UNSUITABLE LOCATION – please see previous Picketts Farm scheme no 192686 refused by Colchester Planning due to environmental and health concerns.

Brief summary of findings:

Proximity of livestock buildings
Odour and noise from livestock
Undesirable siting
Housing would be both harmful and objectionable.
Adjacent corrugated roofs contains asbestos.

Additional objections…

Persistent Fly infestations in warmer Summers.
Highways issues due to very busy Farm Traffic.
Loss of privacy for existing and new homes which overlook each other.
Undesirability of speculative ribbon development.
Adverse effect on wildlife.
Damage to views.
Planning already approved for large barn at one corner of proposed site.

as previous

Sustainability Appraisal Performance

The proposed site, Land at Picketts Farm, Fingringhoe (site ID 10211) scores negatively in all assessment categories within the evidence based sustainability appraisal, other than for the provision of housing, where the effect is said to be significantly positive. Why 5 dwellings would be significantly positive is not explained, just 5 dwellings could not be said to be significant in terms of housing land supply. The only other positive score for this site is for community, and health and wellbeing, where the effect of the proposed allocation is considered to have a minor positive effect. In relation to the key indicators of sustainable development, such as access to public transport, access to local services and environmental sustainability, the site performs very poorly. This is unsurprising, given that Fingringhoe has a very limited range of services, placing it in the lowest tier of the Local Plan’s Settlement Hierarchy. Policy ST3 Spatial Strategy, directs housing growth to the most sustainable and accessible locations as one might expect, but 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 have good levels of services and in some case, no existing services or facilities to protect. The allocation for Fingringhoe is for just 5 dwellings, it cannot be reasonably argued that the addition of 5 dwellings would materially assist in the long term support of the village pub in Fingringhoe. There is no shop in Fingringhoe to support, in fact there are no functioning village shops in any of the villages earmarked for growth in this Plan. Bus services in Fingringhoe (service 174) are 2 hourly between 8.00 am and 18.00 pm and the journey time from the village to Colchester City Centre takes 30 minutes. Realistically, occupiers of the proposed 5 dwellings will be reliant on a car for almost every journey. Fingringhoe has only very limited roadside footways and there are none at the location of the proposed site and no capacity to create one within the highway boundary. From a sustainability perspective, allocations in the villages chosen, and in Fingringhoe in particular makes no logical sense and cannot, and has not, been justified in the sustainability appraisal or in the relevant allocation Policy PP47.

Policy PP 47: Land at Picketts Farm, Fingringhoe

The policy sets out criteria a) to i) that need to be met in any application to develop the proposed site. Criterion a) of the policy advises that development will be supported on land within the area identified on the policies map which provides:

“Approximately 5 new dwellings of a mix and type of housing to meet evidenced needs and be compatible with surrounding development and contribute towards meeting the identified housing requirements in the Fingringhoe Housing Needs Survey;”


The identified housing requirement evidenced by the Fingringhoe Housing Needs Survey (September 2025), a summary of which is provided with these representations, solely recommends the need for the provision of affordable housing in the village, and any market housing will need to be discounted. The proposed allocation will not therefore meet the specific needs of the village evidenced by the work the Parish has done to assess its housing need. The allocation of market housing in the village is therefore unnecessary. Fingringhoe can meet its identified housing need through Policy H2 Rural Exception Sites, which is specifically in place to deliver affordable housing in rural areas where there is an identified need, evidenced by a housing needs survey. The survey undertaken in Fingringhoe points to a need for affordable homes only. The village has experience of delivering similar affordable schemes working with the Rural Housing Trust having delivered 8 units in the past, which are now managed by the Fingringhoe Church Green Trust.


Character, Appearance and Landscape

Other than the ribbon development of the 1960’s and 1970’s the village comprises of three concentrations of housing, the area around the Church, Hall and Mill, which form part of the Fingringhoe Conservation Area, High Park Corner and the area around Dudley Road. Extending ribbon development is generally considered to be bad planning practice in rural areas, leading to the coalescence of distinctly separate settlements. There are better locations for housing in Fingringhoe if it is needed, that are closer to the core of existing areas of development. An example of this would be the previously proposed extension to the south west of Dudley Road, which is adjacent to the most built up part of the settlement and is away from the sensitive Roman River Valley. This alternative site was put forward in the Call for Sites, under reference number 10225 and represents a far less harmful opportunity for development in a location which is of a much less rural character, as it is adjacent to the most urbanised part of the village settlement.

The character of the area of the village where PP47 proposes development is defined by the narrow carriageway of Church Road, which is lined by strong native hedgerows on either side of the road interspersed with trees. The proposed site itself is defined on its frontage by a strong hedgerow, 2.5 m high, which forms an important part of a continuous hedgerow that runs through this part of the village. The verdant nature of this part of the settlement gives it is distinct undeveloped rural character. There will need to be an access formed in this frontage to serve the development that will require a visibility splay of 43m in each direction. The hedgerow is hard on the site boundary where there is no highway verge, so, any new access will require the hedgerow across the entire site frontage to be removed to achieve the necessary visibility. The destruction of the hedge will result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the rural area, and the verdant character or this more sensitive part of the village in particular.

The site is on the southern ridge of the Roman River Valley where any development will be highly prominent in long views from the north, and from Public Rights of Way 3, 24, 25, 26 and 30, that run along the valley floor. The impact of the development will therefore result in significant harm to the landscape character of the Roman River Valley.

The site proposed for allocation measures 0.3 hectares and extends 21m beyond the rear boundaries of the ribbon of housing that presently exists to the west of the site along Church Road. The additional depth of the allocation is unnecessarily intrusive, as a similar scale of development could equally be achieved were the site to be contained within the prevailing and established depth of ribbon development along Church Road. The additional 21m of land proposed beyond the natural rear boundary of development will further harm the rural character and appearance of the area, resulting in intrusive residential development and its associated paraphernalia into the exposed valley side.

The adjacent property to the west of the proposed site, The Rectory has deliberately been angled at 45o to the road frontage to act as a visual stop to the ribbon of development on the north side of Church Road. Any continuation of housing to the east, beyond The Rectory will be at odds with this intended character and street pattern.

Residential Amenity

To the west of the proposed site is a complex of agricultural buildings that have been in use for livestock and could continue to be used for livestock farming. In 2020, a planning application for a dwelling within the complex of buildings was refused planning permission and was the subject of a subsequent planning appeal. The appeal was dismissed and the Inspector’s reasoning for dismissing the appeal were principally related to the unacceptable harm that would result on the living conditions of the dwelling proposed. The Inspector concluded that :

“I consider that the location of the proposed dwelling would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of future occupiers due to the potential for odours and noise having regard to the proximity and
interconnectivity between the livestock buildings and the proposed dwelling. This potential for disturbance resulting from both the livestock and from the comings and goings associated with the working farm yard would be objectionable to future occupiers.”

A full copy of the appeal decision is attached to these representations.

The proposed development shares a common boundary with this farming enterprise and the harmful effects of the day to day operations on the living conditions of residents on the proposed development site would be profound, making it unsuitable for residential occupation. Were the allocation to succeed, the harm resulting from the farm activity would generate pressure on the farm to relocate its buildings elsewhere in the countryside and could result in an unwelcome opportunity to build further unnecessary and unsustainable development in the village in place of the existing agricultural buildings.

The proposed development fails to demonstrate compliance with key policy requirements. Insufficient evidence is provided to justify local housing need, ensure safe highway access, or deliver adequate pedestrian connectivity. The scheme risks harm to rural landscape character, biodiversity, and the setting of nearby heritage assets. There is also a lack of certainty regarding wastewater treatment capacity and effective water efficiency measures. Collectively, these shortcomings indicate that the proposal would result in unacceptable impacts and should not be supported or approved in its current form.

THere are no amenities in the village at all, there are no footpaths, the road this is proposed on isn’t wide enough for two vehicles as no road markings.
The field in question was rejected in Jan 24 due to protected wildlife and eco system.
The field is a farm and building work can not be done within a certain radius of farm animals and the site is not viable
Reject and object

Hi my name is [REDACTED] and I object to the idea of building five new homes in Fingringhoe Village as I think this will destroy the village culture and the village appeal. I’ve lived in the village for 20 years and there’s no need to build five New houses in Fingringhoe. And I don’t see anything good about building five new homes in a lovely village, which I think will destroy the village entirely and the culture it comes with it so I object.

At present there are a number of relatively small development sites that have been put forward for consideration within the Fingringhoe village envelope, but we are conscious of the very aggressive targets that have been articulated by the UK government to dramatically increase housebuilding by 2030. With that in mind we would like to use this opportunity to record our strong objection to eventual inclusion within the New Local Plan of any potential for large-scale development in and around Fingringhoe.
Fingringhoe is classified as a “non-sustainable” settlement due to its lack of infrastructure, amenities and community assets – in particular, Fingringhoe has no shops or commercial premises, minimal public transport links (and has only minor roads with no pavements) and the sewage/water treatment facilities that serve the village are already near to capacity.
Further, and more generally, the imposition of a substantial number of new homes would irreversibly and detrimentally alter the character and visual amenity of the village.

After reading the proposed plans, I am horrified at the possibility of more traffic and disruption in such a small village.
A village with a 2 mile approximately country road with no footpaths that’s already experiencing a hike in volume of traffic.
Cars, vans farm equipment all run through as a short cut from places such as Mersea Island,peldon Tiptree as examples as a rat run and go via the whalebone Inn to access the Hythe area.
With no shops cafes and as small primary school this is overload
The only people they will benefit will be wealthy people who want a river view not struggling young locals who want to get on the first rung of the ladder
To add to this we already have parking issues at the school for collecting children many cars double parking so your struggling to get through
The village with no footpaths at all and impossible to create due to the lanes width is walked by walkers, dog owners. Villager out for a walk making more dangerous with construction and editional cars added to the mix
I understand the government has a housing crisis but it should be done on brown field sites firstly and not prime green belt land
This is my view and a worrying one because although it’s 5/6 at the moment once done opens the doors for more later and under the 10 amount means no affordable accommodation either
I think it’s an opportunity that will not benefit the village in anyway possible

Fingringhoe is a semi-rural area in character with several PRow at Bridleway and Byway status. It has an equestrian community that rides and drives around the village, connecting to Peldon and Abberton. The plan promises to provide safe pedestrian access, ensuring connectivity within and throughout the site to existing footways and any public rights of way. Ensure the provision of green infrastructure connections and recreational access to the countryside, and secure active travel links to the settlement. There is a demonstrated need in this village to include horses, and all infrastructure should be RB- or BR-status to ensure inclusivity.

Sewage capacity:
The Water Cycle study showed that the Fingringhoe wastewater treatment centre is currently at capacity. This is the maximum number of houses which should be permitted.
Anglian Water acknowledge that an upgrade to the Fingringhoe wastewater treatment centre is needed. However, this is NOT in their current 5 year (2025-30) plan. As this is a fixed term – rather than a rolling plan – the very earliest that this upgrade could happen would be at some point between 2030-35.
As such it would NOT be appropriate to reallocate to Fingringhoe proposed housing from other villages which have large housebuilding allocations in the draft local plan.
Climate change – wildfire risk
The immediate risk of climate change facing Essex is a) sea level rise b) increasing incidents of wildfires to which Essex is particularly vulnerable due to having the lowest average rainfall in the UK. The Fire and Rescue service report into the destruction of a whole street in the village of Wennington on the Essex/London border included a specific warning that such events will occur again “"We know last summer was not a one-off - climate change will continue to give rise to more extreme weather events.”
Villages where there is only a single access road in/out are particularly vulnerable – as if the fire jumps the road, as wildfire frequently do, there is no means of evacuating the section of the village which has been cut off EXCEPT across the fields. This would put the elderly and disabled at particular risk.
The eastern half of Fingringhoe which has several hundred houses is such a situation where the ONLY road in/out – and so the only evacuation route in an emergency is Church Road. As such, this part of Fingringhoe is NOT suitable for any major housing developments – and this should be written into planning policy.

Sewage capacity:
The Water Cycle study showed that the Fingringhoe wastewater treatment centre is currently almost at capacity, with a maximum additional capacity for only 125 houses. As such, this is the maximum number of houses which should be permitted in Abberton/Lanegnhoe and Fingringhoe.
Anglian Water acknowledge that an upgrade to the Fingringhoe wastewater treatment centre is needed. However, this is NOT in their current 5 year (2025-30) plan. As this is a fixed term – rather than a rolling plan – the very earliest that this upgrade could happen would be at some point between 2030-35.
As such it would NOT be appropriate to reallocate to Abberton/Langenhoe proposed housing from other villages which have large housebuilding allocations in the local plan.
Hedges and trees
It is important that hedges and trees should be retained – including the hedge which forms the parish boundary between Langenhoe and Fingringhoe – and is the eastern boundary of the proposed site.
Landscape
Whilst the edge of Langenhoe village can just be seen from locations to the south such as Mersea, any additional housing development to the south of the village, including to the south of Fingringhoe road – would adversely impact the rural landscape character to a significant extent.
Village envelope
The draft local plan has proposed extending the Langenhoe village envelope to take in both Langenhoe cricket ground and a number of houses, including two which are on Abberton Road, Fingringhoe – and so in Fingringhoe Parish. It is difficult to see any justification for extending the village envelope in this way without first consulting either the parish council or the local residents concerned.
Future risk of ribbon development
The proposed site is not ideal as it is currently the green space between the villages of Langenhoe and Fingringhoe. If the proposed site is given the go ahead – the council needs to take specific steps to ensure that green space exists between Langenhoe and the western part of Fingringhoe. If it failed to do this- it would risk ribbon development running from the south part of Peldon road, Abberton – right through to the eastern end of Fingringhoe – a distance of 5KM.

Policy PP47: Land at Picketts Farm, Fingringhoe
5 houses proposed
Sewage capacity:
The Water Cycle study showed that the Fingringhoe wastewater treatment centre is currently at capacity. This is the maximum number of houses which should be permitted.
Anglian Water acknowledge that an upgrade to the Fingringhoe wastewater treatment centre is needed. However, this is NOT in their current 5 year (2025-30) plan. As this is a fixed term – rather than a rolling plan – the very earliest that this upgrade could happen would be at some point between 2030-35.
As such it would NOT be appropriate to reallocate to Fingringhoe proposed housing from other villages which have large housebuilding allocations in the draft local plan.
Climate change – wildfire risk
The immediate risk of climate change facing Essex is a) sea level rise b) increasing incidents of wildfires to which Essex is particularly vulnerable due to having the lowest average rainfall in the UK. The Fire and Rescue service report into the destruction of a whole street in the village of Wennington on the Essex/London border included a specific warning that such events will occur again “"We know last summer was not a one-off - climate change will continue to give rise to more extreme weather events.”
Villages where there is only a single access road in/out are particularly vulnerable – as if the fire jumps the road, as wildfire frequently do, there is no means of evacuating the section of the village which has been cut off EXCEPT across the fields. This would put the elderly and disabled at particular risk.
The eastern half of Fingringhoe which has several hundred houses is such a situation where the ONLY road in/out – and so the only evacuation route in an emergency is Church Road. As such, this part of Fingringhoe is NOT suitable for any major housing developments – and this should be written into planning policy.

Summary
This is the maximum - there is no spare sewage capacity for additional houses
There are also serious issues relating to Church Road being sole access - and hence sole evacuation route for the main eastern part of Fingringhoe. If a wildfire jumped the road evacuation would have to be across the fields - meaning the elderly and disabled would be particularly vulnerable.

A number of sites have been put forward in Fingringhoe, with aggressive targets by the UK government to dramatically increase housebuilding by 2030, I would like to object the inclusion within the New Local Plan in and around Fingringhoe.

Fingringhoe is classified as a “non-sustainable” settlement due to its lack of infrastructure, amenities and community assets – in particular, Fingringhoe has no shops or commercial premises, minimal public transport links (minor roads with no pavements), with sewage/water treatment near to capacity.
The imposition of new homes would irreversibly and detrimentally alter the character and visual amenity of the village.”

Fingringhoe is an unsustainable, limited access, small corner village surrounded by water on all sides, from the Blackwater Estuary and Roman River. Proposed site is an unofficial area of outstanding beauty, particularly when viewed from Rowhedge and Wivenhoe. Village lends itself to leisure pursuits, cycling, walking, running, bird watching, wildlife. Visitors and current residents need pleasant outdoor spaces for health and wellbeing which is why Fingringhoe needs to be protected for future generations to enjoy. Proposed site is in a beautiful, unique, historical part of the village.

Some much needed new housing proposed for the 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

Dear Sirs,

I note and appreciate the need for additional housing in the Borough and accept that some of this need may need to be addressed by new housing in Fingringhoe. However while the small allocation is welcomed I am not convinced that this site is suitable for development. Development here would harm the Roman River valley - and so contradicts policies to protect that valley. It would certainly harm the view from the Rowhedge bank as you look south across to Fingringhoe. I believe that there are several other sites in the village that would be better suited - and may even have the prospect of offering more units. I suggest that the Borough instigates a local consultation exercise to help identify these sites and the number of units that they could deliver. Then members of the community could consider these holistically rather than just have to express views in respect of one (inappropriate) site only.

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.

At present there are a number of relatively small development sites that have been put forward for consideration within the Fingringhoe village envelope, but we are conscious of the very aggressive targets that have been articulated by the UK government to dramatically increase housebuilding by 2030. With that in mind we would like to use this opportunity to record our strong objection to eventual inclusion within the New Local Plan of any potential for large-scale development in and around Fingringhoe.

Fingringhoe is classified as a “non-sustainable” settlement due to its lack of infrastructure, amenities and community assets – in particular, Fingringhoe has no shops or commercial premises, minimal public transport links (and has only minor roads with no pavements) and the sewage/water treatment facilities that serve the village are already near to capacity.

Further, and more generally, the imposition of a substantial number of new homes would irreversibly and detrimentally alter the character and visual amenity of the village.”