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 Hopkins Homes represented by Pegasus Group (Nicky Parsons)
My client supports the use of the word 'minimum' in the third column of this table but is concerned to note an absence of any justification for the numbers used either in this document or the accompanying Sustainability Appraisal. My client therefore objects to the lack of justification for the figures used. Provide further justification for the figures identified against each settlement/area.
More details about Rep ID: 2434
OBJECT Cllr rosalind scott
The 250 houses agreed as sustainable is really a maximum, subject to some gain due to outline planning permissions already agreed and I would like the word minimum substituted with maximum for clarity.
More details about Rep ID: 2117
COMMENT The Trustees of the Meller Estate represented by Fenn Wright (Mr Roger Hayward)
We support the proposed housing allocation to existing settlements and call for the deletion of the East New Settlement and for a greater proportion of the total allocation to be distributed to the Colchester Urban Area and in particular East Colchester which is best placed to deliver sustainable development in accordance with Para 7 of the NPPF.
More details about Rep ID: 2062
OBJECT Edward Gittins & Associates (Edward Gittins)
Land at Mill Road should be allocated for housing.
More details about Rep ID: 1920
The spatial strategy needs clarification and amendment.
More details about Rep ID: 1808
SUPPORT Mr Guy Williamson represented by Mark Liell & Son LLP (Mr David Coleby)
LANGHAM - SCHOOL ROAD (EAST) AND WICK ROAD We SUPPORT the objective of maintaining the vitality and viability of the Boroughs smaller towns and villages (Langham) through appropriate levels of new development which will underpin services, schools and community facilities, and hence social development. There is a clear precedent of housing estates having been built in other sustainable settlements in the Borough. We consider it appropriate and desirable to include such a scheme in Langham, which will through the resultant increased resident population, help support and sustain the school and other village services. We SUPPORT the provision of 125 dwellings proposed in Langham.
More details about Rep ID: 1778
OBJECT Mr L. Charlesworth represented by Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd (Natalie Harris)
Table SG2 needs to be adjusted to allow for 10 additional dwellings and any subsequent reduction as a result of the removal of any other sites currently allocated. Whilst Dedham is among the most sustainable of settlements a very low proportion of housing is allocated to it, totally less than 2%. Dedham has considerably more facilities that Great Tey and Birch and this should be recognised by allocating a higher proportion of homes to Dedham. The split of housing across sustainable settlements needs to be readdressed to focus more growth in the most sustainable villages.
More details about Rep ID: 1519
COMMENT Mr Hutley, Mrs Molyneux, Mrs Went represented by Boyer Planning (Ms Kate Kerrigan)
We support that West Mersea has been identified in table SG2 for an estimated minimum housing provision of 350 units. However, as highlighted above, 'Other Villages' should also be included in the table. See attached representations for full details.
More details about Rep ID: 1358
COMMENT Mr Andrew Mattin represented by Boyer Planning (Ms Kate Kerrigan)
Table SG2 Colchester's Housing Provision sets out that for Marks Tey there is zero estimated minimum housing provision indicated for 2017-2033, other than any existing commitments. The new settlement is included separately in the table (indicated as West New Settlement). We understand from Policy SG7 that the Neighbourhood Plan will allocate additional sites for Marks Tey, but a specific number is not set. However further clarification on this as part of Table SG2 may be necessary to avoid any confusion and ensure that it is clear that Marks Tey is identified for development. Please see attached representations for full details
More details about Rep ID: 1345
OBJECT Tendring DC (Mr Simon Meecham)
In Part 1 of the Local Plan agreement was reached to make provision for up to 1250 homes in each of the authorities boundaries within the broad area of search for the proposed east of Colchester garden community. TDC does not support the inclusion of an additional 930 houses on top of the 2500 in East Colchester Garden Community as it is beyond current delivery expectations. TDC has requested that CBC reviews the approach to the delivery of additional housing beyond the numbers agreed in Part 1.
More details about Rep ID: 1126
COMMENT Mr Simon Hall
It is misleading in the context of the West New Settlement not to refer to the 1150 housing provison identified by Braintree - i.e. a total of 2500 homes in the plan period. Equally Braintree have not been clear on this
More details about Rep ID: 296
OBJECT Mr Graham Cornhill
My personal opinion is that it is a real shame we are so intent on bulldozing rural communities and breaking the very fabric of what I hold dear. I have no doubt I cannot change this but if this has to proceed, please demonstrate that the infrastructure can support this before bricks are laid, something to which has clearly already failed with the Mersea Homes development as I am standing more and more on the trains already!
More details about Rep ID: 150
Powered by
