296
Councillor Chapman (in respect of his acquaintance with the speaker objecting to the application) declared a non-pecuniary interest pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5).
Councillor J. Maclean (in respect of her Board membership of the Rosemary Almshouses) declared a non-pecuniary interest pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5).
The Committee considered an application for demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to deliver student accommodation (Use Class Sui Generis) across five blocks of one, two, three and four storeys to provide 230 bed spaces (59 cluster flats and 17 studio flats), communal facilities (to include bin stores, cycle stores, site management office, gym and communal amenity areas) as well as undercroft car park (20 car parking spaces), landscaping and a new public pathway through the site at the Former Bus Depot, Magdalen Street, Colchester. The application had been referred to the Committee because it was a major application on which material objections had been received, a legal agreement was required and Councillor T. Higgins had called in the application. The Committee had before it a report and an amendment sheet in which all the information was set out, including a copy of an example Management Plan for one of the applicant’s existing sites.
Sue Jackson, Principal Planning Officer, presented the report and, together with Simon Cairns, the Major Development and Projects Manager, assisted the Committee in its deliberations.
Michael Siggs, on behalf of the Winnock’s and Kendal’s Almshouse Charity, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. He explained his concern regarding the integrity of the boundary wall between the development site and the Almshouses. He emphasised that the Almshouse Charity, which had first been established in the 17th century, provided accommodation for poor, elderly, local people who were often near the end of their lives. The imposition of 250 students in close proximity was likely to lead to a very negative impact on the lives of the residents of the Almshouses as their respective lifestyles would be so different. He also voiced concerns about the density of the development and the proposals not being in accordance with the aspirations of the area.
Max Plotnek addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. He explained that there had been an extensive pre-application process which had produced a high quality scheme which he considered would be an enhancement to the Magdalen Street area. He acknowledged the concerns expressed in relation to the Almshouses but explained that Historic England, as statutory consultees, had not indicated any objection to the application. He was of the view that the provision of student accommodation by means of this application would preserve the housing stock for local people, he referred to the over provision of parking spaces compared to the relevant standards and the proposed arrangements for 24/7 on site management to promptly deal with any matters of concern.
Councillor T. Higgins attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. She referred to the development brief for the site which she considered had been an opportunity to create a vibrant community asset in the area. She was concerned that the proposals were neither vibrant nor small-scale and would create a transient local community which would not be beneficial to the area. She explained that the number of bed spaces had increased to 230 from an original proposal of 200. The proposal would not be an enhancement for the Almshouses which needed to benefit from a clear space between them and the new building. The wall facing the Almshouses, although windowless to prevent overlooking would be featureless and stark whilst Block D would be located too close to the existing housing to the rear. She considered the development proposed was too large and in the wrong place and, as such, would be detrimental to the area. She also referred to the lack of foresight within the proposals as they did not include provision for the roof areas to be used for locating solar panels and there was no reference to the inclusion of ducting for broadband cabling. She went on the question the location of student accommodation in this location, given its distance from the University of Essex. She welcomed the development of the site in principle but considered the current proposals should be refused on the grounds of over development of the site, high density development and its impact on listed buildings.
The Principal Planning Officer responded to the points raised by commenting that proposals included the provision of CCTV along the frontage to Magdalen Street for additional security for students as well as the wider community whilst the Management plan included information as to how neighbour complaints such as noise problems would be dealt with. She acknowledged the building adjacent to the Almshouses included a blank elevation but the demolition of the existing shed building would be of considerable benefit. The proposals included the provision of broadband, Historic England had considered the proposals to be an enhancement to the street scene, the building materials would be brick and the demand for student accommodation was not exclusively from the University but various other educational establishments in the area. She confirmed that there was no provision for solar panels.
Some members of the Committee voiced their concern regarding the close proximity of elderly residents to the site, the difficulty of managing the different lifestyles of the proposed neighbouring communities, the impact on nearby listed buildings and the impact of a transient group of residents in this location. Reference was also made to the proposals not being in keeping with the contents of the development brief, whether the location was appropriate for this type of development and the cramped nature of the proposals at the rear of the site. Suggestions were made regarding the potential to reduce the density of the development and to introduce an outdoor open space area.
Other members of the Committee did not consider the location to be unsustainable as student accommodation and were of the view that it was beneficial to promote mixed communities along with the need to provide for safeguards to address disputes relating to lifestyle differences. It was considered possible for the opportunity to be taken to propose additional conditions to ensure a robust Management Plan was in place to address neighbour impact issues. Examples were cited, to address such issues including visits by student representatives, eviction action after three reported problems, the imposition of timescales to restrict outdoor noise during the night time and waste management and litter collection measures.
The Principal Planning Officer explained that it was not necessarily possible for a development brief to predict each use which may come forward for consideration. She confirmed there was no standard for amenity space for student accommodation and that it would be possible to specify particular matters for inclusion in a management Plan for the conduct of residents within the accommodation. However, she voiced concerns regarding the ability to enforce provisions restricting activity outside the accommodation at night time.
The Major Development and Projects Manager reminded the Committee that the application was considered to address the aims for the site in a considerable way and that a letter of support had been received from Historic England. He acknowledged concerns from the Committee members regarding the impact on residential amenity but he considered that a refusal of the application would be difficult to sustain.
A proposal which had been seconded, to refuse the application suggested that the Committee may be minded to determine the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation in the report on grounds of lack of conformity with the development brief, adverse effect on both the setting of adjacent listed buildings and adjacent communities and over development. In accordance with the Committee’s Deferral and Recommendation Overturn Procedure (DROP) the Chairman invited the Major Development and Projects Manager to indicate the likely implications should the Committee overturn the Officer’s recommendation in this instance.
The Major Development and Projects Manager advised against refusal on the grounds of adverse impact on amenity and in relation to its adherence to the development brief. He referred to the application having satisfied a number of aspirations for the area and the need for sound evidence to justify and substantiate a refusal. He explained that the proposal was for a quasi-residential use which could be made acceptable by the imposition of conditions. He also referred to an absence of sound reasons for refusal having the potential for costs to be awarded against the Council. In the light of this advice the Chairman determined that the DROP be invoked.
RESOLVED that the Deferral and Recommendation Overturn Procedure be invoked and a further report be submitted to the Committee giving details of the risks to the Council, the financial implications, possible reasons for refusal as well as advice on whether representations constituted evidence to support reasons for refusal and proposed provisions to be included in an accommodation Management Plan to address instances of noise, disturbance and littering.