Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Offices on Tuesday 6 August 2013 at 7.30pm.

Present: Cllrs. A. Vaughan (Chairman), K. Hall, K. Read, B. Sinclair and. A. Aldis.

Apologies: Cllr. N. Tile.

1. MINUTES.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2013 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

2. PLANNING APPLICATIONS.

Three had been received, as follows:

COL/131452 REGISTERED 19/07/13 James Ryan

Proposal: Demolition of the superstructure of existing St. Johns Ambulance building and erection of two storey building of mixed use C3 Residential and D1 Gallery/Studio.

Location: St. Johns Ambulance Site, Chapel Road, Wivenhoe, Colchester CO7 9DX

Applicant: Mrs. Pru Green

4 members of the public in attendance. 3 to object, 1 to observe.

Recommendations: Wivenhoe Town council would strongly argue this application should be refused. In line with the planning inspector’s recommendations and observations about community buildings and the building’s historic value. Also in respect of the following material planning grounds.

* DP4, that seeks to protect community buildings from inappropriate use, the demolition of this

building will result in a loss of community building.

* Concerns with regard to noise and toxic omission, due to the nature of the proposal.

* A Tree Preservation Order that will be affected for perpetuity.

* The proposed building fails the overbearing test in respect of neighboring properties.

* The proposed building is well below adopted minimum private amenity space.

* The site does not comply with standard recommended parking provision.

* The existing building is listed on the community assets register.

* DP14, in respect that the existing building has been proposed for the local list for its historic

value, being a heritage building in a conservation area.

The majority of the planning statement concentrates on putting forward a case that Wivenhoe has an excess of community space. WTC contest this evidence as unsound, and misleading in several ways.

Additionally WTC contest the statement that proposes that the existing building is not financial viable in terms of refurbishment and running commercially as a community building.

WTC believe that it would be considerable cheaper to prepare the existing building as 'fit for purpose' as a community building. This view is based on evidence produced from a survey and builder’s quotes commissioned and paid for by WTC for the St John Ambulance Hall when WTC were interested in buying it. Also the planning statements conclusion on costs vary greatly from business plans and builder’s quotes produced by Wivenhoe Community Trust. WTC as landlord of a community building know it is entirely possible to run one at a modest profit once the initial investment is taken care of which appears to be the case with the Wivenhoe Community Trust .

WTC do not understand the relevance of the data with regard to the calculations of, and subsequent summary that there is an excess of community space in Wivenhoe. The figures of 0.75% per household is a formula used in seeking planning obligation contributions for new dwellings. Therefore totally irrelevant when being applied to existing facilities. Also the supplementary planning document, where these figures have been taken from, only refers to a minimum amount of community space that is required, and does not make any reference to the possibility of having an excess.

Also all definitions WTC can find of what CBC consider as a community building would lead us to believe many of the places on this list are not viable in this context.

WTC strongly believe the opposite to the findings of this document. That in view of the demand, Wivenhoe is actually deficient in community spaces. If evidence of this lack is necessary then ECC failed attempts to find alternative venues for any of the three Community Groups that have had to leave the Philip Road Centre should suffice. Furthermore, many of the community spaces listed by the report are lacking in any disabled access, as well as being outside the 800m rule relating to DP4 are not accessed by a bus route.

As evidence of the unsound nature of this document WTC offer that the only totally ‘public hall’ on it is the William Loveless Hall, at 249 square metres. Spaces that cannot be considered in any capacity whatsoever from the applicant’s list are, Phillip Road Centre - now closed; the Colne Social Club – which operates a very restricted membership and never hires to the public; the Pavilion - which has a full time tenant and is not for private hire; the Library, which is not for private hire; the Little Avenue playgroup – who are a tenant of the school and the space is not for private hire and the Police Houses – which are tenanted private residences.

Others on the list are member clubs and have limited hiring because of their commitment to members -for example the Football club, Tennis club, Bowls club, Cricket club, Sailing club, Masonic Hall and Scout and Guide Hall. The British Legion is currently being renovated and has no hiring availability whatsoever. Cutting Corners is a shop with occasional gallery space. Millfields and the two Broome Grove Schools have very restricted hiring. The ground floor at the Nottage Institute is a full time workshop and full of boats and The Flag and The Greyhound are commercial businesses. Once the unrealistic options are removed and the restrictions of all the other organisations are in place the suggested figure of a surplus is more than questionable.

WTC also refute that the proposed application will constitute an equal community space to a community hall. It is smaller and will have limited openings, and restricted uses. Also how can there be any guarantee of this being accessible to the public in future occupancies? Further to that can the Borough Council confirm what categorisation the proposed build will be? Will it, for instance, be paying business rates?

In summary there are various material planning grounds to refuse this application on. In addition WTC believe that much of the applicant’s evidence is questionable and would ask CBC to do their own research to clarify this if they think it has any bearing on the case.

Cllr. Sinclair declared an interest.

COL/131453 REGISTERED 19/07/13 James Ryan

Proposal: Demolition of the superstructure of existing St. Johns Ambulance building and erection of two storey building of mixed use C3 Residential and D1 Gallery/Studio.

Location: St. Johns Ambulance Site, Chapel Road, Wivenhoe, Colchester CO7 9DX

Applicant: Mrs. Pru Green

Recommendations: As per COL/131452 (above)

COL/131450 REGISTERED 19/07/13 Nadine Calder

Proposal: Single storey front and side extension.

Location: 5, Victoria Close, Colchester CO7 9PL

Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Odeyingbo

Recommendations: No material planning considerations other than views of neighbours to be taken into consideration.

3. DECISIONS.

Five decisions had been received.

COL/13/1038 REGISTERED 20/05/2013 Mark Russell

Proposal: Variation of condition 27 of planning permission F/COL/01/0472 in order to allow for conversion of garage to living accommodation.

Location: 17, Spindrift Way, Wivenhoe, Colchester CO7 9GW

Applicant: Ms. Gayle Berry

Recommendations: Members had concerns about the loss of off-street parking in an area already oversubscribed by parked vehicles.

DECISION: Approved with 2 conditions.

COL/13/1013 REGISTERED 21/05/2012 Bradly Heffer

Proposal: Erection of a Marquee in the grounds of Wivenhoe House Hotel from 1st May – 30th September in each calendar year.

Location: Wivenhoe House Hotel Wivenhoe Park Colchester CO4 3SQ

Applicant: Mr. Matthew Brown.

Recommendations: No observations

DECISION: Approved with 4 conditions.

COL/13/1016 REGISTERED 23/05/13 Peter Hill

Proposal: Single storey front porch extension

Location: 10 Parkwood Avenue, Wivenhoe, Colchester, CO7 9AN

Applicant: Mrs J Galvin

Recommendations: No material planning considerations other than views of neighbours to be taken into consideration.

DECISION: Approved with 2 conditions.

COL/13/0825 REGISTERED 29/05/2013 Peter Hill

Proposal: Replacement of 2 second floor French windows with single pane windows in white aluminium to match the existing three pane central window b) replace the 3rd floor full height window with bifold windows.

Location: 1 Shipwrights House, Bath Street, Wivenhoe, Colchester, Essex CO7 9DF

Applicant: Mr. G. Fretwell.

Two residents attended to present their concerns on this application.

Recommendations: The Town Council expressed concerns the mix-match of materials on this development which was situated within the Conservation Area and requests that the Colchester Borough Council Heritage Officer look into this application and confirm that there should be uniformity throughout the whole block of this development.

DECISION: Approved with 2 conditions.

COL/13/1086 REGISTERED 31/05/2013 Peter Hill

Proposal: Resubmission of Planning Application no. 130320 for first floor rear extension.

Location: 2, Buddleia Court, Wivenhoe, Colchester CO7 9RU

Applicant: Mr & Mrs S.M Richards.

Recommendations: Members commented that the application, when viewed online, was not that clear. No material planning considerations other than views of neighbours to be taken into consideration and loss of permeable land.

DECISION: Approved with 3 conditions.

4. WIVENHOE PORT/COOKS SHIPYARD SITE. Nothing to report.

5. SECTION 106 MATTERS.

An update has been requested from Bob Penny.

6. UNIVERSITY 2021. Nothing to report.

Date of next meeting Tuesday 27 August 2013.

The meeting closed at 9.29pm. CHAIRMAN