Agenda item

The application was previously referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Harris on behalf of Tendring Parish Council by virtue of the site being ‘backfill’ development, the site is outside of the settlement boundary; the site is an unsustainable development with insufficient infrastructure; overdevelopment, the development would lead to unacceptable disturbance to neighbours; unacceptable access and highways issues; and there is no proven need for this type of property in an area that has already seen significant development.

The application was previously deferred to enable clarification on matters regarding drainage to be obtained. The application was again deferred at the last meeting of the Committee as Essex County Council’s (ECC) Highways Department (a statutory consultee) had submitted, very late on, a further letter of representation in which it had now amended its original recommendation of approval of the application to one of refusal on highway safety grounds. As a result of this the application had been once more deferred in order to allow all interested parties in this application the opportunity to comment and respond to ECC’s change of opinion.

Councillor Harris had earlier in the meeting declared a personal interest in this application as he was the Ward Member. He had informed the Committee that he was not pre-determined and therefore took part in the Committee’s deliberations.

Members were reminded that this application had been originally submitted to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Harris (who had acted on behalf of Tendring Parish Council) by virtue, in their considered opinion of the site: “being ‘backfill’ development, the site was outside the settlement boundary; the site was an unsustainable development with insufficient infrastructure; overdevelopment, the development would have led to unacceptable disturbance to neighbours; unacceptable access and highways issues; and there was no proven need for this type of property in an area that had already seen significant development.”

The Planning Committee on its first consideration of this application had deferred a decision in order to seek clarification on matters regarding drainage and other relevant matters.

The Committee was reminded that the application related to what was essentially the rear garden area of The Laurels, Parsonage Lane, Tendring.  The site was roughly ‘L’ in shape and approximately 0.2 hectares in size.  The Laurels was one of a variety of dwelling types in the locale which comprised of detached and terraced two-storey, chalet and single-storey bungalows.  The Laurels was unique in terms of its rear garden which was of a significant size in comparison to any other dwelling in the settlement.

The site was centrally located within the Tendring Green Settlement Development Boundary as defined within both the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft 2017. The principle of residential development in this location was therefore considered to be acceptable subject to detailed design and impact considerations.

The application sought full planning permission for the erection of 3 detached three-bedroom detached single-storey bungalows, served by way of a single access providing access to a parking/turning area.  The dwellings would be provided with surface parking and secure cycle-storage.

Members were informed that the proposal would not result in the loss of an area of public open space or safeguarded green space. The proposed bungalows were of a scale, design and appearance which was comparable with other bungalows in the vicinity.  The retention of the brick-built garage provided a significant degree of screening from the public domain.  The proposal would result in the loss of ten trees in total and as the site did not benefit from any protection in the form of preservation orders, as such any trees could be removed without any consent required from the Local Planning Authority.  Two of those trees were damaged/dangerous having limited life expectancy, five were small fruit trees and the remaining three were not mature or established specimens – all mature, established trees were to remain and offer a significant verdant backdrop to the site.  The proposed dwellings were single storey and located a sufficient distances from neighbouring dwellings so as not to result in a material loss of residential amenities. The new dwellings and retained dwelling were to be served by private garden areas and parking that accorded with standards.

The proposed development was in a location supported by Local Plan policies and would not result in any material harm to the character of the area and/or residential amenities.

However, the Committee was now informed that, notwithstanding its earlier recommendation, and following further consideration of additional evidence, County Highways had now recommended that the application be refused on highway safety grounds by virtue of the scheme being unable to demonstrate appropriate highway visibility splays onto Parsonage Lane.

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 refusal for the reason(s) stated in section 8.1 of the Officer report.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (AC) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:

(1)        Additional comments from ECC Highways; and

(2)        Additional comments from third parties.

Ellie Kellett, a local resident, spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Ted Edwards, representing Tendring Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Jack Wilkinson, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Alexander and RESOLVED that the Assistant Director (Planning) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the development, for the following reasons:-

1          The proposal failed to demonstrate that a safe means of access to the site could be achieved, by virtue of a 2.4m x 33m visibility splay to the site access not being deliverable within the limits of the public highway and/or land in the control of the applicant. For this reason the application was considered to be contrary to Paragraph 108 of the NPPF which sought to ensure that safe and suitable access to a development site could be achieved for all users and contrary to saved Policy QL10 and TR1a of the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and emerging Policy SPL3 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft 2017.

2          Saved Policy HG13 stated that proposals for the residential development of backland sites would only be approved where it mets specific criteria, detailed as:-  (i) the site lies within a defined settlement development boundary and does not comprise land allocated or safeguarded for purposes other than a residential use; (ii) where a proposal includes existing private garden land which would not result in less satisfactory access or off-street parking arrangements, an unacceptable reduction in existing private amenity space or any other unreasonable loss of amenity to existing dwellings; (iii) a safe and convenient means of vehicular and pedestrian access/egress can be provided that is not likely to cause undue disturbance or loss of privacy to neighbouring residents or visual detriment to the street scene. Long or narrow driveways will be discouraged; (iv) the proposal does not involve "tandem" development using a shared access; (v) the site does not comprise an awkwardly shaped or fragmented parcel of land likely to be difficult to develop in isolation or involve development which could prejudice a more appropriate comprehensive development solution; (vi) the site is not on the edge of defined settlements and likely to produce a hard urban edge or other form of development out of character in its particular setting; and (vii) the proposal would not be out of character with the area or set a harmful precedent for other similar forms of development.  The proposal was considered to fail to comply with the following criterion:-

ii)      Where a proposal includes existing private garden land which would not result in less satisfactory access or off-street parking arrangements, an unacceptable reduction in existing private amenity space or any other unreasonable loss of amenity to existing dwellings

iii)     A safe and convenient means of vehicular and pedestrian access/egress can be provided that is not likely to cause undue disturbance or loss of privacy to neighbouring residents or visual detriment to the street scene. Long or narrow driveways will be discouraged

The proposal would result in a less than satisfactory access/egress, used a shared access and was likely to result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to existing dwellings by reason of headlight overspill and increased vehicular noise adjacent the common boundary, for this reason the proposal was considered contrary to criterion ii and iii of Saved Policy HG13 of the adopted 2007 Local Plan and emerging Policy LP8 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft 2017 and the aims of the NPPF.

3          Saved Policy QL11 required all new development to be compatible with surrounding land uses and minimise any adverse environmental impacts.  Development should not have a materially damaging impact on the privacy, daylight or other amenities of occupiers of nearby properties and the development (including any additional road traffic arising, would not have a materially damaging impact on air, land, water (including ground water), amenity, health or safety through noise, smell, dust, light, heat, vibration, fumes or other forms of pollution or nuisance).

The proposal was likely to have a materially damaging impact on the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties by reason of in an unreasonable loss of amenity to existing dwellings by reason of vehicular noise and fumes and headlight overspill.  For this reason the proposal was considered contrary to Saved Policy QL11 of the adopted 2007 Local Plan and the aims of the NPPF.