Agenda item

Report of the Director (Planning) - A.3 - 23.00697.FUL - Land at 5 Hunters Chase, Ardleigh, CO7 7LW

Proposed erection of one self-build dwelling (in lieu of Prior Approval for one dwelling, subject of application 22/00360/COUNOT for Barn B).

Minutes:

It was reported that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the proposed development would conflict with the requirements of the Development Plan, principally Policy SPL2 (Settlement Development Boundaries) of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013 – 2033 and Beyond Section 2 (adopted January 2022) being located outside of any defined settlement boundary and had an Officer recommendation of approval.

 

Members heard that, although the proposed dwelling would see an increase in height and slight increase in footprint in comparison to the development approved under prior approval 21/00360/COUNOT, due to its location and the existing vegetation and proposed landscaping, it was not considered to cause any harm to the visual or neighbouring amenities.

 

The Committee was informed that the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer had raised no concerns, whilst sufficient parking and private space was provided, and Officers felt that there would not be significant harm to existing neighbouring amenities or ecology impacts. Essex Highways Authority had also 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 subject to Unilateral Undertaking and Conditions.

 

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (NH) in respect of the application.

 

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details on the rewording of the recommendation and replacement of the comparison table which is as follows:

 

“Recommendation under the Executive Summary

 

Part 2 of the recommendation should refer to the conditions which are 8.2 of the Officers report. The recommendation should read as follows:

 

 

Recommendation: Approval subject to Unilateral Undertaking and Conditions, as follows:

 

That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to:

 

1)    A completed Unilateral Undertaking securing;

-       Financial contribution of £156.76 (index linked) towards RAMS.

 

2)    The conditions stated at paragraph 8.2, 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,

 

3)    The informative notes as may be deemed necessary.

 

Comparison Table

 

The comparison table below is to replace the comparison table under 6.17 of the Officers report. The changes are to the ridge and eaves height of the prior approval application and the eaves height of the current application. The changes are considered to be minor and do not alter the Officers assessment or recommendation. The table should read as follows:

 

 

 

22/00360/COUNOT (Prior Approval)

23/00697/FUL (Current application)

Siting

To the rear of 5 Hunters Chase, in the northern corner.

To the rear of 5 Hunters Chase, in the northern corner, relocated slightly to the south west.

Access

Via the existing access serving number 5 Hunters Chase.

Creation of a new access, driveway and parking areas through adjacent field with access from Coggeshall Road.

Appearance

Minimal changes / no materials details provided.

Single storey barn like appearance constructed from clad the building in natural larch wood with a Marley Eternit slate roof

Ridge Height

 

4 metres (Single Storey)

 

4.9 metres (Single Storey)

Eaves Height

2.1 metres

2.1 metres

Identified site / site area

239m2 / 0.02ha (Limited amenity)

1864m2 / 0.19ha (Garden area included)

Floor Area / footprint

114sqm

120sqm

Bedrooms

3 bedroom

3 bedroom

 

 

Recommendation

 

The recommendation under section 8 of the Officer report should refer to a completed legal agreement. 8.1 should read as follows:

 

8.1  The Planning Committee is recommended to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions, informatives and the completed S106 legal agreement accompanying this application with the agreed Heads of Terms, as set out in the table below:

 

CATEGORY

TERMS

Financial contribution towards RAMS.

£156.76 x 1 dwelling (index linked)

 

Mollie Foley, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

Where is the nearest mains drainage to this property?

Officers don’t exactly know where the nearest main sewer is as the property is in a rural location. The next best option on the list is the package treatment plant which is what the applicant has gone for and under question 11 of the application form it says it is not intended to connect to a main sewer instead the foul sewage will be disposed in a way of the package treatment plant as the main sewer connection is not possible.

How close are the electric vehicle charging spaces to the charging point?

It can depend on the cable size. However, the applicant could put an underground cable in. For clarity, there is a condition on broadband that can clarify that point as part of that condition to adjust the wording accordingly.

Is number 5 on foul drainage and if so, why are they not connecting to it?

You are right. The priority of PPL5 is to connect to a mains drainage wherever possible. In a location such as this application, the agent has not provided the FDA form so therefore, Officers have to assess the application based on the information provided. A location like this, it is unlikely that there is going to be a mains drainage, but Officers cannot guarantee that. In paragraph 6.56 of the Officer report, it outlines why the package plant treatment is the second-best option and that is why Officers have concluded that it is acceptable.

Can we condition that there is no lighting rather than sensitive lighting?

That would be a matter of debate that is necessary to require that. Ultimately, the existing building could have external lighting on it now and TDC have no control over that. Also, this is a residential use that may have night-time activity and therefore control of lighting, such as lighting for a driveway, is hard. A more restrictive condition could be possible such as no external lighting unless agreed and then any scheme that comes forward would be something for Officers to consider as and when.

Are there going to be solar panels put on the roof?

No, they are not going to be put on the roof.

Should there not be solar panels on the roof?

There are air source heat pumps that are part of this proposal, but there are no solar panels

Should solar panels not go on all new properties?

No, there is no requirement for solar panels to be put on new properties.

What are the proposals for that hedgerow and how much would be cut back?

There will be some loss of the hedgerow but there is a condition on the permission to allow for a replacement hedging for the element that is going to be lost so that will come as a discharge condition application. The size of the access is now going to be 6 metres roughly.

What is the driveway going to be made of?

There is a condition for it to be permeable.

Is there any way that we can condition something about the access without having to go through the Highways Authority?

At the moment there is an existing access, it is unlimited in the respect of traffic and can be used 24/7. Unfortunately for TDC that is our starting baseline position that Officers have to then look at materially. If Officers switched this to a residential use, they would ask if there was an improvement to that situation or not. Also, they will use the existing access which is already there and therefore the residential use could be less than what the agricultural state could be. Officers then will look at the improvement of this access and the widening of the access which means that it might be better through use and better through improvement that is being shown on the plan. Further conditions could be argued as being unreasonable as TDC is already gaining a position that is better than what is there already. Another problem is that the hedgerow would then need to be cut off even more.

Is it Clause 10 and 6 to the conditions that is being amended? Also, can we condition that the property be connected to a main sewer?

In terms of condition 10, Officers are asking that we adjust the broadband condition to clarify the points of connection and where they will be on the site. Condition 6 will be changed so that it is no external lighting unless agreed in writing as opposed to the current wording. In respect of the sewer, Officers cannot word a condition that says if it is possible because it is not precise or accurate that would pass the test of conditions and could be unreasonable and would not recommend putting a condition in about the sewer.

The foul drainage assessment and the binding rules state how many metres away if the mains drainage is within a certain number of metres, then it must be connected to, could we put an informative saying something along those lines?

Ultimately, the Councillor is correct in respect of the policy. Officers should have made more endeavours to pursue that point and Officers offer their apologies. Officers have assessed that the package sewage treatment is acceptable and planning harm is the key point. You could have an informative put in, but these are not required by the applicant to be done.

 

 

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor White, seconded by Councillor Alexander and unanimously:-

 

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to:

 

1)     a completed Unilateral Undertaking securing;

-       financial contribution of £156.76 (index linked) towards RAMS

 

2)    the conditions stated at paragraph 8.2 of the Officer report with Condition 10 being altered to agree charging point positions and Condition 6 to be replaced with a lighting condition that requires no external lighting unless agreed in writing by the LPA, 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,

 

3)    the sending out of informative notes, including the addition to ask the applicant to explore the main sewer connection, as may be deemed necessary.

Supporting documents: