Agenda item
Proposed one dwelling in lieu of approved application 22/00359/COUNOT (Barn A). Re-submissions of 23/00773/FUL.
Minutes:
Councillor McWilliams returned to the room for the rest of the Planning Committee meeting.
The Committee heard that the application was before Members due to the application representing a departure from the Development Plan being a proposal for a new dwelling outside any defined settlement development boundary.
It was reported that the application site comprised a parcel of land to the west of number 5 Hunters Chase, Ardleigh, encompassing an existing detached barn to the rear of number 5, located to the north-eastern corner of the application site. The site lay outside of the defined settlement development boundary of Ardleigh.
Members were told that the application sought full planning permission for the erection of 1 no. 1 bedroom detached dwelling following the demolition of the existing detached barn to the rear of number 5 Hunters Chase (Barn A). The proposed dwelling would replace the existing barn subject of a prior approval for conversion to a dwelling under application reference 22/00359/COUNOT (representing the ‘fall-back’ position). The development would be accessed via a new access from Hunters Chase and not via the access currently serving no. 5 as approved under the Prior Approval Application.
The Committee also heard that Officers recognised that the access, siting and layout of the proposed development would be materially different to the Prior Approval it was seeking to replace; however, the proposal was seeking to improve upon the overall layout of the prior approval conversion scheme and would now comfortably appear as a well-planned infill residential development on a site surrounded by residential dwellings, and with consent for one dwelling ~(in the form of the prior approval).
Members were informed that having regard to the predominantly semi-rural but residential character of the immediate locality, together with the single storey modest scale of the proposed dwelling and ample screening, the wider development would not amount to any visual harm, harm to the character of the area or wider landscape harm.
Officers told Members that, in the absence of any material harm resulting from the proposed development, the application was recommended by them for approval.
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 (JJ) in respect of the application.
An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting, with details of an additional condition, which was as follows:
“17 COMPLIANCE: DEMOLITION 22/00359/COUNOT
CONDITION: Prior to the commencement of any above ground works associated with the development hereby approved, the existing agricultural building on the site (subject of Prior Approval application reference 22/00359/COUNOT or any subsequent prior approval applications related to the building, and as shown to be demolished on the approved Block Plan Drawing No BB-01 Revision C) shall be demolished in its entirety and all resultant materials and debris shall be cleared from the site.
REASON: The development hereby permitted is supported on the basis that the existing agricultural building subject of the Prior Approval conversion under application reference 22/00359/COUNOT or any subsequent prior approval applications related to the building, is to be removed from the site in its entirety, thus resulting in a one-for-one replacement dwelling (replacement for the Prior Approval scheme). The site lies outside of any settlement development boundary where new residential development is contrary to the development plan (which directs new development to sites within settlement development boundary).”
Alison Cox, the Agent for the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- |
Officer’s response thereto:- |
|
Can you confirm if any trees have been cut down already? |
T7 has been removed. The response that was given to Officers about the Oak tree being removed was that it hasn’t been removed yet. Only this single tree has been proposed to be removed; however, the tree is not under a TPO. There will be additional planting of trees as part of the recommendation. |
|
1 tree has been removed from the site, 2 more to be removed, is this correct? |
With the facts in front of Officers, the submission of the application is for removal of one tree with sufficient replanting. The planning position is not the same as a moral position, which is to save as many trees as possible. Officers cannot control what people do on their land with trees that are not under a TPO. The applicant or whoever is responsible for the site will not need Council permission. The large oak tree at the back of the site is matured. Officers have an outstanding issue with the consent the applicants have got which is for the barn that is there currently which they could use for a property, but if they were to live there, they would have the shadow of the tree. Officers have had discussions in respect of finding a suitable location. This is the best design that has enough distance from the tree, doesn’t come forward to the perceived property line to such an extent that it would be imposing on the street scene, it would maintain the trees to the front of the property. Marrying up all those considerations, Officers felt it was a sacrifice that was worthwhile. Officers are not aware of any other trees going and if they are to go then they are not currently protected; however, if the implementation of this application was made, the trees that are there or remain there at the time of implementation will be protected for at least 5 years. |
|
Will those 2 barns be removed? |
Yes, that is correct. |
|
Will there be any extensions? Will any other properties be allowed to be built on this land? |
Under condition 12, this removes any rights for any more buildings on this land. The applicants will have to come back to the Council for planning permission. |
|
Any further planning would need to come back if any more buildings want to be built? |
Yes, that is correct. |
It was moved by Councillor Goldman, seconded by Councillor McWilliams and unanimously:-
RESOLVED that:-
1) the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 10.2 of the Officer report (A.2) (including the RAMS UU Condition), together with the additional condition on the Officer Update Sheet, 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 as stated at paragraph 10.3 of the Officer report.
Supporting documents:
PDF 318 KB