Change of use of office building B1(a) to 67 self-contained apartments (C3 use) and the erection of additional floor and alterations to the buildings external appearance.
438
The Committee considered an application for change of use of office building B1(a) to 67 self-contained apartments (C3 use) and the erection of additional floor and alterations to the building’s external appearance at Equity House, 2 Bergholt Road, Colchester. The application had been referred to the Committee because it was a major application to which objections have been received. 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.
Daniel Cameron, Planning and Contributions Officer, presented the report and, together with Simon Cairns, Major Development and Projects Manager, assisted the Committee in its deliberations.
Yvonne Grindrod, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. She explained that she was a resident from 4 Bergholt Road and, whilst recognising the need for housing in Colchester, she did have issues in relation to the proposed development. She was concerned regarding potential overlooking from the proposed additional floor of the property, damp problems from the site and persistent maintenance issues in relation to significant annual leaf fall from two established trees on the site.
Robert Pomery, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. He explained that the application had been submitted as the permitted development of the building to provide for 64 apartments would not allow the applicants to improve the appearance of the building or to provide benefits for the Council and the community in the form of financial contributions for affordable housing and for medical facilities. Discussions had therefore taken place with the planning officers and the ward councillor which had included the provision of an additional floor. He understood that the ward councillor had found the scheme to be acceptable subject to amendments to address access issues and to provide cycle storage facilities. He was aware of concerns expressed by neighbours but confirmed that the proposal complied with the Essex Design Guide and the impact of the proposal would, in his view, be similar if the already permitted scheme were implemented. He had not previously been aware of issues in relation to the management of existing trees but confirmed the applicants’ willingness to work with the Council’s Arboricultural Officer to determine an appropriate resolution.
Councillor Goss attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. He confirmed that he had been party to very productive discussions in relation to the application, however he was concerns about a number of issues the subject of previous discussions which had not been referred to in the Committee report. He sought confirmation regarding security measures to the building including the installation of CCTV, access for deliveries and secure mailboxes. He referred to maintenance issues in relation to the trees to the rear of gardens in Three Crowns Road as well as the two trees on the corner of Bergholt Road, as mentioned by the objector. He considered that any measures which could be secured to improve the situation for residents would be welcome. He sought information in relation to visitor parking, the location of vehicle charging points, the arrangement for the management of the parking spaces, whether the mural referred to by Myland Community Council had been found onsite and confirmation as to what proportion of the £50k contribution would be utilised within the Mile End ward. He also asked for details about the suggested land transfer to the Council.
In response to comments raised, the Planning and Contributions Officer explained that the trees on the corner of Bergholt Road, identified as T13 and T14, London Planes, in the arboricultural report were Category A trees and, as such, would be protected from complete removal although they could, along with the conifer trees between the site and Three Crowns Road, be included in the proposed condition providing for tree and hedgerow protection. He confirmed that security measures including CCTV, access for deliveries and secure post boxes were being provided. Details of layout of the visitor parking spaces had yet to be determined but the car parking management scheme proposed by the developer would be submitted for approval. He confirmed the proposed location of the vehicle charging points. The financial contribution of £50k, offered within a unilateral undertaking by the developer, was to be divided between the provision of affordable housing within Colchester Borough and the provision of medical facilities in Mile End ward itself. He also explained that a proposed transfer of land to the south of the site had been included within the unilateral undertaking, potentially to provide for an enhanced station forecourt area and / or a cycle lane.
Members of the Committee sympathised with the views expressed by the residents, referring to indications that the two London Plane trees had previously been lopped to a height of seven metres and suggesting the possibility of car parking spaces being offered to nearby residents for sale or rent. Reference was also made to potential site access/egress issues, particularly at rush hour times. It was, however, considered that the proposals would enhance the area and the willingness of the developer to work to address concerns expressed by local residents was welcomed.
The Planning and Contributions Officer confirmed that the proposed access arrangements had been considered satisfactory by Essex County Council as Highway Authority whilst he considered the concerns regarding overlooking were mitigated sufficiently due to the existence of the line of conifers which provided a substantial screen and the fact that the view to the rear of the neighbouring properties was not a strictly back to back view.
The Major Development and Projects Manager advised against the addition of a further condition referring specifically to the management of the two London Plane trees, indicating that this would not meet the tests for a planning condition and could be addressed using existing measures.
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the application be approved subject to the conditions, informatives and positivity statement set out in the report and the amendment sheet and also subject to the prior completion of the agreed unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.