Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

Object

Representation ID: 11662

Received: 27/12/2025

Respondent: Braiswick Residents Association

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policy PP4 because it is not justified, not effective, and not consistent with national planning policy.
PP4 is undeliverable as it relies on vehicular and pedestrian access via adjoining land, with no mechanism in the Local Plan to secure delivery or timing. Evidence from the neighbouring Abhora Homes scheme shows a negative residual land value, undermining confidence that infrastructure will be delivered. The site performs poorly in sustainability terms, with unresolved impacts on biodiversity, landscape, and drainage. These long-standing coordination and delivery issues mean the policy fails the tests of soundness and should be removed.

Object

Representation ID: 11663

Received: 27/12/2025

Respondent: Braiswick Residents Association

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policy PP6 because it is not justified, not effective, and not consistent with national planning policy.
PP6 represents inappropriate infill development that would remove a valued walking and cycling route linking New Braiswick Park to Colchester North Station, harming biodiversity and sustainable travel. The scale of development would increase traffic and congestion on Bergholt Road and at North Station Roundabout. The proposal appears speculative, with no clear evidence of deliverability or infrastructure capacity, and the policy does not show how these impacts would be mitigated. It should therefore be removed.

Object

Representation ID: 11664

Received: 27/12/2025

Respondent: Braiswick Residents Association

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policy PP7 because it is not justified, not effective, and not consistent with national planning policy.
This site was dismissed on appeal in 2018 following a public inquiry. The Planning Inspector found harm to the character of the area, concluded the site was not in a sustainable location and determined the harms outweighed the benefits. Bakers Lane was identified as a rural road that would be irrevocably changed by development. The appeal also considered the setting of a scheduled monument and still found the scheme unacceptable. No material circumstances have changed. PP7 should be removed.

Object

Representation ID: 11665

Received: 27/12/2025

Respondent: Braiswick Residents Association

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policy PP5 because it is not justified, not effective, and not consistent with national planning policy.
PP5 represents unnecessary greenfield infill adjoining the Chesterwell development, which is already capped at 1,600 dwellings. The allocation extends development beyond planned limits without reassessing cumulative impacts or infrastructure capacity. It threatens the Chesterwell Green Infrastructure Strategy and the loss of land with biodiversity value. The proposal would also add traffic to an area already under pressure, with no clear evidence that highway or service capacity exists. PP5 is therefore not supported by proportionate evidence and should be removed.

Object

Representation ID: 11666

Received: 27/12/2025

Respondent: Braiswick Residents Association

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policy ST7 because it does not demonstrate that infrastructure can be delivered in step with the scale of proposed growth. The policy relies on future mitigation without clear funding, phasing, or delivery mechanisms. Existing pressures on transport, healthcare, utilities, and education are already evident in the area. Without firm commitments or evidence of capacity, the policy risks allowing development to proceed without the infrastructure required to support it, making it neither effective nor justified

Object

Representation ID: 11667

Received: 27/12/2025

Respondent: Braiswick Residents Association

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policy PC2 as it relies on assumptions that sustainable travel options can be delivered where existing infrastructure is constrained. Many allocated sites depend on narrow rural roads or routes without safe pedestrian or cycle facilities (e.g. PP7). The policy does not demonstrate how safe, continuous, and practical walking and cycling routes will be delivered, risking increased car dependency and undermining sustainable travel objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 11668

Received: 27/12/2025

Respondent: Braiswick Residents Association

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policy PC4 because it promotes increased densities without sufficient regard to local character, infrastructure capacity, or environmental constraints. The policy lacks clear thresholds or safeguards to prevent overdevelopment in sensitive or semi-rural locations (e.g. Braiswick). This risks inappropriate density, pressure on services, and harm to local character. The policy is not justified by site-specific evidence and may result in development that is inconsistent with sustainable placemaking

Object

Representation ID: 11669

Received: 27/12/2025

Respondent: Braiswick Residents Association

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policies LC1 and LC2 as they rely on broad mitigation rather than clear safeguards to protect landscape character. The policies do not adequately address the cumulative impact of development on sensitive landscapes or settlement edges. Without stronger criteria or constraints, there is a risk that development will erode local character and harm valued landscapes, contrary to national planning policy

Object

Representation ID: 11670

Received: 27/12/2025

Respondent: Braiswick Residents Association

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policies LC1 and LC2 as they rely on broad mitigation rather than clear safeguards to protect landscape character. The policies do not adequately address the cumulative impact of development on sensitive landscapes or settlement edges. Without stronger criteria or constraints, there is a risk that development will erode local character and harm valued landscapes, contrary to national planning policy

Object

Representation ID: 11671

Received: 27/12/2025

Respondent: Braiswick Residents Association

Braiswick Residents Association objects to Policy NZ3 due to the lack of certainty around water supply and wastewater capacity. The policy does not demonstrate that infrastructure upgrades will be delivered in step with development, particularly in areas already experiencing pressure. Without clear evidence of capacity or delivery mechanisms, the policy risks environmental harm and unsustainable growth