Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

Comment

Representation ID: 14215

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Section 7 and Policy NZ1 considers renewable energy and the requirement for all
new buildings to be fossil fuel free. We anticipate an increased number of ground
source heat pumps installed as lower carbon alternatives. The Environment Agency
regulates ground source heating and cooling systems. The system may require an
abstraction licence and an environmental permit, or exemptions may apply.
Developers should engage with Environment Agency at an early stage and it would
be beneficial for the Local Plan to highlight this requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 14216

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We strongly recommend splitting water supply and wastewater into separate policies
or clearly defined sections within a water policy, to provide better clarity. Detailed comments are made - see attachment.

Comment

Representation ID: 14217

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

This policy considers planning applications for renewable energy schemes, but it is
not clear whether it also covers Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). Where
BESS are developed there is potential for pollution of the water environment in
emergency situations, in particular because of fires. This would be exacerbated if the
BESS is located in a vulnerable groundwater location. Highly polluting chemicals in
batteries could enter surface waterbodies in firewater or rainfall via surface water run
off should battery containers become exposed in the event of a fire. Applicants should be encouraged to engage early with Local Fire & Rescue Services.

Comment

Representation ID: 14218

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We are aware that there are a high number of change of use type applications
coming forward within the Colchester Local Plan area, including as change of use to
major scale care home developments and so we recommend consideration of a
separate change of use policy.
Alternatively, if you prefer to keep change of use policy references embedded within
multiple relevant policies, our comments below could be captured as a sub section to
any future bespoke Waste Water Policy, to consolidate waste water related policy
wording in one location.

Comment

Representation ID: 14219

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We would advise that Point (c) in the policy text
should be expanded to read
“…located outside areas identified by the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment or the
Flood Map for Planning, as being at high risk of flooding both now and in future”
The policy does not rule out the consideration of new sites where connection to a
mains sewer system is not feasible. Regard should be given to Policy NZ3 and our
proposed additions.

Comment

Representation ID: 14220

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

we recommend that the Policy should either refer directly back to policy
EN9 or state specifically that remediation will be required prior to development where
previous contamination is found.
There is reference to habitat protection under these proposals, but no reference for
the need to ensure existing systems for environmental protection or pollution would
also need to upgraded or replaced with appropriate system for the proposed new
use. This should be included within the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 14221

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

This policy is high-level and leans on general environmental policies laid out
elsewhere. It should ensure ecology is reviewed at application stage. We suggest
the below inclusion to the policy:
“C) Impacts on biodiversity including Local Wildlife Sites. Any application will
require a site-wide and site-specific ecological strategy that specifies
protection, enhancement and restoration of the river corridor.”

Comment

Representation ID: 14222

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We would suggest modifying point d. to read
“Are supported with a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment and Flood Management
and Flood Evacuation Plan. Proposals for caravan extensions in flood zone 3,
including any increase to the future extent of this zone due to climate change,
will not generally be supported due to the increased risk to people and property from
fluvial or coastal flooding”
Changes are also suggested to the supporting text.

Comment

Representation ID: 14223

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

To avoid the displacement of biodiversity value away from the areas to be
developed, stronger controls should be in place for off-site Biodiversity Net Gain, that
ensure it is ecologically connected and contributes to local nature recovery priorities
and the LNRS. The policy should refer to
the mitigation hierarchy and ensure that harm is avoided, and in situ mitigation is
delivered before using off site units to deliver net gain.

Comment

Representation ID: 14224

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

• There are small areas of Flood Zone 3 and Flood Zone 2 in southeast corner
of site. The Level 1 SFRA has not identified these.
We would therefore advise that this is noted in the Level 1 SFRA’s site screening of
flood risk and that this site is brought forward for detailed site assessment in a Level
2 SFRA