Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.
If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.
You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.
OBJECT Mr Graham Banning
We have concerns regarding more development in this area. We have drainage problems in this area - manholes overflowing a few months ago and flooding drives and gardens. We have been told the drainage facilities had reached their limit and beyond - hence the flooding.
More details about Rep ID: 3079
OBJECT mr David Barnett
More building in the Heath area of Dedham will lead to the following:
1. the capacity for car parking in Dedham Village is full.
2. NHS is almost oversubscribed at present and cuts are proposed.
3. a large proportion of houses in this area have been enlarged and car numbers have increased and water services are overloaded.
4. the Heath cross roads are too close to another proposed entry.
5. increasing the population will increase the demand for spaces at the primary school.
More details about Rep ID: 3075
COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Martin Barrell)
Dedham currently shows sufficient capacity for the development allocated. However, last year indications showed that the WRC was at over-capacity for the existing settlement. For additional security we would recommend that the infiltration into this network is investigated and reduced by Anglian Water, otherwise there may not be capacity for new developments to connect to once they are completed.
More details about Rep ID: 2981
SUPPORT Mr Mark DeRoy
Three options are presented for the Long Road East site.
More details about Rep ID: 2802
OBJECT Sally Minns & Associates (Mrs Sally Minns)
The three preferred sites should be discounted in favour of an alternative site South of Cavendish House on the grounds of:
- significant landscape impact
- unknown archaeological impact
- Long Road West is entirely linear and development here is alien to the street scene
- the sustainability of the preferred sites is little different from the suggested site
- the Council has inadequately considered the viability of the preferred options given the unknowns such as archaeology.
The development of one site poses less risk than the development of 3 sites.
More details about Rep ID: 2788
COMMENT Highways England (Mark Norman)
Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the Strategic Road Network.
More details about Rep ID: 2787
Land at Cavendish House, Dedham Heath should be allocated instead of the three preferred sites. The site does not impact on the landscape to the degree that the preferred sites do. There is less impact on neighbouring residential amenities because of the woodland setting. The site size allows it to create a superior and better planned layout giving greater distances between dwellings and site boundaries. The potential for the site was misinterpreted by CBC at the call for sites stage.
More details about Rep ID: 2783
COMMENT RSPB (Mark Nowers)
It should be acknowledged that these sites will require screening under the Habitats Regulations 2010 (as amended) due to proximity to the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Ramsar site, and that, if required, mitigation for in-combination impacts could be provided through developer contributions to a strategic mitigation scheme (see our comments on SG8).
More details about Rep ID: 2716
COMMENT Historic England -East of England (Ms N Gates)
SS6: Dedham and Dedham Heath
We welcome the identification of grade II Old Church House next to the proposed allocation at land north of Long Road East. We welcome reference in the policy to archaeological considerations as well as design and landscaping in respect of Old Church House.
More details about Rep ID: 2666
OBJECT Judith Anderson Fowle
The Dedham Village Design Statement 2007 IS a Planning Guidance document. Dedham Conservation area and the three totally separate hamlets of Lamb Corner, Bargate Lane/ Long Road East and Dedham Heath are architypally rural.
Revisit the Dedham Village Design Statement and consider the needs and wishes of those living in these special areas of the Dedham Vale. The area under consideration for development has already suffered greatly from changing bungalows into executive dwellings, plus extensions, infilling causing huge strain on the infrastructure, namely the sewage system as illustrated again in recent months.
More details about Rep ID: 2618
COMMENT Natural England (Kayleigh Cheese)
SS6 Dedham Heath Housing Sites - fall within Natural England's Impact Risk Zones - (IRZ for Cattawade Marshes SSSI & within or adjacent to the AONB therefore a Landscape Assessment will be needed
All direct and indirect impacts to designated sites need to be assessed, for impacts such as recreational disturbance, water quality, water dependency and direct land take of functionally linked land. This should be fully covered in the SA, The policies may need to be amended after the findings of the HRA. Provision of Green Infrastructure essential to reduce recreational impacts.
More details about Rep ID: 2456
COMMENT Essex County Council (Matthew Jericho)
In paragraphs 6.139 and 6.140 replace the word 'footpaths' with 'footways'.
Developments totalling 17 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 5 primary aged pupils and up to 3 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Dedham CE VC Primary School, which serves this area, could accommodate this level of growth. Cumulative impact of village expansion could result in need for secondary school capacity expansion.
Early Years and Childcare Comments -There is existing capacity in current facilities and growth can be accommodated.
More details about Rep ID: 2340
OBJECT Alison Dow
Extremely concerned about any more traffic on Long Road. Traffic is noisy and fast as it is used as a short cut to and from the A12. Speed limits are usually ignored making it unsafe other walkers, cyclists and runners.
More details about Rep ID: 2316
COMMENT Alison Dow
Understand the need for more housing here if it is genuinely low cost for local people., including single story houses with wet rooms and wide doorways for elderly with mobility problems or for those who would like to downsize within Dedham .
More details about Rep ID: 2315
OBJECT Mr Michael Burle
My family moved to the Heath because of its setting and rural nature. I oppose the developments in the area. They're not needed, would cause disruption and the infrastructure is inadequate to deal with existing dwellings let alone new ones. Developments inside the AONB should be declined. Setting a precedent is a dangerous thing. Dedham is enjoyed by many but especially by its residents who chose to live there as it looks now. The proposals are poorly designed. Alternative sites should be considered that are outside of the AONB and elsewhere surrounding the beautiful village of Dedham.
More details about Rep ID: 2104
OBJECT Dedham Parish Council (Mrs Emma Cansdale)
DPC questions the need for the development planned for the Borough and the impact this has on Dedham, AONB and key services.
We recognise the need for housing-stock, which should be limited to l-3 bedroom homes.
The current area planned for development has problems with surface water drainage and sewerage and no development is supported here until existing problems are resolved.
We do not support development within the AONB other than for downsizing within the main village envelope.
Any other development should be spread more evenly across Dedham.
We do not accept the proposed changes to the current village envelopes.
More details about Rep ID: 2038
SUPPORT Edward Gittins & Associates (Edward Gittins)
Site is available and suitable for 6 dwellings.
More details about Rep ID: 1965
OBJECT Lynne AL-Sad
Safety concern in generation of much more traffic on already busy and dangerous crossroads to serve three new developments;
Inappropriate to develop further in Dedham Heath, particularly in view of problems with already inadequate surface water management and flooding in that area;
Proposals are within protected AONB. Why destroy that for future generations? There must be alternatives which would not do this;
Three developments in such a small location is too much and will not only destroy rural character of area, but is potentially dangerous and damaging;
Seventeen properties could surely obe accommodated over more widespread locations.
More details about Rep ID: 1755
COMMENT Matthew Joslin
We have concerns that the policy as worded is not sound with regards to imposing a maximum limit on the number of dwellings. We feel that the policy should set clearer criteria that will limit development in any single site, such as:
- in relation to amenity of neighbours
- not allowing a breach of the development line south of Long Road East (therefore restricting future back-land development)
- not encroaching on the surrounding countryside
More details about Rep ID: 1745
COMMENT Mrs Belinda Joslin
Regarding land South of Long Road East;
- Please ensure that the policy protects the amenity of neighbours and does not encroach on open countryside, in particular breaching the development line south
- Sewage and rain water run off infrastructure has to be sorted prior to any development of Long Rd.
More details about Rep ID: 1744
COMMENT Dr Lloyd Davies
As a very near neighbour we have significant concerns regarding surface water drainage, which already often causes flooding of adjacent fields, including ours North of Long Road.
It is difficult to see how pedestrian access to existing foot ways will be possible as the nearest foot way is adjacent to the telephone box at the crossroads, some distance from the development, and unconnected to it.
More details about Rep ID: 1743
OBJECT Rupert Harris
As a property which has suffered flooding from both surface water and the area's sewage, we object to the development of any properties as this will exacerbate the Heath's already dire drainage issues. Additional housing will reduce the amenity in the area and add significantly to traffic flows, causing increased noise pollution for the Heath's inhabitants who mainly live long along Long Road and Castle Hill. It will also put increased pressure on local underfunded services including medical services and schools.
More details about Rep ID: 1723
OBJECT Mrs Silvana Richardson
The sites currently proposed should be rejected for the following reasons. 1. AONB should be conserved.2. ENV4 policy has been totally disregarded, which will set a president for the future, and destroy the natural setting of LRE into a urban sprawl. 3. Sewers, Surface Water. It would be irresponsible to ignore this problem, as it not only effected my self and other, after being flooded countless times from the site 213 . being a listed building I have photo's to prove how serious the problem is. Sewers can't cope with the existing problems. Advertise again for new sites.
More details about Rep ID: 1544
OBJECT Mr L. Charlesworth represented by Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd (Natalie Harris)
We strongly object to policy SS6 and the failure of the Council to allocate site RNE05 Sundowne for a small scale housing site. Sites are now allocated within the emerging Local Plan which were previously considered to have a detrimental impact on the AONB.
More details about Rep ID: 1520
SUPPORT Mrs. Marilyn Turner
I wish to support the three draft development proposals for DH
More details about Rep ID: 1327
SUPPORT Mr Robert Walmsley
There is a need for more homes in Dedham or Dedham Heath. Urban sprawl should be avoided. Site 243 and 091 are infill with homes on both sides and opposite including some homes and large extensions recently built within the AONB.
Homes spread over three plots will allow space for sustainable drainage systems to retain all rain water on the site.
The AONB allows for small scale development when it is in the public interest and in exceptional circumstances such as the capability of providing 17 new homes within the general boundaries of the existing developed area of Dedham Heath.
More details about Rep ID: 1291
OBJECT Mr John Hayden
Your reasons for not developing Lambs corner is it's isolation but they have bus routes the same as the Heath does .Also both locations are not easily accessible by walking to the village and back , why then exclude Lambs Corner and indeed Bar Gate Lane as the car will be used . Parking in the village is extremely difficult. 5 houses are built on the Long Road West /The Heath plus another 12 on the other sites the increase in traffic / parking is likely to be on average 2/3 cars per house
More details about Rep ID: 1240
OBJECT Mr Stephen White
sites for development have not been carried out with enough public consultation. The site impact on AONB , busy crossroads, overloaded drainage system
More details about Rep ID: 1236
OBJECT Mrs Allison Murray
the Heath crossroads have proved to be dangerous as there have been a number of accidents here as visibility isn't that good and vehicles often speed along Long Rd (E &W) . It is already a busy road to those of us who cycle and walk it regularly, extra housing would exacerbate this. We enjoy these little pockets of green space on the Heath and our position just outside the AONB should not be violated to incorporate urban sprawl!
More details about Rep ID: 1215
OBJECT Mrs P Whytock
It is hard to understand why CBC is supporting development in AONB ( which it has an obligation to conserve) when there are many other sites outside. If planning is given it sets a precedent which is contrary to policy. Dedham Heath is well known to have serious surface water drainage issues as several houses are regularly flooded so any more development will only worsen this situation. The sites along Long Road East would create ribbon development which would completely change the rural character of the area.
More details about Rep ID: 1210
OBJECT Mrs Jane King
We feel that the proposed developments at the heath would in pact on the already under pressure sewage systems and also service water flooding..having had several over flowing manholes outside our house.
More details about Rep ID: 1207
COMMENT Mr Colin Clifford
No development should be allowed until Dedham's drainage & sewerage systems have been upgraded, present systems are overloaded already.
Putting proposed at Dedham Heath will increase traffic along Long Road East & West, already a very busy road - other sights not on Long Road should be re-considered.
The AONB should always be protected and development only allowed in exceptional circumstances.
Smaller units are needed, not large 4 beds, but tiny 1 or 2small beds also unsuitable. To attract young families we need modest sized 2 to 3 bed semis.
Retirees will not want to live at the Heath, as toofar from High St.
More details about Rep ID: 1102
OBJECT Mr Jamie Robinson
Dear Sir or Madam,
It is my understanding that despite the promises for 'adequate wastewater treatment and sewage infrastructure' and appropriate 'SuDS' that the new properties are to be sharing the same drainage and sewerage systems as the existing properties, therefore placing them at greater risk of flooding than they already are. I suggest that Colchester Borough Council either builds new drainage and sewerage systems, or reconsiders where the new properties are to be placed.
Jamie Robinson (Mr.)
More details about Rep ID: 1065
OBJECT Mr Richard Brown
The flooding in Dedham & the Heath is a significant problem that is getting worse without any additional housing. There is no rainwater provision except the sewers are far too small and whenever there is heavy rain fall the sewer is overwhelmed resulting in reverse flow of sewage into private houses, except when non return valves have been fitted. It is irresponsible to additional load until this problem has been completely resolved . I understand that both Anglian Water & the D of E have advised against this development. Recently locally 3 inches of rain fell in 1 hr
More details about Rep ID: 991
OBJECT Dedham Vale Society (Mr J R Drury)
Concerns expressed on the plan proposal to build 17 homes, mainly within the AONB, at Dedham Heath - the preferred option of Dedham Parish Council.
More details about Rep ID: 943
OBJECT Mr Mark Simons
I do not feel these proposals, of property development, are at all appropriate for an AONB. My concern also extends to any precedent being set by plans of this nature being accepted.
More details about Rep ID: 916
OBJECT Mrs Julie Burle
Two of the three sites are AONB protected (CBC policy is to protect the AONB???). Anywhere In and surrounding The Heath has drainage/sewage problems. Other sites have been too easily dismissed even though they are not AONB protected, why? Living close enough to the crossroads, I cannot stress enough how dangerous it is already, building anywhere near there could cause more major road traffic accidents. School children every morning wait for school buses to various schools on and around the crossroad, why should they be put at more risk? It could be devastating. Please consider all of the above.
More details about Rep ID: 889
OBJECT Mrs Jo Hole
CBC has failed to
1. adequately apply the guidance set out in s115 and 116 of the NPPF; and 2. give adequate consideration to alternative sites within Dedham (not ANOB).
CBC has not had adequate regard to the High Court's 2016 interpretation of government policy set out in s49 of the NPPF. This does not confine the concept of "policies for the supply of housing" merely to policies in the Plan that provide for the delivery of new housing but recognises the concept extends to policies which restrict the locations where new housing may be developed, including policies to conserve ANOB
More details about Rep ID: 863
OBJECT Mrs Stella Mccarthy
The main draw for my husband and I to moving to Dedham was the area of outstanding natural beauty. Our house has a lovely view to the rear but also to the front is a field with the Essex Way view.
The appeal for a new development opposite our property has somewhat tarnished the joy of our country lifestyle.
I understand from our neighbours that the area struggles to cope with drainage in heavy rainfall, properties being flooded with sewage. Our concern is adding a development, will the drains cope?
Mr & Mrs Barry McCarthy
More details about Rep ID: 861
I am not convinced that the selection of the proposed sites for development have been carried out with enough public consultation.
The sites that have been selected all impact on the aonb, they are all located near a busy crossroad, they are all in an area with serious drainage and sewage problems, one site has a covenant forbidding development. All need addressing before moving forward.
The sites that have been excluded appear to be at least as suitable as the chosen sites.
CBC appear to be changing the planning rules that us residents have to abide by just when it suits them.
More details about Rep ID: 804
OBJECT Mr Nikk White
There are serious water issues generally in the village. There have been sewage odours of an unacceptable level for at least 25 years, which have never been erased despite promises and repeated failings by the water companies and environmental health input.
There is surface water flooding due to soil type and therefore run-off. Ditches and culverts are not maintained.
The proposed sites are on a clay base soil therefore any development will add to these issues.
Until these issues are addressed with an acceptable outcome NOTHING should be built.
As for your own policies on AONB this should not even being debated!
More details about Rep ID: 802
COMMENT Mr Gavin Sherriff
Any new development in the Dedham Heath area should not be permitted in the AONB or in areas immediately adjacent to it. To permit such a development would set a precedent and weaken the status of the AONB.
The areas on which development is proposed are all well known for suffering drainage problems. No applications for development should be considered before the drainage and waste water management system both in the area of Dedham Heath and the village (through which water must flow) is able to cope.
More details about Rep ID: 801
OBJECT mr john reed
The Local Plan reccommends two sites within the AONB which is unacceptible, when alternatives have been dismissed for reasons which seem inconsistent with those proposed.
All three proposed sites are within 750m of each other ,with suggested access on to increasingly busy roads including crossroads. So dangerous.
The lack of footpaths, suitable lighting and the continuous problem of flooding due to inadequate drainage facilities only reinforces how inappropriate it is to have proposed these sites at this location.
How Dedham Heath, wih no facilities has been earmarked with ALL the village development over the next 15 years is inexplicable.
CBC Please think again.
More details about Rep ID: 788
OBJECT ms sue dempsey
Sites 091 and 243 are both within the AONB and any development on these sites would be both irreversible and detrimental. Sites outside of the AONB should have been given priority for any proposed development. Site 091 contains protected trees and a well established hedgerow which should be protected in this rural environment.
More details about Rep ID: 740
OBJECT Mr H R Hodson
Having witnesses development on the Heath over almost fifty years, I hasten to support all who oppose the massing of new properties.
The new should unobtrusively hug existing properties, as it were continuing the present and past infilling; and not simply sprawl over the few remaining small green areas; and certainly no amount to a sly, malignant further growth of the Heath separate from Dedham village.
More details about Rep ID: 725
SUPPORT Mrs Mary Coe
I see no problems with the proposed new housing in Dedham Heath, provided the houses fit in with the area, and cater for first time buyers, the elderly and single people as well as families. Also, I would like to see each house with plenty of space and not have them crammed in.
I found access to this page confusing and have also replied under Eight Ash Green.
More details about Rep ID: 707
I have looked at the proposals. I see no problems with new housing in Dedham Heath, provided the new houses fit in with the area, and cater for first time buyers, the elderly and single people as well as families. Also, I would like to see each house given space and not have then crammed in.
More details about Rep ID: 706
OBJECT MR Paul Austin
There should NOT be any development on designated sites as AONB, and Dedham Heath is no more sustainable than other sites.
Ignoring issues of surface water drainage could result in unforeseen consequences.
The crossroads are in close proximity to all sites and will increase the risk of accidents.
Has anyone considered the effects on wildlife ecosystems, such as owl population, adders etc which rely on open heathland for food source?
Ancient village boundaries should not be moved and farmland should be protected for future generations to relish.
More details about Rep ID: 704
There should NOT be any development on all designated sites as AONB and Dedham Heath is no more sustainable than other sites.
Ignoring issues of surface water drainage could result in unforeseen consequences.
The crossroads are in close proximity to all sites and will increase risk of accidents.
Has anyone consider the wildlife ecosystems such as owls, adders etc, which have made their homes in the heath grasslands?
Ancient village boundaries should NOT be moved and farmland should be protected for future generations to relish.
More details about Rep ID: 703
OBJECT Mrs B K COX
Proposals to develop three sites in close proximity, two of which are in the AONB, would have a significant negative impact on the rural nature, character and landscape quality of Dedham Heath and Long Road East in particular.
The proximity of a dangerous crossroads, recorded and ongoing drainage problems, the consequences of ribbon development and the precedent the developments would set on the whole of the AONB all mitigate against these proposals.
For Site RNE53, nothing alters the result of Planning Appeal on Application COL/95/1021 in 1996.
More details about Rep ID: 666
OBJECT Mrs Karen White
I'm unimpressed Parish council ruled out three further sites that were proposed. Their reasons to "oust" the other sites apply to the remaining options; how come?
All sites fall within the AONB so any proposed development conflicts with the councils own policy ENV4. Previous applications on at least one of these sites were refused by CBC and this upheld on appeal. I understand there's a covenant on the site at the crossroads which negates any development.
This whole proposal will have a massive detrimental, irreversible effect on the AONB and the community in that vicinity, let alone the village as a whole.
More details about Rep ID: 644
OBJECT Mr John Tavner
The three sites being proposed for development by Colchester Borough Council should be rejected because:
a) The building of new houses on either side of the Long Road will seriously damage the rural character of this part of Dedham.
b) Two of the proposed sites are actually within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, so there is no argument about their unsuitability.
c) If permission is granted for this kind of ribbon development, it will inevitably act as a 'come on' signal to developers to push for more sites in the future along this same stretch of road.
More details about Rep ID: 637
OBJECT Mrs Anne-Marie Connelly
Building three new multi-house developments in close proximity in this unique and rural AONB will set a ruinous precedent for Dedham Vale.
Further, the corner of The Heath & Long Road West is a dangerous crossroad which would benefit from mirrors to aid vision.
More details about Rep ID: 613
COMMENT Mrs Virginia Druitt
Areas 091 and 243 are not the correct places for development. They are in the AONB and development on 243 particularly will obscure the fine views from the Essex Way to the South. The Essex Way is a beacon for our county and many people walk this to gain the opportunity to view some the most scenic areas. Building so close to the already busy crossroads is inappropriate.Far better to use site 191, a natural extension to existing development with excellent access to the 137 road. Housing here MUST be affordable housing only unlike the recent Manningtree Road development.
More details about Rep ID: 561
COMMENT Alex Scott
Any future new builds should be sited where there is already housing, rather than spreading the village on to agricultural land. Site 091, at Dedham Heath, is therefore the least detrimental. And if pressure to accept more houses is overwhelming, then site 243 the next choice. But with both sites developers must agree to build smaller, more affordable units, not just expensive (and extra profitable) luxury houses. And that agreement needs to be enforced by CBC.
More details about Rep ID: 444
OBJECT mrs liz reed
Initially the three developments within close proximity to each other would create a local ribbon development
The proposed developments RNE 07 and RNE 53 are in the AONB and to ignore this would be of serious concern for the local AONB area, setting a precedent for possible future developments
Two of the proposed sites would have direct access on to LRW/E a short distance from dangerous crossroads and speeding traffic
I would strongly urge the council to please re assess all the sites, including those prematurely dismissed before adopting a local Dedham plan
More details about Rep ID: 441
OBJECT Mr Paul D'Arcy
ANOB: There should be NO development on land designated as ANOB when other sites are available. Sustainability: Dedham Heath is no more 'sustanable' than other sites, it is in fact less 'sustainable' than others due to poor drainage, inadequate sewers and is subject to flooding. Site Access (especially site 091): it is very dangerous to position any site close to the crossroads. Protected Trees: There may be protected trees on site 091.
More details about Rep ID: 430
The "housing site" proposals for Dedham Heath are wholeheartedly supported by ourselves.
We also request that Coggeshall Road settlement boundary be extended some 75 metres from the end of the Old Hall boundary to midway across Great Hickle Lodge's garden.
This is because to us it seems to be the natural definative boundary for this stretch of road as two other DH properties are already situated in a line towards the roadway and there is the space to include another.
We also request that our changed severe medical needs, if necessary to obtain this change, are taken into account as an exceptional factor.
More details about Rep ID: 416
OBJECT Mr. Roy Laverick
1. That the need to allow development in Dedham should be questioned on the basis that an immense amount of development has taken place in north Colchester in recent years.
2. That the preferred sites all lie in close proximity to a dangerous road junction.
3. That the AONB should remain sacrosanct.
More details about Rep ID: 398
OBJECT Mr R E COX
Proposals to schedule three greenfield sites within the AONB and within a short distance of each other in Dedham Heath is not sensible or equitable planning.
The validity of the assessment process leading to these sites being recommended is questioned. Several constraining factors have been identified in the SLAA but questionable mitigations are used to recommend the sites.
Drainage (surface and foul water) problems affecting the Heath and centre of Dedham, lack of capacity at the local GP surgery, and the major impact on the area's and the AONB's landscape character or setting should be sufficient to exclude these sites.
More details about Rep ID: 222
OBJECT Mr & Mrs M&k Spencer
The area of outstanding natural beauty should not be included in any development .significant road hazard in spite of speed limits road traffic accidents occurring quite regularly at crossroads. Area 2 There are no footpaths in this area of Long Road East The area and adjacent areas are subject to flooding and indeed this area is effectively a flood plain.
More details about Rep ID: 183
OBJECT mr richard watts
Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty- the proposal is contray to the NPPF(March 2012) and Core Strategy and Development Policies
More details about Rep ID: 169
OBJECT Mr Alan Pallett
the two sites on the north side of Long Road are in the AONB.
Do you not understand that such a conservation area is supposed to be CONSERVED for future generations to enjoy.site at the corner of The Heath & Long Road West has a codicil on it which prevents any building .the site on the north side of Long Road East is one of the few vantage points where beautiful views of Dedham Vale can be seen.
There are also serious drainage issues in that area.
More details about Rep ID: 162
OBJECT Mrs Elizabeth Stock
The strategy that Dedham Heath is more sustainable and less rural than the other clusters is inaccurate. Inconsistent and flawed assessments have been made and the ENV4 policy disregarded.
The current preferred options would be significantly detrimental to the AONB, The Essex Way, and the rural character of Long Road East creating urbanisation and ribbon development.
It would be irresponsible to ignore the sewer and flooding issues and the dangers of placing all 3 sites near The Heath crossroads and it is inequitable to place all sites in one place when other sites could have shared the allocation. Please rethink.
More details about Rep ID: 157
OBJECT Ms Elizabeth McGoldrick
The three sites currently proposed should be rejected for the following reasons:
Two are in the AONB and developing them will cause a detrimental and irreversible effect on the AONB. Also, development within the AONB conflicts with the council's own policy. The third plot is a ribbon development on Long Road East which will set a precedent that could lead to further development until The Heath is joined up with Bargate Lane.
More details about Rep ID: 155
OBJECT Mr Kevin Ward
Of the three proposed sites, two lie within the AONB
The site north of Long Rd East is both outside the village envelope and in the AONB. It has been refused planning permission in the past and on Appeal it was upheld that the site was clearly unsuitable for future housing development.
More details about Rep ID: 37
OBJECT miss katherine-jayne watts
With regard to the site North of Long Road East.
The proposal is contrary to the NPPF(March 2012) particularly Paragraph 115 and Core Strategy Policies SD1,H1,UR2,ENV1,ENV2 and Development Polices DP1,DP12 of the Colchester Borough Council Local Development Framework(LDF) by virtue of its harm to the countryside.
In addition DP22 indicates that in ANOB only development that makes a positive contribution to landscape character and DP14 identifies the need to protect the setting of listed buildings.
Clearly this particular site does not justify any sort of exception
More details about Rep ID: 34
OBJECT miss louise-jayne watts
The site to the North of Long Road East is within the AONB so any proposed development conflicts with the councils own policy ENV4. Previous applications on this site were refused by CBC and this refusal upheld upon appeal.
This proposal would have a detrimental irreversible effect on the AONB.
If allowed a dangerous precedent would be set for further inappropriate development within the Dedham vale AONB.
More details about Rep ID: 31
The developments within the AONB would appear to be conflict with Colchester Councils own policies to protect the AONB ,ENV4, and would irreversibly impact on the AONB.t
More details about Rep ID: 29
OBJECT mrs amanda watts
On reading documents on the CBC website it would appear that the proposals within the AONB are at odds with your own policy ENV4.
More details about Rep ID: 28
The proposal for the developments within the AONB appear to be completely unacceptable re your policy ENV4 .
More details about Rep ID: 27
The site on land North of Long Road East is within the AONB and has had planning permission refused in the past ref COL/95/1021
1. Concerns for the effect of the development on the character and appearance of Long Road East and the surrounding area.
2. The site lies outside the limits of the Dedham Heath village envelope is within both the Dedham Vale Countryside Conservation area and the AONB.
3. The area has a rural, undeveloped appearance and does not justify a form of ribbon development which would clearly harm the currently open ad rural appearance of the site.
More details about Rep ID: 26
More details about Rep ID: 25
More details about Rep ID: 24