870
Councillor Chuah (in respect of her position as an Ambassador and member of the China Association) declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5).
The Committee considered an application for the demolition of the former cinema buildings, the reconstruction of the Foyer Buildings and the erection of a new apartment block in place of the auditorium to prove 55 apartments, 2 retail units (A1) and 32 basement car parking spaces. The application had been referred to the Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Goacher for the reasons set out in the report.
The Committee had before a report in which all information was set out.
Simon Cairns, Development Manager, presented the report to the Committee and assisted the Committee in its deliberations. He explained that the former cinema was a considerable architectural presence in Crouch Street and was included on the Council’s adopted list of Buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest. There was some surviving original detail on the street frontage. The surrounding area was rich in heritage with many buildings of significance surrounding the site. The existing approved scheme retained the façade of the building, with the new development located behind it. This application was for development which would be one storey higher to accommodate a penthouse floor, together with further car parking provision. The additional floor would be set back from the frontage and built above the principal gable on the frontage. The development also proposed two commercial units fronting onto Crouch Street. The development included 55 units, as opposed to 46 in the approved scheme, and was richly provided with balconies on the south elevation.
Robert Pomery addressed the Committee in support of the application pursuant to the previsions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 8(3) explaining that the site was a problem both for the applicant and the town. It had been vacant for 19 years. The application was supported by expert heritage advice. Two main issues had been identified by officers: scale and the frontage. In terms of scale it was accepted that the building was not an exact replica but was sufficient to preserve the character of Crouch Street and the Conservation Area and once complete would be broadly the same. The additional floor had been added for viability reasons. The harm caused was minimal. Demolition of the frontage would aid viability and construction, and once the scheme was complete the appearance would be broadly similar. The cinema was not a listed building. The applicant was fully committed to the scheme and would deliver it if approved. Whilst the applicant was open to offers on the site, no credible offer had been received in the past six years. If a viable alternative use was possible the applicant would have brought it forward. If the Committee were satisfied with the scheme they should defer for officers to negotiate suitable measures to enable the scheme to be developed, such as a bond or unilateral undertaking. This proposal offered the best prospect of a viable scheme being developed on the site.
Committee members expressed concerns about a number of aspects of the scheme, including the demolition of the cinema frontage. The building meant a lot to the people of Colchester and whilst the frontage would be replaced, it would not be an exact replica. Whilst the building was not nationally listed, it was on the local list, which was indication of local feeling of the importance of the building. It was noted that the frontage was an important example of a style that was unique in Essex and its loss would be detrimental to the street scene. The retention of the façade was one of the main conditions included in the sale of the site and the purchaser had been aware of this
The additional floor made the building too tall, bulky and overbearing and would lead to a considerable change in the character of the area. Concerns were also expressed about the lack of car parking, and clarification was sought as to the provision of cycle storage and electric charging points. The Development Manager confirmed that there was provision for both these elements in the scheme.
The Committee also sought clarification as to what would happen to the site if the application were not approved. The Development Manager explained that the Council had statutory powers to prevent further deterioration of the building, which had already been used. A long term solution needed to be found, but there were significant problems with this scheme, and the officer recommendation was supported by expert advice. Any replacement scheme needed to preserve the character and appearance of the area.
The Committee noted the suggestion that it defer the application for suitable measures to ensure delivery of the scheme. The Development Manager explained that if the Committee were minded to approve the scheme, then the Council would need to seek a legal mechanism to ensure that the development could be completed, if the developer were unable to do so.
RESOLVED (UNAIMMOUSLY) that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.