1085
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 risk report, the original officer report, and Amendment Sheet in which all information was set out.
Prior to consideration of the risk report and application the Chair explained their reasons for not allowing speakers on the application before the Committee as follows:
“At the meeting this evening we will be considering the ABRO development site which I deferred for a risk report at the last meeting. The process for this type of deferral is outlined in the DROP procedure in the Councils Planning Code and outlines the steps that must be followed. The Democratic Services Officer contacted me ahead of the meeting to seek my view on allowing speaking at the meeting as the code does not definitively prohibit further contributions of speaking. After careful consideration I have concluded that no further public speaking shall take place on this item for the following reasons:
- The deferral has in effect paused the decision of the item from the last meeting and we will be resuming the debate on the proposal from Cllr Davidson following presentation of the risk report.
- There was an extended session of public speaking at the meeting on the 17 October where I allowed additional speakers on the application.
- The precedent of previous deferrals for risk reports has been that no public speaking has taken place.
For these reasons I have decided that no additional speaking shall take place.”
Ahead of the presentation from Officers the Chair read out a statement regarding the procedure for the Committee meeting as follows:
“Following on from my decision to defer the item for a risk report on the 17 October 2024 officers have undertaken a risk report which concludes with a suggested reason for refusal which comprises of reasons based upon policies SP7 and DM17 which formed part of the original proposal from Cllr Davidson. This can be found on page 33 of the report.
The Planning procedure code of practice details Councillors can modify the motion should they wish to amend their reasons and this would ordinarily be done with the proposer. However, As Councillor Davidson is not here at the meeting he cannot alter his proposal from the previous meeting (this can be found on page 22 of the report). I have received advice from officers that this motion has been properly put to the Committee and must be dealt with before any other proposal can be taken.
So, to be clear, we will have a debate on the risk report and Cllr Davidson’s motion and we will then vote on Cllr Davidsons unamended proposal. If Members wish to support alternative proposals including the suggested reasons for refusal as provided by officers, approval of the application, or deferral, then members will need to consider carefully how they vote on that proposal, and should it fail I will invite new proposals after that vote, should it not be approved.”
The Chair detailed that they had received advice from the Monitoring Officer that Members who were not present at the previous meeting where the item was discussed must have watched the previous debate and be cognizant of the issues surrounding the application. To this effect the Chair asked Cllrs Tate, M. Spindler, Lissimore, and J. Young to confirm this. This was confirmed by all four Councillors.
Nadine Calder, Principal Planning Officer presented the risk report to the Committee and assisted them in their deliberations. The Committee heard that the risk report had considered the reasons for refusal that had been put forward by Councillor Davidson at the previous meeting and detailed that there was a high risk of costs associated with the proposal especially with regards to policy SP4 and its inclusion as it did not apply to the specific proposals. The Committee heard that Officers had also considered the inclusion of policy DM8 from Councillor Davidsons proposal and detailed that if included as a reason for refusal then there would be a high risk of costs being awarded against the Council. As such Officers had put forward a suggested reason for refusal based on Cllr Davidsons original proposal but omitted policies SP4 and DM8 as follows:
1. The development of this prominent site within the Garrison Conservation Area in the detailed manner proposed would serve to erode the cohesive character and appearance of the site by reason of the domestic, suburban inspired scale and character of the development and the associated loss of former military buildings and historic layout of the cavalry barracks which together contribute positively to the significance of the conservation area designation. The harm identified is less than substantial but nevertheless could be avoided in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) through the use of an enhanced contextually responsive design. The submitted proposals are considered to lack distinctive contextual design references to the barracks and fail to reinforce the historic grain and hierarchy of spaces and built forms found within the existing site. The scheme accordingly fails to make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. The harm and consequential loss of significance therefore lacks clear and convincing justification and the less than substantial harm identified is not outweighed by the public benefits which could be secured with more effective design mitigation. The development is consequently contrary to Colchester Local Plan Section 1 Policy SP7 which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development proposals responds positively to local character and context to preserve and enhance the quality of existing places and their environs; provides buildings that exhibit individual architectural quality within well-considered public and private realms; and protects and enhances assets of historical or natural value, together with Section 2 Policy DM16 which requires that, in cases where less than substantial harm is identified, this harm is weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The policy sets the objective that development affecting the historic environment should seek to conserve and enhance the heritage asset and in all cases, there is the expectation that any new development will enhance the historic environment or better reveal the significance of the heritage asset.
For these reasons, the LPA considers that the proposed development results in unjustified harm to the significance of the conservation area and fails to respond positively to local character to better reveal the significance of the Garrison conservation area contrary to relevant national guidance and local policies. The harm identified is avoidable and not outweighed by the public benefits identified, contrary to the provisions of Policies SP7 and DM16, as set out above.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined that since the previous meeting the applicant had submitted an additional plan for the proposed House type for Block 22 which had been created in association with Francis Terry and were being put before the Committee for consideration as they did not form a material amendment to the original application but noted that there had been no formal consultation on these new plans with consultees. Further to this, additional details on a third way for affordable housing to be provided of a commuted sum that would provide offsite affordable housing provision were included in the Amendment Sheet. The Amendment Sheet also noted that there was a provision for a land transfer of the Roman Circus to the Council should the Committee approve the application but that the maintenance of the land would be undertaken by the management company for the site. The Principal Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the officer recommendation remained as one of approval for the application with the amended plans, options for affordable housing and proposed land transfer of the Roman Circus.
The Committee debated the risk report and amendment sheet on issues including: the Roman Circus management plan, the improvements to the visitor centre, the previous proposal from Councillor Davidson and that some Members were content with the risk identified and that some Members were not happy that there were amendments to the proposal that had not been consulted upon, and that there were concerns regarding a management company overseeing the care of the Roman Circus. Members discussed whether there were any stronger reasons for refusal that could be included as well as the proposals within the Amendment sheet for the Section 106 Agreement regarding Affordable Housing.
At the request of the Chair, the Principal Planning Officer responded that Officers had assessed the reasons from Cllr Davidsons original proposal and that a suggested reason had been included in the report which would lower the risk of costs being applied to the Council from the refusal and that if the application was refused it would be likely that the applicant would seek an appeal as opposed to submitting a new application however this was within the applicants gift and not something that was within officers or Members control. The Committee heard that the proposed amendment to block 22 would affect 3 areas on their external design only and that this was not considered a material change as it only amended 9% of all dwellings on site and as such would not normally be consulted upon. The Principal Planning Officer outlined that if approved then the Roman Circus area would be within the Council’s ownership and that a plan for maintenance of the area would have to be adhered to by the management company. In response to a question regarding the response from the Highways authority the Committee heard that the proposed entrance to the site would be safer for pedestrians and cyclists and that its current use should be taken into account by the Committee and consider whether the proposal fully reflects the previous use on site. The Principal Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the third option, as detailed in the Amendment Sheet, for the off-site affordable housing would allow for a higher commuted sum due to no affordable housing being on the actual site.
At the request of the Chair , Karen Syrett, Joint Head of Planning detailed that there had previously been a lot of discussion regarding viability appraisals and clarified this element as follows. The Committee heard that the viability of a proposal was worked out on a standardised appraisal using predetermined inputs and land value benchmarking with a premium on top of that, all of which had been tested through case law. The Committee heard that site value and benchmark land value were assessed by independent consultants and that the price paid for the land by the applicant was not part of the viability appraisal. The Joint Head of Planning concluded that if Members did approve the proposal and go with the third option of a commuted sum in the Section 106 Agreement then this would be able to provide £2.3 million.
The Committee continued to debate the proposal on issues including: the proposed use of a management company, the design and whether it was accurately reflecting the nature of the Garrison previously on site, and whether there should be more living blocks on the site. Members discussed the proposal and whether something better could be put on the site, that the suggested reason for refusal was welcomed, that the Roman Circus was an important visitor attraction, and that the plans showing the existing buildings on top of the Roman Circus were helpful.
Concern was raised by some Members of the Committee regarding the lack of consultation with County Councillors, the risk associated with a possible deferral, and whether any consultees had been consulted (including English heritage) on the possible land transfer to the Council of the Roman Circus area.
At the request of the Chair, the Principal Planning Officer detailed that the transfer of land was an offer that the Council did not have to accept and that the works to the visitor centre would be carried out by the applicant which would modernise the building and make it a more inviting space.
The Joint Head of Planning, Simon Cairns, detailed that the heart of the matter was whether the scheme before the Committee enhanced the conservation area and Victorian asset but noted that there was not a requirement for the proposal to be historicist in style for the development. The Committee heard that they must consider the application that is before them and consider with any reasons for refusal that they can be evidenced and that any harm needed to be identified. The Joint Head of Planning concluded by apologising that if there had been any non-involvement of County Councillors then this would be looked into.
As outlined at the beginning of the meeting the Chair put Councillor Davidson’s original motion to 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 – adverse impact on the important heritage assets.”
By THREE votes FOR and SEVEN votes AGAINST with ONE ABSTENTION the motion was lost.
A short break was taken between 19:20 and 19:33.
Following the break, it was proposed and seconded that the application be refused for the suggested reason for refusal as drafted by officers on page 33 of the agenda.
RESOLVED (By TEN votes For and ZERO AGAINST, with ONE ABSTENTION) that the application is refused for the following reasons:
1. The development of this prominent site within the Garrison Conservation Area in the detailed manner proposed would serve to erode the cohesive character and appearance of the site by reason of the domestic, suburban inspired scale and character of the development and the associated loss of former military buildings and historic layout of the cavalry barracks which together contribute positively to the significance of the conservation area designation. The harm identified is less than substantial but nevertheless could be avoided in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) through the use of an enhanced contextually responsive design. The submitted proposals are considered to lack distinctive contextual design references to the barracks and fail to reinforce the historic grain and hierarchy of spaces and built forms found within the existing site. The scheme accordingly fails to make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. The harm and consequential loss of significance therefore lacks clear and convincing justification and the less than substantial harm identified is not outweighed by the public benefits which could be secured with more effective design mitigation. The development is consequently contrary to Colchester Local Plan Section 1 Policy SP7 which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development proposals responds positively to local character and context to preserve and enhance the quality of existing places and their environs; provides buildings that exhibit individual architectural quality within well-considered public and private realms; and protects and enhances assets of historical or natural value, together with Section 2 Policy DM16 which requires that, in cases where less than substantial harm is identified, this harm is weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The policy sets the objective that development affecting the historic environment should seek to conserve and enhance the heritage asset and in all cases, there is the expectation that any new development will enhance the historic environment or better reveal the significance of the heritage asset.
For these reasons, the LPA considers that the proposed development results in unjustified harm to the significance of the conservation area and fails to respond positively to local character to better reveal the significance of the Garrison conservation area contrary to relevant national guidance and local policies. The harm identified is avoidable and not outweighed by the public benefits identified, contrary to the provisions of Policies SP7 and DM16, as set out above.