Colchester City Council has opened the final Regulation 19 consultation on its new Local Plan, with a materially different approach to Marks Tey and a series of changes to housing allocations across the city and surrounding villages.
The Colchester Local Plan consultation runs from 28th August until 4pm on 13th October 2026. This is no longer an early options exercise: it is the version the council intends to submit to the Secretary of State for independent examination.
The plan covers 2026 to 2043 and seeks to provide at least 21,692 homes, equivalent to 1,276 a year, alongside an identified need for 49.8 hectares of employment land to 2041. But the more interesting story is how the growth strategy has changed since the Preferred Options consultation — particularly at Marks Tey.
Marks Tey has been recast as one strategic growth area
The biggest structural change is at Marks Tey.
The Regulation 18 Preferred Options plan proposed two separate housing allocations: PP17 south of the A12 for about 1,500 homes and PP18 north of the A120 for about 1,000 homes. Together they amounted to 2,500 homes, but they were expressed as individual site allocations within a broader growth-area concept.
The Regulation 19 plan replaces that approach with a single Policy OA5 Marks Tey Growth Area. It still provides for approximately 2,500 homes within the plan period, but those homes are now explicitly described as part of a larger development that is expected to continue beyond 2043.
The new policy also provides for approximately 18 hectares of employment land by 2043, as part of an expected long-term total of at least 40 hectares, plus strategic open space, transport-corridor improvements and better sustainable links to Marks Tey station.
Perhaps more importantly, OA5 requires the whole area to be planned comprehensively through a masterplan and delivery framework. The policy says the growth area should have a distinct identity and include homes, employment, education, health, community facilities and green space rather than simply being treated as two large housing sites.
Why has the Marks Tey approach changed?
The council’s supporting evidence says the strategic opportunity remains strong because Marks Tey sits at the A12/A120 junction and has a railway station, but transport capacity is the major constraint.
The Submission Draft says up to 2,500 homes can be delivered during the plan period only on the basis that additional vehicle movements can be accommodated safely on the A12 and A120 without significantly increasing congestion. It also requires a coordinated infrastructure package and masterplanning from the outset.
The change therefore does not reduce the headline 2,500-home figure. It changes the planning mechanism: from two principal allocations to a single strategic growth-area policy intended to coordinate development inside and beyond the 2043 plan period.
For landowners and developers around Marks Tey, that distinction matters. A parcel is no longer best understood in isolation from the wider growth-area strategy, infrastructure phasing, masterplan and transport evidence.
Colchester plans for 21,692 homes to 2043
Policy ST5 sets a minimum housing requirement of 21,692 homes between 2026 and 2043, based on the standard method figure of 1,276 homes a year. The plan identifies total housing supply of 22,556 homes, giving some headroom above the requirement.
That supply comprises existing commitments, the Colchester share of the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community, a windfall allowance and 12,208 homes from Local Plan allocations.
Anyone wanting the wider policy context can see our guides to local housing need and the standard method and five-year housing land supply.
The Employment Land Needs Assessment identifies a need for 49.8 hectares of employment land up to 2041. The evidence highlights digital, creative and technology businesses, financial and business services, advanced manufacturing, construction, transport and logistics and green energy as sectors likely to shape demand.
Several village allocations have changed
Marks Tey is not the only place where the Submission Draft differs materially from Regulation 18.
Eight Ash Green previously had PP31 for about 180 homes north of Halstead Road/east of Wood Lane and PP32 for 250 homes north of Halstead Road and west of Fiddlers Wood. Regulation 19 no longer lists PP31. PP32 remains at 250 homes and a new PP32a south of Halstead Road provides approximately another 250. The Submission Draft therefore allocates about 500 homes across PP32 and PP32a, with detailed requirements covering highway access, wintering-bird evidence and heritage mitigation.
West Bergholt also changes significantly. Preferred Options proposed 50 homes at White Hart Lane (PP42), 100 north of Colchester Road (PP43) and 100 off Colchester Road (PP44). Regulation 19 now lists 185 homes at PP42 and 185 at PP43, while PP44 no longer appears in the housing-allocation table.
Peldon previously had a 25-home allocation at St Ives Road under PP49. The Submission Draft instead allocates 25 homes south of Mersea Road under PP49a and 5 homes west of Maltings Road under PP49b. PP49a is accompanied by explicit biodiversity, heritage, landscape and wastewater requirements.
More brownfield sites have appeared in the plan
The Regulation 19 allocation table contains several new or newly explicit urban/brownfield opportunities, including:
- the BT site at Cowdray Avenue — PP50
- the former Land Rover site at Cowdray Avenue — PP51
- the BT Repeater Station at Guildford Road — PP52
- land at Chapman’s Farm, Nayland Road — PP53
- Sheepen Place — PP54
- land adjacent Lethe Grove — PP55
Colchester’s plan explains that the city has historically made strong use of previously developed or brownfield land, but that the remaining urban brownfield supply is diminishing. That is one reason strategic greenfield growth still forms a substantial part of the overall strategy.
North-east Colchester remains a major allocation
Policy PP9 at north-east Colchester remains one of the largest allocations, with approximately 2,000 homes. Following representations at Regulation 18, the council commissioned fresh independent ecology and landscape reviews specifically for PP9.
The 2026 evidence base therefore includes a North East Colchester ecology review, ecology spreadsheet and landscape review. That does not mean every environmental concern has disappeared; it means the Submission Draft is now supported by an additional evidence layer that anyone challenging or supporting PP9 will need to engage with.
The same principle applies more generally. A Regulation 19 objection that simply repeats an earlier objection without addressing the updated evidence may be much less effective than one that explains why the new evidence still fails to justify the policy.
Mersea Island gets more explicit caravan-park safeguards
The Submission Draft introduces Policy PP23a for Mersea Island caravan parks. This is a notable addition because it deals specifically with future expansion and intensification of caravan parks and holiday accommodation on the island.
The policy contains safeguards around habitats, dark skies, wastewater, flood risk and evacuation and cumulative effects. It also states that permanent occupancy will not be permitted and that conversion of touring sites to static caravans and lodges will not be supported.
That reflects the unusually constrained environmental and infrastructure context of Mersea Island rather than a general policy against caravan sites.
This is Regulation 19 — objecting now is different
This consultation is being undertaken under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. Colchester is still using the existing plan-making system and its June 2026 Local Development Scheme says the plan must be submitted by 31st December 2026 if it is to remain on that route.
The council describes this as the final version it intends to submit for examination. Representations should therefore address whether the plan is legally compliant and whether it is sound.
For soundness, the familiar tests remain:
- positively prepared
- justified
- effective
- consistent with national policy
Our guide to Local Plans explains the plan-making process, while our page on the development plan explains why an adopted Local Plan matters when applications are decided.
“I do not like this allocation” is not really the Regulation 19 test
A resident is perfectly entitled to oppose development because of its effect on their area. A landowner is equally entitled to argue that their site should have been allocated. But at Regulation 19, the useful question is why the plan is unsound or legally defective, and what change would make it sound.
For example, instead of simply saying “the roads cannot cope”, a representation might identify the transport evidence relied upon by the council, explain why its assumptions or mitigation are inadequate, show how this affects deliverability and effectiveness, and propose a modification.
A land promoter arguing for a rejected site should normally do more than say their land is available. They need to engage with the spatial strategy, sustainability appraisal, settlement hierarchy, site assessment, infrastructure and environmental evidence and explain why the chosen approach is not justified or why the proposed alternative would make the plan sound.
The same applies to environmental objections. Where the council has produced new ecology, flood, heritage or sustainability evidence, an effective representation should address that evidence directly. Planning Geek’s pages on Local Green Space and the wider conservation section may help identify the correct planning designation rather than using “green space” as a catch-all term.
If you want to be involved at examination, respond now
Colchester’s Statement of Representations Procedure says written representations must be received by 4pm on 13th October 2026. Late representations will not be accepted.
A representation should identify the relevant part of the plan, state whether the point concerns legal compliance or soundness, explain the reason and, where appropriate, identify the modification sought.
All duly made representations will be submitted with the plan for independent examination. The council also states that people who make Regulation 19 representations may be invited to participate in hearing sessions. If participating at examination matters to you, this is therefore the stage at which the representation needs to be lodged.
What happens after 13th October?
The June 2026 Local Development Scheme anticipates:
- submission to the Secretary of State — December 2026
- independent examination — spring 2027
- consultation on modifications — summer 2027
- Inspector’s report — summer 2027
- adoption — autumn/winter 2027
Those dates are a programme rather than a guarantee; examination timetables can change. But the December 2026 submission date is particularly important because Colchester’s own LDS identifies it as the deadline for keeping this plan within the existing plan-making system.
What should landowners, developers and residents do now?
- Read the actual policy affecting the site, not just the allocation map
- Check what changed between Regulation 18 and Regulation 19
- Read the evidence relevant to your objection or support
- Frame the representation around legal compliance and/or soundness
- Explain the change or modification you want the Inspector to consider
- Submit before 4pm on 13th October 2026
Although the NPPF was revised again in August 2026, this plan is being progressed under the legacy 2012 Regulations and the Submission Draft expressly says it will be examined against the December 2024 NPPF under the transitional arrangements. Regulation 19 representations should therefore address consistency with the national policy framework that will actually apply at examination, rather than assuming the August 2026 NPPF replaces that transitional position.
Primary sources
This article is based on Colchester City Council’s Regulation 19 consultation material, the Submission Draft Local Plan, the council’s August 2026 evidence base, the Statement of Representations Procedure, the June 2026 Local Development Scheme and the council’s archived Regulation 18 Preferred Options material.
Created: 29th August 2026 | Colchester Local Plan
0 Comments