Notes & Decisions of the Planning and Development Committee Meeting
Held on Wed 21st February 2018 at the John Lampon Hall at 7.30pm
|Planning Committee Members:||Bob Tyrrell (Chair), Brian Butcher (Vice Chair), Chris Stevenson, Murray Harlow, Andrew Savage and Laura Walkingshaw (Parish Clerk)||Next meeting:
Wed 21st Mar 2018, J L Hall at 7.30pm
|Members of the public present:||14|
|Declarations of Interest:||Cllr Tyrrell declared an interest in Item 4, Planning Application 180199|
It is the aim of the Parish Council to seek a high standard of design for all new developments and extensions in the Village.
Item 1: To discuss the two outline planning applications from NEEB Holdings on the sites at Armoury and Colchester Road (consultation ends Thurs 22nd Feb)
NEEB Holdings held an exhibition at the Methodist Hall, which approx. 130 people attended, showing their plans for two sites in West Bergholt. The Planning Committee, Parish Council and Neighbourhood Plan will be sending letters of objections to NEEB with regards these plans. The proposals fail to take into account Colchester Borough Council’s emerging Local Plan and the West Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan and there are 11 clear points on which this committee will object.
Neither Gladmans nor NEEB have respected the proper time to put in their applications, currently both areas are outside of the village envelope and we would therefore expect them to be rejected by CBC. The proper time to bring forward their proposals is when the Local & Neighbourhood Plans are approved by the inspector, but they have both decided to ignore that, it is a case of “wrong site at the wrong time”. The Parish Council have known about the many landowners/developers around West Bergholt for some time, there are currently 20 proposed development sites around the village, NEEB have probably just brought their plans forward because Gladmans did. The difference between them is that NEEB own the land, whilst Gladmans don’t.
A resident then stated that she had held back from entering her comments into the NEEB Consultation portal as she was worried that it would help them with their planning application. However, the Committee thought that by not entering comments NEEB would take that as tacit support for the project, they instead suggested that she did comment, but in a concise manner, e.g. “outside the village envelope” or “premature and ignores Local Plan”.
Colchester’s 5-year housing supply is the linchpin to Gladmans appeal with regards their Bakers Lane application for 122 houses. The inspector will be looking at their argument of deliverability and it may come down to where the supply is in the 800’s or 900’s, if he finds that they have uncovered a flaw then they will win. However, if they don’t then they can only appeal further to the inspector on a matter of law. The Bakers Lane appeal decision is due out at the end of March which is interesting as it is likely to be at the same time as Colchester’s decision on their other application at Colchester Road. NEEB however have said that their argument will be different from Gladmans when they come to appeal (as they obviously expect it will be refused by CBC).
A resident commented that the NEEB plans have shown affordable housing possibly aiding their argument and so asked if the Neighbourhood Plan had addressed those issues. The Committee reported that the levels for affordable housing required by CBC is currently at 30%, whilst in fact the 3 landowners who have signed up to support the Neighbourhood Plan have agreed a minimum of 30% and will only be looking at 1, 2 & 3-bedroom houses for smaller families and those looking to downsize as identified by residents in the recent surveys.
People are free to question the proposal, but the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group think that it is simply not in the best place for the village, it takes people further away from the centre, creating more traffic congestion and creeps downhill leading to more coalescence with Colchester.
The Committee suggested that if residents were going to object then they should put in an objection to each site as it is likely that NEEB will put in two separate planning applications. The Armoury Road infill site is likely to give CBC more difficulty in refusal than the Colchester Road one. NEEB will require access through Maltings Park and Armoury Road, both of which are private roads, however that is not a planning issue.
The Committee expect that the proposals would appear on next month’s Planning agenda as planning applications. It will then be even more important for residents to put in an objection, if they wish, as one of the first things that the barrister leading the Gladmans Bakers Lane appeal asked witnesses was where their objections were listed.
A resident asked what happens if they do not get planning permission. The Committee replied that the emerging Local Plan will run out in 15 years, they may sit on it until then or sell it. The Local Plan should be agreed by the end of the year and the Neighbourhood Plan would have been presented by then too, any landowner wishing to develop around West Bergholt is likely to have made their representations by then.
Item 2: Update on the Gladman Developments planning application for Colchester Road and the public enquiry into their Bakers Lane application.
Covered in the discussion above.
Item 3: To receive any pre-application representations regarding proposed planning applications
A resident from Chapel Lane presented the Committee with his proposals for a new conservatory for his bungalow. The conservatory will be 4.7m in width and 2.5m in depth. There will be no heating, it will use the existing patio doors for access and be lower than the roof of the main building. The Committee had no objections to the plans in principle.
Item 4: Current planning applications:
|Location||Proposal||Application No. and link to CBC planning website||Object / Support / Observations||Decision or Recommendation||Comments by Planning Committee|
|Proposed conservatory.||180055||Support||Decision||The Parish Council has no comment.|
|Single storey rear extensions.||180199||Support||Decision||Cllr Tyrrell re-declared an interest in Planning Application 180199 and took no further part in the discussion.
The Parish Council has no comment.
|18 Albany Close West Bergholt
|Erection of a two storey above an existing single side extension.||180016||Observation||Decision||The Parish Council supports the principle of an extension, however has concerns over the design and the inaccuracies between the plans and the elevations with regards to the first-floor window? Especially as the drawings provided are of poor quality thus open to misinterpretation when built.|
|3 Sackville Way West Bergholt
|Single storey rear extension, first floor bathroom/en-suite extension & porch alterations.||180274||Support||Decision||The Parish Council has no comment.|
|Change of Use of land within Pattens Yard from the current use to a landscape contractors yard.||180164||Support||Decision||The Parish Council has no comment.|
CO6 3DN (Listed)
|Various alterations and refurbishment to Grade II listed property and conversion of existing barn into habitable space ancillary to the main house.||180380||Observation||Decision||180380 – The Parish Council agree in principle to the conversion of the barn into habitable space, however subject to the condition that the annex is solely for use of only close family of the owners and never sold as a separate dwelling
180381 – Concerning the alterations to a building of listed status, the Parish Council would defer to the Borough Council’s greater knowledge in this regard.
29B Mumford Close
|Side extension over garage to form new master bedroom & bathroom, single storey front extension to kitchen area.||180419||Object||Recommendation||The Parish Council has no problem with an extension to this property in principle but feels that the design makes the building too dominant. The current plans contravene DG7 of the CBC approved Village Design Statement, which states that dwellings must be in harmony with the surroundings in respect of proportion and scale. The Council would like to see the proposals re-designed.|
|Demolish existing conservatory. Form new rear extension & alterations.||180428||Support||Recommendation||The Parish Council has no comment, except that the drawings provide is of a very poor quality.|
Item 5: Review Planning Decisions:
|CBC Decision Date||CBC Decision||WBPC Decision Date||Object / Support / Observ.||Application No.||Location||Planning Inspectorate Appeal|
|O/S||17/01/2018||Observation||180028||9 Chapel Road|
|O/S||17/01/2018||Observation||173369||Cooks Hall Farm, Cooks Hall Road|
|O/S||17/01/2018||Support||180065||48 Chapel Road|
|O/S||17/01/2018||Observation||180083||49 Mumford Road|
|O/S||17/01/2018||Support||180110||Lortay Cottage, 2 Arm Frm Ctgs, Arm Rd|
|O/S||17/01/2018||Observation||173276||Patterns Yard, Nayland Road|
|O/S||12/12/2017||Object||173127||Land adj. to Hill House Farm|
|12/02/2018||Approve||12/12/2017||Support||172947||6 Lodge Court|
|24/01/2018||Approve||20/09/2017||Support||172310||Little Priors, Hall Road|
|22/01/2018||Approve||12/12/2017||Support||173094||12 Albany Rd|
|18/01/2018||Approve||12/12/2017||Support||173073||Church Cottage, Hall Road|