Agenda item
Planning Application – three dwellings in lieu of 23/00931/COUNOT.
Minutes:
The Committee heard that the application was before the Planning Committee as the proposed development conflicted with the Development Plan’s requirements. The conflict had arisen from the development’s location beyond any defined settlement development boundary. The situation persisted, although it was noteworthy that the concept residential units, in the form of a converted agricultural building, had been established under prior approval reference number 23/00931/COUNOT.
Members were told that, the application sought permission for the erection of three dwellings on land to the rear of 110 Harwich Road, Little Clacton.
The Committee was made aware that, the proposed dwellings were in lieu of the previously approved scheme outlined above. Their design and scale were considered by Officers to be consistent with the semi-rural character of the site. Safe and suitable access was proposed to all dwellings and the proposed development would not result in any significant impact to neighbouring amenities. Accordingly, the application was recommended by Officers for approval subject to conditions.
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.
At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (OA) in respect of the application.
An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting, with details of an amended plan TSP05, Parish Council comments and an additional condition, which was as follows:
“Amended Plan TSP05
Clearer TSP05 Block Plan provided which highlights proposed wall at entrance and annotations.
Parish Council Comments
Little Clacton Parish Council made an objection of the application noting the following:
1. Demolition of barns and replacement footprint having a marginal overlap
Below are the Officer’s responses to these comments:
1. The majority of the site still falls within the Settlement Development Boundary and the prior approval of 23/00931/COUNOT is a material consideration.
Addition to recommended conditions:
17 COMPLIANCE REQUIRED: LANDSCAPE PROTECTION
CONDITION: Prior to commencement of development the existing trees on the site, shall be protected by the erection of temporary protective fences to be agreed and approved in writing. The protective fences shall be retained throughout the duration of building and engineering works in the vicinity of the tree to be protected. Any trees dying or becoming severely damaged as a result of any failure to comply with these requirements shall be replaced with a tree or trees of appropriate size and species during the first planting season, or in accordance with such other arrangement as may be approved, in writing, with the Local Planning Authority up to first use or first occupation of the development, following the death of, or severe damage to the tree/s.
REASON: For the avoidance of damage to protected tree/s included within the landscaping scheme in the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area. This condition is required to be carried out prior to the commencement of any other development to ensure trees are protected early to ensure avoidance of damage or lost due to the development and/or its construction. If agreement was sought at any later stage there is an unacceptable risk of lost and damage to trees.”
Alison Cox, the Agent of the Applicant, spoke in favour of the application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- |
Officer’s response thereto:- |
|
Can you clarify what Officers meant with the two dwellings having their properties in the boundary? |
The settlement boundary runs immediately behind one of the properties, this is an alternative to what has been allowed in respect of the conversion of those three houses. The third property has been pushed back a bit and is now just outside the settlement boundary but very much part of the setting of this locality. There is a slight policy change that wasn’t originally considered. The Class Q conversion would not allow it to extend thereafter if it was a barn conversion. It is to protect the character of the countryside to remove permitted development rights. |
|
Does this mean that the Council is giving the application leeway? |
All properties proposed will have no permitted development rights to extend. One is slightly beyond the settlement boundary but there is significant weight to the fallback position. |
It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor McWilliams and unanimously:-
RESOLVED that:-
1) the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions stated at paragraph 11 of the Officer report (A.3), together with the additional condition stated in 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.
Supporting documents:
PDF 264 KB