Tendring District Council

TENDRING DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE

ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO PLANNING COMMITTEE

20 TH OCTOBER 2015

Agenda Item A.1

15/00630/FUL – Martello Caravan Park, Kirby Road, Walton on the Naze

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 237 dwellings together with associated access, car parking, landscaping and related works

Letter from W. F. H. Gibbon FRICS re: development density

In a letter received on 14th October 2015, W. F. H. Gibbon wishes to bring to the attention of the Planning Committee an apparently misleading statement in paragraph 6.43 in regard to the density of the proposed development which states that development would “result in an average housing density of 30 dwellings per hectare which is considered to be acceptable in this location”. It is pointed out that after deduction of the public open spaces however, the net density would be about 36.5 dwellings per hectare.

W.F.H. Gibbon refers to the net density of housing proposed for application 14/01750/OUT on land at Station Field, Great Bentley at 25 dwellings per hectare being comparable to the character of development in the immediate area and requests that the Committee considers whether a similar density would be more appropriate for this site in Walton.

Officers do not dispute W. F. H. Gibbon’s calculations of gross and net density although it is acknowledged that the density calculation in the report refers only to average ‘gross’ density.

E-mail from Mr. A. Willis in support of development

An e-mail was received on 15th October 2015 from Mr. A. Willis of Walton on the Naze suggesting that the sooner the site is developed the better, and that 237 homes should be given the go ahead so the site can be built on before travellers move onto it.

E-mails from Mr. R. Naylor re: Emerging Local Plan Policy FWK6 and EIA

In e-mails dated 18th October 2015, Mr. Naylor has raised concern that some aspects of the application have not been properly reported, namely Policy FWK6 a), b), g), h), j) and k), all of which are deemed requirements for the development of this site; and that none of these are included as conditions in the recommendation of approval. Particularly pertinent are: a) the completion date of the proposed medical centre; b) the absolute guarantee that the development will not start until operation of the above; g) the provision for restoration and extension of the Martello Tower spatially, architecturally and financially; h) the provision spatially and architecturally of a 20-roomed hotel; j) the provision of strong pedestrian and cycle linkages; and k) the provision of streetscape improvements to Mill Lane.

On 20th October 2015, Mr. Naylor has also questioned whether the proposal complies with criterion f) of Policy FWK6 with regard to open space provision. The Planning Officers assessment of the proposal against the requirements of Policy FWK6 and how the weight to be attached to emerging policy is affected by paragraph 2016 of the NPPF are set out in paragraphs 6.20 to 6.22 of Committee Report A.1.

Mr. Naylor has also raised concern that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has not been submitted with the application given that the site is adjacent to both a SSSI and a Scheduled Ancient Monument and should therefore be considered as a sensitive site in respect of Schedule 2(1) of the EIA regulations.

The Council issued an Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion on 15th May 2015, at pre-application stage, that advised that an EIA would not be required for a residential development of up to 275 dwelling on the site in question.

E-mail from the applicant’s agent

On 13th October 2015, the applicant’s agent, Michael Calder of Phase 2 Planning & Development Limited, e-mailed Members of the Planning Committee with a summary pamphlet of the changes to the proposal that they consider now addresses the matters raised by the Committee when the application was originally considered on 22nd September 2015. The changes are reflected in Report A.1.

E-mail from Councillor Delyth Miles

Councillor Delyth Miles, Ward Councillor for Walton has e-mailed the Council on 20th October 2015 to request that the following points be brought to the attention of the Committee before a decision is reached:

 The revised plans are disturbingly disappointing as the objections raised previously about the design etc appear to have been ignored. The few minor changes made to the plans in no way address the issues raised by numerous local residents.

 The design of the houses are definitely not aspirational, they are a 'bog standard' design that is seen time and time again around the country. It has already been pointed out that this site is a prime location - a coastal gateway to Walton and therefore the houses need to recognise this.

 The eastern bound coastal gateway is full of charming regency style architecture - one that could and should easily be replicated by the planners for the houses that will be in full vision of the backwaters.

 The few additional garages added to the revised plans are totally inadequate. Most, if not all the houses should have a garage. These plans are clearly designed to cram as many houses as possible on to the site and so if approved will likely lead to huge problems emerging in the future.

 Walton consists mainly of Victorian houses with no frontages and no garages. The lack of garages and parking spaces for these houses has led to a huge increase in the demand from residents living in these homes to seek 'Residents Parking only'. So far, this year alone, 3 street have become designated 'Residents Parking only' Of course, the knock on effect is that more residents living in nearby streets/roads request 'Residents Parking only' and so it goes on. We surely must have a duty to ensure that developers design houses that are 'fit for purpose' - most households have at least 1 car, often up to 4 cars, if they have adult children living at home. The plans include houses that have no frontages and no parking facilities - this cannot be approved, surely we must learn from past and current experiences. Where will these householders park their cars? Could they too request 'Residents Parking only' in the future. This is sheer madness and frankly insulting. Police budgets are being squeezed and the number of police officers on the streets are vastly reduced, the posts of PCSO's are under threat - who will be available to deal with resident parking disputes?

 The infrastructure is totally inadequate - I asked at the last meeting that reassurances be sought from Essex County Council (Education) that the S.106 monies sought by them from this developer be ring-fenced for education provision in the Walton catchment area. Has this been done, if not, why not? This is a very serious issue as both Walton Primary and Hamford Primary are already over subscribed with children from as far as the Naze end of Walton having to attend Kirby Cross primary - this is very unfair and unsatisfactory. There is no room for expansion at Walton Primary, however, I believe that Hamford primary has sufficient land to extend. Appeals cost around £300 per application, the cost of which has to be borne by the schools who have huge pressures on their budgets. How can we therefore even consider approving this application knowing that any family, with primary age children, are likely to expect admission to Walton school and if they cannot be accommodated and so if appeals are lodged there will be a huge negative impact on what is already a strained school budget. Please can that these issues be resolved prior to granting planning permission. Education is compulsory and parents are fined if their children don't attend - Tendring District has a duty to play its part in ensuring that children can access their school without too much difficulty.

 We have been informed in the past that it is extremely unlikely that NHS England would approve any funding for Doctors surgery on this site. I understand that negotiations are under way for a new GP Health Centre to be build on land off Elm Tree Avenue? Officer recommendation 6.21b states "the construction of new homes will not commence until the new medical centre has been constructed and is operational". I presume, as I have not received any evidence to the contrary that this recommendation still applies.

 Finally, I am deeply concerned at what appears to have been misleading information around the density of this development. It would appear that the more accurate figure is that the gross density (which includes the open space) is around 29 dwellings per hectare and net density is actually 37 dwellings per hectare. A huge difference from what we have been led to believe. I understand there is a current application in for a development in Great Bentley of around 25 dwellings per hectare. Also, has sufficient open space been allocated around the Martello tower, a great heritage site?

 Walton is a town that requires regeneration; this application does nothing to regenerate Walton. Walton deserves better.

 I believe it is our duty as councillors to ensure that all facts submitted before the planning committee and for prior comment by members of the public are true and accurate - this does not appear to have been the case with this development.

Agenda Item A.4

14/01750/OUT – Land at Station Field, Plough Road, Great Bentley

Erection of twenty dwellings comprising of 10 x 3 bed houses, 3 x 4 bed houses and 7 x 3 bed bungalows with garages, parking and associated works

Correction of red-line site area

In response to local concerns that the ‘red-line’ shown in the planning application and in the map shown in the Committee Agenda erroneously included two areas of land not under the applicant’s control, it has been amended. The corrected site area is shown in the Committee presentation. Communication from the applicant re: Health contribution

The applicant’s agent has contacted Officers to ensure that it is expressed, to the Planning Committee, that although no comments from NHS England have been received to date, the applicants would be willing for a financial contribution toward health provision, as calculated by NHS England using its standard methodology, to be secured through a s106 legal agreement if the Committee was mindful to approve the application.

Footpath crossing

Pippa Drew of Great Bentley has e-mailed the Council on 20th October 2015 raising concern about the likelihood of the footpath railway crossing being closed following advice to her, from Network Rail that suggests:

1. Network Rail cannot guarantee that they have the ability to shut the footpath. They have not even decided whose responsibility (them of the developer) it would be to attempt to try.

2. They have carried out no risk assessment whatsoever with regard to the safety of diverting the footpath up the track. It was just an “idea”.

3. There has been no land ownership search as to whether they own sufficient land to the north of the track to accommodate a new bridge.

Agenda Item A.5

15/00904/OUT - Land North of Rush Green Road, Clacton On Sea

Outline planning application for up to 240 dwellings with areas of landscaping and open space and associated infrastructure.

One additional letter of objection received. Issues summarised below:

 Impact on infrastructure including healthcare and education.  Impact on highways capacity both locally and across the district.  A different application site was suggested by the objector.

The first two points are considered within the Committee report. The Council can only consider land on the application site that has been submitted for development, rather than any other across the district.

Agenda Item A.7

15/00897/OUT – Land to North of Break of Day and Newlands, Beaumont Road, Great Oakley

Erection of twenty dwellings comprising of 10 x 3 bed houses, 3 x 4 bed houses and 7 x 3 bed bungalows with garages, parking and associated works

Submission of revised proposal

On 15th October 2015, after the publication of the Planning Committee Agenda, the applicant submitted, to the Council, a revised indicative layout for the scheme which now shows 18 dwellings with amended access arrangements. The applicant has requested that the application is not determined by the Planning Committee on 20th October 2015 and that additional time is allowed for the revised scheme to be considered. On the basis that the revisions constitute a change in the description of the proposed development and the revised proposal has yet to be subjected to further consultation (including the Highway Authority) and consideration by Planning Officers it is recommended that the application is not determined at this meeting and is deferred until a future meeting.

E-mail from Councillor Tom Howard

Councillor Tom Howard on 20th October 2015 has requested that the application be considered by the Committee and highlights that only the Chairman of the Committee can withdraw an item from the published agenda, not an applicant.

Reason for Refusal 4

If the Committee does determine the application, Officers recommend a revision to wording of the fourth reason for refusal so that it refers to an agreement of heads of terms for a s106 agreement rather than the lack of a completed s106 agreement.

Agenda Item A.11

15/01285/FUL – Woodview Lodge, Chapel Lane, Crockleford Heath

Erection of 1 no. 3 bed detached dwelling.

Additional Reason of Refusal

Saved Policy COM6 and Draft Policy PEO22 require that for residential development below 1.5 hectares in size, where existing public open space facilities are inadequate, a financial contribution towards the provision of new or improved off-site facilities to meet the projected needs of the future occupiers of the development shall be provided. A completed Unilateral Undertaking to provide the required financial contribution towards play provision has not been provided and the proposal is therefore contrary to Saved Policy COM6 and Draft Policy PEO22.

Revised Parish Council Comments

Ardleigh Parish Council initially supported the application. Ardleigh Parish Council now strongly objects to the application because of the impact that the proposed development would have on the nearby Listed Building. In the circumstances, the supportive comments made on behalf of the Parish Council on 27th September by Karen Tarling should now be discounted and ignored because they were based on incomplete information.

Request for Deferral

The applicants agent Edward Gittins has requested that the application be deferred in order to address the late submission of representations by Ardleigh Parish Council. Mr Gittins suggests that the Parish Council’s objection requires rebuttal as they wrongly infer that information has been withheld which affected their initial opinion not to object. He suggests that the Parish Council might not have been initially furnished with a copy of the complete Application. It also appears they have not yet considered the impact of the triple bay garage building permitted on the frontage. The applicant therefore wishes to ensure that the Parish Council is appraised of all the facts in order that the proposal is not compromised.