Agenda item

The application is referred to the Planning Committee following the Member referral request of Pier Ward Councillor Paul Honeywood, due to concerns over parking provision and highways impact, and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of existing residents. The application is the subject of a current non-determination appeal, listed to be considered by the Inquiry procedure lasting for 6 days in September 2022.

When the appeal was submitted the jurisdiction of the Council to determine the application was removed. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to obtain Members’ resolution as to whether or not they would have approved the application had they been in a position to determine it. Members should note that an extension of time for the submission of the Council’s Statement of case for the appeal has been agreed until Friday 15 July 2022.

It was reported to Members that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee following the Member referral request of Pier Ward Councillor Paul Honeywood, due to his concerns over parking provision and highways impact, and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of existing residents.

The Committee was informed that this application was the subject of a current non-determination appeal, listed to be considered by the Inquiry procedure lasting for 6 days in September 2022. When the appeal was submitted the jurisdiction of the Council to determine the application was removed. Therefore, the purpose of this report was to obtain Members’ resolution as to whether or not they would have approved the application had they been in a position to determine it. Members noted that an extension of time for the submission of the Council’s Statement of Case for the appeal had been agreed until Friday 15 July 2022.

The Committee heard how the proposal had attracted objections from Essex County Council’s Heritage Section and the Local Highway Authority. The former considered that the proposal would result in harm to the Conservation Area, the latter that there was inadequate parking provision and circulation space on-site. In addition, there would be some limited impact on the living conditions of adjoining neighbours. However, the proposal was considered acceptable in principle by Officers and that there were very considerable benefits to regeneration, and in the re-use of a deteriorating brownfield site for much needed specialist housing delivery. Those were considerations which were afforded strong Local Plan policy support. Furthermore, Officers considered that the public benefits clearly outweighed the less than substantial heritage harm and resultant development plan conflict. Officers further considered that a technical conflict with the Parking SPD would not give rise to unacceptable highway safety impacts, or residual cumulative impacts on the highway network that would be severe. As such, in applying the appropriate local and national planning policy tests, the Officers considered that the appeal should not be defended on highways grounds. All other detailed technical matters including a holding objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority would be capable of being addressed through the use of appropriately worded planning conditions. Overall, officers concluded that the benefits would very clearly outweigh the harms and development plan/Parking SPD conflict.

The proposal had been accompanied by a viability report, attesting that the proposal would be unviable with Local Plan Policy requirements for 30% affordable housing provision. This was to be the subject of an independent appraisal prior to the inquiry, the outcome of which would determine whether or not affordable housing contributions would be provided. Ultimately, if the appeal proceeded, this would be a matter for the Secretary of State appointed Inspector to determine.

Bill Marshall, a resident of the District, spoke for the application.

Councillor Paul Honeywood, the Ward Member, spoke against the application.

Following a discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Baker, seconded by Councillor Turner and RESOLVED that the Planning Inspector be informed that if the Committee had been in a position to determine the planning application it would have refused planning permission on the following grounds:

1.       The development, if approved would result in significant harm to the amenity of the local area due to increased parking demand as a result of insufficient parking proposed contrary to adopted standards

2.    The development, if approved, results in harm to the character of conservation area by reason of poor design, including significant massing and bulk, lack of opportunity to landscape and such harm is not outweighed by public benefit.

3.    The development would remove educational facilities from the local area and fails to demonstrate lack of need or that need can be accommodated locally in accordance with policies PP12 and HP2.

4.    The development fails to secure RAMS, affordable housing, NHS contribution and open space contribution.