Report this comment
  • "Well at least the development company is getting rich. Shame about Colchester residents but it would appear they don't matter."
  • This field is mandatory
  • This field is mandatory
  • Please note we will not accept reports with HTML tags or URLs in them.


  • Enter the above word in the box below

Please be fair, courteous and respectful to the views of others so we can build a vibrant community in a safe online environment. You are personal liable for your comments and action will be taken against anyone who offends, ridicules or posts malicious and damaging views. If you wish to complain, please contact us.

Betts factory site to be put on show for residents

St John's Residents Association chairman Bob Dunston (left) surveys the plans in March St John's Residents Association chairman Bob Dunston (left) surveys the plans in March

RESIDENTS are to be among the first to see fresh plans for a 200-home development in Colchester.

Developers Lands Improvement will unveil their plans to members of St John’s Residents Association at the end of the month.

Ambitious plans, originally put forward earlier this year, were to build 230 homes, a care home and shops on the former Betts factory site, in Ipswich Road.

But after a public consultation, the company - which bought the land for almost £5million in 2010 – has cut the number of houses to 200.

Representatives from Lands Improvement and agents Strutt and Parker will meet with residents in St John’s Church, in St John's Close, on Thursday, June 28, between 2.30pm and 4.30pm.

Results of the March consultation show 18 people either in support or in strong support of Lands Improvement’s plans, with only four against or strongly against.

Views on the plans to include shops were mixed, with 12 in favour and 12 against.

Local Businesses

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree