1083
The Committee considered an application for redevelopment of the site to provide 203 residential units and approximately 160sqm of commercial floorspace with associated access, public open space, landscaping, car and cycle parking, and associated infrastructure. The application was referred to the Planning Committee as it had been called in by Cllr Pam Cox for the following reasons:
1. There are significant local concerns about traffic and the adequacy of the developers’ submitted Travel Management Plan.
2. New evidence has come to light about the national historical significance of some of the remaining garrison buildings on site. The developer’s proposals to demolish some of these buildings are at variance with Colchester City Council’s Development Brief for the site.
3. The proposed scheme fails to enhance the setting of and public realm vision for the Roman Circus, a unique heritage asset for Colchester of national significance.
Furthermore, the proposals fail to deliver a policy compliant proportion of affordable homes due to viability issues have been subject to independent assessment.
The Committee had before it a report and Amendment Sheet in which all information was set out.
Prior to consideration of the application the Chair explained their reasons for allowing additional speakers on the application before the Committee as follows:
“The Committee meeting this evening is a single item agenda and we are considering a Major application of 200 houses within the context of a scheduled monument of international importance. Cllr Cox has been deeply involved in the development and has engaged with the civic society and its membership to ensure that these voices are heard.
The allowing of additional speakers is in an equitable way whereby supporters and objectors will be allowed the same amount of time to speak and will not set a precedent going forward as the Committee are looking at a unique site with unique issues based around the Roman Circus , the remainder of which may be considered at further committees in the future where again each proposal will be assessed on its planning merits. This application is not without significant interest as 60 objections have been made and although planning is not a popularity contest it provides a litmus test of the controversial nature of the site and as such on this occasion I have allowed for 2 speakers to address the Committee for and against the proposal.”
The Chair reminded the Committee that when making any proposals for Committee they must consider:
- For approval – that additional conditions and informatives are considered and included within the final recommendation
- For Deferral – that this should not be used to redesign the scheme but should be used to request further information if that information is required for the Committee to make a decision.
- For refusal – that Members must explain their reasons for refusal using specific policy references to material planning considerations and that it was not for officers to come up with reasons for refusal but to distil Members reasons after they have been conveyed into a workable decision notice. Further to this the Chair noted that under the DROP procedure the Chair had the power to defer the application to seek a report from the Joint Head of Planning should there be concern over significant risks with the proposal put forward.
Nadine Calder, Principal Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee and assisted them in their deliberations. The Committee heard that the proposal met the ABRO site development brief and that two affordable housing options were presented to the Committee as follows:
1. Policy compliant contributions except for a reduced number of affordable housing
2. Policy compliant contributions be re-allocated to secure an additional small number of affordable housing.
The Committee heard that the site was subject to a Supplementary Planning Document and that it was proposed that there would be a ten-metre buffer zone to the scheduled ancient monument and that there are other listed buildings on site including the folley wall and locally listed buildings. The Committee heard that the proposal was made up of a mix of housing which had been amended over time and through consultations to what was presented to the Committee. It was noted that the positioning of the block of flats in the western corner referenced the historic layout of the site where the former barracks used to be. The Committee heard that there was reduced parking provision on site due to the sustainable location of the site and noted that the site would be subject to parking permits in excess of the parking provided and that there would be electric car charging facilities. The Principal Planning Officer presented the different types of houses to the Committee and detailed that the proposal was policy compliant with the limited amount of affordable housing on site. It was outlined that this lower level of affordable housing was due to the viability of the proposal that had been independently assessed but confirmed that the proposal would be subject to a viability review. The Committee heard that the amendment sheet detailed that Place Services (Ecology) had withdrawn their holding objection and confirmed that they were satisfied that there was sufficient Ecological information subject to five conditions. Further to this it was noted that there was an amendment to condition 3 to provide an archaeological outreach programme with two public open days and a weekend day so that local residents could observe the investigation as well as provide outreach lectures and get involved at schools within the area. The Principal Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the officer recommendation was for approval as detailed in the committee report and amendment sheet with additional conditions associated with archaeology.
John Burton MBE addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in objection to the application. The Committee heard that the work of the late Alistair Day was supported by the Civic Society through the Supplementary Planning Document but detailed that the proposal before the Committee ignored that design brief with the proposal before the Committee being a missed opportunity. The speaker elaborated that alternatives were required to create wealth generating tourist opportunities and that the proposal had some critical errors in the proposal with regards to ventilation and building regulations that needed to be adhered to avoid a further Grenfell style tragedy. The Committee heard that the Highways had not considered the implications of the proposal, and that no consultation had taken place with the headmaster of the nearest school.
Edward Barratt addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in objection to the application. The Committee heard that they had reviewed the transport assessment and detailed that they did not recognise this in comparison to the reality of the situation or that users’ concerns were being acknowledged and detailed that they had contacted a traffic engineer who detailed that the proposal lacked information for modelling. The speaker detailed that Flagstaff Road’s width was an issue with it being likely that larger vehicles such as Fire Engines would have to mount the pavements and would put pedestrians at risk. The Committee heard that the proposal would destroy part of the green link with 18 trees some benefitting from Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) would be destroyed, leading to a detrimental impact on biodiversity.
Carl Glossop (Applicant) addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. The Committee heard that the application before the Committee was allocated in the Local Plan and had conformed with the allocation and requirements of the development brief. The Committee heard that the proposal had a mix of housing on it and thanked the consultees and officers for their work on the scheme noting that the design reflected the former user of the site whilst taking into account the Roman Circus. The speaker elaborated that the concerns raised regarding construction management could be mitigated and that the points regarding the impact on junctions had been assessed and addressed. The speaker concluded by detailing that there had been agreement on the heritage impact on the site and that the site would provide an opportunity to deliver on the Local Plan allocation as well as enhancing the heritage offer.
Duncan Hawkins addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. The Committee heard that there was huge potential for the proposal and that the proposed works would consolidate the Roman Circus portion of the site in situ as well as providing museum quality information panels. The Committee heard that the proposal would be memorialising what had previously been on the site but that this came with significant challenges and confirmed that there would be open days to view the site when archaeological works were being undertaken.
Cllr Kayleigh Rippingale addressed the Committee as a Visiting Councillor. The Committee heard that there was concern regarding the viability of the site and questioned why a higher amount of affordable housing was not allowed on the site and detailed that if the proposal could not provide the 30% affordable housing then the site should be returned to the community as the Council should not sacrifice affordable housing especially to a development group that had failed on this element in the past. The Committee heard that the proposal did not enhance the historical context of the site which was long a key route for schools and detailed that the Head Teacher to the adjacent school had not been consulted on the proposed traffic movements. The speaker elaborated that there were positives associated with the proposal including the access to the folley which would improve the area for residents. The speaker concluded that they would leave the Roman Circus points to be elaborated on by Councillor Cox and asked that the Committee defer the application to work and engage with the Community further on the proposal as Colchester deserved for the application to be done properly.
Robert Carmichael, Democratic Services Officer read out a statement from Cllr Pam Cox as follows:
“During my maiden speech to Parliament last week and in follow-up letters to two Secretaries of State this week, I referred to Colchester’s unique heritage. Colchester was Britain’s first Roman city and is home to the only known Roman Circus in the whole of northern Europe. Designated as a scheduled ancient monument, the site is of exceptional national significance. We have barely scratched the surface of its local potential.
The Circus extends across land owned by different bodies. Its below-ground foundations were discovered by archaeologists in 2004 during the redevelopment of former garrison buildings. Since then, Colchester City Council has worked with Historic England and other stakeholders to develop principles to guide the future development of the site and surrounding areas. Colchester’s recently adopted City Centre Masterplan, together with much-needed improvements to St Botolph’s and Southway, offer a valuable opportunity to re-connect the Circus – for residents, tourists and posterity – with our historic city centre.
As Colchester’s new MP and as a ward councillor for the area that includes both the Circus and historic garrison, I am certain that we must seize – and not squander - the opportunity offered to us at this moment.
Members of the Planning Committee will be aware of my concerns (submitted on 18 March 2024) about planning application 231297. In my view, and that of my fellow ward councillors, the application is not yet compliant with CCC’s planning policies for the site: (i) ABRO Site Development Brief (ASDB), (ii) Roman Circus Management Plan 2020-2025 (RCMP).
These two polices clearly show that it is the intention, in time, of Colchester City Council, that the Roman Circus site should be presented as a single archaeological monument and that any non-heritage structures that visually fragment the Circus should be removed. It follows therefore no new structures that fragment the circuit should be introduced either.
While plans submitted by the developers (application 231297) take some steps towards the more effective presentation of the Circus footprint and scale, these measures are not sufficient to prevent the serious further fragmentation of the Circus site. They thus compromise the council’s intention to make the Circus into the national visitor attraction that it has repeatedly stated that wants it to be. This is a major concern.
Further, we have a vital opportunity with the redevelopment of the ABRO site and the simultaneous work on St Botolph’s and Southway to repair the broken connection between the Circus and the city centre through new walking routes. The road/housing layout submitted by the developers does not sufficiently encourage this and must be revised. Notably, the proposed layout does not respect the indicative layout set out in the ASDB (and reinforced in ASDB paragraph 4.23), which clearly suggest a street layout that is much more directly aligned to the Roman Circus cavea (its terraced stands) and – crucially - much better reflects the vital military and Victorian character of the surrounding buildings, street layout and housing.
If we do not embrace our own planning policies and stated ambitions for this area, we will sleepwalk into giving a green light to a standard modern housing development that bears no relation to its far from standard and nationally significant historic surroundings.
I would like to ask members of the Planning Committee to defer their decision on application 231297. I ask this not on the basis of the concerns I have just set out but on the basis that, as a ward councillor, I have not received formal updates on the application since April 2024. As I understand it, three pertinent developments have occurred since that time: (i) the developers have sought to renegotiate the viability of the site with a potential impact on levels of affordable housing and cultural/community contributions, (ii) the developers have firmed up their plans for community/cultural contributions but have not discussed these with ward councillors; (iii) an alternative vision for the celebration and presentation of our unique Roman Circus and Victorian garrison recently presented to Colchester Civic Society has generated significant public interest and support.
As a council, we need to take more time to give these matters the proper consideration they deserve. This is why I seek a deferral of this item.”
The Democratic Services Officer read out a statement from Cllr Sam McLean as follows:
“Dear Esteemed Members of the Planning Committee,
I regret that I cannot join the panel today due to my pre-determined view on the matter, which might inadvertently affect the committee's reputation. I am requesting the deferral of this application.
The current plan fails to comply with the planning guidance outlined in the local plan. Why have a local plan if it’s not going to be adhered to? The proposed affordable housing, social housing and contributions to social amenities is significantly below what the local plan demands—it is unacceptable and frankly, insulting to every councillor.
Furthermore, the design does not reflect the architecture of the surrounding area, showing a lack of respect for the existing communities. The plans propose weak footpaths that don’t connect to the city centre and there are no contributions to public transport, failing to mitigate the inevitable automobile traffic increase this development will cause.
Most importantly, the development does not enhance the potential of the only Roman Circus in Northern Europe. The Roman Circus, would have been the Ben-Hur-style sports centre in Camulodunum, yet it remains an unrealised asset that should be a premier tourist destination in the East of England. This planning application does not do enough to change this. A housing development in this area must highlight this historical asset, the developer must be ambitious, transforming it into an internationally recognised flagship development, rather than this generic, uninspired, cookie-cutter plan.
Take pride in our city, honour our historical assets and potential, defer this application please.”
Cllr Mark Cory addressed the Committee as a Visiting Councillor. The Committee heard that the proposal was not policy compliant and that it did not comply with the housing policies to meet housing need with regards to policy DM8 in the Local Plan. The speaker detailed that the proposal was of a poor-quality design and would fit into the 1990’s, was not improving the landscape and much better could be achieved. It was detailed that they would not repeat the points regarding viability but raised concern regarding house type 15 that would detract from the site and that the proposal as a whole was a step in the wrong direction as the site could take a denser application so that more affordable housing could be provided on the site. The speaker concluded by detailing that the Committee should reject the proposal on the grounds of affordable housing policies and that the proposal did not celebrate the history of the site.
The Democratic Services Officer read out a statement from Cllr Paul Dundas as follows:
"Dear Committee,
My apologies for not attending in person but unfortunately this meeting clashes with the Team Colchester Board meeting this evening.
I wanted to just make committee members aware of the history of this site and in particular the City Council's involvement with it as I am not sure all members are aware.
When the site came up for sale in 2021 the Council looked at bidding to buy it. This was both because at the time it was looking for new development opportunities itself and also as a way to ensure the Supplementary Planning Document which had been created by the much-missed Alistair Day was respected together with the archaeological and historic nature of the site.
After much consideration, as Leader of the Council at the time and with Cabinet's support I took the decision to bid for the site. This was after considerable investigation of the constraints and impact on viability. The Council bid a sensible amount which it considered would mean it was both commercially viable and could respect the full SPD. In short everyone was aware of the challenges around it and there weren't actually a huge number of unknowns. Additionally, a sensible contingency was put into the business plan to account for any.
Unfortunately, the Council's bid was not accepted due to others bidding higher amounts. It must be emphasised that all those who bid were aware of the issues and had the opportunity to be involved in the pre-planning process. The Council was aware of the constraints as were the other bidders, but the other bidders decided to bid more whilst in full possession of the facts.
The view at the time was that it would be unacceptable for any eventual developer to deviate from the SPD. The SPD was proscriptive for good reason. The Council bid a fair price for the site which could deliver the full SPD and still be viable and one of the reasons for bidding was that should any other purchaser come back at a future date and argue they couldn't deliver the full SPD the answer would be, bluntly, "tough, it is only your own fault for bidding the wrong amount. We knew what we were doing, it is your own fault if you didn't."
I do of course appreciate that planning law may take a different view on how viability is calculated and that that cash amount paid is not treated in what a layperson would consider a logical way. This, as it often does, leaves the committee in an invidious position where it knows what it is being presented with is wrong, but it may struggle to find reasons to refuse it in planning law.
I do not envy you your task this evening, but it is important you know that the issues around the site were well known by the purchaser at the time they made their bid decision and that the SPD which was the last work of one of our top planning officers before his far too young passing was also well known to everyone involved.”
The Democratic Services Officer (Owen Howell) read out a statement from Cllr Andrew Ellis as follows:
“Thank you for allowing me to address you this evening, albeit not in person as I am unfortunately engaged in another Council meeting elsewhere. I do not like to interfere with planning applications in other Councillors wards. However, as a previous portfolio holder for Planning and Housing, who was involved with this site early in the process, I felt it important to share my opinion with you. I'm certain that other speakers this evening will have something to say about buildings and the scheme design and layout, I want to concentrate on the affordable housing element and scheme viability.
Chairman, committee members, It is nothing short of outrageous that planning permission should even be considered for a scheme that relies on viability concerns to justify failing to meet critical policy requirements—especially the affordable housing requirement, at a time when affordable housing is more crucial than ever.
I know that Councillor Dundas has made a submission this evening, so please forgive my reiterating that due to the importance of this site, CCC made a bid that was fair and responsible. This bid was made with a full understanding of the constraints, including likely archaeological issues and the policy burdens that come with developing this site. We bid for the site at a price that reflected these factors because we knew what was at stake—not just for us, but for the community. As part of the scheme, affordable housing was always going to be a critical element in addressing the housing crisis, and any deviation from the policy requirement is a step backward.
The SPD (Supplementary Planning Document) is prescriptive for good reason. This site is not just any piece of land; it holds significant potential to demonstrate the positive outcomes that can arise from thoughtful and strategic planning on an incredibly sensitive historic site. However, that potential can just as easily be squandered if the planning authority allows developers to cut corners under the guise of “viability issues.”
It is essential to emphasise that CCC’s bid was commensurate with the full need to meet all the SPD requirements, including affordable housing. This was no accident. Developers bidding for this site were given a clear and transparent guide as to what would be acceptable. If CCC could submit a bid with the understanding that these requirements would be fulfilled, why should any other developer be granted leniency? It sets a dangerous precedent when viability—essentially the developer’s profit margin—is used as an excuse to sidestep obligations that are in place to serve the public good.
The affordable housing requirement should never be up for negotiation. At a time when housing need has seldom been greater, it is the bare minimum that we, as a community, can expect from any development on this site. Allowing developers to deviate from this requirement undermines the integrity of the planning process and the very purpose of the SPD.
Let me be clear: It would be hugely disappointing should the issue of scheme viability be accepted as a reason to deviate from the SPD. This site is an opportunity to showcase the power of good planning, and any development that does not meet these standards would in my humble opinion, be an unacceptable failure, I trust Committee will do its utmost, within planning law, to ensure that what is delivered on this important site meets the brief in full. Colchester deserves nothing less.”
Cllr Sara Naylor addressed the Committee as a Visiting Councillor. The Committee heard that the application was of significant importance and detailed that Colchester was a special place and benefitted from significant heritage. The speaker detailed that the proposal would be building across a brownfield site which was associated with possible amphitheatres and detailed how the proposal should not pay lip service to the heritage on site or to the SPD. The Committee heard that there were many reasons why the proposal was inadequate and endorsed the comments from Cllr Dundas regarding the overbidding of the site and subsequent dumbing down of the site. The visiting Councillor concluded that the proposal should not be proceeding and added their voice to the concerns of others regarding the impact on heritage.
At the request of the Chair the Principal Planning Officer responded to the points raised by the Have Your Say speakers as follows. The Committee heard that the location of the site was highly sustainable with good public transport links and that because of this a lower number of parking spaces had been put forward by the applicant. The Principal Planning Officer outlined that the site had been previously used for industrial movements and confirmed that Members could limit the construction hours for vehicle movements to be outside of school start and end times if they were minded to approve the application. It was detailed that 10 trees would be felled on site but confirmed that there would be significant tree planting and ecology improvements on site and that the protection of the heritage assets on site of the two buildings would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the school had been consulted and a letter of general concern had been received and responded that a consultation had been sent to all Councillors regarding the site. With regards to the viability of the site the Committee heard that the price paid for the site by the applicant did not factor into the viability assessment of the site and that the Council had also bid for the site which was a possible conflicting interest. The Committee heard that in recent appeal decisions it had been established that it was up to the applicant to provide viability details, as had been the case on this application and that it was up to the Committee to decide what weight they gave to the viability of the proposal. Further to this it was noted that one consideration for the site’s increased costs in terms of viability related to the archaeological remains that could be on the site. It was detailed that the affordable housing provision did not conflict with policy DM8 as the lower provision was supported by a viability appraisal which had been assessed on a higher rate of development than was in the proposal before the Committee and that it had concluded that there were viability concerns. It was detailed that any development that was more than four storeys high would be in conflict with the development brief and would cause other problems that would not necessarily result in an increase in affordable housing. The Principal Planning Officer elaborated that the layout contained within the SPD was indicative only and that the fact that this proposal did not conform to the indicative layout was not a conflict with the adopted policy and concluded that any artistic drawings that had been sent round to Members regarding a complete redesign of the Roman Circus were impossible due to existing development, built form and road network.
At the request of the Chair, Karen Syrett, Joint Head of Planning detailed that viability was based on plan making and that there was an expectation that sites would be viable and confirmed that in 2017 this was given a lighter touch approach and outlined that there were schemes that would not achieve 30% affordable housing which could be due to a number of factors including: land contamination, build quality, Biodiversity Net Gain, Market Values, build costs and asked the Committee to bear in mind as they had been outlined in the Committee Report. The Joint Head of Planning detailed that they had heard the requests for deferral and refusal and asked the Committee to clearly articulate these reasons if any proposal was made and outlined that they had heard many heartfelt reasons but that they were not reasons that would be defendable.
A short break was taken between 19:30-19:40.
Members debated the proposal on issues including: that the proposal was not good enough for the site, that Colchester was a failed tourist attraction Town as heritage had been covered by the Southway development. Members debated how Colchester’s discovery of the Roman Circus should be the envy with some Members detailing that the remains should be put on display and that this was partly not possible due to Brexit and the loss of funding. The debate continued with some Members detailing that there was a lot wrong with the application specifically with regards to the affordable housing provision. Concerns were raised by Members regarding the parking situation and how this could lead to parking on grass verges as well as safety concerns of overlooking of the school as well as avoiding the issues that had caused the Grenfell disaster. Members raised concerns over the use of a Management company for the site as well as the detrimental impact on heritage that the proposal should include the heritage as the central theme of the proposal.
Members continued to debate the proposal on the issues including: that the grade two listed building did not represent the previous use as a stables on site, that there were issues regarding highways safety from the proposal, that the traffic assessment was insufficient, and asked for further assessments from officers on the policies referenced by Cllr Pam Cox in their statement. Discussion continued with Members detailing that they did not see enhancements regarding the archaeology on site and that the proposal did nothing to enhance the international heritage site. Debate continued with Members discussing how the lower level of affordable housing was not in-keeping with the spirit of the Local Plan’s policies and that it would be a massive deficiency on the land. Members queried the number of homes that would be fully accessible for disabled people.
Questions were raised by the Committee on issues including: the number of roman circuses there were in the world and queried the possibility of a conflict of interest from the Council that had been expressed by the Principal Planning Officer and asked for this to be explained further. Members debated the history of the Town becoming a City and how places such as Culver Square had also had archaeological heritage underneath it and had been built upon. Some Members expressed disappointment that the scheme did not reflect the 30% affordable housing provision and asked that this was fed back to the Local Plan Committee. Discussions continued with Members outlining that the developer knew the site that they were getting as well as the price put forward and that this should not be considered in a viability appraisal and that the design was not protecting the heritage of Colchester as other authorities would.
At the request of the Chair the Principal Planning Officer responded that the proposal was an enhancement of the Circus to what was currently on the site and that the proposal contained enhancements to the visitor’s centre as well which included an extension to allow better accessibility and accessible toilets as well as supporting a wider outreach programme. The Committee heard that the proposal did not include any built form on top of the ancient monument and confirmed that Historic England had been consulted on the application, noting that they did not object. The Principal Planning Officer detailed that the parking permit scheme was for the surrounding area as well so there would not be a detrimental impact on the wider area and that the private sector housing provision would be addressed by the applicant and not by the Planning Committee. The Committee heard that the site currently detracted from the ancient monument and reminded Members that the folley would be restored under the proposals whilst bringing the whole site into use and detailed that the monument underground would be best preserved undisturbed with the foundations of proposed buildings leaving the remains unaffected.
At the request of the Chair, Eirini Dimerouki, Historic Buildings and Areas Officer, detailed that any changes to the Listed Buildings on site would require additional consent for any works to be undertaken.
At the request of the Chair, the Principal Planning Officer detailed that the sustainable location was supported by a transport statement and detailed that the junction onto Flagstaff Road benefitted from a Copenhagen Style Pedestrian Priority access to enhance the sustainability of the proposal. The Committee heard that there was a need for Affordable Housing in the Ward and across the Council as a whole and detailed the two options that were before the Committee with regards to the Section 106 Agreement. The Committee heard that they had a duty to consider the viability of the proposal and that the site had a benchmark land value that would then take into account the costs of developing the site as well as including abnormal costs and profit made from the site. The Officer concluded by detailing that the policy did allow for alternative provision and that was what had been put before the Committee.
At the request of the Chair, Benjy Firth, Urban Design Officer, detailed that the proposal delivered the lineup of the buildings to an acceptable standard and that it was not clear from Cllr Cox’s statement how the proposal deviated from the development brief as detailed in the Amendment Sheet. The Principal Planning Officer added that the SPD was a different document to the Roman Circus Management Plan.
At the request of the Chair the Joint Head of Planning detailed that the valuation appraisal was from the anticipated proceeds and detailed that the buyer is not always aware of risks on site as there can be unknowns on any proposed site and outlined that this had to be reflected in the appraisal. The Joint Head of Planning confirmed that there was not a conflict of interest regarding the Council’s previous bid for the site as it was being assessed by the Local Planning Authority and as such also dealt with Council owned applications.
Councillor Robert Davidson Declared a Non-Registerable interest as a Member of the Civic Society.
Members continued to debate the application on issues including: when viability overtook the consideration of adopted policies of the Council, the electric charging points in the parking areas, whether the flats would have external letterboxes, and that there was concern that access to schools and medical facilities was being promoted however no additional infrastructure was being put in place to support this. Concern was raised by some Members regarding the lack of affordable housing and that there was a need for the 30% policy to be complied with, that the site could be more densely developed to maximise the usage of the land with questions raised regarding the retention and planting of trees and removal of the TPO’s.
Members debated the historical significance of the site as it was the heritage of the City that brought people to visit the area, as well as the viability of the proposal and how the viability equation did not take into account the price that was originally paid for the land. Concern was raised by Members of the lack of disabled car parking spaces on site, that there would be issues with the walking bus for schoolchildren and that this would be disrupted, and that residents as well as those in affordable housing would be charged additional money due to a management company being in place as well as parking permits. Members also questioned whether access could be secured from Butt Road.
At the request of the Chair the Principal Planning Officer responded that the policy framework for the development allocated between 171- 304 dwellings and associated car parking and that this principle of development on site had already been established. The Committee heard that there was a review mechanism for viability to provide more affordable housing if it was available. The Committee heard that the scheme had been independently assessed for viability and that it had been found to be unviable but provided a mix of housing that was beneficial to the Council. The Principal Planning Officer detailed that the materials proposed on site were of a very high quality and standard which complied with the development brief and confirmed that to provide the best scheme some trees were being removed but that this would be compensated through additional planting and the re-instatement of the historic treeline along Flagstaff Road.
At the request of the Chair, Martin Mason, Strategic Development Engineer at Essex County Council detailed that the proposal would generate far less traffic than the previous use on the site and that the site was in a good position to access services. The Committee heard that the traffic and access arrangements would be rationalised and that the site would benefit from a parallel crossing and outlined that the walking bus would be enhanced with something more modern giving cyclists and pedestrians priority.
At 21:00 the question was put to Members whether to continue discussing the application to a resolution or to adjourn the meeting as the 21:00 cut off time had been reached. The Committee agreed to continue deliberations on the application.
At the request of the Chair the Principal Planning Officer outlined that the site did have a reduced parking provision which had been put forward by the Applicant and that the rear parking courts were part of the place making vision. It was confirmed by the Urban Design Officer that the parking courts would have allocated spaces and that additional spaces would have to be purchased.
A short break was taken between 21:05-21:20.
The Committee debated the proposal on the Section 106 contributions and affordable housing provision and that a further option needed to be looked at as neither option A or B were acceptable to some Members. Some Members also asked whether a further consultation could be undertaken in terms of parking provision to understand the needs of the site better as well as the number of trees that were being removed from the site. Concern was raised by Members regarding the Local Plan policies and that they needed to be completely watertight when considering the need for affordable housing in the City and that the Council should be striving through policy DM16 to create better standards as well as protecting the internationally renowned site.
At the request of the Chair the Principal Planning Officer detailed that the SPD did allow for exceptional circumstances and that it was better to provide affordable housing on the site as opposed to offsite. In response to a question from the Committee the Principal Planning Officer detailed that the archaeological conditions were of a normal standard associated with the size and make-up of the proposal and showed the Committee the tree plan for the proposal and where the proposed removals and planting of new trees were.
At the request of the Chair, the Joint Head of Planning detailed that there was a balance in play with regards to the policies which needed to be considered in the context of robust decision making. It was detailed that policy DM8 detailed that the Council should seek 30% affordable housing but that this needed to be seen in the balance of the application as a whole with the circumstances on site playing into that balance noting that in theory the proposal complies with the policy.
At the request of the Chair, the Strategic Development Engineer detailed that the proposal would provide improvements to Flagstaff Road and that there was a requirement for travel plans for both business and residential use.
It was proposed by Councillor Davidson that the application be refused for the following reasons:
That the application be refused as the proposal did not accord with the Local Plan designation regarding affordable housing (Policy DM8), as well as policies SP4 – meeting housing needs, SP7 – place shaping principles around the protection and enhancement of assets of historical value, and DM16 - impact on the important heritage asset/important scheduled ancient monument.
Following receipt of the proposal the Chair initiated the Deferral and Recommendation Overturn Procedures (DROP) and sought advice from the Joint Head of Planning with regards to any risks associated with the proposal from the Policies identified.
The Joint Head of Planning queried the use of policies SP4 with regards to meeting housing needs and how a refusal would meet this policy and how policies SP7 and DM16 would be applied as there had been no objection from consultees on Heritage concerns or from Historic England that harm had been identified. The Joint Head of Planning advised that there were risks associated with these reasons should an Appeal be lodged.
The Chair used their power as detailed in the Deferral and Recommendation and Overturn Procedures (DROP) to defer the item to seek a report from Officers on the risks associated with the Proposal from the Committee as follows:
“That the application be refused as the proposal did not accord with the Local Plan designation regarding affordable housing (Policy DM8), as well as policies SP4 – meeting housing needs, SP7 – place shaping principles around the protection and enhancement of assets of historical value, and DM16 - impact on the important heritage asset/important scheduled ancient monument.”