Agenda item

The application has been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Harris by virtue of the site being ‘backfill’ development, the site is outside the settlement boundary; the site is an unsustainable development with insufficient infrastructure; overdevelopment, the development would lead to unacceptable disturbance to neighbours; unacceptable access and highways issues; and there is no proven need for this type of property in an area that has already seen significant development.

 

The application relates to what is essentially the rear garden area of The Laurels, Parsonage Lane, Tending. The site is roughly ‘L’ in shape and approximately 0.2 hectares in size.  The Laurels is one of a variety of dwelling types in the locale which comprises detached and terraced two-storey, chalet and single-storey bungalows.  The Laurels is unique in terms of its rear garden which is of a significant size in comparison to any other dwelling in the settlement.

Councillor Harris had earlier in the meetingdeclared a personal interest in Planning Application 20/00822/FUL – The Laurels, Parsonage Lane, Tendring CO16 0DE due to being the Ward Member and Parish Councillor for Tendring Parish Council. Councillor Harris had called-in the application as a direct request for Tendring Parish Council, however he would speakas a Committee Member as he was not pre-determined.

 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Harris as Tendring Parish Council felt thatby virtue of the site being ‘backfill’ development, the site was outside the settlement boundary; the site was an unsustainable development with insufficient infrastructure; overdevelopment, the development would lead to unacceptable disturbance to neighbours; unacceptable access and highways issues; and there was no proven need for this type of property in an area that had already seen significant development.

 

It was reported that the application related to what was essentially the rear garden area of The Laurels, Parsonage Lane, Tending.  The site was roughly ‘L’ in shape and approximately 0.2 hectares in size.  The Laurels was one of a variety of dwelling types in the locale which comprised of detached and terraced two-storey, chalet and single-storey bungalows.  The Laurels was unique in terms of its rear garden which was of a significant size in comparison to any other dwelling in the settlement.

 

Members were advised that the site was centrally located within the Tendring Green Settlement Development Boundary as defined within both the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft 2017. The principle of residential development in this location was therefore acceptable subject to detailed design and impact considerations.

 

The application sought full planning permission for the erection of 3 detached three-bedroom detached single-storey bungalows, served by way of a single access providing access to a parking/turning area.  The dwellings were provided with surface parking and secure cycle-storage.

 

Officers felt that the proposal would not result in the loss of an area of public open space or safeguarded green space. The proposed bungalows were of a scale, design and appearance which was comparable with other bungalows in the vicinity.  The retention of the brick-built garage provided a significant degree of screening from the public domain.  The proposal would result in the loss of ten trees in total – the site did not benefit from any protection in the form of preservation orders, as such any trees could be removed without any consent required from the Local Planning Authority.  Two of these trees were damaged/dangerous having limited life expectancy, five were small fruit trees and the remaining three were not mature or established specimens – all mature, established trees on the site were to remain and offer a significant verdant backdrop to the site.  The proposed dwellings were single storey and located sufficient distances from neighbouring dwellings so as not to result in a material loss of residential amenities. The new dwellings and retained dwelling were served by private garden areas and parking that accorded with the Council’s standards.

 

The proposed development was in a location supported by Local Plan policies and would not result in any material harm to the character of the area, residential amenities or highway safety.

 

The application was therefore recommended for approval by Officerssubject to conditions and the completion of the required legal agreement.

 

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 and the completion of the required legal agreement.

 

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (AC) in respect of the application.

 

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:

 

Updates and further clarification on sections of the officer report as follows:

 

            1.0       Executive Summary

1.1       The application has been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Harris on behalf of Tendring Parish Council.

 

1.7       Clarification of the recommendation.

Recommendation: That the Head of Planning be authorised to grant planning permission for the development subject to:- Subject to the conditions stated in section 8.2

 

            5.0       Representations

                        Expansion on the nature of objections:-

Drainage	No mains sewage on Parsonage Lane; only a communal sewer   Are the gardens big enough for sub-surface irrigation systems   It has not been demonstrated that surface water runoff from the site can be adequately dealt with without increasing localised flooding   several local properties relying on septic tanks with soakaway beds	The application form states that there is a main sewer on Parsonage Lane.   As this application is not defined as a ‘major development’ the requirement to incorporate a sustainable drainage system is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.
Pollution	Smell - As there is no mains sewer in Parsonage Lane, it is likely there will be three additional septic tanks that will need emptying.   Parking will increase pollution levels in the immediate surroundings.         Light - Light intrusion into the back of Fir Tree Lodge will significantly increase.	The application form states that there is a main sewer on Parsonage Lane.     The number of vehicular movements in association with the property was not objected to by Environmental Protection.   Plot 3’s flank elevation faces the rear of Fir Tree Lodge at a distance of 39m; this elevation contains one window which serves a bedroom.  The light overspill resulting from this dwelling is not considered to have a materially damaging impact on the amenity of this adjoining property.   The plans make no reference to security lights.

 

The Parish Council’s objection are now highlighted in bold:-

Nature of objection	No. of Comments received	Where in the report this is addressed
The site is outside the settlement boundary	14	Paragraphs 6.11 to 6.12
Backland form of development	14	Paragraphs 6.19 to 6.23
Harm the amenity of neighbours (noise)	13	Paragraph 6.33
Ecology/Protected Species	15	Paragraphs 6.27 to 6.29
Vehicle access	16	Paragraphs 6.24 to 6.26
Not a sustainable location	15	Paragraph 6.11 to 6.12
Out of keeping/cramped development	6	Paragraphs 6.15 to 6.18
Decrease property values	1	This is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application
Loss of a garden	1	Paragraph 6.32
Drainage	6	As this application is not defined as a ‘major development’ the requirement to incorporate a sustainable drainage system is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.
Sufficient housing exists	5	This is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application
Loss of privacy	1	Paragraph 6.33
Speed limit	6	Paragraph 6.26
Removal of the garage	1	Paragraph 6.10
Pollution	1	Paragraph 6.33
Loss of outlook	5	There is no "right to a view" which planning controls should seek to safeguard for the continuing benefit of an existing landowner, except where the view from a particular location is also a valued public asset. This was underlined by the judgement in Wood-Robinson v Secretary of State for the Environment (1998).
Security	1	It is the applicant’s personal choice to have part of their garden un-enclosed; this is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.
Construction Noise	4	Noise generated during construction is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.

 

6.0       Assessment

            Principle of Development and the Settlement Boundary

The application site was located within the Tendring Green Settlement Boundary within the adopted local plan.  The Emerging Plan indicated that Tendring Green would be taken out of the Settlement Boundary.  The emerging plan was yet to pass through the full examination process; furthermore, the change to the settlement boundary as proposed was the subject of an unresolved objection.  As such limited weight could be attributed to the plan to remove Tendring Green from the settlement boundary. 

            Highways

            The speed limit along Parsonage Lane was confirmed as 40mph.

 

ECC Ecology raise no objection to the application subject to securing:

a) A proportionate financial contribution towards effective visitor management measures in line with Essex Coast RAMS; and

b) Ecological mitigation and biodiversity enhancements

 

Summary

 

ECC Ecology reviewed the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Great Crested Newt Survey (Robson Ecology, June 2020) relating to the likely impacts of development on designated sites, protected species and Priority species & habitats and mitigation measures to minimise impacts.

 

ECC Ecology were satisfied that there was sufficient ecological information available for determination. This provided certainty for the LPA of the likely impacts on protected and Priority species & habitats and, with appropriate mitigation measures secured, the development could be made acceptable.

 

ECC Ecology noted that Tendring DC prepared a project level HRA Appropriate Assessment which identified that the development was approximately 5.4km from the Hamford Water SAC, SPA and Ramsar site. Therefore this site lied within the Zone of Influence (ZOI) for the Essex Coast RAMS and delivery of mitigation measures in perpetuity would therefore be necessary to ensure that this proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the above Habitats sites from recreational disturbance, when considered ‘in combination’ with other plans and projects. We also noted that Tendring DC would secure the Essex Coast RAMS contribution of £125.58 per dwelling under a legal agreement.

 

ECC Ecology were satisfied that the mitigation measures identified in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Great Crested Newt Survey (Robson Ecology, June 2020) were appropriate and necessary to make the development acceptable. Recommend that these should be secured by a condition of any consent and implemented in full. This was necessary to conserve and enhance protected and Priority Species.

 

The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Great Crested Newt Survey (Robson Ecology, June 2020) identified a single tree (T13), adjacent to the site boundary, and proposed for retention, which had suitability for roosting bats. Neighbour comments suggested that bats do roost in this tree. As the tree was to be retained, and was off-site, the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Great Crested Newt Survey (Robson Ecology, June 2020) confirms that this tree “would not be impacted by the proposed development if a sensitive lighting scheme is implemented”. ECC Ecology therefore recommended that a wildlife sensitive lighting scheme was secured by a condition of any consent.

 

Neighbour comments also identified that there was an additional pond, adjacent to the site boundary, which had not been assessed for Great Crested Newts, and supported an unidentified species of newt. However, the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Great Crested Newt Survey (Robson Ecology, June 2020) identified that the pond on-site supports substantial number of smooth newts, and it was therefore considered likely that any adjacent ponds with newts, were also likely to contain smooth newts. Additionally, the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Great Crested Newt Survey (Robson Ecology, June 2020) posed that the majority of the site was closely mown amenity grassland, and was considered unlikely to support Great Crested Newts.

 

However, there were records of Grass Snakes within 200m of the site, and neighbour objections stated that Grass Snakes had been identified in adjacent gardens, and the site was considered suitable for hedgehogs and foxes. With the exception of foxes, these species were protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) from killing and all reptiles and Hedgeghog were also listed as Priority species under s41 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

 

Given the suitability of the off-site tree (T13) for roosting bats, and the identification of suitability for several Priority species on-site, ECC Ecology therefore recommended that a Biodiversity Mitigation Method Statement was secured as a condition of any consent. This should include detailed mitigation measures to ensure that any wildlife likely to enter the construction footprint were not harmed during the construction phase of the development.

Additionally, as the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Great Crested Newt Survey (Robson Ecology, June 2020) identified that New Zealand Pgymyweed and Wall Cotoneaster were present onsite, an Invasive Non-Native Species Protocol should also be secured as a condition of any consent. This should include details for the removal of these species, and detailed biosecurity measures.

 

The Proposed Site Plan (Medusa Design, November 2019) identified that a number of trees on the development site would be removed to facilitate the development. However the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Great Crested Newt Survey (Robson Ecology, June 2020) included biodiversity enhancements, which had been recommended to secure measurable net gains for biodiversity, as outlined under Paragraph 170d of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. This included the planting of native species rich boundary hedgerow, log piles and bird and bat boxes. ECC Ecology also recommended that further enhancements, such as re-instation of a pond onsite, and wildlife friendly fencing could be included in the proposals. The reasonable biodiversity enhancement measures should be outlined within a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy which should be secured as a condition of any consent. If there is uncertainty that the development can secure 10% Net Gain for Biodiversity, as the Neighbour comments suggested, then the Biodiveristy Metrics 2.0 could be completed to demonstrate this. However, these metrics were still in Beta version, and were more suitable for use in Major developments and there was currently no requirement for a specific percentage as proposed in the Environment Bill which was still making its way through Parliament. The NPPF (2019) required measurable net gain for biodiversity and a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy was an appropriate mechanism to secure this for all development. This would enable LPA to demonstrate its compliance with its statutory duties including its biodiversity duty under s40 NERC Act 2006. Impacts would be minimised such that the proposal was acceptable subject to the conditions below based on BS42020:2013. Submission for approval and implementation of the details below should be a condition of any planning consent.

 

Recommended conditions:

 

1. ACTION REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL RECOMMENDATIONS

 

“All mitigation and enhancement measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance

with the details contained in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Great Crested Newt

Survey (Robson Ecology, June 2020) as already submitted with the planning application and

agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination. This may include the appointment of an appropriately competent person e.g. an ecological clerk of works (ECoW,) to provide on-site ecological expertise during construction. The appointed person shall undertake all activities, and works shall be carried out, in accordance with the approved details.”

 

Reason: To conserve and enhance Protected and Priority species and allow the LPA to

discharge its duties under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as

amended), the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended and s40 of the NERC Act 2006

(Priority habitats & species).

 

2. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT: RESTRICTIONS ON OPERATIONS INVOLVING INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES

 

“An invasive non-native species protocol shall be submitted to and approved by the local

planning authority. This shall include details of the containment, control and removal of the

New Zealand Pygmyweed and Wall Cottoneaster present on site. The works shall be carried

out strictly in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained in that manner

thereafter.”

 

Reason: To allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Environmental Protection Act Duty of Care Regulations 1991

 

3. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT: BIODIVERSITY METHOD STATEMENT

 

“No development shall take place (including any demolition, ground works, site clearance)

until a Biodiversity Method Statement for Protected and Priority species has been submitted

to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The content of the method statement shall include the following:

a) purpose and objectives for the proposed works;

b) detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) necessary to achieve stated objectives

(including, where relevant, type and source of materials to be used);

c) extent and location of proposed works shown on appropriate scale maps and plans;

d) timetable for implementation, demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of construction;

e) persons responsible for implementing the works;

f) initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant);

g) disposal of any wastes arising from works.

The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and shall be

retained in that manner thereafter.”

 

Reason: To conserve protected and Priority species and allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended, s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species) and s17 Crime & Disorder Act 1998.

 

4. PRIOR TO SLAB LEVEL: BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY

 

“A Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy for Protected and Priority species shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

 

The content of the Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy shall include the following:

a) Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed enhancement measures;

b) detailed designs to achieve stated objectives;

c) locations of proposed enhancement measures by appropriate maps and plans;

d) persons responsible for implementing the enhancement measures;

e) details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant).

The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained in that manner thereafter.”

 

Reason: To enhance Protected and Priority Species/habitats and allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species).

 

5. PRIOR TO OCCUPATION: WILDLIFE SENSITIVE LIGHTING DESIGN SCHEME

“A lighting design scheme for biodiversity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall identify those features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance along important routes used for foraging; and show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans, lsolux drawings and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent bats using their territory. This should also demonstrate how any lighting required during the construction phase of the development will not affect features sensitive for wildlife. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set

out in the scheme and maintained thereafter in accordance with the scheme. Under no

circumstances should any other external lighting be installed without prior consent from the

local planning authority.”

 

Reason: To allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended and s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species)

 

Late papers were submitted by the Agent’s; these were appended to the update sheet.

 

Ellie Kellett, a local resident, spoke against the application.

 

Parish Councillor Ted Edwards, representing Tendring Parish Council, spoke against the application.

 

Jack Wilkinson, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

During the Committee’s debate on this application, Members discussed and asked questions on the following matters:-

 

 

Matter raised by a Committee Member:-	Officer Response thereto:-
Query regarding the proposed drainage system.	Confirmation that the site followed a mains drainage system.
Query regarding the side elevation which in the original application Essex County Council had referenced a 5.5 metre measurement.	Clarification that this was in relation to the width of the main road in order to support highway regulations. Previously the width of the access in regards to the width of the road had been turned down.
Query regarding the social sustainability of the application.	Confirmation that the site currently lies within the designated settlement area of ‘Tendring Green’ within the adopted Local Plan. The emerging Local Plan does not provide a settlement designation for Tendring Green but this is subject to unresolved objections and will need to be tested at the Part 2 Local Plan Examination and can be attributed limited weight at this time.
Query regarding the consultation response of the Essex Wildlife Trust.	Confirmed that the EWT had not responded within the eight week statutory period that had commenced in July. However, ECC Ecology  had submitted a representation on 17 November 2020 which had stated that in relation to the ecological appraisal the Ecology Report was sufficiently detailed to confirm that there was no harm to current or adjoining sites however, ECC Ecology had proposed a number of conditions relating to pre-commencement work.
Concerns regarding light pollution.	Confirmed that there would be an increase in light pollution along the access road and within the site,  however this was deemed to be at a level that would be acceptable in terms of residential amenities.
Query whether Planning Policy RA4 was applicable to this application.	Policy RA4 of the adopted Local Plan relates to housing development within ‘defined villages’ of which ‘Tendring Green’ is defined as an ‘other defined village’ where housing development could take the form of infilling development for up to 3 dwellings.
Query whether pedestrians would be able to use a pavement or would have to walk on the road and also whether there was street lighting in the interests of public safety.	Confirmed that pedestrians would have to walk in the road and that no street lighting had been proposed.
Query whether there would be an increase in noise pollution from delivery vehicles attending the new properties.	Confirmed that there would be a small increase in noise pollution but that the amount would depend on the numerical reoccurrences of deliveries.
Query regarding the dimensions of the roadway. ECC suggested 5.5m which could then be reduced to 4.7m.	Confirmed that the reduced width of the main road set the parameters for the first 6m of access road due to being lower than the recognised standard. Standards were typically 5.5m, the reduction to 4.7 in this application was due to the road width.
Query regarding the drainage and sewerage systems.	Confirmed the application would require a foul drainage assessment of the alternate system if it were not connected to a mains drainage system.

 

Following thediscussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Alexander and RESOLVED that consideration of the application be deferred on the following grounds:

 

(1)    to allow for further clarification to be obtainedon the means of foul drainage from the site and whether it would be to a public or private sewer system; and

(2)    in order to allow a ECC Highways Officer to attend to respond to highway specific matters that might be raised by the Committee.