Agenda item

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Members were informed that the adjacent development was originally approved for 9 dwellings (ref. 19/01211/DETAIL), superseded by the full permission for 8 bungalows now under construction (ref. 20/01840/FUL, varied by 21/00908/FUL).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 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:-

(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.

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.