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.
COMMENT Marks Tey Parish Council (Mr. Allan Walker)
SS13 should be unchanged until further clarity of wider strategic implications are clear. Investigation should be undertaken to explore innovative ways by which evolving Neighbourhood Plan can link into wider strategy to form a Neighbourhood Plan 'Plus'.
More details about Rep ID: 3107
COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Martin Barrell)
Welcome the reference to water infrastructure capacity constraints within this section. Marks Tey) is served by Copford WRC which is over capacity by a figure equivalent to roughly 500 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 prior to development commencing.
More details about Rep ID: 2985
No specific development site options are shown on the plan. Main River and surface water constraints must be considered as part of the strategic planning for this development area.
The Main River - 'Roman River' will require detailed modelling to be carried out to fully understand the fluvial flood risk and inform a sequential approach to the siting of development and the design requirements. We would seek to work with the Parish in the consideration of development site options during the evolution of the Neighbourhood Plan.
More details about Rep ID: 2984
OBJECT Home Builders Federation Ltd (Mr James Stevens)
We note that a neighbourhood plan is being prepared for Marks Tey. However, if it does not become the location for one of the Garden Communities, we note that it has a housing allocation of zero in the draft plan (see table SG2). This is a highly sustainable location, as paragraph 6.182 acknowledges, so even if it does not become the location for a new settlement then it ought to provide some housing. We consider that the local plan should make a provisional allocation for this settlement in case it is not selected as the location for a new settlement.
More details about Rep ID: 2833
COMMENT Highways England (Mark Norman)
Development here has the potential to have a severe impact on the Strategic Road Network. From the plan, it is unclear where access will be obtained from. There are also proposals to widen both the A120 and the A12 which may affect the site.
More details about Rep ID: 2796
COMMENT Historic England -East of England (Ms N Gates)
Given the substantial proposals relating to Marks Tey, we are surprised that the text does not reference the significant number of grade II listed buildings in Marks Tey, the scheduled brick kilns and the grade I Church of St Andrew. It is difficult to comment as which heritage assets will be affected is unknown. We note that the broad areas of growth indicated on the maps, to be brought forward through the Marks Tey Neighbourhood Plan may affect designated heritage assets. Consideration of these heritage assets and their setting is required to determine appropriate locations and densities for growth.
More details about Rep ID: 2673
COMMENT Natural England (Kayleigh Cheese)
SS13 Marks Tey - IRZ for Marks Tey Brickpit SSSI. This policy should make reference to the Marks Tey Brickpit SSSI ("including an appropriate buffer area. 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. Green infrastructure provision is essential to reduce impacts from recreational disturbance at these sites.
More details about Rep ID: 2459
COMMENT Messing cum Inworth Parish Council (Mrs Dawn Marriott)
Mention is made of Garden community, but no site allocation on the plan?
More details about Rep ID: 2384
COMMENT Essex County Council (Matthew Jericho)
Education provision would need to be considered in light of Garden Communities proposals. SuDS requirement bullet point needed.
More details about Rep ID: 2347
OBJECT Mr Sean Pordham
I have read the "Strategic Land Availability Assessment" and do not agree with many of its findings and recommendations. Much of the land being proposed is currently high quality agricultural land and has failed to get planning permission in the past due to access and safety. What has changed?
More details about Rep ID: 2166
OBJECT Edward Gittins & Associates (Edward Gittins)
Land at Mill Road, Marks Tey, should be allocated for 11 dwellings.
More details about Rep ID: 1921
Motts Lane, Marks Tey should be allocated for housing.
More details about Rep ID: 1917
SUPPORT Mr Ian Melrose represented by Fenn Wright (Mr Roger Hayward)
We support the inclusion of Marks Tey within the proposed new Garden Community development but call for the allocation of additional small to medium scale housing sites around the village on a phased basis in order to gradually build up the community and other infrastructure ahead of the delivery of the longer term infrastructure and community benefits planned for the West of Colchester Garden Community.
More details about Rep ID: 1613
OBJECT Mr John Wood
The plan seems designed to be unreadable. Apart from this, its flaws are a lack of any evidence that CBC has begun working on a strategy / set of strategies that deal with: Congestion due to current (let alone future) road problems, which will be very serious for M.Tey; improvements to rail services, again critical for MT; welfare infrastructure, ie. schools, health / care for older people. Further, there's no detail on garden communities, or the machinery to be set up to manage the whole housebuilding programme effectively, over some 20 years.There is much local concern over these issues.
More details about Rep ID: 1404
COMMENT Mr Andrew Mattin represented by Boyer Planning (Ms Kate Kerrigan)
please see attached representations for full details
More details about Rep ID: 1348
OBJECT Mrs Kate Crabb
Assuming that the ambiguous term "alternative mixed uses" is actually code for "more housing development", then where exactly would the increased population be expected to find employment when in the same stroke, a significant patch of local economic area would be taken away? Long term, this plan and others like it, are simply unsustainable.
More details about Rep ID: 1290
OBJECT Mr Richard Crabb
Increasing housing development (increasing population in the area) whilst withdrawing local economic areas (decreasing opportunities for employment in the area) defies basic economic reason. This plan, combined with other parallel proposals, would be devastating to the social, economic and environmental future of this area. We need to encourage local employment, not continually sweep away a sustainable economic future in favour of short term non-recurring profits from housing development.
More details about Rep ID: 1285
OBJECT Mrs Julie Hitchcock
I strongly object, not to new housing but to the lack of effective project planning and community engagement.
More details about Rep ID: 907
SUPPORT Marguerite Livingstone Associatess Ltd represented by Mrs Marguerite Haddrell
Support for new Housing development in Marks Tey in the area of the brickworks and adjacent landholdings,representation on behalf of W.H. Collier
More details about Rep ID: 429
OBJECT Mr John Tring
Impact to roads, schools and medical centers has to be accounted for and improved first. The area is over congested with traffic, and roads are in a poor state of repair. How could the addition of extra housing be considered before these issues have been addressed?
More details about Rep ID: 8