156
The Committee considered an outline application for the development of up to five dwellings, provision of parking for retained dwelling (No 62) and other ancillary development at 62 Brook Street, Colchester. The application had been referred to the Committee by Councillor Frame. The Committee had before it a report in which all the information was set out. The Committee made a site visit in order to assess the impact of the proposal upon the locality and the suitability of the proposal for the site.
Sue Jackson, Principal Planning Officer, presented the report and assisted the Committee in its deliberations.
Jane Clarke addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. She referred to the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the illegal levels of air pollution in the UK and the fact that Brook Street had suffered significant pollution problems for many years. Monitoring had been continuing over this time but no action had been taken to resolve the problem. She expressed her concern regarding the application in relation to the additional traffic which would be generated and the impact this would have upon the pollution levels. She considered the speed data assessments results had been misleading. The numbers of vehicles using Brook Street was increasing as evidenced by the traffic which now queued both directions for six hours each day, six days a week. The issue of stationary traffic meant that it was already very difficult to access Brook Street from side junctions and the application was proposing the addition of another junction in close proximity to an existing one on the opposite side of the road. She was concerned that the Highway Authority assessment had not considered parked cars to be a significant hazard and, as such, had not been included in the assessment. She was of the view that the development would increase pollution in the area and the traffic would impede the air flow. She also referred to potential risks of flooding on the site, the impact of the larger development further along Brook Street and she was opposed to the inclusion of three storey units on the site.
Councillor Frame attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. He was of the view that there was only so much more development that could be added to an already highly congested area of the town. He was concerned how large articulated construction vehicles would access the site and considered the problems associated with the construction of the development on such a small site were adequate reasons to refuse the application. The fact that the site was considered appropriate for a self-build development was likely to lead to greater problems during the construction phase as there would be reduced control over the frequency and duration of deliveries. He referred to the very poor air quality in the Brook Street area which was already in excess of EU limits. He referred to the numerous conditions proposed for the outline application which, he considered, indicated the difficulty in developing the site and, in his view, suggested that the Planning Officers were not totally convinced as to its viability. He was of the view that the urban design, including three storey units was inappropriate for the site as those existing houses in the neighbourhood were generally of two storeys. He requested the design proposals be looked at again, particularly given the likelihood that they would be open to up to five different interpretations. He urges refusal of the application due to the unnecessary traffic issues and the negative impact on the air quality.
The Principal Planning Officer explained that the Highway Authority had withdrawn their original objection to the development on the basis of additional information submitted and the reduction in the number of dwellings and they were recommending the inclusion of a condition to provide for the installation of the access road to base level prior to development of the site. She explained that air quality and pollution calculations had been undertaken by the Council’s Environmental Protection Team which had demonstrated that, whilst vehicle movements had continued to increase, pollution levels had decreased. The additional vehicle movements generated by the proposed development was not considered to have a significant impact on the overall air quality in the Brook Street area. The report had confirmed that flooding was not considered to be an issue and the habitat surveys had revealed no protected species associated with the site. In terms of storey heights, she confirmed that the existing neighbouring properties were split level, three storey units. As an outline application, detailed elevations would be submitted for approval at the reserved matters stage. A number of conditions had been proposed for inclusion in order to ensure each separate plot would comply with the same criteria.
Members of the Committee were concerned about the proposed access road, its impact on the frontage to No 62 Brook Street and the street scene in general and the already high levels of pollution in the area. They also sought assurances about whether the speed survey had been undertaken by an independent body and suggestions were made about the inclusion of electric charging points, cabling for broadband, solar panelling to roofs and restrictions on the use of wood burning stoves. Reference was also made to the need for the allocation of one additional parking space onsite for the use of visitors. Questions were also made about the self-build element of the proposal and the likelihood that this would lead to a piecemeal approach to the development as well as whether the proposal complied with policies on backland development.
In response to specific matters of discussion the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the access road was of 4.8 metres in width which would provide for the passing of two vehicles, and it would require the use of virtually the whole of the existing frontage to No 62 Brook Street. She explained that it would be possible to move the position of the front door to No 62 Brook Street without the need for planning permission, the transport assessment had been undertaken by an appropriate body and that the Environmental Protection Team had estimated the increase in vehicle movements as a result of the development would amount to 0.16% compared to existing movements. The new access road would be constructed to adoptable standards, back-land development had already been given approval elsewhere in the vicinity, the site of the current proposal was well contained and would not lead to on-going development. She confirmed conditions providing for an additional parking space, broad band cabling and electric charging points could be added to an approval whilst the provision of solar panels would be best dealt with by reference to the existing condition on limiting environmental impacts.
Simon Cairns, Planning Project Manager, also took the opportunity to confirm that the estimated increase in traffic movements from the development would not be significant, the development was generally in accordance with the Council’s Backland and Infill Supplementary Planning Document whilst the self-build construction method statement would be dealt with by means of a co-ordinated approach. He also advised that the Highway Authority had indicated its satisfaction with the proposed development, subject to the addition of appropriate conditions.
As the discussion suggested the Committee may be minded to refuse the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation in the report, the Chairman proposed the Deferral and Recommendation Overturn Procedure be invoked. This would provide for a further report to be submitted to the Committee which would give details of the implication of refusal on grounds of visual impact on the street scene and the cumulative effect of developments on the air quality levels
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the Deferral and Recommendation Overturn Procedure be invoked and a further report be submitted to the Committee giving details of the implication of refusal on grounds of visual impact on the street scene and the cumulative effect of developments on the air quality levels.