1078
Councillor Mark Goacher declared that he had publicly objected to the application and as such would not be taking part in the debate or vote on the application and would only be speaking as the Ward Member.
The Committee considered a proposal for 8 dwellings consisting of 4 x 3 bed houses and 4 x 2 bed apartments (revised description). The application was referred to the Planning Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Goacher on the grounds of on-site parking provision, height of buildings proposed and insufficient changes from the previously refused scheme.
The Committee had before it a report and Amendment Sheet in which all information was set out.
Daniel Bird, Planning Officer presented the application and assisted them in their deliberations. The Committee were shown photographs of the site including the proposed entrance to the site and the current state of the site which was overgrown. The Committee were shown plans of the site that included the orientation of the dwellings, the impact of shadows on the existing dwellings, and the parking spaces which allocated one space per dwelling as well as 1 visitor space to be used by all occupants. The Committee heard that the proposal was in a highly sustainable location with access to the bus network and a short distance to the railway station. The Planning Officer outlined the additional conditions in the amendment sheet as follows:
- Condition 2: omit reference to drawing 203.03 (as it includes a flat unit which has now been omitted)
- Condition 4: Include wording to stipulate requirements for communal bin store (1 x 1100L euro bin and 4 x 360L euro bins), lock, and floor treated with impervious coating.
- Condition 15: amended to secure the access to Causton Road be maintained and remain available for use by the residents of the house units.
- New Condition: Communal Storage Areas: details of management company and maintenance of communal storage areas;
- New Condition: Construction Method Statement
- New Condition : Limit to hours of work: 8am – 6pm weekdays, 8am-1pm Saturdays, no working Sundays or Bank Holidays
- New Condition: EV charging points: 1 charging point per unit.
- Updated Recommendation: That the application be approved subject to the signing of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, within 6 months from the date of the Committee meeting. In the event that the legal agreement is not signed within 6 months, to delegate authority to the Head of Service to refuse the application, or otherwise to be authorised to complete the agreement.
And
That delegated authority is given to seek agreement to pre-commencement conditions (under the Town and Country Planning (Pre-commencement conditions) Regulations 2018 and to make non-material amendments to planning conditions and Section 106 clauses as necessary.
Andrew Jarvis addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in objection to the application. The Committee heard that there had been numerous applications on the site, with the application before Members currently of 9 dwellings which was a clear excess on the site equating to 66 dwellings per hectare with the development being closer to a staff conurbation. The Committee heard that the parking provision was inadequate and did not meet even 50% of the parking standards and noted that the surrounding area was already over subscribed in terms of parking permits and the provision therein. It was noted by the speaker that the new proposed scheme would not be able to partake in the parking permit scheme. Further to the number of spaces it was detailed that the proposed spaces on site did not meet the required width. The speaker concluded by detailing that the proposal would cause obstructions in Albert Street and that the proposed dwellings were too close to existing buildings with one building being 1 metre away from an existing dwelling.
Councillor Mark Goacher addressed the Committee as a visiting Councillor and Ward Member. The Committee heard that they had called in the application as they had significant concerns which had been voiced by residents regarding parking with only one space per dwelling. The Committee heard that ideally there would be more active travel but that the Committee had to be realistic in its deliberations that not all employment would be in the centre of Colchester and that there may be a need for more car spaces on site. The speaker detailed their concern that a disabled parking bay was not included within the proposal as well as concerns over the proposed folley as there was an issue regarding who owned the land. Further to this concern was raised regarding the role of the rubble alleyway leading onto Margaret Road and whether this would be improved by the proposal. Members heard that there were concerns regarding the loss of light to properties close to the site in the early morning and that there were concerns regarding the density of the proposal. The Ward Member concluded by detailing that the density of the proposal was a large concern and that the accessibility of parking issues had not been addressed.
Councillor Kemal Çufoglu addressed the Committee as a visiting Councillor and Ward Member. The Committee heard that the parking proposals on site were below the minimum standards and that with regards to the highways matters no consideration had been given to residents’ concerns. The Committee heard that the proposal should include further environmental controls and with all waste from the site being removed and re-used where possible and detailed that they welcomed the prior occupation condition regarding the pedestrian access to the site but questioned who would monitor and enforce this. The Ward Member concluded by detailing that the supporting data for the parking fell short of the necessary requirements and that residents’ views should be taken into account when the Committee was assessing the proposal which included a lower intensification of use of the land.
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 parking provisions were measured to a maximum level and detailed that the proposal was in a highly sustainable location and that it was deemed that the parking provision proposed was acceptable. The Committee heard that the proposal was in-keeping with the density of the surrounding area and that there was a slight shortfall in the scale of the development but that overall, this was considered acceptable. The Committee heard that a disabled parking space could be considered in place of the visitors space if the Committee were minded to approve the proposal and that the with regards to light and shadows there proposal had been assessed through the 45 degree rule and that there was not considered to be material overshadowing of existing properties. The Committee heard that the Council had received the correct certificates of ownership and that there was no reason to dispute this and noted that the access onto Albert Street would be retained for the sites use only and to allow refuse bins to be collected on Causton Road. With regards to improvements to the pathways in the area the Committee heard that the proposal did not include additional resurfacing of the Margaret Road footpath but that the application would improve the access to the site within the red line plan area. The Planning Officer detailed that the site was currently overgrown grassland, and that the removal of any waste was at the discretion of the developer and that the pathway to Causton Road would be maintained at the expense of the developer.
The Committee debated the proposal on the issues including: concerns regarding the parking bays in the immediate area and the sizing of the spaces on site. In response to the question the Planning Officer confirmed that the spaces were 10cm smaller than the standard width. The debate continued with Members discussing the number of permits that were allotted to existing residents in the area [2 per household], that the proposal was in a highly sustainable location, that the residents in the properties would be a self-selecting group as there would only be 1 car parking space available.
At the request of the Chair the Planning Manager, Lucy Mondon, responded to the points raised by the Committee detailing the different parking options that could be looked into on site to accommodate a disable parking space and the opening of car doors and confirmed that the Councils Parking Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) did allow for the reduction of parking spaces in sustainable areas.
Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the management of the folley and the possibility of fly tipping taking place in the future and whose responsibility it would be to clear up fly tipping up as the ownership of the land was not clear.
At the request of the Chair the Planning Manager responded to the points raised and detailed that the ownership certificates had been properly served as officers understood it and that a blue line plan showing the control and access to the Causton Road access had been provided.
Members continued to debate the proposal on issues including the communal space proposed for the flats and the how the management of this space would be ensured.
It was proposed and seconded that the application was deferred with authority delegated to the joint head of planning to seek amendments to the parking provision to enable the creation of a disabled parking space in place of the visitor space and to expand the width of the spaces where possible.
And that further information is requested regarding the status of ownership of the “folley” onto Causton Road
And that further details of the management company of the shared space for the flats be provided.
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) That the application was deferred with authority delegated to the joint head of planning to seek amendments to the parking provision to enable the creation of a disabled parking space in place of the visitor space and to expand the width of the spaces where possible.
And that further information is requested regarding the status of ownership of the “folley” onto Causton Road
And that further details of the management company of the shared space for the flats be provided.