Strong indication to include equestrians due to the semi-rural and rural location of this site. Ensure provision of green infrastructure connections and recreational access to the countryside that includes equestrians. Horses stabled and ridden out at Langham. Close to Bridleway 20 Langham and Bridleway 40 Langham. Infrastructure must be designed as multi-user routes (MURs) to ensure inclusivity for all non-motorised users, at a minimum, to Bridleway status. MURs function as public highways and are best defined as restricted byways—open to pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists, and users of non-motorised vehicles—or as bridleways, which permit access for pedestrians, horse riders, and cyclists.

At (c) on the list of provisions there is reference "Impacts on the Strategic Road Network can be satisfactorily mitigated to the satisfaction of National Highways".
The two main links out of Langham are the Park Lane exit, and one that avoids using the A12 towards Colchester and Severalls business park is Langham Lane.
Langham Lane is already very busy. It is a narrow country lane that endures VERY REGULAR large agricultural vehicles all year round as Rix move their crops to Horkesley. Bus services use the country lane as do large HGV vehicles either avoiding the Ardleigh roundabout or most likely following their Sat Navs (quickest route) setting. The lane is already suffering great strain and wear & tear. It has an ongoing problem with the appearance and "repair" of potholes, usually at the edge of the carriageway as it crumbles under the weight of the large vehicles.

The potholes make the road extremely dangerous for cyclists, and liable to damaging domestic vehicles. Walking along the lane is almost unthinkable. Avoiding the potholes and likely vehicular damage causes drivers of vehicles to move inwards from the highway edge. This narrows the useable section of the highway and tends towards head on collisions. Heavy oncoming traffic makes avoidance of potholes more difficult at the point of passing such that to be safe vehicles slow down before the potholes and then drive around them when safe to do so.

The 900+ new homes will create a huge increase in the volumes of traffic such that all of the problems I have identified will be magnified.

The solution as I can see it is for a substantial upgrade of this lane. This would need to incorporate a full widening scheme, the installation of kerbs, possibly lighting, a cycle lane (to align with CCC stated ambitions on zero emissions) much of which will require CPO of land, replacement of "street furniture" and a massive redevelopment of the notoriously dangerous Runkin's Corner.
The A12 exit is not a proper junction (not even numbered), with a short deceleration lane and then 110 degrees turn into a narrow Park Lane. This will require a huge upgrade as Langham becomes a substantial conurbation. There are dangers currently with the short deceleration lane, which shares its space with an acceleration lane from the garage whilst also necessitating a lane switch between both conflicting traffic flows. This will be exacerbated soon with the development of a Starbucks on the garage site that will bring more use of the acceleration lane, thus increasing the danger. If we factor on top of the a quadrupling of the traffic turning into Park Lane due to the 900+ houses (likely double that amount in vehicles), this will potentially bring chaos to the junction and likely lead to increased number of accidents, injuries and possibly fatalities.

A responsible approach by CCC would be to completely redevelop the '"turning" into a proper junction - if there was space to do so, and if the Highways Authority gave permission. The cost would be very high and would likely involve CPO of local property. To not do so would be highly irresponsible. The likelihood is that it would not happen which then flies in the face of provision (c).

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.

This development would double the population of Langham village without providing any additional amenities or improving infrastructure to handling the increase in residents and traffic. Langham has a small primary school and no doctors surgery or even a proper shop. The pub is currently close for business. The public transport links to Colchester are infrequent. What is the council going to so to address this?

Furthermore, Langham is a rural community with an abundance of wildlife that would be threatened with a population increase of this nature, particularly with the 900 homes being built on farmland.

This is a poorly thought through plan and should be cancelled. Development old barracks in Colchester.

The housing growth allocated to Langham is not appropriate to the size of the settlement. The proposal to build 900 homes in the middle of the village would increase the number of homes by 360% from the current 350 to 1260. This is wholly disproportionate. Langham is classified as a medium sized settlement. Such growth would turn it into a large one.

The infrastructure in Langham cannot support this amount of housing. Langham is a rural community with limited infrastructure. The new houses would impact the community, nature and wildlife in a severely negative way.

I am registering my objection to the proposed plan of building 900 houses on agricultural land in the Centre of Langham.

This government and now local councils, such as Colchester Council, are building on agricultural land. We are an island nation hence importing food is expensive. We should be supporting our farmers and growing our own food, as we have done previously. With the precarious state the world is in at this time it is more important than ever we grow our own produce and, yet, Colchester Council is proposing building on agricultural land.

Surely infrastructure should be a primary thought when proposing large new builds such as the 900 proposed houses. The local surgeries are almost full to capacity and there is absolutely no way they would be able to accommodate approximately 4,000 new patients.

Roads in Langham are narrow and already subject to flooding. Colchester Council has not taken into consideration the prospect of further flooding, due to the 900 houses. Presumably the councillors, some of whom are people who live in our midst, and are aware of the devastation flooding has caused to affected Langham residents. Houses in Langham have in very recent times been flooded with the stricken residents having to move out. It is not acceptable for Colchester Council to ignore these facts, as flooding will happen again with residents' home and gardens destroyed, and they won't be able to get insurance. Unless Colchester Council are willing personally to reimburse residents who have to vacate their homes and, of course, pay for any further damage as they, Colchester Council, would have been aware of the flooding and sewerage when planning 900 new houses in Langham.

Last week in the EDP newspaper headlines stated homes had been flooded due to new houses being built.

Local ambulance services stated only this week, in our local paper, they are worried they wont be able to attend emergencies due to the huge number of new builds in the area, thus increasing numbers of residents.

Where would the children attend school? Our local schools are full to capacity. Would the children have to be driven in already congested roads to schools in the City, or other towns? Have Colchester Council taken this into consideration?

Again, Langham as suffered with sewerage problems for many years with residents affected. Surely Colchester Council are aware of this or, are they just brushing this under the carpet?

This proposed development of 900 houses is utter madness and certainly not thought through. Even before the ill thought out plan I find it hard to believe that Colchester Council (or at least some councillors) were not aware of the flooding and sewerage issues on Langham.

Yours faithfully

Patricia Eaton

I object to PP37 on the following grounds:

The proposal goes against the fundamental principles of the NPPF of sustainable and is in breach of many of Colchester council's own policies.

It does not meet the NPPF economics objective- it does not ensure provision of infrastructure, or housing in the right place to meet local needs- Langham doesn’t need this many houses in this local plan timeframe. Infrastructure is also a fundamental issue- the current sewage facilities are already over capacity and need significant upgrade for existing homes- let alone a quadrupling of the size of the village. This hasn’t been sufficiently considered or costed in the plan.

It does not meet the NPPF social objective- it will destroy the heritage of a small rural village. It is completely in breach of the Colchester City Council settlement hierarchy. The proposed growth is out of kilter for a medium settlement. Once the heritage and ethos of a rural village is destroyed- it is lost forever.

It does not meet the NPPF environmental objective. It is not an effective use of land to use high grade agricultural land for housing. Langham is a small community with limited facilities both currently and under the proposed plan - 900 houses will likely mean upwards of 1800 extra cars on the road as people drive to employment, GP appointments, shopping. This is contrary to the Colchester City Council’s Place Shaping Principles. When you also add in increased water pollution linked to the sewage issues noted above, this will move Colchester backwards in its drive for sustainability and net zero.

In addition to the key issues noted above, the following detrimental impacts are also important to flag
* The key roads around Langham have limited footpaths and limited scope for increasing footpath provisioning. This is already a safety risk for walkers which will be magnified by a 4x increase in local cars.
* Impact on wildlife- i regularly hear skylarks from my garden which are a species of high conservation concern due to declining numbers with habitat loss.

Overall the inclusion in the local plan of the proposed development of 900 houses in Langham is ill conceived and poorly considered and it would be an absolute travesty if the plan was taken forward in its current form.

Proposed development of 900 homes does not appear to support active and sustainable travel.
Planning guidelines suggest scheme should offer genuine choice of transport modes and provide attractive and well designed walking and cycling networks. There are no cycle routes to schools ,railway stations or shopping facilities proposed. Bus routes virtually non existent ,meaning frequent car use will be essential. Existing roads to facilities do not have any pavements, the site is in the country!

Guidelines suggest development should take into account the character of the immediate surroundings and the wider locality. Langham is a village of approx.450 dwellings built on a linear style around a rectangle of roads. Properties have gardens traditionally associated with village homes. Constructing 900 modern dwellings does not meet this criteria. Development should also be determined by the adequacy of the access and the local road network to accommodate the traffic likely to be generated. Clearly not the case

900 homes in Langham is undeliverable.CCC state that although Langham is close to the A12 any development needs to show access is safe and impact on local roads can be properly managed. There are very limited footpaths, no cycle routes and extremely limited bus services meaning car use will be essential. CCC state they are trying to reduce reliance on cars which makes this site totally inappropriate without massive infrastructure expenditure. Who will pay for this?
Waste disposal cannot possibly support development on the proposed scale.
Regularly used country footpaths will be destroyed and valuable agricultural land lost.

With approximately 450 dwellings Langham is a typical village. 900 houses would destroy the essential of village life, community. It represents a totally disproportionate development with totally unacceptable infrastructure . The traffic increase generated will cause problems, there are no cycle ways or paths to any amenities and new residents would have to travel by car to schools, shops and recreational activities. The few present local facilities would be inadequate. Footpaths, well used by dog walkers and ramblers will be lost and light pollution, not a problem at present, will inevitably affect the sense of living in a country village.

The current road infrastructure in Langham is insufficient to accommodate the likely increase of more than 1,800 additional vehicles associated with 900 new households, many of which would own multiple cars and receive frequent deliveries. My son is already unable to walk safely to the school bus on the A12, where we regularly encounter fast moving cars and HGVs from the slip road and through traffic heading for the A12. Traffic levels in Langham have risen markedly in recent years, and the minimal local bus provision leaves most residents with no practical alternative to car use.

The council appears not to have considered the substantial increase in HGV and plant machinery movements associated with the pylon works, which will affect this small village for several years. Adding 900 new homes creates a permanent and unsustainable rise in traffic, further compromising safety and quality of life. Proposed mitigations, such as hedgerow screening, would do little to preserve the village’s rural character amid such volumes of vehicles. Increased congestion will also lead to idling at junctions, heightening pollution and the associated health risks for residents.

Policy PP37 would substantially increase traffic at Junctions 27 and 28 of the A12, creating queues on the dual carriageway and increasing the risk of accidents. Stationary traffic on the A12 and the entire Northern Gateway would also obstruct ambulances travelling to and from the hospital, with potentially life threatening consequences. The additional pressure on surrounding routes - including Ipswich Road - as drivers attempt to reach Tesco and other nearby shops, would further exacerbate congestion. The overall impact would be severe, making everyday travel extremely difficult for residents not only in Langham but in the surrounding areas.

Surface water drainage concerns and the additional strain on Colchester’s already inadequate sewerage network provide further strong grounds for objection. Persistent sewerage issues over the past two decades have not been resolved despite extensive housebuilding and assurances that s106 funding will now address them lack credibility. Development continues while essential infrastructure remains insufficient.
Run off from surrounding fields is already significant in Langham, raising serious questions about where this water will go once large areas are built over. The limited green spaces proposed would be wholly inadequate to manage this.

It appears to me that reading your own policies, planning rules and regulations are being ignored, flouted and disobeyed. Little or no regard to the effects on the population of Langham of the very long awaited upgrade to the villages infrastructure, in particular the waste treatment plant.

My final objection relates to the environmental impact on some of Langham’s public footpaths and the loss of the countryside views that would result from such extensive development. These footpaths play an important role in supporting residents’ physical activity, mental health, and overall wellbeing.

CCC development criteria PP37: B (Safe and suitable site access) and C (Impacts on Strategic Road Network)
CCC proposals would significantly increase traffic flow with a potential addition of up to 2000 vehicles. Approximately 75% of residents in NE Essex drive to work*. Assuming the proposals are aimed at attracting a broader working age demographic from outside the Colchester area (including 30% affordable housing) CCC proposals will have a de facto negative impact on the A12 which is already exceeding capacity.**
* Essex Transport Strategy, Implementation Plan: North East Essex.
** https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/east/

We are a rural village, the infrastructure cannot cope, our village will become a town, traffic along our lanes will increase, the lane in Park Lane is dangerous now and cannot take an increase.

Our wildlife, birds, deers etc will disappear.

No schools, go surgery, or shops.

Protect our village don’t ruin it.

900 is grossly excessive. You're not going to get many more kids in the primary school without finding it a new site. The few footways we have need widening (especially the stretch between community centre and school) and we could do with a crossing from that to the side the school is on. There is currently no footway on either Moor Road or Park Lane to ensure pedestrian safety with increased traffic volumes. Sewerage obviously necessary to go on this plan. Water supply is also worth considering since this last week Anglian water have been digging up Moor Road in 2 places after mains leaks.

What amount of affordable housing and what type will you be stipulating to developer?
Discovery way has not been particularly successful so how will you ensure further developments are?
The community shop you mention is not sufficient for the needs of that many residents. It is a volunteer run shop and post off services are unreliable. Any significant development will require provision for a shop that will run as a business providing paid work opportunities to the community.

Langham lane is already crumbling due to traffic volumes far exceeding what it was designed for and will require redesign and reinforcement.

Walkers/cyclist are particularly vulnerable along Langham Lane which is the route one must take to join up with cycle routes at Northern Gateway.

Buses are infrequent and there have been issues with getting children to surrounding schools. Has consideration been made for where this population will be attending secondary school?

CCC development criteria PP37:H, I, J (Onsite BNG measures and screening) and Policy ST2: Environment and the Green Network and Waterways
“CCC Proposals must have regard to delivering the aims and objectives of the Essex Local Nature Recovery Strategy” The proposals do not specify an absolute minimum BNG target for any future planning applications which may be further weakened by future legislation. CCCs proposals state that any” development is sensitively integrated into the landscape to reflect and reinforce rural character” The addition of 900 homes will transform Langham into a semi-urban area and effectively obliterate its current rural character.

I strongly support all of Langham Parish Councils objections and reasons for these objections in every way.
Langham is already having to deal with the Pylons situation, the roads into ,out of the village and roads within the village would not cope with pressure of this scale. Langham is a small village with infracture that is already inadequate and suffers from flooding and sewage overflows.
The planned proposal would destroy our village.

The addition of 900 homes in the very centre of a rural village is not compatible or needed.
The proposed site is good farmland and access is restricted to narrow country roads.Transport is limited and using cars at least as far as the park and ride a necessity
We already have a sewerage discharge problem which has resulted in several homes being flooded.
Anglian water cannot afford an upgrade on the existing system let alone provision for a new estate. Any alternative system would not deal with the rise in water levels which our existing stream cannot cope with.

I strongly disagree with policy PP37, this is for a number of reasons but the key one is infrastructure, mainly the lack of sewage/drainage for not only this development but also the ones already agreed. Its is clear that there is no sound financial plans in place to create the required infrastructure. The idea that this money would come from the developers is unrealistic as you would be looking at 40K in S106 money from each property sold, the average currently is 7.5k. I’m not against all Developement but it has to be sustainable and measurered.

CCC development criteria PP37: F, G (capacity for managing wastewater and risk reduction on WRC capacity).
Langham’s WRC has regularly operated above its current DWF permit and has the worst groundwater infiltration rates in their entire estate of ~1100 WRC catchments* Anglian Water’s investment timetable precludes sufficient improvement to meet demand from the proposed development and developers would therefore have to rely on a NAV provider and a large water storage basin to regulate surface water discharge rates. This will further negatively impact on the existing landscape and pose an inherent risk of failure due to climate change.
* Langham-Sewerage-Services-Report_v4.

I object to the Langham 900 plan as it is unsuitable for the area. Small country lanes cannot carry all the traffic which such a large number of houses would generate. no health care facilities in the immediate area and cars will be needed to access everything that the new residents will need.not reasonable to say that people will walk or cycle as distances are too great. No secondary schools near, the primary school has no capacity. Only a small village shop which won't be able to supply the extra demands of 900 new households. Will destroy the village life

Re:surface water flooding
I object to PP37 on the grounds of surface water and flood risk. The central farmland site of PP37 contributes to natural drainage and infiltration within the village and surrounding countryside. Replacing this area with impermeable surfaces for housing would increase runoff and downstream flood risk as well as risk to surrounding roads. The Draft Local Plan does not provide evidence that sustainable drainage systems could mitigate these impacts. The allocation therefore fails to meet national planning policy on flood risk management and is unsound and is contrary to para 175 of NPPF. There is a Designated flood plain on corner of Moor Rd/Chapel Rd which always shows up on ‘searches’ during property transactions. Presently, even minimal pressure on the sewage system or very wet weather threatens our properties. Our garden has flooded twice with front garden raw sewage being deposited.

Education
In its current form, the proposed allocation of any large scale development in Langham is unsound in education terms. It fails to meet the NPPF requirement (para. 34 as well as paras 20-22) in that the draft Local Plan fails to assess school place capacity or plan for growth, or the associated
costings, so it does not ensure that development is supported by adequate education infrastructure.
This undermines the plan soundness and sustainability. Essex County Council have a 10 year programme and are financially committed to building new schools elsewhere within that ten year period. If PP37 were to go ahead then the extra children generated by 900 new dwellings would need to travel out of Langham thus further exacerbating car dependancy.
Unless the plan is modified to include clear, funded, and deliverable educational provision, the 900 dwelling allocation should not be proposed.

Landscape and Footpaths
The central farmland between Langham Moor and Langham Wick forms the village’s historic rural core, (it’s not an infill site) and large-scale development would fundamentally damage its landscape character and rural identity. It would urbanise open countryside, harm long views toward the Dedham National Landscape, and degrade numerous well-used footpaths—I belong to a walking group and regularly use these footpaths. The proposals would also harm the historic airfield landscape and the setting of the Station 150 Monument. With no supporting evidence, the allocations conflict with key NPPF paragraphs 35, 130–135, 191, and 200–209 and are therefore unsound.