Meeting Details

The minutes of the meeting held on the 30 January 2025 were confirmed as a true record.

The Committee considered an application for the Change of use of the upper floors and outbuilding from offices to 7. No one bed residential units and 1 no. basement office, along with minor alterations to exterior of the building and internal alterations (revised description). The application was referred to the Planning Committee as the applicant was the spouse of an employee of the Council and it had been called in by Cllr Sean Kelly for the following reasons:

• - Lack of parking provision. Absence of appropriate marketing exercise for the site to continue as a business premises as per WNP Wiv policy 19, which would need a valuation report and marketing plan followed by an agreement from CCC. The application does not conform to Local Plan Policy SS16. No private amenity space provided and therefore does not conform to Local Plan Policy DM19. 
  
  

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

Philip Moreton, Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee and assisted them in their deliberations. The Committee heard that concerns had been raised by Wivenhoe Town Council regarding the compliance of the application and re-iterated their concerns regarding parking. The Committee heard that the application was a Grade 2 listed building which sat in a conservation zone and showed plans of the site and the surrounding area and the conservation zone. The Committee were shown the floor plans for the building and the basement office noting that the proposal met the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS). It was detailed that the proposed works would be easy to reverse to if needed to return the building to its original structure. The Committee were shown the layout of design and the proposed finish which would be controlled via condition and detailed that the concerns raised regarding marketing were a matter of planning judgement but should be considered in the changing landscape of the use of town centres. The Planning officer concluded by detailing that this was a viable use of the listed building providing smaller homes and appropriate public benefits to the scheme and that the officer recommendation was for approval as detailed in the committee report.

Robert Pomery (Agent) addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. The Committee heard that the upper floors of the site currently required a parking allocation for 10 vehicles whereas the application before the committee required 7. The speaker detailed that the application was in a highly sustainable location and noted that the site had been marketed for a year before the applicant put in the application and asked Members to note that policy Wiv 19 had been superseded by planning reforms and held little weight. The speaker detailed that the only reason that this work could not be done under Permitted Development was due to the building being listed and noted that this sort of conversion was supported by the Government and would mean that there was less building on greenfield sites. The Agent concluded by detailing that all the businesses on the site had long term leases and that officers had scrutinised the proposal and applied policy which had found the development to compliant.

At the request of the Chair , the Joint Head of Planning, Simon Cairns, responded that Policy Wiv 19 was in part superseded in relation to permitted changes of use from class E to residential (Class C)  under Part 3 of the General Permitted Development Order and class MA that allowed class E buildings to change to residential development without a formal planning permission. However as previously noted as this application concerned  a listed building planning permission was required. The Committee heard that the policy within the Wivenhoe Neighbourhood Plan was largely out of date and confirmed that the parking deficit for the proposed development would be less than it was as currently approved and provided a good offer to the Town of business and residential development in a sustainable area whilst re-using a listed building.

Members debated the application on issues including: the character of the building, the retention of the business use and benefits that this could bring. Concern was raised regarding the windows on the proposal with the question being asked about what could be done to ensure that the shape of the windows would not be altered if replaced as had been the case on other buildings in the City. This matter being under control by virtue of the listed status of the premises.

Debate continued with some Members raising concern regarding the bin storage facilities and lack of parking spaces associated with the site and the impact that this would have on the residents and their ability to travel to work as this would be limiting the number of people who would be able to live in the building if approved.

At the request of the Chair the Planning Officer responded that the site was considered a sustainable location close to amenity space, cycle paths and the railway station and that this application was an improvement on the existing site use   reduce car trip. The Joint Head of Planning added that any changes to the windows would require planning permission and listed building consent.

Members concluded the debate by noting that there was a cycle path near the site and that there were many benefits associated with the proposal including fulfilling the acute need to this type of dwelling. 

RESOLVED (TEN votes FOR and ONE vote AGAINST) that application 242191 and 242192 be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation. 

Councillor Leigh Tate declared that she had formally commented on the application and publicly spoken against the proposal and as such would recuse themselves from the Committee and would not take part in debate or vote on the application.

The Committee considered an application for a single storey front extension and loft extension with roof lights. The application was referred to the Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Sue Lissimore  who had raised concerns regarding the design of the proposal and whether it would constitute overdevelopment of the site. 

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

Daniel Bird, Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee and assisted them in their deliberations. The Committee were shown the layout of the site, the floor plans for the proposal and the proposed locations of the extension and rooflights.  The Committee were shown photos of the site as it currently existed and its surroundings and detailed that the officer recommendation was for approval.

Calum Nicol addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in objection to the application. The Committee heard that there were questions regarding what would happen with the loft that had originally been two offices and now included a relaxation room. The speaker detailed that these changes meant that the red line plan was out of date noting that the rear and front  garden were getting smaller and that there had been issues with sheds, parking and emergency vehicles blocking access for other residents. The speaker detailed that there had been further issues with parking where land had been damaged on the adjacent property.

Councillor Roger Buston addressed the Committee as a visiting Councillor and Ward Member. The Committee heard that this was not a benign application and that this site had a history of refusals that needed to be considered in the context of this application and that there was overdevelopment of the site. The speaker detailed that there had been applications on this site for the 12 years that they had been a Councillor and reminded members that the permissions only allowed for 15 residents at the care home and detailed that the applicant wanted to get as much out of the property as possible, that there were currently more residents in the home than was allowed and asked that the application be refused.

At the request of the Chair the Planning Officer and Joint Head of Planning responded that the application was for an area for staff members only and not additional residents and disagreed that this was overdevelopment of the site as it would be minor changes to the frontage, roof, and layout. It was noted that this type of premises did have parking pressures especially with regards to emergency vehicles and confirmed that this was an unadopted access whilst noting that 147 Shrub End Road was not part of the care home. It was noted that the Committee could not condition any changes to parking as there was no material change in the number of staff or residents, but an informative note could be added to the permission if members were minded to agree the proposal. It was noted that there had been a number of applications on the site, but  Members had to consider the application that was in front of them based on its own planning merits.

Members debated the proposal on issues including: that there were concerns regarding the previous applications and existing issues at the site with members noting that the proposal did not increase the number of residents or staff on site. It was queried how this was monitored. The Committee continued to debate the application on issues including: whether additional parking could be requested and whether access could be considered to the rear of the property to increase the parking provision. It was confirmed that there is in fact no rear access.

At the request of the Chair, the Planning Officer and Joint Head of Planning detailed that the parking on other property was outside of the red line boundary for the proposal and commented that any changes to the rear for parking would limit the amenity space for residents and would be an unreasonable request as there were no changes to resident or staffing numbers. It was noted that as there were concerns regarding the number of residents being above those that were allowed then an amendment could be made to the conditions of an approval (draft condition 4) to ensure that the number of residents was not in excess of what had previously been allowed.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation subject to the amendment and informative note as detailed below:

Amendment: That condition 4 is modified to read as follows:

ZOO- No alternative use of roof conversion is permitted and restriction of client numbers

4. Notwithstanding the submitted floor plans, the entire premises shall be used by no more than 15 clients at any one time in accordance with condition 2 of 202726. Furthermore, the additional accommodation created by the roof conversion shall be solely ancillary space for staff recreational and office use and not as further client bedrooms, otherwise than in accordance with a subsequent planning permission. Reason: this is the basis on which the application has been considered and any intensification of use of the care home would require detailed consideration to ensure that the safety of clients and amenities of the area are protected.

Informative: The use of the premises as a care home and associated car parking is limited to the approved application site and block plan under application s ref: 100026 and 202726.

RESOLVED (EIGHT votes FOR and ZERO votes AGAINST, with TWO ABSTENTIONS) That the application was approved as detailed in the officer recommendation subject to the amendment and informative note as detailed below:

Amendment: That condition 4 is modified to read as follows:

ZOO- No alternative use of roof conversion is permitted and restriction of client numbers

4. Notwithstanding the submitted floor plans, the entire premises shall be used by no more than 15 clients at any one time in accordance with condition 2 of 202726. Furthermore, the additional accommodation created by the roof conversion shall be solely ancillary space for staff recreational and office use and not as further client bedrooms, otherwise than in accordance with a subsequent planning permission. Reason: this is the basis on which the application has been considered and any intensification of use of the care home would require detailed consideration to ensure that the safety of clients and amenities of the area are protected.

Informative: The use of the premises as a care home and associated car parking is limited to the approved application site and block plan under application s ref: 100026 and 202726.