Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

Support

Representation ID: 13915

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural Essex

This policy needs to be strongly upheld in order to protect the countryside (as defined) from inappropriate and unplanned development - especially those applications for speculative house building.

Support

Representation ID: 13918

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural Essex

It is logical and proper that growth is directed across Colchester starting with the most sustainable and accessible locations in the urban area or close to, transport corridors and existing centres. The settlement hierarchy also allows for an appropriate level of growth within some small settlements, based on the opportunities and constraints of each settlement. This is supported, as it can help support the long-term viability of services and facilities, which may otherwise be lost. However, such an approach needs to be within limits that retain the rural character and form of the settlement.

Comment

Representation ID: 13928

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural Essex

The two large housing allocations at Marks Tey (PP17 and PP18) totalling 2,500 dwellings looks very similar to previous proposals for a Garden Community at this location. This was not supported by CPRE nor the Planning Inspector at the Local Plan Examination in Public. Transport infrastructure capacity in particular was a key issue then and an even bigger one now. It's therefore difficult to see how such a level of growth can be delivered here and whether it should be supported.

Support

Representation ID: 13933

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural Essex

The clear definition of "valued landscapes" and their protection from development where it would not protect and enhance the characteristics that contribute towards its character is to be welcomed.

Support

Representation ID: 13948

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural Essex

Firm support for this policy - particularly where development proposals both within and near the National Landscape must ensure that the high qualities of the landscape are protected. This needs to include visual impact both within and outside the boundaries.

Support

Representation ID: 13952

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural Essex

Fully support the policy wording that development proposals that have adverse effects on the integrity of habitats sites or SSSIs will not be supported.

Comment

Representation ID: 14027

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural Essex

While planning applications for renewable energy schemes in appropriate locations are supported in principle, the acceptance that this may result in the loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land is flawed. In the interests of national food security and production, then surely Grade 1 quality agricultural land requires a higher level of protection than other BMV designations. The wording of the policy therefore requires an amendment to reflect this differentiation