The Committee members had been provided with video clips of the site taken by the planning officer to assist in their assessment of the impact of the proposals upon the locality and the suitability of the proposals for the site.
Councillor Chris Wood, West Mersea Town Council, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application saying that the Town Council did not consider the changes that had been made addressed the concerns that had been expressed and that there had been no consultation on those changes with residents. The development was inappropriate in its proximity to existing stock, overbearing, out of scale and character with high density and layout, and not in accordance with policy DP1. There were concerns over the impact on privacy, overlooking, noise, crime and security issues and access for maintenance. Confirmation was sought that the landscaping and scheme had the approval of the Police. West Mersea Town Council and residents strongly objected to the proximity of the development to Farthing Close and was of the view that a wider buffer needed to be provided. The design was not in keeping with the houses on Seaview Road, and the site was overdeveloped with some houses being only 5 metres from Seaview with windows facing the gardens. The developer’s commitment to the seed bed centre needed to be clarified. Any affordable homes should be allocated to West Mersea residents.
Robert Stafford addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application and spoke of the concerns around the use of Brierley Paddocks as the access road to the development. It was a private road owned and maintained by residents of Brierley Paddocks. The plans showed the access road going through the duck pond and implement shed, which was unacceptable. The levels of traffic would generate traffic noise, air pollution and safety problems for residents of Brierley Paddocks and East Road. Using Brierly Paddocks as the main point of access was flawed, unacceptable and dangerous, not only to residents of Brierley Paddocks but also to the occupants of the main development.
A written submission provided by Stephan James was read to the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Remote Meetings Procedure Rule 5(1) in opposition to the application. The application took away enjoyment of property from Seaview Avenue residents, which could lead to legal action for a breach of the Human Rights Act. Local councillors should have met with local residents to discuss their concerns. The amendments had not materially changed the layout and the plan did not comply with policy DP1. The revised layout did not address key objections made by residents. Details of the proposed tree belt were not clear, and a green swathe would be more appropriate. There were also concerns the impact of construction traffic accessing the site from Seaview Avenue. A formal complaint had been made asking for the report to be withdrawn on the grounds it was inaccurate and misleading. Councillors had a duty to vote and should not abstain. There were unresolved objections and no balance between the development and needs of the community. The application should be rejected.
Richard Winsborough, City and Country, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. He drew attention to the officer recommendation. The application proposed a compliant, high quality and appropriate layout for the site. The layout incorporated an abundance of open space in excess of the policy requirement and the houses were well designed reflecting the Essex vernacular. The provision of 30% social housing would help address local need. The proposals had been subject to rigorous consultation and they had listened to residents’ concerns and responded where appropriate with changes to the layout. Whilst not all local concerns had been met, discussions would continue.
Councillor Moore attended and with the consent of the Chairman addressed the Committee and raised the issue of planting and whether there was sufficient screening and fencing to protect existing properties. She also had concerns about the security of residents and the distance between the proposed properties and Farthings Close. Allocation of affordable housing should allow for at least 10 of the homes to be reserved for local families. The effect of construction traffic on Seaview Avenue and access was raised along with the issue of access for emergency vehicles.
Councillor Jowers attended and with the consent of the Chairman addressed the Committee. He had called this in in view of the number of objections and there had not been enough consultation. Affordable housing was grouped together on the edge of the development and should be pepper-potted through the development. Farthing Close should be made secure with a close boarded fence, Seaview Avenue residents would lose amenity with headlights from passing vehicles shining into their gardens, which needed to be addressed through screening. Access for traffic was an issue and it was suggested that this could be reduced with one way and one way out. The Mersea community should see some benefit from the application and there should be allocation of social housing for Mersea residents. There had not been enough debate and community involvement with the application, and a meeting with the developer would be beneficial.
James Ryan, Principal Planning Officer, presented the report and, together with Simon Cairns, Development Manager and Karen Syrett, Lead Officer: Planning, Housing and Economic Growth, assisted the Committee in its deliberations. He explained that the principle of development and access had been approved as part of the outline permission. The design of the housing reflected the local vernacular and was in accord with the Essex Design Guide. The street scene was attractive and pedestrian friendly. The design layout showed an appropriate distance from existing properties and the proximity was in excess of policy requirements. The site was not overdeveloped. The allocation of the affordable housing had been agreed with the Council’s social housing team. The applicant had the right to install the proposed access and had made a commitment to replace that part of the pond that was removed.
Committee members were concerned about the issues raised regarding the site boundaries and security. It was suggested that a two-metre close boarded fence that ran along the western boundary of the site would provide the necessary security for residents of Seaview Avenue and Farthings Chase. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that this could be secured through the discharge of the condition on fencing and boundary treatments. Concern was also expressed about the potential for the developer to bring forward a further application to develop the rural edge of the site. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that this was addressed through the legal agreement, and that in any case officers would be unlikely to support such a development.
Members of the Committee considered that the development was attractive, spacious and welcomed the 5-metre landscaping belt. There was concern about access to the site, particularly in respect of construction vehicles and the proposal that the access road would not be adopted. It was pointed out that there was no obligation on the developer to provide an adopted road so the private road would be the responsibility of the management committee for the site. It would be built to an adoptable standard and comply with Essex Design Guide standards on turning heads and emergency access. The suggestion for an in/out access was not possible and officers had resisted an access point off Seaview Avenue because of the impact on amenity from additional traffic.
The affordable housing provision was welcomed, but members queried whether it would be possible for Mersea residents to be give priority for a proportion of the housing. The Lead Officer Planning Housing and Economic Growth explained that it may be possible to introduce a local lettings policy which would allow a third of the affordable units to be reserved for local residents and an informative to this effect could be added to the permission.
In response to members queries it was confirmed that electrical vehicle charging points had been secured as part of the outline application. In response to concerns raised about consultation, it was highlighted that the application had been subject to normal consultation on receipt of the application. Whilst consultation had been difficult in the Covid 19 pandemic, the applicant had met with representatives of Brierley Paddocks and Seaview Avenue to discuss their concerns, which had resulted in amendments to the plans.
RESOLVED (Unanimously) that the application be approved subject to conditions and informatives as set out in the report (with authority delegated to officers for the precise wording with the addition of a revised a landscaping condition requiring provision of a close boarded fence 2.0 m in height along western side boundary plus informative explaining this requirement around security for neighbouring properties and an informative lending support to local lettings policy for one third of Affordable Housing units (10 No.) favoured pursuant to the clause in the associated section 106 on the outline Planning Permission be added.