Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

Open space - All open space of public value, including not just land, but also areas of water (such as rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs) which offer important opportunities for sport and recreation and can act as a visual amenity.
The harbour area of Mersea Island should be designated under the above definition within the plan documents. Bearing in mind a lot of the areas around Mersea Island are use for visual appreciation as well as recreation but do fall within some of the most protected sites as well.

See LC3 below and EN4 above

Because the WMNP will be out of date and unlikely to be updated because of the cost and time of doing revisions every 5 years will our designated Local Green Spaces be protected in future? If so how will they be logged if no new NP?

Here again alternative SANG’s should not be put upon Mersea unless directly belonging to development on Mersea Island.
& EN2 4.8 Natural England consider that Maydays Farm would provide an excellent opportunity to create valuable habitat for wading birds and enhance habitat connectivity. The site is a strategic location, adjacent to the Colne Estuary SSSI. The land is entirely below 5m AOD and adjacent to Pyefleet Channel making it suitable for the creation of grazing marsh and associated freshwater habitats. It would also be suitable for the creation of intertidal habitats, although they are currently outside the remit of BNG.

Again as above Because the WMNP will be out of date and unlikely to be updated because of the cost and time of doing revisions every 5 years will our designated Local Green Spaces be protected in future? If so how will they be logged if no new NP?

The development proposed under policy PP23: Land East Dawes Lane falls within the Coastal Protection Belt and is productive farm land.
Policy LC1 (Landscape) seeks to protect and enhance landscape character, the setting of valued landscapes, and the coast. Additional sewerage and wastewater from new development can cause indirect and cumulative harm through degraded watercourses, estuaries, and coastal waters, impacting habitats, landscape character, and visual amenity. Where these impacts are not
properly assessed or mitigated, compliance with LC1 cannot be demonstrated, and the objectives of ST2 (Environment, Green Network and Waterways), ST3 (Infrastructure Delivery and Impact Mitigation), and EN3 (Biodiversity and Net Gain) are also undermined.
The estuarine and coastal areas of the island are covered by international & local nature conservation designations – Coastal Protection Belt (CPB) - Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - Special Protection Areas (SPA) – National Nature Reserve (NNR) – Ramsar Site - the Essex Estuaries Special Area of Conservation. (SAC), Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) and the National Character Area 81 – Greater Thames Estuary (NCA) These designations are a significant constraint on settlement expansion, particularly when in-combination their effects are considered.
Appeal decisions support this approach. In APP/A1530/W/21/3285769, the Inspector concluded that development within the Coastal Protection Belt on Mersea Island would conflict with policies protecting the character of the coast and countryside, even when the site was not immediately adjacent to the coast, noting the broader context of National Character Area 81 and the CPB. This establishes clear precedent that coastal and estuarine landscapes are highly sensitive to development impacts, including cumulative and indirect environmental effects.
13
Further the Landscape Character Assessment report states on pages 262 & 279 “New development within the area should be avoided.”
Conclusion:
The Local Plan cannot be considered sound unless it explicitly assesses and mitigates additional sewerage and wastewater impacts on these sensitive landscapes, habitats, and designations, ensuring compliance with LC1, EN3, ST2, and ST3.

Policy LC3 seeks to protect the undeveloped character, landscape, and setting of the coast, restricting development that would adversely affect coastal landscapes, visual amenity, or ecological and cultural assets. On Mersea Island, most undeveloped land falls within this designation, including sensitive salt marshes, mudflats, and intertidal habitats.
Environmental Sensitivity
Mersea Island and other coastal areas contain multiple international, national, and local designations:
Coastal Protection Belt (CPB)
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
Special Protection Areas (SPA)
Ramsar Sites
National Nature Reserves (NNR)
Essex Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC)
Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ)
National Character Area 81 – Greater Thames Estuary (NCA)
These designations restrict where development can occur and require carefulenvironmental assessment before planning permission is granted.
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
Development, including new housing, can produce sewerage and wastewater discharges that degrade water quality, harm estuarine habitats, native oyster beds, and intertidal areas, and affect landscape and visual amenity. A recent Environment Agency/Anglian Water survey confirms the West Mersea WRC has caused record bacterial spikes in bathing waters, directly impacting sensitive marine environments. FSA guidance indicates that additional housing will further increase nutrient and bacterial loading, posing risks to both the marine ecosystem and local tourism.
Legal and Policy Precedent
Appeal decisions (e.g., APP/A1530/W/21/3285769) confirm that development within the CPB, even if not immediately adjacent to the coast, can conflict with policies protecting landscape and countryside character. This sets a clear precedent: the CPB is a significant constraint, and new development must not compromise its objectives.
Infrastructure Considerations (ST3 / NZ3)
Any development within or near the CPB must demonstrate adequate infrastructure, particularly wastewater treatment, to prevent harm to the coastal environment. The Plan currently does not assess cumulative wastewater impacts from nearly 600 homes (existing, under construction, and proposed) nor the capacity of the WRC to serve new development without harming the MCZ, SAC, or local bathing waters.
Conclusion.
Colchester City Council must ensure that LC3 is enforced consistently with environmental designations, indirect and cumulative impacts (especially from sewerage), and strategic policies ST2 and ST3, so that the Coastal Protection Belt’s objectives—protecting landscape, ecology, and visual amenity—are not compromised. How can stakeholders, residents, or the Inspector have confidence in this proposed Local Plan when key statutory regulators — Natural England and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) — have raised clear concerns about wastewater impacts, nutrient loading, and risks to sensitive habitats, yet these warnings are not addressed or incorporated in the Plan?
Ignoring the advice of these regulators means the Plan does not evidence compliance with statutory environmental duties, fails to ensure protection of highly sensitive and protected sites (MCZ, SAC, SSSI), and leaves critical infrastructure and environmental mitigation untested. Without this regulatory compliance, the Plan cannot be considered sound, deliverable, or safe for the community, marine life, or tourism-dependent economy.
Mersea Island Photos by Chrissie Westgate
The King Charles III England Coast Path. Para.5 15
This footpath which was designated to go around the whole Island, mostly by way of the top of the seawall, has yet be confirmed and is fast eroding on the southern shore, whilst land side alternatives were preposed these have yet to be implemented or sign posted.
The other issue is the demise of the seawalls protecting the Island. The southern and south-east corner of the Island is rapidly eroding due to both sea level rise and increasing extreme weather conditions.
The harbour area has been subject to two recharges of material to protect and is now about to
have another recharge as below. This to protect the harbour area and all associated activities that
take place within the harbour, fishing fleet, oystering and the oyster beds, and many hundreds of
moorings all of which the Island depend upon for a living and the associated vital Tourist Industry.
See below for more detail about the project.
17
Blackwater Estuary Natural Flood Management Project
What is the Blackwater Estuary Natural Flood Management Project?
The Blackwater Estuary Natural Flood Management (NFM) project involves the Beneficial Use of Dredged Sediment
(BUDS) to create and replenish sand and gravel beaches to protect coastal communities from flooding whilst
creating new habitats for beach-nesting birds and other key species. The project will be delivered by the RSPB,
Essex Wildlife Trust (EWT) and Harwich Haven Authority (HHA) and funded through the Environment Agency’s
£25m Natural Flood Management (NFM) programme.
Where is it?
The Blackwater Estuary is the
estuary of the River
Blackwater, between Maldon and
West Mersea. It is a
designated Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI), a
Special Area of Conservation
(SAC), a Special Protected Area
(SPA) and a Ramsar Wetland of
international importance. It also
contains RSPB Old Hall Marshes
and EWT Tollesbury Wick nature
reserves. The project proposes to
deliver sediment to three sites:
Old Hall Point, Cobmarsh
Island and Tollesbury Wick.
What are the benefits?
• Protection of 25km of coastal flood defence and 289 residential and commercial
properties in West Mersea, Tollesbury and Salcott;
• Protection of 406 Ha of coastal floodplain grazing marsh, 240 Ha of coastal
saltmarsh, and oyster layings in West Mersea harbour;
• Protection of boat moorings in the Blackwater estuary and Tollesbury Marina; and
• Creation and replenishment of 6.7 Ha of vegetated shingle beach habitat for beach
nesting birds.
What will it look like?
The proposed schemes are large in scale, and
from the ground will look like an extension of
naturally formed shingle beach habitat and in
keeping with the natural environment. The
picture of the Cobmarsh Island scheme,
previously delivered by Mersea Harbour
Protection Trust in 2022, demonstrates what
they will look like. Photo credit: Jim Pullen.
For questions or to find out more:
Email: blackwaternfm@rspb.org.uk
When is it happening?
The project development phase is from April 2024 and will include engagement as well as installation of baseline
monitoring. The delivery phase is from October 2025 to March 2027.
Houseboat statement while mention of coastal areas what about non coastal areas, such as at the Hythe and Wivenhoe?
West Mersea does need it’s own specific Houseboat Policy requirements and restrictions. Whilst these are covered in the present Colchester plan and the WMNP neither of these will exist after this new plan takes effect and therefore must be specifically included, as below for West Mersea.
The policy as now presented appears to be a generic policy applying to the whole of Colchester whereas under the existing plan there is a specific policy applying to Mersea Island and we believe this should be maintained and reinstated into the new plan. (Colchester Hythe Quay and Wivenhoe also have some houseboats and may need their own specific policy)
This paragraph on Houseboats also does not quite accord with the WMNP therefore this paragraph should be replaced by the WMNP as we believe it is more comprehensive as below:
Policy WM 9 – Houseboats
Proposals for new moorings for permanent residential houseboats will not be permitted in coastal areas including Coast Road because of their landscape and environmental impact on the internationally designated habitats.
Proposals to replace an existing houseboat or fill a vacant site that is identified on Map 4 as being a recently used site maybe supported, subject to an installation method statement being submitted which avoids impacts to salt-marsh habitats and which satisfy all other policy criteria.
In considering proposals for houseboats and associated development, the following matters will be taken into account:
i. the proposal should maintain the general character of the houseboat area;
ii. houseboat proposals should not have a detrimental impact upon the natural environment but should respect the unique habitat within which they are situated;
iii. the storage of waste and any associated domestic paraphernalia would not have a harmful effect on the character or setting of the surrounding area.
iv. the open views across the marshes are not significantly harmed as a result of the proposal
Proposals for houseboat projects (replacement boats, ancillary jetties and any structures) will be required to include sufficient information to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment and, where necessary, an Appropriate Assessment. Proposals should demonstrate that they have, or are capable of providing, adequate on-site sewage/pump-out systems in order to mitigate potential damage to the salt marsh and a reduction of water quality.
Applications for infrastructure to support existing houseboats including jetties, sheds, platforms and fences and for replacement houseboats or houseboat alterations considered to result in material alterations will be considered on the basis of their scale and impact on surrounding amenity, environment and landscape. 19

From Newmark Viability and Delivery Assessment Policies page 25
2. Requirement 2: Fossil Fuel Free
a) No new buildings shall be connected to the gas grid; and
b) fossil fuels must not be used on-site to provide space heating, domestic hot water or cooking
Note these conditions for Dawes Lane site PP23 did include no gas central heating, which we would certainly support and wonder why this is not more universal.

Policy NZ3 requires that new development has adequate wastewater treatment and water supply infrastructure in place before occupation, and that development does not compromise environmental quality or designated sites.
Key issues for Colchester:
1. Wastewater Capacity
i) The Local Plan does not provide evidence that the Water Recycling Centre (WRC) can accommodate the additional load from proposed development, including existing allocations (~280 homes) and new allocations (~600 homes in total).
ii) The only operational change (increased storm flow) does not address treatment capacity for new housing.
2. Environmental Impacts
i) Additional effluent threatens the Essex Estuaries SAC and Blackwater, Crouch, Roach and Colne Estuaries MCZ, both in unfavourable condition and under active recovery
ii) Increased nutrient, bacterial, and chemical loading would undermine biodiversity net gain (EN3), damage landscape and coastal character (LC1/LC3), and hinder the objectives of
ST2/ST3.
3. Cumulative Impacts
NZ3 requires infrastructure planning to consider cumulative impacts. A full assessment must include all existing and proposed dwellings to ensure the WRC and water supply can support growth without environmental harm.
4. Recommendation
Before further allocations, CCC must assess cumulative wastewater impacts, provide clear evidence of WRC capacity, and ensure mitigation measures are in place to protect sensitive coastal and estuarine habitats.
Economic Impacts of Pollution on Mersea
“Policy EN1: Nature Conservation Designated Sites – Development proposals that have adverse effects on the integrity of habitats, designated sites, or Sites of Special Scientific Interest, either alone or in combination, will not be supported.”
Oyster Industry:
i) Native oyster beds in the MCZ are highly sensitive to nutrient, bacterial, and chemical loading.
ii)Pollution from WRC effluent or CSO events could degrade water quality, halt oyster recovery, and directly threaten the livelihoods of local oystermen.
Tourism and Recreation:
i) Elevated bacterial and chemical levels in estuaries and bathing waters reduce recreational value.
ii) Tourism, water sports, and hospitality businesses would suffer significant economic losses if water quality declines.
Cumulative and Event-Based Pollution:
i) CSO spikes and cumulative discharges from existing and proposed housing developments amplify these risks.
ii) Unmanaged or poorly mitigated wastewater discharge threatens the long-term sustainability of both aquaculture and coastal tourism, key economic drivers for the area.
Policy Implications:
i) Without infrastructure upgrades and proper wastewater management, economic impacts are inevitable, alongside environmental degradation.
ii) Local Plan policies (LC1, LC3, EN3, ST2/ST3, NZ3) must explicitly consider economic as well as ecological consequences of additional pollution.

All new properties built on Mersea Island should have Solar Panels