Agenda item

This  application  seeks  full  planning  permission  for  the  demolition  of  the  nursery glasshouses,  buildings  and  structures  and  No.  700  St  Johns  Road  and  the redevelopment  of  the  site  with  a  predominately  residential  scheme.    The  proposed residential scheme comprises of: 180 Residential units comprising 10 no. 2 bed houses; 83  no.  3  bed  houses;  24  no.  4  bed  houses;  15  no.  5  bed  houses;  16  no.  1  bed apartments;  24  no.  2  bed  apartments  and  8  no.  live/work  units  (mixed  commercial totalling  1064  square  metres  with  flats  above),  with  associated  roads,  open  space, drainage, landscaping and other associated infrastructure. 

Minutes:

In line with his previous declaration of interest as reported under Minute 224 above, Councillor Bray temporarily left the meeting whilst the Committee deliberated on this application.

 

It was noted that the application site comprised 7.6 hectares of horticultural land and was located approximately 300m to the western edge of Clacton-on-Sea, but within the Civil Parish of St Osyth. The site lay to the north of St. Johns Road (B1027), with the majority of the site being to the rear of a ribbon of residential development that fronted onto that road (even nos. 690 – 762).

 

It was reported that currently the vehicular access to the site was off Earls Hall Drive, a private road which passed along its western boundary. It was proposed to provide a footpath/cycleway within the current curtilage of 762 St Johns Road adjacent to the existing lane. In addition, the application site also included a chalet bungalow and its garden at 700 St Johns Road which it was proposed would be demolished, in order to provide a new, replacement vehicular access to the site, in lieu of Earls Hall Drive.

 

Members were informed that the site lay within the settlement development boundary for Clacton-on-Sea where there was no objection, in principle, to residential development.

 

The Committee was informed that this application sought full planning permission for the demolition of the nursery’s glasshouses, buildings and structures and No. 700 St Johns Road and the redevelopment of the site with a predominately residential scheme. The proposed residential scheme comprised of: 180 Residential units comprising 10 no. 2 bed houses; 83 no. 3 bed houses; 24 no. 4 bed houses; 15 no. 5 bed houses; 16 no. 1 bed apartments; 24 no. 2 bed apartments and 8 no. live/work units (mixed commercial totalling 1064 square metres with flats above), with associated roads, open space, drainage, landscaping and other associated infrastructure.

 

Officers reminded the Committee that they were content that, subject to the imposition of reasonable planning conditions and Section 106 planning obligations, that the general principle of this level of development on the site was acceptable. It was in keeping with both the site’s location on the edge of Clacton-on-Sea, along with the need to facilitate onsite strategic landscaping, open space and the retention of existing landscape features. Furthermore, the proposal would ensure that the living conditions of existing and future residents would be protected from any materially detrimental impacts.

 

Members were advised therefore that the recommendation of Officers was to approve planning permission, subject to the completion of a legal obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a dormouse survey and the imposition of a number of controlling conditions.

 

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 Team Leader (SC-E) in respect of the application.

 

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of an NHS Consultation Response as follows:-

 

“A developer contribution of £109,900.00 will be required to mitigate against the Healthcare impacts of this proposal.  The proposed contribution is to be used for Clacton Community Practice (including branches at Nayland Road and Kennedy Way). This required contribution will be secured as part of the Section 106 agreement. “

 

Mr Michael Robinson, the consultant acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

Mr Ray Crosier, a local resident, spoke against the application.

 

Parish Councillor (and local District Ward Member) Michael Talbot, representing St Osyth Parish Council, spoke against the application.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

Would there be any EV charging points on the properties?

The Planning Officer confirmed that as part of a Renewable Energy scheme, charging points would be conditioned.

The Inquiry Inspector had made recommendations on the previous application, would those recommendations be carried on as part of the new application?

The Planning Officer confirmed that the previous appeal decision was a material consideration.

Members of the Committee raised concerns regarding traffic, had a new survey been carried out under different conditions?

The Planning Officer confirmed that the Transport Assessment had been updated. However, the data gathered related to a survey completed in 2018 as part of a previous application. From ECC Highways, further comments had been received.

It was raised by a member of the Committee concerns relating to the development at Rouses Farm. Could the officer confirm the distance between the access point from Rouses Farm and the proposed entrance road?

The Planning Officer confirmed that the access point into Rouses Farm was 100-150 yards away.

How old were the poplar trees?

The tree specialist had confirmed that the trees were not worthy of retention. Condition 10 required a landscaping scheme to be submitted, Officers considered that if the scheme was acceptable and if the trees died within 5 years of planting, they were replaced with an alternative deemed acceptable by the Council.

Is the site a rural service area?

The Planning Officer confirmed that the development was not a rural service centre and part of the Clacton area.

Could the officer identify the 8 working units?

The Planning Officer highlighted the units in question and confirmed that there would be a deficit if more affordable homes were proposed.

12m was the highest point of buildings, how did this compare to the chimneys presently on site?

The Planning Officer confirmed that the chimneys were 14m in height.

A member of the Committee asked if a representative from ECC Highways had been invited to attend the meeting.

ECC Highways had been asked to attend, however, they were unable to attend due to Covid-19 related sickness.

 

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Placey and RESOLVED that consideration of this application be deferred in order to allow ECC Highways officers to attend a future meeting of the Planning Committee whereby they can be present to answer Members’ technical and highway specific questions and to clarify traffic data used in the transport assessment. In addition, Officers were instructed to request the applicant to look at their proposal against policies SP7, SPL3, LP4 and LP5 and submit changes if required.

 

Supporting documents: