham WRC could provide the increased capacity required. In practice, no such infrastructure improvements have been implemented over the 8 years since then, and as a result the 80 Langham homes included in the current Local Plan have stalled with only 23 of the homes being built so far.
Properties in Langham have suffered internal sewage flooding in 2016 and again in 2024, and three public meetings have been held in Langham between 2022 and 2024, with Anglian Water and our MP in attendance on each occasion. Our MP wrote to the CEO of Anglian Water in February 2024 requesting urgent remedial action, but to no avail.
It has since become apparent (and has been confirmed in the new Water Cycle Study) that Anglian Water have no strategic investment plans for Langham WRC between now and 2050.

There is NO credible and costed plan to deliver a legally compliant sewage treatment facility for any new homes, let alone over 1,100 homes (including the Boxted draft allocation of 150 and the unbuilt 57 homes from the current Local Plan)
Anglian Water’s current Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan (published in May 2023 on a five yearly refresh cycle) confirms that there are no short medium, or long term upgrade plans for Langham WRC through the entire designated strategic planning timeframe right out to 2050.
There is NO serious plans to resolve this showstopper identified anywhere within Colchester City Councils’ Evidence Base for the draft new Local Plan. Newmark’s strategic site viability assessment notes that “Extra sewage infrastructure will be required on site due to limited existing capacity; Anglian Water will require an onsite solution.”
This statement is seriously ill-informed. The Environment Agency have confirmed in writing to Langham Parish Council that onsite sewage solutions are never permitted for developments of more than a handful of houses. This position is also clearly stated in the EA’s Foul Drainage assessment form FDA1.
There is NO credible and costed plan to deliver essential local road safety upgrades to support road traffic growth.
Colchester City Council’s infrastructure project schedule spreadsheet (Appendix A to the infrastructure audit and delivery plan stage 3 Report Updated) contains no identified highways upgrade projects associated with the strategic Langham site.
This is a serious oversight. A number of significant upgrades will certainly be required, starting with the A12 northbound exit from the A12 into Park Lane. This is an unnumbered junction which involves a sharp turn of approximately 110 degrees into a narrow country lane (Park Lane), cutting across the exit lane from the Shell petrol station onto the northbound main A12 dual carriageway. This means that traffic exiting the A12 into Langham via Park Lane is already very dangerous as the same stretch of road that is used for decelerating traffic from the A12 competing with accelerating traffic from the petrol station and crossing each other. The 110 degree turn is already a highly dangerous junction, subject to at least two accidents in recent years, where cars leaving the A12 have failed to make the turn successfully and have crashed into the Langham property closest to the A12. We understand that a Starbucks is planned to be constructed at the petrol station site. This will substantially increase the volume of traffic involved in this dangerous manoeuvre further adding to the overall increase in traffic should this development proceed. As a result of these issues this junction will need a major re-design and be massively upgraded to improve road safety with the dramatic increase in local traffic entering Langham.
Traffic entering the village from the southbound A12 carriageway turns immediately along Birchwood Road to a T junction Birchwood Road/Wick Road which is a small village junction with parked cars and vans restricting view in all directions. Which such a massive increase in population this would become a busy and inadequate junction. Upgrade will be needed, which is likely impossible due to houses positioned all around it.
A more seriously dangerous junction is where the traffic from Birchwood Road/Wick Road turns right and meets the Wick Road/Park Lane junction. This junction is where the above mentioned traffic meets the traffic that has entered Park Lane from the A12 Northbound traffic that I have also already mentioned. This is already a dangerous junction where accidents have occurred previously. It is a very busy junction as traffic travelling north from Colchester up the A12 in the direction of Ipswich travel through Langham via Park Lane Park. It is a “rat run” especially at peak times. If the population of Langham is increased as suggested, and exiting on to Park Lane as planned, traffic on Park Lane will increase further, exacerbating the current position to the point of increased possibility of accidents, and potential traffic volume problems in the village. Speeding along Park Lane is also currently a serious problem. A major upgrade to this junction will be required at considerable cost.

Park Lane, Moor Road and School Road currently have limited pavement provision, and traffic growth associated with 900 new homes will make pavement provision essential on these roads bordering the new development site.

At the other end of the village there is likely to an issue at Park Lane/ Langham Lane as use of the junction substantially increases. As per other junctions in the village this is a small rural T junction not deigned to cope with the increased volumes that will ensue. This might also require an upgrade.

It would be inappropriate of me to mention the infamous damaged Severalls Lane bridge over the A12, which has remained unrepaired for over six years now since the introduction of single lane operation under traffic light control? This road provides the primary local distributor road connecting Colchester with Langham and Boxted, and it will not be able to cope with the increased traffic from over 1100 new homes. Langham lane is constantly in need of repair at its perimeters. It is not designed to cope with its current volume and type of vehicles. There are no verges, no lighting, and multiple potholes.

CCC promote greener travel, including bicycles. It is already very dangerous to cycle along Langham Lane to and from Colchester which renders cycling dangerous and not desirable at the present time, and it is highly unlikely that new residents would take that option with widening or general upgrade of the lane, which will lead to increased Langham/Colchester car traffic contrary to any green aspirations.

There is NO credible and costed plan to manage projected increased on the A12 and Ipswich Road traffic congestion arising from this draft strategic site allocation.
It is extremely unclear from the Transport and Further Transport Evidence reports whether or not the impact of 1100 new homes has been properly assessed in respect of congestion at A12 Junction 29 and the Ipswich Road leading into Colchester.

This proposal would triple the size of Langham, fundamentally altering its historic settlement pattern and community balance. This level of growth is not justified by proportionate evidence and risks severe social, environmental, and infrastructure harm. Existing road capacity is already under significant stress during overlapping school peak periods, with unsafe congestion on School Road. Public transport is infrequent and unreliable, and local services are at capacity. The policy fails to demonstrate that surface water management, foul drainage, and wastewater discharge can be delivered without unacceptable risk to flood resilience and the local river. PP37 is therefore not justified or effective.

In relation to justification and lauding oof the proposed housing development near the Park and Ride I found on CCC website a quote from Cllr Julie Young

“Too many families in Colchester are living in temporary accommodation or struggling to find a home that meets their needs. By bringing these plots to market, we’re taking a real step toward changing that. This is about using council-owned land to create homes that people can actually afford – homes that are close to jobs, schools, and transport links. Northern Gateway isn’t just a development site; it’s a chance to build a community where people feel secure, supported and connected to the rest of the city.”


The proposal development for Langham is

NOT CLOSE TO JOBS
NOT CLOSE TO SCHOOLS
NOT NEAR TO MEDICAL FACILITIES
NOT NEAR TO TRANSPORT LINKS - Langham is at least 8 miles from the city centre and approximately 6 miles from the major commuting railway link.
NOT CONNECTED TO THE CITY - FAR FROM IT -- Langham is at least 8 miles from the city centre and approximately 6 miles from the major commuting railway link.
WILL NOT BUILD A COMMUNITY - it will be a suburban imposition and destroyer of a small village

NON-COMPLIANCES WITH COLCHESTER CITY COUNCIL’s CLIMATE AND NET-ZERO GOALS

Designed-in car dependency will exacerbate carbon dioxide emissions
The typical UK personal carbon dioxide budget currently comprises 22% from personal transport, and 14% from home electricity and heating (the remaining components being 29% good & services, 17% food, 7% aviation, and 11% other).
Colchester City Council’s Feb 2025 Transport Evidence Report identifies Langham within one of Colchester’s two least sustainable MSOA(*) geographies (along with West Mersea). The Langham MSOA exhibits Colchester’s highest car transport mode share of 77.91% (compared with typical figures of 40-60% in the urban parts of Colchester).
(*: MSOA = Middle Layer Super Output Area, a medium–sized statistical geography used in transport planning and socio-economic research).
Building 910 new homes in Langham will likely add approaching 2,000 additional heavily used cars to the highest car-use MSOA (MSOA 001) in Colchester.

Mitigation projects to encourage Active travel will be expensive (if funded) and largely ineffective
The journey distances to Colchester Mainline Station (5.8 miles) and Manningtree Station (5.8 miles) are too great to encourage any modal shift to cycling, for rail commuters.
The shorter 2.8 miles journey distance to the northern end of Rapid Transit System may encourage some limited modal shift for commuting into Colchester, but only with provision of a dedicated and expensive cycleway connection that avoids the perilous current rat run along Langham Lane. Such a åascheme is proposed within the infrastructure project schedule, with an indicative cost of £9m and indicative timing of 2034-37, but with no funding secured and it is hard to imagine that such a scheme will prove cost effective, functionally effective and therefore deliverable in these timescales.

Any positive climate impacts of Net Zero homebuilding standards will be more than offset by negative climate impacts from increased road transport.
Colchester City Council’s net-zero policies exhibit a clear imbalance between home and transport measures to reduce Carbon dioxide emissions. Policies NZ1 and NZ2 demand expensive net zero homebuilding standards on the grounds that Building Regulations 2021 and Future Homes Standard 2025 “do not adequately address operational or embodied carbon emissions from new development…it therefore falls to the planning system to ensure new development addresses carbon emissions in a way that aligns with local and national climate targets.” But there is no correspondingly high ambition to properly address the more significant personal transport based carbon emissions, which actually generate a substantially larger contribution to overall carbon budgets. Colchester City Council’s net-zero policies are therefore clearly not optimised to address local and national climate targets effectively. They should be fundamentally reviewed to seek a more balanced approach.

Negative impacts will arise not only from the direct additional Langham traffic generation, but also increased emissions from extra congestion delays at the A12/A120 junction and the main Ipswich Road route into and out of Colchester (both of which will be heavily loaded by extra traffic emanating from a strategic Langham housing allocation).
All of Colchester City Council’s Transport Modelling work is indicative of worsening congestion problems in many areas of the City, including the A12/A120 junction and the Ipswich Road, even with ambitious modal shift programs. More congestion and travel delays means more carbon emissions.

NON-COMPLIANCES WITH NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF)
The draft Langham allocation aligns particularly poorly with the following NPPF 2024 paragraphs:
11a; 16a-c; 20a-d; 22; 35; 36b-d; 77; 92; 98; 100; 105; 108; 109; 110; 124; 129c-d; 132; 135c; 161; 187b; 189; 192; 198; 212; 213.

NPPF 11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan-making this means that: a) all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects;

NPPF 16. Plans should: a) be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development; b) be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable; c) be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between planmakers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators and statutory consultees.

NPPF 20. Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places (to ensure outcomes support beauty and placemaking), and make sufficient provision for: a) housing (including affordable housing), employment, retail, leisure and other commercial development; b) infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, security, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat); c) community facilities (such as health, education and cultural infrastructure); and d) conservation and enhancement of the natural, built and historic environment, including landscapes and green infrastructure, and planning measures to address climate change mitigation and adaptation.

NPPF 22. Strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15 year period from adoption, to anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and opportunities, such as those arising from major improvements in infrastructure. 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.

NPPF 35. Plans should set out the contributions expected from development. This should include setting out the levels and types of affordable housing provision required, along with other infrastructure (such as that needed for education, health, transport, flood and water management, green and digital infrastructure). Such policies should not undermine the deliverability of the plan.

NPPF 36. Local plans and spatial development strategies are examined to assess whether they have been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements, and whether they are sound. Plans are ‘sound’ if they are: b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence; d) Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

NPPF 77. The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities (including a genuine choice of transport modes). Working with the support of their communities, and with other authorities if appropriate, strategic policy-making authorities should identify suitable locations for such development where this can help to meet identified needs in a sustainable way.

NPPF 92. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites which are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale, so that opportunities to utilise suitable town centre or edge of centre sites are fully explored.

NPPF 98. To provide the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should: a) plan positively for the provision and use of shared spaces, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments; b) take into account and support the delivery of local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well-being for all sections of the community; c) guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs; d) ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise, and are retained for the benefit of the community; and e) ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.

NPPF 100. It is important that a sufficient choice of early years, school and post-16 places are available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should: a) give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter early years, schools and post-16 facilities through the preparation of plans and decisions on applications; and b) work with early years, school and post-16 promoters, delivery partners and statutory bodies to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.

NPPF 105. Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access, including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails.

NPPF 109. Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals, using a vision-led approach to identify transport solutions that deliver well-designed, sustainable and popular places. This should involve: a) making transport considerations an important part of early engagement with local communities; b) ensuring patterns of movement, streets, parking and other transport considerations are integral to the design of schemes, and contribute to making high quality places; c) understanding and addressing the potential impacts of development on transport networks; d) realising opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and changing transport technology and usage – for example in relation to the scale, location or density of development that can be accommodated; e) identifying and pursuing opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use; and f) identifying, assessing and taking into account the environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure – including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects, and for net environmental gains.

NPPF 110. The planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of these objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making.

NPPF 124. Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land.

NPPF 129. Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account: a) the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it; b) local market conditions and viability; c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use; d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and e) the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places.

NPPF 132. Plans should, at the most appropriate level, set out a clear design vision and expectations, so that applicants have as much certainty as possible about what is likely to be acceptable. Design policies should be developed with local communities so they reflect local aspirations, and are grounded in an understanding and evaluation of each area’s defining characteristics. Neighbourhood planning groups can play an important role in identifying the special qualities of each area and explaining how this should be reflected in development, both through their own plans and by engaging in the production of design policy, guidance and codes by local planning authorities and developers.

NPPF 135. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; 40 c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users51; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

NPPF 161. The planning system should support the transition to net zero by 2050 and take full account of all climate impacts including overheating, water scarcity, storm and flood risks and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.

NPPF 187. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate; d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures and incorporating features which support priority or threatened species such as swifts, bats and hedgehogs; e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.

NPPF 189. Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads. The scale and extent of development within all these designated areas should be limited, while development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas.

NPPF 192. To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: a) Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them; and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation; and b) promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.

NPPF 198. Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should: a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life72; 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.

NPPF 212. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

NPPF 213. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of: a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional; b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.
environment
Decarbonisation of the transport sector should be promoted and implemented

Non‑Deliverability of the Proposed Allocation
The proposed allocation contains numerous internal contradictions and unresolved constraints. Even if each issue were considered in isolation and theoretically capable of mitigation, the combined effect of these constraints creates a level of uncertainty that is fundamentally incompatible with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) definition of a deliverable site.
Under the NPPF, a site is only considered deliverable where it is available now, is in a suitable location for development, and where there is a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered within the next five years. This proposal fails to meet these criteria.
Significant barriers—including fragmented land ownership, operational constraints associated with the adjacent airfield, longstanding and unresolved foul drainage and sewage capacity issues, and unsafe or substandard junctions onto the A12—collectively undermine any realistic prospect of delivery within the required timeframe. These are not minor technical matters but fundamental constraints that have persisted for years without resolution.
Given the scale and persistence of these issues, it is difficult to see how the site could credibly be considered deliverable within five years. It would be prudent for the Council to acknowledge this at the plan‑making stage, rather than proceed on assumptions that are unlikely to withstand scrutiny. Doing so would avoid unnecessary expenditure of time, resources, and public money.

Commercial Viability Concerns
The strategic viability assessments prepared by Newmark on behalf of Colchester City Council rely heavily on generic, high level assumptions applied uniformly across all twelve strategic sites. These include standardised figures for S106 contributions per unit and broad-brush allowances for infrastructure and abnormal costs. Such an approach may be convenient at a strategic level, but it fails to reflect the substantial site specific constraints present at Langham.
Given the absence of detailed, site specific modelling, it is highly probable that key cost elements—particularly those relating to foul drainage upgrades, sewerage capacity, and necessary highways interventions—have been significantly underestimated. These are not optional enhancements but fundamental prerequisites for safe and sustainable development.
Compounding this issue is the lack of a Langham specific Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Without a clear, costed, and deliverable infrastructure strategy, it is impossible to demonstrate that the site is commercially viable or capable of supporting the level of development proposed.

EXTREME MISMATCH WITH LOCAL HOUSING NEEDS

Langham Parish Council’s professionally commissioned Housing Needs Survey and Housing Needs Assessment identify a genuine local requirement for only 60–120 new homes across the entire Local Plan period—nowhere near the 910 units proposed for the Langham allocation. The scale of development being suggested is therefore wholly disproportionate to locally evidenced need.
Given Langham’s significant price premium over urban Colchester, the “Langham910” would inevitably be marketed primarily to households relocating from London rather than meeting local demand. This would generate a large influx of long distance commuters, increasing car dependency and traffic pressures. Such an outcome does nothing to address Colchester City Council’s affordable housing challenges and risks exacerbating existing sustainability issues rather than resolving them.

Proposed development of 900 houses totally out of keeping with the character of Langham,
will treble the community and is non compliant with net zero policy of CCC and undeliverable under NPPF.

Sewage and surface water are an ongoing problem with constant flooding and sewage spillage in residents gardens.

Poor public transport services, no local doctor’s surgery, small primary school and distance travel to senior education.

Limited access to A12. Existing roads broken with lack of safe pavements and cycle paths.

Harm to the environment and habitat on agricultural land.

Danger to residents on flight path of local airfield.

I object to the proposed allocation of 900+ dwellings at Langham as it is unsustainable and contrary to Local Plan and NPPF principles. The narrow rural road network linking Langham to Colchester is not designed to accommodate the substantial increase in traffic this scale of development would generate, resulting in congestion, safety risks and the urbanisation of countryside roads. Public transport provision is inadequate, creating unacceptable car dependency. The development is disproportionate to the village, exceeds the capacity of local infrastructure and services, and would cause significant harm to the rural character, landscape, agricultural land and biodiversity.

CCC development criteria PP37: A (Housing needs and compatibility)
The LPC Housing Needs Assessment Report (November 2025) concludes: “Using the Governments Standard Method, the housing need figure for Langham is calculated to be around 7 or 8 homes per annum. Over a 15-year plan period, this equates to a need for between 107 and 125 new homes”. The CCC proposal represents an arbitrary figure to fulfil central government targets regardless of need. The addition of 900 homes would not be compatible with surrounding development.
https://www.langhamparishcouncil.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FINAL_HNAReport_November.pdf

As a Langham resident I attended the consultation meeting on January 7th.
I feel very strongly about the construction of 900 dwellings in our village and it was very enlightening to hear other people’s comments and feelings as well.

Having started the construction of some houses in the village a few years ago, work had to stop as our drains couldn’t cope, and without resolving this major problem of flooding how on earth would our sewerage system manage with another 900 houses?
It seems to me that this has not been thought through and other people at the meeting clearly felt the same.

The other problem regarding these 900 buildings which is very concerning are the roads in and around the village. Since I moved here in 2018 the roads have become much busier and are often used as a cut through for the A12. This is a small village. How will it cope with yet more vehicles? We often have to use our cars as the bus service is so sporadic.

I do hope you will give careful thought to our concerns before going ahead with these plans. The sewerage problem is of major concern to our residents and could rip out the heart of the village causing misery to many inhabitants.

This proposal would triple the size of Langham, fundamentally altering its historic settlement pattern and community balance. This level of growth is not justified by proportionate evidence and risks severe social, environmental, and infrastructure harm. Existing road capacity is already under significant stress during overlapping school peak periods, with unsafe congestion on School Road. Public transport is infrequent and unreliable, and local services are at capacity. The policy fails to demonstrate that surface water management, foul drainage, and wastewater discharge can be delivered without unacceptable risk to flood resilience and the local river. PP37 is therefore not justified or effective.