PLANS for a quarry and the expansion of Colchester Zoo that threatened an Iron Age earthwork has been rejected.
Historic England claimed that Colchester Zoo’s expansion plan and Tarmac’s plans to extract 500,000 tonnes of sand could harm the historic Gryme’s Dyke.
The dyke was one of a series of large linear earthwork dykes that protected the important settlement centre of Camulodunum – now modern-day Colchester.
It may have been built as long as 20 years after the Roman invasion in AD 43.
Permission has now been refused for a new quarry, a decision which Witham MP Dame Priti Patel described as being “detrimental to the future of Colchester Zoo”.
Dame Priti said the future development of the zoo is “dependent” on a successful application from Tarmac to extract sand close to its existing Stanway operations But these views were contradicted by Terry Burns, chief planning officer at Essex County Council responsible for mineral extraction permissions.
Mr Burns said: “I don’t think she has read the report properly.
“She uses words like unlocking more quarrying. We are not at this stage and for future development taking place.
“Nowhere in this report are we seeking to stop the zoo developing.”
The committee said the application for the quarrying was “premature” given the land was not in the mineral local plan and a proposal for the zoo’s expansion was not yet published.
The application had been recommended for refusal due to the “harm” to the setting of cultural heritage assets.
Colchester Zoo has said it will develop its own expansion plans “over the next few years”. It adds that “early extraction” will enable the zoo to progress its own development plans.
Planning committee member, councillor John Jowers said: “What we need to do is separate out the zoo’s aspirations and Tarmac’s aspirations.
“I can perfectly understand the rationale behind it and it stacks up and makes lots of sense. But it is premature.
“We can’t do it like this and having had ten years on the last mineral plan and the call for sites and they are thoroughly investigated and we need to have a masterplan on it.”
A motion to refuse was passed with six in favour and two abstentions.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here