as previous

The Preferred Options Local Plan allocates two housing sites in Layer de la Haye for 70 dwellings, but their location is unsustainable, being distanced from village services. A previous refusal for a similar site underscores concerns about isolation and environmental impact. In contrast, a proposed site on Malting Green Road is ideally situated within walking distance of essential amenities and is part of the settlement boundary. This one hectare site can accommodate 20-30 bungalows, fulfilling local housing demand, particularly for downsizers. Its development aligns with national policy requirements, enhancing local services and promoting sustainable growth with minimal environmental impact.

No sufficient infrastructure considering several new properties currently being built and no expansion to gp and schools in ghe village

We were advised by the Council that if we accepted the Denby Homes scheme in the Folley that no further large developments would be considered till 2033
This is a total over development with no consideration with regards to access onto a country lane that is not suitable for additional vehicular movements, that Essex Highways are unable and unwilling to maintain both road and verges that continue to deteriorate creating hazards for cars and pedestrians, since approval granted to Denby Homes further along Folley.

As with PP40 the village and it's infrastructure has been put in jeopardy with the current Monarch Rise development so any extra will massively effect traffic, green space pressure on village services and cannot be allowed to continue. This part of Colchester has already been over developed.

10 more houses are not necessary people are moving away because of all this building work, one site is enough.

The schools, doctors, roads will be far too busy with the amount of houses already/supposably going up in this village.
The main roads are extremely busy as is.

I strongly object to the proposed development of 10 new homes. This small village has already seen recent overdevelopment, and the narrow lane is unsuitable for further intensification. Local infrastructure is already insufficient, with GP surgeries and schools operating at or beyond capacity. The local road network cannot safely accommodate the additional traffic this development would generate, increasing congestion and highway safety risks. Without guaranteed improvements to healthcare, education, and transport infrastructure, this proposal is unsustainable and out of keeping with the character and capacity of the village.

Strong equestrian presence within the village. Traffic volumes on the Folley have already increased significantly, as has vehicle size, reducing rider safety and accessibility around the village. The designated field has long been used for riding by the local community; therefore, any additional enhancements to green space or connectivity must accommodate equestrians and, at a minimum, meet bridleway standards. Routes that link to the other side of the village or through the estate are beneficial, as riding is becoming more limited, and roadwork is now essential for exercising the horses. Proposed upgrade of Footpath 3 to BR status.

Our client, Laura Brown, owns 0.84 hectares (ha) of former paddock / grassland adjacent to Nightingale Corner at The Folley, Layer de la Haye, as set out on the accompanying Site Location Plan (drawing no. OS-020-01).

Notably the Local Plan Regulation 18 document includes two new housing allocations at Layer de la Haye, both situated immediately to the west of The Folley and between our client’s land and the recently consented Denbury Homes scheme to the south. These new allocations comprise: 10 dwellings at The Furze (Policy PP39); and, 60 dwellings to the west of The Folley (Policy PP40).

As a result of these new allocations, the Policies Map proposes to extend the Layer de la Haye Settlement Boundary eastwards up to The Folley. This means that all land within the broadly triangular area of High Road, The Folley and Malting Green Road will form part of the settlement of Layer de la Haye, with the exception of our client’s land.

There is no clear planning purpose to exclude our client’s land from the extended Settlement Boundary and the decision to do so is not ‘justified’ (i.e. is not an appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives), in accordance with paragraph 36 of the NPPF. Layer de la Haye would be more naturally ‘rounded-off’ if this land was included within the Settlement Boundary and the highway would constitute a much stronger physical barrier and defensible boundary to prevent future sprawl and development to the east of the Village, if the Settlement Boundary ran the whole way along this part of The Folley. Furthermore, with the proposed new housing allocations to the south and existing homes to the north, developing this relatively modest and underused site would have no material impact on the character and appearance of the wider countryside to the east.

Our client’s land is immediately adjacent to the Village and benefits from the same sustainability advantages and accessibility to services and facilities as the two new housing allocations to the south.
Our client’s land was subject to a planning application (ref. 192975) and planning appeal (ref. APP/A1530/W/20/3250816) in 2019/20 for two new dwellings. Paragraphs 14 to 16 of the Appeal Decision found that:

“The village of Layer de la Haye benefits from a range of services, including a school, shop and two public houses. Despite these facilities occupiers of the proposed development would also have to travel onwards to the services and facilities within the nearby town of Colchester to access a wider range of shopping, healthcare, leisure and entertainment facilities.

There are several bus stops within walking distance of the appeal site and during peak times an hourly service operates to Colchester and therefore it would be possible for these services to be accessed via means other than the private car. Therefore, I consider that the site is well located in terms of access to services, facilities and amenities and this would ensure sufficient choice of travel by modes other than the private car.

In conclusion, the appeal site is an appropriate location for housing having regard to access to services and facilities…”

However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed in September 2020 for the reasons set out at paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Appeal Decision. In summary this referred to: the introduction of dwellings in this location significantly altering the character and appearance of this rural site; the proposal having an urbanising effect and intruding beyond the edge of the current settlement into the countryside; and, the proposed development having a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. However, these impacts have now been superseded by the Local Plan Regulation 18 document which proposes two new housing allocations to the south. The allocations and the extension of the Settlement Boundary to the south up to The Folley will fundamentally change the character and appearance of our client’s land and the wider setting to the west of The Folley from a rural to a developed and residential setting.

Our client’s land is available, achievable and suitable for a proportionate extension to the Village of approximately 10-15 new market and affordable homes. As well as ‘rounding-off’ the settlement more logically, these additional new homes will help to address the increased housing needs required as a result of our response to Policy ST5 above.

The site is flat and as a former paddock it is vacant, underutilised and well suited for residential development. There are existing mature trees and hedgerows around the periphery of the site, but these can be retained (where feasible) and along with new greenspace and landscaping planting contribute towards achieving a net gain in biodiversity.

Access can be derived from a single new priority junction located midway along the site frontage with The Folley. This proposed access arrangement was proposed as part of the previous application and appeal in 2019/2020, and did not raise any objection from the local highway authority.

For all of these reasons and to ensure that the Local Plan is ‘justified’ (i.e. an appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives) as set out at paragraph 36 of the NPPF, our client respectfully requests that:

• The Layer de la Haye Settlement Boundary is extended on the Policies Map to include and allocate our client’s land for residential purposes, as suggested on the accompanying Indicative Concept Plan (drawing no. OS-020-02); and
• A new policy is added to the Local Plan document, after Policy PP40, to specifically allocate the land adjacent to Nightingale Corner, The Folley, Layer de la Haye, for approximately 10-15 new dwellings, with access from The Folley, the retention of existing mature trees and hedgerows (where feasible) and on-site enhancements to achieve a net gain in biodiversity.

As a horse rider that keeps my horse in the village, I object to further development on the Folley. It is already dangerous to ride on the roads, even in so called 'villages' like Layer due to the ever increasing volume of traffic. The lack of consideration for horse riders continues to be an issue in development proposals with no apparent interest in linking existing brideways to help riders keep safe. Increased traffic, noise, destruction of countryside, poor transport links as the roads to A12 via Stanway bypass and clogged up with traffic. Its unsustainable!

Green space provision needs to be included in the development. Access to the countryside with footpaths and bridleways linking up with existing routes and consideration given the vulnerable road users - walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

See attachment with detailed comments on numerous policies. Anglian Water welcomes the opportunity to contribute comments on the Draft
Local Plan for Colchester City Council. We consider that the Plan is well set out with in relation
to managing flood risk, surface water and wastewater, and enabling water efficiency. We
recognise the challenges for meeting the uplift in housing requirements and the
infrastructure required to help deliver future growth across the district, with the main
focus being Colchester and the larger towns.
We have raised some policy matters relating to consistency between policies addressing surface
water flood risk, water supply, and wastewater, and how these matters are attributed to site
allocation policies.
We look forward to continuing our positive and proactive discussions with the Council in
respect of our comments and the next iteration of the Local Plan, including supporting updates
to the evidence base if required

see attached

Officer summary of full submission. See attachment with detailed comments on numerous policies:
The overall message is one of support for CCC undertaking a review of the adopted Local Plan to ensure an up to date plan prepared in accordance with the NPPF is in place. ECC will continue the on-going engagement with CCC, through the Duty (or any replacement), to assist progress of the Plan to Regulation 19 (the Pre-Submission Plan), particularly with regards the strategic and cross boundary implications, including cumulative issues and opportunities arising from growth to ensure that the infrastructure requirements are identified, quantified, costed and phased where appropriate. ECC service areas have clearly outlined where further collaborative work/assessment needs to be undertaken (e.g. education provision and ongoing transportation modelling) to refine and resolve an issue; and ECC will continue to be engaged, alongside NH, on the proposals which have an impact on the A12 strategic transport corridor, in particular A12 junctions 25 to 28, A12 widening and junction improvements, and the A120 Corridor Maks Tey to Braintree.

There is support for the Draft Plan’s vision which covers environmental, social and economic needs and emphasises healthy living environments and green networks, environmental protection and economic growth. There is support that the mandatory housing target will be met in full and exceeded over the Plan period in accordance with the NPPF, and that future employment needs will be met (noting that some clarifications are sought) by providing a range in scale of additional employment land supply. ECC provides strong support for policies related to net zero carbon (in operation and embodied), water efficiency, health and well-being, and the environment (green and blue infrastructure and BNG. Recommendations are made throughout the response on policy wording (including policy omissions) and justification to strengthen clarity, effectiveness and delivery.

There is strong support for the inclusion of site-specific Place Policies and references to infrastructure requirements, but these will need to be reviewed and confirmed with ECC following this consultation and the agreement of a final spatial strategy by CCC. It is noted there are some omissions in the Draft Plan such as the allocation of a new secondary school. On this issue, ECC acknowledges the requirement is stated in the Infrastructure Assessment Delivery Plan (Stage 3) for site allocation PP18 Land North of A120 Marks Tey; and in the Infrastructure Topic Paper prepared by CCC, where Appendix A lists the infrastructure requirements for the preferred options site allocations (including those for education). Land for the secondary school (and all education requirements) will need to be allocated in the Pre-Submission Plan.

The review of the IDP and full plan viability assessment are key documents for ECC engagement and input following this round of consultation. The Viability Assessment will need to be reviewed following consultation to ensure it can align with the most up to date evidence relating to the EPOA net zero development policies and its viability evidence. Mention is also made in the response to specific localities and sites – notably Marks Tey and Langham – where discussion needs to take place and recommendations are made to ensure effective delivery if these proposed allocations are taken forward to the Pre-Submission Plan.