Local Plan

Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

Representation 1319 on Preferred Options Local Plan by Jerry Morgan

Support / Object: OBJECT
Document Link: Preferred Options Local Plan - West Colchester, Stanway Area Housing/Other Allocations, Land between Churchfields Avenue, Church Lane and Partridge Way
Representation: Paragraph 6.73
As nearby residents my wife & I wish to object strongly to the proposal to build on the grass verge.
Firstly, it should not be built on at all. This plot of land is geographically part of Phase 1 & has stood as open land since completion.
Secondly, the bulk & density of the proposed buildings is such as would adversely affect the character of the neighbourhood.
Finally, as ever it seems dogma dictates that too few off road spaces will be provided resulting inevitably in overspill onto roads, pavements & verges. This proposal is self-evidently out of place & plainly wrong.

Original submission

My wife & I live close to this site & pass it most days. We object to these revised proposals for the following reasons :-

1) This land should not be built on. Council officers can wriggle & squirm all they like quoting this provision or that but the fact remains it should have been landscaped under Phase 1. They failed to ensure that was done & if it had been we would not be having to fight for it now. To then blithely sell it on to a company they knew specialised in affordable housing without any consideration of the effect on existing residents merely compounded the error. CBC has dropped a huge clanger with this but will never lose face by admitting it. Instead they are scrambling around trying to pretend that building here was part of the plan all along, not something that was sneaked through under the radar without notifying or consulting with those who will be affected most. Shameful.
2) The scale & density of the proposal amounts to overdevelopment of this particular location, where the neighbouring properties are 4-bed detached houses. These were part of phase 1 & the plot in question is located such that, geographically, it is clearly part of that. Any development, however regrettable, should reflect this. Showing 2 or 3 'rugs'(i.e. less than a carpet)of green on a drawing, dotted with trees that will take years to mature, doesn't ameliorate the loss of a grass-covered open space. If those trees are subsequently dug up by a utility company, as happened outside our house, any benefit is lost. The change of aspect for nearby residents will be immense & totally out of keeping with existing properties. Surely any borough planner worth his salt would visit the site, look at the plans & see instantly that they just don't go. Are we not entitled to expect some level of aesthetic discernment from these professional people employed at our expense?
3) Traffic will clearly be an issue. We deeply sympathise with the owners of the only house in Partridge Way who will find themselves opposite the entrance to a block parking area with all the comings & goings that implies. When that area is full they will then have the pleasure of seeing cars parked on the road/verge outside their windows - thank you so much CBC. Of course there won't be sufficient spaces for all the vehicles this development will attract because there never are - Phase 1 of Nightingale Gardens provides the perfect example. There are also too many junctions in a tight area for the increase in vehicle movements that will occur. The pressure relieved by the western relief road on the Churchfields Avenue/Church Lane junction will soon be back on.
Tinkering around the edges isn't going to make development of this site visually appealing or even acceptable within the neighbourhood it will blight. Those who have the power to stop it should do so & thus support the people they are supposed to serve.

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult

Related Articles