Response by Wivenhoe Town Council to

Colchester Submission Draft Local Plan,

Habitats Regulations Assessment

and Sustainability Appraisal

Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning

(Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

We have responded in detail to the proposed Local Plan presented by Colchester City Council at each opportunity, to date our objections and comments have received no recognition in the contents of successive iterations of this Local Plan and indeed as is noted below have in some cases been aggravated in subsequent versions.

National Planning Policy Framework

• Effective Housing Delivery:
  • The Policy ST5 proposes a total of 22,556 homes for the overall Colchester City at a rate of 1,276 per annum;
  • Can the Council demonstrate that the 22,556-home supply is genuinely deliverable, rather than merely theoretically sufficient?
  • Policy ST5 includes 2,985 houses as windfall supply; It is stated that only 5,488 homes are currently committed;

• Is the 2,985-home windfall allowance genuinely additional to the sites already identified, and is there sufficient evidence that the historic rate will continue over the whole plan period?

• Delivery of waste water infrastructure:
  • The Council’s 2026 evidence base acknowledges water and wastewater constraints, requiring applicants to demonstrate wastewater capacity before development proceeds;

• The Local Plan has not demonstrated that the necessary infrastructure can be delivered, but has effectively deferred the question to individual planning applications.

• Effective transport strategy:
  • Considerable weight is given to modal shift, connectivity, mobility hubs and sustainable transport requiring that developments provide sustainable transport infrastructure without stating if these are required before, during or after occupation.

• Does the transport modelling demonstrate that the proposed spatial strategy is actually effective, rather than simply demonstrating that mitigation can theoretically be identified?

• General Infrastructure delivery:
  • There are deficiencies in many infrastructure areas which are noted as requiring the developer to provide;

• Does the evidence demonstrate that wastewater, water, highways, schools, healthcare and other infrastructure can be delivered at the rate assumed by the housing trajectory?

• Many of the infrastructure deficiencies are time critical in terms of the viability of the individual sites identified;

• Are infrastructure triggers sufficiently strong to prevent housing being occupied before essential infrastructure is available?

PP24 Land North West of Fire Station, Wivenhoe.

• May 2026 SLAA:
  • This was prepared for new or significantly amended sites submitted during the Regulation 18 consultation. But there is no assessment of 10755 [PP24] in that report. The submission expressly proposes a significant change:
    • original SLAA site: 6.9127 ha;
    • revised site: 8.828 ha;
    • housing: increased from 175 to approximately 200;
    • the site was also extended to incorporate the care-home land.

• What evidence did the Council use to establish that the amended 8.828-hectare, approximately 200-dwelling version of PP24 remains suitable, available and achievable, given that the published May 2026 SLAA does not contain a revised Stage 1/2 assessment?

• Proposed Local Plan vs. February 2025 SLAA:

• The February 2025 Stage 2 assessment included negative findings for:
  • Coalescence: RED — “significant contribution to coalescence”.
  • Greenfield: RED.
  • Agricultural land: RED — Grades 1, 2 and/or 3a covering 50% or more.
  • Minerals safeguarding: RED.
  • Alternative-use protection: RED.

• Site-specific physical constraints: AMBER
• Heritage: AMBER
• Proximity to a Critical Drainage Area: AMBER

• What evidence between the original SLAA and the Regulation 19 allocation has justified the Council moving from the RED coalescence and other negative assessments to an allocation of 200 dwellings, particularly when the May 2026 SLAA did not reassess 10755?

• 19 SA Appendix E “Audit trail of decision making for site options considered for the Submission Draft Local Plan.”
  • This notes the site as identified through SLAA as suitable, available and achievable on the a number of points including:
  • “Although it lies within the coalescence break, harm is likely to be less than alternatives”;

• This is an evaluative conclusion, where is the comparative evidence demonstrating this?

• 19 SA, Biodiversity:
  • The SA methodology says a site within 1km of an internationally/nationally designated site receives a minor negative score under biodiversity criterion 8a, and a site within 250m of local wildlife designations/priority habitat receives a minor negative under 8b. If both criteria are negative, the combined effect becomes significant negative.
  • The Regulation 19 plan itself says Wivenhoe is surrounded by:
    • Upper Colne Marshes SSSI;
    • Colne Estuary SPA/Ramsar/SSSI;
    • Essex Estuaries SAC;
    • Colne Local Nature Reserve;
    • Wivenhoe Gravel Pit SSSI;
    • Coastal Protection Belt.

• The Council’s site-selection conclusion nevertheless says the limited habitat on PP24 means it won’t compromise the emerging Wivenhoe Nature Plan. How does developing this site not interrupt the wider ecological and landscape network surrounding Wivenhoe?

• IADP Stage 4 sequence timetable:
  • In Reg.18 the promoter said that PP24 could provide 175 homes in the years 1–5, strengthening the five year supply; the revised IADP Stage 4 now shows no in years 1–5 but 200 in years 6–10.

• Has the housing strategy and five year supply case been adjusted accordingly?

• IADP identified infrastructure:
  • £430k Mobility Hub – this is unidentified in any plans and is unfunded;
  • £6m Wivenhoe Park Corner – noted as essential but is unfunded;
  • £12m Wivenhoe related A133 and RTS scheme – unfunded and a Phase 3 2037–2042 scheme as Class B: Important;

• As these are mainly funded by County level authorities what guarantees are there that any of these will be delivered to coincide with occupation of housing on PP24?

• Summation of document study:

• The Council’s own evidence has not remained static. The original SLAA identified significant coalescence harm; the site has subsequently been enlarged and its capacity increased from 175 to 200 dwellings; the May 2026 SLAA did not reassess it; the Regulation 19 SA then selected it on the basis that its coalescence harm is less than alternatives; while the latest IADP has simultaneously moved all 200 homes out of the first five years and identified significant unfunded transport infrastructure associated with Wivenhoe.

• Original significant coalescence constraint;
• Amended site not reassessed in May 2026;
• Comparative judgement not demonstrated on site selction;
• Unfunded essential transport infrastucture;
• Later delivery trajectory;

WTC Additional Comments

Coalescence and Biodiversity.

• PP24 directly contravenes the WNP
  • This a material planning ground, as it crosses the red line of coalescence which WTC has robustly prioritised and which forms the basis of the WNP.
  • Our emerging NP is reliant on this site for which we have a differing vision based on local need, our character and identity and our intention to create a ‘green corridor’ around Wivenhoe as we seek to enhance our biodiversity in a time of indisputable climate change.
  • The Town’s emerging Nature Plan identifies this as a mosaic of habitats surrounding the town. Each on its own is a crucial resource for wildlife and each is a component of the town’s rural character. Together they create a strategic wildlife corridor linking the Salary Brook catchment, University campus and marsh with the Sixpenny Brook catchment and the ridge above the Colne down to Alresford Creek.
  • Development on this site would fracture this corridor/network to the irretrievable detriment of its wildlife, the town’s character, the amenity of its residents and emerging investment opportunities.
  • It is disingenuous that The Council have assessed the land before it has recovered from the effects of the Cala Homes development; shrinking the area and the impact of noise, loss of hedge cover and disturbance from construction machinery. To conduct a survey of the neighbouring area which will not yet have recovered is to assess the worst not the normal. To benchmark a degraded parcel of land as a baseline for biodiversity loss is disingenuous and misleading.

• Further nesting surveys and consideration of the impacts of recent development and in-depth studies of the impact of the loss of this gap between Wivenhoe and the University need to be undertaken.

• Current Wildlife
  • We have a range of existing issues with winter bird sites in Wivenhoe, for example our Skylark site and this site presents an opportunity as part of our existing policy compliant Nature Action Plan and Biodiversity Plan. Margins (ie hedgerows in this case) are critical in maintaining the quality of coalescence gaps as wildlife corridors.
  • The proposed development would disrupt such a hedgerow, it has hosted significant foraging flocks of wintering finches (Linnets, Greenfinch, Goldfinch, Brambling, Chaffinch) and foraging thrushes (Redwing, Fieldfare, Mistle Thrush – all seen in numbers in the adjacent Universtiy grounds) not to mention, on occasion, thousands of wintering Starlings from Russia, a declining species.
  • It also hosts Lapwings and Golden Plovers in cold weather. Recent surveys of wintering birds such as these have had most field visits conducted in warmer weather, giving misleading underestimates of numbers and regularity of occurrences.
  • The South East corner of this coalescence gap has for a number of year hosted Nightingales (see Adonis report) and Little Owls, with the latter a severely declining species dependant on mature hedgerows with veteran trees.

• The proposal at PP24 would adversely affect a number of already endangered or severely declining bird species. Compromising the quality and breadth of this coalescence gap would result in disproportionate loss of important species, hedgerow and grazing land loss affects invertebrate and small mammals numbers as well as the loss of nesting sites for birds.

Neighbourhood Plan

• Wivenhoe Neighbourhood Plan
  • We have a Neighbourhood Plan that allocates sites for housing until 2033. These sites were based on sound evidence and this plan has been adopted as policy by Colchester. When preparing our NP originally, we established that there is insufficient infrastructure to sustain any additional homes, above and beyond those set out in the NP.
  • We would remind the Council that we successfully defended the WNP at a hearing (vs. Taylor Wimpey) and that the cost and limited resources of CCC may not align with planning officers working on an appeal relating to this site.

• Quite simply The Council give us no choice but to once again defend our Neighbourhood Plan.

Transport and other infrastructure

• Rail services
  • Greater Anglia do not plan to improve the frequency of trains and have executed all reasonable means to increase capacity on existing trains.
  • The mobility Hub proposed at the Station appears to mainly relate to “enhanced access” however the cost of £430k is unfunded and all suggested attempts at promoting a scheme have been rejected by Essex County Council.

• Is there any deliverable solution to the lack of level access to the Clacton bound platform or to the limited car parking at the station in the Plan and why is the “Mobility Hub scheduled for 2029–2033?

• Road network
  • The only route into Colchester, (where work, school, leisure, and retail destinations are) is the A133 that is already heavily congested. The A133 has been identified as the City’s most restricted route into the town centre at peak commute times.
  • The delivery of Phase 2 of the link road promised with the arrival of the garden community is seriously in question yet the arrival of more cars on the route with housing development is inevitable.
  • The bus service has limited destinations and is adversely affected by the increased congestion along many of the routes.

• The completion of the A1331 link road is programmed as 2030; the first houses on the TCBGC are due for occupation at around the same time; these will add to the traffic on the A133 road to Colchester; has the Council’s assessment of PP24 or any other site for 200 homes in Wivenhoe taken this into account?

• Social infrastructure
  • Many school years are full.
  • There isn’t sufficient employment within the town.
  • There are no NHS dentist places between here and the coast.
  • The nearest secondary school is over 2km away.

• Can residents of this particular site realistically access employment, schools, shops, services and public transport without substantial car dependence?

Adjacent Development

• Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community
  • The development of the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community has separately been identified by us as having the potential, in its current form to have serious detrimental impacts on the infrastructure of Wivenhoe.
  • That development immediately to the north of our Town will impact on the capacity of our schools, health services and roads. Further development as proposed on the PP24 site would create a situation in which Wivenhoe would be unable to absorb any of the impacts that the TCBGC will add to the infrastructure of Wivenhoe.
  • Tendring District Council have respectfully not allocated development to Elmstead due to the TCBGC and we should be treated with the same consistency and respect.

• Has the Regulation 19 transport assessment modelled PP24 together with the committed and planned growth of TCBGC whose traffic will use the same network?

CONCLUSIONS

Site Selection

The evidence produced in the plan establishes that PP24 can accommodate housing but that does not equate to establishing that is is the most appropriate location. The lack of evidence for changing many RED and AMBER assessments to being the most suitable site in Wivenhoe; there was no reassessment under the May 2026 SLAA to justify this change.

Coalescence

The conclusion that although PP24 lies within the coalescence break, harm is likely to be less than alternatives, is not supported by any acceptable studies. The surveys of the site were taken during a time when the area was being adversely affected by the adjoining Cala development and there is no recognition of the range of critically endangered species present on the site. The comment that there is “limited habitation” is therefore based on assumption not true studies and surveys.

Size of development

The Reg.18 Plan was based on 175 dwellings whereas the submission draft now proposes approximately 200 on an increased site. There is no reference in the latest documents to reassessment in the 2026 SLAA or an updated Sustainability Appraisal for these changes. The use of approximately also raises a question of the actual number to be built – is this figure 200 ± 5 or 200 ± 50?

Infrastructure

The PP24 policy calls for contributions to Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan, Mobility Hub, Community Hub & Sports pitch – none of these is tied to a trigger in the development that prevents occupation of the housing before the completion of them. The community hub is a WTC asset is already funded and progressing; the sports pitch is funded by FA and is subject to ongoing discussions with ECC; the Mobility Hub appears mainly to provide step-free access at the rail station, a project that has been considered but all attempts to date refused by Essex County Council.

Transport

There is little that is forthcoming to improve the rail services to the Town and the bus services are, like car journeys, severely affected by congestion on the road network. The current plans from ECC show no major improvement to that transport corridor which will have the added traffic from the TCBGC – initially construction traffic then cars from the occupied housing – a development of some 7,500 properties at its completion.

Ref: TMG_Oct-2026_ FINAL