Agenda item

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

Have we moved the new proposed building away from the pylon?

The new proposed building has moved slightly closer to the line but is still a significant way apart and Officers have no reservations for this application.

Is pylon close but on a new site?

Yes, it is approximately 20 metres away – this is not exact. An extra condition has been added to avoid both buildings being built out.

Could Officers expand on the point 6.34 of the Officer report?

6.33 of the Officer report is the consultee comments that Officers received from the Tendring District Council Tree & Landscape Officer, so Officers have to take their comments into account to work out the overall impact to the development. Paragraph 6.34 of the Officer report is an Officer summary of the position, taking into account those comments but the reasons that are listed with that paragraph, Officers have concluded that there will not be significant harm to the character. The comments from TDC Tree & Landscape Officer were received prior to the amended drawings that had a different design before. Given that there is Prior Approval consent, even with the 20-metre distance away, Officers do not consider that there will be a significant harm to the character of the area that would warrant recommending refusal.

Where is the nearest sewer to these properties and are the properties serviced by main sewage?

In terms of whether the other properties are serviced by main sewage, Officers cannot confirm that but can confirm that the nearest mains runs along Hungerdown Lane but it is an excess of 30 metres apart which is the threshold for one dwelling, it is approximately 50-60 metres away so, therefore there is no requirement to connect to the mains and then Officers move to the next stage in terms of Private Treatment Facilities, a Package Treatment Plant is at the top of hierarchy that is outlined by the Environment Agency.

Can you explain the conflict between TDC policy and FDA?

The policy PPL5 refers to Private Sewage Treatment Facilities which will not be permitted if there is an accessible public foul water sewer, then you have to question what is accessible. There is no position in the policy in respect of distance in that regard of what is deemed as accessible. Accessible could be what is reasonably accessible, it could be about finance or distance. It is not defined by policy. The policy then goes on to talk about ‘Practical Option’, ultimately, Officers have to take a balance and Officers have taken a position of Building Regulations do help Officers to a degree to consider the 30 metre distance – that is a reasonable position to take in that lack of definition but, ultimately, that is a judgement Councillors may want to take further in their debate. However, Officers would question that, if Councillors do want to discuss this then they might also want to discuss harm in terms of demonstrable harm to the environment and the ground water and so on so Officers can readily prove that position if they had to.

In terms of balancing and harms, do we need to take that into account as a whole?

Yes, that is correct. Councillors need to take all of that into account as a whole.

Is there a conflict at any point about enlarging the site to be whatever size the applicant wants it to be?

In terms of the “site”, Officers believe that the application refers to a sufficient plan to identify the site but does not necessarily mean it has to be a redline boundary. What Councillors have in front of them is not an extension, it is a separate full application to be determined on its merits. Officers are saying that the Class Q notification, be it a different site, is a material consideration for which Officers could have a net gain of 1 house there but Officers are saying they are shifting the house across slightly, is there no material in the balance to make a massive difference in terms of harm and impact, and therefore Officers are balancing that and are controlling it and there will still only be 1 house. Officers are comfortable that that is a reasonable and defendable position to have. There is no policy that says that you can’t move away by a certain amount of distance.

In terms of the fallback position, Councillors have to weight that fallback position because the site is only a 20^th of the new site that we have got, do we give it 20^th of the weight, how do we square that?

Officers have not come across that sort of question in the context of an argument. It’ll be breaking new ground with an argument of weight application depending on distance from the original Class Q building. Officers’ opinion would be that in your debate, it is seen as relatively close in proximity to give it significant weight as Officers would do as if it was overlapping the site. If it was moved further away, Councillors can start getting into argument, but Officers opinion would be that at this moment, given its proximity and relationship with the surrounding existing buildings and neighbouring businesses etc, that it would be difficult to put such a mathematical approach to that.