Agenda item
Crossways Centre is located within Frating which is a ‘Smaller Rural Village’. Access would not be via the primary highway network. Instead, it would be from the B1029 Frating Road. The site is not a protected or allocated employment site and the proposal is for a B8 storage and distribution use. The site is located outside of the settlement development boundary.
The proposal is for a warehouse extension (approximately 762m2 in footprint, measured externally), and loading bay extension (approximately 464m2 in footprint, measured externally), and extension of the site’s service yard area onto adjacent agricultural land.
Minutes:
Councillor Fowler reminded the Committee that she earlier declared a personal interest in PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00186/FUL – CROSSWAYS CENTRE FRATING ROAD GREAT BROMLEY COLCHESTER ESSEX as the applicant was known to her and that she would not participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making on this application.
Councillors Scott and Wiggins had earlier in the meeting, declared personal interests in A.2 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00186/FUL – CROSSWAYS CENTRE, FRATING ROAD, GREAT BROMLEY, COLCHESTER due to being the Ward Members.
Councillor McWilliams had also earlier declared a personal interest in A.2 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00186/FUL – CROSSWAYS CENTRE, FRATING ROAD, GREAT BROMLEY, COLCHESTER due to being the adjacent Ward Member.
It was reported that the Crossways Centre was located in the vicinity of Frating which was a ‘Smaller Rural Village’. The site was not a protected or allocated employment site and the proposal was for a B8 storage and distribution use. The site was located outside of the settlement development boundary.
The Committee was informed that the proposal was for a warehouse extension (approximately 762m2 in footprint, measured externally), and loading bay extension (approximately 464m2 in footprint, measured externally), and extension of the site’s service yard area onto adjacent agricultural land.
Members were made aware that the proposal did not meet the criteria for being an acceptable location for an expanded B8 storage and distribution use, and that the proposal by Officers was considered to result in unacceptable highway safety impacts. Although it would not harm the landscape character, it was considered also that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would also harm the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings.
Whilst the economic benefits of approving the scheme were acknowledged, they were not considered by Officers to outweigh the identified harms. The proposal was considered to be contrary to the development plan, and refusal of planning permission was therefore recommended.
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 refusal.
At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (DC) in respect of the application.
An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of a letter from the occupants of Junedene to confirm that they had no objection and a further letter of objection received raising concerns which had already been summarised within the Officer report.
Gary Rowe, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.
John Bartington, Chairman of Residents against Crossways Expansion, spoke against the application.
Parish Councillor Fred Nicholls, representing Great Bromley Parish Council, spoke against the application.
Councillor Lynda McWilliams, the adjacent Ward Member for The Bentleys and Frating Ward, spoke against the application.
Councillor Gary Scott, a Ward Member, spoke against the application.
|
Matters raised by a Committee Member:- |
Officer’s response thereto:- |
|
A Member of the Committee asked what the lawful use certificate allowed. |
The Planning Officer confirmed that not all of the site was covered by the certificate of lawfulness (some parts of a building were excluded), and that some conditions of earlier permissions may continue to apply. Furthermore, the proposal would be more harmful than any fall-back position, and that it should therefore be afforded limited weight. |
|
A member of the Committee raised concerns regarding the use and safety of the premises. |
The Planning Officer referred to ER7 requiring satisfactory vehicular access, when replaced by emerging policy highways safety aspects would be covered by other policies of the emerging plan. |
|
Concerns regarding the boundary line was raised by a Member of the Committee. If the site had expanded before the emerging plan was agreed, would it have been drawn around the site? |
The Planning Officer confirmed that if the site had already been extended at the time the emerging plan was being prepared, the boundary line would have been drawn around the extended site. |
|
If the site was refused, could the premises keep operating? |
The Planning Officer confirmed that if the application were refused enforcement action would logically be taken, but that the site could continue to operate until a Secretary of State appointed Inspector had determined any appeal(s). |
|
Had a traffic plan been considered or negotiated? |
The Planning Officer confirmed that no traffic management plan or off-site highway mitigation works had been proposed by the application or discussed with them. |
|
A Member referred to 6.67 where the business appeared to be successful. What were the benefits of the economy and growth compared to the grounds for refusal? |
The Planning Officer confirmed that significant weight should be given to the need to support economic growth in accordance with Paragraph 81 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In response to a question it was clarified to the Committee that there was approximately 500m between the development and the junction of the B1029 with the A133. |
|
A Member of the Committee discussed the requirements of the business to see if there were any other suitable sites for this development. Options were mentioned; Horsley Cross who would welcome the opportunity, and land near Beth Chatto Gardens in Alresford. |
|
|
Concerns regarding the rural settlement were raised with regards to overdevelopment and infrastructure. |
The Planning Officer referred Members to the harms identified in the report, and clarified the position in relation to Flood Risk; following negotiations and revisions to the proposal the Lead Local Flood Authority had no objections, and the Environment Agency had not commented. |
|
A Member of the Committee referred to the loss of agricultural land, disturbance to neighbours and road, resident and pedestrian safety. On the other hand, the business was successful employing 96 employees and increasing by 45% during the pandemic. |
|
Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Alexander and unanimously RESOLVED that consideration of this application be deferred for up to 6 months to allow for further negotiations on the following:
“• Dialogue with the applicant and ECC Highways on a Traffic Management Plan, to include looking at HGV movements/routing plan with particular emphasis on examining/directing traffic to and from the south from the Frating crossroads & any potential improvements to that junction;
• Further explore the highways access arrangements and the potential to demolish the front buildings to facilitate two-way movements;
• Look at hours of operation and if this could be reduced at night time;
• Explore a temporary planning permission for up to 2 or 3 years with the aim of helping to support the applicant in finding a more appropriate site within the District.”
Supporting documents:
PDF 469 KB