Agenda item
- Meeting of Special Meeting, Planning Committee, Tuesday, 19th December, 2023 5.00 pm (Item 68.)
- View the background to item 68.
Proposed erection of detached dwelling with new vehicular access.
Minutes:
Earlier on in the meeting as reported under Minute 64 above, Councillor McWilliams had declared that she was the Ward Member. She therefore withdrew from the meeting and took no part whilst the Committee deliberated and made its decision on this application.
Members were told that this application was before Members as Officers were recommending approval for a proposal that represented a departure from the Local Plan. The application sought planning permission for a new residential development outside of the Great Bentley Settlement Development Boundary (SDB) as defined currently within the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2013 to 2033 and Beyond.
The Committee was told that the application site served a vacant piece of land, currently in use as part of the side garden for Fir Tree House, located amongst established residential development to the eastern side of Plough Road.
Officers informed Members that the application sought full planning permission for the erection of a detached two-storey dwelling with vehicular access from Plough Road.
The Committee was made aware that the site currently benefited from a previous, and currently still extant, planning approval 20/01618/FUL for the erection of a detached dwelling with new vehicular access. This approval was extant and would expire o 23 February 2024. It was important to note that this approval had been granted under a previous Tendring District Local Plan (2007), whereby the site had been included in the settlement development boundary of Aingers Green. The current application was essentially looking to extend the timeframe of that approval.
Members were further informed that the site lay approximately 0.63km (629.5 metres) outside of the settlement development boundary of Great Bentley and was therefore contrary to the spatial strategy set out within the Tendring District Local Plan Policy SP3 and Policy SPL2. Whilst Policy SPL2 did not explicitly preclude residential development outside of the defined boundary, it nevertheless required decision makers to carefully consider the scale of development in relation to the settlement hierarchy category, site-specific characteristics, and sustainability of the site.
Officers told Members that the site benefited from a bus stop directly to its front for services to nearby Great Bentley and Colchester. The site was therefore considered by Officers to be reasonably accessible to a range of services and facilities.
Furthermore, Members were finally told that, as briefly mentioned before, another key material consideration lay in the existence of an extant planning permission for the construction of a detached dwelling with vehicular access at the site. Officers believed that this significantly tipped the planning balance in favour of approval despite the high-level policy conflict in regard to the location of the site outside of the defined settlement boundary. Moreover, the development would not result in the opinion of Officers in any material harm in terms of design, impact, residential amenities, or highway safety over and above the extant approval, and it was also considered to be acceptable in all other regards.
An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting with information about a Discharge of Conditions Application, it was as follows:
“In relation to the extant planning permission at this site, 20/01618/FUL, a Discharge of Conditions Application has been submitted for the only pre-commencement condition relating to this application (Condition 13 – Landscaping) under application reference 23/01687/DISCON. This application was approved by the local planning authority on 08.12.2023. The submission and approval of this application shows clear intent from the applicants to carry out the previously permitted development under application reference 20/01618/FUL, giving significant weight to the extant permission which serves as a material planning consideration of some weight.”
There were no public speakers for this application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- |
Officer’s response thereto:- |
|
Have we got the distances between the 2 trees and the suggested property? |
Yes, there are 2 trees and the distance from the rear elevation to the trunk of the cedar tree is approximately 2.7 metres and the distance to the cherry tree from that corner is approximately 2.6 metres. It is important to recognise that Officers have discussed the issues of trees and the contribution that these trees make to the area with the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officers and the position is that these trees fail to meet the threshold for formal legal protection. So, they fail to be on the bar for high public amenity value for it to be protected under the Tree Preservation Order and in addition to that, Officers have that extant permission of significant weight in the same location and same dwelling which can be implemented tomorrow or within the next month and a half. |
|
Does fulfilling a pre-commencement condition constitute starting the development? |
No, it does not but, for decision makers it changes the weight because it changes the way it moves the developer closer to that point where they can just move in with the builders, diggers or whatever the case may be. |
|
Can the Council put a condition in the report that if the trees were to be taken out, they are to be replaced? |
That can happen in one format or another, that can be debated, and Officers are adding a landscaping condition which is because of the details of the site and its uniqueness. Officers would like to see some landscaping there. |
|
Did you say it was 2.71 metres from the rear of the property? |
Yes, the distance from the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling to the tree trunk will be approximately 2.7 metres. |
|
Is there no scope to control root growth rather than remove it? |
The honest answer is that Officers do not know. There is an extant planning permission that they can implement as soon as tomorrow, and these trees are not protected. This is an odd application because Councillors have already approved this house and everything that goes with it including accepting the trees at the back. The applicants can go ahead with exactly what was on the screen until 23 February 2024. The only thing this application represents is an extension of time and Officers have said that they do not want to keep extending the application for 3 years each time, so Officers have now recommended 1 year to allow the applicants that time. With the extant permission, Officers have a discharging condition for landscaping and the landscaping scheme shows the 2 trees being retained so therefore, the condition, if that proposal was to go ahead, kicks in. Which means that if those 2 trees were damaged and removed, then they would have to be replaced within 5 years. Could have a variant tree on the location. With the scheme before Members, it has the same conditions as before and Officers would seek to retain those trees. Should there be a proposal for these trees to be removed, Officers have not recognised them to be of value to be retained so there is that consideration. |
|
What would the trees be replaced with if they were to be removed? |
Officers’ professional opinion must consider the material consideration that Councillors have before them which is the application that can go ahead. In respect of the trees, they are not up for being replaced and Officers have a condition that has been secured for one application and Officers would seek to secure it again to retain these trees. If a replacement was proposed, it is at that point that Officers consider what the replacement should be. The replacement should be the equivalent but there is an option within the wording of the condition to allow Officers to consider the alternatives but that is not before Officers now. |
|
What would the amenity area for a 4-bedroom house be and does it still meet it on its new footprint? |
With the adoption of the Council’s new Local Plan, Officers do not have specific allocated private amenity areas attached to different dwelling size. The policy talks about private amenities space and gardens need to meet the expectations of occupiers. Officers have looked at that and consider that the proposal, subdivision element, will not result in a substandard amenity space or a garden that will fail to meet the needs and expectations of the existing occupiers and in addition to that, there is an extant permission in place that could be implemented at any time. |
It was moved by Councillor Cossens, seconded by Councillor Placey and:-
RESOLVED that:-
1) on appropriate terms as summarised below and those as may be deemed necessary to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Building Control, and subject to Unilateral Undertaking securing:
- a financial contribution of £156.76 towards RAMS
2) the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the Unilateral Undertaking and conditions as stated at paragraph 8.2 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,
3) the sending of any informative notes to the applicant as may be deemed necessary.
Supporting documents:
PDF 367 KB