Erection of 8 no. houses and 2 no. chalet bungalows.
555
The Committee considered a retrospective planning application to erection of eight houses and two chalet bungalows at the former M & F Watts site, Parsons Heath, Colchester. The application had been referred to the Committee because it was a major application and material objections had been received. The Committee had before it a report in which all 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.
Ishita Sheth, Planning Officer, presented the report and, together with Andrew Tyrrell, Planning Manager, assisted the Committee in its deliberations. She confirmed that UK Power Networks had responded to the consultation and were of the view that the proposal included a land ownership discrepancy as well as a request for a two metre buffer to be maintained between the building plots and the electricity sub-station. She explained that land ownership was not a planning material consideration for the Committee whilst the request for a buffer could be addressed by means of an additional condition. She also explained that the proposed condition 24, relating to noise, needed to be revised to include provision for noise from the electricity substation, the drawing number in condition 34 needed to be amended, a new condition added to provide for the sheds to Plots 1, 2 and 3 to be located two metres from the rear boundary, conditions 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 24 to be amended to provide for the demolition of the existing buildings prior to the commencement of the development and condition 28 could be removed as it was a duplication of condition 27.
Rodney Gear, on behalf of Wivenhoe Town Council, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. He lived at 41 Parsons Heath and wished to express his concerns about loss of light to rooms in his house due to the forward location of the development, whether the hoarding at the front of the site had received planning approval, the inclusion of windows to the dwelling on Plot 1 which would overlook his property, the proposed width of the path and the location of the access to the site being in close proximity to a busy roundabout and the increased potential for collisions.
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 was for the development of one of the few brownfield sites left in Colchester which had been within no beneficial use for 11 years, although the site was a highly sustainable one with shops, doctor’s surgery and schools nearby and a location close to bus routes. As such, it was ideal for redevelopment. The properties proposed were lower cost housing scheme for young families and first time buyers. Discussions had been undertaken with officers for some time which had resulted in significant amendments being incorporated as well as changes to meet Highway Authority requirements. There was no loss of amenity to residents, no overlooking or loss of outlook, the Highway Authority had raised no objections and it was fully policy compliant. He gratefully acknowledged the proposed amended conditions to provide for demolition prior to commencement of the scheme.
Councillor Smith attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. He was of the view that there had been a lack of effective communication with residents, the result of which had meant that there were a lot of concerns expressed. He acknowledged that the development would generally enhance the area but some details, such as size and strength of fencing, remained to be resolved. He sought clarification regarding the apparent conflicting wording of condition 25, relating to hours of operation between 8am and 6pm and condition 26, relating to the restriction on vehicle movements between 7:30am and 9:00am. He was surprised the Highway Authority had not been more restrictive. He requested that arrangements be made for the road markings on Parsons Heath to be repainted, especially those close to the doctor’s surgery and Roach Vale School. He was concerned that contamination issues associated with the site were adequately addressed and was also aware that the area had known drainage issues. He considered the scheme included two dwellings too many and referred to residents comments about the design being in-keeping with the area, acknowledging the generally terraced housing in St John’s Road compared to the much larger housing around Roach Vale. He also queried whether there would be arrangements for charging electric vehicles on the site.
The Planning Officer confirmed that boundary treatment matters had been provided for in condition 9, Anglian Water had proposed conditions to address potential drainage issues and the contamination officer had been fully consulted.
The Planning Manager confirmed that residents’ concerns about overlooking windows related to two small secondary windows to the building in plot 8 which could be conditioned to ensure they weren’t provided.
Members of the Committee generally welcomed the proposals on the grounds that they addressed problems associated with a derelict site, the site was small and compact and sustainable. However, concerns were expressed that traffic problems may result due the location of the access to the site between a very busy roundabout and a school. It was suggested that a request be made to the Highway Authority for the provision of a road sign to highlight the concealed entrance. Concern was also expressed regarding the noise from the electricity substation. Committee members sought clarification about the conditions for hours of operation and restrictions on vehicle movements, requested confirmation that a condition to provide for charging points for electric cars could be added and the arrangements for refuse collection would be adequate.
The Planning Officer confirmed that the Highway Authority had given approval to the access arrangements, the properties fronting the site would receive roadside refuse collections whilst a collection point would be provided for the properties to the rear of the site. She confirmed that an amendment to the condition relating to noise had been suggested to provide for the inclusion of noise from the electricity substation.
The Planning Manager confirmed that provision for charging points for electric cars could be incorporated by means of an addition to condition 35 and that the contradictory wording in conditions 25 and 26 could be addressed by giving delegated authority to officers to discuss the detail with the Environmental Protection and to amend the conditions’ wording accordingly.
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the following amendments:
• Conditions 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 24 to be amended to provide for the demolition of the existing buildings prior to the commencement of the development;
• Condition 24 to be revised to include provision for noise from the electricity substation;
• Delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director Policy and Corporate to discuss the detail of the contradictory wording in conditions 25 and 26 with the Environmental Protection team and to amend the conditions’ wording accordingly;
• Condition 28 to be removed as it was a duplication of condition 27;
• The drawing number in conditions 2 and 34 to be amended;
• Condition 35 to be expanded to include provision for some electric vehicle charging points;
• A new condition added to provide for the sheds to Plots 1, 2 and 3 to be located two metres from the rear boundary;
• A new condition added to provide for the exclusion of the two small secondary windows to the building in plot 8;
• A request be made to the Highway Authority for the provision of a road sign to highlight the concealed entrance.