Meeting Details

The minutes of the meeting held on the 7 November 2024 were confirmed as a true record subject to the addition of Councillor Tate to the list of attendees.

The Committee considered an application for the change of use of land to B8 Storage, the retention of a portable cabin for ancillary office, retention of earth bunds, and two proposed buildings for storage.  The application was referred to the Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Ellis for the reasons set out in the report.  It had been considered by the Committee at its meeting on 15 June 2023 but had been deferred for a site visit and for Essex Council Highways to investigate the use of Dobbies Lane and potential conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists. 

The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out together with further information on the Amendment Sheet.  

Daniel Cooper, Senior Planning Officer, presented the application and assisted the Committee in its deliberations. He reported that since the deferral in June 2023 the application had been revised to reduce the buildings on site, to block off the access from Dobbies Lane and to create a new access directly onto Old London Road.  

Ben Willis addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application.  Since the deferral of the application in June 2023 a considerable amount of work had been undertaken by specialist highway consultants to investigate the alternative access arrangements directly onto Old London Road.  This had now been achieved and access via Dobbies Lane was no longer proposed. The new access arrangements were supported by Essex County Council’s Highways and National Highways. Support had also been received from the Council Historic Building Adviser who had noted that the closure of Dobbies Lane to HGVs had a positive impact on the surrounding area.  The principle of development was in line with development plan policies and the neighbourhood plan. He had worked with the Planning Officer to ensure a scheme that delivered the highest possible planning gain on all relevant planning matters. 

Councillor Ellis attended and addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure 10(2) to stress the need for the Committee to give careful consideration to the application. The application would cause significant harm to some residents of Marks Tey. The Parish Council and ward councillors acknowledged the steps taken to address some concerns. However the amendments failed to resolve critical issues relating to highway safety and residential amenity.  Old London Road was unsuitable for HGV traffic.  Residents raised serious safety issues such as damage to parked cars and HGVs mounting the pavement.  The situation was even worse for residents on the stretch where Old London Road narrowed.  It was also a designated cycle route. The proposal to widen the junction only was not sufficient to address the concerns and conflicted with policy MT02 in the Neighbourhood Plan which promoted walking and cycling. The projected A12 improvements presented a solution to access to the site.  The de-trunking of the A12 would enable the applicants to access the site without using Old London Road. Should permission be granted, a note should be added that this access should be used as soon as it was available.  This would dramatically improve matters for residents, and users of the Parish Hall.  In the meantime the Parish Council believed that the additional conditions proposed by the Highway Authority were impractical and unenforceable. The application prioritised operational convenience over road safety and wellbeing.  The negative impacts on the community outweighed the benefits.  The application should be deferred until strategic highway improvements were completed.  If the Committee were minded to approve the application, a condition should be added requiring the replacement of any mature trees or hedgerows lost with semi-mature trees and hedgerows to maintain visual amenity.   

At the request of the Chair the Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised by the Have Your Say Speakers.  A landscaping condition was proposed which covered the whole site and would ensure that any trees removed were suitably replaced.  In terms of the de-trunking of the A12, it was understood that whilst this had been approved, the funding for it was uncertain, so there was no clarity on when this would happen.  However, an informative could be added to the permission that this was the preferred access point, when this was possible. The Joint Head of Planning expressed his view that to support growth the government was likely to make funding available for the de-trunking of the A12 in due course and the suggestion of an informative around the use of the A12 as the preferred access was a practical way forward. 

The Committee debated the application. Support was expressed for some of the issues raised by the ward councillor, particularly the amount of traffic using Old London Road and its narrowness, which was exacerbated by car parking on the road.  Consideration needed to be given to the safety of local residents, particularly children, and traffic calming measures should be considered. The adverse impact on the business of deferring the application until the de-trunking of the A12 was highlighted. Clarification was sought as to the number of jobs that the application would generate.  It was suggested that a condition should be added requiring trees at the entrance to the site. 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised and explained that traffic calming measures could not be introduced onto Old London Road as part of the application, as it fell outside the red line of the development. Whilst he was unable to quantify the impact of any deferral on the business, the business employed 33 people.  The Joint Head of Planning also emphasised that neither Highways England nor Essex Highways had considered traffic calming measures necessary.  However, to the east of the site was a site that required highway improvements as part of its development. Officers could explore with the developer and Highways England the possibility of traffic calming measures being included as part of those works.

In further debate concern continued to be expressed about highway safety issues arising  from the access to the site via Old London Road and clarification was sought as to where the access point off the A12 would be and whether traffic could use the existing access near the Anderson site.  It was noted that in front of the site Old London Road was only 3.5 metres wide and given the traffic generated by this site and other businesses it should be widened to at least six metres at this point.  Old London Road was also a cycle path and the safety of users of the path needed to be considered. When the site visit had been undertaken, members of the Committee had noted the amount of dust generated and confirmation was sought as to what mitigation measures would be put in place. 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that at this point it was not possible to say exactly where the access off the A12 would be until it was de-trunked but it was hoped it would be as close to the site as possible and the informative would be worded accordingly. There was nothing to prevent traffic from the site using the existing access by the Anderson site, but it was likely they chose not to for reasons of highway safety. The request to widen the road was noted. Whilst this was outside the scope of the application highway improvements could looked at as part of the development of the adjacent site. A condition was already proposed for the management of dust and dirt from the site to safeguard the amenity of local residents. This required the approval of the mitigation scheme by the local planning authority. 

RESOLVED (EIGHT voted FOR, ONE voted AGAINST and TWO ABSTAINED from voting) that the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report together with an additional informative encourage use of the de-trunked A12 as the primary access/egress to the wider network at the first available opportunity following completion of the planned A12 upgrade programme, and for authority to be delegated to the Joint Heads of Planning to make any necessary non-material amendments to the  conditions in the report.

The Committee considered an application for the provision of public open space and allotments in connection with the adjacent development. The application was referred to the Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Dundas for the reasons set out in the report.

The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out together with further information on the Amendment Sheet. 

John Miles, Senior Planning Officer, presented the report and assisted the Committee in its deliberations. 

Chris Fry of Crest Nicholson addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application.   This application addressed the reasons for the refusal of the previous landscaping works. The bund was omitted and relatively gentle slopes were used to create allotment space.  The Landscape Specification details proposed wildflower seeds, tree and bulb planting, hedgerows and retention of existing grassland alongside hard landscaping and boundary treatments to serve allotments, in accordance with the wishes of the Parish Council.  Considerable effort had been made to ensure the development was suitable for the Parish Council’s maintenance equipment and to allow them good access to the site by the creation of wide service margins.  There was no alien soil on the site, as had been confirmed by a third party and demonstrated by the contamination report. However, given that there was building debris on the allotment site the conditions proposed by Environmental Health were reasonable. In terms of flooding, the site was in flood zone one and sloped away from residential properties.  They would help alleviate and address any localised pooling by tilling or aerating any hard or compacted areas.  Ecology walkovers and the Biodiversity Management Plan submitted with the application demonstrated that there was more than 10% Biodiversity Net Gain in accordance with policy ENV1. The conditions proposed were achievable and the works required could be delivered within the six month timeframe.  The drafting of a legal agreement to ensure the delivery of the open space was underway.  This application had been brought forward following dialogue with the case officer, Parish Council and statutory consultees and addressed previous reasons for refusal.

Councillor Dundas addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure 10(2).  There was a long history associated with this site, which reflected poorly on the applicant and the Council. Under the original plans approved in 2013 once the housing development was complete the public open space was to be landscaped with drainage, allotments and a play area and the public space to be transferred to Tiptree Parish Council. However, at present the site was a muddy field which flooded, surrounded by fencing, with no play area or allotments.  The Council was the guarantor for the scheme and this did not reflect well on them.  The Council had taken enforcement action against the developer for failure to implement the agreed plan and for the importation of material from other sites and a court date had been set, which had led to this application being brought forward. In considering the application the Committee should satisfy itself that the site would not be a long-term flood risk and that sufficient imported material was removed to remove the risk of flooding from a one in 30 year event.   A proper drainage plan needed to be in place.  The soil used for the allotments needed to be fit for purpose. The Parish Council wished to see the road up the middle of the site removed and replaced with a more appropriate track.  The works should be prioritised and delivered as soon as possible.  The allotments should be provided to enable their use in the forthcoming growing season.

At the request of the Chair the Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised by the Have Your Say speakers.  He confirmed that the site was in Flood Zone 1 so was at low risk of flooding.  In terms of drainage, as it was a greenfield site the implementation of a formal drainage scheme was not necessarily appropriate.  SUDS had agreed to the drainage proposals put forward by the applicant and they had confirmed they had no objection to their strategy subject to conditions. Conditions were proposed that would require aeration and tilling works designed to improve soil permeability. A raft of conditions relating to contamination were proposed, which had been drawn up in conjunction with the Council’s contaminated land officer.  These included details of remediation and the removal of building debris. The soil had been found to be free of any risk to human health. Conditions also required a six month time frame for remedial works, including the changes in the levels, the removal of excess soil and the provision of hard and soft landscaping. 

The Committee then debated the application. Concern was expressed about the length of time it had taken to resolve these matters. A member asked whether there was any provision for drainage from the site to Tiptree Reservoir, given the clay soil on the site. The need to ensure a good depth of quality soil, possibly 600 mm as per agricultural land, was also emphasised. Clarification was also sought as to provision of the play equipment, and if it was not being provided on site, how close the nearest play equipment was. Clarification was also sought on the issues around the road through the site. 

The Senior Planning Officer responded and explained that the report made clear that the soil did have a heavy clay content which did not aid drainage.  If a formal drainage scheme was required, this would need to look in detail at potential outfall and discharge points. There would also be an associated maintenance responsibility which would fall to the Parish Council. Officers believed that while there had been some instances of standing water, there was not a risk to people or buildings or that it was such an issue as to hinder the useability of the site.  Officers and SUDS were content with the drainage strategy proposed. The play area would be provided by Tiptree Parish Council to their specification.  It had not been provided yet because the precursory works which were the responsibility of the developer had not yet been undertaken. There was a commuted sum from the developer in the section 106 agreement to the Parish Council towards the provision of the play equipment and the maintenance of the site. In terms of the road, the aim was to introduce a more permeable surface. In terms of the depth of the soil on the allotments, 300 mm was the industry standard and the soil underneath would have had work done to ensure it was not contaminated. If the Committee felt it was appropriate then it could impose a condition requiring a greater depth. 

The Committee remained of the view that the soil on the allotments should be of a greater depth than 300 mm and requested that a condition requiring a soil to a depth of 600 mm be added to any permission. It was also suggested that this could form part of a wider drainage plan.

The Senior Planning Officer reiterated that there was drainage strategy for the site which relied on the levels of the site to drain the water away from the path and other well used areas of the site. There had been no significant drainage plan under the original consent.  Management responsibility for any such plan would fall to Tiptree Parish Council and they had expressed concern about possible commitments arising from other solutions. It was felt the proposed strategy was a proportionate response. In view of these assurance, the suggestion about the drainage plan was withdrawn.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, an additional condition requiring that the allotment area be covered with soil of appropriate quality for horticultural use to a depth of at least 600mm and the completion of a section 106 agreement (or an alternative linking mechanism as appropriate and where required) to ensure the provisions of the 2017 section 106 agreement remain in force and otherwise effective.

The Committee considered an outline application for the erection of two two storey dwelling houses, one single storey bungalow and the conversion of a residential care home to a dwelling house, including part demolition of the residential care home. The application was referred to the Planning Committee because the director of the applicant company was the spouse of a senior manager in the Council’s Planning Service. 

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

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that the application be approved subject to completion of a section 106 agreement (covering RAMS payment, communities, parks and recreation contributions and biodiversity net gain monitoring), subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and the Amendment Sheet and approval of any non-material changes in the conditions delegated to the Joint Heads of Planning. 

The Committee considered an application for the change of use of a former outbuilding to barber use only within Class E.  The application had been referred to the Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Scott-Boutell for the reasons set out in the report.

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

The Chair announced that he had considered a request for a site visit from Councillor Scott-Boutell but had not agreed to the request as the Committee had undertaken a site visit to the area on the 13 June 2024 to view application 232295 (where it viewed the surroundings of the site which would include the scale of the surrounding area and the highways in the area). However, as this was not the same application, he had asked the Case Officer to provide additional materials to the Committee to ensure that their understanding of the application was complete. If, following consideration of the item, members felt a site visit was necessary then this could be put as a proposal to the Committee.

Chris Harden, Senior Planning Officer, presented the report and assisted the Committee with its deliberations.

Councillor Scott-Boutell addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure 10(2).  The Committee would be aware of the retrospective application 232295 on the same site for the change of use of the post office to a café, which had been considered on three occasions by the Committee. Extensive conditions had been applied to the permission. A breach of conditions notice had been served on the owner of the café for the failure to discharge several conditions.  As the notice had not been complied with within the necessary timescale, the Council was considering prosecution. A further retrospective application had been received for signage to the front elevation and lighting had been installed without permission, but no action taken.  The statement that no work had started in respect of this application was incorrect and there were two barber’s chairs and associated equipment in situ. This was clearly another retrospective application and was for only one barber’s chair. The proposed cycle parking was an eyesore and only delivered six spaces rather than the 12 claimed, which was a further breach of the existing permission.  There were also queries in respect of waste collection and storage. There were also several inaccuracies in the revised Planning Statement.  An application had been submitted to vary condition 4 to change the café’s opening hours, but no mention of changing the hours for the barbers. The applications were linked and this application should not be considered whilst application 232295 was subject to enforcement action for non-compliance with conditions. The Committee should defer, refuse or ask for the application to be withdrawn. 

At the request of the Chair the Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised by the Have Your Say speakers and confirmed that enforcement action was being taken regarding issues around the compliance with conditions imposed in respect of the cafe. However, that this would not be a reason to refuse the application. Regardless of the number of chairs, the application was for one barber and it would be conditioned that only one barber could work at any one time.  The key point was the intensity of use, rather than the amount of equipment. Whilst equipment may be in place, the use had not started. More cycling parking could be provided if it was deemed necessary.  The cycle store was low and visually unobtrusive. The inaccuracies in the Planning Statement were noted but were not a reason for refusal of the application.  An application to vary the café’s opening hours for some Sunday opening had been received but was separate to this application and would not be a reason to refuse this application. The proposed use was a stand-alone, low key use.

The Committee debated the application. Clarification was sought as to the location and access arrangements for the bike shed, opening times and the provision of toilet facilities. It was suggested that the opening hours of the barbers should be linked to that of the café.  Clarification was also sought about parking arrangements and concern expressed that the parking area for the café was being used for the sale of cars.  Concern was also expressed about the retrospective nature of the application.  When considering the previous application, the Committee had been of the view that the side access to the site should not be used for parking or vehicle access. A committee member expressed a view that it was difficult not to link this application to the previous application for the café and was concerned about the reported breaches of condition the Committee had imposed.

The Chair advised the Committee there was no fit and proper person test in the consideration of planning applications and the Committee needed to approach this application with a fresh mind and consider the proposal on its planning merits.  The Joint Head of Planning advised that planning permission was granted to the land rather than the applicant and in respect of this application members needed to put aside any concerns about the applicant.  It was a low-key use that often took place in residential and mixed use areas.  It was not unusual for such premises to have no parking facilities.  It was difficult to sustain an argument that it would have a material impact on neighbouring properties. Whilst the frustration about the works having commenced in advance of planning permission being granted was understood, it was reiterated that the use had not commenced. It was difficult to identify any substantive planning reasons for the refusal of the application. 

The Committee continued to debate the application and it was suggested that it might be appropriate to grant a temporary permission.  The Committee also explored whether conditions could be imposed to limit the use to one chair. The need for car parking and the provision of better access to the cycle store was also raised. It was suggested that hatching or signage could be used to prevent any car parking to the side of the café. 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised and explained that it would be possible to impose a temporary permission. However, a condition to limit the use to one chair might be ultra vires as a chair would not be considered as development. It would be possible to impose a condition that required no parking in front of the outbuilding and to the side of the café. This would help secure access to the cycle parking.   In terms of access to toilet facilities, there was a toilet in the café.  In view of this the Committee was of the view that hours of use of the barbers should align with those of the café, but the Committee did not wish to see the barbers operating on Sunday.

RESOLVED (UNAINIMOUS) that the application be approved subject to the expiration of the certificate B notification period and subject to the conditions set out in the report and further conditions as follows:

• a temporary permission for one year to allow the use to be monitored and reviewed.
• the side access way to be kept clear with no parking at the area at the side of café and with appropriate hatching and signage to secure this.
• hours of use to match the previously approved opening hours of the café, and with no opening on Sundays to facilitate access to the toilet facilities.

The Committee considered an application for a respite care facility to support up to two young people aged 12 to 18 to allow primary carers a break. The application was referred to the Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Çufoglu for the reasons set out in the report.

The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out together with further information on the Amendment Sheet.

Philip Moreton, Planning Officer, presented the report and assisted the Committee in its deliberations.

Roy Buckland addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application.  He explained that he was a resident of Kings Head Court and was representing all the other residents. Kings Head Court was a cul-de-sac leading to five bungalows accessed solely off a single track gravel driveway.  There were no passing places and it was only intended for use by domestic vehicles, and emergency vehicles would have difficulty gaining access.   This would be compounded if vehicles were parked in the driveway.  There was a small turning area at the far end of the driveway in front of the application property.  This needed to be kept clear to enable residents and delivery vehicles to turn round, but current visitors to the property had not done so.  Increased traffic would cause increased pollution and danger for any visiting children playing outside of the other bungalows.  Whilst the report before the Committee mentioned two carers, the applicant’s Property Management Plan showed three carers if two occupants present.  Whilst the Plan stated that most support workers would rely on public transport their website made it clear that care assistants needed to have access to their own transport. The planning report also stated that two parking spaces would be acceptable for the use but at handovers six vehicles could be present. In additional there would be additional visits from managers, visitors and deliveries for which there was no parking capacity.   In view of objections raised and the lack of suitability of the site for the proposed use the application should be refused. 

Councillor Çufoglu attended and addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure 10(2) and explained that he had requested that the Committee undertake a site visit as part of the call in and sought confirmation as to whether this had happened. Whilst the vision behind the application was appreciated there were several issues and inconsistencies that were causing concern.  The applicant’s plan did not include areas for the storage and collection of waste or recyclable materials.  It claimed incorrectly that hours of opening were not relevant and that the proposed use did not involve the carrying out of commercial or industrial activities or involve the use of hazardous substances. The applicant had not put in place adequate measures to satisfy the legal requirements about the disposal of waste from a care home.  Based on the applicant’s management plan, there could be at least 10 vehicles attending the property at shift change times.  The proposal did not comply with policy DM15, particularly regarding providing legible spaces and streets and safe vehicular access. The application also failed to have a waste management plan or demonstrate how it would protect and promote residential amenity. It also failed to provide a robust, functional and adaptable design and failed to incorporate the necessary infrastructure to meet current requirements including parking and around the storage and collection of waste. 

In response to the request for a site visit, the Chair sought the view of the Planning Officer as to whether there was any information that could not be obtained from the Committee report or the photographs in the presentation to the Committee.  The Planning Officer confirmed that there was not and the Chair indicated that he believed that the Committee had sufficient information to determine the application and that a site visit was not necessary. 

The Committee debated the application.  Clarification was sought on how many vehicles were likely to try and access the application site at any one time, especially given the nature of the access route, and the potential impact on the turning point. Given that the access was a private road there may be covenants in place about its use and maintenance.   If no additional parking provision was provided, possibly off site, there was a risk that the access road and the turning point would be jammed.  It was also suggested that there were possible ways of extending the parking provision either to the side or to the rear of the bungalow. Clarification was also sought on the arrangements for the collection of special or medical waste and whether collection vehicles would be able to access the site, given the nature of the access.  If not, consideration should be given to a condition requiring such waste to be collected from another site. 

A Committee member highlighted that unless there was a covenant in place restricting the number of cars, it was possible for a significant number of cars to use the site under the existing residential use.  The Joint Head of Planning reiterated this point and explained the application site was a three bedroom bungalow.  Under the existing use, it could be occupied as an HMO or by five adults, all of whom could own a car. 

The Planning Officer responded to the debate and explained that it was not possible to be certain of numbers of vehicles using the site, but the applicant had confirmed that most carers would use public transport. The number of carers given in the application was an upper limit and the actual numbers could be less as they were provided on demand.  Hazardous waste collection was covered by other legislation, but a condition could be imposed requiring the provision of a scheme for the safe storage and collection of waste. This could cover collection points, but a condition could not be imposed controlling the type of vehicle that was used to collect waste.

The Joint Head of Planning also suggested the if members had concerns about the potential impact of the application, they could issue a temporary permission which would provide an opportunity for the impact of the use to be monitored and reviewed. 

In further debate members of the Committee explored whether the double garage next to the car port was part of the application site.  Concerns about access for emergency vehicles were reiterated, which some members felt were particularly relevant given the proposed use of the site. 

The Planning Officer explained that the double garage was spilt between the bottom two bungalows on Kings Head Court. The garage to the right was part of the site but was not compliant with policy requirements so was not part of the proposed parking provision.  It may be possible for two cars to use the car port.  In terms of the issues raised about emergency access, this would still be required under the existing residential use. 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that the application be approved for a temporary use of two years to allow the operation to be monitored, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and an additional condition requiring the submission of a scheme for approval by the local planning authority covering the safe management and collection of waste.

The Committee considered an application for a proposed new front wall and path. The application was referred to the Committee as the applicant was Colchester Borough Homes.

The Committee had before it a report in which all the information was set out.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Councillor Mark Goacher declared that due to predetermination he would not be taking part in the debate or vote on the application and would only be speaking as a ward councillor.

The Committee considered an application for change of use from retail plus dry cleaner (E use class) into restaurant (E use class) and takeaway (sui generis) including the installation of an extraction flue type system through the roof towards the front of the building.   The application was referred to the Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Goacher for the reasons set out in the report. 

The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out together with further information on the Amendment Sheet.

Lucy Mondon, Planning Manager (North) presented the report and assisted the Committee in its deliberations. 

Councillor Goacher addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure 10(2).  He explained that he had called the application in based on the concerns expressed to him by residents of Angel Court. They had welcomed the repositioning of the flue but some concerns remained, in particular about the use of the ground floor side door. There was concern that waste stored near the door would only be separated from three flats by a flimsy fence which would not provide adequate protection from odour.  This door was often left open by workers now which caused noise pollution. There was also concern about the use of the front door to take rubbish out late at night which caused noise and disturbance to the amenity of residents of Angel Court.  Clarification was sought as to what conditions could be put in place to address these issues. 

At the request of the Chair, the Planning Manager responded to the comments and explained that in respect of the side door, there was a condition proposed requiring the use of self-closing doors. In terms of waste storage, the applicant had indicated that they were proposing to store waste internally and dispose of it to an external bin the following day, which should reduce disturbance.  If concerns remained, then the Committee could amend the condition on waste storage and recycling to require a waste management plan.

The Committee then debated the application.  It was noted that the other two businesses in that frontage closed at 11.00 pm and some concern was expressed about the proposed hours of operation which allowed it to close at 1.00 am. Whilst it was adjacent to a nightclub with later opening hours, this was only open three nights per week.  Clarification was also sought on proposed security arrangements. 

The Planning Manager explained that the applicants had requested the proposed hours of operation and no objection had been made by Environmental Health, possibly due to the close proximity of the nightclub with extended opening hours. In addition, there was no external space associated with the application so any activity arising from the proposed use would be on the High Street.  If it felt it appropriate the Committee could add a condition requiring details of security arrangements to be submitted. The Planning Manager suggested that if the Committee remained concerned about hours of operation, it could allow a later opening time on Fridays and Saturday nights and require an 11.00pm closure on other nights. 

The Committee continued to debate the application, and particularly the hours of operation. It was suggested that a wider view need to be taken of the hours of operation of other such outlets on the High Street and a consistent and fair approach taken. The business was only likely to be busy in the later hours when the adjacent nightclub was open. The need to support businesses and the High Street was also highlighted.  The opening hours as proposed were not queried any further.

RESOLVED (NINE vote FOR, TWO voted AGAINST and ONE ABSTAINED from voting) that the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives in the report, an additional condition requiring the submission of a waste management plan for approval to the local planning authority and for authority to be delegated to the Joint Heads of Planning to make any necessary non-material amendments to the conditions in the report.

Councillors McLean and Rippingale indicated that due to predetermination they would not take part in the debate or vote on this item and left the meeting for the duration of its consideration and determination.

The Committee considered a report seeking approval for the introduction of a second reason for refusal to the Planning Committee’s resolution at its meeting on 7 November 2024 to refuse planning permission for the redevelopment of the Abro site on Flagstaff Road, Colchester (application reference 231297).  

Simon Cairns, Joint Head of Planning, introduced the report and explained that at its meeting on 7 November 2024 the Committee had refused application 231297 for reasons which primarily related to design.  However, as part of the determination process it had been overlooked that there was no legal mechanism to secure the relevant developer contributions, which would normally also be included as a reason for refusal.  The report therefore sought the Committee’s approval to add an additional reason for refusal to the decision to reflect the absence of such a legal mechanism.  This would reinforce and add further weight to the Committee’s previous decision to refuse the application.  The wording of the additional reason for refusal was set out in full at paragraph 5.1 of the report.  This set out the contributions that would have been required should the application have been approved and the Local Plan policies that the development was in breach of by the failure to secure the contributions. 

In discussion, a member of the Committee explored why a lack of affordable housing had not been included as a reason for refusal and whether there was scope to add an additional reason for refusal in respect of the under provision of affordable housing and the need to prioritise securing affordable housing in line with Council policy over the viability of the site. 

The Joint Head of Planning explained that the proposal before the Committee did include the lack of a mechanism to secure the necessary affordable housing as part of the reason for refusal.  The report submitted to the Committee on 7 November 2024 under the Deferral and Recommendation Overturn Procedure and the original report to the Committee did examine in detail issues of viability and the lack of full compliance with the policy on  affordable housing.  It concluded that the Council’s policy framework allowed for circumstances where the viability had been tested and had demonstrated that full compliance with policy requirements on affordable housing could not be achieved.  The Committee had considered that point and decided not to include it as a principal reason for refusal of the application and therefore it could not be added as a reason for refusal at this point.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that a second reason for refusal of planning application 231297 be agreed relating to the absence of a legally binding mechanism to secure a range of planning obligations required in association with the proposed development, to enable the Joint Head of Planning to issue the decision notice.