as previous

Rowhedge has an overstretched infrastructure already. The wharf development has put serious pressure on our primary school and doctors surgery adding 50 more dwellings will cause a serious negative impact. Also the site is on a notoriously dangerous road where serious/fatal accidents have happened. The access road to Colchester has limited visibility and no footpath.

I do not believe that this is suitable due to a number of reasons with some being:

Large number of vehicles using the road which is already crumbling

The doctors surgery already being over subscribed

The village school being overwhelmed

Born and brought up in the village since 1949!!!! The roads cannot serve anymore traffic.The school is at full capacity now!!!! The Doctors Surgery is not coping with the patients it has.
We need a bigger Doctors Surgery which has parking.
Council should come to Rowhedge Taylor’s Road where every day dangerous parking for Doctors is an accident waiting to happen.
Our village cannot take anymore houses until the infrastructure is in place to cope with them.
Our bigger Drs Surgery should be the Councils first priority. We were told we would get a new one when Wharf was developed.

Rowhedge is a quaint town of its own standing. Fingringoe road access will be terrible for vision pulling out. The ground water on the site is terrible and unlikely to be fixable to a local water source.
No additional doctors surgery will stretch our already oversubscribed doctors to the limit. The noise, smell and activity from the business park will also likely be miserable to live around.
Leave our open spaces alone. Although people may not take time to object, you can bet the whole village population objects as seen on local groups

The the school is not big enough & has no land in which to create more classrooms for the children who would live in these houses.
The surgery is not big enough for current residents of Rowhedge how will it support more people?
Traffic and parking is already a problem on the access road. this will create even more road pollution.
Not on building schedule
The sewage system is not able to cope with even more waste.(sewage company is already pouring too much toxic waste into the Colne!) Colchester Council are already struggling to maintain walk ways and road maintenance.

Bridleway 32 enters the site directly from the south‑west and forms part of a wider, established network of footpaths and bridleways. This network provides important connectivity for walkers, cyclists, and equestrians and must be fully protected and enhanced. A Pegasus crossing on Rectory Road would allow Bridleway 32 to continue safely through the development as a landscape‑led multi‑user green corridor. This route should connect to Footpath 29 and/or Footpath 33 to create an inclusive circular walk/ride. Such provision would safeguard existing countryside access, support active travel, and deliver meaningful connectivity benefits for the whole community.

Entrance and exit from the site are on to Fingringhoe Rd which has a 60mph speed limit and poor visibilty.
Isolation from the village of Rowhedge - approximately 2 km away.
No pedestrian access to the village other than via Fingringhoe Rd which has no paved walkway.
Additional pressure on Rowhedge Surgery which is already overstretched with limited parking on local roads.
Displacement of local businesses which will need to be re-sited and consequent loss of local employment opportunities.

This development would appear as a 'spot' on the outskirts of the village, which has already had its dynamics changed from recent new water front development. There is no pedestrian access to the village and no immediate obvious route for new access. Site enters onto 60 mph road also designated a HGV route. Access is at the top of a hill with poor visibility either way. There is no footpath leading to any access to this site. What will happen to the local employment provided by the existing business units? Current doctors surgery under pressure due to existing resident numbers.

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

On behalf of [NAMES REDACTED], I write with regard to the current Regulation 18 consultation exercise being undertaken for the preferred options version of the new Colchester Local Plan. My client owns the parcel of land that abuts the existing built-up area of Rowhedge that is subject to Policy PP4 I: Rowhedge Business Park, Rowhedge, and wishes to confirm that the site remains deliverable and that the draft allocation for approximately 50 new dwellings and the text of the draft policy are acceptable, meaning that it is not necessary to submit comments through the consultation portal.

For the record, an initial assessment of the site-specific elements of the policy found that they can be delivered and that it is expected that the site will be developed in accordance with the draft policy. Pre-application discussions have already commenced (reference 223170), pursuant to Policy SS 13 and the current allocation for 40 dwellings, including investigations to ascertain whether a greater level of development could be accommodated, and it is expected that an application for outline planning permission will be submitted later in 2026. As such, elements of the draft policy are already being considered in detail and in the same order as they are set out in the policy:

a. The owners of the site have already explored the potential for increasing the density of development to a level closer to the grain of the existing village, and while initial assessments of the site show that a net density of 35 dwellings per hectare (14.2 dwellings per acre) would appear to be more appropriate, the redevelopment of the garden around Donyland House requires an up to date tree survey to ensure that best use can be made of the site. As such, it is confirmed that 50 new homes is likely to be the minimum level of residential development on the site.


b. A detailed design for a vehicle access from Rectory Road has already been agreed with the highways team at Essex County Council as part of the pre-application discussions, set just inside the beginning of the 30 mph speed limit at the entrance to the village. It is expected that the existing entrances from Fingringhoe Road will be closed as part of the redevelopment of the business park.

c. New connections for residents travelling on foot will also be created, including an extension of the existing footway to the north side of Rectory Road to meet the new entrance, a link into the new area of open space and a connection into the existing public footpath (East Donyland 29) to the north to create a shorter route to the centre of the village. The site is on the edge of the village and has easy access to the footpath and bridleway links in the adjoining countryside, including routes at Donyland Heath, Donyland Woods and across the Middlewick Ranges.

d. The existing woodland on the east side of the site will be retained (it is outside the allocation for residential use) and will form part of the provision of open space for the new homes, with public access created for the first time. The woodland also has an important role in securing a net increase in the tree canopy cover within the scheme.

e. A baseline for the biodiversity value of the site will be established in the Spring and it is expected that careful landscape design will allow the I 0% net gain in value to be achieved within the site by improving the woodland and the grassland against the eastern boundary.

f. Retention of the trees and hedges on the boundaries will ensure that the site can be successfully screened, integrated into the adjoining countryside and respecting the character of the landscape.

g. The scale of the scheme is unlikely to affect the setting of nearby listed buildings (including the former Ipswich Arms PH, immediately to the south west), although a heritage assessment will be prepared to guide and support an application for outline planning permission to create new homes.

h. A Flood Risk Assessment has prepared as part of the pre-application discussions, confirming that the development of the site can successfully accommodate surface water drainage and a discharge rate which does not increase the impact on the existing infrastructure. Furthermore, surface water will not be discharged to a combined sewer.

i. It is anticipated that detailed negotiations will be needed with Anglian Water to secure the required capacity in the foul water drainage network to accommodate the additional demand created by the new homes. It is expected that these discussions will take place in parallel, as part of an application for outline planning permission and as part of wider and more strategic discussions within the context of the examination of the new local plan.



j. Sustainability measures will be integrated into the scheme for the new homes, including reducing the demand for water and separating foul and surface water flows.

On behalf of the owners of the site, I can confirm that the draft allocation for residential development is a sound and appropriate allocation policy, and that it is anticipated that the new homes will be under construction within five years of the adoption of the new local plan: the request for pre-application advice will be concluded when the supporting reports and assessments are brought up to date and, with time allowed for amendments to the draft scheme to be made in accordance with the advice received, it is expected that the application for outline planning permission will be submitted later in 2026 and approved during 2027, setting the timescale for the reserved matters to be submitted within three years of the grant of permission.

There are no constraints that would prevent the site from being developed, with no existing uses that would need to be relocated, no restrictions on access or ransom strips around the boundaries, no restrictive covenants that would prevent residential development, and no water courses, trees subject to a preservation order or contamination of the ground that would restrict the ability of the site to accommodate approximately fifty new homes. Furthermore, there is vehicle access direct from Rectory Road and existing utility services run along the road which can be used to serve the new homes. The site is available in the short term and the strong demand for new homes in Rowhedge and southern Colchester means that residential development has already been found to be economically viable.

I trust that you will find this information submitted on behalf of [NAMES REDACTED] provides confirmation that draft Policy PP4 I: Rowhedge Business Park, Rowhedge and the allocation of the site for residential development comprising approximately 50 new homes are deliverable, sound and appropriate allocation, meaning that it is not necessary to submit comments through the Regulation 18 consultation exercise. However, if you have any queries or should you require any additional information to support the draft allocation of the site for residential development through Policy PP4, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address.

See Full Submission attachment

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.