Proposed three dwellings and associated ancillary buildings, drainage systems, boundary treatments, hard surfacing with vehicular access from Thorpe Road, Weeley.

The application stands referred to the Planning Committee, as when the outline planning permission was granted originally granted for a larger site, which included this application site, Members decided that the Reserved Matters application(s) would be referred to the Planning Committee for its determination. In addition, Councillor Peter Harris, the Ward Member, has requested that the application be ‘called in’ to the Planning Committee, due to his concerns about the access to the site being unsuitable; the potential inability of emergency vehicles to access all dwellings; and the proposed dwellings being too close to the existing dwellings; and the adverse impact this could have on residents’ privacy.

Members were told that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as when Outline planning permission had been granted for the larger site, which had included this application site, Members of the Committee had agreed that the Reserved Matters application(s) would be referred  to the Planning Committee for determination. In addition,  Councillor Peter Harris, the Ward Member, acting on behalf of Weeley Parish Council, had also requested that the application be ‘called in’ to the Planning Committee for its determination, the Parish Council having raised its concerns about the access to the site not being suitable, the inability of emergency vehicles to access all dwellings; and the dwellings being too close to existing dwellings, and the adverse impact this would have on residents’ privacy.

The Committee was told that the application sought full planning permission for the erection of three dwellings on a small parcel of land that formed part of a much larger site which the Council had granted outline planning permission for. The outline planning permission (19/00524/OUT) allowed for the erection of up to 280 dwellings, a new primary school and children’s nursery, up to 3,000sqm of office (B1) floorspace and associated infrastructure and development including the provision of Public Open Space.

Officers informed Members that because it was proposed that the three dwellings were accessed across land that was outside the ‘red line’ of the outline planning permission the applicant had submitted the application for full planning permission, so it was not pursuant to the outline planning permission. A separate application which sought approval for the Reserved Matters for development (22/00979/DETAIL), including the erection of 277 dwellings on land to the south of the application site, had just been determined by the Committee under Minute 38 above. If both applications were approved a total of 280 dwellings would be erected within the area that had outline planning permission. That would be consistent with the maximum number of dwellings that had been allowed under the outline planning permission.

The Committee was made aware that there was no objection to the principle of residential development as the land already had outline planning permission for residential development. Furthermore, the site was located within the Weeley Settlement Development Boundary and was specifically designated to be part of a mixed-use development in the adopted Tendring District Local Plan. The detailed design, layout, landscaping and scale were considered acceptable by Officers. There were no objections from consultees and Officers considered that the proposal would not result in harm to residential amenity of a level that would warrant refusal of planning permission. The application was therefore recommended by Officers for approval subject to the legal agreement and planning conditions listed.

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 (AN) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to Members of the Committee prior to the meeting regarding additional representations and an update on the report:

“Additional Representations

Weeley Parish Council: Weeley Parish Council (WPC) considered this application at its meeting on 18 September 2023. It resolved once again to object strongly to these proposals.

WPC previously considered this application on 28 September 2022 and again on 20 March 2023. On both previous occasions, it resolved to object to this application.

Reviewing the plans via a desktop exercise indicates that these proposed properties are being squeezed in to an area that is patently too small to accommodate them. However, a site visit make highlights the cramped nature of the area.

Concern was raised previously about access by emergency vehicles, there is no evidence to indicate that the Fire Service has been consulted. If it hasn't then in these particular circumstances, it should be.

A separate application for 277 dwellings on this site has been lodged. The Parish Council is baffled that the developer would jeopardize the success of this large development by submitting a separate application for three dwellings that most local people see as wholly unsuitable in terms of access.

Officer comment: The fire service are not consulted on ‘minor’ applications and are not a statutory consultee. The private drive is of sufficient width to accommodate a fire pumping appliance as detailed within the Building Regulations.

Waste Manager: Looking at the mapping system and the layout of the development if the highway of Verity Gardens has been constructed to a suitable standard to allow full access and sustain the weight of a 26 tonne, 2.5 metre wide collection vehicle then households should be able to present their waste and recycling for collection outside of their properties and not need to present on the neighbouring road of Barleyfield Drive.

I suspect that the alleged actions are taking place as a sole purpose of ease to the collection driver rather than out of necessity due to design and moving forward happy to take this up with Veolia if needed.

Officer comment: Condition 4 requires submission and approval of a waste strategy.

Report Update

Update in relation to paragraph 6.35 and the Construction Management Plan condition. The agent has verbally confirmed that these dwellings would be built from the main site to the rear, retaining everyday access to the existing bungalows. Condition 3 requires submission and approval of a detailed Construction Management Plan which includes details such as protection measures for roads adjoining the site, security hoarding, and directional signage.”

Will Vote, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

Anthony Burrows, a member of the public, spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Christine Hamilton, Chairman of the Weeley Parish Council, spoke against the application.

It was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Everett and:-

RESOLVED that, contrary to the Officers’ recommendation of approval, application 22/01332/FUL be refused for the following reasons:-

“The proposed development if approved, by reason of its siting, layout, access would be out of keeping with the prevailing spacing and pattern of development of the existing surrounding development.  The development fails to enhance the character of locality.

Furthermore, if approved, it would likely generate a significant increase in noise levels and disturbance including impact on privacy due to the construction process and subsequent occupation of the three dwellings.  By reason of the layout, siting, landscaping and scale of the development this impact would directly affect the quality of life for the neighbouring residents in close proximity, with due regard given to known persons with protected characteristics defined under the Equality Act 2010 who relies on a quiet environment for their well-being and amenity.

On this basis the proposal is considered to be contrary to Local Plan Section 1 Policy SP6 part C and Section 2 SPL3 as a whole and including part C and NPPF including Section 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities and Section 12 Achieving well-designed places highlighting Para 130F.”