Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Committee Held in the Council Chamber, Council Offices s4

Unconfirmed minutes

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Offices on Tuesday 23 June 2015 at 7.30pm.

Present: Cllrs. A. Vaughan, (Chair), M. Newton, K. Read, N. Lodge and S. Boughton.

Apologies: Cllrs. C. Kelly, N. Tile and A.Aldis.

1. MINUTES.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 June 2015 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

2. PLANNING APPLICATIONS.

Four had been received, as follows:

COL 15/1103 REGISTERED Nadine Calder

Proposal: Loft conversion including new dormers and roof windows.

Location: 68, Old Ferry Road, Wivenhoe, Colchester CO7 9SW

Applicant: Mr. P. Hancock

Recommendations: Provided the proposal is within Permitted Development there were no material planning objections apart from views of neighbours to be taken into consideration. The Town Council is under the impression that there is a covenant on this estate concerning dormer windows and this needs to be investigated by CBC Planning.

COL 15/1072 REGISTERED Chris Harden

Proposal: Proposed extensions and alterations to provide additional living accommodation.

Location: Birabo, Colchester Road, Wivenhoe, CO7 9ET

Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. J. Hey

Recommendations: The Town Council is concerned that this may be outside of Permitted Development as it is overdevelopment of the site.

COL 15/1224 REGISTERED Nadine Calder

Proposal: Erection of single storey rear extension.

Location: 25, Ernest Road, Wivenhoe, Colchester, CO7 9LQ

Applicant: Ms. Tracey Bennett

COL 15/0754 REGISTERED 17/04/15 Eleanor Moss

Proposal:- Demolition of existing house and construction of a new 5 bedroom house with attached garage.

Location: 58, Parkwood Avenue, Wivenhoe, Colchester CO7 9AW

Applicant: Mr. C. Revell

Recommendations: Concern for loss of on-road parking. Two versions of the swept path analysis have been submitted and the Town Council favour the version with one dropped kerb. There is concern that the proposal will create more traffic into this cul-de-sac. Previously the entrance to this plot of land used to be via the small folly which led onto The Avenue. Highways Authority needs to look at the ethics of the lack of parking space and the implications of traffic manoeuvrability in this area of Parkwood Avenue.

COL 15/1132 REGISTERED 15/06/15 No name

Proposal: Conservatory to be added to side of kitchen/read of dining room, to be used as utility and dining area.

Location: 34, Mede Way, Wivenhoe, Colchester CO7 9HW

Applicant: Dr. Keith Brooke

3. DECISIONS.

Three decisions had been received – Noted that they were all Refusals.

COL 15/0890 REGISTERED 24/04/15 Mark Russell

Proposal: Proposed detached dwelling.

Location: Site adj to 14, Stanley Road, Wivenhoe, Colchester CO7 9LR

Applicant: Mr. Walsham & Mr. Blackford

Recommendations: Insufficient information supplied. Garden grabbing and overdevelopment of the site which does not comply with parking standards. One of the two remaining parking spaces would be removed, and therefore not meet the minimum parking space allocation. Councillors are concerned that this would push additional parking onto an already busy road, which is near a road junction and with very limited off-road parking. Highways Authority would need to be consulted.

DECISION - REFUSED

Colchester Borough Council's Supplementary Planning Document "Backland and Infill" (Adopted September 2009, revised December 2010)notes that the adverse impacts of such developments can include the loss of parking. The Council's policy DP19 from its Development Policies (Adopted 2010, revised 2015) states that "The Council will refer developers to the Essex Planning Officers Association (EPOA) Vehicle Parking Standards which was adopted by Colchester Borough Council as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in November 2009)...For residential uses, specifically, a minimum of...2 car parking spaces for each dwelling of 2 or more bedrooms.." should be provided. The above-mentioned Parking Standards also state that the parking spaces should be a minimum of 2.9 x 5.5 metres, with additional room where there are hard barriers such as walls next to the parking spaces. The proposed development falls short of this, failing to give adequate provision. This, combined with the loss of parking outside the dwelling, could lead to added pressure for parking on an already over-parked road. Paragraph 6.7 of the "Backland and Infill" guide states that "development will need to make provision for car parking in a visually acceptable manner reflecting parking provision in the area and current parking standards". Paragraph 6.27 adds: "Generally parking areas to the front of the property using the front garden will not be acceptable unless, this is the prevailing pattern of parking in the locality" and at paragraph 6.28 "Proposals for open frontages or the use of the frontage for parking will not be acceptable in areas where enclosed front boundaries prevail" Whilst it is accepted that it should be physically possible to give the requisite amount and dimensions of parking; given that the new dwelling would need to be pushed back far enough in order to achieve this and to retain some form of enclosure, it would appear very difficult to do this in a manner which would be visually acceptable. For these reasons the proposal is unacceptable and is hereby refused.

COL 15/0843 Proposal: Erection of one detached dwelling.

Location: Land adjacent to 17 Trinity Close, Wivenhoe, Colchester, Essex, CO7 9RA

Applicant: Taylor Wimpey

Regarding the flurry of spurious emails of support which had been posted online on CBC’s planning website these had now been removed from the planning portal by CBC Planning.

Recommendations: In reference to claims made in Taylor Wimpey's planning support statement the Town Council would ask what format the Borough would like to receive 'formal declarations', (either from Wivenhoe Town Council or residents), about the historic use of this land as an open space? The Town Council would then be happy to supply such documentation as evidence. Furthermore Taylor Wimpey make reference to the Town Council’s 'audit of community facilities' and the Town Council would point out that this audit only includes buildings and not green spaces and therefore should not have been referred to as evidence.

Also Taylor Wimpey claim that because the site has not been specifically included in the Wivenhoe Neighbourhood Plan's 'vision and objectives' paper, this shows that it is not of importance to the local community. This is an utterly ridiculous assumption and also currently incorrect. The Neighbourhood Plan has not been published as a fixed document yet, however it has been updated recently to include these areas specifically as valued open spaces. The Town Council also point out that the Borough Council has maintained these spaces consistently since the development was built and if only in a moral sense should be the rightful owners of the sites.

The Town Council believes that these areas have been shown on the Borough Council's register of open spaces. Could the Borough Council confirm if this is the case please.

Additionally as per the Town Council’s previous recommendations - This estate was originally built in the 1970’s and the green corridors were left as amenity areas and have been used as such by children and residents for over 20 years. This in-fill building will be detrimental to the existing residential amenity. Development Policy DP1 states “All

development must…avoid unacceptable impacts on amenity…. Protect existing public and residential amenity, particularly with regard to (inter alia)… daylight and sunlight.” In this instance, the proposal will present an unacceptable degree of overshadowing and loss of privacy to nos. 15 and 13 Trinity Close.

Policy DP1 requires that all new development respects and enhances the character of the site, its context and surroundings in terms of its architectural approach, height, size, scale, form, townscape setting and detailed design features, in particular development should protect existing residential amenity.

Existing covenants on this estate should be looked into. In comparison to neighbouring gardens the proposal is a massive overdevelopment of an in-fill area of land which has been used by the public for the last 30 years and would result in the loss of a prominent and important area of open space and soft landscaping that make a very positive contribution to the appearance of the surrounding area. The Wivenhoe Neighbourhood Plan has also identified these as areas that need preserving.

Colchester Borough Council has maintained this land as amenity space since the transfer of that part of the Dene Park estate from Tendring District to Colchester Borough Council. Within the Tendring District Plan of 1991 paragraph 18.3.14 states “ Some small incidental play spaces have been provided in the overall housing layout of the Dene Park estate”. (see attached)

Anglian Water and the Environment Agency should also be asked to comment on the drainage and sewage pipeworks which lay underneath this area of open space.

Also the Town Council is given to understand that if unobstructed access over a piece of land has taken place for over a 20 year period then Highway Rights will have been accrued. Could the Borough Council please confirm if this is the case and if any formal process should now take place to confirm these rights.

DECISION – REFUSED.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) recognise the importance of good design which is reflected in the adopted Development Policies Development Plan Document (adopted 2010, amended 2014) DP1 and DP13 and the adopted Core Strategy (adopted 2008, amended 2014) policies SD1 and UR2. These policies state that all proposals

should be well designed, having regard to local building traditions, and should be based on a proper assessment of the character of the application site and the surrounding built and natural environment. Furthermore, Policy DP15 seeks to preserve areas of open space which contribute to the character of existing residential developments. The Council acknowledges that the application site is allocated as a predominantly residential area within the Local Development Framework’s Proposals Map (2010), however, it should be noted that this designation does not suggest that the area is 100% residential. Indeed, it is reasonable to assume that small pockets of open space are included as part of ‘predominantly residential’ areas. This is embedded into Policy DP15 which states that development that would result in the loss of any small incidental areas of open space, not specifically identified on the Proposals Map but which contribute to the character of existing residential neighbourhoods will not be permitted. The Council has no doubt that the application site contributes significantly to the character and appearance of the area and is a valuable area of open space in the otherwise relatively high density housing in the surrounding area. Its loss in favour of a new dwelling would severely harm that character. For this reason, the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area and is therefore at odds with the aforementioned local and national policies. Policy DP1 also states that a development should "Respect and enhance the character of the site, its context and surroundings." In this instance, quite apart from the loss of open space, the plot is narrower than that on the opposing corner of Trinity Close (number 14) and has properties on Friars Close much nearer to it. The houses to the rear of it (Conway Close) are nearer also. Altogether, the plot is less

consequently spacious and less well-spaced than 14. The site also climbs up a slope towards the cul-de-sacs to the rear, which would make the development more prominent, adding to the visual disappointment.

COL 15/0844 REGISTERED 27/04/15 Nadine Calder

Proposal: Erection of one detached dwelling.

Location: Land adjacent to 28 Denham Close, Wivenhoe, Colchester, Essex, CO7 9RA

Applicant: Taylor Wimpey

The Town Council believes that these areas have been shown on the Borough Council's register of open spaces. Could the Borough Council confirm if this is the case please.

development must…avoid unacceptable impacts on amenity…. Protect existing public and residential amenity, particularly with regard to (inter alia)… daylight and sunlight.