Agenda item

Report of the Director (Planning & Communities) - A.1 - 24-01384-OUT - Colchester Institute, The Clacton Campus, Church Road, Clacton-on-Sea, CO15 6JQ

Outline Planning Application (Access, Appearance, Layout and Scale to be considered) – Conversion of existing building and new build to form total of 60 flats (41 one-bedroom and 19 two-bedroom flats), associated car parking and site landscaping.

Minutes:

Members were told that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee following a call-in from Councillor Paul Honeywood. The concerns raised by him had related to: Negative impact on urban design/street scene, highways impact and/or other traffic issues, poor layout and/or density issues, negative impact on neighbours, and inadequate parking provision exacerbated by it not being retirement provision.

 

Members were reminded that the site lay within the settlement development boundary, Priority Area for Regeneration, Clacton Seafront Conservation Area (CSCA), and within the setting of Grade II listed buildings.

 

Officers made Members aware that the application sought outline planning permission, with all matters except landscaping included for consideration, for 60 flats as a part conversion part newbuild redevelopment of the former college site. The site had been vacant since 2020 and was in a very poor condition and subject to repeated acts of antisocial behaviour. An appeal for 61 retirement apartments had been dismissed in December 2022 on the grounds that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CSCA by virtue of the proposed architectural finish and detail appearing convoluted, monotonous, and out of character in the street scene.

 

Members were informed that the scale of development required to make the site viable for redevelopment, as evidenced by the viability assessments, would result in less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the CSCA and setting of the Grade II listed former Grand Hotel, and harm to visual and neighbouring amenity. It was considered that, on balance, the public benefits of the proposal outweighed the harm, and the application was recommended by Officers for approval.

 

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 (AN) in respect of the application.

 

An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting which informed the Committee about the Conservation Area status and a change to condition wording which was as follows:-

 

“Conservation Area status

 

Paragraph 8.26 of the committee report confirms that the site is proposed for removal from the Clacton Seafront Conservation Area (CSCA) within the latest draft of the CSCA Appraisal (2021). That draft was agreed by Cabinet on Friday (31/01/2025) but Members have one week to call that decision in to Full Council. The draft cannot therefore be adopted before 08/02/2025. At Planning Committee on 04/02/2025 the site therefore remains within the CSCA and subject to the statutory duty and policy considerations explained within the committee report. The decision by Cabinet to agree the draft, which includes removing this site from the CSCA, is a material consideration.  

Change to condition wording

Minor change to wording of condition 5 (RAMS) to make it pre-commencement rather than pre-occupation:

05. PRE-COMMENCEMENT CONDITION: MITIGATION TO BE AGREED, RAMS

CONDITION: The hereby approved development shall not be first commenced until detailed proposals addressing the mitigation of the development's impact on protected Essex Habitats Sites have been submitted to and received written approval from the Local Planning Authority.  Such proposals must provide and secure mitigation in accordance with the joint Habitats Regulations Assessment Essex Coast Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) or demonstrate mitigation measures of an equivalent effectiveness to the satisfactory of the Local Planning Authority. For any on site mitigation proposals approved, it shall be carried out in full prior to first occupation and thereafter shall be maintained as approved.

REASON: In order to safeguard protected wildlife species and their habitats in accordance with the NPPF and Habitats Regulations.  Failure to achieve satisfactory mitigation would result in harm by new residents due to the development's impact on protected sites meaning the development must mitigate the burden of development regardless of scale of impact. 

NOTE/S FOR CONDITION:

This condition establishes the necessity to ensure the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures due to the impact of the approved development. Such mitigation may be required on-site, off-site, or a combination of both.

 

Typically, a contribution towards visitor management measures at the protected Habitats Site(s) may be the preferred and simplest approach to fulfil the requirements of this condition.  To fulfil this requirement, you can contribute funds towards a range of mitigation projects in the protected areas. It is essential to secure this provision through a legal agreement between the District Council, Developer/Applicant, and site owners before occupation. If this is the approach to fulfilling this condition you wish to take, you are strongly advised to finalise the legal agreement with the District Council before submitting any request to discharge this condition. Should this be the route chosen, failure to conclude the agreement within the discharge of condition application timeframe may lead to the refusal to discharge the condition.  Please note if there are other obligations needed for this development, for example to secure monitoring and maintenance of a Biodiversity Net Gain Plan, you may wish to combine these together as one agreement.  Furthermore, please also note a legal agreement will include legal fees and may require obligations to secure monitoring and associated fees.”

 

Roger Gilles, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor Paul Honeywood, the Ward Member and caller-in, spoke against the application.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

If Councillor P Honeywood had not brought this application to Committee, would this application have been approved by Officers?

Yes, it could have been a delegated approval without the call-in.

What has changed from the application in 2022 to the application in front of the Committee?

The appeal was for 61 retirement units and now this application is for 60 flats, so similar scale but a completely different design. The only detail that the Inspector dismissed the appeal on was the detailed design of that scheme. The scale, the parking, the neighbour impact and all the other issues were deemed to be acceptable in that case and Officers have compared the current proposal to that.

Has there been an increase in parking spaces or is there the same amount?

There has been a significant increase. The appeal scheme had 61 retirement units with 20 parking spaces, there is now 60 flats with 41 parking spaces. There is also a car club scheme which was not in the appeal. 

Would it be fair to say that there would be ample parking spaces for the 60 flats?

That would be down to judgement in the debate. In terms of the Highways Standards, this application is less than those standards, but Members are dealing with an application that Officers deem to be sustainable within the location of Clacton and Officers have the Highways recommendation to accept the standards that has been proposed.

Would the housing contribution not be met?

That is correct. There is no affordable housing provision which is why there is a viability assessment which is only to meet the RAMS which is mandatory otherwise there would be habitat harm.

Did the appeal application before have a housing contribution?

The appeal application had a Section 106 which was submitted during the appeal which had a deferred contribution to have affordable housing so if the development was not completed within 3 years the developer had to provide £112,000 towards off-site affordable housing, but if the development was completed within 3 years, then the developer would not have to provide anything.

So, it is possible to get affordable housing on a scheme?

That was for retirement housing which would have different costings, but Officers have had an up-to-date viability assessment and independently reviewed by the same people who reviewed the previous case and said that it was not viable at this time and construction costs have increased since 2022.

So, the Council is not going to get an affordable housing contribution but, on some schemes, it is possible to do so?

Members could take that away as an opinion in order to consider the application, but it is not what is before Members and therefore, Members should concentrate on what is being proposed and the evidence provided. For the policy on affordable housing, it does allow for viability to be a consideration and therefore is not contrary to the Council’s affordable housing policy.

Is it up to Members to decide if this scheme is an appropriate scheme or not?

That scheme was refused and dismissed at appeal for other reasons so that scheme was not possible because it wasn’t approved. This scheme has to be considered on its individual merits, alternative schemes may be out there, but they are not before Members, therefore Members would need to consider the harm and the considerations of this application.

Would Members be within their remit to refuse the application on the merit of not having affordable housing?

Members have the option to refuse the scheme based on lack of contributions if Members feel that the evidence before them in terms of viability is not correct.

If the builders wanted to pay a mitigating contribution, if there is not a Section 106 agreement, how does the Council get that money?

Because there has been a viability review, that is why there is not a Section 106 agreement as the review has said that it cannot provide it and can only provide RAMS which can be secured by conditions. If it had been proven to be viable then the Section 106 would have come forward.

Are there any private spaces for these flats?

In terms of gardens, there are 4 front gardens in the scheme and there are balconies. There are around 11 units that do not have amenity space, but the rest do have private amenity space. Given the location and the Town centre being close to the beach, Officers are not raising concerns in terms of not providing enough private amenity space.

Is the sycamore tree going to be protected?

One of the sycamore trees will be retained and the other tree has fungus in it so the Council’s Tree Officer has given their view that it has not got a long-life expectancy so that one will be coming out. There is other tree planting that is being proposed.

Are the heritage buildings near by all Grade II?

They are all Grade II.

Has a letter of objection been received from Thorogood Road? If so, is there steps that the Committee can take to reduce the privacy to residents?

All the letters of objections are summarised in the report. The report relates to the current impact.

Are there any mitigating steps that the Committee can take to keep the privacy?

Officers had the withdrawn proposal which had a greater impact on the property and the current scheme has brought that down and added more screens to balconies which will be overlooking which is unavoidable.

So, the new design has lessened the privacy circumstance?

The current degree of overlooking is quite high. The proposed degree of overlooking at best is slightly less but similar which needs to be taken as a balanced opinion. The Inspector took that issue in the previous scheme. It is a judgement on harm.

Have the applicants submitted a tree survey?

No, they haven’t. Tree Officer’s review was that it had not been submitted, nevertheless, the trees identified for removal do not merit retention and the tree with the greatest amenity value is retained.

 

It was moved by Councillor Everett, seconded by Councillor Goldman and:-

 

RESOLVEDthat:-

 

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant outline planning permission subject to the conditions as stated in paragraph 10.2 of the Officer report (A.1), the Officer Update Sheet to the change of wording on Condition 5 and to make sure that the best possible Wi-Fi is available, or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the conditions as referred is retained; and,

 

2)    the sending of any informative notes to the applicant as may be deemed necessary.

Supporting documents: