Agenda item

A.1 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/01000/FUL – ST JOHNS PLANT CENTRE, EARLS HALL DRIVE, CLACTON ON SEA CO16 8BP

This application was deferred by the Planning Committee on 30th March 2022. The reasons for deferral were in order to allow Essex County Council Highways Officers to attend a future meeting and Officers were instructed to request the applicant to look at their proposal against policies SP7, SPL3, LP4 and L4 and submit changes if necessary.

 

It has been confirmed that Officers from Essex County Council will be present at the meeting and following correspondence with the agent/applicant no changes to the scheme are proposed.

Minutes:

Earlier on in the meeting, as recorded under Minute 4 above, Councillor White had declared a Personal Interest in relation to this application and had stated that he was pre-determined. Councillor White accordingly vacated the Chair and withdrew from the meeting at this point in the proceedings.

 

In the absence of the Chairman, it was moved by Councillor Alexander,  seconded by Councillor Baker, and RESOLVED that Councillor Fowler occupy the Chair and act as Chairman of the Committee  whilst this application was being considered and determined.

 

Members  recalled that this application  had been deferred by the Planning Committee at its meeting held on 30th March 2022 in order to allow an Essex County Council Highways Officer to attend  and Officers  to request the applicant to look at their proposal against policies SP7, SPL3, LP4 and L4 and to submit changes if necessary.

 

It had previously been confirmed that an Officer from Essex County Council would be present at the meeting and that, following correspondence with the agent/applicant, no changes to the scheme were proposed.

 

The Committee was reminded 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 was now included within the Parish of St Osyth. It was 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 the road (even nos. 690 – 762).

 

It was reported that, currently, the vehicular access to the site was via 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 to demolish, in order to provide a new, replacement vehicular access to the site, in lieu of the Earls Hall Drive one.

 

Members were reminded 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 further reminded that this application sought 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 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 were content that, subject to the imposition of reasonable planning conditions and Section 106 planning obligations, 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, and met the need to facilitate on site 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.

 

The recommendation of Officers was therefore 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 a consultation response received from the NHS.

 

The Chairman reminded the meeting that there would be no speakers under the Public Speaking Scheme on this application as this had taken place at the meeting held on 30 March 2022.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

Had a further survey been carried out as St Johns Road was experiencing high volumes of traffic? Would ECC be prepared to look at another traffic survey during July and August?

The most current survey carried data collected from 2017, this had informed the original application that subsequently had went to appeal. In the interim, it had not appeared appropriate to undertake another survey due to Covid lockdowns the consequent reduction in road use and ECC felt that traffic conditions were acceptable to the highway authority.

Concerns raised regarding the upgrade to the road, linked to the Rouses Lane development, which  had not been undertaken.

The Rouses Farm planning application had also been assessed on its own merits and, via a Transport Assessment, ECC had considered the application to be acceptable, subject to conditions. Public transport contributions had been requested to  mitigate matters.

Further concerns relating to traffic were raised.

ECC advised that the application was commented upon by them solely as a consultee.. The application had been prepared according to correct standards and represented the relevant data and ECC were content that the development was acceptable subject to conditions.

According to Highways, had trip generation been considered and what were the parking provisions for cars?

The Planning Officer confirmed that there were 2 parking spaces per dwelling with visitor spaces and under the assumption that some would use public transport. A trips database was a collection of surveys across the county to interpret and form an impact from the development.

What type of businesses would the units be open to?

The Planning Officer confirmed that there was potential for small workshops and professional services.

A member of the Committee asked why the data wascollected in the North-West of the country.

ECC advised that there were similar trip data for residential developments in the North West at appropriate times. The data was accurate and relevant.

Why was it not important that summer months were not considered?

ECC confirmed that various sources of data had been cross-referenced with trip data and traffic flows. It was also noted that the Traffic Network varied up to 10% in its  In the level of use. Members were asked to be mindful of monitoring peak times and the potential for overall findings to be artificially high.  

A member of the Committee referred to ECC’s response from 10 December 2021. In January 2020, the Planning Inspectorate had referred to an accident where the cause was unknown due to evidence of the development access affecting the area not being provided.

ECC could not confirm on behalf of the Road Safety Team if the accident causes had been resolved and the investigation concluded. Areas of concern would be a series of accidents at the same location, and causation found resulting from the highways layout. Intervention from the highways authority would take place as a result.

a A member of the Committee raised concerns relating to the Inspector’s interpretation of the 2018 traffic report. Would the site be suitable and safe for the proposed developments on St Johns’ Road?

The ECC representative confirmed that from the information provided, the authority were satisfied that no severe impact would be made based on their consultations subject to conditions as proposed in the TDC Officers’ recommendation.

A Committee member asked Officers to confirm that 10% of the 180 properties would be affordable housing.

The Planning Officer confirmed that 10% of the proposed dwellings would be affordable. The Planning Officer confirmed that the affordable houses would be submitted as part of a Section 106 agreement.

A member of the Committee referred to the Inspector’s findings in relation to a survey completed in the month of April.

The ECC representative reiterated that mitigation against the development would be according to standard practice and accurate data.

Additional concerns relating to traffic were raised. Had a roundabout been considered?

Roundabouts are used as a tool for “equal flow” areas to manage traffic flow. The Rouses Lane application had proposed, as part of their application, traffic light signals and a righ turn only lane in order to  manage traffic flow.

What would the significant impact have to be in order for ECC to take action?

The ECC representative referred to a paragraph  in the NPPF, where if the impact and residual impact would be severe, this would result in action being taken.

The demolition of no.700 was raised by a Committee member, what would the width of the road be to cater for traffic?

The Planning Officer confirmed that the width of the access road was proposed to be 5.5 meters. An additional exit would also be available with bollards for emergency vehicles. Bollards would be controlled by a mechanism available only to the emergency services.

A member of the Committee referred to ecology considerations.

The Planning Officer referred to the ECC Ecology report whereby the application was recommended for approval with an extra condition for a dormouse survey to be completed.

 

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Harris, 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:-

 

a)    The lack of submission and approval of a dormouse survey.

b)    That such legal agreement has not been completed, as the requirements necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms had not been secured through a s106 planning obligation.

c)    Transport Assessment insufficient to demonstrate no adverse Highway impact.

d)    Adverse impact on amenities of neighbouring residents adjacent to the proposed access.

 

Supporting documents: