Reserved matters application following outline planning permission O/COL/01/1622 for the erection of Use Class A3 restaurant units (10,400sq m), erection of Use Class C1 hotel (80 beds), provision of a landscaped piazza and associated landscaped areas, erection of an ancillary multi-storey car park and the provision of separate drop off/parking areas.
410
The Committee considered a reserved matters application following outline planning permission O/COL/01/1622 for the erection of Use Class A3 restaurant units (10,400sq m), erection of Use Class C1 hotel (80 beds), provision of a landscaped piazza and associated landscaped areas, erection of an ancillary multi-storey car park and the provision of separate drop off/parking areas on land at Cuckoo Farm West, off United Way and Via Urbis Romanae, Colchester. The application had been referred to the Committee because it was a major reserved matters application that had given rise to material planning objections. The Committee had before it a report and amendment sheet 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.
Bradly Heffer, Principal Planning Officer, presented the report and, together with Simon Cairns, Major Developments and Projects Manager and Martin Mason, Essex County Council Strategic Development Engineer, assisted the Committee in its deliberations. He explained that a further representation had been received from the owners of the Odeon Cinema, however, the proposals for an out of town cinema were part of a separate application to be considered by the Committee at a subsequent meeting. He further explained that Cushman and Wakefield Consultants were of the opinion that the two applications should be considered together but the Council had also been advised that there was no reason not to bring forward the applications separately. He also confirmed that members of the Committee had each received a letter from the applicants, Turnstone Estates.
Alistair Ingram, on behalf of the Barton Willmore for the Tollgate Partnership, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. He was of the view that the application was not complete and therefore was not viable for the Committee to give consideration to it. He was aware that there was an aspiration to include a cinema within the site and, as such, the proposal was incomplete. Given the fact that outline permission had been granted 10 years previously, it would be logical for the Committee to take a view on the undeveloped area in the middle of the site. He did not consider the scheme to be currently acceptable in anticipation of a wider application and urged the Committee not to approve it.
Chris Goldsmith on behalf of Turnstone Estates, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. He provided background context to the reserved matters application to development a new Quarter in Colchester. He was of the view that the application was the start of an exciting process which would secure a hotel, leisure, parking, open space and he was confident that an out of town cinema would be incorporated later. He confirmed that the proposals were ambitious and the elegant buildings proposed would set Colchester apart. He highlighted the location of the car parking spaces behind the buildings and the inclusion of proper public realm spaces which were of real quality and distinctive. He confirmed that retail was not part of the vision for the site which was intended to deliver an exciting leisure development for the town.
Whilst some members of the Committee questioned the consideration of the application without the inclusion of the cinema proposals, the quality and sustainability of the designs were generally welcomed. Further clarification was sought in relation to the potential impact on existing traffic congestion, the free flow of traffic in the area generally, access from the A12 at junction 28 and in relation to the provision of a pedestrian access from the site to the opposite side of United Way.
In response to comments raised, the Principal Planning Officer reiterated that there was no reason not to consider this application ahead of the application for a cinema and that the proposals did not include retail development. He also confirmed the cycle path proposals included provision for lighting along its entire route, the car park would consist of three storeys and a condition had been proposed to protect the use class allocation of buildings on the site.
The Strategic Development Engineer confirmed that the Highway Authority was satisfied with the car parking arrangements for the site as well as the relationship with junction 28 to the A12. In addition Highways England had raised no objections in its capacity as responsible authority for trunk roads. He explained that negotiations were continuing with the applicant in relation to the package of highway improvements for the area however these would not be concluded until the full application was presented to the Committee. He acknowledged the benefit for pedestrians of providing a crossing at United Way but explained that all road users needed to be considered and the introduction of a crossing would require a full assessment in order to ensure highway safety criteria were met. He also confirmed that the highway authority were working closely with the local police to resolve the problems associated with on street parking in the area and it was likely that appropriate traffic regulation orders would need to be considered for this development to prevent similar parking issues. He went on to explain that parking accumulation studies had been submitted with the application to assess peak demand for parking together with experience obtained from developments elsewhere and an informed understanding of what works well in practice.
Members of the Committee welcomed the clarification provided about the highway issues but were of the very strong view that the proposal required the provision of a safe means of crossing United Way by pedestrians.
The Major Developments and Projects Manager acknowledged the concerns expressed by the members of the Committee in relation to pedestrian access across United Way and confirmed that it would therefore be appropriate to seek the positive consideration of the provision of a crossing or traffic calming measures to achieve a satisfactory means to deliver this. He also confirmed that, whilst the Section 106 contributions from the developer had already been agreed and could not therefore be amended, the enhanced pedestrian access would be subject to a Section 278 Highways Agreement at the cost of the developer.
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the amendment sheet and an additional condition requiring details of a pedestrian crossing of United Way to be agreed prior to commencement and implemented prior to initial beneficial occupation of the development.