Hybrid planning application comprising of an outline planning permission (with appearance and landscaping reserved) for the development of 61 residential dwellings (27 x 1 bedroom, 34 x 2 bedroom) together with associated car and cycle parking, landscaping and open space access and servicing arrangements and full planning permission for the change of the former Rectory building to C3 (residential) to provide 5 residential dwellings (5 x 2 bedroom) together with associated car parking, access and servicing arrangement.
319
Councillor Higgins (by reason of her having expressed a prejudicial view on the application) declared a pecuniary interest pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 9(5) and left the meeting during its consideration and determination after she had made representations as a visiting ward councillor.
The Deputy Chairman, Councillor Liddy, here took the Chair.
The Committee considered a hybrid planning application comprising of an outline planning permission (with appearance and landscaping reserved) for the development of 58 residential dwellings (26 one bedroom and 32 two bedroom) together with associated car and cycle parking, landscaping and open space access and servicing arrangements and full planning permission for the change of the former rectory building to C3 (residential) to provide five residential dwellings (five two bedroom) and new build (1 one bedroom and 2 two bedroom)together with associated car parking, access and servicing arrangement at land west of Brook Street, Colchester. The application had been referred to the Committee because it was a major application with material objections had been received and a legal agreement was required. In addition, the application had been called in by Councillor Higgins. 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 proposals upon the locality and the suitability of the proposals for the site.
Sue Jackson, Principal Planning Officer, presented the report and, together with the Simon Cairns, Major Development and Projects Manager, assisted the Committee in its deliberations.
Natasha Austin, a resident of George Williams Way, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. She explained her concerns about the prospect of the access route being provided by utilising George Williams Way on the basis that the road was very narrow, with insufficient parking provision which had led to ongoing parking problems and the need for pedestrians to walk in the roads. If access was provided it would require the crossing of existing footpaths and she was of the view that this would not be appropriate or workable, especially given the fact gravel area was currently used by children as a play area. She requested the Committee to refuse any proposal to widen George Williams Way on the basis that it would lead to encroachment and danger to pedestrians.
David Symonds addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. He explained that the proposals being presented had followed 18 months of discussions with planning officers to provide around 70 homes as well as addressing other challenges associated with the site. The access proposed from Brook Street was considered to be the best solution bearing in mind the grading to the site and the avoidance of impact for the residents of George Williams Way, whilst the transport assessment had also demonstrated that there was sufficient capacity in the Brook Street location. He went on to explain that he had worked closely with the Environmental protection Team and no issues had emerged in relation to air quality. The site was a very sustainable, well designed one which had been deemed to be satisfactory by the Highway Authority. Much needed housing would be provided as well as ecological enhancements, transport movements were being safeguarded and the existing buildings would be retained.
Councillor Higgins attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. She explained that she was objecting to the use of Brook Street as the access to the site as she was of the view that the development in George Williams Way had been designed to provide access to the site beyond, by means of the use of the area which was currently gravelled. She still maintained that this was the best option as she was concerned about the prospect of more vehicles utilising Brook Street and had been disappointed that no objection to this effect had materialised from the Highway Authority. She acknowledged the highly sustainable nature of the site but considered that this was unlikely to lead to a marked absence of car ownership by residents. As such she was of the view that parking provision needed to meet the approved standard, with no exception being made. She also referred to the proposed provision of car ports and was concerned that these may, over time, become used as play areas by children. She considered this eventuality would be avoided by means of the provision of a designated play area for children.
A number of members of the Committee referred to the considerable on-street parking in George Williams Way which had been observed on the site visit and the merit of relaxing of the parking proposals for the development on the grounds of its high degree of sustainability. Mention was also made of the impact on the air quality issues associated with Brook Street and its suitability to provide access to the site given the existing poor air quality in the area , potential drainage issues in relation to the low lying nature of part of the site and the potential for the site to deliver a proportion of affordable housing.
The Principal Planning Officer explained that the parking provision which had been approved in relation to the George Williams Way development had been made at a time when the adopted standard was for a minimum level of provision rather than a maximum. She considered the cycle and car parking provision of one space per unit with additional spaces for visitors for the proposed development, amounting to 94 spaces across 66 units, would be adequate given the close proximity of the site to the town centre. She confirmed that the gravel area was not intended to be used for access and the proposals did include a designated children’s play area on site together with public amenity areas and flats with roof gardens . The provision of access from brook Street had been considered acceptable by the Highway Authority and she confirmed that the proposed underground parking would be located in elevated part of the site and, as such, would not be susceptible to flooding. The viability appraisal had been subject to an independent assessment which had found the conclusions to be acceptable. Anglian Water and Essex County Council, as lead drainage authority had found the surface water and foul drainage proposals to be acceptable. She reiterated that the report included proposed a landscape condition and a condition to provide for electric charging points.
Belinda Silkstone, Environmental Protection Manager, confirmed that Brook Street was an Air Quality Management Area and that Air Quality Impact Assessments had been undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed development on the area. This had predicted a negligible impact due the relatively few additional vehicle movements in relation to the existing levels which had been recorded at 100,000 per week. She went on the explain that there was also existing air quality issues for Magdalen Street due to the high number of Heavy Goods vehicle usage.
The Major Developments and Planning Projects Manager acknowledged the parking problems associated with the development at George Williams Way which had been as a consequence of particularly low adopted standards at the time the development was given approval, the current lack of traffic regulation measures and the site’s close proximity to the town centre. However, he confirmed that the proposed site under consideration was in a highly sustainable location and the proposed parking provision was considered adequate.
RESOLVED (FIVE voted FOR, THREE voted AGAINST and ONE ABSTAINED) that consideration of the planning application be deferred for further negotiation to be undertaken to seek revisions to achieve a greater number of parking spaces in compliance with adopted standards and for the outcome to be reported back to the Committee in due course.