No adequate sewage capacity. New offshelf sewage works, will be noisy, and smelly Properetios adjacent to it will be unsellable. Treated water will be produced. This would go into ditch on School Road, and down to bBack Beck. The ditch cannot cope with this, flooding will occure. Nominal ponds shown on plan far from adequate, and water table will rise.
Anglian water have no plans to improve system in next 25 years. Fresh water supply inadequate. Langham Lane, and Moor Road continuously being dug up to fix leaks, and raw sewage overflowing. Currentley dug up in 2 locations.

I agree with the all objections submitted by Langham Parish Council.
The addition of 900 dwellings is totally disproportionate to the existing community, infrastructure and amenities.
There are only about 350 houses situated in Langham village itself, with a further 120 odd situated more remotely in the countryside. The plan to add 900 houses to this relatively small community will completely alter the village community. The existing village amenities will be totally overwhelmed by this level of growth. Village shop is small and run by volunteers. Poor public transport. No doctors or pharmacy.

I support the contents of the Langham Parish Council Response to the Regulation 18 Local Plan consultation. The proposed inclusion of 900 houses, in addition to those already approved, is deeply flawed and breaches Colchester City Council's own policies. In addition to having a devastating impact on an established historic rural community because it is disproportionate, the existing infrastructure, particularly roads and sewerage, is failing with the current population, ie houses flooded with sewerage and roads collapsing. Planning permissions already granted show a disregard to these problems, and no plans are in place to resolve these, so these cannot be built. Anglia Water stating that no further planning permissions should be granted until issues resolved. It is misleading to suggest that these 900 properties could be built without proper infrastructure plans being in place.

There are no medical facilities in the village and limited places at the village primary school.

The proposal will result in a substantial increase in car dependency in breach of Government policies to protect the environment. It will have an adverse effect on the adjacent Dedham Vale National Landscape. There are records of crashed WWII aircraft on the proposed development land and likelihood of disturbance of remains of aircraft, munitions and other contaminants buried beneath the land. The proposed development will disturb the rich local habitat, including buzzards, red kites, skylarks and badgers, as well as causing environmental damage to the waterways in the area. It will result in loss of prime Grade 2 agricultural land.

Access to village inadequate. Always accidents at exit from A12 due to conflict with Shell garage exit. Drive thru Costa will exacerbate this. Corner bunglow was hit by a vehicle. Improving this would be costly and involve destroying listed buildings. Developer will not have a budget for this, and it will fall to local tax payer.
There are inadequate village amenities. The developer will promise to improve this ie cricket pitch. This is limited use and will be used from people external to village, increasing traffic.
The developer will renage on all improvements, on cost grounds at a later date.

Other areas more suitable adjacent to A12, on edge of Colchester. Families would have access to amenities without detriment to enviroment. A lazy planner has looked at the shape of Langham, and thought this will do. Adjacent Boxted has been allocated 150 houses, yet is larger area, and has no historical or social merit. 900 houses will destroy Langham. Previous developments could not be sold, or completed. Plots with outline planning consent have not been taken up by developers. This demonstrates there is not the demand or the financial reward for large development. 900 houses disproportionate to size of village.

There has been no thought as to who will want the properties. Affordable houses in a village have to be viable for purchasers or tenants. Who wants to live in a village if you are on a low budget. There are no schools, adequate shops, or employment. Households would require 2 cars. There is / will be limited amenities. This would increase families costs by having to always transport teenagers to Colchester and create more damage to the enviroment. Emergency services will be stretched. Ambulances, fire service, police will waste valuable resources travelling to a village.

I support the objections of Langham Parish Council.
This is a badly conceived project. Finding deveolpers to undertake the project will be difficult. Ultimately costs for infrastructure will have to be born by Local Government to make it viable.
There is no proven demand for a development of this size in Langham.
The development is also disproportianate to the size of Langham, particularly compared to the housing allocation for all of Colchester.
Existing developments have not been completed, or even been taken up by builders.
Any amenities promised by a developer will be removed later on cost grounds.

The proposed development in the centre of Langham is unsound and must be refused. It conflicts with NPPF requirement for sustainable development (paras 8 &11) by locating large-scale housing in a settlement with inadequate infrastructure. Existing sewerage failures unresolved by permanent solutions breach NPPF environmental protection objectives (paras 174 &180). Poor public transport, unsafe, substandard rural roads contradict NPPF transport principles (paras 104 & 110) while the scale would harm local character and overwhelm services, contrary to paras 130 &134. This does nothing to improve public rights of way for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders (who CCC always ignore).

This e-mail communication confirms my total opposition to the planning application PP37, 900 homes in Langham.
My rejection of this planning proposal is based on plans to build 900 homes in a village that only has circa 350 homes. This proposal will completely destroy the existing village, and is way above the level of housing being proposed in other surrounding villages. In the planning application there is no proposal for a new school or medical facilities and the existing sewerage cannot cope with existing planned building that has been approved.
If we need to build this number of houses it should be planned as a new village where the housing, school and medical facilities and sewerage system is built as part of the development.

A site of 900 dwellings should consider on-site provision for outdoor sports facilities like allocations PP17 and PP18 due to the scale of additional demand generated and the expected lack of opportunities for providing new capacity in the local area. The opportunity to create an extension to the existing Langham Recreation Ground which adjoins the site should be explored as this may be more appropriate than creating new sports facilities as some of the existing infrastructure such as pavilions and parking could (with enhancements) support an extension to the recreation ground.. If this is not possible, financial contributions should be identified towards local strategically important projects identified in the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy in consultation with the Council’s Sports Facilities Delivery Group.

The idea of plonking 900 homes on productive agricultural land in the middle of Langham is one of the most ill-considered proposals ever to come out of the City Council.
Why do I take that view?
Over the forty years since I became a resident, Langham village excluding Lodge Lane has seen more than twenty-five homes built as “infill” to which are now added twenty-three of the planned forty-six of the current School Road development. Langham can absorb these without losing its character as a rural village.

As I understand it, approval for a further fifty-three homes off School Road, currently “approved conditional” or applied for, plus thirteen or more in Wick Road, hinges on foul water drainage being upgraded to adequate capacity. When one looks at the topography of Langham and its water-courses it is no surprise that Anglian Water have difficulty achieving this.

Rainfall on the farm land under threat of this major housing development currently finds its way through free-draining topsoil overlaying an impervious clay to ditches North and South. With nine-hundred roofs and driveways, plus connecting roads, and with subsurface drainage blocked by foundations, the rainwater will find other paths. Whatever is installed by way of pipes and swales the water must go somewhere downhill, i.e. Northwards. School Road already has drainage problems and the ditch alongside Greyhound Hill which should take much Langham Moor drainage has been neglected and blocked for decades; restoration will not do more than help the existing situation.

The roads of Langham are those of a village – effectively single-track or where two-track easily obstructed by parked vehicles. Some are used as “rat-runs” by commuter traffic and we are all aware of the congestion caused by drop-off and pick-up times at the school. Adding perhaps a thousand car-journeys at peak times is obviously more than our roads can accept. All this can increase difficulties for the heavy vehicles that need to reach the School Road industrial site.

I no longer have children at the school, but I understand it is already over-subscribed. I cannot see how its numbers can be increased without losing its essential playing field. Even with the new developments already waiting final approval, many Langham children will have to attend primary school elsewhere.

Young families and older residents rely heavily on Ardleigh Surgery for their medical needs. There is of course a limit to the number of patients it can accept and it covers Dedham and Ardleigh itself. Some Langham residents already use medical facilities elsewhere, even in Suffolk. What will happen to healthcare services with another nine hundred families in Langham?

The village of Langham (like Boxted) provides a countryside buffer between Colchester’s urban density and the precious Dedham Vale National Landscape, the Southern boundary of which is actually within the parish. If a dense block of nine-hundred more homes is added to the village, Langham will no longer fulfil that role. It should also be noted that the fields where house-building is proposed are in spring and summer the breeding habitat of skylarks, a species in decline.

It may be the easier solution to housing needs to roll out a pre-designed housing development on the outskirts of an existing city, but re-using “brownfield” sites and adapting existing buildings nearer the centre of Colchester will do more to revive the City’s struggling shopping streets.

I hope all parties will work together to end this house-building proposal.

Formal Objection to Colchester Preferred Options Local Plan – Allocation PP37 (Land North of Park Lane, Langham – approx. 900 dwellings) and Related Provisions

Re: Preferred Options Local Plan Consultation (Regulation 18) – Objection to Langham allocations, in particular PP37 (approx. 900 dwellings) and associated infrastructure assumptions (including PP38 and ST7)

________________________________________
1. Executive Summary of Objection
I object to the inclusion of Policy PP37: Land north of Park Lane, Langham (approximately 900 dwellings), and associated approach to infrastructure delivery and phasing, on the basis that the allocation is not sound, not effective, and not consistent with national policy when assessed against the Local Plan tests of soundness and the Council’s duty to prepare a plan that is legally compliant and deliverable.
In summary:
1. Deliverability / effectiveness: The Council’s own Infrastructure Audit & Delivery Plan (IADP) identifies that Langham WRC has “no headroom” and records constrained wastewater treatment capacity in this area. The plan nonetheless allocates ~900 dwellings and relies on aspirational infrastructure mitigation without a demonstrated, funded, and timed solution that aligns with the scale and timing of growth.
2. Wastewater / flooding / environmental risk: Evidence from the Environment Agency (compliance inspection reporting) and local infrastructure evidence indicates ongoing risk driven by infiltration and flow exceedances. The Plan, as drafted, risks allocating growth in a location where wastewater constraints are already acute and where further loading would increase risks of sewer flooding, overflow events and environmental harm.
3. Justification / proportionality: Langham is a small village, and the proposed quantum represents a transformational, town-scale expansion. Parish evidence indicates a severe mismatch between locally evidenced housing need (tens of homes) and the allocation quantum (hundreds). This undermines “justified” planning and settlement hierarchy coherence.
4. Infrastructure dependencies (education, healthcare, transport): The scale of growth would generate demand that existing local infrastructure cannot accommodate without major new provision (school places, primary care capacity, transport improvements). Evidence indicates these are not presently identified in costed, committed programmes aligned to the plan period.
I request that the Council:
• Remove PP37 from the Preferred Options plan; or, at minimum
• Substantially reduce and re-phase the allocation to a scale demonstrably deliverable within infrastructure capacity; and
• Provide a transparent, costed, funded and timed infrastructure programme that includes wastewater treatment and network upgrades (and regulator alignment) before allocating development of this magnitude.
________________________________________
2. Legal and Policy Framework
2.1 Statutory plan-making duties
Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and associated Regulations, the Local Plan must be prepared lawfully and be capable of being found “sound” at examination. A plan is expected to be supported by a robust evidence base, and its allocations must be deliverable in infrastructure terms, not merely aspirational.
2.2 Soundness tests (National Planning Policy Framework)
The NPPF requires local plans to be sound. The key tests are that the plan is:
• Positively prepared (a strategy which is achievable and meets needs)
• Justified (appropriate strategy, taking account of reasonable alternatives and proportionate evidence)
• Effective (deliverable over the plan period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters)
• Consistent with national policy (enabling delivery of sustainable development)
This objection is principally grounded in the Justified and Effective tests, and also Consistency with national policy, particularly in relation to infrastructure, flood risk, and environmental protection.
________________________________________
3. What the Draft Plan Proposes for Langham
The Preferred Options Local Plan includes:
• Policy ST5 housing allocations which list “Land north of Park Lane, Langham – 900” and “Land opposite Wick Road, Langham – 10”.
• Policy PP37 setting requirements for the ~900 dwelling site.
• Policy PP38 for the smaller site.
• Policy ST7 infrastructure delivery and impact mitigation.
Crucially, the Council’s own site policy PP37 requires (among other matters) that applicants confirm with Anglian Water that wastewater treatment capacity at the relevant Water Recycling Centre is available, and where appropriate agree phasing triggers; and it requires demonstration that adequate wastewater capacity will be provided.
Those requirements are material: they amount to an admission that the allocation is contingent on wastewater capacity and a risk that must be resolved.
________________________________________
4. Core Objection: Wastewater Infrastructure Constraints Make PP37 Not “Effective”
4.1 Council evidence base identifies constraints and lack of headroom at Langham WRC
The Council’s own Infrastructure Audit & Delivery Plan (Stages 1 & 2) identifies constrained wastewater treatment capacity in the area and specifically indicates Langham WRC has “no headroom”.
Where a plan allocates major growth, but the evidence base indicates no headroom and no defined solution pathway, that allocation is not “effective” unless the plan also sets out a credible, funded, and timed delivery mechanism. PP37 does not do this; instead, it places the burden on future applicants to resolve strategic constraints that are already acknowledged.
4.2 Anglian Water long-term planning material does not provide Langham-specific certainty at the required scale/timing
Anglian Water’s Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan (DWMP) framework is strategic and adaptive. However, high-level DWMP summaries do not provide site-level assurance for Langham. The Council must not treat generic DWMP process language as a substitute for a specific, committed upgrade programme that matches the growth quantum and plan period.
Further, where Anglian Water materials and related disclosures indicate compliance-driven work for Langham WRC (Essex) (including DWF compliance), this reinforces that Langham is not a “low risk” location for dramatic growth loading.
4.3 Regulator evidence (Environment Agency compliance reporting) highlights operational risk drivers
Environment Agency compliance reporting (inspection and compliance assessment documentation) records high incoming flows linked to infiltration and related operational risks. This is directly relevant to the plan’s effectiveness and environmental consistency: the plan should not allocate a scale of growth that materially increases flow and infiltration pressure without a committed solution.
4.4 Local evidence indicates real-world impacts (sewer flooding incidents) and persistent infiltration issues
Langham Parish Council’s consultation response and supporting technical documents set out persistent infiltration and exceedance risks and report sewage flooding incidents affecting properties. While local testimony is not a substitute for regulator data, it is highly relevant as corroborating evidence of real-world system performance failures.
Planning implication: The Plan cannot credibly allocate ~900 homes in a wastewater catchment that is already constrained and reportedly failing without a defined, enforceable infrastructure programme. In its current form, PP37 is not “effective” and risks being found unsound.
________________________________________
5. Objection: PP37 Is Not “Justified” – Scale Is Disproportionate and Not Evidenced as the Most Appropriate Strategy
5.1 Out-of-scale growth
Langham Parish Council’s evidence indicates the village has a small existing housing stock and that an additional ~900 dwellings represents a transformational increase. Such growth must be justified by robust strategic evidence, settlement hierarchy logic, and infrastructure deliverability. The draft plan does not provide this justification for Langham compared with alternative, more sustainable locations.
5.2 Mismatch with locally evidenced housing need
Langham Parish Council has provided a Housing Needs Survey and Housing Needs Assessment indicating a local need measured in tens of homes over the relevant time horizon, not hundreds. The plan’s allocation of ~900 homes should therefore be justified by clearly articulated strategic reasoning (e.g., exceptional sustainability, infrastructure headroom, deliverable mitigation, or overriding strategic constraints elsewhere). That justification is not present in a way that meets the “justified” test.
________________________________________
6. Objection: PP37 Risks Inconsistency with National Policy on Sustainable Development and Infrastructure
6.1 Infrastructure-first principle and sustainable patterns of development
The NPPF emphasises ensuring that growth is aligned with the provision of infrastructure and that plans deliver sustainable patterns of development.
Langham’s transport position (as evidenced in local submissions) indicates a high risk of car dependency due to limited resilient public transport and constrained active travel routes. A development of ~900 dwellings will embed unsustainable travel behaviour unless a robust, deliverable transport strategy is secured and funded.
6.2 Education capacity
Essex County Council pupil yield assumptions typically used for planning (cited in local evidence) indicate that ~900 dwellings may generate a primary-aged pupil yield requiring significant new provision (on the order of a new primary school), with secondary impacts extending beyond the immediate area. The plan should evidence how this scale of education provision will be delivered, funded, and timed.
6.3 Healthcare capacity
Local evidence identifies limited capacity in nearby GP practices and constrained access by non-car modes. A development of this scale will materially increase demand. The plan must demonstrate how healthcare infrastructure impacts will be mitigated and delivered in practice.
________________________________________
7. Specific Concerns With the Draft Policy Wording (PP37 / ST7)
7.1 “Gating” clauses are not a solution without a delivery plan
The PP37 wording requires applicants to confirm capacity with Anglian Water and agree phasing triggers. This approach effectively defers strategic infrastructure resolution to the development management stage, placing the Council at risk of allocating a site that becomes:
• undeliverable, or
• deliverable only through environmentally harmful short-term workarounds, or
• deliverable only with severe delay, undermining housing trajectory.
If the Council considers the site essential, then the plan must set out an enforceable infrastructure schedule aligned to ST7, including: funding route, delivery partner, trigger points, and how non-compliance will be handled.
7.2 Uncertainty undermines the plan’s credibility at examination
A plan that allocates strategic growth with acknowledged infrastructure constraints but lacks a committed delivery mechanism is vulnerable to being found unsound under the “effective” test.
________________________________________
8. Requested Modifications / Remedies
I request the Council makes the following changes before proceeding:
1. Remove PP37 from the Preferred Options plan allocation list.
OR if not removed:
2. Reduce the quantum substantially to a scale consistent with demonstrable infrastructure capacity and settlement hierarchy coherence, and commit to a phased approach tied to clear infrastructure triggers.
3. Publish (and consult upon) a transparent, costed, funded and timed infrastructure programme for Langham, with particular focus on:
o wastewater treatment capacity at Langham WRC and network infiltration remediation,
o sewer flooding mitigation,
o surface water drainage constraints,
o education provision (school capacity and delivery),
o healthcare impacts and mitigation,
o transport strategy that reduces car dependency.
4. Provide a clear statement of how the plan has been prepared to meet the soundness tests, including an explanation of reasonable alternatives considered for distributing growth to more sustainable, infrastructure-ready locations.
________________________________________
9. Evidence List (Documents Relied Upon)
This objection is based upon (at minimum):
• Colchester Preferred Options Local Plan: Policy ST5 allocation schedule; Policy PP37; Policy PP38; Policy ST7.
• Colchester Infrastructure Audit & Delivery Plan (Stages 1 & 2), including wastewater headroom and constrained treatment capacity references for Langham.
• Environment Agency compliance assessment / inspection reporting relating to Langham wastewater infrastructure.
• Langham Parish Council Regulation 18 consultation response and appendices (Housing Needs Survey; Housing Needs Assessment; sewerage/surface water drainage report; education and healthcare reports; landscape/heritage evidence).
• Anglian Water DWMP 2025–2050 materials and any Langham WRC (Essex) compliance/investment references available.
________________________________________
10. Closing
For the reasons set out above, I object to the inclusion of PP37 (Land north of Park Lane, Langham – approximately 900 dwellings) and associated infrastructure assumptions. The allocation is not supported by a credible, specific and timed infrastructure delivery pathway, is inconsistent with evidence of wastewater constraints, and risks being found unsound on “justified” and “effective” grounds.

Yours faithfully
[NAME REDACETED]

I strongly object to the proposed building of 900 houses in our small village. My main concerns are services infrastructure which are currently insufficient for the current housing. When the recent new development was built it was promised that the sewage waste would be upgraded which I believe was insufficient causing residents big problems. Would this happen again?
Complete lack of capacity for schools, health facilities and road network. With a severe lack of public transport this development would generate significant additional car journeys on an inadequate road network, which includes Coleman’s Bridge which is no nearer being repaired.

Policy ST7: Infrastructure Delivery and Impact Mitigation states: “Section 106 will remain the appropriate mechanism for securing land and works, affordable housing and financial contributions where a sum for the necessary infrastructure is not secured via CIL”. LPC’s Preliminary Costing Assessment would require a £44m S106 burden, a per dwelling cost in excess of £48k and a fivefold increase in the per dwelling average for Colchester*. The generic application of costing applications irrespective of viability in the CCC Infrastructure Audit & Delivery Plan Stage 3 Report indicates that the 900 dwelling proposal is arbitrary and wholly unrealistic.
*https://www.langhamparishcouncil.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Langham-Infrastructure-Delivery-Plan-v2.pdf

I am a resident of the village since 1991.

It will change the very nature of the village, it will increase the size by 3.5 times. There is no housing need for development on this scale.

The A12 slip roads are inadequate and there have been many accidents.
The drainage in the village is inadequate and AWA are not prepared to upgrade to cope. A private sewer still needs an outfall.

The house density proposed is out of keeping.

There are no added amenities for the village.

It is undeliverable, so won't help with housing numbers.

policy PP37
I write to object to the proposed building of 900 house in Langham.
I am a resident of the village having moved here in 1991.
This proposal will change the very nature of the village, at present there are around 350 homes in the core of the village, so this development will increase the size by 3.5 times. Swamping the existing village and its limited amenities. There is no housing need in the village for development on this scale.
There are planning policies for transport and reducing car dependence, yet there are very limited bus services and no dedicated cycle route. The proximity of the A12 may appeal but the slip roads are inadequate and there have been many accidents. There is no proposal to address this in the plan proposal.
The drainage in the village is inadequate and AWA are not prepared to upgrade the treatment works to cope with the existing outfalls, or the already approved development in School Road, yet alone 900 new homes. I see that a private treatment works is proposed, these have very limited use elsewhere in the country and will not work without an outfall for the treat water. There is not such outfall available. The development will be unachievable, and therefore not reduce the City’s housing shortfall.
The house density proposed will led to house out of keeping with the existing village.
There are no proposals to improve the village only to parachute a large urban development on a rural settlement. Where are the plusses for the existing residents? At present we all have to travel for doctors, larger shops etc. the only facilities of note are the community centre, but this will be undersize for the number of new people.
If your intention is to plan a new settlement then you should plan for such and now just dump houses without thought.
At present the development is not deliverable, and whatever you approve will not be built. The city council will still be unable to provide its housing numbers.

Re Sewage Disposal
Policy PP37 is unsound because essential wastewater infrastructure cannot be delivered within the 2026–2041 plan period. Anglian Water has confirmed that the earliest upgrades will not be available until 2050, well beyond the plan period, and the Plan cannot lawfully or effectively rely on Grampian-style conditions or any deferral mechanism to address this. Without a fully evidenced, deliverable wastewater solution within the plan period, the allocation is undeliverable, ineffective, and inconsistent with national policy (NPPF paras 20 and 161–163).

Not only would the 900 houses have to be connected but there is a present need, accepted by Anglia Water, that the whole sewage pipe system needs to be replaced. Additionally, there are three housing developments in Langham which are being held up pending WRC upgrade, (para 161 NPPF)
Our garden has flooded twice with front garden raw sewage being deposited.
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.



────────

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.

Given the well set-out criteria for selecting locations, particularly the National Planning Guidance , National Planning Policy Framework three overarching objectives and the vision set-out in this section below, I fail to see how selection of a green-field site in the rural village of Langham for housing development, meets any one of these criteria? On this basis I object to the inclusion of the site in Langham in the draft Plan.
It is not 'land of the right type' or in the right place to support growth innovation and productivity. The only viable transport link is the A12 and as a minimum its junction with Langham would need improvement to accommodate the traffic required to build and then sustain, a development of the size proposed. Bus Routes are currently poor and run along rural roads. Whilst the service and the quality of the buses could be improved, I doubt sufficiently to attract new users. There are no connected active travel routes and no possibility of train or tram links. The water and digital infrastructure is similarly typical of a small rural community. Improvements to the infrastructure of the village would need to be considerable to support a housing community of the size proposed and this growth objective set out in the NPPF, would clearly not be met. Such improvements would in themselves constitute, major projects impacting the environment, contributing to loss of habitat and biodiversity and impact the rural character of the surrounding area. Clearly the construction of housing once the infrastructure was in place would create similarly negative impacts, completely destroying the rural character of the village.

I support the reasoned objections put forward by Langham Parish Council. I specifically draw attention to Section 7 of the Langham PC submission which highlights the issues with essential infrastructure upgrades required. The situation with the inevitable requirement for increased sewage treatment for the proposed number of houses, is evidenced by the dreadful experience the village has had with the recently constructed comparatively modest housing development in School Road. The requirement to upgrade the A12 junction and other road and connectivity issues as set out in section 7.3 of the LPC submission are also fundamental to my objection.

I object in the strongest possible terms to draft Policy PP37 in Langham. The proposal is grossly excessive and wholly disproportionate to the size of the village. Langham is highly car-dependent, poorly connected and has inadequate public transport, yet is expected to accommodate growth comparable to large settlements. The scale bears no relation to local housing need and directly contradicts the settlement hierarchy. Essential infrastructure is already failing, including sewage treatment, schools and highway safety, with no funded or deliverable solutions. The development would cause irreversible harm to Langham’s rural character, agricultural land, wildlife habitats and the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape. The proposal is fundamentally unsound and should be rejected.

I object to the plans for the building of 900 homes on Park lane Langham for the reasons stated in the Langham Parish Council submission that details many reasons as to why this development should not go ahead. Langham is a small village with only 400 houses to build an additional 900 houses will completely change the characteristics of the area. Road access to the village is via narrow roads, there are no cycle paths, limited bus service, no doctors, one small school already full. Ongoing issues with sewage management and flooding. The village does not have the capacity or facilities to support such a development and the resulting increase in traffic and people.

I wish to let you know of my total objection to the proposed 900 new homes in Langham. A development of this scale in such a small village is completely ludicrous and would require imense infrastructure spending.

Langham is a small rural village with a very limited bus service into and out of the village. All the roads into and out of the village are either rural or a dual carriageway neither of which is safe nor suitable for cycling/walking, it would be UNSAFE. Therefore, 900 new homes in the village will lead to a vast increase in additional motor vehicle traffic in and around the village, the current roads around Langham are not built to take this level of traffic, it will require investment in road infrastructure.

Langham will also be affected by National Grid's proposed 'Great Grid Upgrade - Norwich to Tibury' with planned access to the route coming through the village and daily large volumes of HGVs also planned. How can a small village cope with additional HGV / traffic for 900 homes as well as pylon HGVs / traffic. The current road infrastructure will not cope.

There has already been developments in Boxted and Langham which have now overloaded the local sewage treatment works leading to sewage flooding gardens/roads. Indeed the recent small development of 46 homes in Langham has had to be paused due to this issue and only half the houses planned have been allowed to be built. This was 2 years ago with o movement towards a solution. A proposed 900 homes is impossible with the current sewage infracture, it will require massive infrastructure investment by Anglian Water, who will have to agree on infrasture investment before any development could go ahead.

Langham has a very small primary school which currently takes 15 pupils per year. It does not have any spare capacity to take more. A development of 900 homes will require massive investment in the infrastructure of the local primary school to be able to increase to anywhere near the capacity that would be required to meet the need of 900 new homes.

Access to secondary schools is limited. Most children attend East Bergholt High School (EBHS) in Suffolk but with new homes being built in that village and surrounding areas the distances from EBHS that children from wider villages getting into that school have been getting shorter. The nearest secondary school, The Gilberd in Highwoods, is oversubscibed and few children outside of Highwoods get into that school. An additional 900 homes will mean that there will need to be massive investment in the infrastructure of secondary school provision for children living in Langham.

Currently Langham has no GP provision, all residents have to drive to GP practices outside of the immediate area. These GP practices are FULL! An additional 900 homes will require infrastructure investment in GP services from a current base of zero provision.

I belive Langham is a very unsuitable village to provide 900 new homes.

I strongly object to the proposed PP37 housing project in Langham. Langham is a small village and the proposed increase of 900 houses triples the size of the village threatening the community and eroding the village identity.

900 homes is too many in a village with 400 homes- more than doubling the size of a village? The current sewage works can not cope with the current demand . Then all the usual issues with lack of infrastructure struggling GP surgeries - roads will struggle with 900 additional homes and the cars this will bring - l polis more pollution I am particularly concerned about the impact on wildlife and green space that can never ever be recovered …90 percent of the open space gone - forever . I strongly object to this proposal.

Far too many houses, will loose that village feel.

Place policy PP37 is allocating approximately 900 new homes on the land North of Park Lane, Langham. The proposed site for development lies within the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape (the development will be within 400 metres of the National Landscape on the Eastern side, and within 800 metres of the boundary on the Northern side). This development will harm the rural character of the Dedham Vale National Landscape, and it will adversely affect the Dark Skies status campaign, as well as the tranquillity of the National Landscape.

The enhanced duty under Section 85 of the CRoW Act states that relevant authorities “must seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty (National Landscapes)”.

NPPF states in chapter 15 paragraph 189 that: "Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes" and that "development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas".

Policy LC2 states: "Development will only be supported within or on land within the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape that: (b) Does not adversely affect the tranquillity and the National Landscapes good quality night/dark skies, taking account of guidance in The Dedham Vale National Landscape Lighting Design Guide". And "Applications for major development or in close proximity to the boundary of the Dedham Vale National Landscape will be refused unless in exceptional circumstances". There is thus a policy conflict between Policies LC2 and PP37.

With reference to the Langham Parish Council’s Landscape and Heritage Report, this area of farmland forms “the historic landscape core of Langham village, separating Langham Moor and Langham Wick and providing the open rural sense of place that frames historic lanes and listed buildings”. The site proposed for policy PP37 currently provides visual openness and recreational access to the countryside, maintaining the separate identities of Langham Moor and Langham Wick. Development on this site would have a significant adverse impact on views and the landscape character of the village, and there would be a loss of open space and public right of ways across the site, as well as an adverse impact on the settlement morphology.

Policy ST4 states: "The Council will consider the requirement for new development within the countryside to meet identified development needs in accordance with Colchester's spatial strategy while supporting the vitality of rural communities. This will be balanced against ensuring development does not have an adverse impact on the different roles and relationships between settlements and their separate identities". And "Proposals must consider the role the landscape plays as an open buffer between settlements or areas of a settlement, and the resulting sense of separation and distinctive identity". Policy ST4 thus conflicts with PP37.

With reference to Langham Parish Council’s Landscape and Heritage report, policy PP37 lies within the historic airfield landscape, which includes the USA air force station 150 Monument to the North and Boxted Air Museum to the South. Major development on this site would have an adverse effect on the setting of this historic landscape. This conflicts with NPPF paragraph 216 and Policy LC1 (a). NPPF 218 should also be referenced within the criteria.

The addition of approximately 900 homes in policy PP37 will harm the rural character of the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape, and it will significantly increase light pollution, directly affecting the Dark Skies campaign. The addition of 900 homes will also affect the tranquillity and air quality of the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape with additional traffic on adjacent rural roads.

NPPF paragraph 187 states: “Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: e) preventing new development from contributing to ... unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution."

NPPF paragraph 198 states: "Planning policies should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects of pollution on... the natural environment" and to "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 paragraph 190 states: "Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape..."

Impact assessments for lighting and pollution should therefore have been carried out before proposing PP37 for development to ensure there will be no residual impact on the Dark Skies and tranquillity of the Dedham Vale National Landscape. There is no mention of assessments within the Sustainability Appraisal. There is a high risk that this development will have a significant adverse effect on the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape.

INFRASTRUCTURE
Policy ST7 states: "Permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is sufficient and appropriate infrastructure capacity to support the development or that such capacity will be delivered by the proposal". And "An Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) is being prepared to inform and support the Local Plan." (3.64).

The Colchester Infrastructure Audit and Delivery Plan Stage 3 Report (IADP) produced in October 2025 for Colchester City Council shows that there is currently "No capacity" for any growth to 2041 for Langham Wastewater Recycling Centre (WRC) which supplies wastewater treatment to Boxted and Langham. The report states: "No current capacity - a solution to protect water quality is possible but there are no plans to improve the WRC... There will be phasing implications and no funding is secured". The report recommends that "Early phasing of growth in Dedham, West Bergholt, and Langham may be restricted until improvement plans are developed and funded for 2030 onwards" (AMP9 or AMP10).

The Sewerage & Surface Water Drainage Report submitted by Langham Parish Council demonstrates the concerning groundwater infiltration problems associated with annual rainfall outruns, and that "Langham WRC remains flow non-compliant". With reference to the report, it has been identified that there is a “need for a large water storage basin to regulate surface water discharge rates towards Black Brook”. Black Brook is at capacity now and has to be annually cleaned by the Environment Agency, where it reaches the centre of Dedham village two miles away. The frequency of flooding in Dedham has increased over recent years. The current lack of capacity at Langham WRC and flooding issues at Black Brook need to be addressed first before sites linked to this WRC can be considered as a viable option to prevent any further impact on the Dedham Vale National Landscape.

In summary, there appears to be no secured funding recorded for the Langham WRC, no capacity for future growth, nor is there an improvement plan for the short or longer term. Due to the proximity to the Dedham Vale National Landscape, it is of the utmost importance that the water quality and connected habitats are protected from potential flooding or wastewater spillage.

Policy PP37 needs to address the significant adverse impact of future development on the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape before proceeding. The Dedham Vale Society also strongly supports the Langham Parish Council's response with regard to its concerns about the impact on the Dedham Vale National Landscape, the reports outlining the issues with the Langham WRC, and the impacts of development on the settlement and heritage of the village.

I completely object to the massive scale of the proposed development of our village of Langham. What Colchester City Council want to do will anniliate our village, our community and village life - changing it from a village to a housing estate. Currently it is rich in wildlife, natural flora and fauna, with no light pollution, and low level noise. This humongous estate will take away all that, with street lights and footpaths everywhere, with unsustainable levels of cars and traffic, with loss of natural habitat. It is totally out of keeping and unsympathetic to the village it is now

Langham is incapable of accommodating this level of growth, which is completely disproportionate to the current size of our village. The infrastructure doesn't support development that has taken place in the last decade, how can it possibly be improved to cope with this? How can this even be in the category of medium-sized development? This proposed new estate will triple the size of our village, which will wreck its current village-community character.

We write to object to the building of 900 houses in Langham, due the lack of infrastructure and road access. Please note we agree with all the objections raised by Langham Parish Council