Outline application for 26 dwellings including 30% affordable housing, vehicular and pedestrian access from Coopers Crescent, pedestrian access from Armoury Road, public open space and landscaping with details of access and structural landscaping (matters of internal landscaping, appearance, layout and scale reserved).
608
The Committee considered a planning application for a development comprising 26 dwellings, including 30% affordable housing provision, vehicular and pedestrian access from Coopers Crescent, pedestrian access from Armoury Road, public open space and structural landscaping. The application was referred to the Committee as it was a departure from the Development Plan, objections had been received and a legal agreement was required. The application had also been called in by Councillor Lewis Barber. Should the application be approved, the application would need to be referred to the Secretary of State under the call in procedure set out in the Town and Country Planning Act (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009.
The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out, and additional information was set out on the Amendment Sheet. The Committee made a site visit 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 Simon Cairns, Development Manager, assisted the Committee in its deliberations.
Paul Millard addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. If the development were to proceed it would make the Maltings Park Road development unsafe and impossible to live in. The existing road which was to be used as the sole access to the development was not of an adoptable standard. It was narrow, with sharp bends and poor sightlines. Many of the properties abutted directly onto the road with no pavement. The increased traffic that would use the road as a result of this development would increase the risk of accidents involving a pedestrian. Access for emergency vehicles was already difficult and refuse vehicles had damaged the kerb whilst manoeuvring. The junction of Maltings Park Road and Colchester Road was a speeding blackspot and there had been two fatalities at the junction. Increasing the use of the junction would only increase the risk of further accidents. There was also a legal requirement to maintain a turning facility at the top of Maltings Park Road. Residents had supported the Parish Council in the creation of the Neighbourhood Plan. This proposal was in contravention of the Neighbourhood Plan and undermined proper strategic planning. The proposals would impose an additional strain on the infrastructure of the village. The development would also destroy a natural habitat for bats, and the section 106 agreement would not undo the environmental impact of the development. The application should be refused and the democratic process upheld.
Richard Sykes-Popham addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. The application was recommended for approval as the benefits of the proposal outweighed the limited impact it would have. This was supported by the statutory consultees, particularly the Highways Authority. It accorded with all the relevant policies in the Local Plan, and in these circumstances planning permission should be granted. It was on an unused plot of land surrounded by housing. It proposed two or three bedroomed housing which was in line with the needs of the local community. 30% affordable housing would be provided, which indicated that the developer was not just seeking to maximise profit. The development also had more open space than was required, and a significant contribution would be made to local facilities. In terms of the means of access, the roads had been built in the knowledge that this plot of land would be developed and the Highways Authority did not object to the proposal. The developer did have rights of access and a mechanism would be put in place to ensure that residents of the new development would share the costs of maintaining the roads, should the development proceed. This was a sustainable development and approval should be granted.
Councillor Barber attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. He explained that the application was outside of the current and emerging Local Plan. There was no reason to deviate from the Local Plan. The site had only been given an Amber rating in the Strategic land Availability Assessment. This was a speculative application based on the weakness of the planning system. The Council had a five year housing supply. Should the application be granted it would set a dangerous precedent. The application was rejected by the local community. The applicant had an opportunity to address residents’ concerns, but had chosen not to. The Council needed to ensure that Local and Neighbourhood Plans put in place by democratically elected authorities were supported. The proposed development was also outside the village boundary, and the settlement boundary should be respected to avoid coalescence with Colchester.
Councillor Goss attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. He explained that whilst he was a ward councillor for Mile End, he had been approached about the development by residents. As former Chair of the Local Plan Committee he was concerned by the application. He considered that the Planning Committee did have grounds to refuse the application. The Committee needed to consider the National Planning Policy Framework and the Local Plan, and take account of the fact that the Council had a five year housing supply. In any case, 26 homes would not make a significant difference to the housing supply. It was noted that the Highways Authority had not objected. There was enough evidence to refuse the application, but any refusal was likely to be appealed.
In discussion, members of the Committee expressed concern that the application site was not allocated for development in the current or emerging Local Plan, nor was it identified for development in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. Where local communities had produced a Neighbourhood Plan, these should be respected and supported. Concern was also expressed that the proposed development site was located outside the settlement boundary.
Whilst it was noted that the Highways Authority had not objected to the application, members of the Committee also expressed concern about the impact of additional traffic that would be generated by the development on the existing roads in the Maltings Park Road development. Coopers Crescent was narrow and its use by construction traffic would have a significant impact on the amenity of residents. It was noted that the revised transport assessment had only been received on 28 June 2018 and clarification was sought as to whether the Council had had sufficient time to validate it. It was also suggested that the appeal cases referred to in the Committee report were not directly comparable to the circumstances of this application. Confirmation was also sought as to whether the Highways Authority had visited the site.
Members of the Committee also queried whether there was sufficient drainage capacity for the proposed development and about the impact of the development on the village infrastructure, such as educational facilities.
In response the Principal Planning Officer explained that the revised transport assessment related to access to the development via Coopers Crescent rather than Armoury Road. The figures on anticipated traffic levels were unchanged. The Highways Authority had indicated it was content with the proposed access arrangements. It was understood that it was the Highways policy to visit all application sites. In terms of the appeals cited in the Committee report these demonstrated that it was not sufficient just to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites in order to justify a refusal of planning permission. In terms of drainage it was noted that Essex County Council and Anglia Water had raised no objection, subject to the imposition of relevant conditions. In respect of infrastructure, a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act was proposed securing contributions towards education, open space and recreation, affordable housing, broadband and community services.
Members of the Committee also explored whether the application could be deemed to be premature. The Principal Planning Officer advised that as the site was not within the Local Plan, the emerging Local Plan or the Neighbourhood Plan it would be considered as an exception, rather than premature. On its own prematurity would be difficult to sustain at appeal.
A proposal was made that the application be deferred for further information including further information from the objectors but was not carried (THREE voted FOR and FIVE voted AGAINST).
The Development Manager stressed that whilst the application was contrary to the spatial allocations in the Local Plan, the Local Plan had to be considered as a whole. If a refusal of the application was to be sustained, the Committee needed to demonstrate the harm that would result from the application. The Committee also needed to weigh any potential harm that would be caused against the benefits that would accrue from the development. In this context it was important to note that there was no highways objection and that no harm to landscape had been identified. Whilst it was accepted that the site was outside the village envelope, it was effectively surrounded by existing developments.
A proposal was then made that the Committee should defer the application under the Deferral and Recommendation Overturn Procedure (DROP) for further advice from officers on the issue of potential harm arising from the development and for the identification of potential reasons for refusal that might be sustainable at appeal.
RESOLVED (FIVE voted FOR and FOUR voted AGAINST) that the application be deferred under the Deferral and Recommendation Overturn Procedure (DROP) for further advice on the issue of potential harm that might arise from the development and the identification of potential reasons for refusal of the application that might be sustainable at appeal.