Agenda item
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Tuesday, 5th August, 2025 5.00 pm (Item 29.)
- View the background to item 29.
Outline Planning Application (Access to be considered) – Erection of 3 dwellings.
Minutes:
Members were told that the application sought outline consent with all matters reserved, apart from access, for the erection of three dwellings to the rear of the existing dwelling of West Manston, Windmill Road, Bradfield.
Notwithstanding the application site was partly outside of the Settlement Development Boundary, the principle of residential development in that location was acceptable on the strength of the prevailing character of development to the south of the application site and the support of Local Plan spatial strategies.
The Committee heard that the proposed development would represent sustainable development and would not result in any material harm in terms of archaeological interest, residential amenities, highway safety, tree protection, ecology and biodiversity and was acceptable in all other regards.
Members were updated that there were no objections from statutory consultees, although Bradfield Parish Council had objected to the proposal.
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 Planning Officer (AP) in respect of the application.
An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting which informed the Committee as follows:-
“Additional planning condition proposed:
Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan for BNG Condition
Unless all BNG requirements are achieved via credits, no development shall commence on the site until a 30 year Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (HMMP), prepared in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan/s under condition 4, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority for the site, and shall contain the following unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
a) a description and evaluation of the planned habitat works for the creation and/or enhancement of the onsite habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan;
b) the management measures to maintain the onsite habitat creation and/or enhancement works for a period of a least 30 years from the completion (defined for this purpose as first use and/or occupation unless agreed in writing by the LPA) of the development including: i) ecological trends and constraints on site that may influence management; ii) aims, objectives and targets for management e.g. links with local and national species and habitat action plans; iii) a description of the management operations necessary to achieving aims and objectives; iv) prescriptions for management actions; v) preparation of a works schedule, including annual works schedule; vi) mechanisms of adaptive management to account for necessary changes in work schedule to achieve the required targets;
c) details of the monitoring methodology, to measure the effectiveness of the management of the onsite habitat creation and/or enhancement works together with the timetable for each element of the monitoring programme including when first implemented with provision for monitoring reports to be provided to the local planning authority in writing on year 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30, with biodiversity reconciliation calculations at each stage; and
d) details of the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the HMMP including implementation and monitoring;
e) There shall be a completion report evidencing the completed habitat enhancements prior to first use and/or occupation unless agreed in writing by the LPA.
The approved HMMP shall be strictly adhered to at all times and implemented in full for its duration no later than the first use/occupation of the development.
REASON: To enhance biodiversity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and to achieve the Biodiversity Net Gain objectives set out in Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
NOTE: If the approved BNG Plan is for credits only, this condition does not require discharge. For all development that include a BNG plan on site and/or off site, in full or part, this condition is imposed and needs to be discharged as set out. Should the BNG requirement be considered to be “significant” an associated legal agreement shall be expected to secure monitoring fees.”
Councillor Coley, on behalf on Bradfield Parish Council, spoke against the application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- |
Officer’s response thereto:- |
|
The situation with the tree that is dead, has that tree been tested to see if there are any bats contained within it? |
A ground level tree assessment was conducted which looked at the stem and limbs for potential bat roost features. That particular tree did form part of the Officer report. All of the trees within the site were inspected. Other trees were unsuitable for roosting bats and all other trees lacked defects and it was considered that the proposal was unlikely to impact on foraging if the application was to go ahead. |
|
Are Members looking at the whole site or just the entrance? |
The description of the application proposes 3 dwellings, so Members are looking at the proposal of 3 dwellings on the whole site and the access. |
|
What is a tandem development and what is its relevance to this case? |
It is a development behind another dwelling. |
|
What was the access arrangement for that out to the road? |
It is believed to be shared with the existing dwelling. |
|
Is the access to the whole of the site? |
Members are looking at the vehicular access into the site. It is for the Highways Authority, that have looked at that, to decide and assess if the splays are available when entering and exiting the site and whether the access will be wide enough for vehicles serving for dwellings to access and leave the site. |
|
Are Members just looking at the entrance for the access? |
Yes, Members are only looking at access. |
|
Will there be strict controls on vehicles going up and down the road and will there be a one-way system in place? |
At this time, there is a construction management condition that will be placed on any approval and Officers would ask the developer or applicant to come forward with details of how they would manage construction and the Highway Authority will need to accept that and assess that it is accessible – this will control the building materials and where they are sited, where the parking for the construction workers is going to be located and varies things within the site. A construction management plan will secure the construction of the site. |
|
How can Members make a decision on a document that will not be seen by Members? |
The condition would need to be discharged so the applicant will need to submit to the Council a construction management plan which will go to the Highway Authority for them to review and ensure that the plan has met the requirements. The construction management condition that has been placed in the Officer report (A.1) with the details and criteria that is needed to be complied with and that the applicant/developer need to evidence to within their plan. Any discharge of conditions that come forward to Officers is available on the public access website so anyone will have access to that information. |
|
Is the access road that Officers are presenting a different access road to the building below it? |
The existing road will be widened. |
|
Is it a shared access road? |
No. |
|
Would Officers agree that the application is a shared access road? |
That is not part of the application in front of Members. There is one shared access point that will serve the existing access to the front of the site and would continue to serve for up to 3 dwellings to the rear of the site. This is an outline application, this is a decision about the principle of allowing residential use. Members are dealing with the application of 3 properties that are likely to be outside of the Settlement Development Boundary. Once Members have the principle, whether that is acceptable or not, the only thing that is part of this outline is the access (the point of access, not the layout road beyond the access road itself). The access point is the same access point that is currently being used but will be a bit wider and then there will be 3 properties in the garden of this property – those details are reserved matters. Members have got an indicative plan which is showing Members and Officers one possible layout. Officers have restricted this development to being single storey dwellings for being a backland development and to keep the character of the area. |
|
So, Officers are confirming that the application is a shared access? |
Yes. |
|
Can Officers tell Members what Policy LP8 says about tandem developments? |
Policy LP8 confirms that the proposals for the residential development of “backland” sites must comply with the following criteria:
|
|
Part C of the LP8 says that the proposal must avoid “tandem” development using a shared access, is that correct? |
That is correct but unfortunately appeals within the locality does not continue to support that point of the policy. If Officers have to find a point of harm, that is difficult and would be hard to refuse the application on that single issue. |
|
Page 33 of the Officer report on paragraph 8.58 – have the further surveys been carried out? |
Yes. |
It was moved by Councillor White, seconded by Councillor Everett and:-
RESOLVED that:-
1) the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse outline consent subject to the reasons as stated below that follows:
- the proposed development constitutes backland development that fails to comply with the criteria set out in Policy LP8 of the Tendring District Council Local Plan 2013 – 2033 and Beyond (Section 2). Specifically – the development would extend built form beyond the established rear building line of neighbouring properties, creating a hard urbanised area eroding the character and openness of the area and the amenity enjoyed, including loss of trees and loss of the opportunity of trees, contrary to the criterion (e) of Policy LP8. As such, the proposal would set a harmful precedent for similar forms of development in the locality and would be out of character with the prevailing pattern of development, outside the settlement development boundary, contrary to criterion of Policy LP8 and the design principles of Policy SP7 and SPL3 of the Local Plan;
- varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the reasons for refusal as referenced is retained; and
2) the sending of the informative notes to the applicant as may be deemed necessary.
Supporting documents:
-
A.1 - 24/01734/OUT - West Manston Windmill Road Bradfield Essex CO11 2QR, item 29.
PDF 486 KB -
05-08-2025 Officer Update Sheet, item 29.
PDF 113 KB


