1071
The Committee considered an application for the erection of a business park comprising of 4248 SQM of Class E (g)(i)(office) Use and 141 Car Parking spaces. The application was referred to the Planning Committee as the application had been called in by Councillor Ellis for the following reasons:
“The proposal appears to have an overbearing impact of nearby properties, particularly those in Ford Mews. The height/mass and design might suit an urban site, but have no sense of place in this more rural location. The access/egress might have been suitable for the previous approved scheme, but I’d hope they were examined closely in light of this enlarged proposal.
Importantly, the incredibly broad Class E (from banks to bowling alleys) has a number of uses within it which would be totally inappropriate in this location. I would hope that any development permitted here could have conditions imposed against those inappropriate uses, including, but not only, cafes and restaurants”
The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out.
John Miles, Senior Planning Officer presented the application and assisted them in their deliberations. The Committee were informed of the changes as outlined in the amendment sheet and that a further objection had been received on the morning of the 25 July 2024. The Committee heard that the proposal comprised of 4248 SQM of office space and 141 parking spaces with the layout formulated to suit the end user’s requirements. The Committee were shown the plans for the proposals which had flat roofs and metal shrouding as well as the floorplans of the proposed development. The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the site’s history with an extant permission being of note for 3009 SQM of floor space use which was for a similar use. The Committee were shown the refuse plan for the proposal, as well as the parking strategy, modelling of sunlight across the site, boundary distances from the existing dwellings and proposed buildings, and photographs from the site noting the nearby commercial uses and the residential development adjacent. The Committee heard that the existing site access of London Road would be utilised, and that the proposal was considered to be acceptable on balance taking into account the extant permission for the site. The Senior Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the officer recommendation was for approval subject to conditions and with delegated authority to oversee the completion of a unilateral undertaking.
Holly-Ann Gathercole addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in objection to the application. The Committee heard that residents opposed the proposal and asked that the application is rejected due to concerns regarding the size of the proposal and the proximity to the boundary of existing properties. The Committee heard that Copford was a small rural village with listed buildings and that the proposal was not in-keeping with the surrounding area with the buildings being 30 feet tall. It was outlined that this would have a detrimental effect on those living in the bungalows next door as it would be overbearing and would obstruct previously installed solar panels. A further concern was raised regarding the privacy of existing residents from the proposed offices when taking into account the height of the proposal. The speaker concluded by detailing that the residents of Ford Mews did not wish to live in a concrete jungle and asked the Committee to consider the need for the development.
Robert Pomery (Agent) addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. The Committee heard that the site already benefitted from a previous planning permission and detailed that the proposals before the Committee had additional floorspace. The Committee heard that application such as this should be determined within 13 weeks however this application had been with the Council far longer taking into account the objections and using them to shape the proposal. The Committee heard that the statutory consultees were content with the proposal and that it was broadly compliant with the Council’s policies. The speaker concluded by detailing that the proposal had addressed the residential amenity issues as well as transport issues to the site and asked that the committee approve the application as detailed in the officer recommendation.
Councillor Andrew Ellis addressed the Committee as a visiting Councillor and Ward Member. The Committee heard that they had called in the application over a year ago and detailed that they felt it would be a red-letter day before Essex County Council’s Highways Department found a proposal to be unacceptable. The Committee heard that the uses on site were inappropriate and detailed that they were pleased to see officers weighing the policies DM6 and paragraphs 81, 92 and 94 of the National Planning Policy Framework NPPF (NPPF) however they disagreed with their conclusions. The Committee heard that they supported local businesses and enabling sustainable development in rural communities but raised concern that parking would be needed for the proposal in a rural community. The Committee heard that this was not supported by the Ward Member or local residents and detailed that the proposals would tower above the existing bungalows. Further to this it was detailed that the extant permission on the site was also not welcomed but the new proposal was worse and would not enhance the quality of life of the residents. The Committee heard that the if the Committee were minded to approve the application, they asked that the hours of operation be reduced with a start time of 8 AM as opposed to 7AM. The speaker concluded by detailing that the proposal did not comply with the local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan and asked that the application be deferred to look at the lowering of the blocks 1 and 2 in height.
Councillor Kevin Bentley addressed the Committee as a visiting Councillor and Ward Member. The Committee heard that there was concern on whether Neighbourhood Plans were being taken into account as it felt that they were being ignored and that this proposal would be industrialising the countryside. The Committee heard that the visiting Councillor disagreed with the view of Essex County Council’s Highways Department and asked the Committee whether they had seen the traffic modelling report as well as the environmental impacts that the proposal would have on the surrounding area. As such the Committee were asked whether they had seen the environmental impact report and if not they should request it. The Committee were asked to view the proposal holistically and drew attention to the size and massing of the proposal and asked who would be working there during the day as this would impact the existing residents as well as asking for further reports on the environmental impact and traffic modelling.
At the request of the Chair the Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised by the Have Your Say Speakers. The Committee heard that the site was closely related to existing development with the site benefitting from an extant permission and it was noted that the comments from the Council’s urban design officer were included in the report which detailed that the character of the proposal did contrast with the surrounding area and it was agreed that there was a degree of synergy with the surrounding area which included the proposed landscape buffer of 6 metres. It was detailed that the orientation of the building had been designed to minimise the overshadowing from the site with the main effects being early in the morning and confirmed that the first-floor windows would not be overlooking the existing properties which would reduce harm. It was noted that Copford was a rural economy and that the extant permission did already allow 3000 SQM of floor space so the additional 1000 SQM was not an insignificant addition to the permission. Further to this it was noted that there were strong transport connections to the site and that there would not be a massive influx of workers at 7 AM. The Senior Planning Officer detailed that the transport assessment had been reviewed by the Highways Authority which confirmed that no issues of safety or capacity had been identified. The Committee heard that the use of office space had gone through the sequential test and that this was not a rural site and was well connected to existing buildings in the area. The Senior Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the scale of the development was appreciated but confirmed that the scale was not that far removed from the extant permission and was not considered to be materially harmful.
The Committee debated the proposal on issues including: the size and scale of the proposal and the impact that this would have on existing residents, the history of the site including the extant permission and those that had been made in 2012, that the scale of the development did not reflect the site or the previous permissions and did not accord with the Neighbourhood Plan. The Debate continued with members raising concerns over the number of car parking spaces on site and how this related to sustainability as well as security on site and whether a gate needed to be installed on site to prevent cars driving around at night.
At the request of the Chair the Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised in the debate. The Committee heard that the increase in size was a material planning consideration and detailed that the application had been assessed against the Neighbourhood Plan and had been considered to be compliant. It was noted that not all employees would be from Copford but there were a variety of travel options available to get to the site as well as parking and electric vehicle charging provision on site. The Committee heard that it was the Officers view that this would be the maximum amount of development on site that would be acceptable and detailed that security of the site could be conditioned. In response to a further question the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the lighting on site was conditioned.
The Committee continued to debate the proposals on issues including: that the site had been empty for a number of years, that the development would not employ local people, the overshadowing that could be caused by the proposal, that the scheme should have the parking around the edge of the proposal and the main mass of development in the centre of the site, that it wasn’t right to impose the development on the existing neighbours, and that the proposal was not in-keeping with the Neighbourhood Plan.
At the request of the Chair the Senior Planning Officer responded to points raised in the debate. The Committee heard that the proposal would not displace existing car parking in the area, that the site was outside of the settlement boundary for Copford, that the site benefitted from an extant planning permission, and details of how the application complied with the Neighbourhood Plan were detailed in the report and that if there were issues that Members did wish to explore they would need to outline which policy did not comply.
In response to further questions from the Committee the Senior Planning Officer detailed that the question of need had come up a few times and it was noted that the sequential test had been applied to the proposal and coupling this with the fact that the developer would not be putting huge resources into the proposal if they did not think it would work it or have an understanding of the market added to the case for need. In response to a further question it was noted that the car club was for mobility of workers on site if they used other modes of transport to arrive on the site and detailed that the applicant may be looking at adding solar panels to the proposals and an informative note could be added to the resolution if Members were minded to approve the application.
At the request of the Chair, Lucy Mondon, Planning Manager, outlined that the permissions on site since 2012 and 2013 were for industrial development and confirmed that office use had changed since the pandemic but the local plan evidence base and forecasting detailed that office employment is projected to rise. Further to this it was noted that the proposal did include car parking but there would also be a travel plan coordinator as detailed in the conditions.
The Debate continued with some Members describing that progress was inevitable, that the provision of electric car charging points and cycle parking were welcomed, the boundary of the proposal with increased planting, the employment opportunities that would be create, the highways issues that could be caused with further development along London Road. The Debate continued with Members discussing the design of the proposal not being in-keeping with the area and existing businesses. Members continued to debate the proposal and the use of Supplementary Planning Documents on Planning Applications and that some Members felt that more could be done in terms of environmental sustainability measures.
At the request of the Chair the Senior Planning Officer responded to points raised in the debate. The Committee heard that the landscaping of the site included new landscaping belts and that that the proposal would assist the local economy through use of existing businesses along London Road and in Copford.
A short break was taken between 19:23 and 19:33.
The debate continued with Members noting that there were more buildings on this proposal than the previous permission and that the proposal had removed the green areas from the site.
It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred, and that delegation is given to the Joint Head of Planning to seek amendments to the parking layout on the site with parking around the edge of the site , and the mass of development moved closer to the centre of the site. That Leylandii trees are not included in the landscape plan.
RESOLVED (NINE votes FOR and TWO votes AGAINST) that the application is deferred and that delegation is given to the Joint Head of Planning to seek amendments to the parking layout on the site with parking around the edge of the site , and the mass of development moved closer to the centre of the site. That Leylandii trees are not included in the landscape plan.