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 - SS11: Langham

Representation ID: 3206

OBJECT Langham Residents Petiton and 266 others represented by Langham Residents Petiton (a shannon)


School Road is a very busy road with HGV Vehicles, delivery lorries school runs. an increase of possibly over 300 cars entering and exiting the two estates which makes the small road very hazardous.
Primary School is full
A further two estates would change the meaning of the word Village for Langham residents.

More details about Rep ID: 3206

Representation ID: 3154

OBJECT Mrs Sue Ballard


Objects to two sites in School Road - road cannot accommodate increased traffic; too catastrophic for existing home owners; estates not in character with rural village; insufficient public transport and unsustainable infrastructure; adding 115 dwellings disproportionate to village.

More details about Rep ID: 3154

Representation ID: 3113

OBJECT Ms Joanne Hayter


Objects to large number of houses on School Road. Village school already at full capacity. Road floods badly after rainfall and surface suffers from large number of oversized vehicles using industrial site. Rural character in danger of being destroyed. Understands need for more housing and agrees that groups of perhaps 10 houses here and there, including affordable housing are appropriate.

More details about Rep ID: 3113

Representation ID: 3051

OBJECT Sarah Learmont


Objects to School Road site - unsustainable infrastructure, overloading of School Rd., poor public transport and inadequate drainage. Urbanisation of Langham and destruction of its special character. Density of housing. Drainage already poor. Increase in traffic dangerous to children and pedestrians of Langham.

More details about Rep ID: 3051

Representation ID: 3050

OBJECT Ms Tina Bartlett


Not against change and appreciate future developments are inevitable, but concerned that 125 dwellings within Langham is far too much for village of this size. Too much traffic already due to industry and school traffic. 2 small estates for School Road too large and impractical due to volume of traffic. Lack of capacity in primary school. Damage to rural character. No health care facilities. Limited public transport. No street lighting. Infrastructure currently a concern - sewage system is in need of updating; School Road floods regularly near commercial units, power cuts; poor internet coverage.

More details about Rep ID: 3050

Representation ID: 3021

OBJECT Mr Carl Moore


Appreciate need for new housing on fringe of Colchester, but proposal for sites unsustainable for village of our size. Wick Road is a busy cut through route to A12 and is busy at peak times. adding more houses will add to traffic. School Road sites also disproportionate in relation to current village size. School Road busy during school run times. Whitnells site poses major danger to road users. Langham is idyllic quiet village with limited public transport and poor internet.

More details about Rep ID: 3021

Representation ID: 3017

OBJECT Mr. Eric Creber


Objects to School Road proposal. Langham is rural settlement and should be limited to smaller developments. 115 dwellings inappropriate for a village with limited access to services. Sewerage system in Langham already overloaded. Langham has special rural character on edge of Dedham Vale and should be protected from disproportionate growth which will destroy village character.

More details about Rep ID: 3017

Representation ID: 3012

OBJECT Mrs Elizabeth Durlacher


Langham Village Council suggested 85 dwellings over the length of the plan and you have come back with 125 in a much shorter period.

This proposed expansion of Langham will lead from a rural village to a satellite of Colchester urbanising the whole area which is on the edge of the Dedham Val e AONB which is to the north of the village.

The infrastructure is inadeguate for water and sewage for this density of development.

The increase in traffic will be a danger to the primary school and other houses along the road.

More details about Rep ID: 3012

Representation ID: 2978

COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Martin Barrell)


Langham is served by Langham Water Recycling Centre (WRC). The WRC is over capacity by a figure equivalent to roughly 133 houses. This must not be exacerbated by further connections. Either upgrades need to be undertaken by Anglian Water and a new permit applied for, or sufficient capacity needs to be created by reducing infiltration into the system. Development must not occur until it has been demonstrated that there is adequate wastewater treatment and sewerage infrastructure capacity in the catchment.

More details about Rep ID: 2978

Representation ID: 2823

OBJECT Sally Cox-Harris


Our village infrastructure is totally inadequate for these housing estates, and school road itself, which becomes very busy and dangerous at the start and end of the school day, would not be able to cope with it.

The proposals put forward by Langham Parish Council were sensible and proportionate, and most importantly reflected what we, the people of Langham, want for our community. Why cannot the Council respect that and listen to us in totality?

More details about Rep ID: 2823

Representation ID: 2793

COMMENT Highways England (Mark Norman)


Development here could have an adverse impact on the substandard junctions along this section of the A12.

More details about Rep ID: 2793

Representation ID: 2775

COMMENT Edward Gittins & Associates (Edward Gittins)


Proposed employment site adjoining the existing Lodge Park in Langham.

More details about Rep ID: 2775

Representation ID: 2672

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


SS11: Langham

We welcome the identification of listed buildings in respect of the School Road sites, but would highlight the potential impact of the Wick Road proposed allocation on the setting of grade II Mantons. We welcome reference in the policy to archaeological considerations as well as design and landscaping.

More details about Rep ID: 2672

Representation ID: 2626

OBJECT mrs A Stacey


Langham can reasonably accommodate about 50 new houses (not 125 as proposed), as long as there are upgrades to School Road, the sewers to prevent a repeat of this year's flooding, and the school expanded. It would be necessary to widen School Road, and getting the industry to move to a less central location would be wise.

More details about Rep ID: 2626

Representation ID: 2624

OBJECT Nigel & Claire Matthews and 1 other


concerned about the proposed plans for Langham because the disproportionate number of new houses proposed will overwhelm Langham, the infrastructure will be unable to cope and village life will be destroyed.

Infrastructure (public transport, health and drainage system struggles to cope with the existing number of properties. These issues will be further stretched by the proposal.
Langham is at risk of losing its village identity and morphing into a suburb of Colchester.

More details about Rep ID: 2624

Representation ID: 2623

OBJECT Mr Brian Alldread and 1 other


The road infrastructure in Langham cannot support the extra traffic from the proposed development. A combination of the existing traffic and additional traffic will increase accident risk in School Road. Public transport provision is limited.
The village facilities are not sufficient to support the increase in population.
The rural character of Langham and rural community will be destroyed if the development proceeds.
Building two estates with 115 properties in School Road is entirely inappropriate. Reconsider and significantly reduce the number of proposed new dwellings in the plan.

More details about Rep ID: 2623

Representation ID: 2612

OBJECT Mr Simon Gallup


Both sites off School Road are adjacent to the Class B2 Industrial site would create a land use conflict and is contrary to the NPF.

Both the new sites would conflict with the Sustainable Development section of the National Planning Policy Framework in that they would have poor access to transport links and other services. The size of the new estates is not proportional to the size of the existing village.

More details about Rep ID: 2612

Representation ID: 2608

OBJECT d crocombe


Concerns about the number of new homes proposed including their density and type which will be out of keeping with the character of the village. Concerns about School Lane's ability to cope with increased traffic and the lack of parking spaces near the school. Housing density should be reduced by 65% and include sensible traffic infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 2608

Representation ID: 2574

OBJECT Mr L. Charlesworth represented by Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd (Natalie Harris)


A soundness objection is lodged against the disproportionate allocation of houses between Dedham and Langham in particular. It is therefore requested that the number of new homes for Langham is reduced and Dedham is increased by at least 10 units.

More details about Rep ID: 2574

Representation ID: 2535

OBJECT Mr Stephen Garner


Proposal for 125 new homes does not accord with CBC's assertion that ''growth in smaller villages and in the countryside is limited to protect the Borough's rural character.

No objection raised to Langham Parish Council proposal, for ''infill'' in Wick Road with 10 new dwellings.

The 2 large developments proposed by CBC will place a significant strain on local road and sewage infrastructure and alter rural character .

Accept need for some housing - 35-40 dwellings.
Why is Langham getting higher growth (30%) than Boxted (6%), Great Horkesley (10%) and Dedham (2%)

More details about Rep ID: 2535

Representation ID: 2532

OBJECT C Schofield and 1 other


125 properties to be built in our little village is completely disproportionate and will ultimately destroy Langham`s special village feel. 115 of these houses are planned for School Road which is already chaotic at school times what with taxis going to Homestead School and cars parking and dropping off children for our primary school. We would also question as to why Langham has a proposed 125 extra properties whereas Boxted and Dedham get none. We accept there has to be some infilling but we feel 125 properties to be completely unacceptable

More details about Rep ID: 2532

Representation ID: 2457

COMMENT Natural England (Kayleigh Cheese)


SS 11 Langham - allocations at closest point 0.6km from AONB. Sites within or close to the setting of the AONB will require a Landscape Assessment

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: 2457

Representation ID: 2400

OBJECT Mr Roy Smith and 1 other


See attached letter

extreme concern at the disproportionate number of dwellings being put forward in the emerging Local Plan.
strongly reconsider downwards the number of new dwellings being put forward as per attached views for your reconsideration.

More details about Rep ID: 2400

Representation ID: 2387

OBJECT Mr J Gibson and 1 other


Extremely concerned to learn that the CBC PO for Langham would include an out of proportion 125 new houses. This could equate to an increase in dwellings in the village of over 25%;

Key points:
increase in the population of 40 to 50%;
problems with extra traffic;
increased light pollution and the village infrastructure of drainage;
power and communications would not be sufficient;

Not against reasonable development within the village, we would not want to see Langham ruined by sudden and totally inappropriate building of what would be housing estates in a rural village.

More details about Rep ID: 2387

Representation ID: 2363

OBJECT Mrs Louise Alexandra Doyle


Opposition to 'estate like feel' which may result from new development in Langham which would be detrimental to village life. New development would put existing services under strain. Areas of affluence are required around Colchester to make the town attractive.

More details about Rep ID: 2363

Representation ID: 2345

COMMENT Essex County Council (Matthew Jericho)


In paragraphs 6.171 and 6.172 replace the word 'footpaths' with 'footways'.

Growth proposed would generate up to 38 primary aged pupils and up to 25 secondary aged pupils. Langham Primary School could accommodate this level of growth. Consequently however, some pupils from Colchester town who can currently access places would no longer be able to do so increasing pressure on primary school places in Colchester town. Cumulative impact of village expansion could result in need for secondary school capacity expansion.

Developer contributions would be required to expand the current early years facilities to accommodate the growth.

More details about Rep ID: 2345

Representation ID: 2321

OBJECT Liz Winter


Objection to the unreasonably high number of new houses proposed in School Road which will alter the rural character of Langham. School Road will not cope with extra traffic generated from the proposed 115 properties and children will be at greater risk from the additional traffic at school opening and closing times.

Alternative sites proposed including a site at the western end of Wick Road seem to have been ignored.
The existing infrastructure is already stretched (drainage) and increasing housing will compound this.
Reconsider the proposals

More details about Rep ID: 2321

Representation ID: 2319

COMMENT John and Kathy Faulkner and 1 other


Existing facilities are already under pressure.
Whilst we accept there needs to be additional housing it must go hand in hand with a commensurate increase in vital amenities

More details about Rep ID: 2319

Representation ID: 2318

OBJECT John and Kathy Faulkner and 1 other


Opposed to further housing development between Whitnells industrial area & the village Community Centre & also, the junction of St Margarets Cross. This whole area is opposite the school & is already very busy with school and business traffic. More development would pose a further danger to children entering & leaving the school.

Reconsider developing at these locations.

More details about Rep ID: 2318

Representation ID: 2234

OBJECT Mr and Mrs Estcourt


regarding the proposal for large scale development in our lovely village of Langham we are writing to register our formal protest about this. Most local people do not want this. Very few of the houses would be taken by local people. The traffic in Wick Rd and School Rd is already awful. It would make the village roads even more dangerous. We should keep Langham as a small village.

More details about Rep ID: 2234

Representation ID: 2225

SUPPORT Mr Guy Williamson represented by Mark Liell & Son LLP (Mr David Coleby)



We SUPPORT the general principles, but parking must reflect the specifics of the location and in smaller settlements where there are fewer options to car-borne journeys and higher car ownership can be expected, greater garage capacity and driveway provision should be entertained.
We consider that the occupants of housing in Langham, being a village with low frequency of bus services and closely located to the A12, will inevitably have a greater reliance on car-borne journeys and therefore cars and associated parking, and parking at higher levels should be allowed.

More details about Rep ID: 2225

Representation ID: 2224

COMMENT Mr Guy Williamson represented by Mark Liell & Son LLP (Mr David Coleby)



It is proposed that all surface water from the Langham sites, will be discharged in a local water course.
There is separately the option to explore integration of the balancing ponds/reed beds to hold water, and allow regulated release, if considered more desirable. Such infrastructure to be allowable under the Council's policy.

More details about Rep ID: 2224

Representation ID: 2219

OBJECT Mr Bernard King


The proposed estate style development of 115 houses on School Road and it is not in keeping with more recent developments in Langham.

The existing infrastructure in Langham - school provision, broadband, bus provision and the internet is poor. The proposed development would turn Langham into another extension of the sprawling urbanisation of Colchester.

The proposal as outlined by CBC is not limited proportional growth

More details about Rep ID: 2219

Representation ID: 2214

OBJECT Margaret king


Disproportionate allocation of 125 new dwellings in the village. Unreasonable extra pressure on the village and its harmful impact would change its whole feel and aspect for all residents. I do not believe there is a need within the village for extra 125 dwellings possible 400-500 occupants which include children. The village facilities are not sufficient to support an increase in occupants. extra traffic caused by theses schemes would cause further problems to the village roads. There is no village doctor or healthcare facilities. I urge you to strongly reconsider downwards the number of new dwellings

More details about Rep ID: 2214

Representation ID: 2108

OBJECT Mrs Hazel Madejczyk


Object because:
Housing estates proposed are too large in numbers
Density of housing in small areas
Extra traffic and consequent increased noise and traffic disruption
Extra traffic risk to pedestrians (few pavements in village) and cyclists (narrow country lanes)
Long term unresolved drainage problems in School Road would be significantly worsened by an extra 115 dwellings
In opting for housing estates CBC has ignored the we thought-out plan Langham Parish Council put forward following survey of residents last autumn for 85 dwellings including suitable for low cost/disabled/elderly.
Sets a dangerous precedent for even more housing, not necessarily for local Colchester people, in future

More details about Rep ID: 2108

Representation ID: 1905

OBJECT Edward Gittins & Associates (Edward Gittins)


Land at Perry Grove, Langham should be allocated for housing.

More details about Rep ID: 1905

Representation ID: 1902

OBJECT d crocombe


Whilst I appreciate that there is a need for development within the local area and the village, these proposals are not well considered in the context of the existing village character and infrastructure. It is moving towards the urbanisation of the village and would not be in keeping with its own very special rural character.
The number of properties proposed for each of the sites, especially School Lane sites are excessive, and out of character and would cause on going traffic problems unless completely reconsidered to reduce housing density by about 65% and including sensible traffic infrastructure

More details about Rep ID: 1902

Representation ID: 1873

SUPPORT Edward Gittins & Associates (Edward Gittins)


We confirm the availability of Site to the west of Powerplus site.

More details about Rep ID: 1873

Representation ID: 1792

SUPPORT Mr Guy Williamson represented by Mark Liell & Son LLP (Mr David Coleby)


Please refer to the attached supporting Mark Liell planning statement dated 15th September 2016 for the Wick Road and School Road (East) sites, the HTTC Highway Report, the Archaeological Assessment Report, and the Infrastructure Summary Note and BT Openreach letter.


We SUPPORT the proposed allocation of the 2.164 ha site, situated to "the east of the Powerplus site" on School Road for "up to 55 dwellings".


We SUPPORT the proposed allocation of the 1.853 ha site, situated on Wick Road for "up to 10 dwellings".

More details about Rep ID: 1792

Representation ID: 1781

SUPPORT Mr Guy Williamson represented by Mark Liell & Son LLP (Mr David Coleby)



We consider that the circumstances existing in Langham do meet the criteria set out in this policy. Please refer to the attached findings set out in the summary strategic infrastructure assessment exercise, conducted in respect of this site.

More details about Rep ID: 1781

Representation ID: 1767

OBJECT Mr Philip Williams


The village supports and welcomes proportional development
125 new properties in a village with 419 existing properties is not proportional
105 in School Lane is too dense
The proposal shoehorns a suburban development into a village environment. This provides none of the benefits of suburban life whilst substantially eroding the current village life.
The PC understands the boroughs needs, expressed these to the village residents who responded very positively, yet the Borough (who are elected to represent the people) proposes to overrule.
Reduce the overall expansion to 85 as the village and PC have proposed.

More details about Rep ID: 1767

Representation ID: 1703

OBJECT Mr Rob Hewes


I would urge you to re-consider your preferred options for Langham in line with the proposals suggested by Langham residents. Not only are they entirely contrary to the democratically sought and documented views of the village's residents, but represent an effective urbanization of the village, and will place demands on facilities and infrastructure that are excessive and unsustainable

More details about Rep ID: 1703

Representation ID: 1698

OBJECT Langham Parish Council (Mrs. Elizabeth Schofield)


Please read full Parish Council representation on www.langham.org.uk
Grossly disproportionate growth compared with other villages and in its own terms.
Unsustainable infrastructure; School Road overloaded.
Inadequate waste water sewage facilities.
Urban solution of backfill imposed on rural solution of infill development.
Destruction of special rural historic character of Langham; creeping suburbanisation.
Up to 50 dwellings constructed over the Plan period is proportionate, balanced and reasonable growth.
Proximity of 115 dwellings abutting heavy engineerings site, with problems of noise, safety, HGV movements and other pollutants.
Historic character of Boxted Airfield affected.
Inaccuracy of information in CBC documentation.

More details about Rep ID: 1698

Representation ID: 1689

OBJECT Mr Russell Sainty


School Road, a high density and in-depth development will be out of keeping, urban in a rural village.
New dwellings at 115 is far too high .A 35% increase. Village facilities poor.
Only one of these sites be considered. The density and number of dwellings should be reduced and a more appropriate layout and design promoted. A drop off point for the school. A green buffer.Low density would allow a rural feel.
Other less impactful sites should be promoted. .

More details about Rep ID: 1689

Representation ID: 1627

COMMENT Joseph Greenhow Planning (Joseph Greenhow)


Whilst the housing allocations at St. Margaret's Cross are welcomed, exclusion of land contiguous with the southern edge of the LEA (highlighted on the attached 'Plan 1') is anomalous.

Part of this land is currently in use as a car park associated with the Powerplus Engineering site with the balance enclosed by fencing and no longer in active agricultural use.

It is requested that this small area be included within the Settlement Boundary as illustrated in the attached 'Plan 2'. This would enable the land to be utilised for additional parking and soft landscaping to support existing businesses within the LEA notation.

More details about Rep ID: 1627

Representation ID: 1605

OBJECT Joseph Greenhow Planning (Joseph Greenhow)


Please see attachment for full representations on behalf of Mrs. J. Sawyer relating to part of Site RNE27.

More details about Rep ID: 1605

Representation ID: 1584

OBJECT Allan Morley


We have a special rural character, but accept a need for proportional 'ribbon' development and agreed an appropriate figure of 84 new builds.

We are extremely disappointed that you have proposed double that figure representing a gross disproportional development for this village.

Your proposal shows a concentration of houses (a small estate) in School Road near the industrial zone (the main business being Heavy Plant Hire - up to 45 tonne) opposite the Village Primary School!

A growth of 115 plots of estate type layouts will, without a doubt, set a precedent and cause destruction of the rural character of this village.

More details about Rep ID: 1584

Representation ID: 1553

OBJECT Fiona Hardman


As a resident of Langham, I object to the grossly disproportionate allocation of 125 dwellings to the village.
Whilst I have studied all the relevant documentation I can find no rationale for this.

Fiona Hardman

More details about Rep ID: 1553

Representation ID: 1539

SUPPORT Mr Guy Williamson represented by Mark Liell & Son LLP (Mr David Coleby)



We SUPPORT the inclusion of Langham as a sustainable settlement and one of the preferred large villages identified for proportionate growth.
Certain locations and villages (Langham) have exceptional road accessibility (and capacity) and this should be acknowledged and offset any under provision of current public transport/choice.

More details about Rep ID: 1539

Representation ID: 1537

OBJECT Mr Darren Doyle


I must voice my disappointment regarding the proposed development of Langham. The volume and density of building within the plan shows utter disregard for the village, it's residents wellbeing & their way of life. All of which would be destroyed if this disproportionate growth were allowed. The villagers are aware of the need for new homes, in keeping with the size and character of the village. If this ill-thought-out proposal comes to fruition it will be the death knell of our village as it turns into a series of small estates, soon to merely be a suburb of Colchester.

More details about Rep ID: 1537

Representation ID: 1350

OBJECT Mr & Mrs D P & PJ King


For a village of less than 500 dwellings surely an increase of 125 dwellings is not proportional? Two housing estates of 55 and 60 houses would be totally out of character. An increased traffic flow in the region of 250 vehicle movements a day would be anticipated. Sewerage system presently struggling to cope with demand. Langham Parish Council surveyed the local community and results indicated that residents were in favour of growth at a rate of 5 dwellings per year over a planned period. This could be achieved on sites made available for linear developments

More details about Rep ID: 1350

Representation ID: 1347

OBJECT William Maturin-Baird


Objection on the grounds of quantity of proposed housing, sustainability, location and damage to the character and nature of Langham Village.

More details about Rep ID: 1347

Representation ID: 1242

OBJECT Mr Barry Hobbs


The document is fundamentally unsound with little or no evidence to support the preferences .Proportionality-The proposals 125 new dwellings in Langham which currently has 419 dwellings. This is an increase of 30% is disproportionate growth, The percentage growth suggested for Langham is the highest in the area. Sustainability-Langham has little infrastructure. Type of Developments Proposed- In my view 115 dwellings proposed in School Road will create density issues in the busiest part of the village. Layout of the site is inappropriate being a backfilling development. School Road is the Sourthern border of the Stour Valley AONB

More details about Rep ID: 1242

Representation ID: 1239

OBJECT Sylvia Hemmings


overdevelopment of land facing School Road .the proposal for School Road with that of Wick Road would increase housing by 30% and completely destroy the village.
Industrial area on School Road with Heavy Lorries frequently block the road when entering and reversing the premises. Langham six miles out of Colchester where are they expected to work, go to school or doctors. The proposed site would be faced with considerable infrastructure costs

More details about Rep ID: 1239

Representation ID: 1224

OBJECT Mrs Louise Alexandra Doyle


The proposal itself has evolved hastily, and not considered fully the objections already made against earlier versions. I urge you to consider now the long term effects on the village and the surrounding area. To properly sustain a growing town like Colchester, there must be surrounding villages, areas of affluence, green space, and supportive communities like Langham; else the attraction of the town and surrounding areas as a whole is at risk.

More details about Rep ID: 1224

Representation ID: 1151

COMMENT Mr Ronald Smith


School Lane is access to The Oaks Academy, langham Primary School and Pre-school, Community shop and an industrial site using 44 ton lorries.it is a bus route, can have up to 50 cars parked dropping off children and in places is passable for two cars.the road floods and both the schools are at full capacity
If between Whitnalls and the Community Centre is to be developed, then the Park and its Parking area should be expanded, using some of that land.

. The Industrial Site should be located out of the village near to the A12.

More details about Rep ID: 1151

Representation ID: 1144

OBJECT Mr David Winter


1. There is an incorrect number of houses said to be in Langham. 660 rather than 420, acknowledged by Planning. 125 proposed new homes is 19% of 660, and 30% of 420. If the 19% is supposed to be proportionate, for a village of 420 houses this figure should be 80, very similar to the figure Langham Parish Council proposed.
2. School Road has 44 houses. 115 new houses feeding in to School Road, as proposed, would add 260% to the number of houses using School Road, and probably a similar percentage to the traffic levels.

More details about Rep ID: 1144

Representation ID: 1009

OBJECT Mrs Gillian woodman


Two of the sites are on the busiest road in Langham which serves shop and school and public house which all take deliveries,with another 115 houses will probably generate another 200 cars and house deliveries including internet shopping.why has no consideration be give to smaller in-fill sites

More details about Rep ID: 1009

Representation ID: 837

OBJECT Faith Hobbs


My principle concern regarding the Wick Road proposed development, (RNE 50) is that the 'rural sense of place' at this junction which bears the coat of arms needs to be protected. This can be achieved by not building right up to the junction as the plan seems to indicate.
I am strongly opposed to any significant growth in School Road and 115 is indeed significant and my comments below relate to the 115 proposed there.To build any kind of 'green estate' in School Road will completely ruin the rural feel of the centre of the village and to build115 properties

More details about Rep ID: 837

Representation ID: 735

OBJECT Mr. Anthony Ellis


Grossly disproportionate growth in comparison with other villages and in its own terms.
Unsustainable infrastructure with School Road .
Inadequate waste water and sewage facilities.
Urban solution of backfill/estate development imposed on rural solution of infill/ribbon development.
Destruction of special rural and historic character of Langham and creeping suburbanisation.
20-50 dwellings constructed over the Plan period would be proportionate balanced and reasonable growth.
Proximity of proposed 115 dwellings adjacent to a heavy engineering industrial site, with problems of noise, HGV movements and other pollutants.
Historic character of WW2 Boxted Airfield will be affected.
Inaccuracy of information in CBC documentation.

More details about Rep ID: 735

Representation ID: 629

OBJECT Mr William Durlacher


The 115 dwellings mentioned along School Road will have a detrimental and devastating impact on the village.The impact of these houses will change the nature and character of the village, moving from a rural community to an urban one.Suface and foul water in School Road is already a major problem ( please confirm this with Essex C.C roads dept.) The addition of further run off areas will only exacerbate this problem.Increase in traffic densities on a road with 2 schools on it plus an industrial site will beunsustainable. The report states Para 6.168 that Langham has limitedaccess to public transport

More details about Rep ID: 629

Representation ID: 560

COMMENT Stane Park Ltd (Mr Joshua Warren)


As per my exchange of emails with Karen Syrett, would it be possible please to include Lodge Park (as per attached drawing - area shown in blue) to be included as an employment site. Can you please add a separate Langham Airfield proposals map including this site?
Thanks and regards
Josh Warren

More details about Rep ID: 560

Representation ID: 436

OBJECT Mrs Lilian Munby


The proposed size of development in School Road takes no account of the amount of traffic that would be engendered by so much density of new housing and the hazards it would present in a road that contains two schools.The primary school is already oversubscribed. The sewage system and drains generally are not coping with the demands being made upon it right now The bus service has always been poor, and has recently deteriorated further.

More details about Rep ID: 436

Representation ID: 415



The proposed siting of 2 new estates in School Road of 115 houses would completely destroy the rural character of this lovely village. The area is unsuitable for this amount of houses, the road already suffers from the heavy haulage vehicles of the businesses located at the industrial site and a high volume of school traffic With the enormous amount of house building going on in the north of Colchester we see no need for a development of this size in a rural village.

More details about Rep ID: 415

Representation ID: 195

OBJECT Mr Robert Clark


High density for the 2 areas in school Road ,overdevelopment of land. The road is too narrow for up to 300 additional cars belonging to new residents Facilities of water ,sewage, transport ,school and medical services and other infrastructure is completely inadequate

More details about Rep ID: 195

Representation ID: 161

OBJECT Mrs Shannon Barnes


The position of the 2 large sites are not suitable considering the road and traffic.
The school could not cope with the added intake.
Residents of Langham wishing to develop their land should be given consideration not just one family.

More details about Rep ID: 161

Representation ID: 46

OBJECT Mr Cliff Jones


1. There will be far too much additional traffic in School Road.
2. The only viable way of building 115 houses in School Road is via 2 small estates. This totally out of character to the rest of the village.
3. For reasons of economic viability these developments are likely to be finished over a short period which would massively increase the population of the village over a very short period of time without opportunity to assimilate the new villagers and thus change the character of the village.

More details about Rep ID: 46

Representation ID: 12

OBJECT Mr Darren Carter


Re: School Road, potential developers will want to build the 55/60 dwellings at the same time. Can the village, specifically School Road manage a 55 (or 60/115) dwelling increase in this manner? The transport infrastructure cannot cope currently with the multiple large vehicles from the industrial properties and parking at the school. What about school places, the community shop size, water/waste? Is this number of dwellings in one small location really a viable option as planned? In my opinion the proposed developments are too much for our small village to manage and will have a negative impact.

More details about Rep ID: 12

Representation ID: 4

OBJECT Mrs Gillian Flack


The proposed School Road developments are much too big for a small village.

More details about Rep ID: 4

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

Powered by OpusConsult

Related Articles