Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

Comment

Representation ID: 13967

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Boyer

Policy GN4 is prescriptive and offers limited flexibility if the increase in canopy can
not be achieved on site. It is noted that provision off site can be secured but the Policy limits
this to a case-by-case basis and discussions with the case officer. This approach fails to
provide certainty for proposals and is it difficult to understand how the desire to increase
canopy cover aligns with other competing policy requirements in the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 13968

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Boyer

Policy NZ1 could be overtaken by Building Regulations and other market requirements over
the plan period, as it is overly prescriptive and applies a blanket approach to future
development in Colchester which could be detrimental to the overall housing delivery
anticipated in the Local Plan.
Hopkins Homes welcome and support the Council’s commitment to work towards net-zero
but we are concerned that Policy NZ1 could become out of date as current national guidance
and policy evolves. Policy NZ1 should be re-written to allow greater flexibility and adherence
to the Building Regulations (and market requirements) at the time of the development

Comment

Representation ID: 13969

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Boyer

It is understood that water companies have a statutory duty to provide the necessary
connections to future development, yet the Policy can be used to restrict development
coming forward where there is a lack of capacity.
The Local Plan should be outlining the areas for future growth and in conjunction with service
providers ensuring this can be accommodated with any necessary improvements coming
forward in a timely manner to avoid delays to delivery across Colchester.

Comment

Representation ID: 13970

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Boyer

Policy H1 should be amended to allow for greater flexibility and allow applicants to consider
the mix of units on a development site based on up-to-date evidence. Policy H1 should be
the starting point to provide certainty for applicants but we are concerned it will be
used in a strict manner by decision makers and provide reasons for refusal that would be
based on evidence which is “not” up to date. The
Council will need to be justified in their approach to mix as the plan evolves but also allow for flexibility as needs evolve over the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 13971

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Boyer

In a similar manner to the current adopted Policy DM8, we welcome the flexibility within the
policy that allows for the level of affordable provision to be
considerations on a case-by-case basis. It is essential that the Local Plan maintains the
flexible approach to the provision of affordable housing over the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 13972

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Boyer

The Government is clear that Local Plan policies should provide certainty for all and that
applicants can find all the relevant information within the plan and its supporting evidence
base. Policy PC2 as currently written fails to do this and the Council needs to reconsider
their approach and include the circumstances under which a Transport Statement and Travel
Plan are required within their Local Plan and not defer to guidance which is prepared outside
of the Local Plan making process.

Comment

Representation ID: 13973

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Boyer

The Council will however need to confirm how Policy PC4 can make efficient use of land
when it is considered against other policies that dictate certain provision and land take up,
such as Policy GN1 which requires a minimum of 10% gross site area for multifunctional
open space, tree canopy requirements, BNG and other considerations such as drainage.
Policy PC4 needs to be clear as to the weight to be given to density alongside other
requirements and policy expectations detailed within the Local Plan Preferred Options

Comment

Representation ID: 13974

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Boyer

As currently written the extensive range of criteria in Policy PC6 is too rigid and should be
amended to allow flexibility in approach and guidance as to how the Council will consider
each of these in a balanced and consistent manner.

Comment

Representation ID: 13975

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Boyer

For the policy to be effective it will need to be amended to provide greater flexibility for
proposals to respond to the surrounding context as opposed to being strictly controlled by
policy requirements. The Council also needs to consider how this rigid policy is implemented
alongside other policies that dictate site specific requirements and expectations as in our
view they will lead to conflict and contradiction between policies and fail in their intention to
deliver sustainable development.

Comment

Representation ID: 13976

Received: 14/01/2026

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Boyer

We are however concerned that in a similar way to other policies in the consultation
document the range of site-specific requirements is extensive and when considered
alongside policies such as density, parking, open space, canopy cover and drainage
requirements the demand on each site are extensive.
The Council needs to be clear as to which elements are fixed and which requirements are
flexible in order to ensure that proposals can make efficient use of land over the plan period.