Could Dutch Quarter hotel be scuppered by judicial review? (From Gazette)

Good!

The whole process was a debacle. The planning officer bent over backward to help the developer get plans through. That same officer has done this several times in other cases.

There were over a hundred objections from residents, although at the committee meeting, the planning officer said that as these were essentially characterised as four broad areas of concern, then they were only really four objections.

The whole thing was a fiasco and I am glad that it will be looked into. I only hope that it finally results into a review of planning generally in Colchester ... but that is probably far to much to hope for.

I'm afraid 'There were over a hundred objections from residents' is irrelevant in planning law.

There are just too many very questionable planning decisions in Colchester, over the last 10 years, that must seriously place doubt about the integrity of some planning officers and in some cases members of Planning Committee. Not only in their approach to approving dubious planning applications but their lax attitude towards ensuring "conditions" placed upon applicants are properly upheld and enforced.

The norm for CBC is to impose conditions on planning applications, then allow the applicant, usually a developer with lots of cash, to disregard these.

Why,oh why didn't they ask to turn the place into a bar like,lets say, the old Law Courts & Old Libary by the Town Hall? then wouldn't have all this problem of having to justify creating something useful! When will people ever learn -Colchester is a Museum,surrounded by trendy bars?End Of!!!

I wanted to edit the above post, I missed a coupla words, but there are no buttons,but while I'm on the subject ,first we are threatened by fried chickens & Pearly Kings in Ipswich Rd. Then our own beloved potholed Dutch Q. is in danger of being visited by foreign hotel squatters & even people from Ipswich!!! Mausoleums all over the World have alarm bells ringing at whats happening here!!

Harry, I love your irony.

Why would they want to build a hotel in Colchester?

Has anyone told them it's past it's best?

They have now made the High Street a no go area after the shops close

But to be fair, they do preserve the potholes in the DQ.

.....for years!

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:
There are just too many very questionable planning decisions in Colchester, over the last 10 years, that must seriously place doubt about the integrity of some planning officers and in some cases members of Planning Committee. Not only in their approach to approving dubious planning applications but their lax attitude towards ensuring "conditions" placed upon applicants are properly upheld and enforced.

The norm for CBC is to impose conditions on planning applications, then allow the applicant, usually a developer with lots of cash, to disregard these.

It is now possible for councillors to advise planners on the best way to get planning permission. Many councillors have now set them up as consultants to aid companies. A councillor from East Devon said "I have access to all the right people, I don't come cheap , there are some jobs I will do for a £1000 and there are jobs I will do for £20,000. If I turn a greenfield into a housing estate i'm earning the developer £2/3 million I'm not doing it for peanuts.

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:
There are just too many very questionable planning decisions in Colchester, over the last 10 years, that must seriously place doubt about the integrity of some planning officers and in some cases members of Planning Committee. Not only in their approach to approving dubious planning applications but their lax attitude towards ensuring "conditions" placed upon applicants are properly upheld and enforced.

The norm for CBC is to impose conditions on planning applications, then allow the applicant, usually a developer with lots of cash, to disregard these.

I agree with most of this comment wholeheartedly, although the point I would like to specifically raise here, relates to the enforcement of conditions. If conditions have been set, then disregarded, the developer is in breach of planning. You should contact the planning office and ask to speak with an enforcement officer to outline the nature of the problem and ask them what they are going to do about it. If they say nothing, then ask why. Quote the exact conditions that have been breached to them and keep asking why they are not going to do anything. They will (ultimately if they fail to act) be in breach of their own policies and as they set the conditions. Any failure to uphold them is their failing and theirs alone.

Oh yes and before the usual council employees/toadies start trying to cite 'planning law' here, if the council is informed of a breach, they have to take some sort of action. The scale of action will of course depend upon the size and importance of the breach but if nobody pursues it, they will often tend to ignore it. From that perspective, it is all of our collective responsibilities to ensure that they do enforce conditions. Keep your eye on the process after planning has been granted as many developers will seek to take steadily more if they meet with little or no opposition.

If you read the printed paper you will see that the person who applied for the judicial review is a councillor who has experience as a barrister. She certainly knows a lot more about the law than CBC's own legal officer. She would not have applied for this without calculating the chances of success. Let's hope she gets it.

Having read the full story in the Gazette I support the councillor's stand on this if her claim is correct that the applicants misled the council.

I hope that the hotel does not get the go ahead. Just think how problematic it would be for residents to get to the top half of the dutch quarter with more traffic created with the high street being closed..!!!!

sandgronun64 wrote:

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:
There are just too many very questionable planning decisions in Colchester, over the last 10 years, that must seriously place doubt about the integrity of some planning officers and in some cases members of Planning Committee. Not only in their approach to approving dubious planning applications but their lax attitude towards ensuring "conditions" placed upon applicants are properly upheld and enforced.

The norm for CBC is to impose conditions on planning applications, then allow the applicant, usually a developer with lots of cash, to disregard these.

I agree with most of this comment wholeheartedly, although the point I would like to specifically raise here, relates to the enforcement of conditions. If conditions have been set, then disregarded, the developer is in breach of planning. You should contact the planning office and ask to speak with an enforcement officer to outline the nature of the problem and ask them what they are going to do about it. If they say nothing, then ask why. Quote the exact conditions that have been breached to them and keep asking why they are not going to do anything. They will (ultimately if they fail to act) be in breach of their own policies and as they set the conditions. Any failure to uphold them is their failing and theirs alone.

Oh yes and before the usual council employees/toadies start trying to cite 'planning law' here, if the council is informed of a breach, they have to take some sort of action. The scale of action will of course depend upon the size and importance of the breach but if nobody pursues it, they will often tend to ignore it. From that perspective, it is all of our collective responsibilities to ensure that they do enforce conditions. Keep your eye on the process after planning has been granted as many developers will seek to take steadily more if they meet with little or no opposition.

You are right....but dealing with the council and with planning enforcement officers is like pushing water up hill. It takes them months to actually investigate and in truth they just don't want to know. They come up with every excuse in the hope the problem goes away!

Has anyone ever got a positive response from Adrian Pritchard who usually totally ignores letters and emails?

One enforcement officer told me, in confidence, that they are often frustrated by applicants ignoring conditions but are advised, from above, not to 'rock the boat', particularly when the issues involve applications that bring jobs into the town.

Additionally CBC prepare, submit and approve their own planning applications, eg; Cuckoo Farm Stadium. They chose to remove previous conditions regarding highway and street lighting improvements on cost grounds to suit the budget. Now, 5 years after the development was completed, CBC say its ECC, the highway authority who are responsible and ECC say the improvements necessary were included in the original planning application and should have done then.

And the result...absolutely nothing!

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:

sandgronun64 wrote:

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:
There are just too many very questionable planning decisions in Colchester, over the last 10 years, that must seriously place doubt about the integrity of some planning officers and in some cases members of Planning Committee. Not only in their approach to approving dubious planning applications but their lax attitude towards ensuring "conditions" placed upon applicants are properly upheld and enforced.

The norm for CBC is to impose conditions on planning applications, then allow the applicant, usually a developer with lots of cash, to disregard these.

I agree with most of this comment wholeheartedly, although the point I would like to specifically raise here, relates to the enforcement of conditions. If conditions have been set, then disregarded, the developer is in breach of planning. You should contact the planning office and ask to speak with an enforcement officer to outline the nature of the problem and ask them what they are going to do about it. If they say nothing, then ask why. Quote the exact conditions that have been breached to them and keep asking why they are not going to do anything. They will (ultimately if they fail to act) be in breach of their own policies and as they set the conditions. Any failure to uphold them is their failing and theirs alone.

Oh yes and before the usual council employees/toadies start trying to cite 'planning law' here, if the council is informed of a breach, they have to take some sort of action. The scale of action will of course depend upon the size and importance of the breach but if nobody pursues it, they will often tend to ignore it. From that perspective, it is all of our collective responsibilities to ensure that they do enforce conditions. Keep your eye on the process after planning has been granted as many developers will seek to take steadily more if they meet with little or no opposition.

You are right....but dealing with the council and with planning enforcement officers is like pushing water up hill. It takes them months to actually investigate and in truth they just don't want to know. They come up with every excuse in the hope the problem goes away!

Has anyone ever got a positive response from Adrian Pritchard who usually totally ignores letters and emails?

One enforcement officer told me, in confidence, that they are often frustrated by applicants ignoring conditions but are advised, from above, not to 'rock the boat', particularly when the issues involve applications that bring jobs into the town.

Additionally CBC prepare, submit and approve their own planning applications, eg; Cuckoo Farm Stadium. They chose to remove previous conditions regarding highway and street lighting improvements on cost grounds to suit the budget. Now, 5 years after the development was completed, CBC say its ECC, the highway authority who are responsible and ECC say the improvements necessary were included in the original planning application and should have done then.

And the result...absolutely nothing!

Perhaps another Judicial Review is needed?