Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

I write as the warden and thus lay head of the Church of St Andrew and the leader of the Marks Tey Heritage Project. I am very well aware of the traumas that the village has and is suffering from. Over 70 dwellings were lost to the coming of the railway, the dualling of the road to Feering in the 1930's and the 'Stanway By-pass' cutting through the heart of the village in the late 1960's. A further blight has been the increased levels of traffic on the A120 and A12. The village is badly segmented and for over 30 years I have been of the view that development centred within half a mile radius of the Coggeshall Road Roundabout could help address this problem. However the current proposals are enormous and flawed so creating problems and failing to address others. There needs to be a master plan The plan needs to address how there is safe access for pedestrians and cyclists to current key facilities the Church/Church Hall (used by the community), Parish Hall and grounds, Poplar Garden and Retail Centre, the School, the Shops and the Station. Each development area needs to show this - as the recent Dandara proposals did not. Review whether the right areas of land have been included to create a nuclear settlement , support existing facilities, and lead to a viable community. Proportionality should be key. Obvious errors include. Land off North Lane not included despite easy access to station. Flood risk minimal - an earth bank would resolve any risk Why no land off Wilsons Lane and Long Green - only short walk to School and Poplars. Why not some land off Dobbies Lane between A12 and Rail line Allow for indication of land for consideration such as the land East of the first part of Church lane - potentially facilitating access by bike and foot to the Station. Also land east of the Tey Road that could allow road changes. The extent of land to the south of the shops is excessive and numbers can be replaced from suggestions in the immediate points above. The plan needs to address shortage of parking at the Station - even with home working - often no spaces by 8am Need for additional parking for the current shops - on Monday 21" December two parking wardens were issuing tickets. The owners of the Marks Tey Hall site also own many of the buildings and the immediate land behind the shops Pylons route not shown or possibly accounted for. Demonstrate how the levels of noise and furnes from the increasing traffic can be reduced for residents The A120 and Junction 25 are no longer fit for purpose. The Local Plan has failed on this previously. A short term alternative could be a roundabout say close to the Tey Road and withtraffic taken through the allocated land north of the Coggeshall Road to rejoin the current A120 before the roundabout.

The Council need to recognise that the excessive housing provision has only succeeded in meeting housing needs elsewhere. In the Essex County Standard of December 19 there is a photograph of Councillor Julie Young and an article advising that in November there were 472 families in temporary accommodation. Social housing is frequently going to those from London.

Yours faithfully the

Andrew Waters43 London Road Copford Colchester CO6 1LG 23 December 2025 Dear Sirs Re: Local Plan Objections - Copford

The proposals within the Copford Boundary are excessive.

The extent of land accessed from Marks Tey with 900 houses is a threat and not justified on any good planning or community grounds. Much of this housing number can be substituted by other offered sites in Marks Tey and from others that are likely to come forward in the Plan's life - such as off North Lane Marks Tey, off Wilsons Lane, Long Green and Dobbies Lane. East of Tey Road and the first part of Church Lane. The full extent of the Marks Tey Hall site would simply be Urban Sprawl and not part of any welcoming sustainable community. The plan fails to recognise that small organic growth in rural villages is usually beneficial and helps to sustain those communities and their facilities. Traditionally the Council's developments plans used to indicate sites that would be favourably considered. This would ease pressure on a few settlements and give a chance for proportionality. The Plan needs to ensure local housing needs are actually met rather than those from elsewhere. In the Essex County Standard of December 19 we read that in November there were 472 families including 525 children in temporary accommodation. This is unacceptable considering the number of houses built. Social housing in the City area must be allocated to Colchester.

In regard to the School Road site north of the village Hall. There are a range of concerns Safe access onto School Road by 300 dwellings? More if additional land developed later. Unfortunately assurances by Highways are not trusted - eg Stane Park. Only a single access

Increased traffic problems in School Road at the junction with London Road and by the School around drop off and collection times Need for environmental protection for Pits Wood and from damage by over use

Doubts on the ability of the sewerage works to cope with the large increase in dwellings to be served (Stanway and Marks Tey) and still meet the coming raised discharged water quality standards. School capacity - has a small site Currently inadequate health provision in the area Current problems of getting about. London Road has narrow footpaths and due to traffic level fewer cyclists are using the road

The inclusion of the right mix of housing that meets actual local need. More 1 bed houses and maisonettes such as at Windmill Court and two and three bedroom bungalows for local elderly residents to downsize into