as previous

This site sits outside the existing boundary line of Messing village and is within an established agricultural location. It is not clear why this site has been included as other single sites outside the village envelope have been rejected. The scheme is not compatible with its surroundings on two locations, to the west and north. It is accessed via a narrow local route, mainly single track, with the scheme likely to produce an extra 50 cars. It is inadequately located for public transport, the nearest main bus route being one mile distant, the current bus service is on Friday.

Parish council have laid out well, the shortcomings of the proposal and the impacts on residence if not done well, I accept having houses build in the village is just a reality, how sensitively they are build it the critical point.
Maldon has demonstrated how not to build them - small red boxes in a field, utterly characterless.
Clusters of houses with green areas in between, built into the landscape not just on top of it, this does have the capacity to be an attractive development, but requires real detailed input.
Flooding photos attached to help you with site plan.

We have concerns regarding the potential allocation of this site, which is located to the south-west of the Messing Conservation Area. The Conservation Area includes several listed buildings, most notably the Grade II* Church of All Saints (Messing) (LEN 1224665). The Council’s Heritage Impact Assessment Sift Report notes that the site is prominent within the rural landscape setting of the Conservation Area and listed buildings. Therefore, development here has the potential to affect the significance of these heritage assets through changes within their setting.

Initial assessment

Effects uncertain. Due to this sensitivity, a full Heritage Impact Assessment, rather than the Proforma HIA recommended by the Sift Report, will be required before the next draft of the Plan. This assessment should determine whether the site is suitable from a historic environment perspective and identify any mitigation measures or opportunities for enhancement to be incorporated into criterion ‘g’.

Messing cum Inworth Parish Council (McIPC) submits this formal representation on Policies ST5,
PP19 and PP48 in Colchester City Council’s ‘Preferred Options Draft Local Plan’.
McIPC also submits formal representation on the following Evidence Base and Supporting
Documents:
• Summary of Sites Evidence Colchester Local Plan. October 2025 - Policy PP19
• Summary of Sites Evidence Colchester Local Plan. October 2025 - Policy PP48
It has strong concerns as follows:
Policy ST5 Colchester’s Housing Needs
Paragraph 3.51 States that allocation PP19 includes land within Tiptree Parish and Messing
cum Inworth Parish. McIPC believe the entire allocation for PP19 is within the Messing cum
Inworth Parish, including the proposed 27 hectares of open space. McIPC therefore welcomes
the opportunity to comment below.
Policy PP19 - Summary of MCiPC Concerns:
McIPC has concerns regarding this 600-house allocation that borders Tiptree but sits within
McIPC, opposite the woodland band separating Tiptree from Messing, as follows:.
● Traffic from this site could cut through Messing and along New Road.
● The plan does NOT include any mitigation to stop rat-running into Messing roads.
● The site is admitted to be in Messing-cum-Inworth Parish, even though it functionally serves
Tiptree.
The Policy sets out mandatory requirements as follows:
● 600 new dwellings and required Northern Link Road (B1022 ↔ B1023).
● Delivery of a Tiptree Country Park (27 ha).
● Must buffer Eden Wood and Inworth Wood.
● Provides pedestrian links and green corridors.
● Consideration to the inclusion of a mobility hub.
● Warns of possible heritage and archaeology impacts.
● Requires a detailed masterplan developed with the community.
Summary of Sites Evidence Colchester Local Plan October 2025 Policy
PP19
This acknowledges:
● Some highways constraints, but “not significant enough” to stop deliverability.
● Harm to biodiversity due to ancient woodland proximity.
● Need buffers and retention of hedgerows including a “green lane”.
● The site lies in Messing-cum-Inworth Parish, not inside the Tiptree Parish boundary.
● Greenfield land.
Site allocated in Policy PP19 Tiptree (but allocation in Messing cum
Inworth Parish Council) – Land North of Oak Road
The evidence summary for this site notes only minor “constraints” on highway access. Policy
PP19 proposes 600 homes and explicitly requires delivering the northern link road as per the
Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan. This link road would relieve Tiptree centre. However, until this
is built, new traffic from this development could divert through New Road into Messing. This
narrow country lane is very unsuitable.
McIPC request that strict traffic mitigation is required, and any planning permission for this
allocation should require a construction traffic management plan preventing heavy vehicles
from using the country lanes leading into Messing. Weight limits should be imposed on
Messing village roads during works. This should be a stipulation of the Master Plan or included
in Policy PP19.
The policy’s encouragement of a “mobility hub” or public transport provision is welcomed, as
there are no local bus services.
McIPC agree with the requirement in PP19 that the link road should be delivered, but McIPC
request that no additional traffic is routed through Messing’s country lanes whilst awaiting
the completion of the link road.
Environmental points are also noted, with the site containing parts of Eden Wood and Inworth
Wood (ancient woodland and Local Wildlife Sites). The Preferred Options allocation excludes
the Eden Wood area, and PP19 mandates buffering both protected woodland and retaining
the “green lane” hedgerow network. McIPC consider that these ecological safeguards must be
enforced, with no encroachment and the creation of meaningful buffers, and the proposed
27 ha country park to benefit the local area.
McIPC welcome the opportunity to be involved from the early stages of the consultation
process for the Masterplan for this development.
Policy PP48 - Summary of MCiPC Concerns:
McIPC has strong concerns for:
● Transport: No bus service, unsafe roads, long walking distances to bus stops.
● Traffic impacts: Narrow lanes; high volumes; Oak Road Tiptree traffic also likely to use New
Road → Messing → Inworth Road.
● Flooding: 2015 surface-water problems affecting site 10634.
● Sewage capacity: Pumping station frequently fails; tanker reliance.
● Heritage: Conservation Area and danger of HGVs on the tight bend near the churchyard wall.
● Services: School oversubscribed; poor electricity and internet.
The Policy sets out mandatory requirements as follows:
● Approximately 25 dwellings, compatible with surrounding development.
● Access from Kelvedon Road and must not harm highway safety or be detrimental to highway
capacity
● Require pedestrian links to existing footways and green infrastructure connections.
● Must provide 1.7 ha open space (important for drainage and buffering).
● Must deliver standing freshwater habitat (supports McIPC’s drainage concerns).
● Requires screening with hedgerows/woodland to preserve rural character.
● Must conserve heritage assets (Conservation Area and many listed buildings).
● Must not discharge surface water to foul sewer (aligns with McIPC’s concerns over sewer
capacity).
● Wintering bird surveys required.
Summary of Sites Evidence Colchester Local Plan October 2025 Policy
PP48
The Site passes SLAA Stages 1 & 2 under site allocation 10634
Issues noted:
● Some access constraints but deemed manageable.
● No potential harm to heritage assets(although it does state that a Proforma Heritage Impact
Assessment is required)
● Opportunities for green infrastructure.
● States site is a logical extension, reduced in size from what was promoted
McIPC however note the following issues with The Sites Evidence Document:
● It does not identify flood risk as a constraint.
● It identifies access issues. – (But not significant enough to affect deliverability)
● It identifies no heritage or character issues
● It does not identify any issues relating to density and impact on character
●It does not identify issues with utility provision.
Settlement Evidence Stage 1 - November 2024 Document
McIPC would like to clarify that although the population of the parish of Messing-cum-Inworth
is circa 166 households, 34 of these households are located in Inworth. The village of Messing
has only 132 households
The 2017 Settlement Boundary Review identified the sewage, drainage and surface water
capacity and (surface water) flooding issues that would need to be addressed if any
development were proposed. This was not identified in the November 2024 Settlement
Evidence Stage 1 Report. The 2017 Settlement Boundary Review stated that Messing should
only be considered for limited small-scale growth. It concluded that an earlier promoted site
for 21 houses was too large and vehicular access would be difficult to achieve. Messing was
not considered sustainable or suitable for planned housing growth. Since 2017, none of these
facts have changed.
Policy PP48 – Kelvedon Road, Messing
McIPC consider the City Council’s evidence presents an overly optimistic view of the site’s
suitability and its lack of harm.
The City Council’s Summary of Sites Evidence (October 2025) states that highway constraints
are “not significant enough to affect deliverability”, that there are “no known issues with utility
provision”, and that no adverse heritage or archaeological impacts are anticipated. It also
concludes that the site would form a “logical extension to the village.”
a) Transportation and Accessibility
● The Local Plan’s description of bus access and bus stop locations is factually inaccurate.
Colchester Preferred Options Local Plan document (Point 5.424) includes the statement “Site
10634 is located some distance from a railway station and cycling route, although it is close to
multiple bus stops”. McIPC would like to clarify that the closest bus stops are 0.9 miles (20
minute walk), 1.1 miles (25 minute walk) and 1.2 miles (25 minute walk)
● Walking routes to bus stops pose measurable safety risks. The village is served by narrow,
twisting country lanes with no pavement and a 60mph speed limit.
● The site (PP48) fundamentally conflicts with Paragraphs 109 to 118 of the NPPF and also
Colchester’s sustainable transport policy. With just 2 buses per week, (both on the same day)
and a road network that is conducive to neither cyclists nor pedestrians, cars are the only
practical means of transport. Siting development in the village goes against Colchester City
Council transport policies and objectives. Policy PC2 (Active and Sustainable Travel) states “All
new development should be planned around a network of safe and accessible active travel
routes, creating places that maximise opportunities for active and sustainable travel”.
● To achieve compliance with sustainability duties and requirements in accordance with
National and Local Planning Policy, the proposed policy should require the submission of a
Travel Plan (Paragraph 118 of the NPPF).
b) Road Infrastructure and Traffic
● The City Council’s evidence underestimates the severity of local road constraints and does
not account for the combined impact of committed developments in Tiptree, Feering and
Kelvedon. (NPPF paragraph 116 refers to the cumulative impact on highway safety….taking
into account all reasonable future scenarios). High volumes of traffic from Land North of Oak
Road, (PP19 allocation for 600 houses) is likely to use New Road as a cut through to Messing
and onto the Inworth Road. This road is VERY narrow and totally unsuitable for traffic volumes.
● Local traffic volumes are already high. The levels of development included in the Local Plan
for the Tiptree area, added with the plans that Braintree District Council are working on for
the development of Feering and Kelvedon, will lead to a large increase in vehicle traffic in the
district. There are already pinch points creating long delays at peak times at the Blue Anchor
and Factory Corner in Tiptree. With no plans to increase the current road infrastructure, there
is no doubt that delays will become more frequent and more widespread.
● The road network servicing Messing village is largely narrow single-track with passing places
forced from farmer’s fields, unadopted and therefore not maintained (with large potholes and
ditches presenting major dangers to road users). This road network also presents specific
dangers to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. Junctions leading onto local B-roads are also
narrow with impeded sight lines. On the assumption that each dwelling will have at least 2
vehicles, the proposal for 25 dwellings in Messing village will represent a significant increase
in traffic volume in the surrounding road network, especially when the almost total lack of
public transport is taken into account
● McIPC strongly request that a weight limit for vehicles entering and leaving the conservation
areas should be enforced during the construction phase.
McIPC request explicit traffic mitigation, including:
● A highways-led review of New Road
● Safety measures prior to progression of the Tiptree Oak Road allocation (PP19) and sites
already consented in Oak Road.
● Construction-phase restrictions to protect the Messing Conservation Area
c) District traffic management
McIPC note that no mitigations are currently proposed in response to the cancellation of the
A12 rebuild project. McIPC also note that Hinds Bridge (a narrow historic bridge, that does not
allow for large vehicles to pass) on the B1023 in Inworth is also excluded from any mitigations.
This is an ancient brick-arch bridge built in 1850 and closed for repairs in 2018 by Essex
Highways because the structure was sub-standard and failed assessment.
d) Heritage and Village Character
● McIPC are concerned that the general level of development throughout the district will have
an adverse effect on the centre of Messing, which is a Conservation Area with a high density
of Listed Buildings. As set out in paragraphs 202 to 214 of the NPPF, Designated Heritage
Assets and Conservation Areas need to be protected. The village already sees elevated traffic
levels when there are problems with the A12. Messing has had issues with HGVs attempting
to pass on the double bend by the church. Swept path analysis shows that this is impossible
due to the curtilage listed churchyard wall located in the inside of the double bend. McIPC
request that provision is made to ensure that HVGs are not permitted as through traffic in the
village centre.
e) Flooding and Surface Water Management
●The site (PP48/10634) has a documented history of surface water run-off problems. In 2015
Essex Highways investigated incidents of surface water flooding in Messing. (See Messing
Flood Study Report 2015 and its Appendices attached). Site 10634 was identified as a source
of the problematic surface water run-off. The Essex Highways Flood Study Report (January
2015) made a number of recommendations (including some relating to site 10634) to resolve
the problems. These mitigation works were undertaken, including works on site PP48/10634
(see Appendix D of the Flood Study Report). Any development work on site 10634 needs to
ensure that the mitigation works are not affected, otherwise this could cause surface water
flooding issues for both the site and the village.
● McIPC request that a site-specific drainage strategy, informed by the Essex Highways 2015
evidence, is a mandatory requirement for this site allocation. McIPC requests that clear
maintenance responsibilities are set out as policy, including a program of works, maintenance
and clarification as to who will take future maintenance responsibilities. In addition, discharge
of surface water from the development should be carefully designed so as not to add to the
local risk of flooding.
● McIPC would like to query why the historic surface water flooding issues and mitigation
works were not identified in the Settlement Evidence for this site.
f) Sewage Capacity
● Messing village is served by a sewage pumping station in Lodge Road. Sewage trucks are
frequently used to deal with excess volume, and residents have been informed that the
pumping station is at capacity and suffers from frequent failures. Further residential
development in Messing will require Anglian Water to increase the reliability and the capacity
of this pumping station to avoid environmental damage to the locality.
g) Density and number of units proposed
● The site allocation is for around 25 dwellings. McIPC request that the final number of
dwellings is determined through a detailed design process to ensure that the scheme reflects
the established character, grain, and density of the surrounding settlement. Any development
needs to integrate sensitively with the adjacent built form, maintain appropriate spacing, and
respect the transition between the settlement edge and the more open rural landscape
beyond.
● McIPC calculates the housing density along the section of School Road that directly backs
onto site 10634 at 23 houses per hectare. The nearby Collins Green development is calculated
at 14 houses per hectare, and the Messing Green development at 18 houses per hectare
(excluding the Green itself). Site 10634 should be designed to provide a density no greater
than the existing immediate area and definitely no more than 25 dwellings in total.
● There is an identified housing need arising from a recent survey carried out in conjunction
with the RCCE. We expect that this need would be satisfied within the stated 25 dwellings.
● Sufficient on-site parking should be included in the development to allow for the expected
3 vehicles per dwelling to avoid vehicle parking on the narrow lanes and village streets.
● The site will include green space of 1.7 hectares. The responsibility for maintaining this,
including the existing ditch, all hedges, trees, gardens and grassland, should rest with the
occupants of the new dwellings (perhaps via a management company) and not fall to existing
residents via the precept.
● Ideally, the green space should be a wetland area (swale/mere) to accommodate the
additional run-off that will result from the new development. This would help to prevent
surface water flooding issues at lower points in the village, including the area surrounding the
village hall. The wetland area would have the added benefit of increasing biodiversity, and if
the wetland area is sited between the existing houses in School Road and the new
development, the impact on the rural nature of the area will be lessened.
h) Utilities, schools and medical facilities
● Medical facilities
Messing residents make use of medical services in either Kelvedon or Tiptree. McIPC
understand that capacity is very limited for new patients in both locations. Although the scale
of development planned for site 10634 is relatively small, planned developments elsewhere
in Tiptree will make the provision of additional medical services a clear and urgent
requirement.
● Electricity supply
The existing supply to the village is unstable and residents report intermittent dimming of
lights. Additional development within the village is likely to exacerbate the situation unless
remedial work is completed.
● Data connectivity
Residents report frequent outages and slow running of broadband services. Further capacity
will be required to support the planned development.
● Education
Messing School provides for ages 5-11 – there is no nursery or pre-school service. The school
is currently over-subscribed. Alternative schools are available in Tiptree or in Kelvedon, several
miles away. The closest secondary school to the village is Thurstable in Tiptree. The majority
of village children aged 11+ attend that school. Other than those attending the village school,
pupils travelling to school are subject to the difficulties described in the Road Infrastructure
section above.
Messing-cum-Inworth Parish Council stands ready to work with the Planning department
and any subsequent developers to ensure that, should the proposed development proceed,
it is successful for both new and existing village residents

Healthy/vibrant/diverse places
Outside of settlement boundaries eroding distinct character of Messing/Inworth/Feering/Tiptree
Destruction of productive farmland
Substantial increase in village size (17%)
Substantial development with better amenities elsewhere in local area (Tiptree/Kelvedon/Feering/garden village)

Sustainable
Inadequate infrastructure
Oversubscribed services–doctors/NHS dentist/education - Messing school – most oversubscribed in Essex
No village amenities

Welcoming inclusive communities
Site not supportive of jobs/inward investment growth
No local demand–recent survey concluded “not enough housing needs identified”
Excess supply–residents unable to sell properties

Well-connected
No public transport meaning total reliance on car
Increasing congestion in local area
Narrow, poorly maintained country roads
Cancellation of A12/A120 improvements

I live near, keep and ride my horse, walk my dogs and cycle around Messing. 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 Messing/Tiptree linked together for the benefit of many horseriders in Messing/Tiptree.

The addition of these houses will lead to significant congestion in the local area due to the lack of public transport in place, and inadequate infrastructure to cope with the increased cars. This will lead to worsening road conditions, on the already poorly maintained narrow country roads, and more strain and even heavier congestion, already incredibly bad, of Kelvedon's roads due to the local station and access to the A12 and A120. A recent survey produced of the area concluded that there were, 'not enough housing needs identified' therefore this would not be a worthwhile investment in the local area.

Our client objects to the draft allocation for approximately 25 dwellings at Kelvedon Road on the basis that Messing is significantly smaller and less sustainable than Layer de la Haye, with very limited existing services and facilities. As a result Policy PP48 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 Kelvedon Road, Messing, 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.

Strong indication to include equestrians due to the semi-rural and rural location of this site, including local woodland. Ensure provision of green infrastructure connections and recreational access to the countryside that includes equestrians. Horses stabled and ridden out at Messing, Tiptree, Layer Marney and Easthorpe. Infrastructure must be multi-user routes (MURs) to ensure inclusivity for all non-motorised users. A good opportunity to link the surrounding communities. MURs function as public highways and are best defined as restricted byways—open to pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists, and users of non-motorised vehicles—or as bridleways, which permit access for pedestrians, horse riders, and cyclists.

PUMPING STATION. I feel that the pumping station in Lodge road is not adequately suitable to withstand a further 25 house capacity. The pumping station in question already suffers frequent failures. Further residential development would require Anglian Water to increase the capacity of the pumping station and the reliability.
ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE. The roads in and around Messing are very narrow and totally unsuitable for traffic volumes. I feel with the combined impact of the committed developments in Tiptree, Feering and Kelvedon, Messing would be used as a 'cut through' (rat run) and to commit to a further 25 houses would be catastrophic on the already dangerous local roads.

Feering Parish Council response to Colchester City Council’s Regulation 18 Consultation regarding proposed allocations in Tiptree, Messing and Marks Tey. The Council is concerned that development near the B1023 and along the Inworth Road corridor would significantly increase traffic on an already congested and overstretched highway network, worsening safety and movement. With Government funding withdrawn for the A12 expansion, previously anticipated junction and infrastructure improvements may not be delivered, leaving cumulative impacts unmitigated. The Parish Council cannot support these allocations without clear, deliverable traffic mitigation. It also urges robust mitigation for congestion at A12 junction 25.

The allocation of land at Kelvedon Road, Messing for residential development is supported. The site is suitable for housing, can contribute to meeting local housing needs, and provides an opportunity to deliver a well-designed development that respects the rural character, heritage, and ecological sensitivity of the area.

This allocation can be delivered in the 0-5 year timeframe. It is important that the smaller and medium sized allocations are delivered early in the plan period to front load housing delivery.

Some refinements to the policy are suggested, see attachment.

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.

We support Policy ST5, which wish to make refinements to the housing number of the following site allocations:

• Land at Earls Colne Road, Great Tey – Change 125 dwellings to 150 dwellings
• Kelvedon Road, Messing – Change 25 dwellings to 30 dwellings
• Land at St Ives Road, Peldon - Change 25 dwellings to 30 dwellings

Policy ST5 would benefit from the inclusion of a larger allocation buffer to ensure delivery is robust and resilient over the plan period. See 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.