Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

Policy EN9's draft wording introduces ambiguity and potential for inconsistent application. Terms such as 'acceptable significant adverse impact' and 'to the satisfaction of the Council' are subjective and may lead to inconsistent decision-making. Phrases like 'best practice design principles' or 'relevant guidance current at the time of the application' introduce uncertainty about standards and expectations. NPPF paragraph 16 requires policies to be precise and effective, reducing ambiguity for applicants and decision-makers.
The policy states:
"High quality open spaces that meet the Council’s Guiding Principles for the green network and waterways must be incorporated into development proposals to minimise environmental impacts and contribute to improved environmental quality through the consideration of the selection of species (e.g. trees) and planting design to address air quality, soil erosion, noise and light pollution".
The policy is overly onerous and appears to duplicate controls already addressed by other policies within the development plan, including the ‘Place and Connectivity’ policies. This duplication conflicts with the NPPF (paragraph 16) requirement to avoid unnecessary repetition of policy. In addition, the draft wording lacks proportionality and site-specific flexibility, as it applies broad requirements to all development, including minor schemes, development near—but not within—Air Quality Management Areas, and sites where contamination is only suspected.
NPPF paragraph 16 requires that policy requirements be proportionate to scale, nature, and impact of development. Blanket application of detailed environmental assessments or mitigation measures may:
• Unnecessarily burden small or low-impact developments
• Delay approvals and increase costs
• Reduce overall deliverability of development
For example: Requiring a full Lighting Plan or air quality assessment for small-scale developments with negligible emissions may be disproportionate.
It is therefore requested that the policy be amended to:
• Introduce proportionality and flexibility, ensuring requirements are site-specific and commensurate with the scale and impact of development.
• Clarify standards and thresholds for air quality, lighting, and contamination mitigation to reduce ambiguity.
These amendments would ensure the policy aligns with paragraphs 16, 36 and Section 15 of the NPPF, supporting sustainable development while protecting environmental quality in a practical and deliverable manner.

Colchester Zoo supports the Council’s objectives for urban greening, biodiversity, climate resilience and ultimately sustainable development. However, policy GN4 as drafted is overly prescriptive, is not justified by proportionate, locally specific evidence, and appears to go beyond national policy requirements in the NPPF and associated planning guidance, particularly the requirement that all policies be prepared and reviewed on the basis of relevant and up‑to‑date evidence (NPPF, paragraph 32).
The policy mandates a minimum 10% canopy cover for all major applications and sets explicit requirements for sites below that threshold. While supporting tree planting is appropriate, prescribing fixed numerical targets for canopy cover is highly prescriptive and may not be achievable or appropriate on all sites. The imposition of a blanket requirement for all major developments to achieve or increase canopy cover by a minimum of 10%, alongside mandatory lined streets and compensatory off‑site provision secured by legal obligation, risks being inflexible, inadequately tested for viability, and insufficiently responsive to differing site constraints and differing development proposals.
Further while noting the reference to 'The Canopy Cover of England’s Towns and Cities: baselining and setting targets to improve human health and well-being' report within the justification for the policy, the draft policy does not explain how the 10% figure has been derived, how it sits alongside the statutory 10% Biodiversity Net Gain requirement, or how conflicts with other critical design and infrastructure needs (such as SuDS, play space, utilities, highways and parking) will be resolved on constrained urban or high‑density sites.
The requirement that any shortfall against the stated canopy and tree‑lining standards must be made good through compensatory provision secured by legal obligation does not reflect the national tests for planning obligations, which require such measures to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind (NPPF 57-58).
NPPF (paragraph 16) requires policies to be clear, unambiguous, and be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable; rigid targets would conflict with this principle, particularly on constrained urban sites or where site layout conflicts exist.

While Colchester Zoo supports the Council’s general approach to landscape protection, as currently drafted within policy LC1, the proposed policy is in parts overly prescriptive and inflexible.
Requiring all major developments to submit a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, strictly adhere to the Colchester Landscape Character Assessment 2024, and meet multiple detailed criteria risks disproportionate application, particularly on sites where landscape sensitivity is low or impacts are minor. This approach does not sufficiently reflect the flexibility and proportionality expected by the NPPF (paragraphs 16, 32 and 36), which supports evidence‑based, deliverable policies that allow decision-makers to consider site-specific mitigation and design-led solutions.

Draft Policy E5 of the POLP recognises the significant importance of Colchester Zoo as a major visitor attraction and its ongoing need to update and refresh its offer. Colchester Zoo welcomes the objectives of the policy in supporting its aspirations for sustainable growth, including the safeguarding of land for potential future expansion, having regard to the Zoo’s environmentally sensitive location. Policy E5 would replace the existing allocation under the adopted Policy WC3 of the Colchester Borough Local Plan 2017–2033.
It is noted that the area allocated under Policy E5 of the POLP has been reduced compared with the previous allocation under adopted Local Plan Policy WC3, with sections along the southern boundary of Colchester Zoo’s ownership omitted from the proposed allocation. While these omitted areas have associated environmental sensitivities, including areas of higher flood risk, and an Area of Particular Importance for Biodiversity, as identified within The Essex Local Nature Recovery Strategy, there appears to be no clear justification provided for the reduction in the site allocation.
As the Council will be aware, Colchester Zoo is progressing a masterplan for its future expansion and associated facilities, which is already well advanced. The proposed reduction in the site allocation cuts across the Zoo’s ownership boundaries and could constrain its ability to deliver the aspirations, including potential ecological enhancements, as set out in the emerging masterplan, and contrary to the requirements the policy. We therefore recommend that the boundary of the proposed Policy E5 of the POLP be realigned to match that of the current adopted Policy WC3, which in turn would better align with existing land ownership boundaries shown on the accompanying plan (Colchester Zoo - Ownership & Masterplan Extents (Drwg. No. P21225-00-GIL-0800) appended to these comments. This provides maximum flexibility for incorporating biodiversity enhancements into any proposals that come forward. It also ensures these areas are properly safeguarded from other forms of development.
The policy states:
'The area shown on the policies map defined as the core zoo and expansion area will be safeguarded for potential further expansion of Colchester Zoo to provide additional facilities associated with the Zoo’s vision for growth. Development for zoo purposes outside of the area defined will not be supported'.
While the future expansion and development of the zoo is likely to come forward over a number of years, the suggestion that 'development for zoo purposes outside of the area defined will not be supported' is overly restrictive and not consistent with the positive approach and presumption in favour of sustainable development advocated within national policy guidance (NPPF Dec. 2024, Section 2). Colchester Zoo’s land ownership extends well beyond the area currently allocated, and development proposals should be assessed on their individual merits. The fact that a proposal may lie outside the defined allocation should not, in itself, preclude support. Instead, such proposals should be determined in accordance with the policies of the development plan as a whole, taking into account all relevant material considerations, as would apply to development proposals by any other applicant or development not associated with purposes of the zoo.
We therefore recommend that the wording 'Development for zoo purposes outside of the area defined will not be supported' is either deleted or amended to better reflect national policy and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Otherwise, Colchester Zoo will have development constraints that do not apply to other sites in the District. Outside of the allocation, Colchester Zoo should be treated equally with other landowners.
The policy requires a comprehensive, master-planned approach to the growth of the Zoo to ensure that development can be delivered with appropriate consideration and mitigation in relation to a number of key criteria (a–h) addressing various issues. Considering these criteria, we provide the following responses:
a) Appropriate control over development affecting Scheduled Ancient Monuments and archaeological resource within the site would be achieved under Policies EN6 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) and EN7 (Archaeology). This criterion therefore appears to apply unnecessary duplication of policy control, contrary to the tests set out within the NPPF (paragraph 16).
b) Potential impacts on landscape character and setting are separately addressed under Policy LC1 (Landscape). While the policy text includes reference to more local considerations, requiring proposals to conserve and restore the wooded river valley landscape through the management and protection of ancient woodland, the promotion of natural regeneration to extend woodland cover where appropriate, and the protection and enhancement of lowland meadow on the valley floor, this criterion largely duplicates existing policy requirements and is therefore considered unnecessary.
c) Appropriate control over development and potential impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity, including Local Wildlife Sites, would be achieved under Policies EN1 (Nature Conservation Designated Sites), EN2 (Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and Environmental Net Gain) and EN3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity). This criterion therefore appears to apply unnecessary duplication of policy control.
d) Impacts on the Highway network including the wider strategic and local network are separately addressed Policy PC2 (Active and Sustainable Travel) and the criterion appears to again duplicate policy control in this regard.
We note that policy criterion also requires contributions towards improvements at the Maldon Road/Warren Lane junction. This appears somewhat broad reaching and would appear to apply to development types that may not necessarily intensify the use of the site or increase traffic such that it would have impact on Maldon Road/Warren Lane junction, such as development of improved ancillary facilities. In such circumstances we would consider that such contributions would not be justified. We would therefore recommend that the statement is caveated to allow for instances of minor development or development that does not have implications for highways impacts
e) Criterion e) in relation to provision for safe access to the site, appears wholly unnecessary as it would either be covered under criterion d) or Policy PC2 (Active and Sustainable Travel).
f) While the provision of a linked off-road cycle route connecting the Zoo with Gosbecks Archaeological Park to facilitate sustainable modes of travel is noted, this criterion should be amended so as not to preclude or unduly limit the consideration of other sustainable transport measures that may support future development proposals.
g) Appropriate control over development and the requirement for appropriate SuDS for managing surface water runoff within the overall design and layout of the site, would be achieved through Policy EN8 (Flood Risk and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)). This criterion therefore appears to apply unnecessary duplication of policy control.
h) The wording of criterion h) is ambiguous in relation to development proposals needing to be proportionate and related to the function of the zoo. Greater clarity is required as to the scale of development that would be considered proportionate to the function of the zoo. Further that the criterion appears to replicate control that would be achieved under POLP policy CS5 (Tourism, Leisure, Arts, Culture and Heritage).
As discussed above, several of the criteria set out within Policy E5 appear to duplicate requirements already addressed elsewhere in the development plan, contrary to the tests in the NPPF (paragraph 16), which seek to avoid unnecessary repetition of policy. While the intention to provide greater clarity regarding the requirements associated with the allocation is welcomed, good practice would be to clearly cross-reference the relevant policies rather than replicate policy controls, thereby avoiding perceived duplication and ensuring internal consistency within the plan.
Within the fourth paragraph the policy also states that: 'Any proposals must comply with and not prejudice the delivery of the agreed masterplan'. We would suggest flexibility in the proposed wording i.e. '…the delivery of any agreed masterplan', as a masterplan is yet to be agreed.
The policy states that:
'It will need to be demonstrated that any proposals, when considered both alone and in combination with other planned development for the Zoo (whether such proposals currently benefit from planning consent or not), will not give rise to unacceptable impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to, the key considerations outlined above'.
Each planning application should be determined on its own merits. It is unclear what justification there is for requiring the assessment of cumulative impacts arising from development that does not benefit from planning permission and which, although potentially envisaged for the future, may never in fact be realised. It is also unclear how cumulative impacts can reasonably be assessed for development proposals that have yet to be subject to the planning process.
That said, we recognise that there are circumstances where other existing or approved development may be relevant in determining whether significant effects are likely to arise from a proposed development. In such cases, local planning authorities should have regard to potential cumulative effects arising from existing or approved development, consistent with the approach set out in national guidance, including the National Planning Practice Guidance in relation to Environmental Impact Assessment screening (NPPG, Paragraph: 024 Reference ID: 4-024-20170728).
We therefore recommend that the wording 'whether such proposals currently benefit from planning consent or not', is either deleted or amended to better reflect national policy guidance in relation to consideration of potential cumulative impacts arising from development.
In relation the above the policy goes on to further state that:
'Where possible adverse impacts are identified when considering any proposal, either alone or in combination with other planned development for the Zoo, adequate mitigation will need to be provided'.
This statement provides little clarity to developers and appears largely redundant, duplicating existing policy controls. Where specific issues are identified, it would be expected that any adverse impacts, whatever their nature, would be addressed through the application of the relevant policies of the development plan, thereby ensuring that appropriate mitigation is secured.
The final paragraph requires wintering bird surveys to be undertaken at the appropriate time of year to identify any offsite functional habitat before planning consent is granted. While appropriate assessment of potential impacts should be required where development proposals would either have a direct impact on habitats suitable for wintering birds or development of a nature that might impact on such areas of habitat, this requirement appears overly onerous if applied to all forms of proposed development. The requirement for wintering bird surveys should be amended to provide a proportionate and flexible approach, ensuring that surveys are not required where development proposals would clearly have no significant impact on habitats suitable for wintering birds.
Amendments recommended:
• The area of the site allocation should be updated to reflect the ownership boundaries of Colchester Zoo.
• The wording 'Development for zoo purposes outside of the area defined will not be supported' should either deleted or amended to better reflect national policy and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and to bring planning controls in line with other landowners outside of the allocation.
• Criterion a) should be removed as this is covered under Policies EN6 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) and EN7 (Archaeology).
• Criterion b) should also be removed as this is covered under Policy LC1 (Landscape).
• Criterion c) should also be removed as this is covered under Policy Policies EN1 (Nature Conservation Designated Sites), EN2 (Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and Environmental Net Gain) and EN3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity).
• Criterion d) should be updated impacts on the Highway network including the wider strategic and local network are separately addressed Policy PC2 (Active and Sustainable Travel) and the criterion appears to again duplicate policy control in this regard. Further that the requirement for contributions towards improvements at the Maldon Road/Warren Lane junction should be caveated to allow for instances of minor development or development that does not have implications for highways impacts.
• Criterion e) should be removed as this is covered under Policy PC2 (Active and Sustainable Travel).
• Criterion f) should be amended so as also to not exclude out other modes of sustainable transport to support future development.
• Criterion g) should be removed as this is covered under Policy EN8 (Flood Risk and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)).
• Criterion h) should be removed as this is covered under Policy CS5 (Tourism, Leisure, Arts, Culture and Heritage).
• The fourth paragraph of the policy should be reviewed to provide a degree of flexibility in the proposed wording i.e. '…the delivery of any agreed masterplan'; the wording 'whether such proposals currently benefit from planning consent or not', is either deleted or amended; and the text 'Where possible adverse impacts are identified when considering any proposal, either alone or in combination with other planned development for the Zoo, adequate mitigation will need to be provided' be deleted.
• The final paragraph relating to the requirement for wintering bird surveys should be amended to provide a proportionate and flexible approach, ensuring that surveys are not required where development proposals would clearly have no significant impact on habitats suitable for wintering birds.

The Council’s support for tourism, leisure, cultural, and heritage development within draft policy CS5 is welcomed. However, certain elements of the policy are overly prescriptive and potentially restrictive, which may undermine the objective of achieving sustainable development and conflict with the tests set out in NPPF (paragraph 16), particularly regarding the need for policies to be positively prepared, enabling sustainable development, and avoiding unnecessary duplication of other plan policies.
Criterion d) of the draft policy states that:
"d) Proposals that are likely to have an adverse impact on the integrity of habitats sites or the Dedham Vale National Landscape will not be supported".
The draft policy's blanket wording that development proposals with any adverse effects on the integrity of habitats sites or Dedham Vale National Landscape 'will not be supported' fails to reflect the mitigation-led approach of the Habitats Regulations and the language and balanced policy tests within the NPPF (paragraph 193). The policy should allow for impacts to be appropriately avoided or mitigated, rather than applying an absolute prohibition. In this regard the policy also appears to apply duplicate control that would be achieved through POLP Policy EN1 (Nature Conservation Designated Sites) conflicting with the tests set out in NPPF (paragraph 16), particularly regarding the need for policies to be positively prepared and designed to enable the delivery of sustainable development.
Criterion e) of the draft policy states that:
"e) In locations where residential use would be inappropriate, developments of visitor accommodation, where supported, will be limited by condition or legal agreement to holiday use only and/or certain periods of the year in order to prevent permanent or long-term occupation".
It is generally accepted that tourism is an important mechanism for delivering sustainable growth for both the local and national economy. It supports local communities by making local shops, services and transport connections economically viable and encourages the development of local products and services and both direct and indirect employment opportunities. The NPPF (paragraph 88) states that planning policies and decision should enable sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside.
While there may be seasonal variation in demand depending on location, activity type, and market segment, tourism in the UK is generally considered an all-year-round industry, and indeed its economic benefits need to be captured all year round. By restricting tourism development to certain periods of the year, the policy risks limiting economic potential and also viability of tourism related development and businesses.
While the need to control permanent occupation in unsustainable locations, where such is not fully justified, is recognised, it is considered that suitable control can be achieved through appropriate conditions, other than requiring a seasonal restriction, and such can achieve the appropriate level of control such that development would not otherwise undermine planning objectives. This is widely acknowledged by Planning Inspectors considering such issues at appeal and they often apply the following model condition, or similar, on positive determinations:
"The development shall be occupied as holiday accommodation only and shall not be occupied as a sole or main place of residence. An up-to-date register shall be kept at the holiday accommodation hereby permitted and be made available for inspection by the local planning authority upon request. The register shall contain details of the names of all of the occupiers of the accommodation, their main home addresses and their date of arrival and departure from the accommodation and shall make this information available at all reasonable times to the Local Planning Authority".
The above condition is widely adopted by many local planning authorities and, in itself, is sufficient to restrict occupancy of the development to holiday use. It provides a clear and enforceable mechanism should monitoring or enforcement be required, without the need for an additional, onerous condition imposing further restrictions on the period of occupation and restricting the operation of the tourism economy.

Colchester Zoo supports the Council’s objectives of promoting active and sustainable travel set out within draft policy PC2 in principle. However, the policy is drafted in an overly prescriptive and inflexible manner, applying blanket requirements to all forms and scales of development without sufficient regard to site-specific circumstances, deliverability or viability.
The NPPF (2024, paragraph 109) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making; this important distinction is not reflected in the draft policy. Accordingly, the policy’s approach conflicts with the NPPF requirement for policies to be positively prepared, effective and sufficiently flexible (paragraph 16).
The policy embeds detailed technical standards and external guidance directly into policy, leading to unnecessary duplication, reduced flexibility and a risk of rapid obsolescence.
The policy mandates the submission of Transport Assessments and Travel Plans by strict reference to county guidance (the specific guidance being unclear, thereby creating ambiguity), rather than allowing the exercise of planning judgement based on:
• The nature of the development;
• Local highway conditions; and
• The realistic potential to influence travel behaviour.
This risks exceeding the proportionality principles embedded in national policy and NPPG transport guidance, which seek to avoid unnecessary technical work where impacts are modest or clearly acceptable (NPPG Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 42-004-20140306). The policy therefore risks undermining the delivery of otherwise sustainable development, and conflicts with the requirement in paragraph 16 of the NPPF for policies to be positively prepared, effective and flexible, and risks creating unnecessary barriers to delivery.

Colchester Zoo supports the Council’s aspiration to promote high-quality, sustainable, and contextually appropriate design as set out within draft Policy PC6. However, the policy is overly prescriptive and inflexible, applying detailed requirements to all forms and scales of development without sufficient regard to site-specific circumstances, deliverability, or viability.
The policy contains a long list of detailed requirements covering design, amenity, placemaking, sustainability, active design, green infrastructure, internal standards, sprinkler systems, and more. While many objectives are commendable, the policy is drafted in a highly prescriptive and inflexible manner, applying to all developments regardless of scale, type, or context. The policy appears to impose prescriptive outcomes rather than design-led solutions suited to context and development type.
The NPPF (paragraph 16) requires policies to be positively prepared, effective, and sufficiently flexible to enable sustainable development. Blanket requirements for minor developments (e.g., all new build, extensions, or alterations) risk unnecessarily restricting otherwise acceptable development and may lead to inconsistent decision-making.
Within criterion r) the policy also duplicates control achieved under separate legislation i.e. Building Regulations, which risks creating unnecessary complexity and potential conflicts and this should be deleted.
Certain elements, such as references to 'positively respond to context' or 'help raise design standards' are ambiguous and subjective, reducing clarity and enforceability.
The final paragraph reads as if it is applying blanket approach to all developments requiring to be in accordance with submitted Masterplans and Design Codes, applying to all developments regardless of scale, type, or context. To remain fully consistent with the NPPF, the requirement to be 'in accordance with' masterplans and design codes should not be applied so rigidly that it prevents justified departures where material considerations indicate otherwise, as policies and codes must still allow for planning judgement (NPPF, paragraph 48).
Cumulatively, the policy imposes a high burden on development, which may undermine the delivery of otherwise sustainable schemes and conflict with the NPPF (2024, paragraphs 16 and 130), which requires policies to be positively prepared, effective, sufficiently flexible, and enable sustainable development.