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

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Offices on Tuesday 15th July 2014 at 7.30pm.

Present: Cllr. A. Vaughan (Chairman), Cllrs. N. Tile, A. Aldis, N. Lodge, K. Read and K. Hall.

Apologies. Cllr. F. Richards (substitute)

1. MINUTES.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 24 June 2014 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

2. PLANNING APPLICATIONS.

Four had been received, as follows:

COL14/5160 REGISTERED 18/06/14 James Ryan

Proposal: Remove existing roof, build new side extension, install new roof to form chalet style bungalow.

Location: 57, The Avenue, Wivenhoe, Colchester CO7 9PP

Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Paul Ashley

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

COL/14/5294 REGISTERED 27/06/14 James Ryan

Proposal: Single storey front extension and increase court yard size with new boundary wall.

Location: 2 Harvey Road, Wivenhoe, Colchester, CO7 9LH

Applicant: Mrs P Tolley

Recommendations: No material planning considerations other than Highways should be consulted re visibility splays.

COL/14/5343 REGISTERED 09/07/14 Nadine Calder

Proposal: Change of use: Of An area of the public highway measuring 5.2metres by 9.7 metres for the placing of 8 x eight seater benches, in connection with the use of the Rose and Crown Public House.

Location: Rose and Crown, The Quay, Wivenhoe, Colchester, CO7 9BX

Applicant: C/O TLT LLP

Recommendations: Same as previous: The Town Council does not contest the application in principle, but it should be noted that the Town Council has submitted a LHP scheme request for bollards along the quay to prevent vehicle parking, as the request for double yellow lines was turned down by ECC.

The Town Council would request that if the application is approved conditions should be imposed reflecting the following:

· That the area in question and the furniture in no way can become exclusive to the Rose and Crown PH patrons and staff. Free access to the area and the seating must be maintained for the public.

· There is a clear boundary for wheelchair access along the water front at a minimum of 1200mm.

· The furniture is contained within a footprint that does not exceed the front width of the Rose and Crown PH or restrict a 3.1 metre access route for vehicles. Currently this would not work with layout shown on the plan submitted.

· Access to the tables and around them complies with DDA and Part M of building regulations.

· No permanent structures to be fixed on the quayside.

· That no right of ownership to that part of the quay is assumed by the Rose and Crown PH.

· Condition to be temporary and subject to a periodic review after a set period of time.

· Public Liability insurance for the area of seating needs to be clarified, also maintenance of the furniture.

· Regardless of ownership of the furniture the Rose and Crown PH should clear all glasses and litter away from the whole of the quay daily.

· The final layout works with the Town Council’s proposed highway scheme that prevents vehicle parking on this part of the quay.

The Town Council strongly urges Colchester Borough Planning Committee and Officers to take note of the Town Council’s and residents comments on this application.

COL/14/5271 REGISTERED 03/07/14 Libby Kirkby-Taylor

Proposal: Strip and re-lay roofing to the rear of the property and associated valley gutters. (This is the roof to the red brick part of the house as shown in the attached photographs). There is currently no mineral felt backing the slates. The roof leaks.

Location: Quay House, The Quay, Wivenhoe, Colchester CO7 9BU

Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Barton

Recommendations: No observations.

3. DECISIONS.

Five decisions had been received.

COL14/4827 REGISTERED 16/05/14 Simon Osborn

Proposal: Proposed side and rear extension

Location: 10, Frances Close, Wivenhoe, Colchester CO7 9RP

Applicant: Mr. Neil Rawlings

Recommendations: No material planning considerations other than views of neighbours to be taken into consideration and concern for loss of permeable land.

COL/14/4815 REGISTERED 13/05/14 David Whybrow

Proposal: Tree-house to the rear of the property.

Location: 3, Broome Grove, Wivenhoe, Colchester CO7 9QB

Applicant: Mr. Michael Smither

Recommendations: Incongruous development, overlooking neighbours and having a detrimental visual impact on neighbours, loss of privacy to surrounding properties, questionable whether it exceeds permitted development. The proposed tree-house has a large floorspace which should be on level ground.

DECISION: Approved with 3 conditions.

COL14/5070 REGISTERED 04/06/14 Libby Kirkby-Taylor

Proposal: Retrospective application – works to roof.

Location: 88, Rectory Road, Wivenhoe Colchester CO7 9ES

Applicant: Mr. D. Gaster

Recommendations: No observations.

DECISION: Approved.

COL/14/4643 REGISTERED 07/05/14 Simon Osborn

Proposal: Erection of detached two bedroom bungalow

Location: Land rear of 60 The Avenue, Wivenhoe, Colchester, CO7 9AL

Applicant: Mr Nixon

Recommendations: The Town Council consider this to be overdevelopment of the site, which is already crowded by the in-fill development in the rear garden of 56 The Avenue, which is not shown on the site plan. The visual effect of which will make it closed in, destroying the natural green corridor.

It is doubtful whether 3.2 of Policy DP1….‘development must positively contribute to the public realm, identifying, preserving or enhancing the existing sense of place’ can be attributed to this application. The proposal leads to the creation of an artificially cramped form of back garden infill, out of character with prevailing street scene and an inadequate turning circle for vehicles.

Policy DP1 of the LDF Development Policies Document (adopted October 2010) states that all development should be designed to a high standard that respects and enhances the character of the site, its context and surroundings. The proposal as it stands creates a cramped and oppressive effect on neighbouring properties, contrary to the aforementioned policies.

It also presents a significant loss of permeable land.

DECISION: REFUSED.

The LDF Development Policies was adopted by the Council in October 2010. 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. Development should protect existing residential amenity. The Backland and Infill SPD (revised December 2010) has also been adopted by the Council, and sets out key principles for considering new backland and infill proposals. This encourages development that respects and reflects the character of the area. In this instance, the predominant character of the surrounding area is of frontage development, comprising a mix of detached and semi-detached buildings with good-sized rear gardens. The proposal, in contrast, is for a tandem-form of development that appears cramped in comparison and, which will be accessed by a long, featureless, access driveway into the site. The proposal does not create an appropriate sense of place and, furthermore, will introduce vehicular movement toward the rear of the site to the detriment of neighbour amenity. The Council has had regard to the development approved to the rear of No. 56 The Avenue; however, that relates to a scheme that was granted permission prior to the current planning guidance being adopted and, is for a development where the visual impact was lessened by the retention of a mature tree on the site frontage. The proposal subject of the current application does not respect or enhance the predominant

character of the surrounding area and, as such, is contrary to the aforementioned adopted planning policies and guidance.

COL14/4929 REGISTERED 16/05/14 Mark Russell

Proposal: Proposed single storey extension (re-builds) and replacement detached single garage for private use.

Location: Shambles, Blyth’s Lane, Wivenhoe, Colchester CO7 9BG

Applicant: Mr. Toby Roberts

Eight residents attended to present their concerns over this proposal and two emails from residents unable to attend were also read out to the meeting. The consensus of the residents’ concerns was about the tall garage, the right of way, the windows in the garage, and the passage of traffic over a small lane entirely unsuitable for vehicle movements.

Recommendations: The Town Council has serious concerns about the garage in this proposal in that it presents an incongruous development not in keeping with the surrounding properties of this unique part of Wivenhoe’s Conservation Area. The height and location of the garage is of particular concern amongst these tiny cottages, dating back to the 1600s. The Town Council believe the garage element is over development of the site and its overbearing nature will mean a loss of privacy to neighbours due to the location of the windows.

The National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) requires that developments “establish a strong sense of place …(and) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping”. It goes on to state that “permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area…” This application does nothing to protect and enhance the area or the local visual amenity. The “Extending Your House?” SPG specifically requires house extensions and outbuildings to be well designed and in keeping, they should also be “in harmony with the design of the existing building”. encouraging good quality design that respects and enhances the character of the site, its context and surroundings.

The footprint of the garage on the site will result in a loss of amenity space in this densely packed area.

The scale of the build is far in excess of its intended purpose to store a car, and the Town Council would therefore question its long term usage. If not used for a car then the property will be reducing the parking available and fall below minimum parking standards.

As well as its height exceeding the permitted development regulations, it also appears that the eves of the roof extend beyond the boundary of the property.

Access to this property is via a narrow unadopted road. The Town Council has been told by residents (who have been in dialogue with Highways) that there is no agreed right of access via this road to the property. Also the lane's restricted width would prevent any large construction traffic any access.

Finally there are several trees that will need to be removed in order for this development to take place, which located in a Conservation Area, would be subject to tree preservation orders.

DECISION: REFUSED

1. Reason for Decision Paragraph 64 of the NPPF states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. Core Strategy Policy UR2 states that the design of development should be informed by context appraisals and should create places that are locally distinctive Development Policy DP1 requires that development should respect and enhance the character of the site, its context and surroundings. In relation to heritage considerations, Development Policy DP14 explicitly states: “Development will not be permitted that will adversely affect a listed building, a conservation area..” adding “In all cases there will be an expectation that any new development will enhance the historic environment in the first instance". In this instance, it is proposed to erect a new garage at the northern end of Blyths Lane, which has a locally listed vista along it, including the lane itself, Christmas Cottage and Shambles. The proposed single garage is over four metres wide, which is exceptionally wide for a single garage. This is unfortunate because the width of the garage means that when a traditional pitched roof is added the building becomes exceptionally high. This contrasts with the character of this part of the conservation area, where the scale of the lane is unusually small and most of the surrounding buildings (with the obvious exception of Blythe Court) are of similarly modest scale. A garage of such large scale, despite the traditionally styled doors and roof, is likely to dominate the lane and harm its diminutive character, with associated harm to the character of the conservation area and to the special interest of the locally listed building. Such a large building would also harm the setting of the grade II listed Christmas Cottage, as the scale of the new building would be larger than the small fine scale of the cottage. The proposed garage is unlikely to be subservient in visual character even though its use should be distinctly secondary to the surrounding listed buildings. The proliferation of rooflights on the new proposals is excessive and apparently unnecessary. A large number of rooflights is not a traditional feature for Essex, where an important part of the county’s architectural character is roofs generally uninterrupted by additional features. The rooflight in bedroom 1 appears unnecessary because a large window is proposed to replace the French windows. The two rooflights over the proposed new shower room and utility room are very large and are crammed into the roof slope; their size should be made at least half the size if not smaller. The proposed lobby shows a rooflight on plan but not in elevation. Again the windows on the elevation render a rooflight redundant, so if one was intended it should be removed. Flush fitting rooflights should be specified where rooflights are agreed. It should be noted that it is very difficult to install these successfully in pantiled roofs and it may be prudent to consider a different material. If the lobby is to be reconstructed it would be appropriate to take the opportunity to improve the door and window arrangement of the lobby, which is currently below expections. A traditional door and a small window would be more aesthetically pleasing. All new windows and doors should be constructed of timber with traditional detailing. In view of the exceptionally slack pitches proposed the proposed material will need to be carefully considered. The only materials traditionally used in Essex at such slack pitches are corrugated iron and timber shingles. The fascia boards are proposed to