Sustainability and Spatial Strategy
I object to PP37 because the allocation conflicts with the spatial strategy for Colchester and fails sustainability tests. Placing a strategic site of 900 dwellings in a small rural village would result in a car-dependent development due to limited local services and public transport. This contradicts the Local Plan's settlement hierarchy and national policy promoting sustainable, well-located growth. There is no evidence that this location can accommodate development in a way that reduces reliance on private vehicles, making the allocation unsound and is contrary to NPPF 11

Lack of Air Quality Monitoring
Langham DLP is unsound because it lacks site-specific air-quality evidence for Langham. Under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, the Council must review air quality where people live. Colchester’s monitoring network (2023 ASR, Appendix D) focuses on central Colchester and urban AQMAs, with no diffusion tubes or automatic monitors in Langham or alongside the A12. Without local monitoring or validated dispersion modelling, impact of 900 dwellings on NO₂ and PM₂.₅ exposure cannot be assessed. This fails NPPF 2024 paras 7–8, 96–108. The Plan should require Langham monitoring or site-specific modelling before allocating housing.

Sewerage Capacity
I am a resident of Langham Moor. The sewerage works is working above its permit allowed by Environment Agency and the present Colchester draft Local Plan Celts states that upgraded infrastructure should be in place before further occupation of new dwellings is allowed. The village’s existing sewage pipes are in desperate need of upgrading - my front garden has been flooded twice with raw sewage because of the inferior sewage system. Colchester’s Water Cycle Study (2025) refers to the potential for “inset providers” to deliver wastewater infrastructure for PP37 outside Anglian Water’s service area, but provides no evidence such solutions are feasible /deliverable. My research identifies no comparable housing development on the scale of PP37 where this has occurred. The only example cited nationally is Ebbsfleet, a purpose-planned new town discharging to the Thames, not to a small rural watercourse such as the Black Brook! Existing sewer overflows already affect my property, and the addition of 900 dwellings risks exacerbating what is already an acute & unresolved problem

We hold various events on the airfield site. Some of these include visiting aircraft and some displays. The field for the proposed 900 homes is on the approach flight line these aircraft would use. The original main runway went over Park Lane and into this field. Our Museum promotes the heritage of this important site and we receive visitors from all over the world. A grass runway adjacent to Park Lane is used for visiting aircraft to take off and land. This proposal would seriously affect this activity.

I agree with all the reasoned objections being submitted by Langham Parish Council against PP37. There are many reasons why such a development wouldn’t work, including but not limited to inadequate infrastructure for sewage, health, education, transportation, road/pedestrian access, limited local facilities, noise/light pollution in village centre, and significant environmental/ecological impact on wildlife, farming, local community. This proposal fails to address NPPF and Colchester Council’s guidelines on Spatial Strategy, Vision, Infrastructure Delivery, Impact Mitigation and Conservation/Heritage. Simply put, Langham isn’t suitable for such a large development and the necessary funding/drive to correctly implement this will be very difficult to secure.

I agree with all the reasoned objections being submitted by Langham Parish Council against PP37. There are many reasons why such a development wouldn’t work, including but not limited to inadequate infrastructure for sewage, health, education, transportation, road/pedestrian access, limited local facilities, noise/light pollution in village centre, and significant environmental/ecological impact on wildlife, farming, local community. This proposal fails to address NPPF and Colchester Council’s guidelines on Spatial Strategy, Vision, Infrastructure Delivery, Impact Mitigation and Conservation/Heritage. Simply put, Langham isn’t suitable for such a large development and the necessary funding/drive to correctly implement this will be very difficult to secure.

I agree with all the reasoned objections being submitted by Langham Parish Council against PP37. There are many reasons why such a development wouldn’t work, including but not limited to inadequate infrastructure for sewage, health, education, transportation, road/pedestrian access, limited local facilities, noise/light pollution in village centre, and significant environmental/ecological impact on wildlife, farming, local community. This proposal fails to address NPPF and Colchester Council’s guidelines on Spatial Strategy, Vision, Infrastructure Delivery, Impact Mitigation and Conservation/Heritage. Simply put, Langham isn’t suitable for such a large development and the necessary funding/drive to correctly implement this will be very difficult to secure.

I agree with all the reasoned objections being submitted by Langham Parish Council against PP37. There are many reasons why such a development wouldn’t work, including but not limited to inadequate infrastructure for sewage, health, education, transportation, road/pedestrian access, limited local facilities, noise/light pollution in village centre, and significant environmental/ecological impact on wildlife, farming, local community. This proposal fails to address NPPF and Colchester Council’s guidelines on Spatial Strategy, Vision, Infrastructure Delivery, Impact Mitigation and Conservation/Heritage. Simply put, Langham isn’t suitable for such a large development and the necessary funding/drive to correctly implement this will be very difficult to secure.

Over allocation of housing destroys small, strong community.
Previous housing plans still not viable due to lack of sewage provision.
Those built not sold. Those planned not built.
Delivery of pylons and undergrounding proposed for next 5 years will dramatically increase traffic flows making any other building work unsustainable.
Proposal means extra cars make the existing road network untenable. Already overused whenever the A12 is congested.
Local environmental amenities would suffer irreparable damage through overuse. Bordering ANOB Langham provides a beautiful edge to the Vale, that would be over urbanised by this proposal.
This should remain a small, rural village.

I object for the following reasons:-
1. Proposed growth is disproportionate to the existing community, infrastructure and amenities.
2. There will be an increase in car dependency as there are no plans to increase existing provisions.
3. Lack of funding for essential infrastructure upgrades e.g. current overloaded sewage treatment works and sewer network. Anglian Water have no strategic investment plans between now and 2050, the current housing development of 80 has stalled due to this issue. Current pollution damage into Black Brook and River Stour would increase.
4. Loss of land serving existing wildlife habitat corridor and rural openness.

I disagree with policy PP37, the reasons are the infrastructure, mainly the water/sewage also the roads are damaged enough round there without more traffic etc. I’m not against any house building but all these things need to be taken into consideration before these properties are considered.

Langham is not set up to support an additional 900 homes into the village; the infrastructure is just not there. We do not have pathways, streetlighting, effective public transport links and amenities to meet the additional needs of circa 2000 + people and cars.
I fully support LPC’s objections and reasons for those objections in full and we hope that full consideration is given to the issues raised as they are non-compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

I object to the proposed plan for 910 new houses for Langham. I completely agree with the response report submitted by Langham Parish Council. I have attended all meetings and I fully support their response and objection. The issues in question are:
Poor road access, major sewerage/drainage problems already in existence, environmental impact, lack of facilities ie. school, shops, GP surgery transport links, inadequate funding to deliver essential infrastructure; harm to existing community and national landscape; breaches to NPPF policies by CCC.
CCC have not taken into consideration all the issues stated above.

900 new homes will overwhelm the existing community at Langham. The scale of the allocation should be reconsidered so as to maintain growth at sustainable levels.

PP37 should require a masterplan for the village, indicating connectivity and the facilities necessary to integrate the new community with the existing one.

PP37 para f should be strengthened to require new wastewater treatment capacity with full planning permission and funding in place before any permission is granted.

I strongly object to the proposal to build 910 homes off Park Lane in the village of Langham. The area is unsuitable for major housing growth due to poor transport connections. There is a limited bus service to and from the village meaning any new households will be dependent on cars for all their work and leisure needs so putting enormous strain on the local environment. The village has an already overloaded sewage treatment works and sewer network which led to the curtailing of a previous housing development midway through. The village school is unable to extend its capacity.

Langham is a relatively small village and has good local community spirit. The villagers live here because they have chosen to live in a small community. Building 900 houses would more than quadruple the housing in the immediate area and completely change the nature of the village and its community. It would turn the village into a town. We don't have and do not wish to have more schools or a doctor's surgery and other infrastructure that would come with this huge development. 900 houses would bring a population of between 2000 and 3000 people. It is quite unfair and unacceptable to impose this on us.

Lack of specific detail on how the major infrastructure requirements will be delivered and paid for.

A development of 900 dwellings requires extensive highway works, sewage and drainage provision, utility reinforcement, school expansion, and other services. The plan is relying on various agencies to fund this expenditure but no formal commitments have been given. Where is the evidence that Anglia Water, The Highways Agency, Essex CC, for example, will make budgetary provision for the necessary expenditure?
The Draft Local Plan’s most recent evidence shows a £55m profit for developers.
S106 load would make a massive dent in the £55m developer profit modelled in CCC's viability assessment for PP37 dated October 2025, (but not released until after the 2nd November Local Plan Committee). The essential infrastructure S106 burden has not been quantified by CCC but would be so high that the extra costs per dwelling, added because of this, would probably render PP37 not a viable proposition for developers.
The Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment (WPVA) fails to provide site-specific S106 costs. Without precise developer contributions for education, highways, flood mitigation, sewage infrastructure upgrade and community infrastructure it is impossible to verify whether the 900-dwelling allocation is financially viable. The WPVA’s assumptions are generic and indicative, and actual obligations could render the site undeliverable. This lack of transparency undermines the plan’s soundness, contrary to NPPF paras 14–22, which require development to be deliverable and supported by adequate infrastructure. Until S106 costs are clearly evidenced, the PP37 allocation is unsound.

The proposal seeks to increase the number of houses in the core of the village by 360% from 350 to 1250 and, given the low occupancy of some of the current homes, the population by 400% at a conservative estimate. This would increase the size of the village from a medium to a very large one, bordering on the size of a small town. This is completely disproportionate with the size of the existing village and its future housing needs.
The local infrastructure is inadequate to meet these increased demands. The 81 bus service to Colchester runs 6 times a day, Mondays to Saturdays at roughly 2 hourly intervals. The first bus into Colchester is at 07.43 and the last bus back arrives at 18.03. The 93 bus to Ipswich is a skeletal service. It is accessed from the northbound A12 slip lane at the end of Park Lane. There is no pavement nor lighting on Park Lane to provide safe pedestrian access to it. There is no southbound bus stop in Langham for return journeys.
The roads around Langham are narrow, winding and heavily used by agricultural and commercial traffic. There are no pavements, cycle ways nor lighting. The train stations at Colchester and Manningtree are both 5.8 miles away. Therefore, Langham residents are heavily dependent on car use to commute and to access health and retail facilities.
All these factors contradict the NPPF and CCC policies of prioritising walking and cycling over car travel, minimising the need for car travel and ensuring that new developments are well connected to transport networks, cycle lanes and pedestrian routes.
Newmark, in their site assessment report for CCC, state "that minimal abnormal costs have been identified" and that "National Highways have expressed no concerns". Have they told National Highways about the extra 900 homes proposed for this site? The current junction onto the A12 northbound is little more than a "T" junction, positioned just round a long bend in the A12 and adjacent to the exit from a petrol station. It is difficult to believe that it would be suitable for a significant increase in traffic. The costs of improvements to transport infrastructure alone would be significant.
The proposed housing estate is directly underneath the flight path of Boxted Airfield which is located on land south of Park Lane. Would the Civil Aviation Authority regard this as safe? This is NOT a theoretical question. On two separate occasions light aircraft have damaged power cables lining the north side of Park Lane,. On the first occasion, in August 2003, the cables fell onto the field where the proposed housing estate would be located and caused a fire which Essex Fire Service attended to extinguish. On the second occasion, in the summer of 2005, the power cables fell onto the road causing its closure by Essex Police and significant traffic disruption.
The existing water treatment works cannot cope with the demands of the village as it is at present. Anglian Water told a public meeting attended by many of us from the village and our MP, Sir Bernard Jenkin, that the water table in Langham is exceptionally high (only two places in the Anglian Region are higher, both in the Norfolk Broads catchment). The discharges into the Black Brook which takes the overflow from the current treatment works have exceeded Environmental Agency maximum levels in 8 out of the last 11 years. Anglian Water have no plans to increase capacity at the Langham works until at least 2050. The provision of a type of sewage treatment site in the corner of the proposed development site is unacceptable on 3 grounds: firstly, waste water from the site would still discharge in to the Black Brook, secondly, it would reach the Black Brook only via a ditch along the north of the site which has no fall on it to drain it readily into the Brook and is invariably, as now, overgrown with brambles, scrub and obstructed with rubbish; thirdly, the Environment Agency only permits treatment works on housing estates of 20 properties or less.
It should be noted that these are not theoretical risks. On two occasions in the last decade properties at the junction of Moor Road and Chapel Road have been flooded with raw sewage from the backed up Black Brook and properties on Chapel have had their gardens and drives flooded by raw sewage.
The proposed development fails to meet many of CCC's criteria.
As a medium sized settlement Langham is being allocated a housing development nearly as large as the 3 large settlement areas combined (900 against 1260) and 5% of the whole of Colchester's allocation. The proposed development fails on transport sustainability grounds. Environmental concerns have been ignored and are very real. The cost of providing infrastructure would seem to challenge the viability of the proposal. It would destroy the village, not maintain its "distinctive character...respect the character and appearance of landscapes.., enhance the historic environment" as set out in policy ST3.

a) 900 new homes would quadruple the size of the existing village in what is a very rural location. This would be likely to increase the population of the Parish from around 1250 to nearly 5000. Whilst there is a need for more housing across Colchester there is not an evidenced need in the Parish for that many properties.
b) Park Lane is a country lane which is not designed to meet the demand of an additional 900 houses. The road is in a poor state of repair with frequent potholes due to a lack of curbing at the edge and limited funds for repairs. The road is relatively narrow and with existing traffic flows is quite dangerous. There are no footways for pedestrians and as a dark village there is no street lighting. Where Park Lane meets Moor Road and Langham Lane the junction remains dangerous with very poor visibility on an already rat run carrying significant traffic. Highways do not currently maintain the lining leading to cars exiting Langham Lane onto Park Lane cutting the corner. Perhaps a roundabout should be provided.
c) Langham enjoys reasonable access to the strategic highway although the northbound A12 exit has a very sharp corner into Park Lane where the road is artificially narrowed by abandoned cars to the left of the highway. This junction is a know accident zone with current flows and would need widening to make it suited to increased traffic flows. The bridge at Severalls Lane has been in a state of disrepair for many years with traffic light controlled flows. The repair of this bridge should be a pre-requisite given the traffic flows expected prior to spades in the ground.
d) some existing paths are adjacent to and cross the site. These routes are used extensively for dog walks by villagers and not just the path but the open space around the paths is used for dog exercise. This space should be preserved.
e) The existing fresh water infrastructure is in a generally poor state of maintenance with frequent mains bursts and leaks. There should be a condition reserved to ensure the mains are replaced across the village such that the new burden does not sit on the existing infrastructure without enhancement. The Water Treatment works would need serious investment and it seems existing development sites have been paused such as Rose on School Road and the Rental Estate near St Margarets Cross due to inadequate Sewerage and / or electrical supplies.
f) Surface water remains a problem across the village with culverts not being maintained by Highways and frequently lying full and unable to drain. This is a particular problem in Moor Road and other locations around the village.
K) With potential to quadruple the size of the village there would be insufficient open space. Consideration to flowing the existing open space from the Community Centre through to the new development including provision of another football pitch, and enhanced facilities.
L) consider how the new open space is linked with the existing village space. Is 10% actually adequate given the quadrupling of the population.

There is currently a very small primary school which would be inadequate, a Community Shop and a now closed Pub. Any design for this much growth must include enhanced facilities such as Doctors / Dentist / Small Supermarket.

Significant improvements to bus services would be needed because current provision does not provide options to the local community. In particular transport to Severalls Business Park for employment and Colchester North Station and town centre need significant improvement/provision. The Hire bikes are geocached at Severalls Lane meaning they are not available in the village. There are no cycle lanes or protected routes leading to a need for personal transport.

Section 106 contribution to ensure the new Unitary Council can provide integrated services such as Refuse would be essential.

I write to register my strong objection to the inclusion of the 900 houses at Langham. All of the obvious reasons for objection have already been well documented by LPC namely Lack of sewage capacity, Road, pavement and power infrastructure; no further capacity for junior and senior education; no further capacity for health provision etc. but my overriding objection is for the loss of community cohesion which must follow the injection of 900 homes ( approx 2350 people) into an existing village of less than 900 people. CCC’s proposal fails on each of the NPPF’s 3 principle objectives.

There is no infrastructure provision within the Langham development apart from a bound to fail water treatment plant. If the undertaking of your Policy ST7 Statement is actually true, then the development should not be included. The authority is making contradictory statements.

This e-mail confirms my complete oposition to the planning application
PP37 (900 homes in Langham)

This is based on your planning proposal which plans to build 900 houses,
when there is only circa 350 homes in the exsisting village. This
increase is well above that being proposed in other plasnning
applications around Colchester..

The plan does not suggest what facilities are included for a new school,
medical facilities, how the sewerage sysytem is going to be changed to
name three key issues.

This application will distroy the excisting village and if there is a
need for this level of housing growth, it should be created in a NEW VILLAGE with all the new support facilities included in the plan, ieSchooling, Medical centre etc.

Our client objects to the draft allocation for approximately 900 dwellings at land north of Park Lane, Langham on the basis that it will cause two settlements to coalesce.

Paragraph 12.35 in the Local Plan Regulation 18 document acknowledges that “Langham includes two areas of settlement, Langham Moor and St. Margaret’s Cross, linked by School Road.” Similarly the adopted Colchester Section 2 Local Plan Policies Map (2022) illustrates that these areas are currently defined by distinct Settlement Boundaries, separated by countryside and an allocated area of Public Open Space.

The draft allocation to the north of Park Lane will infill the entire countryside gap between Langham Moor and St. Margaret’s Cross, physically merging these defined settlements into one another and causing them to lose their distinctiveness and individual identity.

Furthermore, the scale of the draft allocation – at approximately 900 dwellings – is completely out of keeping with the size of Langham Moor and St. Margaret’s Cross, Langham’s role as a ‘medium settlement’ in the Settlement Hierarchy and the availability of existing services and facilities locally. As well as causing coalescence and completely overwhelming the existing communities with a far larger new housing development, the limited availability of existing services and facilities here is likely to lead to this allocation increasing dependence on the private car and contributing towards unsustainable patterns of development. Notably Policy PP37 does not explicitly require any new shops, schools, health facilities, community uses or public transport services to be delivered on-site, which implies that the draft allocation could result in the delivery of 900 new homes and not much else.

This is contrary to the objectives set out in paragraph 11(a) and 110 of the NPPF, which expect local plans to promote sustainable patterns of development and significant development to be focussed on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.

In summary our client requests that the draft allocation at land north of Park Lane, Langham, is: (i) substantially reduced in scale from 900 to say 500 dwellings; (ii) potentially split into two distinct and separate extensions to Langham Moor and St. Margaret’s Cross of circa 250 dwellings each, with a green gap or buffer retained in between; and, (iii) specific requirements are added to Policy PP37 to ensure that new shops, schools, health facilities, community uses and public transport services are provided on-site.

The balance of these dwellings can be re-allocated elsewhere at more sustainable locations, including our client’s land adjacent to Nightingale Corner at The Folley, Layer de la Haye. This will ensure that the emerging Local Plan passes the ‘justified’ test of soundness (i.e. it comprises an appropriate strategy taking into account the reasonable alternatives) at paragraph 36 of the NPPF.

CCC development criteria PP37:O
“Any site-specific infrastructure requirements from the IDP (likely to include education provision, highway mitigation, water and wastewater and specific community / open space provision)” No provision appears to have been made for policing needs for the Rural North Area and the significant impact on policing requirements in Langham. Assuming any development proposals will include multi-occupancy dwellings the population increase would be in the region of 250%-350% * There is no reference to additional policing needs for communities under S.3 Strategic Policies, S.10 Community and Social Infrastructure or S.12 Place Policies.
*Langham Population: ONS LSOA Data 2021

The proposal for 900 houses in the centre of Langham is fundamentally unsound and should be rejected. The village’s sewerage and drainage systems are already failing, with Anglian Water applying temporary fixes to raw sewage flooding and leaks, making further development environmentally irresponsible. The location is unsuitable due to poor public transport, unsafe rural roads, and the overwhelming impact on the village’s character, heritage, and community. Local services, including GP surgeries, schools, and emergency provision, would be pushed beyond capacity. The scheme breaches Policies ST3 and ST8 and conflicts with the NPPF, being neither sustainable, proportionate, infrastructure‑supported, nor climate‑aligned

I have lived in Langham long enough to have seen several applications for this land over the decades. No changes have occurred to make this scheme any more feasible than the others, indeed the infrastructure is that much older and just as poorly maintained.

To Summarise
Infrastructure
New water mains - we already have frequent low water pressure, at a council meeting the fact emerged that new development would have to survive on under 100l p d. So far this year we have had 2 breaks in this road
New power lines - power comes from at least 3 different lines across fields
New sewers - The Parish has had several meetings with Anglia water about their poor performance. Upgrades promised for the 2025 budget have not happened. The little sewage works relies on 4 or more tankers a day.
Highways - these roads do not have proper foundations, every water main repair has to be capped with concrete. They will not be adequate for commuting and school journeys.
Primary school is full. Secondary schools are miles away
Public transport We have 5 buses a day in term time

Sustainability
Basic needs
Any development will rely heavily on daily car use to secondary school, supermarket or doctor.
There is little employment within walking or cycling distance. I believe the last census showed 80% active workers commuted.
Village facilities are skeletal, the pub has just closed, leaving a shop run by volunteers. Newcomers are likely to travel to town for their needs


Environment

The site is good arable land with abundant habitats ranging from hedgerow to scrub.
The natural drainage is towards the A12, any impermeable surfaces will increase flow to the drains there. Part of the site drains north - the blockage of drains serving the area are long documented.

Economic

The diagrammatic plan presented by the developers does not show much employment. The nearest employment is in town, beyond walking distance
Broadband is patchy

WILL THE HOUSES SELL??
Unlikely. The most recent development opposite the school was abandoned when only a third of the houses (about 13) had been built. Of these several ended up being rented out. There has not been any more mention of the other development on that road

My family and I have lived in Langham village since July 2008, having initially moved to the Colchester area in 2002.

I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed construction of 900 new homes in Langham, as set out in Policy PP37 of the Colchester Borough Council Local Plan.

It should be obvious to any rationally-minded, objective person that the proposed construction of 900 new homes in Langham, which would increase the population of 782 (source: 2021 UK Survey) by c. 350%, is utterly nonsensical.

In the ‘Policy PP37: Land north of Park Lane, Langham’ section of the 'Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025’ document, it is stated that "development will be supported…..which provides approximately 900 new dwellings….to meet evidenced needs….”.

I defy the Council to provide evidence of anything remotely approaching this level of need. I contend that the only arguable ’need’ relates to central government’s manifesto commitment to build one and half million new homes in England during this Parliament, which to common expert acknowledgement is, in common with the vast majority of its other undertakings, pure fantasy.

In 2021 Linden Homes announced plans to build 66 new homes (‘Langham Meadows’) in School Road. Actual construction was of only 30 homes, with Leaf Living subsequently taking on a number of unsold properties as rentals, the last of which were occupied only in 2025. This is clear evidence of very limited interest in, and affordability of, new homes in Langham. The construction of 900 new dwellings in the village therefore makes no sense whatsoever, and I would be amazed if there would be any interest amongst developers to participate in such a folly.

Additionally, it is evident that the proposal is not supported by any plan to increase key infrastructure, essential to accommodate the resultant population explosion. And even if such a plan was to be developed, the necessary funds to deliver it simply do not exist.

The most compelling of the many reasons why the proposed construction should summarily be dismissed therefore are: -

1. No demonstrable demand (purchase or rental) for anywhere close to 900 new dwellings.
2. Insufficient existing public transport services.
3. A significant additional burden on already heavily used local roads, in particular Park Lane, especially during rush hour periods.
4. Zero local employment opportunities for new residents, exacerbating further point 3.
5. No secondary school, and insufficient expansion capacity within Langham Primary.
6. No GP surgery, adding further pressure on the Ardleigh and Highwoods surgeries.
7. Well documented issues with sewage management in the village, which would be further exacerbated.

I have made no reference to the dramatic, negative impact the proposal would have on the character of the village and the surrounding areas, including the Dedham Vale; it is so obvious it needs no mention. Moreover, the failure to prohibit the unnecessary passage of HGVs through the village – I recall this was cited as a justification for the construction of junction 28 of the A12 in 2010 – and the prospective blight of the calamitous National Grid “East Anglia power line’ proposal, collectively threaten the devastation of Langham village as it currently exists.

I therefore urge the Council to dismiss PP 37 in its entirety and seek a more suitable location(s) to support central government‘s albeit risible new housing commitment.

Our client objects to the draft allocation for approximately 900 dwellings at land north of Park Lane, Langham on the basis that it will cause two settlements to coalesce.

Paragraph 12.35 in the Local Plan Regulation 18 document acknowledges that “Langham includes two areas of settlement, Langham Moor and St. Margaret’s Cross, linked by School Road.” Similarly the adopted Colchester Section 2 Local Plan Policies Map (2022) illustrates that these areas are currently defined by distinct Settlement Boundaries, separated by countryside and an allocated area of Public Open Space.

The draft allocation to the north of Park Lane will infill the entire countryside gap between Langham Moor and St. Margaret’s Cross, physically merging these defined settlements into one another and causing them to lose their distinctiveness and individual identity.

Furthermore, the scale of the draft allocation – at approximately 900 dwellings – is completely out of keeping with the size of Langham Moor and St. Margaret’s Cross, Langham’s role as a ‘medium settlement’ in the Settlement Hierarchy and the availability of existing services and facilities locally. As well as causing coalescence and completely overwhelming the existing communities with a far larger new housing development, the limited availability of existing services and facilities here is likely to lead to this allocation increasing dependence on the private car and contributing towards unsustainable patterns of development. Notably Policy PP37 does not explicitly require any new shops, schools, health facilities, community uses or public transport services to be delivered on-site, which implies that the draft allocation could result in the delivery of 900 new homes and not much else.

This is contrary to the objectives set out in paragraph 11(a) and 110 of the NPPF, which expect local plans to promote sustainable patterns of development and significant development to be focussed on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.

In summary our client requests that the draft allocation at land north of Park Lane, Langham, is: (i) substantially reduced in scale from 900 to say 500 dwellings; (ii) potentially split into two distinct and separate extensions to Langham Moor and St. Margaret’s Cross of circa 250 dwellings each, with a green gap or buffer retained in between; and, (iii) specific requirements are added to Policy PP37 to ensure that new shops, schools, health facilities, community uses and public transport services are provided on-site.

The balance of these dwellings can be re-allocated elsewhere at less harmful sites, including our client’s land at Tey Gardens, Little Tey. This will ensure that the emerging Local Plan passes the ‘justified’ test of soundness (i.e. it comprises an appropriate strategy taking into account the reasonable alternatives) at paragraph 36 of the NPPF.

PP37 Environmental damage.
It is a fact that the average water consumption per person per day in the UK is 140 - 150 litres. It is also a fact that the average people per household in the UK is 2.35 - 2.4 people, therefore, 900 properties would equate to 2,115 people. 2115 people x 140 litres equals 296,100 litres per day that needs to be treated and returned to the environment, I.e. the Black Brook tributary. This would compound the already high water table in the area. Adding to the already identified sewerage infrastructure problem of infiltration. This amount of effluent discharge will inevitably overwhelm his small river and lead to poor water quality as well as overwhelming the existing Langham Treatment Works making the matter worse. Any new private treatment plant proposed would fall into a Band 4 plant i.e. greater than 2000 population equivalent which would have a tighter Environment Agency permit applied. The consequences of this the works would have to higher standard than the current works.

am writing to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed construction of up to 900 new homes in Langham, as set out in Policy PP37 of the Colchester Borough Council Local Plan.

My family and I have lived in Langham for the past 25 years, and I have lived in the Colchester area since 1987.

As you will be aware, there is a fundamental infrastructure problem in Langham that does appear to have been adequately addressed in drafting the Policy (if at all):

• The road system is not capable of safely handling a further 900-1800+ additional vehicles that would result from a development of this size. The proposed ingress of traffic from the site onto both School Road and, in particular, Park Lane is positively dangerous. There’s already a major problem with lorries/cars using Langham as a “rat run” to gain access to the A12, both North and South, rather than using Colchester Stadium junction.
•
• The water/sewerage system in Langham is already overwhelmed and there are still unresolved issues surrounding the disposal of sewerage from the 30 or so Linden homes built in School Road, where development of the intended 66 new homes was truncated due to this issue. Moreover, Linden Homes couldn’t find buyers for homes they did build and ended up selling a large proportion to a property rental investment company Leaf Living – so where’s the local “evidence of need” for the proposed 900 homes, other than some “scatter gun” approach of central government to deal with their desire to build 1.5m new homes?
• In addition to the unsightly half-finished Linden Homes site, there’s no sign that the 30(?) home development next to the village Community Centre (for which planning consent has I believe been granted for some time) is likely to be started soon. This is no doubt due to the inadequacy of the local sewer/water facilities on School Road, which no one appears to want to address - or, indeed, pay for! The failure to start this development also raises the question of proof of demand? That’s only 30 homes – so where’s the evidence for the local need for 30 times more housing in the village? Builders are not known for being shy and retiring, so if there were demand they would have pushed on with this development, I feel!

• The existing public transport services are woefully inadequate, and I see no evidence that this will be addressed as part of the plan. This will mean that all the new residents would have to use their own cars for virtually everything.

• I see no evidence of the adequate provision of additional educational facilities. With a development of the scale planned the existing Primary school would not have sufficient capacity and where would all the Secondary School children go, and how would they get there with improved public transport?

• I see no evidence of any adequate additional GP and other medical facilities – the local GP facilities (in Ardleigh, Highwoods and Nayland) are already stretched.

• I see no evidence that the development creates any local employment opportunities – where are all the people in the 900 homes supposed to work? London??

Langham is a small semi-rural community, and a development of this scale would decimate the character of the village. Over recent years, this has already been adversely impact by the ever-increasing volume of through traffic (particularly HGV’s along both Park Lane and Wick Road) – and the hideous proposed National Grid pylons will have a further dramatic negative impact on the village and the surrounding Dedham Value area [which is supposed to be sacrosanct as an ANOB! What’s the point of creating these “protected” areas if the rules are ignored??!].

In summary, I believe that a development of the scale proposed is wholly inappropriate for the village and is unsupportable on the grounds of identified local demand (and affordability).

I therefore implore the Council to drop Draft Policy PP37 in its entirety.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Benns & Family