1091
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 parking spaces. The application was referred to the Planning Committee as it 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 id 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, and Amendment Sheet in which all information was set out.
John Miles, Principal Planning Officer, presented the report to the Committee and assisted them in their deliberations. The Committee heard that the application had previously deferred for changes to enhance residential amenity and layout changes moving the mass of the development closer to the centre of the site. The Committee heard that this had been reviewed by the applicant and officers and revised plans had been submitted and were before the Committee. The Principal Planning Officer displayed the plans to the Committee outlining that one of the buildings closest to the existing residential development had been reduced in length by 7 metres and the minimum distance between the nearest neighbouring dwellings and the proposed buildings was now around 25 metres. The Committee heard that there were no objections from the urban design officer and detailed that this proposal was the latest in a line of applications that had been submitted on site in the past decade. The Committee were asked to note that the dwellings in Ford Mews were approved at a time when there was an extant permission for development on the current site comprising of buildings with an approved B1, B2 and B8 use, with the current application before the Committee being for office use. The Committee were asked to note that some of the properties within Ford Mews were two storey developments and continued by showing the Committee the sunlight and daylight modelling for different times of the year and detailed that there was no expected loss of light to the properties including solar panels on the properties. The Principal Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the officer recommendation was for approval as detailed in the report.
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 there was an acceptance of the concessions from the applicant but detailed that these did not go far enough and outlined that the parking arrangements on the site had not changed. The speaker detailed that the proposal was overbearing, that the daylight and sunlight reports did not reflect the residents experiences and that the jobs that would be created on the site would not be for the benefit of Copford residents and that the plans were not in-keeping with the surrounding area or the Neighbourhood Plan.
Adam Jackson addressed the Committee pursuant to the provision of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in Support of the application. The Committee heard that the item had been deferred by the Committee in July to seek amendments to the parking layout. The Committee heard that professional officers had assessed the proposal to have negligible impact on the existing community and that the applicant had obliged by moving the proposed buildings further away from the existing properties and noted that the previous permission on the land still remained active.
The Democratic Services Officer read out a statement from Councillors Ellis and Bentley who were unable to attend the meeting. The statement read as follows:
“Chairman and committee members, unfortunately Cllr Bentley and I are unavoidably committed elsewhere this evening, so please accept this statement on behalf of us both and do not interpret our not being here in any way as agreement with this amended application. We remain convinced that Copford will be adversely impacted by this development.
One of the reasons for calling in this application a year or so ago was because of the overbearing impact the development and in particular blocks 1 and 3, would have on Ford Mews. Whilst we appreciate that following the 25th July Committee meeting, the applicant has moved these blocks further away and slightly rearticulated them, contrary to the Planning officers view, we do not believe that this is a better solution to overcoming the harm to neighbour amenity than refusing this scheme and allowing the extant permission to be developed.
We continue to believe that the access/egress is insufficient for the number of vehicles and continue to be disappointed that Essex Highways do not share our concerns. People that actually live there can attest to just how appalling the London Road has become, tipping yet more traffic onto it given the number of permissions along it, many as yet unbuilt, but all of which will also be tipping all of their traffic onto it, is simply lunacy. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF tells you a development should not have an unacceptable impact on local roads, taken cumulatively you have to see that this constant stream of permissions is doing just that to the London road through Copford and Stanway.
The report presented to you this evening deals with Local Plan policies DM6, DM15, SG5 and SG6 together with NPPF Para’s 85, 89, 91, 92 and 94. All of which have been interpreted by the Planning officer to weigh in favour of this development although he accepts in his summary at para 16.16 that some judgement is required when looking at the evidential justification provided. We still contend, as we did on 25th July that policy could so easily be interpreted as we do, to weigh against. Please take the time this evening to fully interrogate these paragraphs and the conclusions drawn.
The Local Plan and NPPF are indeed supportive of local rural business. We are after all trying to enable sustainable rural communities. The key here is that they are designed to support LOCAL rural businesses, enabling them to remain and grow within the community in which they began, providing employment for local people helping to sustain the village in which they exist. Indeed objective 6 of the Copford with Easthorpe Neighbourhood Plan accepts that it should ‘encourage local employment, proportionate in scale to the villages’. Please acknowledge that this scheme does not accord with that statement. The sheer volume of parking provision proves that this isn’t an expanding local rural business for local people, this is the wholesale import of business into a village location, and as such is not supported by the Parish Council nor the Neighbourhood Plan and in design terms is totally out of keeping and dwarfs the adjacent residential houses and bungalows.
Turning to the scheme design. The Neighbourhood Plan states that it expects ‘the scale of growth and location of new buildings is proportionate to the size of the village and designed to retain the sense of space and community well-being in the villages, and in policy CE3 expects ‘high standards of design and character respecting the character of the Parish’. Colchester’s Local Plan Policies SP7 and DM15 talk in respect of responding positively to local character, enhancing the quality of existing places and their environs, respecting and enhancing the sites context and surroundings… just look at this scheme and ask yourselves honestly, does this development, with its over 8 metre tall in the officers words ‘crisp contemporary’ in our words ‘out of keeping and overbearing’ buildings which officers have told you sit in a site designated as open countryside, do that?
And then there’s the hours of working. The residents in the bungalows adjacent blocks 1 and 3 are retired, they purchased homes in which to enjoy their retirement and importantly, they are already there. 7am is far too early to be arriving and disturbing people, so we would ask Committee to consider 8am the earliest people could arrive should you see fit to give this revised scheme a permission this evening. We sincerely hope however that you will agree with us and refuse this application because it is not policy compliant with the Copford with Easthorpe Neighbourhood Plan nor the Local Plan nor NPPF when interpreted correctly regarding support for rural business not the expansion or introduction of new business from elsewhere.”
At the request of the Chair, the Principal Planning Officer responded to the points made by the Have Your Say Speakers. The Committee heard that the Neighbourhood Plan had been observed and confirmed that the site would enable the creation of 200 jobs and that Members should take into consideration the extant scheme on the site. It was confirmed that there had been no objection from Essex County Council regarding Highways matters and that the NPPF provided a high bar to clear for highways capacity to be deemed as unacceptable. The Principal Planning Officer detailed that the parking did not exceed the maximum standards and that the nearest railway station was just under a mile away. The Committee heard that there were sustainable travel methods available and that the proposal would be partially visible to existing residents but confirmed that this did not constitute harm and confirmed that the proposed tree planting would obscure some of the proposed development.
Members debated the proposal on issues including: protecting the residential amenity of the existing residents, that there was scepticism that the sustainable transport methods would be used, whether the hours of operation should be amended to an 8am start time on site to support local residents and prevent them from being disturbed. Some Members raised concerns that there were not enough car parking spaces compared to previous applications and that there was concern regarding water shortages in the area which had been apparent from a recent fire which had taken place in the area.
At the request of the Chair the Principal Planning Officer responded that the 141 spaces proposed conformed with the Essex Parking Standards, which sets a maximum standard. It was also advised that there was no evidence that the events of the fire and thereafter would prevent the Committee from making a decision on the application.
Members continued to debate the application on issues including concerns regarding the design of the proposal within the setting of the street scene and surrounding area and whether this could be challenged on Policy DM15.
At the request of the Chair the Principal Planning Officer responded that design was subjective and detailed that the Councils Urban Design Officer had been consulted on the application and that although the proposal was a different architectural approach to the surrounding area it is not considered inappropriate in the context and the planting would help visually contain the proposal. It was also advised that there would be other benefits from the design approach proposed, including with regards to limiting solar gain and light pollution.
Members discussed whether a lockable gate could be installed on the entrance to the site to prevent anti-social behaviour and questioned when Ford Mews had been built and whether it was reasonable for residents to assume that there would be development on the application site.
At the request of the Chair the Principal Planning Officer responded that proposals on the application site did predate the applications and building of Ford Mews and that these stretched back to 2012 with varying types of proposal on site including general industrial use. The Principal Planning Officer detailed that these applications would have stayed active for some time afterwards and there would be an expectation that the site would be developed at some point.
Members continued to debate the proposal on issues including the reasonableness of changing the hours of operation on the site and that the industrial use of the site that had been previously approved would cause more harm than the proposal before the Committee.
It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation subject to the amendments as follows:
That Condition 14 (Operating Hours) be amended to 8:00 AM to 7:00 Pm on weekdays plus a further condition requiring the approval and installation of security gates prior to occupation and these to be closed/ locked outside operating hours.
RESOLVED (By EIGHT votes FOR and ONE AGAINST) that the application is approved as detailed in the officer recommendation subject to the following amendments and conditions:
That Condition 14 (Operating Hours) be amended to 8:00 AM to 7:00 Pm on weekdays plus a further condition requiring the approval and installation of security gates prior to occupation and these to be closed/ locked outside operating hours.