Erection of Business Park, comprising 3,009 sqm of B1(a) Offices in Three Two-Storey Blocks with associated parking.
735
Councillor Bentley (by reason of his responsibility as Essex County Council Cabinet Member for Infrastructure) declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5).
The Committee considered a planning applicaton for the erection of a business park, comprising 3,009 sqm of B1(a) offices in three two-storey blocks with associated parking at land at the rear of AGM House, 83A London Road, Copford, Colchester. The application had been referred to the Committee because it was a major application with material planning objections and the recommendation constituted a departure from adopted Local Plan policy.
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.
Benjy Firth, Planning Officer, presented the report and, together with Simon Cairns, Development Manager, assisted the Committee in its deliberations.
Alan Beasley addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. He explained that the proposal would provide 3,000 sqm of office space which could theoretically accommodate 550 office workers whilst 140 new car parking spaces had been proposed which he considered to be inadequate despite the expectation that some workers would use alternative accommodation. He was concerned that visitors to the site currently opted to park on London Road and he was of the view that any overspill parking at the extended site would make this situation worse. He also noted that no cycle way or footpath for use within the site had been identified in the application drawings and he anticipated there would dangerous conflict between pedestrians and cyclists within the site and on the pavement on London Road. He asked what measures would be introduced to mitigate this danger. He disputed the comments in the application that cyclists would not need to use single or dual carriageways on the basis that there were no designated cycleways in the local area. He referred to the traffic assessment’s conclusion regarding numbers entering and leaving the site at morning and peak times and considered them to be inadequate. He also did not consider that the application had adequately identified the business needs for the site nor had there been satisfactory justification regarding the need to depart from the Council’s Local Plan policies. Accordingly, he asked the Committee to refuse the application.
Robert Pomery addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. He acknowledged that part of the site fell outside the village envelope however the site had previously had the benefit of approvals for very large industrial building which had not been built due to operational changes to the business at the site. He also explained that the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework supported development in rural areas outside settlements. He further explained that the proposal had been assessed by the Council’s policy team who had advised that the proposal was compliant. He confirmed that 20 to 30% of the proposed development was required by the applicant’s company which would allow growth within the business and create new job opportunities. Regarding the need for the remaining accommodation, he referred to the report from Fenn Wright that there was demand in Colchester for this type of office provision due to existing stock in the town centre being old, with no parking and much having been converted to residential use. He explained that if there proved to be less demand than anticipated then the offices would not be built with the rest of the site remaining as it was currently. He was of the view that concerns raised by the Council’s urban designer and landscape officer had not had regard to the site’s planning history or the current planning policy position. He also explained that the proposals had far less impact on neighbouring dwellings than the previous proposals and, as such, had been considered acceptable in residential amenity terms. He was of the view that the occupiers of the houses closest to the site would have been aware of the planning permissions which existed at that time and that the current scheme was an improvement. He confirmed that the parking provision exceeded the maximum standard and he expressed concern about problems of parking on London Road that there was currently an over supply of parking provision when the overspill area was taken into account.
Councillor Bentley attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. He had no objection to the provision of local business accommodation in principle but he had concerns regarding associated highways matters. He was of the view that consideration needed to be given to the impact on the neighbouring area which needed to be done in relation to the current Local Plan and the emerging Local Plan and what mitigation was proposed to address issues which were planned for 20 years’ time. He referred to the need to encourage people to not use their cars, to adopt alternative forms of transport and for such transport to be safe. He referred to the details of the application and the lack of detail in respect of infrastructure for cycleways and pedestrianisation. He referred to the proposed Travel Plan and the lack of details in relation to the appointment of a Travel Plan co-ordinator, the monitoring and enforcement of the plan and for how long the co-ordinator would be employed. He was also of the view that the detail of the Highways Authority assessment of the impact on the local road network needed to be provided to the Committee members for their consideration and for an explanation as to what it would mean for the next 5, 10 years and beyond. He acknowledged the previous planning permission for the site and the implications in terms of the Committee’s ability to refuse the application, but he strongly suggested the Committee consider deferring their consideration in order to seek further evidence on the matters he had raised concerning the highway implications for the area and its residents now and in the future. He was also of the view that this would ensure that applications in the area which would be coming forward I the future could be considered in a join-up way, rather than each application in complete isolation of others. He suggested further information be sought on cycle provision, pedestrianisation, details of the Travel Plan and its monitoring, the appointment of a Travel Co-ordinator and for how long and to ask the Highway Authority how the proposals would fit with the current Local Plan and for modelling for the next 10 to 15 years.
The Planning Officer confirmed that the proposed parking provision was policy compliant. It was proposed to deliver an over provision of 50 general parking spaces whilst retaining the total number of disabled spaces at six, which delivered the required 5% of the total provision for the disabled spaces had the general provision been limited to the maximum stipulated in the parking standards. He confirmed that the Highway Authority had been consulted as the statutory consultee in relation to the access road, who had confirmed that they were satisfied with the parking and access proposals. He also confirmed that the proposals had been considered by the Council’s Development Team which had concluded it would be appropriate to seek improvements to the two bus stops on London Road and which had been include as conditions. He confirmed that there was a proposed condition providing for a Travel Plan to be prepared and adhered to which would be monitored by the Council’s Enforcement Team.
One member of the Committee acknowledged the need for the provision of business units but commented on the benefit of additional evidence to demonstrate the level of need. Comment was also made about the site’s partial location outside the settlement boundary and the policies in place to protect the settlement boundary. She also confirmed that there were ongoing parking problems along London Road but that they were not related to the application site, which had an abundance of parking for staff and customers. Comment was made regarding the prematurity of the application, given the current situation in relation to the examination of the emerging Local Plan, the outcome of which would assist in determining the needs for Copford as a whole. Reference was made to the current status of the application site, as open space backing onto farmland, that there were a number of planned developments which were likely to affect the area and the need for further information in order to better inform the Committee’s consideration of the matter.
Another member of the Committee sought additional conditions to provide for improvements to footpaths and cycleways in order to encourage alternative means of transport.
The Planning Officer explained that the there was a policy requirement to evidence the need for business accommodation which had been provided by means of a report from Fenn Wright. He also confirmed that the site was not allocated in the current or the emerging Local Plan, it being open countryside currently and, as such, the progress of the new Local Plan would not change the designation of the site. He confirmed that contributions had not been sought for infrastructure improvements which was likely due to the small scale of the development.
Other members of the Committee expressed concern regarding the emerging Local Plan and it was considered that the Highway Authority assessment may well be very different if it was to take into account what development proposals would be forthcoming in the future and, as such, it was agreed that the proposal was premature. Concern was also expressed regarding the amount of traffic using London Road and the need for the Highway Authority to consider the application in the context of future developments as well as the current problems facing local residents.
Concern was expressed regarding the need to allow the existing business to expand and the implications if the Committee’s consideration of the application was deferred. Clarification was sought on conditions relating to light pollution in a rural setting and the mitigation measures recommended by the Highway Authority. Comment was made to the previous planning permission for industrial units which had not been implemented whilst the applicants had been in ownership of the site for a number of years. As such, clarification was sought regarding the need for the development at this time. Reference was also made to the development being largely car dependent, the need for the number of likely employees on the site and the implications of that, particularly in relation to parking provision.
The Planning Officer confirmed that it would be possible to consider an additional condition to provide for the phasing of the development, should the Committee consider this to be necessary. He confirmed that the proposed conditions included provisions for light pollution for minor developments in urban and rural areas. He also clarified that the Highway Authority mitigation requirements comprised the laying out of the car park prior to the occupation of the units, along with details of bike storage, wheel washing facility during the construction phase, the provision of a travel plan and improvements to the two bus stops on London Road.
The Development Manager commented on the Council’s adopted parking standards which had been significantly exceeded, as such there would be no grounds upon which to seek further parking provision. He confirmed that the Highway Authority, in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, had not identified any severe highway network capacity issues that would warrant a refusal of the application. He confirmed that it would be possible to seek further information from the Highway Authority, should the Committee consider this to be appropriate.
Another Committee member welcomed the application in terms of the economic benefits to the area and the arguments made within the report by Fenn Wright were considered to be interesting and potentially credible. However, it was acknowledged that concerns expressed during the Committee’s consideration remained in relation to increased traffic, highway safety and access safety.
RESOLVED (FIVE voted FOR, ONE voted AGAINST and THREE ABSTAINED) that consideration of the application be deferred and the Highway Authority be requested to undertake a review of the case and to provide further detailed information for consideration by the Committee:
(i) Explaining the impact of the proposals on the highway network in relation to increased traffic;
(ii) Measures to improve safety on the site and to improve safety at the access point for egressing vehicles.