Local Plan

Niobe

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

Representation 1870 on Preferred Options Local Plan by Turnstone Colchester Ltd represented by Carter Jonas (Mr Paul Belton)

Support / Object: OBJECT
Document Link: Preferred Options Local Plan - North Colchester, Zone 2 - Cuckoo Farm North West
Representation: The reference to the "planning permission granted in 2006" is unclear, misleading and not aligned with the intentions of Policy NC1 and the Master Plan Vision Review for Zone 2. Reference to the planning permission granted in 2006 should therefore be deleted. The suggested text change is that paragraph 6.17 simply ends after the text "...allocated for mixed use."

Original submission

Turnstone Colchester Ltd object to the current wording of this paragraph. The reasons for the objection are twofold.

Firstly, this paragraph refers to approximately 4.25 hectares of land adjacent to the community stadium being allocated for mixed use. The area of Zone 2 as illustrated on the Proposals Map measures more than 4.25 hectares in area.

As the Council will be aware, Turnstone Colchester Limited has an interest in two parcels of land that form part of the wider Zone 2 area. These parcels of land are known as the "North Site" and the "South Site". The North Site is located east of the community stadium, west of Via Urbis Romanae, north of United Way and south of the A12. It measures 3.91 ha in area. The South Site is located east of the David Lloyd Fitness Centre, west of Via Urbis Romanae, north of Tower Lane and south of United Way. This parcel of land measures 3.28ha in area. These parcels of land are illustrated on the attached plan. With Zone 2 encompassing both of these plots of land, together with additional land parcels, the area of Zone 2 is well in excess of 9 hectares.

The purpose of paragraph 6.17 is to advise that Zone 2 is allocated for mixed use. As drafted, this paragraph is implying, incorrectly in our opinion, that only a small part of Zone 2 is being allocated for mixed use. Having regard to Policy NC1, the whole of Zone 2 is being allocated for mixed use. It is assumed that reference to a 4.25 hectare plot of land is in fact therefore a text error and paragraph 6.17 was meant to refer to Zone 2 as a whole in its first sentence. It is requested that a suitable text correction is therefore made.

The second objection relates to the explanation of what is "mixed use". Paragraph 6.17 defines "mixed use" as being those uses contained within the 2006 Planning Approval. It is assumed that the 2006 Planning Approval is the outline approval O/COL/01/1622. This outline approval granted consent for the football stadium (now built), a health and fitness centre (now being built) restaurant floor space, a hotel and employment floorspace. What Policy NC1 is in fact seeking are uses that include leisure and commercial space and ancillary retail. While we support the following part of paragraph 6.17 which states that the mix of uses within Zone 2 should complement the sport offer being provided elsewhere in the SEA, we do not consider that this will be achieved by replicating the uses granted by the "2006 Planning Approval".

It is understood that the Local Plan Committee has recently endorsed the Master Plan Vision Review July 2016 for the Northern Gateway, prepared by Gillespies. This Master Plan advises that Zone 2 should deliver a mix of uses that include a cinema, ancillary commercial use, a hotel, restaurants, food and drink, workspaces and residential. A broader mix of uses is therefore being promoted not only in Policy NC1 but also within the emerging Master Plan for the area.

Paragraph 6.17 is therefore at odds with the direction of travel of the Councils emerging strategy and should be redrafted to ensure it is clear and consistent with the remaining parts of the Development Plan.

The reference to the "planning permission granted in 2006" is unclear, misleading and not aligned with the intentions of Policy NC1 and the Master Plan Vision Review for Zone 2. Reference to the planning permission granted in 2006 should therefore be deleted. The suggested text change is that paragraph 6.17 simply ends after the text "...allocated for mixed use."

Attached Files for this Submission


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

Powered by OpusConsult

Related Articles