Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

Comment

Representation ID: 13445

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Stanfords

Stanfords Colchester LLP has submitted detailed representations on this draft policy; please refer to the attached document.

Include explicit reference to viability testing for rural schemes

Provide a clear definition and mapping of designated rural areas within the Local Plan

Amend the policy to allow proportionate growth in rural settlements, ensuring that affordable housing requirements do not act as a barrier to delivering housing at a scale appropriate to the community

Consider increasing the threshold for affordable housing contributions in rural areas or adopting a more flexible approach based on site-specific viability and local need

Comment

Representation ID: 13446

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Stanfords

Stanfords Colchester LLP has submitted detailed representations on this draft policy; please refer to the attached document.

Amend the policy to recognise neurodiversity as a key consideration in specialist and supported housing. This should include individuals with autism, ADHD, and
other cognitive or sensory differences who may require tailored environments.

Incorporate requirements for sensory-friendly design features

Cross-reference national guidance such as BS 8300 (Design of buildings for accessibility and inclusion).

Require housing needs assessments to include data on neurodivergent populations and their specific requirements, ensuring provision aligns with
local demographics.

Comment

Representation ID: 13447

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Stanfords

Stanfords Colchester LLP has submitted detailed representations on this draft policy; please refer to the attached document.

Severalls Lane expansion hasn't been progressed to planning application or delivery since the site opened, despite being a Council-controlled asset, creating a
clear early-years deliverability risk.
• The Tendring–Colchester Borders Garden Community (TCBGC) allocation relies on long-term, phased infrastructure and spans two authorities; delivery of 9 pitches on the Colchester side within the plan period is uncertain.
• NPPF/PPTS require specific, deliverable sites in years 0–5 and developable supply thereafter; currently H7 portfolio over-relies on strategic allocations without robust implementation detail and contingencies.

Comment

Representation ID: 13448

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Stanfords

Stanfords Colchester LLP has submitted detailed representations on this draft policy; please refer to the attached document.

Specify business plan contents e.g. projected income, staffing requirements, operational milestones

Provide a clear definition for 'rural worker' for example "“A rural worker is an individual employed full-time in an agricultural, forestry, horticultural, or other rural-based enterprise where the nature of the work creates an
essential need to live near the place of employment.”

Clarify 'available' accommodation criteria - marketing period, distance threshold, suitability factors.

Set a timeline instead of 'foreseeable future' for removal of an occupancy condition.

Comment

Representation ID: 13449

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Stanfords

Stanfords Colchester LLP has submitted detailed representations on this draft policy; please refer to the attached document.

Repeated reference to “Class E(g)” within the policy criteria is problematic because it defeats the purpose of the government’s introduction of the broader Class
E use class, which was designed to provide flexibility between commercial, business, and service uses.

The wording should either:
• Refer to Class E in its entirety, or
• Clearly explain why only E(g) uses are acceptable and how this aligns with strategic objectives.

Comment

Representation ID: 13450

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Stanfords

Stanfords Colchester LLP has submitted detailed representations on this draft policy; please refer to the attached document.

Amend wording to actively safeguard and encourage employment-generating uses on rural sites that provide a similar function to allocated Employment Areas,
ensuring flexibility for rural economic resilience.

Revise criterion (c) to:
“Replacement buildings will be supported where the proposal enhances the character of the area and reduces visual landscape impact.”

Clarify Evidence Requirements - Specify what applicants must provide, including:
Demonstrating Local Employment and Business Need, Evidence of Lack of Suitable Existing Buildings or Employment Land, Geographic Scope and Timeframe:

Comment

Representation ID: 13451

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Stanfords

Stanfords Colchester LLP has submitted detailed representations on this draft policy; please refer to the attached document.

• Allow proportionate growth in all villages to sustain services and reflect natural growth patterns;
• Treat settlement boundaries as flexible guides, not rigid barriers;
• Retain the hierarchy concept but rename categories for clarity and strategic emphasis;
• Include the B1025 as a key transport corridor; and
• Ensure environmental protection is balanced with the need for inclusive, sustainable growth

Comment

Representation ID: 13453

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Stanfords

Stanfords Colchester LLP has submitted detailed representations on this draft policy; please refer to the attached document.

Expand the Playing Pitch Strategy/supporting documents to include emerging sports and fitness trends such as padel, yoga, Pilates, and CrossFit. Make sure increasing housing numbers are included in the metric of unmet need.

Proactively Encourage New Facilities - Include policy wording that actively supports the identification and delivery of new sports and leisure sites, particularly where there is evidence of unmet demand or
geographic gaps.

Commit to addressing the spatial imbalance by identifying potential sites for new facilities in southern Colchester.

Comment

Representation ID: 13454

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Stanfords

Stanfords Colchester LLP has submitted detailed representations on this draft policy; please refer to the attached document.

Policy provides no clear benchmark for what constitutes 'acceptable' health impact from development. Methodology/framework for HIA needs to be provided and how HIA will be weighed against other material considerations.

Recast the requirement so that: “Health and wellbeing considerations should be addressed in proportion to the scale and nature of the proposal, typically
within the Planning Statement and/or Design and Access Statement"

Limit mandatory HIA to strategic development where there is clear potential for significant health impacts (e.g. new settlements, major urban extensions)

Comment

Representation ID: 13456

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Stanfords

Stanfords Colchester LLP has submitted detailed representations on this draft policy; please refer to the attached document.

Suggest that the policy and supporting text are read and applied together with GN4, and ideally combined, so that applicants are subject to a single, coherent set of
requirements on trees and canopy, rather than overlapping obligations; and
it is made clear that compliance will be judged on the overall arboricultural and canopy outcome, taking into account necessary removals, new planting and the
canopy at maturity, rather than on separate numerical tests for both tree numbers and canopy percentage