Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

The Preferred Options Local Plan allocates two housing sites in Layer de la Haye for 70 dwellings, but their location is unsustainable, being distanced from village services. A previous refusal for a similar site underscores concerns about isolation and environmental impact. In contrast, a proposed site on Malting Green Road is ideally situated within walking distance of essential amenities and is part of the settlement boundary. This one hectare site can accommodate 20-30 bungalows, fulfilling local housing demand, particularly for downsizers. Its development aligns with national policy requirements, enhancing local services and promoting sustainable growth with minimal environmental impact.

Policy NZ1 requires all new-built development (both residential and non-residential) to be designed and built to be net zero carbon in operation. They must be ultra-low energy buildings, fossil-free, and generate renewable energy on-site to at least match predicted annual energy use. The policy was written prior to the emergence of the revised National Planning Policy Framework, December 2025, which includes Policy CC1: Planning for Climate Change.

Policy CC1 advises amongst other things that :

“Development plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating climate change and supporting the transition to net zero.”

It is evident from the Government's draft policy CC1, that the expectation is that development plans should support the transition to net zero, whereas Draft Local Plan Policy NZ1 & NZ2, mandates that all new development must be net zero carbon in operation. As policy NZ1 was prepared prior to the revised Framework, it could not have anticipated the Government's direction of travel, with regard to new build development and the achievement of net zero carbon. The Government’s position on net zero development has been clarified seeking a transition to achieving net zero. As such, Policy NZ1 & NZ2 should be redrafted, so as to be compliant with the emerging Framework, or be deleted from the Local Plan, and the transition to net zero left to the Building Regulations. The Building Regulations are themselves evolving, pushing for new development to have near-zero operational carbon through higher energy efficiency, low-carbon heating (like heat pumps), and renewable energy integration, with the upcoming Future Homes and Buildings Standard (2025).

The respondents took part in the consultation for the preparation of the Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment (October 2025) prepared on the Council’s behalf by Newmark, which forms part of the Local Plan evidence base. Concerns were raised in that consultation in relation to some of the costs, values and inputs that were proposed to be used in the viability assessment. However, that consultation was solely in relation to costs, values and other related inputs, there was no indication of the proposed level of contributions that were likely to be expected from allocated sites. Since the consultation and at the behest of the Local Plan Committee, the final version of the viability assessment was published, just prior to the committee meeting that resolved to allow consultation of the Regulation 18 Local Plan. The final version of the Newmark Viability Assessment suggests a financial contribution of £25,000 per dwelling for s106 items and £35,000 per dwelling for infrastructure projects would be viable for all ‘Strategic Allocations.”

Land south of Marks Tey is identified as a strategic site and as such, a combined financial contribution of £60,000 per dwelling would be required to be bound into a planning obligation at the planning application stage, having regard to Policies H1, H2 and ST7. In the preparation of these representations, the respondents commissioned Chartered Surveyors Morely Riches to undertake a Viability Assessment of the draft allocation for 1500 Dwellings at Marks Tey, using only Newmark’s values and inputs and making provision for a combined s106 contribution of £60,000 and 30% affordable housing. The result of that exercise resulted in the development making a resounding loss. Given that the Newmark inputs were the only variables used in this exercise, it was alarming to discover that the scheme would be wholly unviable. It was even more disturbing to hear at the Local Plan Committee, the Council’s Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager advise Members, that Newmark had told her that the Colchester Viability Assessment, was one of the most viable Local Plans they had ever reviewed. The respondents have not had access to Newmark’s viability model, so it might be that if access was granted, then it could be shown that the development would prove to be viable. However, the model used by Morley Riches, is the industry standard, so the massive discrepancy is unlikely to be as a result of applying a different modelling method. The Morely Riches Viability Assessment is submitted with these representations.

Prior to making these representations, a virtual meeting was held with the Council's Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager to alert her to the respondents' grave concerns with regard to the Newmark viability assessment. Rather than objecting to the plan, the respondents were advised by the Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager to raise their concerns in these representations, which we have done. The respondent was further advised that once the consultation deadline had passed, she would instigate a review of the viability assessment and a meeting with Newmark and relevant stakeholders to assess the viability assessment and to perhaps allow access to the Newmark model. Land owners and promoters need to be confident that the final and adopted Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment will demonstrate that the level of contributions expected from strategic and other development would be at a level that allows development to proceed. The respondents reserve the right to make further representations to the Council and to the examining Inspector in relation to the viability assessment, in the event that the concerns raised now are not allayed.

The respondents would also like to raise their grave concerns as to the infrastructure costs that have informed the level of contribution required within the viability assessment of £35,000 per dwelling.

It would appear that amongst other infrastructure requirements that two key elements of proposed infrastructure are, The RTS 2, Colchester City Centre to Marks Tey, which has been costed at £37 million and the Park and Choose site at Marks Tey, which is understood to have been costed at £67 million. The cost of these and other infrastructure development have been contributors to setting the level of £35,000 per dwelling, that makes up the majority of the £60,000 per unit contribution. However, there are no schemes or publicly available plans of these proposals available, they are at this stage simply ideas, and whilst it might be possible to estimate a cost for their delivery, it cannot be the case that estimated costs for infrastructure that is yet to be shown to be deliverable, can reasonably be used to set what will be a lasting land compelling level of financial contribution embedded within the evidence base. If nothing else, the cost of this infrastructure must be known in detail, and informed by actual and deliverable proposals, before they can be used to set expected infrastructure payments from development under policy ST7.

The respondents R.F. West Ltd, who are the owners of all of the land allocated under Policy PP10 : Land south of Berechurch Hall Road, Colchester, fully support the allocation of the land for residential development. However, evidence gathered by the respondents suggests that the proposed allocation of 875 dwellings cannot be delivered on this site. The respondents are of the view that a maximum of 600 dwellings could be achieved on this site, and the Council is advised that the allocation in Policy PP10 is reduced to up to 600 dwellings.

The land in question is considered to be unable to support 875 dwellings, principally due to the constraints on the local highway network and the need to make provision for open space, landscape buffers and sustainable drainage attenuation. The respondent’s Transport Consultants advise that preliminary junction capacity assessments undertaken have indicated that the number of dwellings that it is likely to be possible to provide at the site would be in the order of 500-600. Following pre-application engagement, including the submission of a Transport Note, Essex Highways has confirmed by email that they considered that the site may be able to accommodate up to 500 dwellings and that further transport analysis of the proposal could be undertaken at the time of a planning application. Further transport assessment is ongoing to see if some additional capacity can be achieved to realise the Council’s proposed allocation of 875 dwellings, however it is likely that the maximum number of dwellings possible would be circa 600.

Therefore, it is highly likely that there will be a surplus of a minimum of 275 dwellings that will not be deliverable in relation to Policy PP10 Land South of Berechurch Hall Road, which will need to be allocated somewhere else. The respondents can accommodate these dwellings on their land south of the A12 Marks Tey, where the allocation under Policy PP17 is presently for 1500, however, the respondents land at Marks Tey, can accommodate up to 2000 dwellings, now that the A12 widening is not going ahead. The respondents see this as a practical and deliverable solution, which would seamlessly soak up the undeliverable surplus of dwellings at Land south of Berechurch Hall Road, and from any other surpluses from proposed allocations, where the capacity of the site might be exceeded.




Progress on Meeting the Policy Requirements

Assuming that the Council accept that 600 dwelling is the maximum achievable on this site, the respondents are confident that 600 dwellings along with a neighbourhood centre, public open space and all the environmental and ecological requirements of Policy PP10 can be delivered. Ecology assessments are underway and will continue to be carried out in the Spring, winter bird surveys are commissioned to be undertaken this winter.

Work is ongoing in relation to highway access to the site and active travel links; the respondent’s transport consultants continue to engage with the Essex Highways to scope out and agree the assessment work required to demonstrate that the allocation is deliverable from a highway perspective. This engagement with Essex Highways has taken the form of a Pre Application submission, in response to which Essex Highways has confirmed that the site might be able to accommodate up to 500 dwellings subject to further highway capacity analysis, the results of which both ECC and CCC think is acceptable and agreeing substantial public transport, cycling, walking, travel planning and junction capacity improvements (works and/or contributions). A summary of the current highway and transportation position is set out on page 21 of the Promotion Document submitted with these representations. Presently, there are no impacts identified that would suggest that the development of up to 600 dwellings could not be deliverable from a transport and highway perspective.


Development Viability

The respondents took part in the consultation for the preparation of the Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment (October 2025) prepared on the Council’s behalf by Newmark, which forms part of the Local Plan evidence base. Concerns were raised in that consultation in relation to some of the costs, values and inputs that were proposed to be used in the viability assessment. However, that consultation was solely in relation to costs, values and other related inputs, there was no indication of the proposed level of contributions that were likely to be expected from allocated sites. Since the consultation and at the behest of the Local Plan Committee, the final version of the viability assessment was published, just prior to the committee meeting that resolved to allow consultation of the Regulation 18 Local Plan. The final version of the Newmark Viability Assessment suggests a financial contribution of £25,000 per dwelling for s106 items and £35,000 per dwelling for infrastructure projects would be viable for all ‘Strategic Allocations.”

Land south of Berechurch Hall Road is identified as a strategic site and as such, a combined financial contribution of £60,000 per dwelling would be required to be bound into a planning obligation at the planning application stage, having regard to Policies H1, H2 and ST7. In the preparation of these representations, the respondents commissioned Chartered Surveyors Morely Riches to undertake a Viability Assessment of the draft allocation for 1500 Dwellings at Marks Tey, using only Newmark’s values and inputs and making provision for a combined s106 contribution of £60,000 and 30% affordable housing. The result of that exercise resulted in the development making a resounding loss. Given that the Newmark inputs were the only variables used in this exercise, it was alarming to discover that the scheme would be wholly unviable. It was even more disturbing to hear at the Local Plan Committee, the Council’s Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager advise Members that Newmark had told her that the Colchester Viability Assessment, was one of the most viable Local Plans they had ever reviewed. The respondents have not had access to Newmark’s viability model, so it might be that if access was granted, then it could be shown that the development would prove to be viable. However, the model used by Morley Riches, is the industry standard, so the massive discrepancy is unlikely to be as a result of applying a different modelling method. The Morely Riches Viability Assessment is submitted with these representations.

Prior to making these representations, a virtual meeting was held with the Council's Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager to alert her to the respondents' grave concerns with regard to the Newmark viability assessment. Rather than objecting to the plan, the respondents were advised by the Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager to raise their concerns in these representations, which we have done. The respondent was further advised that once the consultation deadline had passed, she would instigate a review of the viability assessment and a meeting with Newmark and relevant stakeholders to assess the viability assessment and to perhaps allow access to the Newmark model. Land owners and promoters need to be confident that the final and adopted Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment will demonstrate that the level of contributions expected from strategic and other development would be at a level that allows development to proceed. The respondents reserve the right to make further representations to the Council and to the examining Inspector in relation to the viability assessment, in the event that the concerns raised now are not allayed.

The respondents would also like to raise their grave concerns as to the infrastructure costs that have informed the level of contribution required within the viability assessment of £35,000 per dwelling.

It would appear that amongst other infrastructure requirements that two key elements of proposed infrastructure are, The RTS 2, Colchester City Centre to Marks Tey, which has been costed at £37 million and the Park and Choose site at Marks Tey, which is understood to have been costed at £67 million. The cost of these and other infrastructure development have been contributors to setting the level of £35,000 per dwelling, that makes up the majority of the £60,000 per unit contribution. However, there are no schemes or publicly available plans of these proposals available, they are at this stage simply ideas, and whilst it might be possible to estimate a cost for their delivery, it cannot be the case that estimated costs for infrastructure that is yet to be shown to be deliverable, can reasonably be used to set what will be a lasting land compelling level of financial contribution embedded within the evidence base. If nothing else, the cost of this infrastructure must be known in detail, and informed by actual and deliverable proposals, before they can be used to set expected infrastructure payments from development under policy ST7.

The respondents R.F. West Ltd, who are the owners of all of the land allocated under Policy PEP5 : Land South of A12 Marks Tey, fully support the allocation of the land for employment uses in accordance with Policy E1.

The allocation of this land, along with the 1500 dwellings and associated infrastructure and supporting land uses under Policy PP17 is considered to represent a logical and sustainable use of land that will allow the opportunity for future residents within the Marks Tey Growth Area to live and work in one location, thereby reducing the need to travel by car. Pedestrian and cycle routes can be developed through the master planning process to connect the proposed housing and employment areas, encouraging a modal shift to more sustainable transport options. The employment allocation is also located in a position where it can avoid any potential amenity conflicts with the proposed residential uses. The land is also strategically located to take advantage of very nearby access to the Trunk Road network, A12 and A120. It is also accessible to the railway station at Marks Tey.

The respondents are undertaking winter bird surveys this winter, and further ecological assessment will be undertaken in the Spring. The employment land allocation will form part of the transport and highway engagement underway with the Highway Authorities, to ensure that it is deliverable for a highway perspective. Present indications are that there are no constraints on this land that would prevent its deliverability for employment uses.

The respondents R.F. West Ltd, who are the owners of all of the land allocated under Policy PP17 : Land South of A12 Marks Tey, Growth Area, fully support the allocation for 1,500 dwellings and associated infrastructure on the land.

Policy PP17 was prepared at a time when the widening proposals for the A12 Chelmsford to A120 Trunk Road were likely to proceed, having been the subject of a Development Consent Order (DCO). However, following the conclusion of a Spending Review, the Government has taken the decision to cancel the A12 Chelmsford to A120 scheme. The respondent’s masterplan proposals that were put forward during the Council's Call for Sites exercise, were prepared in the expectation that the widening scheme would go ahead, so the submitted masterplan concept was designed around the route of the widening proposals through the respondent’s land. As that scheme has now been abandoned, the land sterilised by the road widening scheme in the respondent’s ownership is now available, and the opportunity exists to increase the number of dwellings in the Marks Tey Growth Area to up to 2000. Attached to these representations is the respondent’s Promotion Document that includes a concept masterplan that illustrates a possible development without the A12 widening, which accommodates up to 1500 dwellings, along with a Neighbourhood Centre, Primary School site, Commercial Development (employment site) and associated infrastructure. However, in addition a second concept masterplan is included within the Promotion Document that accommodates up to 2000 homes, with the same supporting development and infrastructure.

The respondents also own the land the subject of Policy PP10: Land South of Berechurch Hall Road, Colchester, which allocates the land for 875 dwellings. The land in question is unable to support 875 dwellings principally due to the constraints on the local highway network and the need to make provision for open space, landscape buffers and sustainable drainage attenuation. The respondent’s Transport Consultants advise that preliminary junction capacity assessments undertaken have indicated that the number of dwellings that it is likely to be possible to provide at the site would be in the order of 500-600. Following pre-application engagement, including the submission of a Transport Note, Essex Highways has confirmed by email that they considered that the site may be able to accommodate up to 500 dwellings and that further transport analysis of the proposal could be undertaken at the time of a planning application. Further transport assessment is ongoing to see if some additional capacity can be achieved to realise the Council’s proposed allocation of 875 dwellings, however it is likely that the maximum number of dwellings possible would be circa 600.

Therefore, it is highly likely that there will be a surplus of a minimum of 275 dwellings that will not be deliverable in relation to Policy PP10 Land South of Berechurch Hall Road, which will need to be allocated somewhere else. The respondents can accommodate these dwellings on their land south of the A12 Marks Tey, where the allocation under Policy PP17 is for 1500, however, the respondents land at Marks Tey, can accommodate up to 2000 dwellings, now that the A12 widening is not going ahead. The respondents see this as a practical and deliverable solution, which would seamlessly soak up the undeliverable surplus of dwellings at Land south of Berechurch Hall Road, and from any other surpluses from proposed allocations, where the capacity of the site might be exceeded. Therefore, the Council is invited to expand the allocation on the Proposal Map for the Submission Draft Local Plan Regulation 19, as the site boundaries as shown on Drawing no : CN096 01-LP-001 submitted with these representations.

Progress on Meeting the Policy Requirements

PP17 sets out criteria that need to be met to demonstrate that the allocation is deliverable. The land allocation as shown on the draft Proposals Map can comfortably accommodate the 1500 dwellings proposed, along with the required open space, commercial uses, primary school and associated infrastructure. However, the land ownership could also accommodate a further 500 dwellings alongside the supporting development required.

Work is ongoing in relation to highway access to the site and active travel links; the respondent’s transport consultants continue to engage with the Essex Highways and National Highways to scope out and agree the assessment work required to demonstrate that the allocation is deliverable form a highway perspective. This work and discussions with the highway authorities is ongoing and a summary of the current position is set out on page 34 of the Promotion Document submitted with these representations. Presently, there are no impacts identified that would suggest that the development would not be deliverable from a transport and highway perspective.

Ecology assessments are underway and will continue to be carried out in the Spring, winter bird surveys are commissioned to be undertaken this winter.



Consultation with Stakeholders

An informal meeting has taken place with the planning representatives of Marks Tey Parish Council (MTPC) who will no doubt make their own representations. However, the initial impressions received at the meeting were that MTPC accept that the Parish was due an allocation/s, owing to the presence of the railway station and the fact that there had not been any significant growth in the Parish for more than 40 years. Similar discussions are planned for engagement with Copford Parish Council, as a significant part of the proposed allocation falls within Copford. More formal Public Consultation will be undertaken following the adoption of the Local Plan and prior to any formal work being prepared to develop a masterplan for submission and agreement with the Council.

Development Viability

The respondents took part in the consultation for the preparation of the Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment (October 2025) prepared on the Council’s behalf by Newmark, which forms part of the Local Plan evidence base. Concerns were raised in that consultation in relation to some of the costs, values and inputs that were proposed to be used in the viability assessment. However, that consultation was solely in relation to costs, values and other related inputs, there was no indication of the proposed level of contributions that were likely to be expected from allocated sites. Since the consultation and at the behest of the Local Plan Committee, the final version of the viability assessment was published, just prior to the committee meeting that resolved to allow consultation of the Regulation 18 Local Plan. The final version of the Newmark Viability Assessment suggests a financial contribution of £25,000 per dwelling for s106 items and £35,000 per dwelling for infrastructure projects would be viable for all ‘Strategic Allocations.”

Land south of Marks Tey is identified as a strategic site and as such, a combined financial contribution of £60,000 per dwelling would be required to be bound into a planning obligation at the planning application stage, having regard to Policies H1, H2 and ST7. In the preparation of these representations, the respondents commissioned Chartered Surveyors Morely Riches to undertake a Viability Assessment of the draft allocation for 1500 Dwellings at Marks Tey, using only Newmark’s values and inputs and making provision for a combined s106 contribution of £60,000 and 30% affordable housing. The result of that exercise resulted in the development making a resounding loss. Given that the Newmark inputs were the only variables used in this exercise, it was alarming to discover that the scheme would be wholly unviable. It was even more disturbing to hear at the Local Plan Committee, the Council’s Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager advise Members, that Newmark had told her that the Colchester Viability Assessment, was one of the most viable Local Plans they had ever reviewed. The respondents have not had access to Newmark’s viability model, so it might be that if access was granted, then it could be shown that the development would prove to be viable. However, the model used by Morley Riches, is the industry standard, so the massive discrepancy is unlikely to be as a result of applying a different modelling method. The Morely Riches Viability Assessment is submitted with these representations.

Prior to making these representations, a virtual meeting was held with the Council's Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager to alert her to the respondents' grave concerns with regard to the Newmark viability assessment. Rather than objecting to the plan, the respondents were advised by the Strategic Growth and Infrastructure Manager to raise their concerns in these representations, which we have done. The respondent was further advised that once the consultation deadline had passed, she would instigate a review of the viability assessment and a meeting with Newmark and relevant stakeholders to assess the viability assessment and to perhaps allow access to the Newmark model. Land owners and promoters need to be confident that the final and adopted Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment will demonstrate that the level of contributions expected from strategic and other development would be at a level that allows development to proceed. The respondents reserve the right to make further representations to the Council and to the examining Inspector in relation to the viability assessment, in the event that the concerns raised now are not allayed.

The respondents would also like to raise their grave concerns as to the infrastructure costs that have informed the level of contribution required within the viability assessment of £35,000 per dwelling.

It would appear that amongst other infrastructure requirements that two key elements of proposed infrastructure are, The RTS 2, Colchester City Centre to Marks Tey, which has been costed at £37 million and the Park and Choose site at Marks Tey, which is understood to have been costed at £67 million. The cost of these and other infrastructure development have been contributors to setting the level of £35,000 per dwelling, that makes up the majority of the £60,000 per unit contribution. However, there are no schemes or publicly available plans of these proposals available, they are at this stage simply ideas, and whilst it might be possible to estimate a cost for their delivery, it cannot be the case that estimated costs for infrastructure that is yet to be shown to be deliverable, can reasonably be used to set what will be a lasting land compelling level of financial contribution embedded within the evidence base. If nothing else, the cost of this infrastructure must be known in detail, and informed by actual and deliverable proposals, before they can be used to set expected infrastructure payments from development under policy ST7.
The Colchester Infrastructure Audit and Delivery Plan and the Colchester Local Plan Review: Further Transport Evidence which form part of the Local Plan evidence base include the proposal of a second Rapid Transport System RTS 2 between the City Centre and Marks Tey to manage the transport impacts arising from the proposed Marks Tey growth area. The respondents question the need and deliverability of the RTS 2. Presently, there are no plans or identified routes in place and the respondents are of the view that RTS2 would not be workable were it to involve Lexden Road, due to the width of carriageways and the impacts on heritage assets. The respondents consider that that there are lower cost and deliverable alternative approaches of looking to achieve a modal shift away from the private car for journeys between Marks Tey and the City Centre that should be considered, namely: -

• Promoting the use of the existing mainline train services that run between Marks Tey and Colchester North station. The infrastructure is already in place,
and the services operate with total segregation from road traffic. It is considered that means that the services provide the potential for reliable journeys between Marks Tey area and the City Centre without the significant cost and disruption of implementing the RTS. Planning development to take advantage of existing rail services is a key aspect of the consultation draft National
Planning Policy Framework; or

• Routing buses along the A12 from Marks Tey to the Northern Approaches Park & Ride (near the Stadium) and then using the existing RTS from there to Colchester. In the light of the above, ITL have undertaken investigations in relation to local bus timetables and journey times in the context of journeys between Marks Tey and Colchester City Centre. The information was considered in the context of 3 scenarios, namely: -

• Scenario 1 – Provide buses from Marks Tey to the A12 junction 28 park and ride site, via the A12, and then use the existing park and ride services to access the City Centre;

• Scenario 2 – Existing direct services from Marks Tey to the City Centre; and

• Scenario 3 – Provide a direct bus service, with priority measures,
between Marks Tey and the City Centre.

Further details on alternative transport options are explored on pages 37-40 of the respondents PP17 Promotion Document submitted with these representations.