Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

The site is a longstanding area of wildlife in the centre of the village. As such, developing it will significantly change the character of the village.
Given the proximity of this wildlife site to Middlewick woods which a recent survey has established have the second largest population of Nightingales in the country, it is important that an ecological survey be conducted before this area is included as a housing site in the local plan.
St Ives Road is a narrow rural road which is NOT suitable for two-way traffic, nor is it wide enough to accommodate a footpath.
Concerns have been expressed to me in the past that there is significant sub soil drainage of water from the woodland which is proposed to be developed down which is adversely affecting some houses on Wigborough Road, Peldon downslope of the proposed site including some on the south side of the road which are of timber construction – and therefore causing structural problems. This situation could be worsened by development. As such, if development goes ahead specific requirements to prevent downslope drainage should be imposed.
Whilst the edge of Peldon village can just be seen from locations to the south such as Mersea, as the proposed site is on the south facing hillside it would be visible from Mersea Island and the coast along the Blackwater estuary and so detract from the landscape character.

The uniqueness of Mersea Island
Mersea is the most easterly inhabited island in the UK. It is approached by a tidal causeway, cutting it off from the land on high tides over 5m depth, which typically occur every other week.
It also has one of the highest proportions of people aged 65+ in the UK, at around 50% of the population (Mersea and Pyefleet ward – including the mainland villages is 38% - twice the UK average).
East Mersea is approached by a single access road and has no services and very limited access to public transport. As such would NOT be appropriate to reallocate to East Mersea proposed housing from other villages which have large housebuilding allocations in the local plan.
GP provision
Since July 2024 new residents on Mersea have been unable to register with a local GP as the only GP practice on the island closed its books to new patients, citing safety concerns resulting from the increase in population of the island due to recent housing developments. As Colchester City Councillors for Mersea and Pyefleet we met with the leadership of NHS North Essex and Suffolk Integrated Care Board in November 2025 to discuss this situation. The ICB told us that at that date there were around 230 Mersea residents who had been unable to register with a GP on Mersea – some of whom have been forced to register with GP practices considerable distances away. This is a particular problem as Mersea Island has one of the highest proportions of people aged 65+ in the UK – at around 50% of the population (Mersea and Pyefleet ward – including the mainland villages is 38% - twice the UK average), many of whom have had to surrender their driving licences due to age. The ICB indicated to us that BEFORE GP registration at the Mersea practice is re-opened to new patents – it will be necessary to offer those Mersea residents who have been forced to register at distant GP practices the opportunity to re-register at the Mersea practice,
The Head of Planning and the Infrastructure Manager have kindly agreed to my proposal that a restriction should be placed on the development of this site such that it can only be developed after the situation with lack of GP access is resolved. The following text has subsequently been added to the Infrastructure Topic paper published in November 2025 with respect to this site:
“Reconfiguration of West Mersea Clinic or alternative provision, to provide additional capacity to demonstrate that residents of the new development are able to access registration with a GP surgery in the local area.”
Housing
Failure to establish who is buying local houses
Evidence presented to the local plan committee indicated that although a market research company had been commissioned to contact estate agents to determine how many local properties were being sold to people from outside the local area, they had not received any responses from estate agents on Mersea.
As such, in summer 2025 I visited each of the three estates agents on Mersea Island and asked them. The responses were that although the situation varies year by year – around 70% of houses on Mersea are sold to people moving into the area, particularly from the Brentwood-Romford Essex/London border area. The majority of these were people looking to retire to Mersea.
As such, it is likely that more than two thirds of new houses built on Mersea will NOT meet local housing need, but instead in effect offset housing need in other areas such as London.
Use of inappropriate method to calculate housing need on Mersea Island
The evidence on which the local plan site allocations is based seriously misrepresents actual housing need on Mersea.
The local plan evidence base presented at the Local Plan Committee meeting December 2024 section 6.13 Table 6.4 which is used to assess the need for housing, particularly affordable housing shows that Mersea has a median income of £53,800 which is LESS than the average for the Colchester City Council areas as a whole – and less than the £63,000 income which table 6.5 states is necessary to buy a house on Mersea. However, these median income figures entirely fail to take account of the fact that around half of the population of Mersea are aged 65+ and as such their income reflects the fact that they are pensioners – with VERY FEW of them looking to become first time buyers, in fact, a great many of them already own their own homes. As such, median income is a wholly inappropriate measure to assess housing need on Mersea.
I raised this at the local plan committee meeting on 16 December 2024 and was told by one of the senior planning officers that they couldn’t comment as they weren’t experts on how these figures were calculated. This is recorded on page 7 of the minutes of that meeting.
However, it is perfectly clear that with an elderly population, and as a retirement location where a high proportion of houses are sold to people moving onto Mersea Island from outside the area to retire – that using median income to assess housing affordability and therefore housing need is NOT appropriate and likely to seriously overestimate the number of houses needed.
Mersea Island DOES have a need for affordable housing, particularly shared ownership – which could enable local young people who have grown up on the island to get on the housing ladder. But the number of people in this category needs to properly assessed – and the appropriate type of housing and tenue built.

Environmental considerations
The unique importance of marine islands for rare species
There is a large range of academic studies on the importance of marine islands as unique habitats, particularly for rare species. Locally, 268 species of birds have been sighted on Mersea including a significant number which are “red rated” i.e. nationally important rare species. There are also other nationally important rare species such as Fishers estuarine moth and Hog’s Fennel as well as one of England’s few colonies of red squirrels – which was introduced specifically because of the island habitat and are also a “red rated” endangered species. Mersea Island and the Isle of Wight are virtually the ONLY locations in southern England that they are found. Significantly, their habitat is not confined to a particular site – but is island wide.
Island size is one of the factors which impacts the number of species an island provides a habitat to. As such, the percentage of an island which is urbanised is likely to negatively impact the number of species it provides a habitat to. Again, there is a vast scientific literature on island biogeography.
However, current planning policy ONLY looks at the ecological impact on the specific sites proposed for development.
I have therefore proposed to senior planning officers, both at the local plan committee meetings and in subsequent written communications that the council should adopt a specific planning policy on islands – setting out the maximum percentage of an island which should be developed.
This is particularly important in our areas as North East Essex has more islands than any other part of England.
I would suggest that for Mersea Island this should be no more than 18-20% of the island. It is important that the council thinks seriously about this now – otherwise it risks facing situation where with each new local plan, a higher and higher percentage of the island ends up being developed, which cumulatively would have a potentially devasting impact on the range of habitats available.
Proposed UNESCO world heritage site
The Blackwater and Colne estuaries, including Mersea Island were two years ago nominated by the UK government to become a UNESCO World Heritage environmental site (The “East Coast Flyway”) and are currently being assessed in this respect by UNESCO. However, the draft local plan makes NO REFERECE TO THIS AT ALL.
East Coast Flyway | World Heritage UK
East Atlantic Flyway: England East Coast Wetlands - UNESCO World Heritage Centre
Microsoft PowerPoint - East Coast Flyway Feb 2024.pptx
As noted above, 268 bird species have been found on Mersea Island, with a significant number of these being “red rated” i.e. nationally important rare species. As such Mersea Island is likely to be of particular importance in the potential East Coast Flyway UNESCO heritage site.
Climate change
The immediate risks from climate change currently facing Essex are a) sea level rise b) associated significant increases in coastal erosion rates c) increasing incidents of wildfires – which are already happening across Essex.
Climate change – sea level rise
The UK government’s Foresight report on current and future impacts of sea level rise on the UK (2017) stated that
“Sea level rise increases coastal flooding and erosion, creating risks for UK infrastructure, communities, businesses and natural capital. Coastal flooding is one of the top four priority risks for the UK Government…”
UK sea levels are currently rising at around 3mm a year, while in North Essex the land is also sinking due to isostatic readjustment by around 0.8mm a year creating an annual rise in mean sea level of 3.8mm a year.
The mid – range projections from the UK’s climate change committee are that in the next 25 years UK se levels will rise by a further 25-35cm. This will mean that a) the Strood causeway will be flooded cutting off Mersea from the mainland on twice as many days per month as it currently is b) sea walls – most of which are clay banks will be overtopped by surge tides significantly more frequently than at present, creating significant flooding c) The rate of coastal erosion is projected to increase by up to 700% across the UK. However, Mersea’s geology of sandy material sitting on top of an underlying clay bed only a few cm above the height of most tides makes it particularly vulnerable.
Most sea walls were built following the 1953 floods in which significantly more lives were lost in Essex than anywhere else in the UK. UK sea level is now around 20cm higher than it was in the 1953 floods, with relative sea level in North East Essex around 25cm higher. As such there is an urgent need to raise the height of sea walls, although there is currently no plan to do so on Mersea.
Research published by the University of East Anglia in 2022 and reported by the BBC showed that the council areas along the Blackwater estuary – were among those most at risk from sea level rise.
None of these factors have been considered in the draft local plan. Clearly they should have been.
Climate change – wildfire risk
Essex is particularly vulnerable to wildfires due to having the lowest average rainfall in the UK. The London Fire and Rescue service report into the destruction of a whole street in the village of Wennington on the Essex/London border included a specific warning that such events will occur again “"We know last summer was not a one-off - climate change will continue to give rise to more extreme weather events.”
Villages where there is only a single access road in/out are particularly vulnerable – as if the fire jumps the road, as wildfire frequently do, there is no means of evacuating the section of the village which has been cut off EXCEPT across the fields. This would put the elderly and disabled at particular risk.
This applies to the whole of Mersea Island.
The Fire Service are already aware of the existing vulnerability of fire on Mersea created by it being a tidal island, and station an additional fire engine on the island whenever it is cut off by the tide. However, both the single access/exit road for a large population – currently 7,000 people and the fact that this road is cut off by the tide for up to 2+ hours at a time creates additional risks.
When I asked at the local plan committee meeting in February 2025 how long it was estimated it would take to evacuate Mersea Island if that was needed, whether because of a wildfire or a nuclear incident at Bradwell – the answer I received from a senior planning officer was that she had no idea at all. Clearly, the council should have an idea – and should risk assess the impact of increasing Mersea’s population by 300 houses – which with average occupancy of 2.3 would represent a 10% increase in the Island’s population.
Bradwell nuclear facility
When Bradwell nuclear power station was built a specific evacuation plan was developed for Mersea Island in the event of a nuclear incident there. This included lights pointing to the direction of the Strood appearing on street-lights.
Since that date the population of Mersea has doubled. Whilst Bradwell nuclear power station has closed, the government are actively engaged in a process of selecting new sites for nuclear power stations, with the 8 existing nuclear sites such as Bradwell being preferred sites for new nuclear power stations

Sewage capacity:
The Water Cycle study showed that the Fingringhoe wastewater treatment centre is currently almost at capacity, with a maximum additional capacity for only 125 houses. As such, this is the maximum number of houses which should be permitted in Abberton/Lanegnhoe and Fingringhoe.
Anglian Water acknowledge that an upgrade to the Fingringhoe wastewater treatment centre is needed. However, this is NOT in their current 5 year (2025-30) plan. As this is a fixed term – rather than a rolling plan – the very earliest that this upgrade could happen would be at some point between 2030-35.
As such it would NOT be appropriate to reallocate to Abberton/Langenhoe proposed housing from other villages which have large housebuilding allocations in the local plan.
Hedges and trees
It is important that hedges and trees should be retained – including the hedge which forms the parish boundary between Langenhoe and Fingringhoe – and is the eastern boundary of the proposed site.
Landscape
Whilst the edge of Langenhoe village can just be seen from locations to the south such as Mersea, any additional housing development to the south of the village, including to the south of Fingringhoe road – would adversely impact the rural landscape character to a significant extent.
Village envelope
The draft local plan has proposed extending the Langenhoe village envelope to take in both Langenhoe cricket ground and a number of houses, including two which are on Abberton Road, Fingringhoe – and so in Fingringhoe Parish. It is difficult to see any justification for extending the village envelope in this way without first consulting either the parish council or the local residents concerned.
Future risk of ribbon development
The proposed site is not ideal as it is currently the green space between the villages of Langenhoe and Fingringhoe. If the proposed site is given the go ahead – the council needs to take specific steps to ensure that green space exists between Langenhoe and the western part of Fingringhoe. If it failed to do this- it would risk ribbon development running from the south part of Peldon road, Abberton – right through to the eastern end of Fingringhoe – a distance of 5KM.

The site is a longstanding area of wildlife in the centre of the village. As such, developing it will significantly change the character of the village.
Given the proximity of this wildlife site to Middlewick woods which a recent survey has established have the second largest population of Nightingales in the country, it is important that an ecological survey be conducted before this area is included as a housing site in the local plan.
St Ives Road is a narrow rural road which is NOT suitable for two-way traffic, nor is it wide enough to accommodate a footpath.
Concerns have been expressed to me in the past that there is significant sub soil drainage of water from the woodland which is proposed to be developed down which is adversely affecting some houses on Wigborough Road, Peldon downslope of the proposed site including some on the south side of the road which are of timber construction – and therefore causing structural problems. This situation could be worsened by development. As such, if development goes ahead specific requirements to prevent downslope drainage should be imposed.
Whilst the edge of Peldon village can just be seen from locations to the south such as Mersea, as the proposed site is on the south facing hillside it would be visible from Mersea Island and the coast along the Blackwater estuary and so detract from the landscape character.

I am commenting on Policy PP23 because West Mersea cannot support further large‑scale development. The B1025 is the only route on and off the island, and regular tidal closures at The Strood restrict safe, reliable access for residents, services and emergency responders. Healthcare provision is already stretched, and wastewater infrastructure is at or near capacity. Mersea is surrounded by nationally protected designations (SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar, MCZ) which require stronger safeguards. Policies ST1, ST2, ST7, EN1 and LC1 must be applied more robustly. Development at Dawes Lane is not sustainable without addressing these constraints.

See attached submission.

I am commenting on Policy PP23 because West Mersea cannot support further large‑scale development. The B1025 is the only route on and off the island, and regular tidal closures at The Strood restrict safe, reliable access for residents, services and emergency responders. Healthcare provision is already stretched, and wastewater infrastructure is at or near capacity. Mersea is surrounded by nationally protected designations (SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar, MCZ) which require stronger safeguards. Policies ST1, ST2, ST7, EN1 and LC1 must be applied more robustly. Development at Dawes Lane is not sustainable without addressing these constraints.

See attached submission.

I am commenting on Policy PP23 because West Mersea cannot support further large‑scale development. The B1025 is the only route on and off the island, and regular tidal closures at The Strood restrict safe, reliable access for residents, services and emergency responders. Healthcare provision is already stretched, and wastewater infrastructure is at or near capacity. Mersea is surrounded by nationally protected designations (SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar, MCZ) which require stronger safeguards. Policies ST1, ST2, ST7, EN1 and LC1 must be applied more robustly. Development at Dawes Lane is not sustainable without addressing these constraints.

See attached submission.

I am commenting on Policy PP23 because West Mersea cannot support further large‑scale development. The B1025 is the only route on and off the island, and regular tidal closures at The Strood restrict safe, reliable access for residents, services and emergency responders. Healthcare provision is already stretched, and wastewater infrastructure is at or near capacity. Mersea is surrounded by nationally protected designations (SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar, MCZ) which require stronger safeguards. Policies ST1, ST2, ST7, EN1 and LC1 must be applied more robustly. Development at Dawes Lane is not sustainable without addressing these constraints.

See attached submission.

I am commenting on Policy PP23 because West Mersea cannot support further large‑scale development. The B1025 is the only route on and off the island, and regular tidal closures at The Strood restrict safe, reliable access for residents, services and emergency responders. Healthcare provision is already stretched, and wastewater infrastructure is at or near capacity. Mersea is surrounded by nationally protected designations (SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar, MCZ) which require stronger safeguards. Policies ST1, ST2, ST7, EN1 and LC1 must be applied more robustly. Development at Dawes Lane is not sustainable without addressing these constraints.

See attached submission.

I am commenting on Policy PP23 because West Mersea cannot support further large‑scale development. The B1025 is the only route on and off the island, and regular tidal closures at The Strood restrict safe, reliable access for residents, services and emergency responders. Healthcare provision is already stretched, and wastewater infrastructure is at or near capacity. Mersea is surrounded by nationally protected designations (SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar, MCZ) which require stronger safeguards. Policies ST1, ST2, ST7, EN1 and LC1 must be applied more robustly. Development at Dawes Lane is not sustainable without addressing these constraints.

See attached submission.