This application is before Members at the request of Councillor Bray, together with applications for Plot 5 (reference 21/02099/FUL) and Plot 6 (reference 21/01856/FUL).

The application relates to the wider development approved under planning application references 16/02108/OUT, 18/00872/DETAIL and 20/01073/DETAIL (the later DETAIL for amendments to the access only) for 8 bungalows on land to the rear of the property known as Holly Lodge, Betts Green Road, Little Clacton. The outline application, and subsequent reserved matters, were approved by officers under delegated powers. Outline consent was approved subject to a condition requiring the dwellings to be single storey only.

Councillor Bray, had earlier in the meeting, for the reasons stated therein, declared a personal interest in A.3 Planning Applications 21/02064/FUL PLOT 4 – LAND REAR OF HOLLY LODGE, BETTS GREEN ROAD, LITTLE CLACTON, CO1 9NH.

Members were informed that this application was before Members at the request of Councillor Bray the local Ward Member.

It was reported that the application, similarly to the one that considered by the Committee, related to the wider development approved under planning application references 16/02108/OUT, 18/00872/DETAIL and 20/01073/DETAIL (the later DETAIL for amendments to the access only) for 8 bungalows on land to the rear of the property known as Holly Lodge, Betts Green Road, Little Clacton. The outline application, and subsequent reserved matters had been approved by officers under delegated powers. Outline consent had been approved subject to a condition requiring the dwellings to be single storey only.

The application now before the Committee sought full planning permission for the erection of a chalet style 1.5 storey dwelling, varying the height, design and layout of the previously approved bungalow on Plot 4. The proposed dwelling would have an eaves height of 4 metres (previously 2.4 metres) and an overall ridge height of 7.41 metres (previously 5.3 metres) with all three rear facing first floor dormer windows to be obscure glazed (serving en-suites and a bathroom). Plot 4 was located to the south-west corner of the wider site, adjacent to 85 and 87 Harwich Road.

The Committee was aware that Councillor Bray had referred the application to Planning Committee due to his concerns with: street scene impact and harm to the character of the area from the increased height of the dwelling; the increased size and height leading to a cramped appearance; harm to neighbouring amenities; and the potential to cause greater strain on the ‘unmade’ Betts Green Road from the enlarged dwelling(s).

Members were also aware that Betts Green Road and Harwich Road comprised a variety of single, 1.5 and 2 storey dwellings and that Officers felt that this proposal would add variety to the character of the development itself. Sufficient space had been retained around the dwelling and to neighbouring properties to not appear cramped or result in any material harm to residential amenities. The proposed dwelling did not increase the number of bedrooms originally approved and did not increase the parking requirements.

Members were also aware that, whilst there  would be a clear increase in height, the Officers, having carefully considered the individual merits of the application, the plot layout and distance to neighbouring dwellings, believed that the revised proposal would not  result in any material harm that would have justified a refusal of planning permission.

Members noted once more that application reference 21/00289/FUL for a similar variation to Plot 1 had been approved by officers under delegated powers on 30th July 2021. Whilst concerns had been raised by Councillor Bray and neighbouring residents at the time, that application had not been referred to the Committee for determination. That application had been amended to address the concerns and subsequently approved in the absence of any demonstrable material harm.

The Committee also noted once more that the development had commenced under the originally approved applications 16/02108/OUT, 18/00872/DETAIL and 20/01073/DETAIL and the necessary financial contribution toward recreational disturbance (RAMS) had been paid. Therefore, this current application did not require a unilateral undertaking.

It was reported that, in the absence of any material harm resulting from the revised proposal for Plot 4, the application was recommended by Officers for approval.

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 Team Leader (SC-E) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of an additional letter of objection.

Peter Le Grys, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Parish Councillor John Cutting, representing Little Clacton Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Councillor Bray, the local Ward Member, spoke against the application.

The Chairman, at this time, requested approval from Members of the Committee to continue the meeting past the allowed period of 3 hours, as required by Council Procedure Rule 35.1. It was moved by Councillor Placey, seconded by Councillor Casey and RESOLVED that the Committee continue its deliberations.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Placey and RESOLVED that, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval, the Assistant Director (Planning) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the development due to the following reasons:-

·         On grounds of adverse impact on neighbouring dwellings, loss of character and overdevelopment.