Agenda item

Proposed 3 bedroom bungalow to land to the side of 85 Salisbury Road.

It was reported that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Winfield, a local Ward Member.

Members recalled that this site had been subject of a previous application for the same development under planning application 18/02072/FUL which had had an Officer recommendation of approval at Planning Committee on 11 June 2019. That application had been refused due to the narrow plot width being considered to create a cramped appearance, not appropriate in its setting, and which would appear out of character in terms of its siting to the serious detriment of the immediate street scene and character of the area.

Members were informed that that application had been subject of an appeal which had been dismissed on 13 December 2019 and that the reason for dismissal had been on a legal technicality in relation to a failure to secure the necessary mitigation for the effect of the proposed development on the European designated habitat sites (RAMS). Whilst a Unilateral Undertaking had been provided to secure the necessary financial contribution it had not been signed and as such it had no legal effect and could not be taken into account. In all other respects the Planning Inspector had been satisfied that the proposed development would not have harmed the character and appearance of the area or the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring properties and as such would not be in conflict with adopted Local Plan policies.

Members were further informed that given the appeal decision and subject to the applicant entering into a Unilateral Undertaking to secure financial contributions towards the Essex Coast Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) and Open Space requirements, the application was considered acceptable in terms of scale, layout and appearance.

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 Team Leader (TF) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of two additional letters of objection.

Chris Pitak, a local resident, spoke against the application.

Councillor Winfield, a local Ward Member, spoke against the application.

James Thomas, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Following discussion by the Committee and consideration of advice provided by Officers it was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Placey and RESOLVED that, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval, the Head of Planning (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the development for the following reasons:-

·        Contrary to Policies HG6, HG9, HG14, QL9, COM1 and QL1

·        Narrow plot width

·        Dwelling creates a cramped appearance that is not appropriate in its setting and which appears out of character in terms of its siting to the serious detriment of the immediate street scene and character of the area / neighbouring properties.