925
The Committee considered an application for the construction of residential development, access, landscaping, public open space, and associated infrastructure works. The application was referred to the Planning Committee as it was called in by Councillor Mark Cory for the following reason:
The application contravenes numerous Wivenhoe Neighbourhood Plan policies.
And
Matters relating to the Wivenhoe Neighbourhood Plan site location boundaries, as well as associated issues with traffic and transport impacts; the access road; Elmstead Road impacts including Broad Lane junction; cycle path position; adjacent land ownership must be confirmed as public (Councils) or Fields in Trust; quality of housing and environmental standards; ensuring affordable homes at 30% and a localised priority scheme for Wivenhoe.
The Committee had before it a report and amendment sheet in which all information was set out.
James Ryan, Area Planning Manager, presented the report and assisted the Committee in its deliberations. A presentation was given outlining the location of the site and the details pf the position of the proposed 120 dwellings. The Committee heard how the proposed dwellings were situated at the end of Richard Avenue and north of the power lines on site. The Planning Manager detailed the location of the proposed sports pitches and that these would not be under power lines and that the applicant had submitted plans for dwellings north of the power lines to ensure that the dwellings were of good design meeting space standards and not creating an urban environment. It was noted by the Planning Manager and the Applicant that this did not conform to the Neighbourhood Plan but that there was not any identified material harm identified by Officers created by the proposed 35 dwellings located to the north of power lines. The Planning Manager concluded that the proposal was weighed in favour of approval in officer’s opinion and that the officer’s recommendation for approval was set out in the Committee report.
Kevin Read addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in objection to the application. The Committee heard how the speaker was the Chair of Wivenhoe Planning Committee and that the neighbourhood plan agreed that the site required 120 dwellings but it was acknowledged that there were land ownership issues with regard to the southern area of the allocation. The speaker outlined that the proposal did not contain any 1 bed dwellings which contravened the Neighbourhood Plan and that the applicant should go back to the drawing board with regards to the designs of the dwellings as they were not in keeping with the local area. Members heard that there was no access to cycle paths or walkways that were detailed in the Neighbourhood Plan and that if approved the resolution should include further conditions regarding construction traffic and movements. The speaker concluded by summarising that the Neighbourhood Plan was supported by over 3000 votes from local residents and asked that the application be refused.
Samuel Caslin (Applicant) addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. The Committee heard that the site had been purchased in 2020 and the application before Members was the culmination of 2 years of collaborative working and outlined that the Neighbourhood plan was not subject to technical analysis. The Applicant explained that the proposal had been recalibrated from what was included in the Neighbourhood Plan as it was the only way to not created an overdeveloped area. The Applicant elaborated that if the dwellings had been concentrated in the allocation area then the application would not have accorded to the design principles in the Neighbourhood Plan. The speaker concluded by outlining that they had sought legal advice regarding the distribution of dwellings, that the proposal would be providing the sports pitches in the local plan as well as safeguarding the wildlife site to the east of the site, and asked that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation.
With the permission of the Chair, Councillor Andrea Luxford-Vaughan addressed the Committee. The Committee heard that the detailed red plan had not been shared with the Town Council and that the proposal before Members would be building outside the designated boundary in the Neighbourhood Plan and the applicant knew the requirements of the site including the constraints when they bought the land which included the attenuation basin which could be put underground. It was further elaborated that the land to the south of the site was going to be built on by a separate developer. The visiting Councillor concluded that the proposed development did not provide the necessary connectivity across the site and made the design unsustainable.
With the permission of the Chair, Councillor Michelle Burrowes addressed the Committee. The Committee heard that the proposal before the Committee was not compliant with the Adopted Neighbourhood Plan with 25% of the proposed dwellings being beyond the defined limit. She elaborated that the proposed tenures did not reflect the evidence base for the local need and that the upkeep of the open green spaces would be paid for by future residents. Related to this was the lack of green and blue infrastructure with the site giving prominence to vehicular movements and raised concern that some of the dwellings could not be served via a fire hydrant and would require sprinklers to be installed. The visiting Councillor concluded by outlining that the proposal did not adhere to the Neighbourhood Plan which was being ignored.
With the permission of the Chair, Councillor Mark Cory addressed the Committee. The Committee heard that if the proposal was approved then it would set a dangerous precedent with regards to Neighbourhood Plans and the emerging Colchester Local Plan. The Visiting Councillor elaborated that Colchester Borough Council supported Neighbourhood Plans and that the adopted plan in Wivenhoe had taken hundreds of hours to prepare and showed that 89% of residents supported development in the area. He confirmed that there were outstanding issues with Anglian Water, cycle paths being behind dwellings and that there was no restriction of Permitted Development rights. It was also noted that the sports pitches that were being provided did not have any additional parking or facilities and asked that the natural area should be protected via a covenant. He concluded by reminding the Committee that RAMs contributions were not paid to Colchester Borough Council and outlined that approving the proposal would set a precedent for future neighbourhood plans.
At the request of the Chair the Area Planning Manager responded to the points raised by the Have Your Say speakers and visiting Councillors. The Committee heard that the application was being assessed on its own merits and that officers did not consider that there was demonstrable harm identified by Officers of development being north of the power lines. He outlined that the sports pitches were a long way back from the power lines, that the additional space for the number of dwellings allowed for a more attractive development that would otherwise be cramped, and that there was the possibility of further development to the South. It was noted that the scheme did comply with the required housing mix in the Neighbourhood Plan of 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings, that Anglian Water had removed their objection, and that a management company would service the open spaces except the sports pitches. The Committee heard that the use of underground crates were a last resort for drainage issues, that it would be unreasonable to ask for further infrastructure on site for the sports pitches and that the RAM’s contribution would be paid to Essex County Council. The Area Manager concluded by outlining that the sports pitches were in a better position than originally proposed and confirmed that the removal of Permitted Development Rights was included in the Officer recommendation.
The Area Planning Manager responded to further questions from the Committee and responded that: there was no vehicle access to Elmstead Road except for construction purposes and that the Neighbourhood Plan required a single point of access, that the applicant had done an assessment of the site and found that it was not possible to provide a scheme that is workable within the allocation area which is why a non-compliant scheme had been submitted.
The Committee debated the application on the issues including: the design of the proposal including the location of the Sustainable urban Drainage area and the harm to the landscape. The Committee raised significant concern regarding the impact that that would have on the neighbourhood plan and the precedent it would set in the future.
RESOLVED ( BY EIGHT VOTES FOR and ZERO AGAINST with THREE ABSTENTIONS) That the application was refused as it was contrary to the Wivenhoe Neighbourhood Plan site allocation policy; failure to comply with the settlement boundary causing landscape harm and visual intrusion of housing in views from the highway to the north of the site. Further delegation is given to the Development Manager to finesse the wording as appropriate.