Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

On page 28 of the agenda, in regard to 205, 206 and 214, could Officers explain what these are?

Historic England were picking up on the fact that they do not consider that the development would preserve the setting of St Osyth conservation area and the Priory, though they identified less than substantial harm. At 8.74 of the Officer report (A.1), there is detail there that the development does demonstrate sufficient public and heritage benefits that would outweigh the any less than substantial harm. It has been looked at from a Heritage viewpoint, Officers have acknowledged that they identified less than substantial harm and it has been weighed up in the balance and there are sufficient benefits that outweighs the less than substantial harm. The contribution of 37 houses towards the Council’s housing supply and the works to renovate the St Osyth Priory are works that are considered a benefit that outweighs the harm. Historic England also raised questions to the enabling approach of the Priory, 8.69 of the Officer report goes into detail with the queries that were raised by Councillors. The Officers’ response is that there is largely, in respect to the discrepancies in the conservation deficit and whether all commercial use that forms the basis of the agreed business strategic case that was considered in the report, Officers have weighed this up and it is not strictly relevant to the development. Under the consideration here today it forms a small part of the wider conservation deficit to the Priory. Officers are content with works that have been undertaken linked directly back to the business plan and are all costed as part of a condition survey that was secured at that time.  

Do Officers still hold the position considering the original application also had harm?

When Historic England originally reviewed the first application, it was 190 dwellings in an empty field so there was quite a lot of harm at that time. There will be 24 dwellings, at the northern area, sandwiched between that caravan park and then to the southern area, there will be the other 13 units which will not be overly visible in terms of the wider setting of the Priory Park and the conservation area. In Officers' view, whilst they have identified less than substantial harm, the balance and benefits associated with the development outweighs the harm.

Has there been an update from Historic England since March 2025?

After receiving the first objections, Officers met with Historic England and explained the proposals and they were satisfied at that meeting that the development was acceptable and related back to the business plan. After that meeting, Historic England then sent in further comments that said they were not willing to provide an updated comment.

With what Historic England have said, does that fall within the application tonight or does that fall under the next stage of the application?

This application is the outline for the access to the principle of 37 extra units. When the reserved matters application is submitted (the layout, appearance etc.) Officers will reconsult with Historic England and obtain their view at that time as well.

Members tonight are considering the access alone in this application?

Yes, access is part of this application, but the principle is part of the outline application. The principle that there are going to be 37 properties in this location in some form, and Officers have an indicative plan that shows that there is one possible successful (potentially) form that is for reserved matters. Members are dealing with the principle of development which picks up on the traffic, number of households, waste resourced at that site and other policy issues. So, Members are not only dealing with the access. When it comes to the reserved matters application, Members would only be looking at layout, appearance, scale and landscaping – that is it.

Members are looking at consenting a principle of development for a number of dwellings, does that mean that Members should be thinking along the lines of up to a number rather than a specific number? If that is the case, should Officers be considering the density and other factors here at this site of up to 37 dwellings?

This proposal is for 37 dwellings, not up to. Some developers describe a development as ‘up to’ so that when reserved matters comes in and they realise they cannot achieve the number they can put the number down. Either way, Members are dealing with 37 dwellings. The layout is a reserved matter. The developer still needs to demonstrate to Officers that there is a scheme that can work even at an indicative level that can outline in principle sufficiently to be approved which is what is before Members today.

Is the density to achieve 37 dwellings appropriate and is there enough community space allowed within that to compensate for some of the loss?

To clarify, the site to the north was for private archery which is arguably not open to the public/community. The site to the south was open space so it was open to the public and it is for Members to debate for putting a development in that area.

If Members were concerned about losing that community space and said rather than having 37 dwellings to have 24 dwellings instead, is that something Members could do or do Members need to be more specific?

It Members were to say that permission would be granted for the outline on the specific area subject to the southern portion, Members would still have 37 dwellings granted in principle. The argument would be that the reserved matters could put all 37 dwellings at the top of the development, and it could be deemed unreasonable by the applicant. Officers cannot change the number of dwellings as that is the proposal before Members, if Members feel that 37 dwellings are not achievable then that is down to debate.

Are Members correct in thinking that Historic England did not wish to comment any further?

Historic England were given the opportunity to revise the letter that had been provided but they chose not to. 

If the Committee was mindful to approve this application, Members would have an informative to have the reserved matters application come back to Committee?

Yes.

Will the Section 106 agreement need to be revised?

Section 106 agreements can run alongside each other. The first 106 agreement is dealing with the development when it was first approved, the other section 106 agreement is dealing with the development before Members at this moment in time.

There will not be any amendments to the first section 106 agreement as that related to the scheme as a whole and that made reference to securing the enabling development approvals at the time but it also included reference to buildings like Darcy House for which works might be secured in the future so it was desirable to identify buildings that needed restoring in the future through further grant funding and enabling development schemes. The Section 106 agreement, if approved, will secure the funding that has already been forward funded for this development so it will make sure that the development works relate to this scheme.

There can be two Section 106 agreements on the same land?

Yes, because there is a potential new grant of planning permission so that would need to be linked to the works that have been carried out at Darcy House and the funding that has come from securing those works.

Highways have said that they would like the pavement for bus stops and an island for pedestrian crossing, do Officers know if there will be any speed limits/traffic lights?

Yes, that is correct. There is a pedestrian island and a pedestrian and cycle footpath. The matter of the speed limit reduction is being secured as part of the Highway works agreement which will be dropping down to 40mph which Highways are working out at their end and linking it to the Section 278 agreement. There will not be any traffic lights.

On page 28 of the Officer report, Historic England said they cannot support this application, have we obtained our own legal advice and are Officers satisfied that it does align?

Historic England have objected but have not provided specific reasons why and despite multiple attempts  to try and get a hold of that reason, they have not provided the reason. They are quoting 3 paragraphs to the Council:

1 – that the harm of any level requires clear and convincing justification and great weight will be given to the consideration of the historic asset – therefore it is a judgement for the local planning authority and that is a judgement as Officers are providing to you.

2 – leading to less than substantial harm and whether or not the sufficient public benefit proposal outweighs that harm – that is also down to debate for Members; and

3 – the local planning authority to assess the proposal for the enabling developments which were conflicting with planning policy – which meant that this application is outside of the settlement boundary development and whether or not Members find this acceptable in itself with any material reasons and one of those reasons being the future conservation of the Heritage Assets.

There is a lot of information of the breakdown of funding, this is not something that is usually seen in a report, is this normal?

As part of an enabling development the developer would need to provide a viability appraisal which shows that the development that they are proposing can fund those works so they have provided the financial situation which links back to the approved original business plan. It has all been costed and has been reviewed by an independent assessor who were heavily involved in the original application. They are satisfied that the figures add up and the development is in accordance with the enabling works.

Can Officers list the benefits and disbenefits of this application?

8.74 of the Officer report does look at that, Historic England have identified less than substantial harm, which is the main disbenefit, and another one would be that the application is outside of the settlement boundary. The benefits would be that there is money going into the Priory and increased open space across the site. There is around a 43.5% increase in the level of open space.