onionbagblog

A cursory look over the shoulder of the esteemed Planning Officers that support the Planning Committee at Colchester Borough Council, and whaddya know - the Big Three of Sunny Colch Planning are only lined up to be considered when the Committee next meets on April 26th.

We say the Big Three - we don’t mean three of the Committee members. No Siree, nope, not around here…

And it’s actually the Big Two, plus a slight whopper of a hyper hyperlocal issue of contention, for any readers that live over in the Wivenhoe side of our patch.

Let’s start off with the first of the Big Two, both of which involve our friends up on campus at the University of Essex. These BIG planning issues of late usually do.

Planning app 120109 proposes the erection [stop it] of a higher education and training facility comprising 5,550 metres of D1 floor space including ancillary facilities with associated car parking and landscaping.

Sounds kina sexy, huh?

What is actually being proposed in a new business unit up at the University:

“Under this planning application, permission is sought for the erection of a new building to house the University of Essex Business School.”

What appears to be the slight sticking point is that this project IS NOT officially part of the Knowledge Gateway, the building project that continues to grow day by day, all the way down as far as the muddy banks of the Colne.

The confusion is with the Essex Business School and the similar ethos of University income being generated by the Knowledge Gateway. It’s like Asda wanting to build a superstore on the site of @firstsite and calling it a slight extension of the proposed Vineyard shopping development.

Whoops.

The description offered up to the Planning Committee by the University boasts of:

“The scheme submitted for determination proposes the erection of a new modern three-storey structure (stepping down to two storeys at the entrance) that would take a crescent-type shape, together with some ancillary lecture theatre accommodation, contained within.”

Nearby Wivenhoe Town Council ‘aint buying it. The written response states:

“Although an exciting and innovative proposal, the Town Council considers that the parking provision for this facility is inadequate and expressed concern that this building was being built on a current car park, thereby presenting the reason for the multi-storey car park.”

Ahh - clever. See what WTC has done there? It has pre-empted the second of the Big Two planning apps, by saying that taking away car parking provision for the Business School will lead to an extra parking demand.

What’s one to do?

Hey! How about building a brand new multi-story car park along Boundary Road?

Blimey.

The recommendation from the apolitical Planning Officers at CBC is:

“It is considered that a planning permission for the proposed development may be granted in this case, subject to the imposition of conditions.”

Which brings us to:

“The construction of multi-deck car park above existing surface level car park; creation of new access to car park from Boundary Road to include taxi drop-off / pick-up area and relocation of existing compactor.”

Essentially this is a new car park for the increase in car traffic that the University is generating. This application has been called in by Cllr Manning of Wivenhoe Cross ward, who also sits on the Planning Committee, plus is also up for re-election in the Cross in a couple of weeks…

Cllr Manning makes the similar point as put up by WTC:

“This application should be considered in relation to the other University application for the relocation of the Essex Business School.”

In other words, what came first - the car park or the creation for the demand of the car park?

Clever lot, these academics…

Our friends form the University try and sell the car park app by dressing it up as:

“The approach to the design has been to create an iconic design through simplicity rather than complexity and the Colchester BC officers desire to see a building which exhibits a high degree of architectural integrity and logic has been taken on board.”

It’s all about bumper-to-bumper cars, stooopid.

Fighting talk once again from WTC, who are rather concerned about the increase in traffic that such a car park will bring to their hyperlocal patch:

“This Proposal fails to comply with the requirements as set out in the CBC LDF. It does not comply with the transport statement. It will affect an overload on traffic routes, produce congestion on roads and have the effect of a reduction in the University’s support of the use of buses, which in term may cause a very good public transport system to be reduced, or even lost.

The proposal is placed in an ancient park, damaging the amenity value of historic parkland depicted in John Constable’s painting, contrary to policy DP1 that states that developments should respect or enhance the landscape and other assets that contribute positively to the site and surrounding area. The visual impact of this proposal will be overbearing and present a monstrosity in a once beautiful place.

The proposal encourages car use. The University should instead be promoting cycling, as per their 1995 strategy in which their future plans were to reduce dependency on car usage by promoting cycling and installing a railway halt.

Wivenhoe has reached saturation point with car usage. Its roads are gridlocked and car parking spaces are extremely limited. This car park will encourage yet more car use.

In conclusion, the additional car parking provision proposed under this planning application is not objected to in principle. However, the scheme as put forward for Members determination does not achieve a standard of design that is considered necessary for this location. Furthermore, it is considered that the building would appear cramped in this setting due to its proximity to the existing sports hall building.”

So that’s a thumbs down from WTC then.

As for the apolitcal Planning Officers from CBC?

“In conclusion, the additional car parking provision proposed under this planning application is not objected to in principle. However, the scheme as put forward for Members determination does not achieve a standard of design that is considered necessary for this location”

Right idea, wrong location.

Which the same could be said of the not so big final part of the Big Three Planning trilogy that wil be debated en mass [oh yes] at Colchester Town Hall on Thursday evening: St John’s Ambulance Hall in Wivenhoe.

Oh Lordy.

Locals will be aware of the controversy that this particular app has generated. Being proposed is the demolition of a Victorian Methodist Chapel and the construction of a private pottery studio. A similar application was rejected in October of last year. This new application has been put forward in the context of the Wivenhoe Community Trust to take on the management of the existing building for community use.

It’s *ahem* slightly complicated, and probably not best to blog too much about it…

The apolitical Planning Officer’s of CBC are recommending this time that the demolition and new building be granted.

So that’s yer Big Three of Sunny Colch Planning for Thursday evening. The esteemed members of the CBC Planning Committee meet at 6pm in the Town Hall. This is an open meeting. It’s not exactly the most rock ‘n roll way that you can spend a Thursday night out in Sunny Colch, but it is certainly revealing in seeing how these very hyperlocal decisions are reached.

Now there’s a plan…