Agenda and minutes

The Committee is asked to note any apologies for absence and substitutions received from Members.

Apologies were received from Councillor Everett (with no substitution).  

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 01 August 2023.

It was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor White and:-

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 1 August 2023, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Councillors are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Other Registerable Interests of Non-Registerable Interests, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

Councillor Alexander declared for the public record in relation to report A.1 – Planning Application 23/00746/FUL – Grange Farm Barn, Heckfords Road, Great Bentley, Colchester, Essex, CO7 8RR that he was pre-determined and that therefore he would not participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making for this application.

Councillor Wiggins declared for the public record in relation to report A.2 – Planning Application 23/00794/FUL – Land to South East of ‘Forres’, Clacton Road, Elmstead, Colchester, Essex, CO7 7DD that she was a Ward Member. She advised that she was not pre-determined, and that therefore she would participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making for this application.

Subject to providing two working days’ notice, a Member of the Committee may ask the Chairman of the Committee a question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the Tendring District and which falls within the terms of reference of the Committee.

There were no such Questions on Notice submitted by Councillors on this occasion.

Proposed retention of a building for storage of machinery, materials, and ancillary domestic/leisure use, all related to the existing property.

Earlier on in the meeting as reported under Minute 28 above, Councillor Alexander had declared that he was pre-determined on this application. He therefore withdrew from the meeting and took no part whilst the Committee deliberated and made its decision on this application.

Members were told that this application was before the Planning Committee following a recent decision by the Committee to refuse a similar scheme on the site in February 2023 (reference 22/01601/FUL).

The proposal related to a retrospective planning application for a building that was initially approved under planning reference 19/01462/FUL in February 2020, but which had not been built in accordance with the previous approved plans. The main alterations saw an increase in the size and height of the building, which was to be utilised for ancillary storage and domestic leisure uses.

The Committee was reminded that the same scheme had been refused by the Planning Committee under 22/01601/FUL (against the Officers’ recommendation for approval) as it was not considered to make a positive contribution to the quality of the local environment and character and failed to relate to the site and surroundings, including other buildings, by reason of its excessive height, massing, scale and design, and it did not respect the local landscape views.

The Committee was told that the only difference between 22/01601/FUL and the current application was that a Landscape Appraisal had been provided to address the points raised within the previous refusal reason. Following a review of the Landscape Appraisal, as well as a review of comments provided by the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer, Officers had concluded that the building was of a size, scale and form that was in keeping with the broadly agricultural character of the area and would not significantly alter views across the local setting and wider countryside.

Members heard that the increased size of the building would not detrimentally impact the setting on the nearby listed buildings and would result in a neutral impact to existing neighbouring amenities. In addition, Essex Highways had raised no objections.

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 Planning Officer (MP) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of the wording of proposed planning condition no. 3, which was recommended by Officers to be amended to read as follows:-

“CONDITION: Within three months of the date of this planning permission a scheme of hard, soft and boundary treatment landscaping works for the site, which shall include any proposed changes in ground levels, shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

NOTE/S FOR CONDITION:

Slab level normally refers to the concrete slab supported on foundations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Proposed erection of a detached single storey dwelling with a detached garage and landscaping.

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 28 above, Councillor Wiggins had stated for the public record that she was a Ward Member for Elmstead. However, as she was not pre-determined on this matter, Councillor Wiggins remained in the meeting and participated as the Committee deliberated and made its decision on this application.

The Committee was told that the application was before Members as the proposal represented a departure from the Local Plan, proposing new residential development outside of the Elmstead Settlement Development Boundary (SDB) as defined within the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2013 to 2033 and Beyond.

Members heard that the application site was located on the southern side of Clacton Road (A133), on the outskirts of Elmstead Market, on land currently serving the garden area to the rear of the existing dwelling known as ‘Forres’.

The Committee heard that the application sought full planning permission for the subdivision of the rear garden serving Forres and the erection of 1 no. detached single storey dwelling. The property would front Oak Tree Place, be served by a detached double gauge and approximately 535 sqm of garden space.

Members heard that to the rear of Forres and the application site was a development of 8 bungalows. The bungalows were served by a new access road, Oak Tree Place, between Forres and Lanswood Business Centre.

The Committee was reminded that the site lay outside of the defined SDB of Elmstead and was therefore contrary to the spatial strategy set out within adopted Local Plan Section 1 Policy SP7 and Section 2 Policy SPL2. Local Plan policy SPL2 does not preclude residential development outside of the defined boundary, but rather requires careful consideration of the scale of development in relation to the settlement hierarchy category, site-specific characteristics, and sustainability of the site.

Members were informed that the adjacent development was originally approved for 9 dwellings (ref. 19/01211/DETAIL), superseded by the full permission for 8 bungalows now under construction (ref. 20/01840/FUL, varied by 21/00908/FUL). The application site itself broadly encompassed a portion of the land previously approved as part of the wider development. Had the previously approved scheme been built out, this would have accommodated a total of 9 detached dwellings. The current proposal would result in a total of 9 dwellings on the overall site. The development would essentially appear as an infill plot, would appear as part of the existing adjacent development, and not result in any harm to the character of the area or wider street scene.

Officers told the Committee that Elmstead Market was identified as a ‘rural service centre’ with a reasonably good range of services and facilities. The site laid approximately 0.22 miles (353 metres) from the edge of the defined settlement and 0.65 miles (1.05km) from the village centre. The site benefited from a pedestrian crossing and footpath link along Clacton Road. Furthermore, there were bus stops almost directly to the front of the site.

Members were also told that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Proposed conservatory roof height 3.5 metres within 2 metres of boundary (retrospective).

Members were told that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the land was owned by Tendring District Council.

The Committee heard that the application sought retrospective permission for the erection of a conservatory. Whilst the footprint of the conservatory met the permitted development criteria, the overall height measured 3.5 metres and fell within 2 metres of the boundary, so planning permission was therefore required.

Officers informed the Committee that the conservatory was a single storey feature, measuring 3.15 metres deep by 4.75 metres wide. The eaves height was 2.5 metres and overall ridge height measured 3.5 metres. The conservatory was deemed by Officers to be of an acceptable size, scale and appearance with no significant adverse effects on the visual amenities of the area.

The Committee was also told that the single storey nature of the conservatory meant that it posed no significant threat to overlooking or loss of privacy to the adjacent neighbouring dwellings. It had no significant impacts on the loss of light, which, in the opinion of Officers, would be significant enough as to justify refusing planning permission.

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 Planning Officer (AL) in respect of the application.

There were no matters raised on the Planning Officers’ Update Sheet in respect of this application.

There were no public speakers on this application.

It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Placey and:-

RESOLVED unanimously that the Head of Planning & Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to:-

(a)    the condition as stated at paragraph 8.2 of the Officer report, or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the condition as referenced is retained; and

(b)    the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.