268
Mark Goacher addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) on behalf of a number of residents of Castle ward who had expressed concern about the proposed new development at St Botolphs. The Council had promised to develop the area into a cultural quarter. However, the plans proposed a block of student housing which would dominate the area. Concerns had been expressed across all political groups. The proposals included no cultural facilities and were driven by profit. There were major concerns in particular about the size and density of the development. It would block views of Firstsite from Queen Street. The Council should listen to the views of the local community about the future development of the Cultural Quarter, particularly those who cared about the arts.
Councillor Barlow, Portfolio Holder for Commercial Services, responded and explained that proposals for the redevelopment of the area had been discussed since he was first elected in 2007. The original proposals brought forward in 2007 were almost identical in terms of size and mass. It was always envisaged that there would be a residential element to the development. This was a major redevelopment of a brownfield site, and would bring investment and footfall to the Cultural Quarter.
Councillor T. Young, Portfolio Holder for Business and Culture, also responded and stressed that the development would add to the Cultural Quarter. It would provide accommodation for students at the University or the Institute studying the arts .The development would include a performance arts space and would have an art curator. Improved drawing of the development would be produced. The Council would listen to the concerns that had been raised and design changes would be made. The alternative was to start again which would only lead to further delays in the development of the Cultural Quarter.
Victoria Weaver addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) in support of the principle of unitary authorities. A unitary authority made government truly local. Unitary authorities also reduced bureaucracy, brought services together and allowed for better strategic decision making, which in turn would strengthened the local business environment. The Policy Review Panel should look at a strategy for the establishment of Colchester as a unitary authority.
Councillor Cory, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and explained that he believed there were advantages to unitary authorities, and suggested that she might raise the idea with the Policy and Public Initiatives Panel. He also highlighted that the Council was seeking to work more closely with Essex County Council.
John Akker addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5). He noted that this was an historic date as it was the 100th anniversary of the birth of Nelson Mandela. A number of members of Council had spoken about the need to drive party politics out of the Local Plan process and he called on Council to make this a reality. The process needed a consensus across all groups, not just the ruling group, and whole Council support: It was not just a matter for the Local Plan Committee. The Council should also seek to work with and engage community groups and build a consensus with them. The existing Local Plan had some rough edges to it. For example, it was noted that the allocation of new homes for Mersea Island was 200 new homes over two sites, but he understood that it had been stated at a training event that if the Local Plan were approved, planners would press for greater numbers if the sites could take a greater density of housing.
Councillor T. Young, Portfolio Holder for Business and Culture, explained that some of the matters raised were for the Local Plan Committee. He understood that point on the 2 sites issue was incorrect, but he would ask that this be clarified. The Local Plan would come to Full Council for approval and all members would have the opportunity to vote on it. Together with the Leader of the Council he would be holding a listening session with community groups in the near future, and the views expressed would be fed into the Local Plan process.
Mr Orton addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) to raise concerns about the service an elderly tenant had received after reporting an issue with her accommodation. She had been given incorrect advice and had to wait an unacceptably long time for repairs. This was contrary to the Council’s repairs policy and the Council’s housing policies needed to be looked at again. He had sought to discuss the matter with the Portfolio Holder but had not received a response.
Councillor Bourne, Portfolio Holder for Housing and Communities responded and explained it would not be appropriate to discuss the full details of the case at a Council meeting. However she was satisfied that the right policies had been in place and had been followed. The issue had now been resolved, although it was accepted that it could have been resolved more quickly.