Agenda item

Report of the Director (Planning & Communities) - A.3 - 24/01910/FUL - Rear of 140 Point Clear Road, St Osyth, CO16 8JA

Erection of two detached self-buld bungalows.

Minutes:

Earlier on in the meeting, as detailed under Minute 66 above, Councillor White had declared an interest and had informed the Committee that he would withdraw from the meeting and leave the room whilst the Committee deliberated on this application and reached its decision, Councillor White thereupon left the room.

 

The Committee heard that the application was before Members as the proposed development represented a departure from the Local Plan, proposing new residential development outside of the St Osyth Settlement Development Boundary (SDB) as defined within the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2013 to 2033 and Beyond. This application was also before Members as the extent of information was sufficient for Members consideration.

 

Members were told that the proposed development was concluded by Officers to represent sustainable development. The specific merits of the application and site would not set a harmful precedent for further development outside the defined settlement boundary and would not prejudice the overall spatial strategy of the District with further considerations outlined in the Officer report.

 

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 Officer (OA) in respect of the application.

 

There were no updates circulated to Members for this item.

 

Peter Le Grys, the applicant’s Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

Matters raised by the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

Outside number 172, what happened with that?

 

Is it exactly the same as what was submitted?

This has been referenced in the report (paragraph 8.15) and it has been recognised as part of the previous appeal decision.

 

The scheme that is before you is similar to what was submitted as part of the appeal decision. The applicant has followed the Inspector's advice in terms of what they submitted.

Also relating to number 172, is that the same per two dwellings or single?

There were two appeals, so two separate dwellings.

Are we doing the right thing in relation to archaeological terms?

There isn't any overriding concern in terms of archaeological standards, and this is reflected in the conditions and recommendations. We will be ensuring those works are carried out as necessary.  

 

(John Pateman-Gee) The development proposal is contrary to the development plan which is why it has been brought to Committee. The requirement in terms of the town and planning act is that the decision must be taken in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. We feel there are material considerations in terms of the site, which is why we have placed the relevant conditions but is also why we are recommending approval.

 

 

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

 

RESOLVED that:-

 

1)     the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions stated at paragraph 10.2 of the Officer report (A.3), 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 of any informative notes as may be deemed necessary.

Supporting documents: