Agenda item

Report of the Director (Planning & Communities) - A.1 - 24/01507/FUL - Land adjacent to 55 Church Road, Elmstead, CO7 7AW

The erection of six self-build bungalows and associated infrastructure.

Minutes:

Earlier on in the meeting as detailed in Minute 66 above, Councillor Wiggins had declared for the public record that she was one of the local Ward Members. Councillor Wiggins had stated that she was not pre-determined on this application, and she therefore remained in the meeting and took part in the deliberations and decision making.

 

Members were told that this application was before the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Scott.

 

Officers made Members aware that the site lay directly adjacent to the defined Settlement Development Boundary of Elmstead and met the requirements of adopted Local Plan LP7 for Self-Build dwellings. The scale, layout and appearance of the proposed dwellings were considered by Officer to be acceptable and would not result in any overriding harm to visual amenity, landscape character or the overall character of the area having regard to the context of the site directly adjacent to existing dwellings and the recent development at Pavillion View opposite.

 

The Committee was informed that the application had been assessed against the policies contained within the adopted Elmstead Market Neighbourhood Plan and was not considered by Officers to result in any material conflict that warranted refusal of planning permission in that regard.

 

Members were told that subject to an acceptable reptile survey and the securing of any necessary mitigation measures, the application was recommended by Officers for approval subject to conditions (including RAMS).

 

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 subject to conditions.

 

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 which was as follows:-

 

“Planning Application – The erection of six self-build bungalows and associated infrastructure.

 

·        Correction to Section 10.2 Conditions and Informatives, Condition 5 Hard and Soft Landscaping Scheme, approved plan drawing number. Condition now reads:

 

5. FURTHER APPROVAL: HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPING SCHEME

 

CONDITION: Prior to the commencement of any above ground works, a scheme of hard and soft landscaping for the site shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include any proposed changes in ground levels, accurately identify spread, girth and species of all existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows on the site and indicate any to be retained, together with the agreed measures for their protection set out within the AIA and in compliance with the recommendations set out in the British Standards Institute publication "BS 5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction". The scheme shall be in general conformity with the indicative landscape details shown on the approved drawing no. MAS/761/1 C Proposed Site Layout Plan subject to any new boundary planting being planted a minimum of 1 metre back from the highway boundary and any visibility splay and retained free of obstruction above 600mm at all times.

 

REASON: In order to enhance the appearance of the development, in the interests of visual amenity and the quality of the development, and to ensure that the future outward growth of the planting does not encroach upon the highway or interfere with the passage of users of the highway, to preserve the integrity of the highway and in the interests of highway safety.”

 

Beth Deacon-Bates, the agent for the applicant spoke in favour of the application.

 

Councillor Scott, the caller-in and Ward Councillor spoke in relation to the application.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

Would this application have been brought to Committee if Councillor Scott had not called it in?

No, it would not.

If the development was not self-build, would the matter have been approved?

The self-build policy of the District engages in lieu of the neighbourhood policy. If this wasn't self build, the policy allows development adjacent to settlement boundary so it would be allowed. It would then be delegated to officers to decide.

What does self-build mean and what are the ramifications?

The self-build definition within the Self-Build act is defined as:

 

(A1)  In this Act “self-build and custom housebuilding”  means the building or completion by—

(a)  individuals,

(b)  associations of individuals, or

(c)  persons working with or for individuals or associations of individuals,

 of houses to be occupied as homes by those individuals.

(A2)  But it does not include the building of a house on a plot acquired from a person who builds the house wholly or mainly to plans or specifications decided or offered by that person.

When we walked around the site, we found that there is a working ditch across the entrance, continuation from outside 55. Is it the proposal that the ditch will be continued through?

Yes. The scale of the development is minor, so a surface water drainage strategy is not required.

On 20 January 2025,  Essex County Council Place Services Ecology put in a holding objection. Is this still the case?

There are currently no objections from other statutory consultees. Place Services includes archaeology, and there are no objections from them subject to conditions. The recommendation is made subject to conditions of an acceptable reptile survey. Therefore, the objection mentioned does still remain, however, it allows a 12-month period for the reptile survey to be undertaken and submitted. Liaison with Place Services would then take place to ensure that any further mitigation measures are secured.

To clarify in their objection, Essex County Council Place Services Ecology said; “the results of these surveys are required prior to determination because paragraph 99 of the ODPM Circular 06 2005 highlights that it is essential that presence or otherwise protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development is established before the planning permission is granted otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed when making the decision” “this will enable the LPA to demonstrate compliance with its statutory duties including its biodiversity duty under Section 40 of the NERC Act 2006 as amended, prevent wildlife crime under Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act 1998”. So are we acting ultra vires if we go ahead with a prior determination, given the circumstances with the condition?

Permission is granted at the point of a decision being issued. If the matter is not resolved, permission is not granted. If this is the case it will either be refused or come back to Committee. Members are asked to make a resolution for Officers to follow.

So does that require a condition to allow that to be able to happen?

No, we are asking for a survey to be carried out before we grant permission.

If the self-build is approved, is it going to be a non-standing construction?

There is a condition to secure the properties as self-build and building regulations are included in the  conditions.

 

It was moved by Councillor Sudra, seconded by Councillor Smith and:-

 

RESOLVED that:-

 

(1)   the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant full planning permission subject (2) below and the submission and assessment of an acceptable reptile survey setting out sufficient mitigation measures, and receipt of ‘no obligation’ from Essex County Council Place Services Ecology;

 

(2)   the conditions as stated at paragraph 10.2 (including any additional conditions recommended as part of the consultation with Essex County Council Place Services Ecology following consultation on the reptile survey) 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;

 

(3)   the sending of any informative notes to the applicant as may be deemed necessary; and

 

(4)   in the event of the requirements referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured within 12 months of the date of the Committee’ decision, that the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse the application on appropriate grounds at their discretion.

Supporting documents: