As the representative of the landowner, I would like to confirm their support for the allocation of the site within the preferred options Local Plan. The vacant site would provide additional housing within the village which has not been subject to any new housing developments for many years. Given the vacant and greenfield nature of the site, it can be brought forward for planning permission within the near future and contribute towards the councils housing delivery requirements. Policy PP46 provides a robust framework for ensuring that the site is developed in a contextually appropriate manner that will respect the locality.

As the planning agent for the land at Birch Green, I would like to confirm that the site is suitable for the development of approximately 15 new dwellings as outlined within Policy PP46. We believe that the site could be deliverable in the near future and help to contribute towards the councils required housing land supply and deliverability. We understand that there has not been an allocation for new housing within Birch for many years and the allocation of this site would have significant benefits in bringing new houses to the village to help maintain is vitality into the future.

Policy PP46 provides a robust framework to help influence the development of the site and ensure that any proposal brought to planning permission would have positive benefits to the locality and community. The requirement for a mix and type of housing that meets local needs will help to ensure that the development of the site will create homes for a range of occupants including families, couples and single occupants. Not only would this bring new people into the village, but also help those who already live in the village and would like to up or down size. The provision of enhanced open space will help to ensure that the developed site will maintain the rural nature of the area and provide a range of benefits in terms of health, the environment and climate resilience.

Policy PP46 provides a deliverable opportunity for supporting housing delivery at an appropriate scale while securing strong outcomes for access, green infrastructure, landscape, biodiversity and heritage. In our view, the allocation represents a sustainable and well-managed opportunity for growth within Colchester.

as previous

The site is located to the immediate north-west of two Grade II listed buildings, on the edge of the historic Green.

Initial assessment

Effects uncertain. While development here could be acceptable, a proforma Heritage Impact Assessment will be 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 ‘h’ of the policy.

I am concerned that this is over development in this village area.

The site ear marked is at the end of a cul de sac the access to the site will be impossible to maintain the street greenfield houses is not wide enough for 2 cars to pass there is a huge risk of no access for emergency vehicles and the site is adjacent to a children’s park which poses real heath and safety risks to the children.

I live opposite this supposed site in that field there are wild birds and animals that call the field home aswell as the neighboring woodland also not to mention the traffic that will be caused mill Lane and greenfield houses from lorries and diggers it could also set an undesirable precedent for further unsustainable development in the countryside

Not enough infrastructure for 15 new dwellings. The roads here are narrow and very difficult to negotiate.
The school is already full.
There is no shop or doctors or dentists locally.
It would overcrowd this tiny village far too much.

There has been no thought for the current residents or wildlife.

This land is filled with wildlife including a nesting tawny owls, bats, and deer and should be kept as is.
I have videos to evidence this but can’t upload

Hi, as a resident of Greenfield houses, I am extremely worried about the access and drainage from this site.

Greenfield houses is a small and narrow road, it barely fits the traffic of the residents of the cul-de-sac and people using the park, especially in evenings. Many car wing mirrors have been damaged because it is so narrow.

Also worried for children playing at the park with the extra traffic.

We also have bad flooding problems on the road. The road drainage can't take mild to heavy rain, so adding more water pressure is just going to cause more flooding.

Area is accessed by single track road that is badly maintained not suitable for heavy traffic,no footpaths for pedestrians,there are no village shops & nearest doctors are in colchester .No gas in the village for heating systems.The building area proposed is a wildlife haven with rare species such as Great Crested Newts,Barn Owls,Tawney Owls,Red Kites,Buzzards,Dormice.

Birch is rural in character and has key equestrian interests in both riding and stabling facilities. Restricted Byway 41 Birch is regularly used by local riders and the community, and any open space or PRoW enhancement should maintain its Byway status to ensure inclusive access for all residents. Ensure the provision of green infrastructure connections and recreational access to the countryside, and secure active travel links to the settlement; these must not exclude equestrians, as they are a key part of this rural community.

I live, keep and ride my horse, walk my dogs and cycle in and around Birch. Green spaces are very important to me and currently I do not feel safe as I have to ride and walk on busy roads. Any new green spaces/PROWs must be designed as multiuser routes. Bridleways do not cost more money and I would like to see horse friendly routes in and around Birch linked together for the benefit of many horseriders in Birch and the surrounding area.

No local village amenities, such as a shop.
Local school is already oversubscribed and the volume of parked cars causes issues at school start and finish times already.
Current bus service is unreliable and not conducive to commuters.
Access to the site and subsequent dwellings is restricted and would impact residents near to the site.
No footpaths or streetlights.
Multiple heavy vehicles will be dangerous and ruinous down a narrow, single track road.
Parking for neighbouring residents is already on the road/highway, so further development will not ensure adequate space for parking off the highway in accordance with policy DM8.

Roman River Valley Conservation area. Is there not a covenant in Birch - only infill houses can be built. Not 15 houses.

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

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.