Colchester City Council Preferred Options Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation 2025

Latimer supports the principal of Policy CS2 (Enhancement of and Provision for Community Facilities) which confirms that:
“Contributions may be pooled towards larger community infrastructure projects to cumulatively contribute towards provision on a larger scale where a need has been identified. Where existing facilities can be enhanced to serve new development, the Council will work with developers and local partners to audit existing facilities and deliver any requirements for such facilities to deliver comprehensive provision of services to serve these extended communities” (Lichfields emphasis).

This is important for Latimer as the TCBGC DPD requires Latimer to facilitate the delivery of significant new physical infrastructure (such as footways, cycleways, roads, and sewers); social infrastructure (including a further education college, new secondary school, primary schools, special educational needs and early years facilities, leisure uses and sports facilities); and green infrastructure (such as open, recreational spaces and a new country park).

These facilities will not only be used by and benefit future residents of the TCBGC development but will also be used by and be of benefit to existing and future residents in the surrounding area, including those living in Colchester.

Given the wider benefits of the TCBGC proposals, it is important to ensure that there is a mechanism in place whereby new development within or adjacent to the TCBGC allocation that will be reliant on this physical and social infrastructure will directly contribute towards the provision and/or maintenance of the TCBGC facilities, including assets that may be adopted by the Councils (Unitary or otherwise).

We note that CCC does not have a CIL Charging Schedule in place, nor does the ‘Local Development Scheme 2024-2027 (March 2025)’ indicate plans to prepare one in the near future. Accordingly, any funding of new or existing infrastructure must come from S106 contributions.
On this matter, the PPG is clear that s106 obligations can be pooled to fund infrastructure provided that Local Planning Authorities set out in an Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) which infrastructure they intend to fund and detail the different sources of funding:

“The 2019 amendments to the regulations removed the previous restriction on pooling more than 5 planning obligations towards a single piece of infrastructure.
This means that, subject to meeting the 3 tests set out in CIL regulation 122, charging authorities can use funds from both the levy and section 106 planning obligations to pay for the same piece of infrastructure regardless of how many planning obligations have already contributed towards an item of infrastructure.

Authorities should set out in an infrastructure funding statement which infrastructure they intend to fund and detail the different sources of funding (see regulation 121A).
Paragraph: 006 Reference ID: 23b-006-20190901” (Lichfields emphasis)

At present, CCC’s latest Infrastructure Funding Statement 2023/2024 does not do this. It solely “sets out income and expenditure relating to contributions secured through s106 Agreements on developments throughout Colchester.” (pg.3).
Accordingly, Latimer requests that future versions of CCC’s Infrastructure Funding Statement clearly identify the infrastructure that CCC intend to fund through pooled s106 contributions, including those infrastructure facilities proposed as part of the TCBGC development. This should also apply to any future Infrastructure Funding Statements that come forward through any future combined Unitary Authority as part of Local Government Reorganisation.

These future Infrastructure Funding Statements should draw on the Colchester Infrastructure Audit and Delivery Plan Stage 3 Report (AECOM, October 2025) in the Regulation 18 Local Plan evidence base (noting comments later in these representations) as well as the ‘Infrastructure Delivery, Phasing and Funding Plan (February 2023); from the TCBGC DPD evidence base.

Accordingly, and to ensure robustness of Policy CS2, Latimer would request that Policy CS2 specifically identifies CCC’s Infrastructure Funding Statement (and any future relevant Infrastructure Funding Statements) as the source of where the need for larger community infrastructure projects have been identified, as follows:

“Contributions may be pooled towards larger community infrastructure projects to cumulatively contribute towards provision on a larger scale where a need has been identified within CCC’s Infrastructure Funding Statement 2024/25 (and any future relevant Infrastructure Funding Statements). Where new or existing facilities can be enhanced to serve new development, the Council will work with developers and local partners to audit existing facilities and deliver any requirements for such facilities to deliver comprehensive provision of services to serve these extended communities”

Latimer welcomes Policy ST9 providing specific guidance on the TCBGC within the emerging CCC Local Plan. It ensures consistency and continuity with the DPD as part of the future Development Plan. Latimer notes and supports Policies SP8 and SP9 of the North Essex Authorities Shared Strategic Section One Plan (February 2021) being saved.

Notwithstanding, we make the below observations and requested changes to ensure consistency with the adopted version of the TCBGC DPD (May 2025), rather than previous draft versions of the DPD, as follows:

• Change wording as follows “The Development Plan Document (DPD) (adopted May 2025 allocates or protects land for the following uses”
• Change wording as follows: “The Development Plan Document (DPD) (adopted May 2025)”
• Change wording as follows: “Delivery of circa 7,500 new homes with a range of shops, jobs, services and community facilities, including education and health and wellbeing provision.”
• Change wording as follows: “Gypsy and Traveller Site”

Subject to these minor consistency changes Policy ST9 will be consistent with the adopted DPD and Latimer are content with the policy

With regard to draft policy PP9: North East Colchester, Latimer must currently object to the allocation on transport capacity grounds. Latimer consider that the potential highways impact of PP9 has not been properly and robustly assessed within the transport evidence base. It is considered that insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate the deliverability of this c.2,000 home allocation from a highways and transport perspective, given the existing commitments associated with the build-out of the TCBGC.

It is essential that the existing commitment to prioritising the committed TCBGC is maintained and not prejudiced by future development and that the deliverability of the proposed PP9 allocation is suitably evidenced, based on detailed analysis of potential access points and highway capacity considerations of the local area, based on robust evidence.

The attached ‘Review of Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation Transport Evidence Base’ Technical Note, prepared by Stantec (Appendix 1) sets out the basis for the highway concerns that Latimer have, along with some interrelated issues identified from the transport evidence submitted in support of the emerging Local Plan.

The Technical Note concludes that in its current form, the transport evidence base (Transport Evidence dated February 2025 and the Further Transport Evidence dated October 2025) supporting the preferred option allocations set out in Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation is unsound due to a number of issues, specifically:
• Whilst the evidence considers the delivery of 3,650 homes at TCBGC, the evidence fails to consider any development within the Crockleford Neighbourhood (up to 1,500 homes) being delivered up to 2041. In reality, almost all development within the Crockleford Neighbourhood (which will include a school and a village centre), will be delivered. This Neighbourhood relies on sole access via the existing Bromley Road (owing to Vehicle Access Zone policies within the DPD) and relies on the same wider highway infrastructure as the draft Policy PP9 allocation.
• The proposed wording of Policy PP9: North East Colchester does not provide any clarity on the requirements for the access strategy for the allocation. Therefore, the impact of this proposed allocation on areas of the highway network, which are likely to experience capacity issues under existing or future committed conditions, cannot be, and has not been, fully assessed or understood.
• A high level review of the potential vehicular impact of the PP9: North East Colchester allocation, indicates that it will have a significant impact on the Bromley Road corridor and wider Harwich Road/Parsons Heath highways infrastructure, which is anticipated to be subject to highway capacity constraints in future years. As the Crockleford Neighbourhood area of the TCBGC will also be accessed via Bromley Road, it is considered that insufficient assessment has been undertaken to demonstrate that the proposed allocation will be deliverable in its current form alongside TCBGC as a committed development. Other concerns in relation to the clarity and accuracy of the assessment of the proposed allocation’s impact have also been identified.
• The 2041 Reference Case against which the impact of the various proposed allocation scenarios is benchmarked, only accounts for a small proportion of the TCBGC traffic development, all of which appears to be accessed via the A1331 which does not accord with Latimer’s phasing or delivery of the TCBGC site. The PP9: North East Colchester allocation has the potential to take-up highway capacity which is required for the committed Crockleford Neighbourhood. The deliverability of the PP9 allocation is therefore in question and could prejudice the development of the committed Garden Community.
• Assumptions made in Further Transport Evidence relating to improvements to the Greenstead Roundabout, Colne Causeway and A12 Junction 29 being delivered solely as mitigation for TCBGC and therefore included in the 2041 Reference Case are contradicted by the IADP. The associated Project Schedule indicates that the majority of these schemes will be at least partially funded by the preferred allocations which raises serious questions about the accuracy of a reference case (which includes these improvements as mitigation for the TCBGC) against which to test the impact of the preferred allocations.
To rectify these issues and ensure that the Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation is supported by an accurate, robust and transparent transport evidence the following is requested:
• Provision of additional clarity on the assessment of the proposed PP9: North East Colchester allocation, the constraints identified, the assumptions applied in relation to access points and the forecast vehicle trips generated under the various scenarios tested in Further Transport Evidence.
• Revision of the 2041 Reference Case used to test the impact of the proposed allocation to include an assumption that TCBGC is delivered in full, reflecting it as an allocated and committed project. TCBGC must be fully considered and prioritised and the highway capacity on the network required to accommodate this is reserved and fully considered from the outset.
• Clarification of the assumptions informing the infrastructure improvements to be delivered within the 2041 Reference Case to enable determination of whether these accurately reflect what will be delivered by TCGBC and the preferred allocations respectively so that only infrastructure which will be in place to mitigate the future baseline development is included within the reference case scenarios.
• Retesting of the impact of the PP9: North East Colchester allocation against the revised 2041 reference case to establish whether its cumulative impact (in addition to the full TCBGC and with the appropriate assumptions relating to highway infrastructure applied) allows Bromley Road and the wider highway network to operate acceptably following the various accompanying sustainable transport and highway infrastructure improvements and measures considered within Further Transport Evidence.
• Further highway rearrangements may need to be considered which would be contrary to current adopted DPD policy. For example, providing vehicular access from the Ardleigh end of Bromley Road onto the new A1331/A120 junction, potentially through the draft employment allocation in TDC’s emerging Local Plan.

If these actions are not taken, the potential impacts of the delivery of c.9,500 homes in North-East Colchester will not have been fully considered and could result in a severe impact on the highway network, even in a Vision-led scenario, which would be contrary to the NPPF. It is therefore critical that the assumptions informing draft Policy PP9 be reviewed to ascertain whether both the committed TCBGC and proposed PP9 allocation can both be accommodated.