Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

Comment

Representation ID: 14069

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Given that the Draft Local Plan has identified that some development will need to
take place on sites that the Level 1 SFRA has identified as being at medium or high
risk of flooding, it is essential that a Level 2 SFRA be undertaken to inform the
Regulation 19 stage of the Local Plan preparation. This will help to support the Local
Plan’s vision to help Colchester to adapt and increase its resilience to increased
flooding, which is one of the effects of climate change.

Comment

Representation ID: 14206

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

In the section of the policy relating to Green Network and Waterways Plans for major
residential developments, it would be worth highlighting that opportunities should be
taken to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding both to the site and elsewhere,
through the use of green infrastructure and natural flood management. This would
reflect the policy guidance given in National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
paragraph 172(c). The policy could also make reference to the need for site level
SuDS to provide multifunctional benefits wherever possible, to reflect the guidance
given in paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 14207

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We will be seeking the support of Colchester City Council to assist with partnership
contributions towards the costs of essential maintenance and refurbishment of the
Colne Barrier over this Plan period. As the Barrier approaches the midpoint of its
operational life, it is becoming increasingly important to implement targeted
improvements, and modernisation works to ensure the structure continues to
perform reliably. These interventions are critical to maintaining the long-term
resilience of the asset and safeguarding the upstream communities that depend on
its continued protection.

Comment

Representation ID: 14208

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We recommend the addition of place shaping principles:
“- Protect groundwater and underlying aquifers as an important resource.
- Seek opportunity for environmental betterment by remediating previously
developed land.”
We would suggest a minor alteration to the text of point (c) in the policy:
“Support adaptation measures to address the impacts of climate change and ensure
development is safe and resilient to a changing climate.”

Comment

Representation ID: 14209

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Cemetery Provision
The requirement for adequate cemetery provision has not been addressed within the
plan. We recommend the following guidance be referenced:
• Guidance for Cemeteries and burials;
• Protecting groundwater from human burials;
• The Environment Agency's Approach to Groundwater Protection, section L.
Our guidance is regularly revised, and therefore, throughout the plan's duration, the
most recent version or replacement guidance for superseded versions should be
consulted.

Comment

Representation ID: 14210

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Detailed comments on the policy including a suggestion that flood risk and SuDS is split into two different policies, the Flood Risk section of Policy EN8 is re-worded to better
accord with the aims of Chapter 14 of the NPPF and SuDS revised to reflect the following comments about infiltration SuDS.

Comment

Representation ID: 14211

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We are pleased to see an overall policy relating to Pollution and Contaminated Land. However, suggested some wording changes.

Comment

Representation ID: 14212

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Suggest adding a bullet point principle in Policy
GN1 regarding flood risk and within this policy, or the supporting text, it would also be useful to make reference to
the objective in paragraph 172 of the NPPF. Even on sites at low risk of flooding this can help to reduce the risk
of flooding elsewhere.

Comment

Representation ID: 14213

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

It is positive to see the Essex Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) recognised
and identified areas afforded protection from inappropriate development. However,
we consider that the plan is currently lacking in terms of enabling the implementation
of the LNRS. The plan should include a mechanism to ensure that the LNRS
priorities will influence planning decisions. We would like the plan to refer to the
mitigation hierarchy; detailing that the avoidance of harm and preservation of on-site
biodiversity features should be considered before creating new habitat.

Comment

Representation ID: 14214

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

The policy should make reference to the need for developments to consider the
management approaches for the coastline and estuary frontages as included in the
South Suffolk and Essex Shoreline Management Plan. You should also consider whether areas within the Coastal Belt require designation
as Coastal Change Management Areas, in accordance with paragraph 184 of the
NPPF and with regard to paragraph 072 of the Flood risk and coastal change
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). More details should be provided on the nature of submissions required to
demonstrate that any proposed houseboats will not impact designated habitats.