Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

Spencer Planning Limited acts on behalf of Tey Gardens LLP, the owner of 5.3 hectares (ha) of land at Tey Gardens, to the north of the A120 and east of Church Lane in Little Tey, as set out on the accompanying Site Location Plan (drawing no. OS-022-01).

Our client supports the Vision at paragraph 2.19 of the Local Plan Regulation 18 document, including its recognition that the local authority area will grow and change, and that this brings with it opportunity.

Our client supports the proposed Spatial Strategy at Policy ST3 of the Local Plan Regulation 18 document, including: its aim to direct growth across Colchester with an appropriate level of development allocated within the large, medium and some small settlements; and, the recognition that growth needs must be balanced against the need to protect and enhance biodiversity, the surrounding landscape and heritage assets.

Our client also supports the proposed re-use of previously developed land and the pursuit of higher density development where this enables a more efficient use of land. This is broadly reflected in paragraph 124 of the NPPF which expects both planning policies and planning decisions to promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for new homes, while safeguarding and improving the environment.

As such our client is keen to see the Local Plan prioritise wholly previously developed sites first and partly previously developed sites (such as the land at Tey Gardens) second, when attempting to address its local housing needs. Only once the supply of these sites has been exhausted should greenfield land be considered to make up the balance of any residual housing need.

The land at Tey Gardens would make an efficient and effective use of partly previously developed land and safeguard the local environment. Furthermore, delivering up to 150 new homes here could create sufficient critical mass to support new facilities and enhance the sustainability of Little Tey as a settlement in its own right.

The preparation of a new Local Plan provides an opportunity to review, amongst other things, the designations shown on the Policies Map.

Our client’s proposals for the land at Tey Gardens offer an opportunity to deliver up to 150 new homes at the site and to create sufficient critical mass to support new facilities, which will enhance the sustainability of Little Tey and benefit existing residents. If allocated in the new Local Plan, the proposals for the land at Tey Gardens could warrant the designation of a new Settlement Boundary on the Policies Map, encompassing this site and the existing community at Little Tey.

In summary our client respectfully requests that Little Tey is added as a ‘small settlement’ in the Settlement Hierarchy on page 23 and in the Key Diagram at page 24 of the Local Plan document.

It is encouraging to read that Colchester City Council (CCC) intends to plan for its latest local housing needs in full. Notably these were increased by the Government as part of the December 2024 changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Standard Housing Method.

Having said that, the housing supply currently identified in the Regulation 18 document (21,106) only exceeds the minimum local housing need (20,800) by 306 dwellings. This equates to a buffer of just 1.5% and is well below the 10%+ buffers that most Essex authorities generally allow for in their local plans. A buffer of 1.5% will provide very little flexibility to handle changing circumstances, for example, if / when:

(i) some sites are delayed;
(ii) some sites do not come forward as anticipated or yield fewer dwellings than expected; and / or
(iii) when the housing stock and affordability ratios which underpin the local housing need figure are updated, which the Government expects to do twice a year.

With this in mind there is planning merit in adding additional sites to the emerging Local Plan to supplement the housing supply and to provide a more meaningful buffer - i.e. closer to the 10% typically incorporated by Essex authorities.

Furthermore, paragraph 22 in the NPPF expects strategic policies to look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption. The Colchester Local Development Scheme (March 2025) indicates that the new Local Plan is unlikely to be adopted until Spring 2027, at the earliest. As a result the plan period end date set out in Policy ST5 should be extended from 2041 until at least 2042 or beyond if CCC believes it will take longer to finalise, examine and adopt the new Local Plan.

In summary this means that:

• The minimum local housing need figure in the Local Plan should be increased by at least another 1,300 homes, from 20,800 to 22,100 homes, to allow for Local Plan adoption in 2027 and a minimum 15-year plan period from 2027 to 2042; and
• The total housing supply in the Local Plan should be increased by another 3,204 homes, from 21,106 to 24,310 homes, to allow for the increased local housing need figure above and also to provide a more meaningful supply buffer of 10% over the adjusted local housing need figure.

These changes are necessary to ensure that the new Local Plan is ‘positively prepared’ (i.e. provides a strategy which seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs), ‘justified’ (i.e. provides an appropriate strategy taking into account the reasonable alternatives) and ‘consistent with national policy’ (i.e. enables the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF), as set out in paragraph 36 of the NPPF.

This policy sets out that all development must be supported by the provision of infrastructure, services and facilities. It explains that where a development proposal requires additional infrastructure capacity to be deemed acceptable, mitigation measures must be agreed with CCC, which may include: financial contributions towards new or expanded infrastructure; on-site provision of new facilities; off-site capacity improvement works; and/or, the provision of land. The policy also sets out that at the time of adoption of the new Local Plan, every allocation will be considered to be viable, based on information provided to CCC.

Notably this information includes the Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment prepared by Newmark in October 2025.

Although our client is broadly supportive of Policy ST7, we respectfully request that CCC instructs an independent audit of Newmark’s Viability Assessment to investigate the following areas of potential concern:

• Page 35 of the Full Appraisals for Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment report suggests that total planning obligations (i.e. s106 costs and any CIL) for a generic 150-dwelling site, in a medium value area (such as Little Tey) could total £8.44m. This equates to approximately £56k per dwelling and is a very substantial figure, far in excess of that usually experienced in Colchester or Essex. For example, the Bloor Homes site for 150 dwellings on the land north of Coach Road, Great Horkesley, was approved by CCC’s planning committee on 27th November 2025 with planning obligations totalling approximately £2.85m or circa £19k per dwelling, according to the committee report. With this in mind, how have Newmark justified a figure of approximately £56k per dwelling for other generic 150-dwelling developments in the same medium value area?

• Page 35 of the Full Appraisals for Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment report concludes that generic 150-dwelling site, in a medium value area (such as Little Tey), is viable even with planning contributions of approximately £56k per dwelling. However, this would represent an extremely high level of planning obligations and Spencer Planning is not aware of any residential development being found viable and actually delivered at or near this figure in Essex. Does CCC have any practical examples of where this has worked successfully?

• The Benchmark Land Value (BLV) used in page 35 of the assessment is £1.54m. There is no reference to how large the generic 150-dwelling site is, but realistically allowing for public open space, greenspace and biodiversity net gain, it is reasonable to conclude it must be at least 5 hectares (ha) in size. Therefore the BLV can be said to be £308k per ha. Notably Table 1 in the Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment report suggests that Existing Use Value (EUV) for greenfield sites is just below £30.8k per ha. This means that Newmark believes that agricultural landowner’s will sell their land for development at approximately 10 times EUV. This is widely regarded to be the minimum factor that should be used to establish BLV and even then it is modest and perhaps not acceptable in many cases, with many landowners looking to achieve 20+ times EUV when selling land for residential development.

• The ‘Total Cost (exc. Finance)’ of development on Page 35 of the Full Appraisals for Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment report is stated as £38.12m. However, the sum of the actual figures listed above this total comes to £43.64m. Circa £5.52m appears to be missing from the total, with no explanation why. Furthermore, the ‘Development Value Summary’ refers to a different ‘Total Cost’ of £37.86m which – even after ‘Finance’ costs are removed – does not match either of the aforementioned figures. These errors are a consistent issue throughout the Full Appraisals for Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment report.

Overall it is encouraging that CCC is undertaking this detailed level of viability work at a relatively early stage of the plan-making process. However, for the reasons set out above, further refinement and auditing of the figures will be necessary in due course to ensure there is sufficient justification, accuracy and realism in any information that is ultimately presented to an inspector when the new Local Plan reaches Examination in Public (EiP).

Our client, Tey Gardens LLP, owns 5.3 hectares (ha) of land at Tey Gardens, to the north of the A120 and east of Church Lane in Little Tey, as set out on the accompanying Site Location Plan (drawing no. OS-022-01).

Approximately 35% of the Site, to the west near Church Lane, comprises previously developed (brownfield) land currently used by Global Stone for storage and distribution purposes. The rest of the Site to the centre and east includes scrub land, a drainage pond, a large Nissen hut and open grassland.

The Site benefits from direct frontage onto both Church Lane and the A120, with a formal priority junction access into Global Stone’s premises from Church Lane and two smaller gated field accesses into the centre and east of the Site from the A120. Existing bus stops are located immediately to the south of the Site on the A120.

The Site is bounded by residential dwellings to the west and south, a mixture of commercial (including Godbolts Business Park) and residential dwellings to the east and Highfields Nursery and agricultural fields to the north. In general the Site is well contained visually from its surroundings by mature trees, hedgerow and other vegetation.

Our client’s proposal offers the opportunity to deliver up to 150 new homes on a part previously developed (brownfield) and part greenfield site. It also offers the opportunity to create sufficient critical mass to support new facilities – such as a local convenience store, local equipped area for play (LEAP) and other public open space – which could enhance the sustainability of Little Tey and benefit both new and existing residents.

The accompanying Indicative Concept Plan (drawing no. OS-022-02) demonstrates how:

• Residential development parcels and building frontages could be accommodated on circa 3.3 ha of land towards the west and east of the Site, which at a net density of up to 45 dwellings per hectare (dph) could accommodate up to 150 new homes, including 30% affordable housing.
• The existing vehicular access from Church Lane could be retained and upgraded to serve a new primary street leading into and through the Site, with secondary streets permeating from this. This could include a new 2-metre wide footway leading from the A120, northwards along Church Lane and into the Site.
• An existing public right of way could support pedestrian and cycle access from the A120 to the south.
• There is potential to deliver a new local convenience store on-site, fronting Church Lane and near the A120.
• Extensive greenspace – including a LEAP, public open space, existing drainage basin and area to deliver 10% biodiversity net gain (BNG) – could be created towards the centre of the development and serve both new residents and the existing community.
• Additional new drainage basins could be accommodated on the lower lying land to the east of the Site.
• Existing and reinforced boundary trees, hedges and other planting could be used to mitigate any visual impacts of the development and enhance the residential amenity of the new homes.
• With the critical mass provided by the Proposed Development, Little Tey could be designated with a formal ‘Settlement Boundary’ on the emerging Local Plan Policies Map.

Firmin Transport Planning (FTP) have prepared the accompanying Traffic Impact Assessment Technical Note to support the Proposed Development. This demonstrates that the proposed access arrangements for the Site can be provided in accordance with standards outlined within the Essex Design Guide and that a suitable site access can be provided from Church Lane which operates with significant spare capacity and meets the minimum visibility requirements.

For these reasons and to ensure that the Local Plan is ‘justified’ (i.e. an appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives) as set out at paragraph 36 of the NPPF, our client respectfully requests that:

• A Settlement Boundary is added around Little Tey on the Policies Map and the land at Tey Gardens is allocated for residential-led development, as suggested on the accompanying Indicative Concept Plan (drawing no. OS-022-02); and
• A new sub-section and policy is added to the Local Plan document, after paragraph 12.40, to specifically allocate the land at Tey Gardens, Little Tey, for up to 150 new homes (including 30% affordable housing), access from Church Lane, a new local convenience store, a LEAP and public open space, new drainage basins and area to deliver at least 10% biodiversity net gain on-site.

Doing so will enhance the sustainability of Little Tey as a settlement and provide additional new homes to meet the increased local housing need and to support a more meaningful housing supply buffer, as identified elsewhere in our client’s consultation response.

Our client objects to the draft allocation for approximately 180 dwellings at land north of Halstead Road and east of Wood Lane, Eight Ash Green on the basis that it will cause two settlements to coalesce.

Paragraph 12.31 in the Local Plan Regulation 18 document explains that “Eight Ash Green comprises three main areas of which two are considered sustainable and have a range of services and facilities: Eight Ash Green / Fordham Heath and Eight Ash Green / Choat’s Corner.” Notably the adopted Colchester Section 2 Local Plan Policies Map (2022) illustrates that these two areas are currently defined by distinct Settlement Boundaries, separated by a substantial area of countryside around Choat’s Wood.

The draft allocation to the north of Halstead Road and east of Wood Lane will infill a large part of the countryside gap between Eight Ash Green / Fordham Heath and Eight Ash Green / Choat’s Corner, physically merging these defined settlements into one another and causing them to lose their distinctiveness and individual identity.

This is contrary to the objective set out in paragraph 11(a) of the NPPF, which expects local plans to promote sustainable patterns of development.

In summary our client requests that the draft allocation to the north of Halstead Road and east of Wood Lane is removed from the emerging Local Plan and that these 180 dwellings are re-allocated elsewhere at less harmful sites, including our client’s land at Tey Gardens, Little Tey. This will ensure that the emerging Local Plan passes the ‘justified’ test of soundness (i.e. it comprises an appropriate strategy taking into account the reasonable alternatives) at paragraph 36 of the NPPF.

Our client objects to the draft allocation for approximately 900 dwellings at land north of Park Lane, Langham on the basis that it will cause two settlements to coalesce.

Paragraph 12.35 in the Local Plan Regulation 18 document acknowledges that “Langham includes two areas of settlement, Langham Moor and St. Margaret’s Cross, linked by School Road.” Similarly the adopted Colchester Section 2 Local Plan Policies Map (2022) illustrates that these areas are currently defined by distinct Settlement Boundaries, separated by countryside and an allocated area of Public Open Space.

The draft allocation to the north of Park Lane will infill the entire countryside gap between Langham Moor and St. Margaret’s Cross, physically merging these defined settlements into one another and causing them to lose their distinctiveness and individual identity.

Furthermore, the scale of the draft allocation – at approximately 900 dwellings – is completely out of keeping with the size of Langham Moor and St. Margaret’s Cross, Langham’s role as a ‘medium settlement’ in the Settlement Hierarchy and the availability of existing services and facilities locally. As well as causing coalescence and completely overwhelming the existing communities with a far larger new housing development, the limited availability of existing services and facilities here is likely to lead to this allocation increasing dependence on the private car and contributing towards unsustainable patterns of development. Notably Policy PP37 does not explicitly require any new shops, schools, health facilities, community uses or public transport services to be delivered on-site, which implies that the draft allocation could result in the delivery of 900 new homes and not much else.

This is contrary to the objectives set out in paragraph 11(a) and 110 of the NPPF, which expect local plans to promote sustainable patterns of development and significant development to be focussed on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.

In summary our client requests that the draft allocation at land north of Park Lane, Langham, is: (i) substantially reduced in scale from 900 to say 500 dwellings; (ii) potentially split into two distinct and separate extensions to Langham Moor and St. Margaret’s Cross of circa 250 dwellings each, with a green gap or buffer retained in between; and, (iii) specific requirements are added to Policy PP37 to ensure that new shops, schools, health facilities, community uses and public transport services are provided on-site.

The balance of these dwellings can be re-allocated elsewhere at less harmful sites, including our client’s land at Tey Gardens, Little Tey. This will ensure that the emerging Local Plan passes the ‘justified’ test of soundness (i.e. it comprises an appropriate strategy taking into account the reasonable alternatives) at paragraph 36 of the NPPF.