Agenda item

Variation of conditions 1 and 19 of approved application 14/01431/OUT to allow up to 80 residential unit occupations prior to completion of associated highway works and improvements including a new roundabout off the A120 as prescribed by condition 19.

Members recalled that the Chairman of the Planning Committee (Councillor White) had withdrawn this planning application from the Agenda for the meeting of the Committee held on 17 February 2020 in order to allow a further period of time in which Ramsey & Parkeston Parish Council and Harwich Town Council could submit their respective representations.

It was reported that the application site covered an area of approximately 30 hectares and was located between the A120 highway and the existing Dovercourt urban area of Harwich. The applicant proposed revisions to the extant planning permission (14/01431/OUT) under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to vary Condition 1 with a substituted phasing plan and provide revised wording to Condition 19 in order to permit the development of 80 residential dwellings ahead of the proposed new access and roundabout.

The Committee was informed that the applicant had originally sought to amend conditions 1 and 19 in order to bring forward all 297 residential dwellings ahead of the proposed new access and roundabout. Following discussions with this Council’s Officers and Essex County Council Highways Officers the application had been amended to allow a reduced amount of 80 residential units ahead of the access road and roundabout by revision of the approved phasing plan, in order to incorporate a sub-phase of phase 3 to come ahead of phases 1 and 2 for the access and roundabout.

It was noted that, at the occupation of the 80^th dwelling, all existing planning conditions and Section 106 contributions would revert back to the requirements of the original outline consent (14/01431/OUT).

Members were made aware that the site at land east of Pond Hall Farm had been allocated within the Tendring District Local Plan 2007 under Policy HAR 2 without a residential allocation. The site had also included in various iterations of the Tendring District Local Plan (2013-2033) during the draft and consultation stages with an allocation of 297 residential dwellings and a requirement for the residential units to be delivered via Stour Close. Taking into account the site was now ‘consented’ the Tendring District Local Plan (submission Draft) Part 2 referred to the site as ‘mixed use consented’ and therefore it was not necessary for the site to be considered as an allocation.

The Committee was advised that the extant outline consent was subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment with the application being accompanied by an Environmental Statement. In light of subsequent changes to environmental legislation and the time lapsed the applicant had reviewed and updated the Environmental Statement and had submitted an Environmental Statement Addendum (ESA) in order to review and mitigate any changes.

It was reported that the review to the ESA had been carried out taking into account the delivery of all 297 residential dwellings off Stour Close, and which had been prior to amending the application to restrict the number to 80 residential dwellings. The findings of that review had demonstrated that there were no severe adverse impacts resulting from the delivery of 297 residential dwellings off Stour Close.

Members were informed that the Council had received objections from the public primarily concerning traffic and vehicle movements to and from the site. Due to the current pandemic and unusually low levels of traffic on the network historic data had been used to assess traffic impacts and movements, which had confirmed that traffic impact would be at an acceptable level, and again this was at the higher level of 297 dwellings. Whilst ECC Highways had concerns regarding the delivery of 297 dwellings off Stour Close they had submitted ‘No Objection’ to the revised number of 80 dwellings subject to conditions including the improvement to a vision splay.

The Committee was advised that the applicant had informed the Council that the changes were necessary in order to secure a developer for the residential site and in order to fund the delivery of the access and roundabout due to the lack of uptake of the retail, business and leisure uses and the current inability to fund the access and roundabout.

It was reported that the Council’s Lawyer had confirmed that it was not necessary to amend the related Section 106 Legal Agreement and that the necessary amendment of the approved phasing plan and agreement of 80 dwellings only could be undertaken through a Unilateral Undertaking which was currently being prepared.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Managerin respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of a consultation response received from Harwich Town Council which recommended refusal of the application on the grounds that: “the existing road layout was designed to support the existing development and that it is inappropriate to increase the traffic volume through a residential area onto a fast and busy thoroughfare. Since the original outline consent, the Harwich peninsula has seen a large increase in population without an increase in infrastructure and as local social infrastructure levels are a material planning consideration, this proposal should be viewed as an additional increase in population.”

Parish Councillor Steve Richardson, speaking on behalf of Harwich Town Council, addressed the Committee and advocated that this application should be refused.

Councillor Morrison, a local Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and advocated that this application should be refused.

Peter Keenan, an agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

During the Committee’s debate on this application, Members discussed and asked questions on the following matters:-

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Alexander and:-

RESOLVED that, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval, the Assistant Director (Planning) (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the development due to the following reasons:-

“New development should be compatible with surrounding uses and minimise any adverse environmental impacts including avoiding a materially damaging impact on the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties by reason of unacceptable levels of pollution including air, amenity, and health and safety through noise, smell, dust, light, vibration, fumes or other forms of pollution or nuisance.

In this case, it is considered that the construction and occupation of 80 residential dwellings via existing narrow residential streets (Stour Close and Clayton Road) will result in undue environmental impacts and accordingly is considered to be contrary to Policy QL11 (Environmental Impacts and Compatibility of Uses) of the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and Policies SPL3 (Sustainable Design) and DI1 (Infrastructure Delivery and Impact Mitigation) of the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft.”