Agenda item
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Thursday, 31st August, 2023 6.00 pm (Item 31.)
- View the background to item 31.
Proposed erection of a detached single storey dwelling with a detached garage and landscaping.
Minutes:
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Members were informed that the adjacent development was originally approved for 9 dwellings (ref. 19/01211/DETAIL), superseded by the full permission for 8 bungalows now under construction (ref. 20/01840/FUL, varied by 21/00908/FUL).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 Officers were satisfied that existing services and facilities within the settlement would be capable of supporting the development of 1 dwelling, and that these were accessible within safe walking distance of the site.
The Committee was informed that, other than the high-level policy conflict regarding the location of the site outside the defined settlement development boundary, in the opinion of Officers the development would not result in any material harm in terms of design, impact, residential amenities or highway safety, and was acceptable in all other regards. For those reasons, 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 subject to a Unilateral Undertaking.
At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Senior Planning Officer (AL) in respect of the application.
An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:-
(1) an addition to Section 6 (Consultations) of the Officer report:-
Tree & Landscape Officer No objection subject to conditions 28.06.2023
“Application is accompanied by a Tree Survey Report in accordance with BS5837 2012 Trees in relation to design demolition and construction. Recommendations. The report provides an accurate description of the condition and amenity value of the trees on the land.
No objections subject to conditions retaining the Oak tree (T13) and a landscaping scheme.”
(2) Correction (shown in bold) to tree number within Paragraph 8.39 of the Officer report, as follows:
“8.39
Information contained in the tree survey shows the retention of an
Oak (T13), the Corylus (T15) and an
Arbutus (T16). The Oak has moderate amenity value and will be retained, contributing positively to the
site. The Tree Survey Report identifies the need for the removal of
a Pine (T15) (T14). The Pine has significant defects,
and its removal is considered acceptable.”
Bill Marshall, member of the public, spoke in favour of the application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-
|
Officer’s response thereto:- |
|
What happens to the Oak Tree (T13) in, say, 35 years’ time if its roots start affecting this new property? What can be done to protect this tree in perpetuity? |
Officers have tried previously to go beyond a 10 year ecological protection period in planning conditions but have faced opposition from the Planning Inspectorate as they have deemed it to be unreasonable to go beyond the average life span of plants which is calculated to be 10 years. Officers have also considered whether this tree is deemed worthy of protection. The Council’s Tree Officer has stated that this tree does not qualify for a Tree Preservation Order and that it would be unlikely to do so in the future. Therefore, ensuring the preservation of this tree is not sufficient grounds to justify a recommendation of refusal by the Officers. |
|
Can we stipulate in the design of property a way to pre-empt any problems with this tree and its root system in the future |
In terms of the construction of this proposed dwelling Officers are reliant on the current Building Regulations. They have improved recently in terms of the protection of plants and tree root systems but they are not perfect so Officers cannot say that there is no risk to the tree. |
|
Can you confirm that the original planning application was for a development of 9 houses though in the end it was reduced and only 8 are being built so that in effect this current application is merely returning it to the original 9? |
Yes, that is correct though this application does take some of the garden from the property ‘Forres’ that would not have been part of the original application.
|
|
Given that Tree T14 is to be removed, can a request be added that the developer replaces this tree somewhere else within the extended development site? |
A provision could be added within the landscaping scheme to require a replacement of that tree (T14). |
|
Can Officers confirm that part of the long, close boarded fence in Oak Tree Close will be removed to facilitate access to the garage, a dropped kerb and the front entrance to this new dwelling? |
Yes that is correct and this was explained in the Officer report and earlier presentation. |
|
Is it correct that this new development will take land that is currently occupied by the developer’s construction storage containers? |
Yes, that is correct. Once the current development of 8 bungalows is completed then those storage containers will be removed to facilitate this proposed development. A Construction Management Scheme would need to be agreed and this is set out in proposed planning condition number 8. |
|
For the 8 bungalows under construction the developer will be using a package treatment scheme for sewerage disposal. Will this new proposed dwelling go on the ‘Mains’ scheme or will it also be on a package treatment scheme? |
The Agent has confirmed that there is no connection to the ‘Mains’ and that therefore this proposed new dwelling will be connected to the same package treatment scheme being provided for the other 8 bungalows. This has been deemed to be acceptable. |
|
Has this application already been approved by Building Control or will it go to them after it has been approved by this Planning Committee? |
The building control stage always follows the planning application approval stage. The building regulations stage will require much more detailed plans from the applicant. |
|
Could we include within the conditions a requirement that Tree T13 is pollarded and/or copsed? |
A ‘management’ condition could be added stipulating how the plants and trees will be protected and maintained. It’s possibly excessive to impose this just for one tree but if Members were so minded an extra condition could be added to run alongside the landscape scheme. |
|
The veracity was questioned of a statement within the Officer report that indicated that you could get directly to Alresford and Brightlingsea by bus from Elmstead. |
Officers reviewed the current bus provision available, apologised for the error in the Officer report and withdrew that point. |
It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Alexander and:-
RESOLVED unanimously that the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to:-
(a) on appropriate terms, as summarised below and those as may be deemed necessary to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Building Control to secure the completion of an unilateral undertaking legal agreement under the provisions of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dealing with the financial contribution in accordance with the Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) totalling £156.76 per dwelling (index linked);
(b) the planning conditions, as stated at paragraph 10.2 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 conditions as referenced is retained and further subject to:-
(i) a landscape scheme to include the replacement of Tree T14 within the site as a new tree to be planted; and
(ii) a further condition alongside the landscape scheme stating that, prior to the construction of the dwelling, a management scheme and methodology for Tree T13 shall be agreed and thereafter maintained as agreed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
(c) the sending to the applicant of any informative notes as may be deemed necessary; or
(d) that, in the event of the requirements of the legal agreement referred to in resolution (a) above not being secured within 12 months of the date of this meeting, the Head of Planning and Building Control is hereby authorised to refuse the application, on appropriate grounds, at their sole discretion.
Supporting documents:
PDF 292 KB