Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

Spencer Planning Limited acts on behalf of Laura Brown, the owner of 0.84 hectares (ha) of former paddock / grassland adjacent to Nightingale Corner at The Folley, Layer de la Haye, as set out on the accompanying Site Location Plan (drawing no. OS-020-01).

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 (including at Layer-de-la-Haye) and some small settlements. Our client also supports the recognition in the Local Plan that growth needs must be balanced against the need to protect and enhance biodiversity, the surrounding landscape and heritage assets.

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 32 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 25-dwelling greenfield site, in a medium value area (such as Layer de la Haye) could total £1.55m. This equates to approximately £62k per dwelling and is a very substantial figure, far in excess of that usually experienced in Colchester or Essex. For example, the Denbury Homes site for 70 dwellings on land west of The Folley, Layer de la Haye, was approved by CCC’s planning committee on 15th February 2024 with planning obligations totalling approximately £0.60m or circa £8.6k per dwelling, according to the committee report. With this in mind, how have Newmark justified a figure of approximately £62k per dwelling elsewhere in and around Layer de la Haye?

• Page 32 of the Full Appraisals for Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment report concludes that a generic 25-dwelling greenfield site, in a medium value area (such as Layer de la Haye), is viable even with planning contributions of approximately £62k 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 32 of the assessment is £0.26m. There is no reference to how large the generic 25-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 1 hectare (ha) in size. Therefore the BLV can be said to be £260k per ha. However, Table 1 in the Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment report suggests that Existing Use Value (EUV) for greenfield sites is just below £31k per ha. This means that Newmark believes that agricultural landowner’s will sell their land for development at just over eight times EUV. A minimum factor of at least 10 times EUV should be used to establish BLV and even that is widely accepted to be 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 32 of the Full Appraisals for Colchester Whole Plan Viability Assessment report is stated as £7.07m. However, the sum of the actual figures listed above this total comes to £7.34m. Circa £0.27m appears to be missing from the total, with no explanation why. Furthermore, the ‘Development Value Summary’ refers to a different ‘Total Cost’ of £7.06m 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, Laura Brown, owns 0.84 hectares (ha) of former paddock / grassland adjacent to Nightingale Corner at The Folley, Layer de la Haye, as set out on the accompanying Site Location Plan (drawing no. OS-020-01).

Notably the Local Plan Regulation 18 document includes two new housing allocations at Layer de la Haye, both situated immediately to the west of The Folley and between our client’s land and the recently consented Denbury Homes scheme to the south. These new allocations comprise: 10 dwellings at The Furze (Policy PP39); and, 60 dwellings to the west of The Folley (Policy PP40).

As a result of these new allocations, the Policies Map proposes to extend the Layer de la Haye Settlement Boundary eastwards up to The Folley. This means that all land within the broadly triangular area of High Road, The Folley and Malting Green Road will form part of the settlement of Layer de la Haye, with the exception of our client’s land.

There is no clear planning purpose to exclude our client’s land from the extended Settlement Boundary and the decision to do so is not ‘justified’ (i.e. is not an appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives), in accordance with paragraph 36 of the NPPF. Layer de la Haye would be more naturally ‘rounded-off’ if this land was included within the Settlement Boundary and the highway would constitute a much stronger physical barrier and defensible boundary to prevent future sprawl and development to the east of the Village, if the Settlement Boundary ran the whole way along this part of The Folley. Furthermore, with the proposed new housing allocations to the south and existing homes to the north, developing this relatively modest and underused site would have no material impact on the character and appearance of the wider countryside to the east.

Our client’s land is immediately adjacent to the Village and benefits from the same sustainability advantages and accessibility to services and facilities as the two new housing allocations to the south.
Our client’s land was subject to a planning application (ref. 192975) and planning appeal (ref. APP/A1530/W/20/3250816) in 2019/20 for two new dwellings. Paragraphs 14 to 16 of the Appeal Decision found that:

“The village of Layer de la Haye benefits from a range of services, including a school, shop and two public houses. Despite these facilities occupiers of the proposed development would also have to travel onwards to the services and facilities within the nearby town of Colchester to access a wider range of shopping, healthcare, leisure and entertainment facilities.

There are several bus stops within walking distance of the appeal site and during peak times an hourly service operates to Colchester and therefore it would be possible for these services to be accessed via means other than the private car. Therefore, I consider that the site is well located in terms of access to services, facilities and amenities and this would ensure sufficient choice of travel by modes other than the private car.

In conclusion, the appeal site is an appropriate location for housing having regard to access to services and facilities…”

However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed in September 2020 for the reasons set out at paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Appeal Decision. In summary this referred to: the introduction of dwellings in this location significantly altering the character and appearance of this rural site; the proposal having an urbanising effect and intruding beyond the edge of the current settlement into the countryside; and, the proposed development having a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. However, these impacts have now been superseded by the Local Plan Regulation 18 document which proposes two new housing allocations to the south. The allocations and the extension of the Settlement Boundary to the south up to The Folley will fundamentally change the character and appearance of our client’s land and the wider setting to the west of The Folley from a rural to a developed and residential setting.

Our client’s land is available, achievable and suitable for a proportionate extension to the Village of approximately 10-15 new market and affordable homes. As well as ‘rounding-off’ the settlement more logically, these additional new homes will help to address the increased housing needs required as a result of our response to Policy ST5 above.

The site is flat and as a former paddock it is vacant, underutilised and well suited for residential development. There are existing mature trees and hedgerows around the periphery of the site, but these can be retained (where feasible) and along with new greenspace and landscaping planting contribute towards achieving a net gain in biodiversity.

Access can be derived from a single new priority junction located midway along the site frontage with The Folley. This proposed access arrangement was proposed as part of the previous application and appeal in 2019/2020, and did not raise any objection from the local highway authority.

For all of 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:

• The Layer de la Haye Settlement Boundary is extended on the Policies Map to include and allocate our client’s land for residential purposes, as suggested on the accompanying Indicative Concept Plan (drawing no. OS-020-02); and
• A new policy is added to the Local Plan document, after Policy PP40, to specifically allocate the land adjacent to Nightingale Corner, The Folley, Layer de la Haye, for approximately 10-15 new dwellings, with access from The Folley, the retention of existing mature trees and hedgerows (where feasible) and on-site enhancements to achieve a net gain in biodiversity.

Our client, Laura Brown, owns 0.84 hectares (ha) of former paddock / grassland adjacent to Nightingale Corner at The Folley, Layer de la Haye, as set out on the accompanying Site Location Plan (drawing no. OS-020-01).

Notably the Local Plan Regulation 18 document includes two new housing allocations at Layer de la Haye, both situated immediately to the west of The Folley and between our client’s land and the recently consented Denbury Homes scheme to the south. These new allocations comprise: 10 dwellings at The Furze (Policy PP39); and, 60 dwellings to the west of The Folley (Policy PP40).

As a result of these new allocations, the Policies Map proposes to extend the Layer de la Haye Settlement Boundary eastwards up to The Folley. This means that all land within the broadly triangular area of High Road, The Folley and Malting Green Road will form part of the settlement of Layer de la Haye, with the exception of our client’s land.

There is no clear planning purpose to exclude our client’s land from the extended Settlement Boundary and the decision to do so is not ‘justified’ (i.e. is not an appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives), in accordance with paragraph 36 of the NPPF. Layer de la Haye would be more naturally ‘rounded-off’ if this land was included within the Settlement Boundary and the highway would constitute a much stronger physical barrier and defensible boundary to prevent future sprawl and development to the east of the Village, if the Settlement Boundary ran the whole way along this part of The Folley. Furthermore, with the proposed new housing allocations to the south and existing homes to the north, developing this relatively modest and underused site would have no material impact on the character and appearance of the wider countryside to the east.

Our client’s land is immediately adjacent to the Village and benefits from the same sustainability advantages and accessibility to services and facilities as the two new housing allocations to the south.

Our client’s land was subject to a planning application (ref. 192975) and planning appeal (ref. APP/A1530/W/20/3250816) in 2019/20 for two new dwellings. Paragraphs 14 to 16 of the Appeal Decision found that:

“The village of Layer de la Haye benefits from a range of services, including a school, shop and two public houses. Despite these facilities occupiers of the proposed development would also have to travel onwards to the services and facilities within the nearby town of Colchester to access a wider range of shopping, healthcare, leisure and entertainment facilities.

There are several bus stops within walking distance of the appeal site and during peak times an hourly service operates to Colchester and therefore it would be possible for these services to be accessed via means other than the private car. Therefore, I consider that the site is well located in terms of access to services, facilities and amenities and this would ensure sufficient choice of travel by modes other than the private car.

In conclusion, the appeal site is an appropriate location for housing having regard to access to services and facilities…”

However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed in September 2020 for the reasons set out at paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Appeal Decision. In summary this referred to: the introduction of dwellings in this location significantly altering the character and appearance of this rural site; the proposal having an urbanising effect and intruding beyond the edge of the current settlement into the countryside; and, the proposed development having a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. However, these impacts have now been superseded by the Local Plan Regulation 18 document which proposes two new housing allocations to the south. The allocations and the extension of the Settlement Boundary to the south up to The Folley will fundamentally change the character and appearance of our client’s land and the wider setting to the west of The Folley from a rural to a developed and residential setting.

Our client’s land is available, achievable and suitable for a proportionate extension to the Village of approximately 10-15 new market and affordable homes. As well as ‘rounding-off’ the settlement more logically, these additional new homes will help to address the increased housing needs required as a result of our response to Policy ST5 above.

The site is flat and as a former paddock it is vacant, underutilised and well suited for residential development. There are existing mature trees and hedgerows around the periphery of the site, but these can be retained (where feasible) and along with new greenspace and landscaping planting contribute towards achieving a net gain in biodiversity.

Access can be derived from a single new priority junction located midway along the site frontage with The Folley. This proposed access arrangement was proposed as part of the previous application and appeal in 2019/2020, and did not raise any objection from the local highway authority.

For all of 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:

• The Layer de la Haye Settlement Boundary is extended on the Policies Map to include and allocate our client’s land for residential purposes, as suggested on the accompanying Indicative Concept Plan (drawing no. OS-020-02); and
• A new policy is added to the Local Plan document, after Policy PP40, to specifically allocate the land adjacent to Nightingale Corner, The Folley, Layer de la Haye, for approximately 10-15 new dwellings, with access from The Folley, the retention of existing mature trees and hedgerows (where feasible) and on-site enhancements to achieve a net gain in biodiversity.

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 more sustainable locations, including our client’s land adjacent to Nightingale Corner at The Folley, Layer de la Haye. 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 more sustainable locations, including our client’s land adjacent to Nightingale Corner at The Folley, Layer de la Haye. 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 15 dwellings at land off New Road on the basis that Aldham is significantly smaller and less sustainable than Layer de la Haye, with very limited existing services and facilities. Paragraph 4.193 of CCC’s Sustainability Appraisal (February 2025) acknowledges that Aldham has no school or local shops. As a result Policy PP45 is likely to increase dependence on the private car and contribute towards unsustainable patterns of development.

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 off New Road, Aldham, is removed from the emerging Local Plan and replaced with more sustainable alternatives, including their land adjacent to Nightingale Corner at The Folley, Layer de la Haye. Doing so 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 25 dwellings at Kelvedon Road on the basis that Messing is significantly smaller and less sustainable than Layer de la Haye, with very limited existing services and facilities. As a result Policy PP48 is likely to increase dependence on the private car and contribute towards unsustainable patterns of development.

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 Kelvedon Road, Messing, is removed from the emerging Local Plan and replaced with more sustainable alternatives, including their land adjacent to Nightingale Corner at The Folley, Layer de la Haye. Doing so 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.