Council Reports Planning and Highways Committee Over winter and the Christmas period, planning applications have kept on rolling in for this committee to review and comment on. One that we recently spent a great deal of time over, was the refusal of Colchester Borough Council, (a decision agreed with by the Planning Inspectorate), to grant a permanent vehicular access into the southern part of Chesterwell from Bartholomew Court, off Mile End Road. The applicants, Mersea Homes and Countryside Properties, wished to have some of the conditions attached to the original planning application for Chesterwell in 2014, removed. I went to the planning appeal, which was held in the studio theatre at the Mercury Theatre and was extremely impressed with the diligence and professionalism of the Inspector – he queried any point that he wasn’t clear on, and offered both Colchester Borough Council and Mersea Homes plenty of time to come back with further arguments. His decision, which was announced just too late for the previous Mylander, was that the conditions attached to the original permission to build 1,600 homes, were necessary to encourage non-car usage and support people choosing to walk, cycle or use public transport. This is fully in accord with the Local Plan, adopted by Colchester Borough Council. Although this appeal was dismissed, there will still be temporary access via Bartholomew Court for cars going to and from 160 houses. This temporary permission will expire when the spine road has been built linking the north and south sections of the site. Another decision yet to be made, is regarding Phase 2 of the Rapid Transit Route – otherwise known as the Northern Approach Road. This application, to incorporate a cycle path on the western side of the NAR, was made in July last year and has a “target date” of November 2021, but to date it has not yet been decided on, one way or another. There are over 90 objections to the design of this route, with issues around land ownership, the acoustic fencing and the potential removal of a pedestrian crossing to the south of the Mill Rd/NAR junction. We commented on this aspect that this would lead to increased footfall on the northern side of the junction – where the pedestrian island is already somewhat inadequate, especially at peak school journey times. Interestingly, a note from the Highways Authority, (ECC), said they had no comment to make regarding these plans! We await a decision. Also, currently awaiting to be decided, is the design for the remainder of the “spine road” 9
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA4ODM=