Meeting Details

*Councillor Arnold was absent from the Committee for the item at minute 1150

**In view of his previous involvement in discussions and briefings on these applications Councillor Çufoglu withdrew from the Committee for the items at minutes 1149-1150.

Item 7.1

The Committee considered an application for outline planning permission (all matters reserved, except for access) for up to 150 dwellings (including affordable housing), a car park, public open space, landscaping, children's play area, sustainable drainage, infrastructure and all other associated infrastructure.

This application was referred to the Planning Committee because it represented a departure from the adopted Development Plan.

The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out. Nadine Calder, Principal Planning Officer, presented the report and provided the Committee with an overview of the site under discussion, explaining that the application was in outline form with only the access in detail. She showed that the site lay to the north of Coach Road, Great Horkesley and consisted of two agricultural fields, separated by a tree belt. The eastern boundary of the site abutted the settlement boundary of Great Horkesley, with residential development and a school beyond. To the south, the site also abutted the settlement boundary and Coach Road, and the site also abutted Coach Road to the West. There had been a late objection regarding potential coalescence between Horkesley and Colchester, however the Officer confirmed that the development would not result in coalescence.  The relevant supporting text for Great Horkesley within the adopted local plan was explained for the Committee. Whilst the village was already at capacity in relation to wastewater, the application included improvements and Officers believed that the objections had been addressed.

In weighing the benefits against the harm, Officers had concluded that the benefits of the scheme convincingly outweighed any policy conflicts identified and, as such, put forward a recommendation of approval, subject to conditions and s106 requirements. 
 
Stuart Willsher, speaking on behalf of the Applicant, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. He stressed that 30% of the properties, in line with Policy, would be affordable dwellings. He highlighted that the site had been identified as an allocation within the emerging Local Plan, forming part of a wider site for up to 400 dwellings. Alongside the housing, the scheme brought forward a small car parking area for use by the local school, alleviating car parking pressures during school drop off/collection times, along with other offsite highway measures to be agreed within the s106 agreement. The development had not attracted any objections from statutory consultees, other than landscape and Anglian Water. The developers were engaged in discussions with Anglian Water to deal with their concerns through either an appropriately worded planning condition or s106 requirement. 

Cllr Barber attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee, informing them that whilst he understood the points being put forward by Officers, his principal objection was that it was outside of the current Local Plan. The situation may be different if this came forward after February 2026, but at this stage of the new Local Plan, weight was not given to emerging sites. He stressed that the Council should make decisions based on current policies, not approve speculative applications such as this one.  Whilst he felt there were site specific issues, his main concern was timing, particularly as the Regulation 18 consultation may lead to changes in sites, and so this site may no longer be in the emerging Local Plan. Cllr Barber also noted that water continued to be troubling, particularly if the Council risked approving applications knowing that this was an issue. It was essential to make sure infrastructure is in place first.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the points raised by the speakers. She confirmed that the application has been assessed against current local plan policies. The only conflict was being outside the settlement boundary, which had to be balanced against the public benefits. Whilst the Report went into some detail about emerging policy, the recommendation did not rely on it. She noted that, if the Application were refused on this occasion, it would be appealed and would inevitably have to be reviewed within the context of the post-February 2026 housing supply situation. The Officer conceded that Anglian Water was a problem, since they had been objecting to all developments on a blanket basis. However, the Council could not deny permission on this basis alone. Work had been taking placing to improve capacity, and the Council had had some success by working with Anglian Water. She reassured the Committee that there could be no occupations without the requisite wastewater treatment capacity using appropriate planning conditions. If Members were minded to approve, this would be subject to s106, and the Council would ask for a potential access to neighbouring land be secured. In this way, there would be no ransom strip, and the neighbouring site could be joined together. 

Members considered the report and issues raised by the speakers. They expressed concern about the Council assuming the outcome of the Local Plan consultation, emphasising that current policy should be followed, and about the issue of water supply.  They sought clarity regarding a comment from the Parish Council that the report failed to take account of new approved development west of Nayland Road. Questions were also raised about infrastructure and whether doctors and schools could cope with 200-400 additional people.

In addition, given that if the application were refused it would go to appeal after the Council no longer had a five-year housing supply, Members suggested that there could be a requirement for the car park to be fully usable before properties were inhabited, and additional access should be included in s106.  There was also an unused strip of land, for which the Developer could potentially take responsibility. 

The Principal Planning Officer responded that only the current Local Plan had been taken into account when making the recommendation, and no weight had been given to the emerging local plan. The car park would have space for 30 cars, a suitable amount as if there were 150 additional dwellings there, the children would walk to school. The requirement for doctors and schools, would have to be mitigated with a financial contribution to improve/extend/relocate services. The requirement for the car park to be functional before occupation could be included in s106.  The new development west of Nayland Road was not relevant to this application. And whilst it was unclear who owned the strip of land, the Council could look at ways of making it more secure and this could be addressed at the detailed design stage. However, this was a Parish Council issue. She proposed that, in line with the discussion, there should be an additional condition for the car park to be available before occupation, and for potential future access to the north both to be secured in the s106 agreement. 

At the Chair’s request, it was proposed and seconded that the Committee should accept the Officer’s original recommendation, subject to additional condition regarding the car park and provision for potential future access.

RESOLVED (8 IN FAVOUR, 3 AGAINST) that the application be approved subject to a legal agreement as set out in the Committee report and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report with additional:
• Condition for the proposed car park to be made available for use prior to occupation
• Provision for potential future access to the north (to be secured in s106 agreement)

Item 7.2

The Committee considered an application for public realm improvements including hard and soft landscaping; additional tree planting; creation of a new public square; erection of play area; enhanced pedestrian connectivity through formalised routes, stepped and ramped access; reconfigured car parking layout; installation of street lighting, street furniture and associated infrastructure works.

This application was referred to the Planning Committee because it had been submitted on behalf of Colchester City Council.

The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out. Lucy Mondon, Development Manager, presented the Report with a comprehensive overview of designs for the gardens, pathways, car parking, Priory Street steps and ramp (which were part of a scheme that was approved in 2019). She demonstrated elements that improved accessibility across the project and confirmed that Historic England were looking at lighting and planting and their impact on archaeology. 

John Burton, President of Colchester Civic Society, attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee. He stated that the Society was broadly supportive of the improvements to public realm between St Botolph’s Church and the ancient priory ruins. However, they were concerned that the backdrop to the proposed path was the rear of St Botolph's Street conservation area properties and suggested that planning enforcement should accompany this project. The Society strongly opposed closing even part of Britannia Car Park and were concerned about the proposed pedestrian crossing in Priory Street and the possibility that the project would draw visitors away from St Botolph’s Street and beyond in the core of the city, resulting in further deterioration of the conservation area through a reduction in visitor numbers. Finally, he asked for clarity on obtaining agreement to remove part of the station wall, which was key to the scheme. 

Hugo Braddick attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant, explaining that the St Botolph’s Project was a key part of the wider masterplan for Colchester City Centre. Accessibility, safety and connectivity would be improved through the new station entrance, square, priory steps, and improved crossing at Priory Street. The project would enhance the experience of key heritage and cultural landmarks and improve biodiversity and provide Economic Benefits and social value for Colchester. Whilst the proposed scheme would see the removal of one-third of the existing parking bays at the Britannia Carpark, the recent city-wide parking strategy showed an over-supply of parking bays across the Council’s car park portfolio. The current number of Blue Badge parking spaces would be retained and reconfigured, to support visitors to the St Botolphs church, the Colchester Chinese Association and other nearby businesses. 

Cllr Çufoglu attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee. During earlier briefings on the scheme, he had had concerns about lights, tree, plants, security around the playground, and water points, and he was delighted to see some of these have been answered.  He noted that the development was now outside of air quality areas, whereas last year it was within the air quality management area, and suggested that it would be good to have an air pollution detector. In addition, he emphasised the importance of the security of the playground and the need for a management and maintenance plan. The Councillor also asked for clarification of the location of the five trees that were to be removed and suggested that they could be repurposed locally; whether there would be tactile paving; and whether Essex Wildlife Trust had submitted any comments.

The Development Manager responded that she understood the Civic Society’s concerns regarding the rear of properties on St Botolphs Street, however the scheme offered additional landscape planting to filter the view. The Council could also look at whether there was the possibility of enforcement action, although amendments to the properties had largely taken place a significant time ago.  Britannia car park was already allocated for development under the current and previous Local Plan. The strategic parking team had undertaken modelling, which showed an excess capacity of 500-800 spaces, with Britannia car park rarely running to capacity, and there was currently a large project to improve St Mary’s and St John’s multistorey car park. She noted that there could be improvements to the conservation area, however such works were not included as part of the current application. This scheme was funded under the levelling up programme, which had specific conditions, and was a launchpad for future funding. She had considered objections that the project might stop people going to St Botolphs St, and proposed the inclusion of a condition for improved wayfinding. 

The Officer confirmed that Network Rail and Greater Anglia had no objection to the proposals, but there were some agreements that would have to be put in place separate to planning. The issue of curtilage listing of the railway wall had been considered, with the conclusion that the town station buildings are not ancillary to the listed station house, and the breaking through of the wall would bring visual benefits that enhanced the understanding of the Priory Ruins and garden. In terms of accessibility, paving the area has been discussed with Historic England and was something that could be considered. One of the benefits of the project was that it would bring an improvement in safety and security, and the increase in footfall would improve antisocial behaviour. There would be tactile paving to meet standards, and this could be included as a condition.

On environmental issues, the impact of lighting on wildlife has been considered, and there would be a reduction in traffic with improved access from the station encouraging train use.  Nevertheless, the addition of an air pollution detector could be considered. The design had sought to minimise management requirements with robust planting, but management options were being explored and would be secured as a planning condition. The five trees that would be removed were category C trees that would be replaced, but it would be hard to repurpose them, due to their quality. No feedback had been received from Essex Wildlife Trust.  

Members considered the issues raised and noted that the lighting and increased footfall would provide a general improvement in safety in the car park and environs, particularly given the high level of crime in the area. Whilst there was a limit to what could be done, Members felt that it was a well-designed scheme that would encourage more people to use the car park and train and hopefully reduce crime levels. Members noted that the scheme would improve accessibility in the area, but that additional paving within the Priory could further increase accessibility. 

Some concern was expressed regarding the safety of the pedestrian crossing, and whether there would be dedicated car parking spaces for people who wished to use the train. It was also noted that the provision for 16 bicycles might be increased, to encourage cycling, with the potential addition of a bay for electric bikes. Councillors agreed with Colchester Civic Society about the need to camouflage the uglier buildings. At the same time, it was felt that the impact on businesses in the surrounding streets could be improved by effective wayfinding. There was discussion about the links between World War 2 and the railway station, with a proposal that the site could be interpreted to highlight this.  

Overall, there was consensus that the scheme celebrated the city’s heritage, enhanced it by opening the views to the Priority, and opened the city up to more people. 
At the Chair’s request, it was proposed and seconded that the Committee should accept the Officer’s original recommendation, subject to additional condition regarding the car park and provision for potential future access.

RESOLVED (9 IN FAVOUR, 1 AGAINST) that the application be approved as per recommendation with delegated authority to address matters of detail with Historic England, with the conditions and informatives set out in the report and with additional:
• Condition for wayfinding scheme (to include wayfinding to St Botolph’s Street and Priory Street)
• Condition interpretation scheme (to also include interpretation for the railway station and connections with WWII)
• Condition for cycle parking scheme (for minimum of 16 spaces and EV charging)
• Note regarding air pollution detector for play area

Officer to also take forward proposals for hardsurfacing within the Priory Ruins

Items 7.3 and 7.4

The Committee considered two applications for:
7.3 Repair and refurbishment of existing former church building previously used as commercial space and storage, to form new Community Hub with Historic Interpretation experience, including installation of art sculptures to railings (x8), and wall artwork plus drainage works (Revised Description).
7.4 Application for listed building consent for the repair and refurbishment of existing former church building to form new Community Hub, including installation of art sculptures to railings (x8), and wall artwork. (Revised Description).
The applications were referred to the Planning Committee because they related to a City Council scheme as both Holy Trinity Church and the churchyard/square were part of the Town Deal projects funded by central Government. The City Council owned the building.
The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out. 

Chris Harden, Senior Planning Officer, presented the report, noting that the proposal had changed since original application, however given that it was in a sustainable location, there was a presumption in favour of approval. The scheme offered a way to restore the redundant church which respected the character and fabric of the listed building. The Officer went through the plans in detail, outlining changes that were required to improve accessibility, to provide a kitchen that would make the scheme viable, and to add a fire door. He also showed examples of the type of artwork that was proposed.

Historic England were comfortable with scheme.  Conditions would need to be detailed, and these were more detailed in the Listed Building report than in the planning report. There were no antisocial issues, however the project had consulted with Police regarding the Planning Permission application, and their comments would be taken on board when the consultation expired the following week. The listed building application, on the other hand, could be approved immediately. 

John Burton, President of Colchester Civic Society, attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee. Having outlined his credentials, Mr Burton explained that whilst listed churches no longer used for worship require income to maintain the fabric, the Society had concerns over the viability of the project because of vehicular access and the nearby restaurant chains. Moreover, they felt that the application unnecessarily impacted on the character of the church (for example, having a toilet block beneath an arch, the potential use of heat pumps and the inclusion of art) and that other viable options should be available. 

The Chair invited the Senior Planning Officer to respond to the points raised by the speaker. The Officer noted that the scheme had already been through significant changes to make it viable, although there would inevitably be some residual impact on the building. The kitchen needed to be a reasonable size to serve its purpose.  The proposed location of the WC, with a screen, was the best place for it, otherwise it would eat into the open space of the church even more. There were conditions around the heating, which required precise detail. External art on the wall would also be conditioned (for example a Mosaic of Colchester, showing heritage assets) and could be controlled.  The fact that there are other restaurants in the vicinity would not preclude having this one.

The Conservation Officer added that the current WC was not accessible, and finding an alternative accessible location was an additional constraint. The underfloor heating could be conditioned and although heat pumps were a cause for concern, the impact could be mitigated. The art would be part of an interpretation scheme, and the content could be conditioned. The Officer clarified that the external artwork that had previously been refused had been a commercial endeavour, with a mural that had nothing to do with the church. 

Members considered the report and the issues raised by the speaker.  They noted that some of the proposals, such as roof lights, the new fire door and solar panels were out of keeping with a Grade 1 Listed Saxon building in a central, high-profile location. However, this had to be balanced against the fact that the building had been declared at risk by Historic England, and the possibility that it would fall down if nothing was done. There were suggestions that it might be better to wait for the future users of the building to fit it out the way they wanted to, and the possibility that it could be used as a Visitor Centre. There was some acknowledgment that the toilets would have to be moved, but concern expressed regarding the position and the plumbing. The mosaic was generally viewed positively, particularly if it highlighted Colchester’s heritage. Questions were asked about the accessibility of the mezzanine and whether there was a view from it. 
The Senior Planning Officer responded that this building was at risk, so it was important to find a viable use for it. He confirmed the current user had withdrawn, but the applicant was keen to get approval to show there was potential end user status for the building. The plan that had been put forward was not dependent on the user. The solar panels would be conditioned, and a certain size of kitchen and WCs were needed to ensure that the project was viable. 

The Heritage Officer clarified that there were no roof lights, and the solar panels would not be visible from public viewpoints. She also stated that, whilst it was a requirement to have an accessible fire door to meet regulations, the proposal situated this in a 19th century addition to the church, which was less harmful to the fabric. The Senior Planning Officer added that the fire door would be detailed, covered by condition, and more central than the photograph that the Committee had been shown. The church needed some use, or it would deteriorate, and the plan under consideration was the only viable option at that time.  

The Chair invited the Head of Planning to provide some additional context. He explained that the council had secured Lottery funding for stage 1 of the project, so the money for this stage was not yet in hand. This application was to give confidence to the Lottery Fund that there was a use for the former church.  Heritage England no longer had an objection, and it was important that permission was given for these works, or lottery money would not be forthcoming. Whilst the Council shared some of Colchester Civic Society’s concerns, these were conditioned and Officers would ensure that the outcome was as sensitive as possible. In terms of the suggestion of a tourist information centre, no grant was available for this. He concluded that the council needed a long-term sustainable future for this historic asset and asked the Committee to balance their concerns with the need to obtain funding to secure the future of the building.
The Chair summed up that the Committee was being asked to discharge its care of a historic asset that the Council looked after and noted that the deliverable scheme under discussion was a pragmatic choice. 

At the Chair’s request, it was proposed and seconded that the Committee should accept the Officer’s original recommendations

Item 7.3 Holy Trinity Church (planning permission)
RESOLVED (5 IN FAVOUR, 4 AGAINST) that the application be approved as recommended subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and with delegated authority to consider any further consultation comments following the conclusion of reconsultation process.

Item 7.4 Holy Trinity Church (listed building consent)
RESOLVED (5 IN FAVOUR, 4 AGAINST) that the application be approved as recommended subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.