Progress and News (most recent news first)
Monday, 5th February 2007 - Parish Council Meeting
Councillor Peter Crowe confirmed that planning applications for (the proposed extension to Birch Pit and) the St Peter's developments had not yet been submitted to Colchester Borough Council's Planning Department but he will continue to monitor the situation.
Monday, 8th January 2007 - Parish Council Meeting
Councillor Peter Crowe reported that the Planning Department was still in consultation with the developers about the proposed development of St Peter's Church.
Monday, 4th December 2006 - Parish Council Meeting
Councillor Peter Crowe reported that no Planning application for the proposed St Peter's development had yet been submitted to Colchester Borough Council. He also advised that the Colchester Borough Council planning officer who had been handling this matter, Mr N McKeever, was off work due to illness and was not expected to return in the near future. Another planning officer was now responsible for the matter.
Monday, 6th November 2006 - Parish Council Meeting
Councillor Peter Crowe reported that Planning applications for the proposed extension to Birch Pit and St Peter's development have not yet been submitted to Colchester Borough Council but the developers were still in consultation with the Planning Department about St Peter's.
Monday, 2nd October 2006 - Parish Council Meeting
Councillor Peter Crowe reported that no planning application had yet been submitted by Courtland to Colchester Borough Council.
Tuesday, 19th September 2006 - Layer Breton with Birch PCC Meeting
At its meeting on 19th September, the Parochial Church Council (PCC) of Layer Breton with Birch discussed the proposed developments at St Peter's Church. Subsequently the following statement was published in the December 2006 issue of Parish News (p.3).
The Proposed Developments at St Peter's Church Birch
The Layer Breton with Birch Parochial Church Council has considered the above proposals as far as they are currently known. It considers that the plans are in three distinct parts which each merit individual consideration. The views of the Church Council are as follows:
The Church Building: The Church has been declared redundant and is now the responsibility of the Diocese of Chelmsford and the Church Commissioners. The Church Council has no influence over the future of the Church Building.
The Enabling Development: This development is a secular matter and not within the responsibility of the Church authority or the Church Council. It is a matter for consideration by the civil authority.
The Churchyard: The Church Council are concerned that whatever the future of the Church the burial ground should be maintained with reverence and dignity as the final resting place for parishioners. They do not wish that its essential character should be changed. When the developers submit their detailed planning application any likely effect on the burial ground will be apparent. It is then that any detailed plans will be considered in detail by the Church Council who will comment accordingly.
COMMENT: Although as a redundant church the future of St Peter's does rest with the Diocese and the Church Commissioners, might not the PCC have influenced any outcome by expressing a preference - either for the development of the Church to go ahead or for it to be demolished? Furthermore, most of us have no doubt that the essential character of the churchyard will be changed if the church itself is converted to a number of residential units. The statement is obviously carefully worded and intended to be as non-committal as possible. Perhaps the explanation is that PCC members understandably wished to avoid any dissension or conflict, conscious of one churchwarden's (declared) personal financial interest in the proposed developments.
Monday, 4th September 2006 - Parish Council Meeting
The meeting was well attended by a large number of local residents and by our Borough Councillors, Peter Crowe and Kevin Bentley.
Councillor Crowe reported that he had received a number of letters from local residents opposing Courtland's proposals and that he had spoken to Colchester Borough Council planners.
No planning application had yet been submitted by Courtland but Councillors Crowe and Bentley will advise the Parish Council as soon as one is received. When an application is submitted, Councillors Crowe and Bentley will discuss the proposals with the Borough planners and report back to the Parish Council.
Councillor Crowe reiterated a point he made at the July Parish Council meeting. From his previous involvement with the Birch Spire Arts Trust and his knowledge of the very poor condition of the building, particularly the spire, he did not understand how the proposed development of the church would be viable.
The Chair reported that the Parish Council had received several letters of concern about Courtland's proposals from local residents. There was particular concern about the graveyard. The favoured option for the church was demolition.
A letter had been received from the Diocese of Chelmsford and was read out. For fourteen years they had been considering the future of Birch Church. Initially demolition had been proposed but now they were still very much in favour of Courtland's proposals.
The Clerk read out a letter received from New Hall Properties Ltd (associated with Courtland Properties (Birch) Ltd) in response to a request from the Parish Council for further particulars about the proposals (see July/August entry below).
New Hall/Courtland completely rejects the assertion that there is overwhelming opposition to its proposals. (This is quite astonishing as its directors were present at the Parish Council meeting held on 5th June and could not fail to have noticed the strength of opposition.) The letter referred to the written comments made by visitors to the exhibition on May 19th, stating that 45% were in favour of the proposals. What the letter omitted to say was that this 45% represented a mere 14 comments in favour, out of a total of only 31 written comments. No doubt the positive ones were in favour of preserving the church spire but what were their authors' views on the desirability of six residential units within the churchyard and the two enabling developments?
New Hall/Courtland confirmed that it certainly intends to continue work on its proposals with the objective of submitting a planning application. It also said that there would be little point in undertaking further local consultation. Courtland clearly intends to press on with its scheme despite strong local opposition and does not propose to discuss the matter any further with village residents.
On the issue of a trust fund for the maintenance of the church tower and spire, the amount of funding is still to be determined. New Hall/Courtland's letter appears to suggest that the developer will provide all the funding for the trust but this is at variance with what Mr Edward Fairman, one of the Directors, told us at the Parish Council meeting on June 5th.
Councillors Crowe and Bentley explained that many planning applications are granted without coming before the Planning Committee. They will take action to ensure that any application for Courtland's proposals does come before the Committee. They also stressed the need for us to be aware that there are limited and quite specific criteria on which planning applications can be opposed. We need to bear in mind these criteria (available on the Colchester Borough Council website) when making representations to the Council.
It was confirmed that the sites for the two proposed enabling developments lie outside the village envelope.
There was some discussion about S.106 Agreements and their enforcement. There is a concern that if Courtland is granted consent for its proposals, the enabling developments will be completed but not the work on the church. At the June 5th Parish Council meeting Courtland assured us this could not happen because they would be bound by a S.106 Agreement to do the work on the church. However S.106 Agreements are normally in respect of infrastructure, such as roads and drains, or "planning gain" under which planning consent is conditional on providing additional facilities for the local community. There do not appear to be any precedents for a S.106 Agreement in circumstances such as the Birch Church proposals. Furthermore, there was the question of enforceability. If Courtland Properties went into liquidation or decided to cease trading after the enabling developments had been built, but before the church was restored, how could any S.106 Agreement be enforced (unless a bond was placed with the Council but that is likely to be very expensive for the developer because of the high risk involved in the project)?
Mid-August 2006 - Planning Application Expected Soon
It is clear from information provided by a highly reputable source that Courtland Properties Ltd does intend to proceed with its proposals despite the opposition voiced by local residents at the Parish Council meeting on June 5th. There is a strong expectation that by November of this year Courtland will have submitted a Planning Application to Colchester Borough Council.
July/August 2006 - Request for Further Particulars
During July, Birch Parish Council wrote to Courtland Properties seeking the information requested by local residents, as described below.
We understand the Council has received a reply and assume this will be discussed at the Parish Council meeting to be held on Monday 4th September at 8-00pm in the Village Hall. The meeting is public, as usual, and it is hoped there will be a good attendance by Birch residents.
Monday 26 June 2006 - Request for Further Particulars
On 26th June a letter signed by 21 local residents was delivered to Birch Parish Council. It formally asked the Council to write to Courtland Properties requesting the following information:
- In the light of the overwhelming local opposition to its proposals, as expressed at the Council meeting on June 5th, will Courtland respect local wishes and withdraw its proposals for Birch Church and associated residential development?
- If Courtland is not minded to withdraw its proposals, what further consultation will it undertake with local residents? Specifically, what forms will further consultation take, and when will such consultation take place?
- If Courtland intends to pursue its proposals, what arrangements does it plan to put in place for the future repair and maintenance of the Church tower and spire? At the Council meeting on June 5th Courtland indicated its intention to set up a trust for this purpose, into which it would inject some funds. The clear implication was that Courtland itself would not fully fund the trust.
What is the total sum of the endowment which Courtland considers will be necessary to provide an adequate income for the long-term future maintenance and repair of the tower and spire?
What sum does Courtland propose to contribute to the endowment fund?
From what source or sources does Courtland expect the balance of the endowment fund to be met? In view of the recent strongly expressed opposition to the scheme it would be unrealistic to assume any significant contribution from the village and its residents.
Furthermore, will Courtland explain who it intends should act as trustees of such a fund and how they are to be appointed? - In its invitation to the exhibition held on May 19th Courtland stated: "The current proposals have been extensively discussed with the Local Planning Authority, Colchester Borough Council, and with English Heritage". What are the names and official positions of those officers of Colchester Borough Council with whom the discussions took place? What are the names of any elected representatives (Borough Councillors) who were present or party to any of these discussions?
- Will Courtland confirm that English Heritage is not offering any financial support towards the restoration or preservation of parts of St Peter's Church, Birch?
Monday, 5 June 2006 - Parish Council Meeting
Directors of Courtland and the architect, Mr Sheppard, attended the Parish Council meeting, held in the village hall of 5th June, to explain their proposals. What they were not expecting, nor were most of the rest of us, was the large number of local residents who also attended. After Courtland presented their proposals, and subsequent debate, there was a show of hands to gauge the level of support for the scheme. Not a single resident raised a hand in support. There was a number of abstentions but the overwhelming majority expressed, with some feeling, their opposition to Courtland's scheme. For a very fair and accurate summary of the proceedings see the Parish Council's Press Release published in the July issue of Parish News and reproduced here on the Press page. On that page you will also find the text of the relevant minutes on this part of the meeting.
Friday, 19 May 2006 - Exhibition in Village Hall
Courtland Properties arranged an exhibition of their proposals in Birch Memorial Hall on 19th May. The text of the invitation to local residents is reproduced on the Circular page of this website together with comments. The exhibition was attended by representatives of Courtland, Mr Charles Sheppard the architect, and a representative of the Church Commissioners. The architect's outline plans for the conversion of the church and two 'enabling' housing developments were on display.
Very noticeable was the absence of any information about Courtland Properties (Birch) Ltd - who they are, where they are based, how long they have been in business, what other projects they have undertaken, or how they can be contacted. I asked one of its Directors, without much success, for information about his company. He did not give his name but, in answer to my direct question, confirmed that Courtland are the sole sponsors of this scheme. Why, one wonders, were the sponsors of the scheme so reluctant to tell us anything about themselves either in the circular advertising the exhibition or at the exhibition itself.