Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director (Planning & Community) - A.1 - 25/01061/FULHH - 21 Harwich Road, Little Clacton, Clacton-on-Sea, CO16 9ND

Various works including extension to outbuilding, extension to home, hardstanding, drainage and swimming pool. (Retrospective).

Minutes:

Earlier on in the meeting, as detailed under Minute 85 above, it had been recorded that Councillor Bray had declared that he was pre-determined on this application.

 

It was reported that this application was before the Planning Committee at the discretion of the Head of Planning and Building Control, and that it sought retrospective planning permission to retain a single storey side/rear extension that projected from the rear of the dwelling house and which connects to 2no outbuildings. To the north-east of this, a large pool house complete with an enclosed outdoor seating area had been erected and which connected to the rear extension. Towards the rear of the site and adjacent to the shared boundary with 19 Harwich Road lay a single storey outbuilding, and 5no. heat pumps had been installed within the rear of the site.

 

Members were informed that planning permission was required as the extension exceeded 4m in depth and the outbuilding exceeded 2.5m in height within 2m of the boundary.

 

Officers felt that the proposed works would not result in significant visual harm occurring to the character and appearance of the area but that they would pose significant and detrimental harm to existing neighbouring amenities sufficient enough to warrant an Officers’ recommendation of refusal for this application.

 

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 refusal.

 

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Assistant Planner (BB) in respect of the application.

 

No updates had been circulated to Members in relation to this application.

 

Laura Head, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

Shaun Taylor, member of the public, spoke against the application.

 

Councillor John Cutting, Chairman of Little Clacton Parish Council, spoke against the application.

 

Councillor Jeff Bray, the Ward Member, spoke against the application.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer response thereto:-

Though enforcement was in place, the construction continued unabated. Would you say that was a fair assumption?

The Planning Enforcement Team have been involved with this application site but it is important to note that no formal stop notice has been issued but the applicant, to my understanding, has been previously advised to stop works by our enforcement team. We have had this application for a few months now but prior to that planning enforcement were involved.

How long a period of time has it been since the first moment of time when planning enforcement became involved?

I could not give a definite statement as to the amount of time but I believe it is around the two year mark.

Are there any issues with the air conditioning system that apply to this application, and which would subsequently affect the final decision?

To this point we have requested information on those pumps to understand what the impacts are, but we have not been provided with that information which is why it is included within the recommended refusal reason. It might be that they are perfectly okay and there is no significant harm to neighbours, but we just don’t have that information before us so that is why it is forming part of our recommended reasons for refusal.

So, they are not a material consideration for the application before us tonight?

That is incorrect. They are a material consideration for this application. We are saying that it has not been sufficiently demonstrated to us that they are not going to be significantly harmful. They might be harmful, they might not be harmful, but we just do not know. We have requested the information but sadly it has not been provided to us.  

So, it’s fair to say that TDC has requested this information, but it has not been forthcoming?

Yes, that is correct.

The Chairman of the Parish Council has brought up that this was built without any knowledge of the ways and means by which it was constructed. Do we have any evidence of that as it would be of some concern?

This would fall under Building Control so it is a separate matter to the planning system so I cannot really comment on that but it is not a material consideration for what is before you tonight.

Policy SPL3 – for the benefit of the public observing please could you explain what that policy means? Please abridge as it is a long text.

Part C, criteria (a) specifically, states that development will not have a materially damaging impact on the privacy, daylight or other amenities of occupiers of nearby properties.

No matter what happens here tonight, there is always room to take this to appeal. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct, any planning application that is refused the applicant has the right of appeal.

When planning enforcement approached the applicant would they have offered any assistance to the applicant such as a referral to Development Management?

In this situation the works that were built required planning permission, enforcement was informed and visited the site and explained the situation. As part of that process, they recommended that a planning application be submitted so that it could be fully determined. In that time the enforcement process essentially pauses whilst we undertake this assessment. Ultimately, if planning permission is granted then enforcement do not need to be involved beyond that point. Such a planning application has been submitted and that is what we are determining at this moment.

 

It was moved by Councillor Goldman, seconded by Councillor Alexanderand unanimously:-

 

 

RESOLVED that –

 

(a)     the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse planning permission subject to the reason(s) as set out below, or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including the appropriate Officer updates, so long as the principle of the reasons for refusal as referenced is retained.

 

“The size and scale of the side/rear extension, being 35.02m in length and with an overall height of 3.53m, will significantly protrude above the shared boundaries with Number 19 Harwich Road. This is a visually dominant addition that towers over the adjacent residential dwelling and their private amenity space, resulting in an oppressive and overbearing feature that in turn results in serious and detrimental harm to neighbouring existing amenity. Furthermore, 5no. heat pumps have been installed at the site on various structures that border the boundary with the neighbouring dwellings, and it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the units will not pose a serious noise nuisance to the adjacent residential dwellings. On a precautionary basis it must be assumed that these may risk noise impact that further harms amenity enjoyed by neighbours.

 

The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraphs 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 and Policy SP7 and SPL3 of Part 2 of the Adopted Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond to protect existing amenity enjoyed and is considered to be a poorly designed development.”

 

(b)     the applicant be sent any informative notes, as may be deemed necessary, by the Head of Planning and Building Control.

 

 

Supporting documents: