378
The Committee considered a report by the Head of Commercial Services, in accordance with the Committee’s Deferral and Recommendation Overturn Procedure which had been invoked by the Committee at its meeting on 4 August 2016 as there was a suggestion that the Committee may be minded to determine the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation in the report. The outline application was for 37 apartments, 2 office units and associated layout, access and parking with all other matters reserved at 6 – 7 Hawkins Road, Colchester.
Bradly Heffer, Principal Planning Officer, presented the report and, together with Simon Cairns, Major Development and Projects Manager, assisted the Committee in its deliberations.
The Principal Planning Officer explained that consideration of the application had been deferred at the meeting on 4 August 2016 prior to the Committee voting on a proposal to refuse the application pending the submission of a further report giving details of the possible implications of refusing the application on the grounds of lack of parking / amenity space, excessive density of development and the potential conflict with existing commercial uses in the area. The Committee had before it the previous report together with an amendment sheet in which all the information was set out, including a late submission from Robinson and Hall LLP, a part of which referred to dealings with Hamblion Transport, the accuracy of which was vigorously disputed by the Managing Director of that company.
Some members of the Committee sought reassurance regarding the continuing operations of the existing commercial undertakings in the area and the potential for noise and disturbance complaints from future residents leading to restrictions being placed on the conduct of long established businesses in the area. As a means to mitigate this potential, the Principal Planning Officer explained that conditions had been proposed requiring noise attenuation. Additionally, future residents would be aware of the existence and operations of commercial premises in the area.
The Major Development and Projects Manager explained that it was not anticipated that the operations of an established storage company would generate noise levels which could constitute a statutory nuisance and, as such, it was unlikely that restrictions on established commercial operations would be imposed. In response to questions regarding financial implications of an appeal, he further explained that he did not consider there was substantive evidence to support a refusal of the application and, as such, the Council would be liable for costs which could be considerable, bearing in mind the use of Barristers and, ;potentially, Queen’s Counsel.
In accordance with the Deferral and Recommendation Overturn Procedure, the Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal to refuse the application. The proposal was lost (NONE voted FOR, EIGHT voted AGAINST and TWO ABSTAINED).
In the light of the additional information presented at the meeting, a Motion to approve the application, subject to the conditions set out in the report, was then proposed and seconded.
RESOLVED (EIGHT voted FOR, ONE voted AGAINST and ONE ABSTAINED) that the Head of Commercial Services be authorised to approve the planning application subject to the conditions set out in the report and subject to the signing of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 within six months from the date of the Committee meeting, in the event that the legal agreement is not signed within six months, authority be delegated to the Head of Commercial Services to refuse the application, or otherwise to be authorised to complete the agreement to provide for:
•
A contribution of £73,032 to be used towards provision of additional primary school places to serve the needs of the development;
•
20% affordable housing provision;
•
Repair and ongoing maintenance of that part of the river wall contiguous with the site’s frontage onto the River Colne.