Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

The Parish Council would object to this allocation if it resu;lted in what would be a third access on to the A1124 within a few hundred metres, together , which will create congestion and safety issues with John Flower Way and the proposed T junction for PP32. This allocation should be linked with the proposed alternative allocation to PP32, east of PEP9, to form a single access point for all three sites to form a roundabout junction with John Flower Way, including a safe crossing and appropriate lighting.

The context and assumptions behind the Marks Tey Growth Area have been completely altered by the decision to abandon the A12 improvements. In the absence of any long term solution for the A120, which also takes account of any further development to the east in Braintree District the delivery of development within the Plan period to 2041 must be questionable. However, the location of Marks Tey, with a rail station and access to the strategic highway network means the long term potential for growth at Marks Tey has to be recognised. The vague references in the supporting text paras.12.16 - 12.19 to 'an opportunity for Garden Village scale growth' do need significant re-defining and strengthening to provide both clarity and a long term vision, with an indication of appropriate and realistic scale for the Plan period to 2041 and beyond. This needs to be informed by a comprehensive set of broad master plan principles that would replace Policies PP17 and 18. The Master Plan should demonstrate if, or how, development north of A120 and south of the A12 can form a coherent community with successful placemaking and how any development deals with the A120 and access to the Rail Station. Whilst the overall scale would need to be substantially less than the previous proposed 'Garden Community' the Council has an extensive library of background information and evidence to draw on. The boundaries of the current allocations in PP17 and PP18 are arbitrary, based on land ownership rather than any place making principles or vision and should be withdrawn. PEP5 is probably undeliverable as currently shown following the A12 decision. The residents of not just Marks Tey but of all the villages on the west side of Colchester deserve a better Plan than this. Aldham Parish is aware of, and supports, work that has been undertaken on behalf of Marks Tey Parish Council on some options for how proposed development at Marks Tey could be shaped. We encourage the City Council to work with local communities to ensure the Reg.19 Draft proposals for Marks Tey can be supported.

The context and assumptions behind the Marks Tey Growth Area have been completely altered by the decision to abandon the A12 improvements and the absence of any long term solution for the A120, which takes account of any further development to the east in Braintree District. However, given limited options the long term potential for growth at Marks Tey is recognised. A clear set of criteria for relating any growth at Marks Tey to improvements to the A12 and A120 is needed at the outset to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity. The vague references in the supporting text paras.12.16 - 12.19 to 'an opportunity for Garden Village scale growth' needs further defining and strengthening to provide both clarity and a long term vision, with an indication of an appropriate scale of development for the Plan period to 2041 and beyond. This needs to be informed by a comprehensive set of broad master plan principles that would replace Policies PP17 and 18. The Master Plan should demonstrate if, or how, development north of A120 and south of the A12 can form a coherent community with successful placemaking and how any development deals with the A120 and access to the Rail Station. Whilst the overall scale would need to be substantially less than the previous 'Garden Community' the Council already has an extensive library of background information and evidence to draw on to assist this process. The current allocations in PP17, PP18 are arbitrary, based on land ownership rather than any place making principles or vision and should be withdrawn. PEP5 is probably undeliverable as currently shown following the A12 decision. The residents of not just Marks Tey but of all the villages on the west side of Colchester deserve a better Plan than this. Aldham Parish is aware of, and supports, work that has been undertaken on behalf of Marks Tey Parish Council on some options for how proposed development at Marks Tey could be shaped. We encourage the City Council to work with local communities to ensure the Reg.19 Draft proposals for Marks Tey can be supported.
With specific reference to the allocation shown for PP18, the northern half of the site lies within the Parish of Aldham and much of it within the Roman River Valley that has designation in the Local Nature Recovery Strategy. Much of this area should be protected from development as Strategic Green Space, and of sufficient scale to allow a range of suitable habitats. This should be more explicit in any policy that includes this land. The current reference to 'substantively more than 10%' in PP18 does not reflect this and needs much better definition and any policy supporting an allocation north of the A120 should be underpinned by some key master planning principles that show how the garden village ambition could be achieved. This could include altering the boundaries to PP18 to better relate it to place making principles, including access to and development around Marks Tey station.

This allocation is no longer deliverable following the decision not to proceed with the A12 Marks Tey to Boreham improvement. It is not clear whether the approved A12 route will continue to be safeguarded but in any event this policy will need revision. If it remains viable it should be redrawn and incorporated into a comprehensive Master Plan for Marks Tey.
Please see general comments on Marks Tey under PP17 and 18