Agenda item

The application is before the Planning Committee following a call-in request from Councillor McWilliams due to concerns with the highway safety impacts, the increase in size of the development to that previously approved, and the impacts to neighbouring amenities.

 

The proposal is for the construction of six buildings for Class E use (including offices, financial, professional and medical services) which will amount to 3,016sqm of floorspace, including a new vehicular access off Harwich Road and ancillary works including landscaping and parking provision.

 

Minutes:

The Committee heard how this application was before the Planning Committee following a call-in request from Councillor McWilliams due to her concerns with the highway safety impacts, the increase in size of the development to that previously approved, and the impacts to neighbouring amenities. The proposal was for the construction of six buildings for Class E use (including offices, financial, professional and medical services) which would amount to 3,016sqm of floor space that included a new vehicular access off Harwich Road and ancillary works which included landscaping and parking provision.

 

Members recalled that under relevant appeal decision APP/P1560/W/19/3226387 (dated 26th May 2020), planning permission had previously been granted on this site for the development of two buildings for office uses measuring 1,687sqm of floor space, which also included a new vehicular access off Harwich Road and ancillary parking and landscaping. This permission remained extant and was a material consideration in the determination of this application.

 

The Committee had been informed that in respect of the development proposal the subject of this report, Officers were content that the buildings were of a suitable design for this rural location and did not consider there to be significant harm to the amenities of any neighbouring residents. Essex Highways Authority had raised no objections, and the parking being provided was in accordance with the Essex Car Parking Standards. There was no significant harm to trees and the soft landscaping scheme provided would sufficiently soften, screen and enhance the development. Following the submission of an amended Preliminary Ecological Assessment, ECC Place Services (Ecology) had raised no objections, and the Environment Agency, Natural England and Essex SuDS also had not objected on flood risk and/or drainage grounds.

 

Members were made aware that the proposal would result in an increase in bulk and floor space to the scheme previously allowed, as well as an increase in hardstanding for car parking, and by its very nature, having regard to the immediate and wider context, would result in a level of harm to the character and appearance of the area, thereby resulting in minor conflict with Adopted Policies SPL3 and PPL3 as well as Paragraph 130 of the NPPF. However, the development did allow for sufficient levels of soft landscaping, particularly to all boundaries, and retained good separation distances between each building, thereby ensuring the development did not appear overdeveloped.

 

In addition, the proposed development was considered by officers to represent a strong economic boost to the District, with provision for up to 152 jobs, which compared favourably to the extant permission that provided for 36 jobs. The proposal would therefore set a positive and progressive tone for commercial development in the District, which currently had very poor provision of commercial office space, and what provision there was, was generally of very poor quality. In addition, a Sequential Test had been undertaken, which had demonstrated there were no other sequentially preferable sites where the development could instead be located.

 

Taking all of the above into consideration, Officers considered that the strong economic benefits of the proposal outweighed the identified harm to the character and appearance of the area, and on balance Officers were therefore recommending approval.

 

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting which detailed two objection letters received from the neighbouring resident, that outlined their concerns and an additional letter from the NHS Foundation Trust, which had confirmed the Trust’s continued interest in occupying one of the proposed buildings, to be used for the Wheelchair Service.

 

The updated sheet also confirmed that Officers had incorrectly calculated the parking provision for Building 6 within Paragraph 6.50 of the report.

 

Neil Napthine, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

Mark Rodgers, a member of the public, spoke against the application.

 

Philip Suarez, Chairman of Little Bentley Parish Council spoke against the application.

 

Councillor Gary Scott, a Member for the adjacent ward, spoke against the application.

 

Councillor Lynda McWilliams, the Ward Member, spoke against the application.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

What is the overbuild on this application compared to the Inspectors ruling and if we go against this application will we be going against the Inspectors original ruling?

There is an overbuild of 78% and no, this would not be going against the Inspectors ruling as this is a new application.

Will refusal on this affect the Inspectors ruling?

No, the Inspectors ruling is extant and any ruling here will not affect that.

How will the sewerage be treated on site?

It will be processed by an internal system, utilising the run-off water that would filter the sewerage and produce clean water.

Is the water treat at the plant a mechanical process?

No

What are the sizes of buildings 1,2,3 & 4. Also How far are they from Clip Hedge Farm (CHF) and how does that compare to the extant permission?

 Building 1 to be 2.5 storeys, Building 2 to be single storey, Building 3 to be two storeys, and Building 4 to be 1.5 storeys.

Are there bunds in the new application?

Yes, to the north of the site it is about 1mts in height, what is proposed is 1 singular long bund instead of 3 separate bunds which is in the extant permission.

Is there parking capacity on site for the public?

Yes

Job creation, how many jobs were on the first application?

36

Why this site and not one of the sequential sites?

12 other sites were looked at but nothing that matched as well as this, also the extant permission leads to this site being optimal.

Are there sites elsewhere that could take the smaller number?

The Council’s Economic Team had advised on this location.

What is the size of the plot?

1.3 hectares

Can the design of the buildings, as shown in the report, be changed post decision?

No, the building design would have to be in accordance with what is on the application.

So what we see on the plans we will see at completion?

Yes

Drainage. Can you tell us where at the end of the pipeline the water goes, and how long the pipe is?

The treatment plan will break down the waste to completely clear water. I can’t say how long the pipe is and it will be into the existing ditch network.

Could we put that a pond with reeds must be created as a condition?

No as it would go beyond the site and is not within the ownership or control of the applicant and so any condition would be unreasonable.

We can only judge it on what’s here before us in the agenda?

Yes

 

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Turner and seconded by Councillor Fowler that the application be approved, subject to conditions, which motion on being put to the vote was declared LOST.

 

Following further discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Baker, seconded by Councillor Wiggins 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:-

 

1.    Harm to neighbouring occupiers by reason of overbearing and overlooking impact.

 

2.    Harm to the rural character and landscape appearance of the area by reason pf excessive built form and floor space resulting in industrial character; and

 

3.    Outside settlement development boundary contrary to local plan.

 

                                                                                                                     

Supporting documents: