Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

Comment

Representation ID: 13123

Received: 13/01/2026

Respondent: Boyer Planning

Site specific allocation PP14 covers a variety of land parcels and sites that are adjacent to one another, but we are concerned that it will be very difficult for the policy to be truly delivered in a meaningful manner due to the land ownership arrangements and no mechanism within the policy for the site to come forward in a piecemeal manner.

We have attached our detailed response for the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 14259

Received: 13/01/2026

Respondent: Boyer Planning

It is considered that the Vision proposed within the Regulation 18 document is realistic in its focus to embrace growth opportunities through sustainable and inclusive communities.
We agree in principle with the four themes of the Local Plan.
Considered important that the Council also note the role that new housing development can bring to creating healthy, vibrant and diverse places
Local Plan will need to be clear as to the priorities and what type of infrastructure is needed in a specific location at a specific time.

Comment

Representation ID: 14262

Received: 13/01/2026

Respondent: Boyer Planning

It is unclear as to the reasoning for the change in threshold and the requirement for
developments which are smaller in quantum now being required to prepare a Health Impact
Assessment. As currently drafted, the justification for this change is unclear and further detail
should be set out in future drafts.
Given Hythe Quay’s site location and proximity to existing services in Colchester City Centre,
the site presents itself to be in line with parameters set by Policy ST1 and has the opportunity
to support the health and wellbeing of that area through regeneration and renewal of the
area.

Comment

Representation ID: 14263

Received: 13/01/2026

Respondent: Boyer Planning

Sites such as that at Hythe Quay which are previously developed land have the opportunity
to enhance the natural environment, but requirements need to be realistic to ensure that
proposals are viable and deliverable. Policy ST2 needs to be balanced against the other objectives within the Local Plan such as
meeting residential and commercial needs and should acknowledge that sites which are
previously developed land may have to take a different approach to the Green Network and
Waterways Guiding Principles.

Comment

Representation ID: 14264

Received: 13/01/2026

Respondent: Boyer Planning

The plan period to 2041 is noted. According to the latest LDS, published March 2025, the
emerging Local Plan is to be adopted by mid-2027. We are concerned that with this
timescale, once adopted the Plan will fall short in meeting the minimum requirement of 15
years as outlined within paragraph 22 of the NPPF (2024). It is therefore considered that in
the Regulation 19 consultation the Council should seek to extend the proposed plan period to
at least 2042. The extension of the plan period
creates the need for approximately 2,600 additional dwellings, Hythe Quay is an appropriate location.

Comment

Representation ID: 14266

Received: 13/01/2026

Respondent: Boyer Planning

The Council includes an allowance for windfall sites within its supply, while this allowance
appears reasonable it is not guaranteed, and with only a limited oversupply proposed we are concerned that Policy ST5 may not deliver the quantum of housing required in order to meet housing needs. PP14 however covers a
variety of sites, each with different current uses, different landowners and aspirations. Taking a more positive approach to the site and identifying it as a specific allocation (not combined with other parcels) will enable the Council to plan for additional dwellings and
provide greater flexibility.

Comment

Representation ID: 14267

Received: 13/01/2026

Respondent: Boyer Planning

Although we broadly support this approach, the Local Plan
needs to provide an indication as to the level of Section 106 that may be requested for
different types of development in different parts of the plan area. Without this clarification, the
Council’s Viability Appraisal is flawed because assumptions used in relation to Section 106
may not be accurate and therefore could be under or over stating requirements that need to
meet the tests for planning obligations.

Comment

Representation ID: 14268

Received: 13/01/2026

Respondent: Boyer Planning

We recognise the importance of a policy ensuring good quality design is achieved by
proposed developments. Having a policy that sets design requirements will enable
developers to fully understand what is needed to achieve a well-designed settlement for
Colchester. However, wording and content of the policy is reiterated in other policies both at a local and
national level. As stated in the alternative options there is adequate wording supplied in the
National Design Guide and Essex Design Guide. It is therefore considered that a repeated
policy creates uncertainty, and the policy is not justified or effective in its current form.

Comment

Representation ID: 14269

Received: 13/01/2026

Respondent: Boyer Planning

We acknowledge the policy provision and how this aligns with the statutory requirement and
welcome the opportunity for unts to be provided offsite and targeted to locations within the
Colchester area as detailed within Policy EN2. The delivery of BNG in accordance with national legislation and requirements is welcomed
and provides certainty for developers and applicants as to the Council’s expectations.

Comment

Representation ID: 14270

Received: 13/01/2026

Respondent: Boyer Planning

Policy EN3 focuses on the ecological information which the Council requires in support of
development proposals. We agree with the need to provide relevant information and detail in
relation to ecology but suggest that Policy EN3 takes into account the time scales for
determining applications and how that can interact with the necessary survey windows and
times for assessments throughout the year.