Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.
If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.
You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.
SUPPORT Indigo Planning (Ms Alison Osborne)
Agrees with flexible approach to non-residential car parking provision. Clarify status of 2009 Parking SPD- same standards?
More details about Rep ID: 3084
COMMENT Sainsburys (Ms Caroline Huett) represented by Indigo Planning (David Hodgetts)
Sainsburys agree with the flexibility approach to non residential car parking. We understand car parking design remains the same as the standards set out in the 2009 SPD. This should be clarified.
More details about Rep ID: 3028
COMMENT Persimmon Homes (Ms Anna Davies)
Persimmon Homes does not object to these standards and welcomes the ability to relax these standards in certain instances.
More details about Rep ID: 2603
COMMENT Mr Andy Cartmell
Colchester Civic Society Comments:
A further Park and Ride scheme would be an important asset in achieving Colchester's aims. DM22 does refer to possible further Park & Ride sites but is unspecific. We also believe that there are indications from other towns, including Ipswich and, perhaps also, Chelmsford, that park and ride is not as successful as it was. We suggest that some town centre car parks must remain until the next draft plan in 20 or so years time.
Please see attached for full notes.
More details about Rep ID: 1951
COMMENT Economic Growth Colchester Borough Council (Elizabeth Flood)
The policy should acknowledge that for developments with high levels of affordable housing and/or small 1 or 2 bedroom flats, parking can be reduced given existing evidence that car ownership for these users is significantly lower than the general population.
The policy should clarify that sustainable locations where lower parking levels would be acceptable can include high density sites with good public transport even if these are not within the town centre.
More details about Rep ID: 1909
SUPPORT Mr Guy Williamson represented by Mark Liell & Son LLP (Mr David Coleby)
LANGHAM -SCHOOL ROAD (EAST) AND WICK ROAD SITES
We SUPPORT the general principles, but parking must reflect the specifics of the location and in smaller settlements where there are fewer options to car-borne journeys and higher car ownership can be expected, greater garage capacity and driveway provision should be entertained.
We consider that the occupants of housing in Langham, being a village with low frequency of bus services and closely located to the A12, will inevitably have a greater reliance on car-borne journeys and therefore cars and associated parking, and parking at higher levels should be allowed.
More details about Rep ID: 1834
OBJECT Mr Tim Nice
More visitor parking is desperately needed if Colchester is to thrive.
Read the whole comment.
More details about Rep ID: 1195
COMMENT Mr Phil Coleman
Car charging points
The current proposed policy does not go far enough in terms of a future proof policy regarding the implementation and delivery of car charging points. We know this is a major area the Government wishes to invest and grow so we need to ensure we deliver a policy which supports this. All new developments should offer at least one external car charging point per single dwelling property regardless of bedroom size.
Regarding flats, communial car parking areas should have at least 2 external car charging points.
More details about Rep ID: 1018
COMMENT Colchester Cycling Campaign (William Branhill)
Please see comments elsewhere regarding new cycle parking standards.
More details about Rep ID: 913