Meeting Details

Meeting Summary
Planning Committee
15 Aug 2024 - 18:00 to 20:00
Occurred
  • Documents
  • Attendance
  • Visitors
  • Declarations of Interests

Documents

Agenda

Part A
Live Broadcast

Please follow this link to watch the meeting live on YouTube:

 

(107) ColchesterCBC - YouTube

1 Welcome and Announcements
The Chairman will welcome members of the public and Councillors and remind everyone to use microphones at all times when they are speaking. The Chairman will also explain action in the event of an emergency, mobile phones switched to silent, audio-recording of the meeting. Councillors who are members of the committee will introduce themselves.
2 Substitutions
Councillors will be asked to say if they are attending on behalf of a Committee member who is absent.
3 Declarations of Interest

Councillors will be asked to say if there are any items on the agenda about which they have a disclosable pecuniary interest which would prevent them from participating in any discussion of the item or participating in any vote upon the item, or any other registerable interest or non-registerable interest.

 

4 Urgent Items
The Chair will announce if there is any item not on the published agenda which will be considered because it is urgent and will explain the reason for the urgency.
5 Have Your Say(Hybrid Planning Meetings)
At meetings of the Planning Committee, members of the public may make representations to the Committee members. This can be made either in person at the meeting  or by joining the meeting remotely and addressing the Council via Zoom. These Have Your Say! arrangements will allow for one person to make representations in opposition and one person to make representations in support of each planning application. Each representation may be no longer than three minutes(500 words).  Members of the public wishing to address the Committee either in person or remotely need to register their wish to address the meeting by e-mailing democratic.services@colchester.gov.uk by 12.00 noon on the working day before the meeting date.  In addition for those who wish to address the committee online we advise that a written copy of the representation be supplied for use in the event of unforeseen technical difficulties preventing participation at the meeting itself.

These speaking arrangements do not apply to councillors who are not members of the Committee who may make representations of no longer than five minutes each
 
6 Minutes of Previous Meeting
The Councillors will be invited to confirm that the minutes of the meeting held on 25 July 2024 are a correct record.
1073

 

The minutes of the meeting held on the 25 July 2024 were confirmed as a true record.

 

7 Planning Applications
When the members of the Committee consider the planning applications listed below, they may decide to agree, all at the same time, the recommendations in the reports for any applications which no member of the Committee or member of the public wishes to address the Committee.
Full planning application for the erection of 18 dwellings with associated parking, detailed landscaping, sustainable urban drainage system (SUDs) and use of existing vehicular access from East Road via Brierley Paddocks.
1074

 

The Committee considered a full planning application for the erection of 18 dwellings with associated parking, detailed landscaping, sustainable urban drainage system (SUDs) and use of existing vehicular access from East Road via Brierley Paddocks. The application was referred to the Planning Committee as the application as the scheme is a departure from the Development Plan.

The Committee had before it a report and Amendment Sheet in which all information was set out.

John Miles, Principal  Planning Officer presented the application and assisted them in their deliberations. The Committee were asked to note the contents of the amendment sheet and detailed that a further comment of support had been received since the publication of the agenda specifically referencing the proposed Almshouses. The Committee were shown the plans of the proposal including the layout of the site, the types of dwellings proposed, and photos of the site. The Committee heard that the proposal included a new pedestrian link connecting up to the wider allocation’s POS provisions . The Principal Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the officer recommendation was for approval as detailed in the Committee report and amendment sheet [subject to a Section 106 Agreement and awaiting confirmation from the NHS that there is no prospect of the healthcare use being progressed on the land as per the amendments sheet]  

Harriet Vincett-Wilson (Applicant) addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. The Committee heard that the proposal would create desirable new homes detailing that place making principles, quality, and landscaping were at the forefront of the principles of development. It was detailed that no occupant or buyer had been found for the commercial building previously on the site had led to the application for further housing on the site which included 6 affordable bungalows. The Committee heard that the Community were consulted on the application, and it had led to the bungalows being gifted to the Almshouse Charity to manage. The speaker concluded by detailing that each home benefitted from a garden and that the Almshouse arrangement would need to be agreed through a Section 106 agreement to ring fence them for applicants who have a local connection and asked that the application be approved.

Councillor Carl Powling addressed the Committee as a visiting Councillor and Ward Member. The Committee heard that City and Country had listened to residents and the Town Council and confirmed that the proposal ticked all the boxes of the Neighbourhood Plan and detailed that the Almshouses would be gifted to a charity which was ready to take on the dwellings. The Ward Member then read out a statement from prospective Member of the Almshouse Trust as summarised below:

 

- That there was a pressing need in West Mersea for 1- and 2-bedroom bungalows.
- That the proposal had the full support of the Town Council which would provide financial support to the trust
- That the proposals would be affordable and would be reserved for the use of local people.
- That the Almshouse licenses would be for all people in the community and as long as they were on Colchester City Councils, Housing register and met the local criteria.
- That Almshouses were not eligible for right to buy. 
- That this would relieve some pressure on Colchester City Council’s Housing needs register.
- That the proposal was strongly supported but the local community and prospective trustees.

 

The Committee debated the proposal on issues including: that the applicant had worked with the Parish Council and that an agreement had been made regarding the proposed Almshouses, that it was disappointing that the local surgery was not taking on new patients, and that there was concern regarding the placement of parking spaces and whether there would be any electric car charging points. Further points were raised regarding the proposed Section 106 Agreement, whether any contributions could be made to the Town Council, and whether the Permitted Development Rights on the site should be removed. A question was raised by the Committee regarding the maintenance of the Almshouses and whether this would be via a management company. 

At the request of the Chair the Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised in the debate. The Committee heard that the proposal included allocated parking for each proposed dwelling which included an electric vehicle charging point, that most of the Permitted Development Rights had been removed already as detailed in the conditions, and that the precise form/detail of the Section 106 would need to be agreed in consultation with  Colchester   City Council’s Affordable Housing Team and confirmed that the dwellings would be provided at a social rent. The Senior Planning Officer concluded by detailing that it would up to the Town Council and Charity to be established to look at the management company and upkeep of the dwellings but as these would be at social rent this would be taken into account.

In response to further questions from the Committee the Principal Planning Officer detailed that all of the dwellings would have level access and that they needed to meet building regulations requirements and would be adaptable.


RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY)  That the application was approved as detailed in the Committee report and amendment sheet [subject to a Section 106 Agreement and awaiting confirmation from the NHS that there is no prospect of the healthcare use being progressed on the land as per the amendments sheet] Plus Section 106 to contain clause regarding wheelchair accessibility

 
Application for a change of use from former post office to a hotel and restaurant, including partial demolition of the rear of the PO building and erection of new rear extension. 
1075

 

The Committee considered an application for a change of use from a former post office to a hotel and restaurant, including partial demolition of the rear of the Post Office building and erection of new rear extension. The application was referred to the Planning Committee as the application is considered to be of high importance, involving the conversion and extension of a prominent and sizeable redundant building in the High Street close to heritage assets, and it being the provision of a Hotel of Significant economic benefit to the City Centre.

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 their deliberations. The Committee were shown plans of the site and the proposed development including an additional new walkway through the site. The Committee heard that two trees would be impacted by the site but they were on the boundary of the proposal (in neighbouring property), and were not of significant note. The Committee were shown photos of the site and heard that the proposal would include 75 new hotel rooms and had gone through many iterations to the point that the proposal was now acceptable for officers. The Senior Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the application was recommended that authority to approve was delegated to officers to approve subject to receipt of the Wildlife Mitigation RAMs payment.

Harriet Vincett-Wilson (Agent) addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. The Committee heard that the application had been submitted in 2022 and since then 8 meetings had taken place with officers to align the proposal within the heritage context of the site and confirmed that the proposal was 1 level lower than all previous iterations thus protecting the views of the nearby Church, Jumbo water tower and the Town Hall tower. The Committee heard that the proposal fitted in well with the City Centre Masterplan working to improve pedestrianisation around Jumbo and that the proposal had received the support of the economic development team and Heritage Trust. 

Members debated the application on issues including: the applicant’s identity and who the operator of the hotel would be and whether it would be the Marriot group, that there were many mentions of harm in the officer report and how this related to the conservation area. It was raised that it was unacceptable that organisations to preserve historic remains had not been consulted and that the scheme before Members did create harm to the area and surrounding historical landmark.

At the request of the Chair the Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised by in the debate. The Committee heard that the approval on site was not bound to provide the hotel and restaurant to one single supplier and this would be for the applicant to decide outside of the planning process and would also need to factor in market conditions. The Senior Planning Officer added that harm was mentioned in the report many times but that this was associated with the nature of the proposal and how this balanced with the other public benefits that were being created by the proposal.

The debate continued with Members discussing the design of the proposal and whether it was considered to be sub-optimal in the area and the surrounding landscape. 

At the request of the Chair, the Senior Planning Officer responded that the aforementioned point was based on the comments made by the Urban Design Officer and that this was an accurate reflection of their comments but reminded Members that the proposal needed to be viewed in a holistic manner with all planning considerations considered, including the public benefits of the proposal. It was questioned whether the number of bedrooms on the proposal could be lower however it was established that this would cause viability issues. 

Members continued to debate the proposal on issues including: that the building was currently deteriorating, that the proposal should include CCTV and lighting in the new proposed walkway and that there would be a rear entrance to the proposal for picking up and dropping off guests, and what archaeological safeguards were in place for the site. 

At the request of the Chair, the Senior Planning Officer responded that the Applicant would have 3 years to start the development on the site from the decision being issued, that if Members were minded to approve the application then CCTV and lighting for the proposed new walkway could be conditioned. Further to this the Senior Planning Officer detailed that concerns regarding possible public access to the roof were unlikely to come to fruition as it was a brown roof and was only available via a hatch and ladder so would not likely create noise or disruption. In conclusion the Senior Officer confirmed that the final archaeological arrangements would be determined based upon what was found on the site.

Members continued to debate the proposal on issues including the economic benefits of the proposal, parking in the surrounding area, deliveries that would be made to the site, and bin storage facilities.

At the request of the Chair, the Senior Planning Officer responded that the number of vehicles servicing the site had been provided and confirmed that no concerns had been raised regarding this including the use of vehicles to carry and deliver laundry for the Hotel and that if there were issues with this then it could be addressed through the service delivery plan. The Senior Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the bins did have a separate storage area and that they would only be presented on the actual collection day and that an informative note could be added to the proposal, if approved, to keep any archaeological finds in situ and on display where possible on site.
The debate continued with some Members expressing concern over the size of the proposal and whether it was in keeping with the surrounding area, that the proposal would help create a cultural quarter of the City, that there were concerns regarding noise being created from the proposal and whether any separate materials could be used on the roof of the structure to be in-keeping with the roof of Jumbo (copper).

In response to the points raised by the Committee the Senior Planning Officer detailed that there was a condition on noise relating to the machinery on site. 

A short break was taken between 19:23-19:30

Following the break further questions were raised regarding the proposed construction management plan, the archaeological conditions and applicant. 

A Point of order was made that the applicant’s or end user’s identity was not a material consideration which was accepted by the Chair. Following this, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation subject to receipt of RAMs payment  with the additional conditions and informatives as follows:

- That a CCTV and lighting scheme is conditioned for the new pedestrian link from North Hill to Balkerne Gardens 
- That an informative note is added concerning the display of archaeological finds in situ wherever possible.


RESOLVED (TEN votes FOR and ZERO votes AGAINST, with ONE ABSTENTION)  that the application is approved as detailed in the officer recommendation subject to receipt of RAMs payment with the additional conditions and informatives as follows: 

- That a CCTV and lighting scheme is conditioned for the new pedestrian link from North Hill to Balkerne Gardens 
- That an informative note is added concerning the display of archaeological finds in situ wherever possible.

 

 


8 Exclusion of the Public (not Scrutiny or Executive)
In accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the public, including the press, from the meeting so that any items containing exempt information (for example confidential personal, financial or legal advice), in Part B of this agenda (printed on yellow paper) can be decided. (Exempt information is defined in Section 100I and Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972).
Part B

Additional Meeting Documents

Attendance

Attended - Other Members
Apologies
NameReason for Sending ApologySubstituted By
Councillor Tracy Arnold Councillor Michael Spindler
Councillor Mark Goacher Councillor Kemal Çufoglu
Councillor Roger Mannion Councillor Darius Laws
Councillor Sam McLean Councillor Fay Smalls
Councillor Martyn Warnes Councillor Michael Lilley
Absent
NameReason for AbsenceSubstituted By
No absentee information has been recorded for the meeting.

Declarations of Interests

Member NameItem Ref.DetailsNature of DeclarationAction
No declarations of interest have been entered for this meeting.

Visitors

Visitor Information is not yet available for this meeting