Land behind Broomgrove and Vanessa Ave

The fenced in area of land bordering the woods has been the subject of 2 recent failed planning applications.  Today I sèe a big digger etc in there today busily removing absolutely all the vegetation bar a couple of trees.  A veritabke desert of mud remains. 
 Anyone know what's going on please?  This lovely natural area is surrounded by housing and the woods and footpaths down to the river and railway crossing.  

Comments

  • Previous case, refused 16th May 17

    There is a second (identical?) case that's marked as 'Pending Decision' with the ID L162761. However there are no files on record on the CBC planning site for that ID.

    Either way, no decision has been made to approve works according to the CBC planning records.
  • I think the tree's have gone now too. Looks perfect for travellers to pitch up!!!!!!
  • To may knowledge (as chair of WTC planning commmittee) both applications were refused.  Planning enforcement at CBC have been notified this morning, and I'm told by our office are on the case.
  • Sounds like (even had planning been permitted) the Ecological Appraisal report was thrown out of the window - that advocated use of hand strimmers.
  • Thank you for raising this. 

    I have reported this to CBC planning and asked for an officer to investigate, monitor and possibly carry out enforcement if necessary. 

    There have been no new applications allowing development here. 

    I will keep you updated. 

    Mark 
  • Enforcement was called as soon as WTC became aware of this . The land had been cleared of all vegetation shrubs and small trees. 
     The impact this must have had on wildlife is brutal just by looking at what they have done 

    A membrain has had been rolled out over the entrance and crushed concrete has been dumped and levelled .
    pretty sure with the nature of this site a contamination report would need to be carried out prior to any materials being exported off this site . Given the fact that this is historic infill. 



     

  • I am not totally sure, but a friend of mine in the legal side of conveyancing is currently dealing with a sale proposal of a piece of land In Wivenhoe. Don't know if it's this piece or not, but only that the proposed  Sale Is to a group of individuals.
  • Just flagging up. Any access to this land has to be across a public right of way and I do not think any access has formally been allowed at any point in time. The present owner bought the land and erected the fence and put a gate in. There was certainly no access beforehand except people walking across the field towards the woods behind Vanessa drive. There had certainly never been any form of previous vehicle access. Just flagging up because of the prep for a possible grandstanding area.  The public right of way is a busy area as all the children walking from Vanessa drive, Britannia Crescent Spring Chase etc walk through there to reach the Primary School or to catch the bus to the Colne. Access is also down a very small short cuk de sac. Hardly appropriate for through traffic.  Currently used only by the 3 houses with drives abutting.  
  • Sorry. Couple of typos  Hard standing and cul de sac.
  • My understanding is the same as that of Mollydaisy; the entrance to the now devastated parcel of land is by crossing a public footpath. No permission for vehicular access has ever been given and, moreover, the access requirement by crossing of a designated footpath was one of the numerous reasons that the planning application earlier this year was refused. Beats me why the land owner thinks he can ride rough-shod over the planning authority.  If the land is ever made available for sale let's hope that any prospective owner is aware of all the facts.
  • the proposed development of this site, Environmental Protection records indicate that the application site is located directly over historically filled land (‘Vanessa Drive’). There is no  information on the nature of any fill in this area (but are aware of previous instability issues with existing properties in the vicinity).

    Consequently, prior to any decision, we would need to be provided with sufficient information to show that there are no unacceptable risks to relevant receptors, especially human health, which might preclude the safe development of the site.


    The land lies 

    outside the settlement boundary and development would be contrary to Core 

    Strategy Policy ENV1.



    As far as can be determined from the submitted plans the proposal fails to provide a reasonable degree of intervisibility between users of the access and those already within the highway which will constitute a danger to pedestrians and motorists contrary to highway safety and Policy DM 1 of the Highway Authority’s Development Management Policies February 2011.

     

    The proposal is therefore contrary to the relevant policies contained within the County Highway Authority’s Development Management Policies, adopted as County Council Supplementary Guidance in February 2011.

     

    Within the adopted Local Plan the site is designated as open space and lies within the Coastal Protection Belt. Core Strategy Policy PR1(Open Space) protects the existing network of green links, open spaces and sports facilities. Policy DP15 (Retention of Open Space and Indoor Sport Facilities) states that development

    of open space will not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that:

    (i) alternative and improved provision will be created in a location well related to


    The landowner has pointed out that the land is shown on the Colchester Borough 

    Local Plan (48) as a potential development site, I  feel strongly that 

    this development would set a precedent for enlarging the boundary around 

    Wivenhoe generally. 


    Let’s hope all that are now involved can put a stop to this and that the enforcement team make an example of the owner .


  • The landowner has pointed out that the land is shown on the Colchester Borough 

    Local Plan (48) as a potential development site

    The land owner made this claim in the recent failed application.  The land does indeed appear on the sites that were put forward in the call for sites exercise conducted earlier in the new Local Plan process, but all that means is that the landowner wants to develop it, not that the Borough considered it suitable. 

    The Borough's reasons for rejecting the most recent application for development can be seen here
    http://www.planning.colchester.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Decision-2467523.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=2467523&appid=1001&location=VOLUME1&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

    The rejection decision starts out by saying
    "The site is an undeveloped, open, prominent and vegetated area of land that lies
    outside the defined settlement boundary for Wivenhoe"

    Perhaps the clearance activities are cynically designed to cause it to cease to be a "vegetated" area.

    There is a considerable history of repeats of applications which have been turned down with the owners hoping (unfortunately some times successfully) that they will be third time lucky.  No new application has yet appeared for this site.  It may be that the owner has cleared it for entirely different reasons.





  • Having read a few of councillors statements regarding this site, I cannot believe how incorrect they are. Legal documents clearly show the site has vechicular access. The site has had a full environmental survey and habitat survey. In fact the owner seems to be doing nothing wrong. Old surveys even show the current owner owns most of the access.
  • Wasn't this where Peter Hill was considering building sheltered housing?
  • We did consider it for some almshouses but there where lots of difficulties associated wit the site. One of the principal ones was that it was outside the Wivenhoe Settlement Boundary as well as conflicts with various CBC policies for this particular area. Later, it didn't get included in the draft Wivenhoe Neighbourhood Plan as a site that should be developed.    
  • Funbags.  Are you able to reference your understanding of the owner's right to  vehicular access? There was no access previously. The owner put in a gate. The kerb is raised. The only access across that Right of Way is for Railway and Council vans who have the keys for the gate down the Right of Way in order to access the Venny and the Railway line.  If your only point of reference is the current owner making a claim, he has made several assertions that have been rebutted during planning considerations previously. 
  • edited October 22
    Hmmm....it seems to me that funbags999 is the owner, someone related to the owner or someone employed by the owner.

    That aside, as mollydaisy commented, the large fence and gate were erected by the owner where previously there had been a stile.  There never was, nor was there need for, vehicular access (other than by the council or the railway) and, as mollydaisy pointed out, there is no dropped curb to provide vehicular access.  As I mentioned yesterday, access to and through the metal gates is achieved only by crossing a designated footpath and that footpath and lack of any right of way were reasons (amongst a good number of others)  for refused planning permission earlier this year.  Nothing has changed in the interim.
  • funbags999 there is a big difference from a physical vehicular access and an agreed one in terms of this planning application. Highways would have to agree that planning permission for 3 houses, (that would have to have two parking spaces per dwelling), would be appropriate. Especially when this permission would mean access across a public right of way. Given the circumstances WTC cited highways access as a permitted planning ground to refuse the application.

    As for environmental surveys and habitat surveys, these are often necessary when submitting a planning application, but as has been pointed out, the site is outside the settlement boundary and this is what forms one of the grounds for refusal, which can be a more concrete point to argue than habitat.

  • Over 90% of house owners cross a footpath or pavement to gain access to their driveways. 

    I am not the owner, nor related or employed by whoever.

    i just do not agree with people making statements that are totally incorrect, especially the Wivenhoe councillor statements above.

    you yourself also state "lack of right away " again totally incorrect.

    i live very near this site and have followed the planning application,
    there was only 1.  I have read and seen ALL documents and yes spoken to the owner. In my opinion they have cleaned up the site nicely, and if a small bungalow or whatever was built there I think if would be good, as it would stop any further development, as the
    new building would close off the end of the cul de sac.

    furthermore I am NOT the owners friend, business associate, or whatever, just they have my support to improve the site, to which they seem to be doing.

    Perhaps the town councillors time would be better spent improving pavements and roads in the town


  • Just to confirm.  The path under discussion is not a footpath nor pavement. It is a Public Right of Way which is something very different legally.
  • I think funbags has miss-understood how this forum works. It is here purely to sound off....not to give other view points or opinions. 

    Maybe we should pool together and buy the land so we can return it to its former ermmm glory? Or should we be putting pressure on the council to buy it?


  • Funbags999
     WTC don't have a remit for roads and pavements, ecc do.
    Our understanding of rights of way and highways led to the recommendations made. If you are aware of any reason why  this is incorrect could you please elaborate,you also claim to have or have seen various legal documents. Can you post the proof, or links to the “legal” documents showing access etc to back up your claims .
    May I ask your qualification. You sound qualified to argue the point. if so we would appreciate  clarification of your position with facts on planning or highway legislation.

  • Think this sets out the relevant legislation. It is from CBC's website and is the recommendation from highways of Refusal 

    The Highway Authority raises an objection to the above application for the following reasons:
    As far as can be determined from the submitted plans the proposal fails to provide a reasonable degree of intervisibility between users of the access and those already within the highway which will constitute a danger to pedestrians and motorists contrary to highway safety and Policy DM 1 of the Highway Authority’s Development Management Policies February 2011.
    The proposal is therefore contrary to the relevant policies contained within the County Highway Authority’s Development Management Policies, adopted as County Council Supplementary Guidance in February 2011.


    funbags999 this is defiantly the second planning application for this site WTC has seen. Peter Hill refers to the first - it will have a completely different number if you want to take a look at it.





  • Hmmm...   I have another phrase for funbags999 'cleaning up the site':  environmental vandalism!
Sign In or Register to comment.