OWNERS of a historic hotel in Colchester town centre claim Alumno’s student flats development would do irreversible harm to the to the town’s heritage assets.

OMC Investments Limited, which owns Greyfriars Hotel and East Hill House, is officially represented as a Rule 6 party at the planning inquiry.

At the opening of the appeal yesterday the firm was invited to set out its case as to why the appeal should be dismissed and the planning committee’s decision upheld.

Meyric Lewis, representing the firm, told inspector Melvyn Middleton the firm’s expertise in similar regeneration projects across the UK meant it could add “significant value” to the appeal process.

He said: “The future of St Botolph’s is of such an interest and concern to OMC the company made a bid in 2013 to carry out a development of the area.

“But the bid did not proceed because of the council’s want to see Curzon cinema developed separately.

“It is not a disappointed commercial competitor, on the contrary, the firm’s only concern is to see the site regenerated successfully in a manner suiting with its exceptionally high value and to benefit the historic assets in the immediate vicinity.

“St Botolph’s contains a number of conservation and heritage assets of the highest value reflecting Colchester as a town being richer than most.”

Mr Lewis told the inquiry OMC believes Alumno’s proposals were not aspirational enough for the site.

He said: “The proposals come across as though they are reactive to barriers rather than reflecting a historic and integrated vision to aspire to.

“The approach has led to a retrofitting of elements into the space, leading to a development which has more in common with the negative elements of the area rather than the objective to create a high quality Cultural Quarter.”

The firm also claims the scheme includes too much student accommodation, 336 rooms, for its location.

He continued: “Many of these problems were expressed by interested parties whose views were not taken on board despite the applicant revising the plans before the appeal scheme.

“The scheme is harmful to the area and there are no public benefits which outweigh the harm.

“In due course, in conjunction with the council and the many objectors, we respectfully request the appeal is dismissed.”