Sustainability Appraisal
Search representations
Results for Gleeson Land Limited search
New searchObject
Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix C - Sustainability Appraisal Final Report Colchester Preferred Options Local Plan February 2025
Representation ID: 14293
Received: 21/01/2026
Respondent: Gleeson Land Limited
Agent: Ceres Property
In relation to PP9.
The majority of assessments remain the same, apart from Economic Growth which improves to a minor positive, from a minor negative. Biodiversity and geodiversity also improves to a minor negative from a significant negative. We support this further consideration of these site constraints.
We continue to have concerns over the recording of a significant negative effect for the site in relation to SA objective 2 - Efficient use of land. Considered disproportionate as majority of agricultural land in Colchester is grade 2 or 3 - categorisation as a minor negative effect would better reflect this constraint.
6.1 As part of this Regulation 18 Consultation, a Sustainability Appraisal Report has also been provided for review and comment. This latest report considers the site-specific policy text following earlier "policy-off' appraisals. This ensures that mitigation sought through the proposed policy wording is therefore now reflected in the assessment.
6.2 The majority of assessments remain the same, apart from Economic Growth which improves to a minor positive, from a minor negative. Biodiversity and geodiversity also improves to a minor negative from a significant negative. We support this further consideration of these site constraints.
6.3 Whilst the assessment remains unchanged, we continue to have concerns over the recording of a significant negative effect for the site in relation to SA objective 2 - Efficient use of land. This is based on the loss of greenfield land and Grade 2 and Grade 3 agricultural soils. The majority of agricultural land around Colchester is in fact Grade 2 or 3 and thus not considered a scarce resource. Additionally, some areas are Grade 1 and therefore it would be expected that development in these locations would be seen to have the most significant negative impact but there is no greater
6.4 Given that this would apply to the majority of allocations for the City, it is considered disproportionate to consider this as a significant negative effect and a categorisation as a minor negative effect would better reflect this constraint.
