1004
Councillor Lilley declared that he knew the Agent on the application and that he had applied for an Almshouse with the Council’s Sheltered Housing Team.
The Committee considered an application for outline permission for the erection of 7 almshouse type one bedroom dwelling with associated parking facilities, alterations, and improvements to existing vehicular access and diversion of part of footpath 137. The application was referred to the Planning Committee as it had been called in by Cllr Nissen for the following reason:
“A resident has just recently contacted me regarding the planned building of 7 new houses off Brook Street – application number 222839, which closed in mid-December. This is on ecological and infrastructure grounds. I appreciated the date has passed for the call-in, and I did receive the notification as per process; would there be any grounds on which yourself as Chair and the Planning Committee would be willing to accept a late call in. The application had also been brought before the Committee as it was locally controversial and had a history of appeals on the site."
The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out.
Chris Harden, Senior Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee and assisted the Committee in its deliberations. The Committee were shown the location of the site in the red line plan as well as the blue line showing the land immediately adjacent to the site that was in the applicant’s ownership. The Senior Planning Officer detailed the access to the site and how it would be intersected with the public right of way which would go between an existing dwellings driveway access. It was noted that the proposed access had been amended since a previous scheme and had been accepted by Essex County Council’s Highways Department which had not been the case on previous applications on this site. The Committee were shown that the proposal would include the parking and manoeuvring space as well as a step and ramp system to the dwellings with the addition of terrace and amenity space. It was noted that the proposal before the Committee was an outline application and that there would need to be levelling on the site as well as the removal of some trees on the site which had been assessed to be dangerous. Members were informed that the Public Right of Way was significantly overgrown as seen on the photographs and the site visit and that the proposal would improve the security in the area near the access of the site. The Senior Planning Officer showed the Committee previous elevations that had been refused and explained the differences between the two proposals and confirmed that there would be a biodiversity net gain on the site. The Senior Planning Officer concluded by detailing the officer recommendation was for approval as detailed in the report.
Councillor Mark Goacher addressed the Committee as Ward Member for Castle. The Committee heard that the Ward Member had concerns regarding the context along the street and how the area was very polluted with the development adding to these issues by removing a green space. The Ward Member raised further concerns on the issues of traffic on Brook Street and how there were currently issues of traffic buildup and slow-moving vehicles. The Committee heard that they had further concerns about the removal of the trees on the site and asked for clarification on exactly how many were being removed, how many were dangerous and whether any silver birch trees were due to be removed from the proposal. The Ward Member concluded by detailing that their main concern was the pollution in the area, that the proposal would slow down the traffic in the area causing more issues, and asked that the application be refused on the grounds of the context of the proposal.
The Democratic Services Officer read out the statement as follows from Councillor Nissen, Ward Member for Castle:
“At the beginning of 2023 I called in the Brook Street Almshouses application on Highways grounds. There have previously been concerns and revisions of the development. Given Highways have subsequently resolved these issues in accordance with resident concerns, and the grounds for challenge are no longer applicable; I am happy to withdraw the call-in.
My thanks to the Committee, Chair, and Officers for diligent consideration of the matters.”
At the request of the Chair the Senior Planning Officer and Planning Manager responded that the Silver Birch tree on site was a category C tree and had been sustained damage and that there was no special protection for the species.
Members debated the application and queried why the informatives regarding the Public Right of Way were not added as conditions, the flood management conditions and the sites relationship to the Air Quality Management Zone.
At the request of the Chair the Senior Planning Officer detailed that 4 trees were detailed to be removed from the site in total as well as a small group of vegetation and which had all been assessed by the Councils Arboricultural Officer as acceptable for removal. It was detailed that the reservoir was safe and protected and that the site was on the edge of the air quality management area but not actually in it with dispersion modelling showing that the site would not exceed the allowed limits. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the Environmental protection team had been consulted on the application and that the informatives regarding the footpath were standard as they were covered by other Public Right of Way legislation.
Members raised concern that if approved then the proposal could change and have different sorts of dwellings than the one bedroom as currently proposed on the site if the principle of development was agreed by the Committee. The Senior Planning Officer detailed that if there was such a proposal then that could be called in by the Ward Councillor and then brought before the Committee for consideration, however the applicant did have the right to put in any subsequent application as they chose to.
Members debated the proposal further with some concern being raised regarding the landscaped space on the site and its possible use as public open space, whether the proposal could be conditioned that the site could only be used for almshousing, and whether any further trees could be planted on the site.
The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the proposal was for the open space to be private to the occupiers of the dwellings and that a legitimate planning reason would be needed to divert the private land to publicly accessible space. It was noted that the description for the development was for “almshouse type one-bedroom dwellings” and that these were private dwellings so could not be conditioned as such but did include the provision that they would only be available to over 60s. The Senior Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the provision of new trees that would be included on the site would be included in any reserved matter application.
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) That the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation.