Agenda item

Report of the Director (Planning) - A.2 - 23.01707.OUT - Land Adjacent 34 Amerells Road, Little Clacton, CO16 9HA

Outline Planning Application with all matters reserved for the erection of two self-build/custom built dwellings.

Minutes:

The Committee heard that the application was before Members at the request of Councillor Bray, due to the site being located outside the settlement development boundary and his concerns with the impact of the proposed development.

 

It was reported that the application related to the land adjacent to number 34 Amerells Road, Little Clacton. The site was located to the eastern end of Amerells Road and formed part of an agricultural field.

 

Members were told that the application sought outline planning permission for the erection of two self-build/custom built dwellings with all matters reserved. For the avoidance of doubt, Access, Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping were all reserved for subsequent consideration as part of future Reserved Matters application(s) (if outline planning permission was granted).

 

The Committee also heard that the site was located outside, but directly adjacent to, the defined Settlement Development Boundary of Little Clacton which was categorised within Local Plan Policy SPL1 as a Rural Service Centre in recognition of its level of services and amenities. Local Plan Policy SPL2 did not explicitly preclude the development of housing outside SDBs as a matter of principle. The category of the settlement and the site’s relationship with the defined settlement boundary complied with the principles of sustainable development as well as the policy requirements for self-build homes as set out in Policy LP7.

Members were informed that the proposed dwellings would intrude into the open field to some extent. However, the application site was bordered by existing development on two sides (immediately to south and west), and further away, the site was enclosed by residential development along Harwich Road (to the north) and Feverills Road (to the south). Views into the open field would largely be retained and a residential development here in the form of two dwellings would be viewed against the backdrop of the existing dwellings in Feverills Road. Consequently, in the opinion of Officers, no overriding harm to the character of the area or landscape would result.

 

Officers told Members that, the additional traffic associated with 2 no. dwellings would not be significant and could not be deemed as materially harmful to highway or pedestrian safety.

 

The Committee noted that Officers considered that sufficient space was available on the site to provide a development of two dwellings that could achieve an internal layout and separation distances that would not detract from the amenities of nearby properties or the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

 

Members were also made aware that, considering the impact of the development and baseline situation on site, subject to the inclusion of the recommended conditions and completed UU, the development would conserve and enhance biodiversity interests.

 

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representation 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 Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members before the meeting with details of an update of an extension date and that the Unilateral Undertakings (UU) being secured. The full details were as follows:-

 

“Extension of time date now agreed until 24th April 2024.

 

Signed and dated UU to secure RAMS contribution received today, 16th April 2024. At the time of writing the completed UU is pending review by the Council’s Legal Team. This update should be taken into account when reading the recommendation shown on Page 57 of the agenda.”

 

In the meeting, an oral update was given to Members to say that the UU had been reviewed by the Council’s Legal Team.

 

Peter Le Grys, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

Parish Councillor John Cuttings, on behalf of Little Clacton Parish Council, spoke against the application.

 

Councillor Jeff Bray, the Ward Member, spoke against the application.

 

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

What is the quota of this District for the number of self-builds allowed and have we met that number yet? What position are we in?

The Council is required to have a self-build register which people can nominate themselves to go on the list. The current number of people that are on that list is 154. The current number of Planning Approvals for residential development that Officers determine to be suitable for self-build, which is the requirement of the regulations, is about double that. In terms of meeting our obligations to maintain a quantum of land for self-build development, TDC are on top of that. That is relevant if TDC were in a position if Officers were looking at a departure from the Local Plan. If someone was putting in an application for self-build dwellings to the Council, on the basis that it was a departure from the Local Plan, completely outside the Settlement Development Boundary and contrary to other policies – if TDC weren’t on top of the self-build requirements, that would be a material consideration that might weigh in favour of approval, despite the development being contrary to the Local Plan. We do have a different situation for this application.

With LP7, how can TDC determine that this application is appropriate in scale, design for the location having regard to other policies in the Local Plan if Members do not have that information?

Members are looking at the principle of development, the considerations are limited because of the nature of the application and information that is provided in front of Members. However, the Reserved Matters application that would follow gives Members that opportunity to then make the necessary assessment. With this Outline Application, TDC just need to be content that the applicants can accommodate two bungalows on the site in a manner that would not be harmful, and Officers are content that this would be possible based on the footprint of the neighbouring properties directly next door and the size of the Red Line Site Area.

When the Reserved Matter application comes before Members, we can look at the issues under LP7 and if Members are not satisfied then Members can refuse?

The policy says that “should have no significant material adverse impact” then it lists the requirements – landscape, residential amenities, etc. This is an Outline Application for two bungalows, with consideration of that landscaping impact, it has been covered in the Officer report and Officers recognise that it does impeach on the open field somewhat but not to a significant materially harmful effect. Officers have consulted with ECC and considered the traffic movements associated with two properties would not have a materially harmful impact. Whilst there is not full consideration of the design, the scale Officers know is single storey. Officers are content with the application with the information that has been provided.

What is the quality of the land?

It is covered in the Officer report. It is Grade 3 Agricultural Land. The grading as well as the size of the site and the scale of development wouldn’t be considered as a significant or harmful loss of agricultural land that would warrant refusal on that basis.

How do Officers come up with the grades?

Officers retrieve the information, there are other resources online where the information has been assessed by relevant people and that information has then been provided and then that has been considered by Officers.

Without gauging where the properties are going to go, how do TDC know if there will be a turning circle big enough within the site?

There can be different layouts and that can be a consideration under layout at the reserved matters stage. TDC Highway experts have reviewed the application and have suggested a condition to secure a size three turning area and it is about making the assessment and Officers being content that the size of the site can accommodate the turning area proposed.

 

It was moved by Councillor Everett, seconded by Councillor Smith and unanimously:-

 

RESOLVED that:

 

 

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant outline consent subject to the agreed Section 106 agreement and conditions as stated in paragraph 10.2 of the Officer report (A.2), (with the additional  requirement that any Reserved Matters application for this site is submitted to the Planning Committee for its determination) 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,

 

2)    the sending to the applicant of any informative notes as may be deemed necessary.

Supporting documents: