as previous

The site is located opposite the Grade II* Church of St Margaret and St Catherine (LEN 1170063). Although the Council’s Heritage Impact Assessment notes that the church is screened by a tree belt, the site forms part of a wider rural landscape that contributes to its setting, and development could therefore affect the church’s significance.

Initial assessment

Effects uncertain. While development here could be acceptable, HIA required to confirm the site’s suitability from a historic environment perspective and to identify appropriate mitigation measures or opportunities for enhancement. The resulting recommendations should then be incorporated into criterion ‘g’ of the policy.

Our client objects to the draft allocation for approximately 15 dwellings at land off New Road on the basis that Aldham is significantly smaller and less sustainable than Layer de la Haye, with very limited existing services and facilities. Paragraph 4.193 of CCC’s Sustainability Appraisal (February 2025) acknowledges that Aldham has no school or local shops. As a result Policy PP45 is likely to increase dependence on the private car and contribute towards unsustainable patterns of development.

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 off New Road, Aldham, is removed from the emerging Local Plan and replaced with more sustainable alternatives, including their land adjacent to Nightingale Corner at The Folley, Layer de la Haye. Doing so 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.

Aldham Parish Council objects to the scale of the allocation on this site which is more than double that shown on the original Call for Sites (ID10535) and is clearly capable of accommodating more than 15 new homes referred to in Policy PP45. The allocation should be reduced in size to reflect the Call for Sites assessment or the policy amended to make it clear that development is limited to no more 15 new homes and that 50% of the site will be left as POS.

Mr Hughes supports the allocation of land off New Road, Aldham under Policy PP45. The site is available, suitable and deliverable, with no known physical, environmental, ownership or infrastructure constraints that would prevent development coming forward within the plan period.

The proposed scale of approximately 15 dwellings is appropriate to the settlement and compatible with surrounding development.

Safe vehicular and pedestrian access can be achieved, and the policy requirements relating to landscaping, green infrastructure and heritage can be addressed through detailed design.

The allocation represents a sustainable and deliverable contribution to local housing supply and is supported as drafted.

Aldham has always been classified as unsustainable. The are allocated inteh draft is larger than originally put forward Why?
Aldham needs better access to marks tey for active travel - a cycle route / path to North Lane Marks Tey is needed
Aldham needs more green space in the middle of hte village

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

Aldham Parish Council is concerned, as am I as the ward councillor for Lexden and Braiswick, that the site is far larger than for 15 houses. Assurances are sought that permission will not be given for more than 15 dwellings.

Aldham will be affected by the cumulative impact of large developments in Mark's Tey and Eight Ash Green when traffic is displaced from the Halstead Road and drivers become delayed and frustrated.

If ST3 used appropriate methodology, see my objection, then alternative urban sites would be preferred saving villages and green fields from over-development.

The respondent acknowledges that the Preferred Options Local Plan makes provision for additional housing in Great Horkesley, which is wholly consistent with the Council’s Spatial Strategy, Policy ST3, which directs housing growth to the most sustainable and accessible locations, of which Great Horkesley is one. However, Policy ST3 also provides housing growth in a number of small settlements, such as Fingringhoe, Dedham Heath, Birch, Messing, Peldon and Aldham, on the premiss that allocations in these villages can help support the long-term viability of services and facilities, which may otherwise be lost. It should be noted however, that the small villages chosen for growth, do not already have good levels of services, and in some case, there are no existing services or facilities to protect. Therefore, the proposed growth in these locations is unjustified and they are inherently unsustainable locations for housing growth.

The respondent is of the view that a more sustainable strategy as envisaged by the Spatial Strategy would be to delete the proposed allocations in Fingringhoe, Dedham Heath, Birch, Messing, Peldon and Aldham and replace the quantum of housing directed to these villages to more sustainable settlements, which have a better range of services and where growth can genuinely assist in supporting the long-term viability of existing services and facilities; and where occupiers of new housing can access a wider range of services and facilities without the need to travel by car.

The respondent has land at ‘Gean Trees’ in Great Horkesley, which is just to the west of the A134, and which joins the existing settlement boundary adjacent to Pattinson Walk. The land extends to some 5 ha, of which approximately 2.0 ha could be redeveloped for housing. Presently, the site contains a large derelict house and surrounding hard surfacing, so would be considered previously developed land and is set within a woodland, which also contains a lake of approximately 1.0 acre in area. The site also contains a Local Wildlife Site (LoWs) on its boundary with the A134.

In 2015, the previous owner of the land allowed the site to be used for unlawful waste deposits. The quantum of material that has been dumped on the site is substantial; however, the respondent has had the material assessed and fortunately it is clean. There remains a need to resolve the unauthorised dumping of waste material, and the respondents have a meeting with Essex County Council waste enforcement team in mid-January 2026 to progress matters. A development on the site will inevitably assist in funding the cleansing of the land, and the restoration of the woodland and on site ecology assets, this could also include some enhancement of the Local Wildlife Site. Therefore, redevelopment on this site would not only assisting meeting housing provision in a sustainable location and settlement, but it would also have wider ecological and environmental benefits.

The redevelopment area of the site could accommodate between 20 to 30 dwellings which would be located on the northern common boundary of the settlement. The existing access has been assessed by transport engineers and is capable of accommodating the quantum of development envisaged, with policy compliant visibility splays over land in the respondent’s ownership or within the highway boundary. The site is accessible on an existing and lit footway alongside the A134 to local services and amenities. The new Village Hall and public open space is 580m form the site. The village shop and Yew Tree Pub are within 500m, and the village Primary School is an 800m walk along lit footways. The proposed site is therefore accessible on foot to a good range of services, including good bus services, which are just 224m from the site.

From a landscape perspective, the development within the site would be set partly within the woodland, which would prevent any views of the scheme to the south, east and west. To the north, existing boundary trees will only allow glimpsed views into the site. Any views of development on the site would be largely lost amongst the tree cover and thus would not intrude or harm the wider landscape or setting of the village.

Attached to these representations is a Concept Plan that illustrates the different land uses on the site, including an area where development would most likely, which could accommodate 20 -30 dwellings. The majority of the site would remain as a woodland, lake and LoWs. The development would also facilitate the longstanding and unresolved harm resulting from the waste deposits. Also provided with these representations is an extract from the Preferred Options Proposals Map, which illustrates the whole site in context, along with existing commitments and the proposed housing allocation. An area within the Concept Plan submitted, illustrates the approximate area available for redevelopment.

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.