Possible criminal offence: Activity in St Ives would appear to have already started. I drove by yesterday and it is clear that several established/mature trees and hedgerow bordering the proposed site have already been reduced to a state from which they will not recover. The activity is much more than the man on the Clapham Omnibus would include in the definition of either coppicing or over-management. it is a prelude to destruction, should be investigated, and if upheld, the perpetrators should be brought to book.

No justifiable need: In 2024 the PCC instigated an Affordable Housing survey - https://winstred100.org/2024/04/winstred-hundred-minutes-9th-april-2024/ concluded no immediate need. Furthermore, there are major constraints that render it not effective to deliver this plan under the NPPF.

Village distortion: Such a large number of properties should not be clumped into a single plot, but should be spread over different areas, with perhaps 4 in the proposed site. A 25‑unit estate contradicts the Local Plan’s settlement hierarchy, which restricts small settlements to very limited, locally justified growth. Of course, smaller blots, possibly being awarded to several different developers (and individuals) would reduce Section 106 claw-backs. However, the promise of these thirty pieces of silver should not distort what is right for the village into something that is very wrong, and from which the village could not recover.

Not deliverable due to lack of infrastructure and highway safety risks:

Many key services are already overloaded; the top ones are doctors, dentists, potable water, sewage, primary and secondary schooling. These deficiencies are well known locally (and the principal issues of doctors, sewage & dentists are not confined to Peldon).

St Ives is narrow, without pavement, and with poor splay visibility. Lack of useable public transport will yield 2-3 cars per new unit – another 60-70 vehicles bearing down onto junctions that almost meet the threshold of action each year (Salcott crossroads, Abberton turning by the old Kings Head)

In conflict with core principles of sustainable development: This development would fundamentally contradict the NPPF’s definition of sustainable development, which requires the integration of environmental, social, and economic objectives. In particular:
• The environmental dimension would be harmed through landscape loss, habitat disruption, increased emissions from car dependency, and pressure on water systems.
• The social dimension would be weakened because the development would not meet locally defined needs.
• The economic dimension and delivery risk would be undermined by the prohibitive cost of infrastructure upgrades.

The result is a development that cannot be considered sustainable in any meaningful sense.

Landscape and Rural Character Impacts: PP49 sits within a sensitive rural landscape. Development as proposed would introduce an estate‑style form, entirely at odds with the ribbon settlement pattern.

Biodiversity and Habitat Loss: The site and surrounding countryside support a rich ecological network, including:
• Bats (multiple species; my detector has “heard” Soprano Pipistrelle)
• Raptors (I’ve seen owls, kestrels, buzzards and red kite)

The Environment Act 2021 requires all major developments to deliver 10% Biodiversity Net Gain:
• A 25-unit scheme cannot achieve this on site.
• Off site credits undermine local ecological resilience – it’s bribery in disguise.

I object to the 25 house development proposed in the middle of Peldon, too many houses for such a small and unsustainable village in one place altering the current 'string'development charcter there.

I am fine with 25 houses there, just not all in one place, there are other sites in the village identified in the call for sites documents, a few in each would be great.

Policy PP49: Land at St Ives Road, Peldon

The allocation of land at St Ives Road, Peldon 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.

However, refinements are recommended to policy, see attachment.

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

I wish to comment on the Draft Local Plan policy proposing the allocation of land in Peldon for approximately 25 dwellings. At this stage, no detailed planning application has been submitted; therefore, these comments relate to the suitability of the site in principle and whether the draft policy requirements are sufficiently robust to ensure sustainable development.

Firstly, the draft policy does not adequately address existing constraints on local health, social care, and education infrastructure. Peldon forms part of the Mersea and Pyefleet Ward, which has a significantly higher proportion of residents aged 65 and over than the national average. GP and NHS dental services serving the village from West Mersea are already operating at or beyond capacity, with no availability for new NHS dental patients. In addition, there is no primary or secondary school within Peldon, and schools in West Mersea already experience capacity pressures. The policy should explicitly require evidence that health and education infrastructure can accommodate additional demand, together with appropriate mitigation measures.

Secondly, there are significant concerns regarding highway safety, site access, and traffic capacity on St Ives Road for example. This is a narrow rural road subject to a 30mph speed limit, where vehicle speeds are already perceived to be high. The road is also regularly used by heavy agricultural machinery travelling between farm sites within Peldon, as well as buses and other large vehicles, which already creates difficulties where opposing vehicles meet. The introduction of additional vehicle movements associated with approximately 25 dwellings, including regular access and egress from a new junction, has the potential to materially worsen highway safety conditions. At this stage, the draft policy does not provide sufficient clarity or evidence to demonstrate that safe and suitable access can be achieved without detriment to highway capacity or safety. Stronger requirements should be included to ensure that access arrangements are fully assessed and demonstrably appropriate for the rural road environment before allocation is confirmed.

Thirdly, the sustainability of the site in transport terms remains unclear. Public transport provision in Peldon is limited and unreliable, with infrequent bus services restricting access to employment, healthcare, education, and services in West Mersea and Colchester. Without significant improvements, the site risks increased reliance on private car use, contrary to sustainable transport objectives.

Fourthly, there are environmental and landscape concerns that require stronger safeguards within the policy. The draft policy states that mature trees and hedgerows within the site should be retained; however, trees and hedgerows have already been removed with the permission and consent of the current landowners. This highlights the vulnerability of existing landscape features and reinforces the need for clearer, enforceable policy requirements relating to biodiversity protection, green infrastructure, and landscape screening to maintain the rural character of Peldon and protect wildlife habitats.

In addition, the draft policy relies on future applicants confirming wastewater and sewage treatment capacity with Anglian Water. Given existing local pressures on wastewater infrastructure, the allocation should be supported by clearer evidence of capacity, phasing requirements, and contingency measures before it is confirmed.

Finally, the site lies within the setting of a number of designated heritage assets, including the Grade I listed Church of St Mary. The draft policy should be strengthened to require early and comprehensive assessment of heritage impact, including effects on setting, views, and local distinctiveness, to ensure that any future development conserves or enhances the significance of these assets.

In its current form, the draft allocation places excessive reliance on future applicants to resolve fundamental infrastructure, highway, and environmental constraints. Further evidence and more robust policy wording are required before this site can be considered suitable for allocation within the Local Plan.

The proposed development at St Ives Road Peldon is inappropriate for a number of reasons.
1. 25 new houses on an estate in the middle green triangle of Peldon will change the whole nature of the village which is a rural community.
2. St Ives Road is narrow and single track at the top and is a bus route which already causes congestion and noise a peak times. Additional local traffic and a junction for cars entering the estate will cause further problems and risk. There are no footways and no room to construct them.
3. The road is bounded by trees and hedges, of which the one adjacent to the site has already been cut down illegally by the developer before any planning permission has been granted.
4. The sewage pumping station for Peldon beside the road to Mersea is often overwhelmed and tankers have to be brought in to provide extra capacity. 25 new houses will further overload the system.
5. It would be much better to develop one of the proposed sites on the Mersea Road out of Peldon which would minimise many of the above problems.

I strongly object to the proposal to develop 25 houses in Peldon. The existing infrastructure is inadequate for the existing settlement. The roads are unsuitable for the traffic they already bear. There is no local shop sufficient for a household’s weekly shop, local doctors, schools and sewage provision are at capacity, such public transport as exists is unreliable. The St Ives Road site is unsuitable. It is a narrow twisty hill with an extremely dangerous junction at the top. If the development is to go ahead the road needs to widened and have some form of traffic control introduced.

The draft plan for Peldon includes several sites in and around the village. Whilst I understand the Council's preference for the St Ives Road site on the grounds that avoids any element of " ribbon development" it nevertheless constitutes a major loss of the "green heart" of the village that has long been considered of primary importance to the local populace. I also accept an alternative site on Mersea Road to the South-East of Peldon Crescent is, in its original form, vastly oversized for the village allocation and would constitute a significant ribbon development and developed appearance. If however a smaller area was approved a cul-de-sac development similar to that at the Glebe and Newpots Close in Peldon could be developed which would diminish if not negate the ribbon development issue and provide considerably better toad access than will be possible for the St Ives site. I would therefore urge the Council to review the preferred status of the former and instead establish the Mersea Road site, with a reduced area, as the preferred site. Finally, I would note that in terms of personal impact the St Ives Road site does not have any direct impact on myself or my property whereas the Mersea Road development I describe could have some detrimental impact. I maintain however, that for the overall benefit and future quality of the village environment I believe that the Mersea Road site should be seen as preferable. Thank you

I object to PP49 in Peldon intruding into Peldon's green, undisturbed valuable breeding site for many red listed birds & animals.
Peldon's housing on two sides of the village triangle because St Ives Road (PP49) is too narrow for two passing vehicles, especially larger vehicles. PP49 cannot provide roadside footway/pavements to nearest bus stops.
A better site for the 25 allocation is part of ID 10673 on Mersea Road, Peldon, using 1.1ha road frontage area adjacent to the Colchester Council garages & council houses which could extend the pavement, giving safer walking for houses on opposite side of Mersea road.

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.

I object to Policy PP49 which proposes approximately 25 dwellings on land at St Ives Road, Peldon. Whilst I acknowledge that the Plan seeks to distribute a limited amount of growth across rural settlements, strong exception must be taken to the choice of site, rather than simply the scale of development.

The proposed allocation would introduce a significant amount of built development into the green heart of Peldon, an area which has historically remained undeveloped and which plays a defining role in the village’s character, spatial form, and identity. This open central area has been deliberately protected for centuries and is explicitly recognised as important in local character evidence, including the Village Design Statement which I played a roll in formulating.

The Sustainability Appraisal audit trail indicates that the St Ives Road site was selected on the basis that it represents a “logical extension” and would improve connectivity when compared with alternatives. However, this conclusion is not sufficiently evidenced in relation to Peldon’s distinctive development pattern, which is characterised by a loose triangular form around three historic routes and a strong sense of openness at its core. In this context, the proposed site does not reflect the established “rhythm” of development and would erode an area that is fundamental to the village’s sense of place.

The harm caused by the loss of this central green space would be permanent and cannot be adequately mitigated through on-site landscaping or open-space provision elsewhere within the allocation.

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.