DPD Minutes 19th November 2014

Planning & Development Policy Committee

Minutes of the Myland Community Council Planning & Development Policy Committee Meeting held on Wednesday 19th November 2014, 7.15 pm @ Mile End Methodist Church Hall, Nayland Road, Colchester, CO4 5EN

Present:        Cllr John Sutcliffe (Chair)

Cllr Jean Dickinson

Cllr John Dickson

Cllr Pete Hewitt

Cllr John Stewart

There was one member of the public present.

100-14/15     Apologies

Cllr Liz Gray

101-14/15     Declarations of Interest

Cllr’s Sutcliffe, Hewitt, Dickinson and Dickson declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Item 107, Application number 146213 – North Colchester Urban Ext Mile End Road, Colchester – Reserved Matters Application for 8 units on Phase 1a (Part of R8). Pursuant to Outline Planning Permission 121272 due to the Application site being close to their residences.

Cllr’s Sutcliffe, Hewitt, Dickinson and Dickson had all requested dispensation, in writing to the Clerk, on the grounds that that so many members of the decision-making body (MCC P&DP Committee) have Disclosable Pecuniary Interests in the matter that it would “impede the transaction of the business”.

With regard to Item 107, Application number 146213 – North Colchester Urban Ext Mile End Road, Colchester, as per provisions in the Localism Act and having had regard to all relevant circumstances, the Clerk and Chairman consider that dispensation be granted to all Cllrs (as above) on the grounds that so many members of the Committee have Disclosable Pecuniary Interests in the matter that it would “impede the transaction of the business” not to do so.

102-14/15     Have Your Say

Mrs White said referred to the comments made regarding the hospital car-park and said it was an example of where MCC should get familiar with previous conditions.  She said when the hospital was built the residents had been promised that the green space would be retained.

Mrs White said when MCC had a procedure for contacting residents it must apply to all planning applications and added some residents were not being treated the same.  She said there were differences in the way MCC dealt with applications and asked why residents had not been contacted regarding the Rosewood (Severalls Phase 1) development adding MCC had not even attended the CBC Planning meeting.

Mrs White said she had a copy of a letter written by Cllr Dickinson to Vincent Pearce, CBC, detailing concerns raised by residents regarding sewage and drainage at Rosewood and asked it had been followed up.

Mrs White said conditions are the key issue and there were violations at Rosewood regarding sewage and drainage adding that a letter from David Whybrow , CBC, acknowledged this.

Mrs White said any differences MCC made when dealing with planning applications were testing her intelligence.

The Chairman said he would take Mrs White’s comments as being under Monitoring.

Mrs White said all conditions should be monitored and now she was being told MCC had the money but not the time.

103-14/15     Chairman’s Announcements and Correspondence

The Chairman said the next Finance & Staffing Committee meeting, 4th December, would focus on the 2015/16 budget and precept.  He asked all members to give some thought to any expenditure the P&DP Committee may need.  He suggested that purchasing some hard hats and steel toe capped boots for use when monitoring sites could be an item.  He asked members to send any proposal to himself for consideration on the 4th.

The Chairman showed members a copy of an email received regarding the Hospital car-park application.

104-14/15     Minutes of the meeting held on 15th October 2014 to be approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman           

The minutes of the meeting held on 15th October 2014 were approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

Proposed: Cllr Hewitt                  Seconded: Cllr Stewart                       (Unanimous)

105-14/15     Matters arising from the Minutes

There were none.

106-14/15     Monitoring

No report.

107-14/15     Planning & Licensing Applications – To make recommendations, including requests for Section 106 money where applicable, on applications received

146213 – North Colchester Urban Ext Mile End Road, Colchester – Reserved Matters Application for 8 units on Phase 1a (Part of R8). Pursuant to Outline Planning Permission 121272 – Object

MCC objects to this Reserved Matters Application for three main reasons:

  1. Conditions associated with the Outline Application 121272 have not been discharged prior to development work.
  1. Concerns regarding the access to the site via Fords Lane
  1. Size of garages
  1. Conditions (121272)

MCC cannot support this Application until evidence is provided that the necessary Conditions associated with the Outline Application 121272 have been discharged before any development work can commence, and just what ‘non-material’ amendments have been allowed.   

  1. The documents provided claim to discharge several planning conditions. See

Appendix to these notes. The documents include:

Statement in Relation to Environmental Information – This states that “A comprehensive Environmental Statement – June 2013 – accompanied the Outline Planning Application”. The current document updates the earlier Environmental Impact Assessment where necessary, i.e.

  • Landscape & Visual Impact – claims to discharge Conditions 38, 39 and 46 pertaining to landscape management and green infrastructure strategy.
  • Ecology – Claims to discharge Conditions 41 and 43.
  • Traffic and Transport – Claims current proposals remain full in-line with the Outline Planning application.
  • Noise and Vibration – A separate document, see Technical Note below.
  • Highways and Drainage – Claims there is no reason to conclude there has been any significant change in the baseline conditions.
  • Historic Environment – Condition 25 applies and an archaeological analysis has been submitted.
  • Air Quality – Claims no further information required.
  • Services and Utilities – Claims no further information required.
  • Ground Conditions – A contamination assessment has been submitted pursuant to Condition 49.

Technical Note – Noise – Discharge of Condition 17 – Report findings accord with requirements of Condition 17.

Design Statement (incorporating statement of compliance with Design Principles and Design & Access Statement);

  • Dwelling density will increase as R7 & R8 phases develop towards the eventual neighbourhood retail/schools centre.
  • Dwellings will consist of 4 two-story units with 4 bedrooms/rear extn’s / 3 two-storey units with 4 bedrooms / 1 two-storey unit with 3 bedrooms.
  • There will no affordable housing in this batch.
  • At the southern boundary there will be a linear green space providing a landscape buffer between the development and Fords Lane. This will incorporate the existing hedgerow.
  • A biodiversity protection zone adjacent to the existing hedgerow on Fords Lane will be provided.
  • The appearance of these 8 homes will be characterised by an early 20th century style with some arts and crafts references.
  • The homes will be highly insulated, will have water saving features (eg efficient taps/showers), plus energy saving devices for lighting and A-rated white goods.
  • Street widths will be 5.5m wide carriageway & 2m wide footways on both sides. Shared surface street will be 5.8m wide with a central gulley
  • All homes will have at least 2 vehicle parking spaces, some with 3.
  • Garages will be provided for 7 of the 8 but these will not be of a size to count as parking space. 1 home will have a car port/under croft. Cycle storage will exist for all 8.
  • There will be 2 visitor parking spaces in this development.
  • Dwelling Standards will be in accordance with CBC Policy DP12.
  • Residential Private Amenity Spaces will be in accordance with CBC Policy DP16.
  • Street lighting and furniture will be developed in conjunction with ECC and CBC.
  • The principles of ‘Secured By Design’ “have been considered” (so! Adopted or not?)
  • Refuse bin & re-cycle storage is expected to be in garages or secure back gardens.

Please see attached appendix for further information regarding application 121272 conditions that require full discharge.

  1. Fords Lane (See Condition 53)
  1. Fords Lane is a Public Right of Way (PRoW) and as such should not be used for construction traffic. The plans also show what appears to be a mini roundabout between the proposed development site and Howards Croft – this is an obstruction to the PRoW.  The ECC publication – Development and Public Rights of Way – Advice note for developers and development management officers – states:

“Circular 01/09 further advises that the grant of planning permission does not entitle developers to obstruct a Public Right of Way. Additionally, the requirement to keep a Public Right of Way open for public use will preclude the developer from using the existing footpath, bridleway or restricted byway as a vehicular access to the site unless there are existing additional private rights. In a case where two or three houses, for example, already benefit from access along a public path and an application is made for an existing dwelling, it would be necessary to consider the material change in impact in terms of increased vehicular movement, etc.”

  1. Fords Lane should not be used for construction traffic on the grounds of highway safety. Residents cars are parked along Fords Lane and it is unclear how the developer proposes to safely access the development site without causing damage to either other vehicles or the surface of Fords Lane
  1. Fords Lane should not be used for construction traffic on the grounds of health & safety. This is a PRoW and access point for the Mile End Recreation Ground.  There is concern for the safety of pedestrians and users for the Recreation Ground. 
  1. It would be far more sensible for the developer to construct a temporary access to this site via the field on the north side of the hedge along Fords Lane thereby avoiding any encroachment on the PRoW, any problems with resident’s vehicles along Fords Lane, any safety issues with pedestrians/users of the Recreation Ground and any potential damage to Fords Lane itself.
  1. Size of garages

The size of the garages “Garages will be provided for 7 of the 8 but these will not be of a size to count as parking space” does not conform with the Essex Design Guide.  What is the point of a garage if it cannot accommodate a modern vehicle – they may as well be called sheds.

Proposed: Cllr Hewitt                  Seconded: Cllr Dickinson                     (Unanimous)

146241 – 36 Mile End Road, Colchester CO4 5BX – Single storey rear extension – Object

MCC objects to this application on the grounds of:  Over-development of the site and the adverse impact on the neighbour with regard to the loss of sunlight and daylight.

Proposed: Cllr Dickinson              Seconded: Cllr Hewitt                         (Unanimous)

146192 – 1 Church Farm Way, Colchester CO4 5JJ – Erection of 2 x 4 bedroom houses – Object

This proposal is for 2 x 4 bedroom detached houses within the grounds of Church Farm in Myland. The original pre planning application was for 4 houses but this has now been reduced. The development is by the same company, which are renovating Church Farm House (Application 144679).

Church Farm House is a Grade 2 listed building and is the only remaining original farmhouse in Myland (now that Tubswick has gone).  Currently it retains some extended grounds, which allows the imagination to envisage it as it once was.

On a site visit on 17th November 2014 it was seen that ground marking had been initiated. Somewhat worryingly it was noted that Tree T004 had already been felled. There is a TPO in respect of these trees and I wonder if planning permission has been sought. There also a Telegraph Pole in the area of proposed building, which will have to be removed/re sited. It is also noted that the approval under planning application 144679 required the applicant to retain 2 parking spaces within the current parking zone. It appears from the current proposal that these have been moved and re sited further along the footpath to the farmhouse. Should this not be subject to planning alteration approval?

The remainder of Church Farm Way is owned by Mosaic and occupied by Care UK comprising of several bungalows which provide accommodation for physically / mentally challenged residents. Care providers are in attendance 24/7.  The carers voiced concerns about vehicle access. Currently this is a problem due to the Blue Gates Development. There is correspondence from the consultation of the farmhouse application (144679) by the Mother of the residents of 1A Church Farm Way explaining her concerns over that development. Rather worryingly she has not been informed of this latest application.

Reasons for objection

Overdevelopment:  This application could be viewed as a ‘piecemeal’ development. With the development at Blue Gates opposite it seems that a decision has been made to squeeze another 2 houses into a small green area.

Impact on listed building:  The Farmhouse is, as stated, Grade 2 listed and the approach from Church Farm Way gives an impression of how this farm may have stood in olden times. This development will remove this forever. Grade listed buildings are designed for viewing by the public and this application, if granted, would remove that view.

Impact on protected trees:  There is concern regarding the ‘pre-emptive strike’ tree felling which has already preceded approval or not of this application.

Loss of daylight / sunlight:  The development would have an impact on 27 Bolsin Drive with regard to loss of daylight / sunlight.

Breach of planning conditions:  It also appears that the developers have amended the planning conditions attached to application 144679 in as much as they have relocated the 2 parking bays.

Proposed: Cllr Stewart                 Seconded: Cllr Dickinson                    (Unanimous)

146112 – 46 Weetmans Drive, Colchester CO4 9EA – Proposed single storey rear extension – Support

Proposed: Cllr Stewart                 Seconded: Cllr Dickson                       (Unanimous)

Traffic Regulation Order – Northfields, Colchester – Proposed One Way System and 20mph zone – Support

Proposed: Cllr Sutcliffe                Seconded: Cllr Hewitt                         (Unanimous)

108-14/15     To receive copies of Planning/Appeal Decisions

145709 – 158 Bergholt Road, Colchester, CO4 5AJ – Proposed extension and alterations (excluding the loft conversion which is subject of a Certificate of Lawful development) – Permission granted, two conditions, 16th October 2014

145724 – 15 Sinclair Close, Colchester CO4 5WD – Extension to existing garage and extension to first floor – Permission granted, two conditions, 21st October 2014

145737 – 23 Beaumont Close, Colchester, CO4 5XE – Proposed single storey front and side extension – Permission granted, three conditions, 22nd October 2014

140543 – Myland House 81 Mile End Road, Colchester CO4 5BU – Two storey side extension, garage conversion and single storey extensions to rear of main building and garage for use in connection with the existing care home – Permission granted, six conditions, 23rd October 2014

145692 – Lancaster Toyota, Axial Way, Colchester – External signage – totems, directional signs and pole signs – Consent, four conditions, 28th October 2014

145770 – Volkswagen – Inchcape, Axial Way, Colchester, CO4 5XB – Building fascia signage, Pylon signs and site directional signage – Split decision, five conditions, 29th October 2014

145807 – 168 Mile End Road, Colchester CO4 5DY – Proposed single storey rear extension – Permission granted, two conditions, 4th November 2014

109-14/15     Date of next meeting – 10th December 2014, 7.15pm @ Myland Community Council Office, 101 Nayland Road, Colchester.

The meeting closed at 8:42pm