onionbagblog

A partial victory for the Queen’s Road Residents Association at Colchester Town Hall last night, where the Planning Committee met to discuss the re-submitted plans for Phase Three of the Cook’s Shipyard Development.

The Committee concluded by accepting the revised plans put forward by Taylor Wimpey, but also ruling out any re-opening of Queen’s Road for public traffic.

Disclaimer: I live *just* outside the boundary lines for the QRRA, and so the decision arguably also impacts upon my property. Truth be told, and it’s all rather lovely around here, even with the added traffic now re-routed past my house heading towards Cooks.

Anyway, about that Planning Committee meeting. Here comes the boring bit…

Being debated at Colchester Borough Council last night was the:

“Erection of 32 no. dwellings, commercial units (within Class A1 - Retail and Class B1 - Business), garages, off street parking, roads and footpaths, public open space, foul and surface water drainage and hard and soft landscaping.”

This is essentially the re-submitted plan for Phase Three of Cook’s. The good folk of the Planning Committee were briefed with the following notes:

“Members will recall this application was considered at the meeting on the 9th September 2010 and deferred for the Case Officer to negotiate additional parking for the commercial units and the inclusion of small retail units, the Highway Authority to be asked to reconsider the closure of Queens Road and to provide further clarification on their consideration of this application.”

Commercial space at Cook’s, as well as the traffic flow, was the initial objections regarding the plans put forward by the developer. Time for the Highways Authority to offer some advice:

“The Highway Authority has provided the following clarification regarding the closure of Queens Road:

“I have assessed the issues surrounding the proposed re-opening of Queens Road and would offer you the following comments. The current records held by this Authority concerning the original closure show numerous representations both in support and opposition. I have also been contacted by different parties wishing to restate their representations.

All comments regarding; traffic flow, types of vehicle, parking, road width, building type, access routes, intensification in traffic and so forth have been assessed in light of this current proposal. This Authority feels that reintroduction of traffic through this route would be detrimental to both the efficiency of the highway and the amenity of the local residents and therefore will not support the proposed reopening.”

And so there we have it - Queens Road will remain closed for through traffic. This was the wish of the QRRA all along, despite Wivenhoe Town Council favouring a re-opening.

As you were…

The more in-depth matter of Phase Three was then considered, with the meeting hearing the concerns of Wivenhoe Town Council on the wider issues regarding the development:

“1. Wivenhoe Town Council require confirmation of Right of Way and delineation of the boundary with the greensward.

2. An explanation of the Public Rights of Way transecting the Cook’s site.

3. Concern regarding street parking on main access road.”

Other representations came from the Colchester Cycling Campaign, requesting the:

“contribution to local cycling facilities as well as protection of possible future routes along the waterfront to Brightlingsea.”

The Wivenhoe Society meanwhile objected to the proposed 32 houses, noting that the original proposal of 31 houses was:

“far too many and considerably more than what was agreed at the outset was the maximum the infrastructure could sustain, notably the local road network.”

Concern was also raised by the Wivenhoe Society regarding the lack of on site parking spaces, drawing parallels with the old Port development, and the possibility of residents using the Sailing Club as a car park.

In a cutting comment, the QRRA added:

“The planning department know only too well the difficulties and bad feelings that have been created in lower Wivenhoe by Phase One and Two of this ugly and inappropriate development. It should also not be forgotten that Taylor Wimpey was originally committed to build social housing on the site but were permitted to build them elsewhere on a completely unsuitable site at the top of the village under some electricity pylons.”

Ouch.

And there’s more…

“It is really time for the CBC Planning Committee to begin to truly represent the needs and requirements of local communities and insist that Taylor Wimpey stop trying to slip amendments through without proper consultation. Once again they have shown a complete disregard for the strength of feeling of members of the local community who care very much about this once cherished historic site.

How this ugly development, which was never intended to meet the needs of local people, ever came to be built on what was previously designated as part of Wivenhoe’s Conservation Area is difficult to understand.”

Further submissions were added, including questioning the blocking of the river view from the lower end of the village, given the proposed height of the new development.

With reference to the recent fire at the Wivenhoe Business Centre, the Planning Committee heard how:

“Queens Road has a collapsible bollard specifically installed for emergency vehicles. Furthermore whilst the development will be accessed through the historic centre the access into the development is to an adopted standard with on site parking provision. The Highway Authority has confirmed that Essex Fire Service were consulted on the Traffic Order relating to Queens Road.”

Planning Committee meetings are notoriously dull, but equally of hugely significant importance. The devil, as ever, is in the detail. Which for Phase Three of Cooks, appears to point towards an overall increase of eight bedrooms across the entire site, compared to the original proposals.

Fourteen different styles of housing are proposed, ranging from “medieval buildings [blimey] to Victorian terraces.” Cantilevered projections on the upper floors, bay windows, dormer windows and classical doors, door cases, windows and decorative metal work are all on the agenda.

In terms of the impact on existing residents, CBC is of the opinion:

“Many residents will however consider that any benefits are far outweighed by the traffic generated by the development.”

Local businesses may agree with this, as long as the lower half of the town isn’t clogged up with traffic trying to escape from the new development.

In conclusion (and coming back to the original blog post theme of the continued closure of Queens Road…) the Planning Committee report recognises:

“It is accepted many residents have raised strong objections to the application and the original concerns about traffic have not been overcome by the package of highway improvements. However, the Highway Authority has recommended approval of the application.”

Which is quite a telling statement. The grievances of local residents are recognised by CBC, but it appears that the Highway Authority has had the final say.

The overall recommendation is to:

“APPROVE subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”

In other words, time to do the deal and take on legal representation.

You can read the full Planning Committee report regarding Phase Three at Cooks over here [PDF]

But probably not until after the weekend…