Agenda item

Report of Director (Planning) - A.1 - 23/00746/FUL - Grange Farm Barn, Heckfords Road, Great Bentley, Colchester, Essex, CO7 8RR

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

Minutes:

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 or directly on the subsoil and is used to construct the ground floor of the development. In any other case, please assume slab level to be the point before any walls and/or development can be visually above ground level or seek confirmation from the Local Planning Authority for your development.

 

Should the landscape works include any new hedgerow, please consider the following planting for a native hedge. Native hedge: 50% hawthorn, 25% blackthorn (but beware – this can spread into adjacent fields), 15% field maple, 2% holly, 2% wild privet, 2% guelder rose, 2% dog rose, 2% buckthorn.”

 

Parish Councillor Peter Harry, on behalf of Great Bentley Parish Council, spoke against the application.

 

Councillor Lynda McWilliams, the Ward Member, spoke against the application.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

 

 

What is different in this application from the refused application before?

The building is exactly the same. The only material change is the submission of a landscape appraisal.

Is the distance between this building and the Listed Building acceptable?

Yes. The Essex County Council Place Services were consulted and have raised no objections.

Would conditions as to ‘use’ apply to any future owners/occupiers?

This is covered in condition 2, which would preclude use for business purposes. A business use would need planning permission.

Can “ancillary use” be used to permit business use?

A matter of fact and degree is the judgement call. Can be used by owner/occupier to work (work from home), conduct business but if they had customers visiting and/or employed others at the site this would be a material change of use that would require planning permission.

Is the main point of ancillary use whether it attracts a lot of vehicle movements?

If a lot of people outside of friends and family, were visiting regularly for a community activity this would stray into grounds of an un-incidental change of use. Condition 2 is a standard condition that is adequate for case law.

If the building became used as a commercial storage site, could there be a limit on vehicle movements to the site?

It is unreasonable and unnecessary to impose such a condition given its proposed ancillary domestic/leisure use. Also, unreasonable to extend it to the domestic dwelling outside the scope of the ‘red line’.

Can we have an assurance that this is not creating a precedent for the future given the substantial increase to this building?

Officers have followed this up as an enforcement case. The applicant has given a lot of time and money. Every application has to be considered on its own merits. There is nothing to stop it under planning law but Officers would not recommend it as an approval route given the ultimate risk that it might have to be removed if permission was not forthcoming.

 

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

 

RESOLVED that:

 

1)     the Head of Planning & Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 8.2 of the Officer report (with the exception of condition 3 which will be amended to reflect the changes set out in the Update Sheet), 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 conditions as referenced is retained; and,

 

2)     the sending to the applicant of informative notes, as may be deemed necessary.

Supporting documents: