Agenda item

Report of Corporate Director (Planning and Community) - A.2 - Planning Application 26/00874/PIP - Land east of 3 Orchard View, Wivenhoe Road, Alresford, CO7 8BD

Application for Permission in Principle - One self-build dwelling.

Minutes:

Earlier on in the meeting, as detailed under minute 26 above, Councillor Wiggins had declared for the public record, in relation to this application that she was one of the Ward Members, and she had confirmed that she was not pre-determined on this application.

 

Councillor Scott, who was present in the public gallery, had also declared for the public record, in relation to this application that he was one of the Ward Members.

 

It was reported that this application sought ‘Permission in Principle’ for the erection of one self-build dwelling. The scope of consideration was limited to the location, land use and amount of development proposed.

 

The Committee was informed that the application site was located within the defined Settlement Development Boundary of Alresford, where residential development was supported in principle by the adopted Tendring District Local Plan and the Alresford Neighbourhood Plan. Having regard to the site's sustainable location and the scale of development proposed the principle of development was considered by Officers to be acceptable.

 

The proposal was considered by Officers to accord with Policies SP3, SPL1, SPL2 and LP7 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond, together with Policy ALRES1 of the Alresford Neighbourhood Plan. Officers had therefore recommended the application for approval.

 

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 (CC) in respect of the application.

 

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

 

No member of the public had registered to speak on this application.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

Is a PIP application similar to an outline planning application?

Yes, it is similar, but it is more limited in scope. Under an outline application, the applicant will have the opportunity to submit some details if they want to such as access. But with a Permission in Principle, we are only allowed to consider location, land use and the amount.

Under the new Regulations, presumably because this is a TDC Officer’s application any next stage(s) applications would still come before the Committee for determination?

In terms of the new legislation, any “own interest” applications (i.e. applications that are on TDC land or submitted by an officer or Member of the Council) would automatically need to be considered by the Nominated Member and the Nominated Officer who would determine, on its individual merits, whether it would fall to be determined by an Officer or by the Committee. It would be highly likely that it would be referred to the Committee in the interests of openness and transparency but that could not be guaranteed as that decision cannot be pre-determined.

I understood it to be the case that an “own interest” application would fall into Schedule 2 and therefore would come to the Committee automatically.

It’s correct to say that it would fall into Schedule 2. However, all Schedule 2 applications need to be considered by the Nominated Member and the Nominated Officer who would determine its determination route. The only difference between “own interest” applications and other Schedule 2 applications is that “own interest” applications do not have to considered against the two tests set out in the Regulations.

The area outlined for development seems to be a rather odd shape. Why is that?

The whole site currently serves as a garden to number 3 Orchard View. It is legally garden use. The intention is to allow the land not built on to become the garden for the new property without the need to apply for planning permission to do so and would be a civil matter of ownership rather than a planning matter.

Under the relevant history section of the report, I note that it states that there is a legal agreement in relation to RAMS that’s already completed. How is that so if this application has not been determined?

It’s a draft Section 106 obligation that has not yet been “signed off”. It will only be at the point that permission is granted that the landowners will sign the obligation and it will bind the land in question.

 

After the debate, it was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Goldmanand unanimously:-

 

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant permission in principle.

Supporting documents: