Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

Anchor Hanover owns land east of Queensberry Avenue, Copford, which is currently allocated for housing (70 dwellings) under Policy SS4 of the adopted Colchester Borough Local Plan. The site is described in the Plan as a “sensible and logical extension” to the existing built-up area of Copford.

A planning application for 90 homes across two buildings was submitted in January 2023. Although recommended for approval by Officers, the application was refused by Members in March 2024. The sole reason for refusal, relating to design, was upheld at appeal in July 2025.

The Inspector concluded that the site is capable of absorbing development of scale and that no harm was identified in relation to residential amenity, highways and parking, flood risk and drainage, ecology and biodiversity net-gain, trees, archaeology, contaminated land or environmental and carbon implications. The only identified concern related to the scale, bulk and massing of the assisted living building, which was found not to reflect the prevailing built form. The Inspector also concluded that the smaller sheltered accommodation building would not result in an unduly or harmfully overbearing impact.

The appeal decision clearly demonstrates that, with appropriate revisions to scale, bulk and massing, an acceptable housing scheme can be delivered on the site. Anchor is therefore currently preparing an alternative proposal that directly addresses the Inspector’s findings.

Draft Policy ST5 proposes a new housing allocation in Copford (Policy PP29) but omits Anchor’s site, despite it remaining within the settlement boundary. Anchor strongly objects to this omission, which is not justified by the evidence base or effective in meeting housing needs.

The site should not have been excluded at Stage 1 of the SLAA. Under the adopted methodology, Anchor’s site meets all relevant criteria; it exceeds 0.25 hectares, has capacity for more than five dwellings, is not constrained by flooding or designations, is not isolated in the countryside, has safe highways access, and was already allocated in the development plan with an appeal under consideration at the time of assessment. No constraints were identified in the assessment that would justify its omission.

The site also clearly meets the tests in Stage 2 of the SLAA and is suitable, available and achievable for housing development. A detailed assessment is provided as an appendix to this representation. The Inspector’s findings also provide robust independent confirmation that the site is suitable for housing development, subject only to design refinement.

Policy ST5 also relies on a substantial windfall allowance of 2,200 dwellings which is unjustified when a deliverable, previously allocated site is available and capable of delivering homes in a sustainable location.

For these reasons, the omission of Anchor’s site to the rear of Queensberry Avenue renders draft policy ST5 unsound. The site should be reinstated as a housing allocation to ensure the plan is positively prepared, justified and effective.

Policy H1 appears to adopt a flexible approach to housing mix and does not prescribe a specific mix for each site. Flexibility in tenure and housing mix is essential to ensure the viability and successful delivery of older persons’ housing developments to meet identified needs. To be effective, the final policy wording should make clear that developments are not required to follow the exact housing mix set out in the table within the policy.

We generally support Policy H2. It is important that policies allow for flexibility in tenure for older persons’ schemes and do not prescribe proportions of social rent, affordable rent or shared ownership homes, particularly on 100% affordable and flatted developments.

Anchor Hanover, England’s largest provider of specialist housing and care for older people, supports the inclusion of a specific policy on older persons’ housing and one that supports all types of housing for older people. Given the significant and growing need, the policy should also include a clear numerical delivery target to ensure needs are met over the plan period.

We are concerned that the proposed policy applies stricter criteria to older persons’ housing than to general needs housing, which could limit delivery despite strong evidence of need. These criteria should therefore be removed to ensure the policy is effective and supports delivery.

We welcome the requirement for developments of 500+ homes to include provision for older people. The policy should take account of the minimum viable scale for specialist older persons’ housing, which in Anchor’s experience is at least 65 units.