My Concerns About The Proposed St Botolphs Quarter Development

We have serious concerns about the proposed St Botolph’s Quarter development and having attended the recent public exhibition at Greyfriars by Alumno Group and Building Partnerships, those concerns have been amplified. The main development proposals are for a 90 bedroom (approx.) hotel next to the new Curzon cinema on Queen Street and for a 330 bedroom (approx.) student accommodation block on the former bus station site adjacent to Firstsite.  Our concerns include the following:

1)      The St Botolphs area is supposed to be a cultural quarter and yet the proposed development offers minimal new cultural facilities; only a possible performance space for Colchester Institute students within the accommodation block. Most of the development is student accommodation with nothing related to heritage and no additional public arts, craft or leisure facilities, which is a huge missed opportunity.

2)      The development is being sold to the public by Alumno as ‘mixed development’ when in fact is essentially a hotel and student accommodation block with retail facilities largely for students and hotel guests. The Alumno rep admitted that the retail spaces would be leased at a market rate (meaning expensive) to student-friendly chains of the Costa coffee and Nandos type (the rep actually mentioned Nandos). Given that Colchester desperately needs a low rent retail area to create a vibrant small business hub such as the Lanes in Brighton, this is another huge missed opportunity. Once again large corporate chains are being given priority over small retailers and local independents.

3)      This development proposal is being led not by the community but by commercial interests and profit maximisation. The local community has been invited to comment on the developers’ proposals but not on the actual use that the site should be put to. This therefore is not a truly democratic process. The public and local residents should be consulted by the Borough Council on whether student accommodation is the best use of this site.

4)      The density of the proposed development raises a number of micro issues. The North Building of the accommodation block obscures the view of Firstsite and Berryfield from the Curzon cinema restaurant space, while the Central Building obscures the view from the proposed new hotel. The height of both the hotel and much of the accommodation block is four storeys, as high as Firstsite. This is a much bigger and much denser set of buildings than the recently demolished building next to the Curzon and would totally block the view of Firstsite from Queen Street.

5)      The student accommodation itself is being pitched at the high end of the market. The Alumno rep flatly refused to indicate what the likely rent levels are to be, indeed she stated that it was against company policy to divulge that information. However she then went on to state that it would be ‘market rate’. This is a euphemism for expensive. This development is a private commercial venture by Alumno and not by the University of Essex. Not only does it contribute to what amounts to the privatisation of higher education and student infrastructure but it also does nothing to address the problem of high student living costs and debt. Furthermore, if as is possible, not all of the 330 bedrooms are let to students, due to the high rents, then it is possible that the accommodation could end up as high-cost flats.

6)      There is no social housing proposed for the site. Given that the Borough Council are constantly (and with reason) pointing out the need for more social housing in Colchester, this is surprising to say the least.

7)      Alumno have stated that none of the students will be allowed to have cars and that there will be no parking for either students or hotel guests on site. We welcome the fact that there is an intention to minimise additional traffic in the area. However this means that hotel guests will be told to use the Priory Street car park, putting additional pressure on that facility. Moreover, it is not clear how Alumno will enforce the no car rule regarding the students. When they were asked what would happen if students park cars ‘under the radar’ on nearby car parks, the Alumno rep stated that it would be up to local residents to report this. This raises the question of how local residents are supposed to identify whether car owners are students or not, how they are supposed to prove it and who would have the authority to approach drivers in a car park and question them.

Therefore we believe that the Borough Council needs to look at this again. The area does need careful and considered development however this should be led by community need as opposed to corporate greed. We believe that creating a vibrant, low rent retail area of specialised independent shops, combined with new heritage facilities and museum space would be a much better use of the site. Also if some badly needed social housing were to be part of a genuinely mixed use development then this would help towards alleviating some of the pressure to build on greenfield sites.

NIMBY? Not me mate!

Whenever I raise objections to some or other huge development on greenfield land someone invariably calls me a NIMBY, usually online. "Oh you're just a NIMBY', 'People have to live somewhere' and so forth. Lets examine some facts for a minute. Firstly it may be useful to throw in a definition of NIMBY (Not in My Backyard):

....a person who objects to the siting of something perceived as unpleasant or hazardous in their own neighbourhood, especially while raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere.

Hmmm. Let's start with the first part of that. I live in the middle of New Town, very near to Port Lane and Paxman's Diesel factory. I have never objected to the continued activity of the factory or to its location. Moreover a few years ago a large housing estate was built on part of the Paxman's site on Port Lane, Lenz Close and so forth, which I fully supported. It was an excellent use of this brownfield site and just the kind of place to put lots of new homes. Now you could argue that the new houses were not as unpleasant as the brick wall that ran down the lane previously. Fair point, however it still rather mitigates against the notion that Goacher just moans about new houses in his own backyard. Indeed the only major housing development really close to where I live is one that I supported fully. It improved the area and it is now both greener and more pleasant than what was there before. That is how utilising brownfield sites can work.
Now let's turn to the second part of the NIMBY definition. Surely no one could accuse me of not raising objections to unpleasant developments elsewhere. I don't live near West Tey, yet I object to that. I don't live near Salary Brook, yet I object strongly to concreting over that. I shouldn't be doing so if I was a proper NIMBY. I should be saying, 'yes dump all the urban sprawl out in the sticks away from me in New Town'.
Furthermore I like wind and solar farms. I wouldn't mind living near one personally, certainly preferable to a huge modern urban housing estate full of boxes and astro-turf lawns. They may change the look of a place but they don't destroy the countryside:

What a rubbish NIMBY I seem to be. For some real NIMBYism I'd suggest you look elsewhere. Here for example in today's Colchester Gazette:

A certain Cllr Young is objecting to the siting of a huge new town near to Wivenhoe, a project he previously fully supported in every Council meeting until the developers proposed moving it too close to wards occupied by councillors from Mr Young's own party. It is not just Labour councillors that behave like this. Conservative , Labour and Lib Dem councillors are all fighting to defend their patches and dump the huge urban sprawl on each other's areas, instead of uniting together in order to challenge central government and the developers. That, I suggest, is real NIMBYism for you!

As for Goacher, well I'd suggest that a better definition for me would be NIABY (Not in Anyone's Backyard). We need to develop more brownfield sites like the Port Lane site. Start with the former Odeon and get moving on that huge area of concrete near to The Range , off Cowdray Avenue. Meanwhile let's stand up to the developers who want to concrete over the countryside and green spaces.

Colchester Needs Investment in Health and Policing Not Cuts To Them

I nearly choked on my coffee last week when I read in the East Anglian that Colchester General Hospital plans to axe 240 full-time jobs by this time next year. The hospital was rated as “inadequate” by the Care Quality Commission in January this year.According to the East Anglian article an email has been sent to the 3,400 members of staff at the hospital in which Chief Executive Dr Lucy Moore said the trust faced financial difficulties. Dr Moore apparently said only non-clinical roles were expected to be lost and compulsory redundancies “could not be ruled out” but would be “few in number”.
Assuming that the article is correct, it highlights how outrageous the situation is in Colchester with regard to over development and lack of infrastructure investment to cope with it. It doesn't require a degree to work out that building thousands of new houses and sucking thousands of new people into Colchester and then CUTTING hospital jobs is crazy. I honestly despair. In particular I despair that our elected representatives are not shouting from the rooftops how mad this situation is and that we cannot take the 30,000 extra homes that are planned for us without a corresponding increase in healthcare provision. If I was elected as MP it would be one of the first things that I will raise in the House of Commons
But this is just one aspect of the current barmy situation which Colchester is in . According to the 2001 census, Colchester town's population was 104,390. By the time of the 2011 census it was 121,859. That is an increase of over 17,000 in just ten years. By now it will be even higher. Yet have we received a level of investment in our NHS, transport systems and police services to match this massive population increase? Have we hell. Central government now expect Colchester to take 1000 new homes per year with a main target of 30,000.
A recent article in the Gazette pointed out that Colchester's violent crime rate per capita is now higher than that of inner city Birmingham and Liverpool. Yet in a recent TV appearance with Jeremy Paxman, PM David Cameron admitted to a live audience that if the Conservatives win the general election then cuts to police funding will continue.
Therefore Colchester is expected to put up with thousands more people, thousands more cars but with cuts to NHS provision, inadequate investment in our police services and a continued lack of investment in more school places.
The situation is frankly bonkers and unfortunately none of our elected politicians are challenging this level of expansion. Moreover, while they all like to talk about us needing more infrastructure investment, their record on delivering it is minimal. 
The Green Party is committed to a massive investment programme in our public services to match any expansion. We will use the £80 billion saved by not renewing the Trident missile system to pay for this. In addition we will preserve our green spaces and challenge the mad drive for expansion and growth at all costs which is the root cause of the problems. Only the Green Party is serious about challenging the mess that Colchester is in at the moment.

Support the Campaign To Save Salary Brook Valley

Some of you may have seen the article in the Gazette (Thursday December 18) regarding the campaign by residents to have Salary Brook made into a country park to save it from development. Around 200 residents have backed this idea and I would invite all Green Party members and supporters to get behind this initiative to save this valuable countryside from the concrete.

Currently the Colchester East Community Association are campaigning to have Salary Brook named as an asset of community value due to its ecological value and the fact that it is a beauty spot. They state:

"It is a beauty spot with views of the valley from its ridges that are arguably, the best valley hillside views in the whole area (see the sample photographs).    There is easy footpath access to ancient woodlands, links to other well used footpaths through to Wivenhoe's natural amenities including its beautiful 'Colne river walk'.   Our valley has an air of tranquility, and an important wildlife population.   It provides a wonderful, easily accessible outdoor exercise amenity for all local people and their pets.   All of these aspects are irreplaceable and support our community's health and quality of life."

We simply have to defend our countryside from the unprecedented assault that it currently faces due to the government's reforms of the planning system creating a, 'presumption in favour of development' (ie a developers' charter) combined with the unacceptable targets for new housing being imposed on local councils by central government (the current draft local plan suggests building 21,000 houses on greenfield sites near Marks Tey and Greenstead).  We won't win every battle but it seems to me that Salary Brook is a prime example of an area of countryside with real ecological and social value that should be saved. 

Please cut & paste and circulate the 'Request for Support' email below. Then email the campaign team:

Colchester East Community Association (CECA)- ‘Save Salary Brook Valley’ Initiative.

We need to build our support (member) numbers to give extra leverage to achieving our future vision for this beautiful Valley. If you live near or come farther away to enjoy this lovely Valley, we want your support. Perhaps you could get sympathetic friends, neighbours, or other electors in your household, to send a simple email ASAP to :   ceca.countmein@gmail.com      and simply give it ‘Subject’ of ‘Count me in’ and ‘only if you wish’ add any thoughts you have on the issue.  

Thank you in advance the CECA team.

Below are some photos of what could be lost:

Overdevelopment in Colchester

It seems that Colchester is threatened with even more possible overdevelopment in the years ahead. Or to be precise the countryside around Colchester is being threatened. The latest possibility is that a 'garden city' could be built on the outskirts of town. 'Garden cities' are the coalition's equivalent of Gordon Brown's 'Eco Towns'. Such titles are examples of the kind of guff used by politicians when they wish to disguise massive housing developments as in some way being green or eco-friendly. In reality a massive housing estate is a massive housing estate. Another such disingenuous term is the acronym 'S.U.E' , which stands for 'Sustainable Urban Extension', which is.... you guessed it a massive housing estate, although with some infrastructure added on.
It seems that the possibility of a garden city has arisen because Colchester Borough Council has appealed for suggestions of sites across the borough that could be turned into housing or business land to feed into the council's Local Plan for development up to and beyond 2032. In the Call for Sites document, the council states:

"In particular, the councils- working together with Braintree and Tendering districts- would be willing to review proposals  for larger sites based on Garden Cities principles, designed to support infrastructure provision and sustainable growth". The council will accordingly work with adjacent authorities to evaluate proposals for land close to the borough boundaries that could potentially form part of a cross boundary development." 

Two terms in the above extract need clarification. Firstly councils and the government define 'sustainable' in an odd way ie not in terms of the long term survival of our countryside, wildlife and planet but simply as whether a bit of infrastructure, such as a school or new road is bunged onto the side of the massive housing estate. Secondly the term 'cross boundary development' resurrects the fear of a large-scale green field development on the border between Tendering and Colchester around Salary Brook, off the St John's estate.

Colchester has already seen massive development and expansion, much of it onto green field sites both in the town and on the outskirts over the last 20 years. The Turner Road area has been swamped with it and now there is the disaster which is the new Mile End development; thousands of houses built on green fields. It cannot in any way be sustainable to go on concreting over the countryside forever in order to use construction of buildings to foster a form of growth which disguises the woeful state of the rest of the UK economy. I've yet to hear any of the politicians who support this kind of development on green field sites, such as Conservative Housing Minister Nick Boles, say at what point such development should stop and whats left of the countryside protected ie  when is enough enough. Rather Mr Boles and his colleagues have simplified the planning rules from a document several thousand pages in length to one that is fifty pages in length, removing much environmental and wildlife protection, in order to encourage the destruction of our countryside. Now all large developments have to be judged via a 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' with 'sustainable' defined as, you guessed it, a bit of infrastructure bunged on the side.

The problem with planning and development in Colchester doesn't stop with the countryside either. While I, and the Green Party, fully support the building of homes on brownfield sites, the kind of homes being built in our town are too often inappropriate and more about developers' profits than quality. Massive ugly boxes with no gardens and no green areas are precisely the reason why so many people object to new developments being dumped on them. For example:

The ugly modern block of flats above was plonked on the end of Maldon Road against the wishes of many of the residents. It looms over the Victorian terraces around it and bears no similarity to neighboring buildings. Another example:

This is part of the new Brook Street development and is a typical of modern housing. Not a row of small affordable houses and bungalows with decent gardens but rather massive three-storey boxes built to maximise profits with tiny gardens and little green space for children to enjoy.

No wonder people object to such developments cropping up next to them.

As I see it there needs to be a complete turnaround from the current direction of travel that development in and around Colchester is taking and only the election of Green Party candidates can bring about that change. It is true that Colchester Lib Dem MP Bob Russell has a very good record as far as fighting inappropriate developments are concerned. However his party nationally, as well as the Conservatives, are responsible for the very planning reforms which are actually encouraging those developments. The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives who dominate Colchester Borough Council have a much poorer record on standing up against urban sprawl and countryside destruction. In addition, Bernard Jenkin, Conservative MP for north Essex, recently stated:

"Where housing development is to support funding for infrastructure we have got to be more open-minded. For example the A120 west of Colchester..."

In other words all a developer needs to do is promise to upgrade the roads nearby a bit or build a primary school and Mr Jenkin will support their massive urban spawl proposals.
As for the Labour Party, their stated aim nationally is to massively increase house building and I have yet to read or hear of any suggestion that environmental considerations permeate any of their thinking.

The simple fact is that only the Green Party has ecological concerns woven into its very political DNA. Colchester Green Party believes that housing developments should be on brownfield sites not over our countryside and wildlife habitats. If you are a Conservative or Lib Dem voter worried about potential green field developments next to you, then the only power you have over the coalition is to take their votes away. You can be sure that if elected to Colchester Borough Council I would fight the imposition of massive developments on green field sites tooth and nail, no ifs and no buts. Furthermore there will be no hypocrisy in terms of my position locally on issues and my position nationally. I think most people are fed up with the kind of politicians who oppose developments locally, or the closing of local hospitals, while happily trotting into the House of Commons and voting for the very national policies which facilitate such developments and closures. The only alternative is to vote Green.

Furthermore, The Green Party position on housing is to prioritise the building of affordable homes over the construction of massive expensive carbuncles. Brownfield sites in Colchester should not be wasted on massive houses, luxury 'apartments' or frivolous follys such as Firstsite. Colchester needs affordable homes, backed up with rent capping to ensure that all people get access to housing.