Agenda item

The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of one dwelling accessed via Mill Lane.

Councillor Land had earlier declared a personal interest in Planning Application 19/01157/FUL Land Adjacent Little Thatch, Mill Lane, Thorpe-Le-Soken CO16 0ED due to being the Ward Member and , in addition, the Chairman of Thorpe Parish Council.

Members were informed that the application  had been referred to the Planning Committee by Councillor Land due to his concerns that the proposed dwelling would cause highway impacts and other traffic issues, a negative impact on neighbours,  and harm the Conservation Area, it was also located on a public right of way and it was within a confined space. Additional comments had been received by email from Councillor Land, dated 26th August relating to a polluted waterway.

Officers stated that the application sought full planning permission for the erection of one dwelling accessed via Mill Lane.

The application site was located within the defined Settlement Development Boundary for Thorpe Le Soken, as defined by the Saved Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017).

Members were reminded that  a previous application for this site, planning application reference 18/00781/FUL, had been refused by the Planning Committee on the following grounds: impact upon neighbouring amenities – Little Thatch and Mill Lodge; the proposal was contrary to Saved Policy EN6 Biodiversity and EN6a ‘Protected Species; and the impact upon the setting of the Listed Building, Mill Barn Farm. The application  had subsequently been taken to appeal and dismissed on 25 July 2019. However, the sole reason for dismissing the appeal had related to coastal habitats in that the proposal had failed to provide a RAMs contribution. In all other respects the appeal scheme  had been considered acceptable by the Planning Inspector and the reasons for refusal had not been upheld.

The Committee recalled that the current resubmitted application had been due to have been  determined on 19 September 2019. However,  the Chairman of the Committee had decided that it be deferred for later consideration as a consequence of a late consultation response from ECC Ecology seeking a Great Crested Newt Survey for this site. In spring 2020, a Great Crested Newt Survey  had been provided by the applicant, which concluded that great crested newts (GCN)  were likely to be absent from all surveyed ponds within 250m of the site. ECC Ecology  had been re-consulted on the submitted Great Crested Newt Survey and had raised no objections, subject to conditions relating to biodiversity enhancement.

In conclusion, the previous appeal (reference APP/P1560/W/18/3213632)  had been dismissed on the single issue of a lack of a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) to address a RAMS contribution. This application had addressed this, a UU had now been completed to address the RAMS contribution. The principle of residential development in this location was acceptable to officers and subject to conditions there was not considered to be any material visual harm, harm to neighbouring amenities, harm to ecology and biodiversity, harm to heritage assets or highway safety.

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:

Corrections/Additions to Section 3 (Relevant Planning History) of the officer report (in bold):

In addition, the applicant’s agent had raised the following addition points in an email to officers. These points were responded to by Officers in italics under each item:

1. The report fails to mention the comments from the EA dated 17^th June (copy again enclosed) which made it clear that the EA had no further comment to make. This is different to the response stated on the agenda

Officer comment: Paragraph 6.45 of the officer report does state that the EA have no holding objection and have no further comments to make on the application. However, they did caveat this advice by advising that there are various requirements for use of a private system an tests that would need to be taken to ensure that such a system would not cause environmental issues including ground water pollution, which could include the need to seek an Environmental Permit. The granting of Planning Permission or Building Regulation approval does not guarantee the granting of an Environmental Permit.

2. My client has now engaged Kingspan (the manufacturer of Klargester) and Binder’s (the leading installers of package treatment plants within the region), who have both since inspected the site. They both confirm that the Biodisc system can be effectively installed on this site fully in accordance with the requirements of an Environmental Permit and under the Building Regulations. Further details are enclosed [these have been uploaded to the case file]. An infiltration test has been commissioned and the results will be available shortly.

Officer comment: agent comments noted, but this confirms that infiltration test results are still required to confirm that this form of private treatment works is appropriate.

3. I note that paragraph 6.46 of the report makes it clear that such matters are not relevant for the determination of the LPA. I am therefore surprised that the report continues by stating a condition in this respect would be necessary because of the local concerns!. Of course such comments fail to accord with the statements within the NPPG. Your clarification of the need for this condition is essential in order to avoid this matter being progressed to an appeal.

Officer comment: Officers do not consider it inappropriate or unreasonable to impose a condition (condition 19 in the recommendation) to seek agreement to the detailed foul water strategy for this site. As stated under 2 above, it is still uncertain that a private treatment works is viable and as such the LPA will need certainty on how any future dwelling would address foul water. It is fully understood that notwithstanding the granting of Planning Permission or Building Regulation approval that this does not guarantee the granting of an Environmental Permit. Informatives are also added to the recommendation setting out this additional requirement.

4. Paragraph 5.2 refers to an objection from EWT. Could you please explain why a further consultation was not sent to EWT enclosing the GCN report, which would clearly overcome their objection?

Officer Comment: It is understood EWT were reconsulted but no further comments have been received. As set out in the officer report, ECC Ecology did provide additional comments on the GCN Survey.

5. I must seriously question the allegation reported on the agenda from the neighbour regarding photos of shredded reptiles. I consider this statement to be wholly untrue and highly inappropriate that you have repeated such unsubstantiated comments on a public document. No photographs have been forwarded to me or my client, nor has any matter been investigated by others. I must insist that such comments are retracted without delay and the agenda corrected and apology sent to my client.

Officer Comment: This is a third party comment and it is not unreasonable for an officer report to refer to it in the summary of representations. Representations are placed in the public domain and the applicant/agent has every right to take these matters up directly with those who have made comments on the application.

6. In addition to my serious doubts regarding the imposition of Condition 19, I must question the purpose and relevance/ enforceability of conditions 8, 10, 13 and 14. Condition 8 is outside the application site and to which my client has no ownership or control. There is no ability for the Council to enforce this condition, notwithstanding the ability for the Council to demonstrate that any damage was caused by the applicant/developer. Similarly, Condition 11 is beyond the application site and is controlled by other legislation. An inspection of the site will show that the land has been entirely cleared bar the hedgerow along part of the southwestern boundary. Condition 14 is therefore entirely irrelevant. Condition 13 is also questionable as the hedgerow can be removed from my client’s land prior to the implementation of the planning permission. The inclusion of this condition can only result in confusion by the neighbour when the ability for the Council to enforce the condition proves to be impossible.

Officer Comment: With respect to condition 8 it is not considered unreasonable to require the applicant to make good and affect any repaire necessary to the surface or sub surface of Mill Lane which is a public right of way (Footpath no.11 Thorpe Le Soken). Condition 10 is required to ensure that the public right of way is maintained free and unobstructed at all times, which would seem to be a reasonable and necessary requirement. Condition 13 is considered reasonable and necessary to retain and protect the hedgerow along the common boundary and condition 14 relates to the same issue. The loss of the hedgerow between the site and ‘Little Thatch’ would change the relationship with the neighbouring property and the character of the site. In addition, the site lies (at least in part) within a Conservation Area and as such trees cannot be removed without consent.

Dr Kirstine Hansen, a local resident, spoke against the application.

Richard Everett, representing Thorpe Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Councillor Dan Land,  the local Ward Member, spoke against the application.

Peter Le Grys, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

(1)          Policy COM31A of Adopted Local Plan;

(2)          Essex County Council Design Guide 45 Degree Rule;

(3)          Loss of light/outlook to adjacent properties;

(4)          Clearance (12m) to thatched cottage (Little Thatch) (.