1069
The Committee considered an application for the change of use from Post Office delivery office (sui generis) to café (Class E). Installation of an extraction system to the rear elevation. 1st Floor 1 bed flat. Additional Parking Plan Received. The application was referred to the Planning Committee as the application had been called in by Councillor Scott-Boutell who stated:
“The application states that work has not started but the flue has been installed and appears to be a different design to the plans submitted. Inadequate parking for 5 staff and customers. At best there are 3 spaces at the front of the building. No cycle storage and no disabled bays. There is only one toilet shown on the plan. Is that to be used by clients and staff? There’s no disabled toilet shown. Clarification needed on where the foul sewage goes and how is the applicant going to dispose of foul sewage as the application states unknown.
Stairs are shown as going upstairs but no first-floor plan have been submitted. What is upstairs? No detail. Is this accessible to the public? Has the use of the first floor changed. What was it and what is intended for future use?
No to the question “Does the proposed developed require any materials to be used externally?” The installed flue is external materials and is installed. No detail on how waste will be stored and disposed of, and no plans of storage and disposal of recyclables.
Hours of opening are relevant to the scheme as drawing shows a planned bar. 38 covers are shown on the plan downstairs. No detail on plans/ use for upstairs as none submitted although plans show stairs. No parking listed for the covers shown. The kitchen and prep area appears too small for the cover area with the bar area of nearly equal size.
There is not enough detail and too much detail is missing for an informed decision to be made. As submitted, and as a retrospective application, it is already having a negative impact on neighbours amenity and well being.”
The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out.
Chris Harden, Senior Planning Officer presented the application and assisted them in their deliberations. The Committee were shown the plans for the site which included 8 parking spaces on the garage forecourt as well as the plans for the forecourt of the shop showing the electric vehicle charging point, the disabled parking space and bollard on the delivery area. It was noted following the Committee’s previous deferral that the cycle store and disabled toilet had been introduced as well as separate staff toilet and that the flue which was detailed in the conditions would be partially concealed. The Committee heard that the application was in a sustainable location and with the development being assessed as acceptable subject to the conditions in the report and additional conditions as detailed below:
- Detailed design of rear pedestrian access door and external lighting scheme to be submitted and approved prior to use of café
- Restriction of number of covers to 24 no. diners.
- Change to condition 14 – 10-year lease to be signed from updated lease date.
The Senior Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions as detailed above and in the officer recommendation.
Robert Carmichael, Democratic Services Officer read out a statement from Councillor Scott-Boutell as follows:
“The delivery drivers to the café, where will they park? If parked on London Rd the disabled bay and parking space for the flat will be obstructed and drivers will be blocked in. The proposed bollards will prohibit delivery drivers parking off road
Are the layout plans to scale. The plan that shows the 1 toilet submitted in October 23, the toilet floorspace looks bigger than in the new plan for the proposal submitted June 24 for a one unisex disabled WC with a hand basin which is claimed to be sufficient for the premises—so still only 1 toilet for 24 covers plus staff. I also note that the proposed cycle storage is shown larger than the kitchen area
I also note the off-road parking on site show no turning area for either 1 space for flat or disabled bay—this means they will have to reverse out onto London Rd as per plan
The new parking plan for 29 London Rd shows the entire forecourt being used as off-site parking for the cafe. At present forecourt used as a car dealership. It’s also used for vehicles to be left parked, whilst waiting for either repair or MoT. In addition, break down vehicles tow cars in for repair and vehicle parts delivery need to park on the forecourt. How will the one-way system work for the garage deliveries/clients. They cannot park on London Rd because of enforcement markings and the zebra crossing. This proposal is unfeasible and saying that all garage related vehicles and movement will take place at the rear of the garage is unrealistic. Has the Sub Tenancy agreement for Car Parking been renegotiated as I cannot see that in the documents file. In the original agreement it states that this area must be displayed clearly for customers for the use of the patrons for the café only and not for the car MoT centre—this was for the earlier proposal for a shared forecourt. Has the new layout been agreed. If so, where is the agreement. Who will be responsible for enforcement of parking on the garage forecourt? Will it be a civil matter as it’s a contract between 2 individuals or can it be conditioned so that planning enforcement team can act if necessary. I also note that one of the 8 spaces is allocated for a member of staff and yet it had been said previously that no parking was needed for staff as they were all local. Please clarify.
Highways have said that parking on side roads is acceptable. I disagree. The reason being is that 2 of the 3 nearest side roads are private and the third has enforcement markings and a private car park owned and maintained by the residents.
And finally, I note that some drawings of are titled 50 London Rd, Marks Tey, one is London Rd Colchester. If this is incorrect what else is also incorrect?
This is the third time this has come to committee and the twists and turns for this retrospective application have been many. The to-date retrospective application bears little resemblance to the one submitted last October. There have been numerous objections from residents and the solutions appear to be more complicated and convoluted as time goes on. As the on and off-site parking proposals have changed from the original so much, I wish that the highways authority is reconsulted and look at the highway matters as a whole and not a series of tweaks to overcome failures.
The solutions that made is acceptable to them in the first instance no longer is. Please look and the nearest side roads that are highway adopted and have no enforcement markings and how far away they are. Please consider the garage forecourt parking and the implications to the highway when this fails for the reasons given above, and the reversing in or out on the on-site parking onto London Rd complete with delivery drivers being parked on London Rd causing tail backs and stopping the free flow of traffic.”
At the request of the Chair the Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised by Cllr Scott-Boutell’s written submission. The Committee heard that the deliveries to the site would be via a smaller vehicle and that there was room to pull further back into the site as the proposed bollard could be lowered. It was noted that there was a disabled toilet now on site and that this complied with building regulations and that no objection had been raised by Essex County Council’s Highways Department regarding the parking on the garage forecourt and that the planning agent for the application had confirmed that the MOT centre could operate with the vehicles to the rear of the site as per the original consultation response. It was noted that Essex County Council’s Highways department had not been reconsulted and the Senior Planning Officer detailed that they did not feel that this was necessary. Further to this it was noted that there had been many amendments since the application had originally been proposed and that many of the objections had been addressed within said amendments. The Case Officer concluded by detailing that the conditions on the application could only be enforced if the application was approved and that the plans shown were to scale.
The Committee debated the proposal on issues including: that the site had previously been used as a post office and sorting station and that the traffic that used to go there had never been an issue in the past, that the arrangement with the garage was not a planning issue and using their spaces and the agreement was a business agreement.
It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation with the additional conditions as laid out by the Senior Planning Officer as follows:
- Detailed design of rear pedestrian access door and external lighting scheme to be submitted and approved prior to use of café
- Restriction of number of covers to 24 no. diners.
- Change to condition 14 – 10-year lease to be signed from updated lease date.
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the application is approved as detailed in the officer recommendation and with the additional conditions as detailed below:
- Detailed design of rear pedestrian access door and external lighting scheme to be submitted and approved prior to use of café
- Restriction of number of covers to 24 no. diners.
- Change to condition 14 – 10-year lease to be signed from updated lease date.