Issue - meetings
Meeting: 12/05/2026 - Planning Committee (Item 90)
PDF 485 KBDemolition of existing fire damaged 1 1/2 storey dwelling and replacement with 2 1/2 storey self-build dwelling.
Minutes:
Earlier on in the meeting, as detailed under Minute 85 above, it had been recorded that Councillor Bray had declared a non-registerable interest in this application insofar as he personally knew the applicant.
It was reported that this proposal sought planning permission for the demolition of a fire?damaged dwelling and its replacement with a reduced?scale 2½?storey self?build home. A previous application had been refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal due to concerns regarding its impact on the Frinton Conservation Area and neighbouring amenity.
Compared with the previous scheme, Officers felt that this amended design incorporated reduced height, massing and bulk, and resulted in a form that integrated more comfortably within the street scene, preserved the setting of the nearby Conservation Area, and was not considered to adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residential properties sufficiently to warrant a recommendation of refusal. The development was considered by Officers to comply with the relevant Local Plan and national planning policies, and its approval was therefore recommended subject to conditions.
The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.
At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Senior Assistant Planner (ER) in respect of the application.
No updates had been circulated to Members in relation to this application.
Jayson Spencer, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application.
David Moore, member of the public, spoke against the application.
Councillor Mark Cossens, the Mayor of Frinton and Walton Town Council, spoke against the application.
Councillor Richard Everett, one of the Ward Members and the caller-in, spoke against the application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- |
Officer response thereto:- |
|
Am I right in thinking that in the drawing that you have tabled it shows the new proposed building on a very similar, if not identical, footprint of the previous house and garage? |
The footprint has been slightly reduced it appears from a comparison. Overall, the whole scale and mass has reduced. |
|
Am I right in saying that the footprint of No. 10 Harold Road goes further back than this proposed building? |
Number 10 has a small extension to the rear that goes slightly further back than what is proposed. The rear elevation is broadly in line with the main bulk of number but there is small element that extends further out at Number 10. |
|
Can you confirm that this particular building is not within the Conservation Area which is the other side of the road? |
Yes, this building is outside the Conservation Area but it does affect the setting of the Conservation Area and that was part of the Inspector’s consideration on the previous Appeal. Officers have assessed the potential harm to the Conservation Area and undertaken the public benefit analysis accordingly. |
|
In the immediate vicinity there is a block of flats, a Church and a tenement, are these within the Conservation Area? ... view the full minutes text for item 90 |