Local Plan

Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

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.

Representations on Preferred Options Local Plan - SS9: Great Horkesley

Representation ID: 2983

COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Martin Barrell)

Summary:

There is a tributary of Black Brook running to the rear of the identified residential development area on School Lane TL9832929404. This is currently un-modelled Main River and the degree of flood risk is therefore unknown. We do, however know that there is a very small and restrictive culvert which takes the ditch under the conservatory of Yew Tree Cottage and there have been flooding problems in this area historically. The Updated Map for Surface Water shows some water out of channel in this area.

More details about Rep ID: 2983

Representation ID: 2918

OBJECT Pegasus Group (Mr Robert Barber)

Summary:

The preferred site at Horkesley Manor is separated from the village's entire service provision by a busy main road. Parents would opt to drive their children to school rather than risk crossing a busy road. Open space should be easily accessible to residents. The desire & appropriateness of installing a pedestrian crossing on a trunk road is questioned.

A more sustainable site is available to the west of the village.

More details about Rep ID: 2918

Representation ID: 2917

OBJECT Pegasus Group (Mr Robert Barber)

Summary:

Land north of Coach Road, Great Horkesley should be allocated for housing development. A document providing details & analysis of the work carried out was submitted to the PP team on 26/4/16.

The site is close to a large area of open space and new village hall and primary school.

More details about Rep ID: 2917

Representation ID: 2791

COMMENT Highways England (Mark Norman)

Summary:

Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the Strategic Road Network.

More details about Rep ID: 2791

Representation ID: 2670

SUPPORT Historic England -East of England (Ms N Gates)

Summary:

SS9: Great Horksley

We welcome the identification of heritage assets in respect of both proposed allocations in Great Horkesley. We welcome reference in the policy to good design and landscaping.

More details about Rep ID: 2670

Representation ID: 2343

COMMENT Essex County Council (Matthew Jericho)

Summary:

Developments totalling 93 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 28 primary aged pupils and up to 19 secondary aged pupils. At primary level The Bishop William Ward CE VC Primary School, which serves this area, is operating at close to capacity. However, forecasts indicate a decline in pupil numbers in future years which would allow the school to accommodate this level of growth. Cumulative impact of village expansion could result in need for secondary school capacity expansion. Early Years and Childcare Comments -Developer contributions would be required to expand the current facilities to accommodate the growth.

More details about Rep ID: 2343

Representation ID: 2165

OBJECT Dr Mike Priestnall

Summary:

Many things are missing from the plan and there is no demonstration it is needed.

More details about Rep ID: 2165

Representation ID: 2150

OBJECT Ms HI Szeman

Summary:

I wish to register my objection to an increase in residential properties in Great Horkesley. The north of Colchester has had a huge amount of homes built over the last few years and the Chesterwell and Severalls Hospital developments are examples of how you can over populate an area. Adding additional properties to Great Horkesley is not required, not wanted and will diminish our village.

Planners should consider going elsewhere in the borough and preserve our villages for future generations.

NO MORE HOUSES / NO MORE DEVELOPMENTS.

More details about Rep ID: 2150

Representation ID: 2125

OBJECT Miss Julie Tyler

Summary:

Badly planned with major faults in the Great Horkesley information! Lots of people complaining they can't even work out how to comment online. Make it easier, extend the deadline for comment to hear all the views.

More details about Rep ID: 2125

Representation ID: 2076

COMMENT Mr Mark Larwood

Summary:

Sustainable housing development at Great Horkesley should not be permitted until and unless adequate services improvements are made. Including to schooling, roads, health, public transport.

More details about Rep ID: 2076

Representation ID: 1891

OBJECT Mr James O'Connell

Summary:

Despite CBC trying to assure the residents of Great Horkesley(GH) that it will retain its historical status as a village, CBC qualify this as a 'desirable' option. Targets imposed on residential development will erode our village. A Councillor stated that the exercise to include GH and other villages is because the two large scale developments proposed may not even happen in the current Local Plan timescale (2017-2032), therefore, that to reach their targets, CBC have had to identify development sites in the villages of Colchester and that's why GH will have to accept it's quota of more housing.

More details about Rep ID: 1891

Representation ID: 1776

OBJECT Sara Beckman

Summary:

I strongly object because:
1. Primary school on coach road is oversubscribed
2. The main road to the station is beyond capacity and hats with the new Chesterwell development it even complete.
3. The trains to London are stretched as it is
4. The traffic around north station is unsustainable
5. Great Horkesley should remain a rural village
6. Crime has increased in recent years and further expansion will increase it further
7. Plans for a new secondary school are on hold/cancelled

More details about Rep ID: 1776

Representation ID: 1731

COMMENT Emma Tempest

Summary:

Safe access to facilities
Safety of a134
School provision

More details about Rep ID: 1731

Representation ID: 1551

OBJECT Mr Jacob Sismey

Summary:

The planners must be corrected that some of the facilities stated in the village are not centralized and are difficult to get to for less able pedestrians from the main housing areas.

The A134 through the village is a dangerous road for pedestrians and the risks would increase for all including children crossing from the proposed new developments. Speed limits and the traffic islands are not adhered to by the through traffic.

The new village hall is too close to the nearest housing to allow it to be extended without further detrimental environmental impact on the residential areas.

More details about Rep ID: 1551

Representation ID: 1523

SUPPORT ADP (Brian Morgan)

Summary:

Within the land to the east of the A134 (Great Horkesley Manor and arable land) two field areas have been omitted. In total these two areas would contribute 1.85ha of land to the overall site size allowing for a larger area of space with the same amount of homes, along with further opportunities. Although the northern boundary would be screened by existing willow trees the additional space will allow for additional structural landscape coverage adding to the biodiversity and creating a natural screening. The area will also enable additional space for allotments.

More details about Rep ID: 1523

Representation ID: 1491

SUPPORT Mr George Richardson

Summary:

The proposal to enhance or relocate the scout hut is welcome - our grandsons attend cubs/beavers and the resulting improvement in their awareness of community is palpable, as it is for other youngsters in the community. The existing building is dilapidated and there are serious issues with the heating system. The existing single toilet is totally inadequate for the numbers of mixed gender users. The make-shift car park,which is shared with the old village hall, is completely inadequate. I fully support any improvement to the scout hut and its facilities.

More details about Rep ID: 1491

Representation ID: 1461

OBJECT Grahame Stehle

Summary:

Since Brexit, we should be supporting farming and local industries before housing in rural villages.

If Horkesley Manor goes ahead, then it must include a second village shop.

The A134 is narrow and dangerous, and there are six junctions already in the heart of the village.

Our school is at capacity and extending it would violate the learning to recreation space rulings.

The old village hall site should be redeveloped into a centre for the Scouts, Guides and other youth groups.

CBC should be solving the problems with health services, transport, and other infrastructure, not compounding these with overdevelopment.

The footpath through the village is unusable.

More details about Rep ID: 1461

Representation ID: 1448

COMMENT Mr Richard Pearce

Summary:

Village shop is inaccessible
Chesterwell high school on hold
No increase in local GP capacity
No traffic / capacity improvements on A134

More details about Rep ID: 1448

Representation ID: 1446

OBJECT Mrs Eileen Smith

Summary:

Agricultural land is valuable and should be farmed. If the value of Sterling falls, we will need to produce food and reduce imports of food.

Houses should be built according to need. Why so many four bedroom houses when most are only lived in by two people?

Promises not to develop north of the A12 are being broken.

Sensible and workable proposals are needed to increase, for example, medical provision, and other infrastructure like access by road to North Station.

More details about Rep ID: 1446

Representation ID: 1428

OBJECT Teri Duckworth

Summary:

SO MANY things NEED to be improved prior to new developments:

Walking along A134 with two toddlers is horrifically dangerous. Pavements need improving.

Extending new village hall completely unnecessary.

Provision of Scout hut mentioned, but what about Guides?

Traffic from Horkesley to town is gridlocked.

Increase in crime.

The school is oversubscribed but children need space to play, develop and learn. To take any playground away to facilitate extensions would be detrimental to children attending the school.

Hospital needs expanding due to population increase.

The infrastructure of this village NEEDS to be improved prior to any new developments. Then you will have my support.

More details about Rep ID: 1428

Representation ID: 1424

OBJECT Mr J Mitchell

Summary:

No serious proposal to improve infrastructure other than token gestures such as a scout hut. We have enough halls/huts already.
Developers should help provide for new shops closer to the population centre, or at the very least improve parking and footpath access to the existing and woefully inadequate services. Perhaps a GP Surgery and/or some provision to expand the local hospital which can't cope with the expanding population. Also agree with a previous comment that the loss of high quality green field land is a serious mistake for a nation which will undoubtedly need to expand agriculture in the future.

More details about Rep ID: 1424

Representation ID: 1419

OBJECT Nicola Bloomfield

Summary:

The village and wider community can not expand any further without more crucial services being built/provided:-Primary and secondary schools, doctors surgeries, expansion of Colchester general. The A134 is busy enough for our children to have to negotiate crossing to and from school. We are a village, not an extension of the town which is already heaving traffic.
I fully support the new scout hut and cycling facilities to improve our village as it is now. The small build in School Lane seems appropriate. 80 houses on Great Horkesley Manor, no thank you!

More details about Rep ID: 1419

Representation ID: 1331

OBJECT Mr David Stovell

Summary:

Plans for more traffic, but no sensible thought regarding infrastructure - it takes more than a few new sewage pipes and a couple of road crossings.
The village roads cannot cope with increased traffic volume; the A134 struggles at times as it is, but the country lanes that head both east & west from the A134 are simply too small to cope with even more vehicles; the threat is to personal safety and basic village life.
What about other critical areas of infrastructure, namely school places, broadband service, gas provision, etc?
Leave Horkesley as a village not another suburb of Colchester.

More details about Rep ID: 1331

Representation ID: 1306

OBJECT Mrs Carla Stovell

Summary:

Great Horkesley may be in the borough of Colchester, but it is still a village. It does not have the capacity, either through local amenities or road infrastructure to cope with more traffic passing through and into it on a daily basis. A large proportion of traffic will be passing through Colchester North Station, which at rush hour times can become gridlocked, most days. It is not feasible to squeeze more properties into an already saturated area.

More details about Rep ID: 1306

Representation ID: 1300

COMMENT Mr David Geary

Summary:

In all of the developments for housing, there appears a woeful lack of development for employment. On this basis North Station, already congested and almost inaccessible (in or out) at some times of the day, and access to the A12, will be worse.

Is the intention of the planners to build a "Garden Community" of the unemployed, without services or opportunity?

More details about Rep ID: 1300

Representation ID: 1299

OBJECT Mr David Geary

Summary:

Increasing traffic & crime without investment or consideration for mitigating actions. Poor communications with residents. This website unhelpful, wordy, and difficult to use (deliberate?)...

Concern there is a plan to slowly eliminate the village/rural nature of Great Horkesley as representatives have little comprehension of the consequences.

More housing before the consequences of already approved developments are known or mitigated?

Unsustainable, unnecessary development driven by greed through the "call for sites" programme.

More details about Rep ID: 1299

Representation ID: 1297

OBJECT Mr Christofer Beckman

Summary:

The A134 to the station is struggling during rushhour. Especially now with the added traffic lights at the new junction and the MerseaHomes development. There is congestion all the way down to NorthStation. This will only get worse as the MerseaHomes development progresses, let alone another 80 dwellings in Great Horkesley. The trains are already over crowded.
The local school is over-subscribed and siblings are having to be split up. The village hall is over-subscribed and too small. Crime has risen through the last few years.

Let Great Horkesley remain a rural village - not an outgrowth of Colchester.

More details about Rep ID: 1297

Representation ID: 1138

OBJECT Miss Sarah Wilby

Summary:

As a current resident in Great Horkeskey.
The village gas already had a number of new houses built within recent years. There are no wide pathways to access the village shop along A134 which is not walkable for most residents. Schools are already oversubscribed at primary and secondary level. Bring going more families into the village would make this unsustainable.

More details about Rep ID: 1138

Representation ID: 1107

OBJECT Mr Paul Stehle

Summary:

The first time I heard about this proposed development was through a Residents Association. Why didn't the Parish Council do more to bring to the attention of everyone in the village so we can have a fully informed say on this development? With two developments (over 250 homes) already built in the last few years in Gt Horkesley, this village has already had it's quota for expansion. We have over 1,500 homes being built about 1 mile up the road. The infrastructure cannot cope!!! NO MORE HOUSES PLEASE!

More details about Rep ID: 1107

Representation ID: 1049

COMMENT 1st Great Horkesley Scout Group (Mr Colin Embleton)

Summary:

The Scout Hut is in poor condition and will need to be demolished as it is not fit for purpose. We are unable to refurbish, repair, or improve the accessibility due to the nature of its construction.

An enlarged hut with a grassed area, storage and car park, located next to the wooded area will enhance our Scouting provision.

Although this is an opportunity for the Scouts, before any further development there needs to be a full study of the impact on the existing infrastructure and services e.g. the road network, health provision and the school.

More details about Rep ID: 1049

Representation ID: 1015

OBJECT Caroline Cross

Summary:

1500 houses are in the process of being built less than half a mile away from this proposed site. Is it necessary to keep building in this area? The rural nature of this community is rapidly being eroded by development.

More details about Rep ID: 1015

Representation ID: 974

OBJECT Mr Stuart Carey

Summary:

Access on to A134 from Keelers way estate must be modified.
Secondary school provision is lacking
Safe crossing from the estate to the school needs to be included

More details about Rep ID: 974

Representation ID: 973

OBJECT Mr Stuart Carey

Summary:

Access on to A134 from Keelers way estate must be modified.
Secondary school provision is lacking
Safe crossing from the estate to the school needs to be included

More details about Rep ID: 973

Representation ID: 966

OBJECT Mr Daniel Widdowson

Summary:

Extensive new housing development already in flight in the near vicinity at Mile End, so this proposal for additional housing, depleting the rural views, is unnecessary.

More details about Rep ID: 966

Representation ID: 951

SUPPORT Great Horkesley Parish Council (Mrs Penny Mutch)

Summary:

Great Horkesley Parish Council accept the preferred option sites for the 80 and 13 dwellings as submitted by Colchester Borough Council, but would reserve the option to change the community benefits.

More details about Rep ID: 951

Representation ID: 940

COMMENT Dedham Vale Society (Mr J R Drury)

Summary:

Policies SS9 appears to limit housing developments in the northern villages to either where a development is incomplete, Great Horkesley, or Neighbourhood Plans are underway, West Bergholt and Eight Ash Green etc and this is welcomed

More details about Rep ID: 940

Representation ID: 933

OBJECT Mr Matthew Parsons

Summary:

I personally feel because the Vice Chairman of Great Horkesley Parish Council is also on the committee for the Local Plan there has not been enough discussion and opinion gathering from the local Parish Council and residents that should have happened and therefore do not feel Great Horkesley residents have been fully represented

More details about Rep ID: 933

Representation ID: 896

COMMENT Mrs Rachel Gage

Summary:

6.157 Post Office and Village store is not located in the main 'concentration of development' it is a 10 minute walk along poor quality pavements.

6.159 Extending the New Village Hall is unnecessary. Extra traffic could not be accommodated on the roads of the development in which it sits.

A good quality pavement/cycle path between the village and North Colchester would be very welcome.

6.160 Access to land at Great Horkesley Manor should be from an enhanced junction with A134 and Coach Road with a proper roundabout and a safe place to cross the A134.

More details about Rep ID: 896

Representation ID: 871

OBJECT kim macmillan

Summary:

My objections as follows: I would like further proof why further housing is required FOR THIS village as colchester itself is providing many new properties. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of properties for sale or rent in this area.
Enlarging the village hall would detract from the aesthetics of the development around as well as contributing to more noise pollution.
A134 is very busy and any increase in the volume of traffic here would pose a significant increase in potential accidents happening. Although speed restrictions are in place, they are regularly exceeded.

More details about Rep ID: 871

Representation ID: 870

OBJECT ALASTAIR MACNAUGHT

Summary:

In theory there is nothing wrong with developments happening in Great Horkesley, I for one live in one of the relatively new developments in Braeburn Road. However, Colchester in general, and Gt Horkesley in particular is suffering from a lack of facilities and infrastructure.
The school will soon be at bursting point, the secondary school has been abandoned as far as we can tell. Usual story of cramming houses in and letting the infrastructure follow 10 years later. Facilities MUST be a non-negotiable part of the plans. For which the council is more guilty than the developers!

More details about Rep ID: 870

Representation ID: 853

OBJECT Grahame Stehle

Summary:

I believe that the process for Great Horkesley has been badly managed. The Parish Council declined to comment and did very little to advise residents that a consultation was in progress. Furthermore, so called 'village needs' have been communicated to Planners without debate or following consultation with residents of this village.

More details about Rep ID: 853

Representation ID: 714

OBJECT Miss Nichola Davis-Pipe

Summary:

Great Horkesley is already at capacity. The junctions and busy no can be dangerous and there has been substantial development as you leave the village to enter Colchester and it would appear that inadequate facilitates e.g schools have been built to accommodate that. There are other parts of the outskirts of Colchester that could be developed that would mean that the character of this village, which has already been subject to extensive development in and around the school, would be maintained.

More details about Rep ID: 714

Representation ID: 548

OBJECT Mrs Elizabeth Taverner

Summary:

Great Horkesley is not able to sub stain more housing just be because its convenient to Colchester and traffic access on to the A134 is already difficult at the best of times. Great Horkesley is becoming a Suberb of Colchester and it's not welcomed or wanted. Parking near the school is dangerous and parents already park irresponsibly at the best of times! Any future develops will spoil the village feel and cannot be justified as being needed. As regards the Great Horkesley Manor land, this a sale for financial gain only and not in the intersts of the village.

More details about Rep ID: 548

Representation ID: 141

OBJECT Morwenna Sudbery

Summary:

Not sustainable (poor bus service; very car dependent), threat to the rural character of the village, drain on amenities.

More details about Rep ID: 141

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult

Related Articles