You can read the committee agenda here: https://tdcdemocracy.tendringdc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=162&MId=2372&Ver=4
this committee meeting is being broadcast live it is also being recorded and the link to the live stream can be found on the council’s website www. tendering dc.gov dolive meetings for the purpose of the recording I will introduce everyone I’m councelor Maria Fowler I’m the chairman of the planning committee and I will introduce the committee members separately councelor Morris Alexander good evening chairman councelor Bernie Goldman good evening chairman councelor Linda McWilliams good evening chairman councelor Gita sudra good evening chair and my vice chairman councelor John White good evening chairman the council officers assisting us this evening from committee Services Bethany Jones and Maddie adgar from leadership support and from planning Services Jacob yasma Oliver Ashton Michael pingram and our planning manager John pman G our director of planning Gary Gyver and our planning solicitor Mrs Joanne Fischer there are no changes to this evening’s running order on the agenda as printed the application will be presented by the officer followed by public speaking in the order of the applicant or agent any members of the public who have already asked to speak for or against the application a speaker from the town or Parish Council and finally the ward member members of the committee will then have the chance to question the officer and once all questions are answered the committee will then debate and all the points are discussed finally I shall ask if we have a resolution and then call for a proposer seconder and the committee will then vote according to our normal rules item one on the agenda apologies for absence and substitutions Bethany please thank you chair I have received apologies from councilors ett Smith and Wiggins with no substitutions thank you Bethany item two minutes of the last meeting which was Tuesday the 14th of May 2024 and if you’ve all had a look at these minutes members if I could have a proposer and a seconder please councilor Alexander proposed councelor Goldman second in if I could have a show of hands for acceptance of these minutes thank you excuse me item three Declarations of of Interest are there any councelor MC Williams um chairman I would like to be excused from this next application thank you thank you councilor MC Williams item four questions on notice pursuant to council procedure rule 38 Bethany are there any thank you chair there are any questions thank you very much item five is our first application this evening which is A1 23 stroke 01 699 stroke UT which is the land to the south of Colchester Road freighting and as councelor William McWilliams has just said she will be leaving the room for this item and to present this item to us this evening our officer Michael pingram thank you Michael thank you chairman and good evening members um yes so the application site is located along the southern section of culer Road within the Parish of freighting um the application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of new commercial premises which would be occupied by Dela limited following their relocation from their existing base Clon on SE the application is in outline form with only access to be considered um and that access will be via culture road to the north um the indicative plans uh provided show that the building would have an approximate footprint of 7,200 Square met this would be split um between Factory use which would be approximately 70% and office use which is 30% there would also be 153 parking spaces so in terms of to the site itself um this is the site location plan the site highlighted in red here um you can see the the main roundabout to the right hand side there with my lasers pointing and this is probably a better image from Google so that you you can see that um it’s located along um culer Road just to the South here the the character um to the northern side of culer road is um quite heavily um urbanized with predominantly commercial industrial development but some Residential Properties clearly the land to the South um has a different character far more rural um just large Open Fields or agricultural land the site Falls adjacent to but outside the settlement boundary for frighting within the local plan um and the land to the north is allocated as an employment site but not the application site itself so I know you visited the site this morning but just to run through a couple of photos um just to re familiarize yourself with the site this is a a photo facing south towards the site from across the road uh this is another one just looking Southwest across the site so you can see it’s just a large open plot of land currently here’s another image which essentially shows the same thing but just from a slightly different angle and then just this one here just sort of shows you up along culture the road and you can see just broadly in the distance where the proposed access would be so um this is just the uh proposed block plan um it’s worth pointing out at this stage the application is outline only um with um access being the only matter being considered so the layout you’re seeing is purely indicative um it’s not necessarily going to look like that within any future Reserve matters application but it’s just to give you an idea of how it could look um and the main built form is to sort of the sort Southeastern corner where I’m highlighting Now parking provision would be to the the northeast corner and a sort of landscape buffer uh to the front here uh this is um an access plan so as I say the access is um to be considered as part of this application um it’ll be a new access point um across the road from the existing access to Manheim auctions um and there’s also other improvements proposed including a new 1.8 meter wide footway that will link from the west of the site um it um connect from the Manheim uh access here all the way down the road to to the penguin house access um the existing footway to the east of the site where I’m hovering now that would be widened as well to 1.8 m and although it might not be completely clear on this plan there’s a couple of um bus stops on roughly where I’m hovering now as well and then the final image is just to show you um an artistic impression of the site again just to highlight it is in indicative this is not necessarily how it would look it’s just how it could look to give you a better understanding so in terms of the assessment of the application if we start with the principle development um as I said before the site does fall outside of assment boundary um and is also not designated for employment uses however policy pp7 is is clear that in such circumstances due regard must be given to the potential of a development to support economic growth within the district so bearing that in mind um on this occasion the company is a successful local business with operations based in Clapton specifically across two sites within Ford Road and gors Lane and they’re becoming they’re considered to have reached the end of their natural life cycle the operation is becoming increasingly uh inefficient and um is not cost effective so um as such officers acknowledge that a fit forp purpose premises in a more suitable location does allow for the continued growth of the company given this and the additional um employment opportunities and the consolidation of the existing employment within the district they are considered to be clear economic benefits um as well as an increased commercial offering within the district these benefits are enhanced by the fact that the existing buildings could also be re reused for commercial uses as well so within the overall balance and we will get to the um the um positives versus the harm um but within that overall balance um officers do afford great weight to the uh economic benefits of the scheme in terms of the local landscape character the site is within the Bromley heaths landscape character area plans submitted as I said before are indicative but they do show that the two-story Factory building would be located in the Southeast with parking to the Northeast and in the front area um to include a landscape buffer such a development will inevitably res in some level of harm to the area’s existing character which on this side of the road is more rural in nature however officers equally acknowledge that to the north of the site is a large area of employment uses and Associated built form against this context um the proposed building while large would not necessarily be out of keeping with the area’s broader character the building would be well set set back within the site which allows for significant levels of soft Landscaping um to the front sections um which officers would support as it um will help the works uh better assimilate within the more uh rural character of the uh on this side of cult the road um so therefore on balance new industrial buildings in this location would have a limited impact on on the landscape character and visual harm in the long term uh the effects would be mainly limited to the local area and it is considered that although the proposals would have some level of um adverse impact to the landscape setting over time the visual impact would soften um with uh the uh maturity of the existing amp opposed vegetation um so again going back to that that balance we have the economic B benefits which officers afford strong weight to and then you have the impact the character of the area officers for as I’ve just sort of describe we there’s a limited harm so in in the balance we consider there’s quite significant economic benefits and relatively limited um harm to the character of the area um in in other areas um Essex highways have been consulted um they’re not raising any objections subject to conditions um Essex parking standards would require for the for the indicative layout of what we’ve been shown we would require 144 spaces um the 153 that have been provided therefore are acceptable um in terms of impact on neighbors um it’s it’s quite some distance to these neighbors over here approximately 150 maybe even 200 meters um to the northwest noise impact assessment has been provided and that has concluded that the um the noise emissions from the most intensive use of the facility would be negligible uh the council’s Environmental Protection Team have been consulted and that they agree with those findings in terms of um drainage uh the application was support has been supported by a flood risk assessment and drainage strategy this confirms that the site Falls within um flood zone one um and the proposal is a less vulnerable use um and is not considered to be at risk from plal flooding or reservoirs um it it concludes that surface water rate of runoff should be reduced by the works and foul water will be stored within the site and taken away via a private tanker ess6 SS have been consulted and they’ve not raised any objections subject to conditions and the environment a agency have also raised no objections um it is worth pointing out that they did um make a suggestion that there is a private connection to a public foul uh sewer at the auctions across the road um that they suggested could be explored um I discussed this with the agent for the application and they confirmed that this um option they were aware of this but it’s been discounted on the grounds um the costs associated with it and that it would actually not be that much of a sustainable option due to the need for constant power supply um final other matters just to sort of clarify um a pre preliminary ecological appraisal has been submitted um Essex count ecology um have confirmed they’re satisfied that um there is sufficient ecological information available and they’ve not raised any objections um to the finding subject to conditions the council’s tree and Landscape officer has confirmed the development will not be harmful to any existing trees and the uh the small loss of hedro to facilitate the access can be remediated with new planting so in summary the application seeks outline permission with all matters reserved bar access uh for the erection of commercial unit measuring 7,200 square meters the relocation um of the site from its current base in clacton would facilitate the expansion of a successful local business and generate significant economic benefits um while the proposal is in outline form it’s considered that the indicative layout scale and design um shown would be acceptable uh there would be no significant harm to neighbor amenities um no harm to existing trees and as I’ve said um Essex highways ecology and SS environment agency none of them have raised any objections um there will as I said be inevitably inevitably be a degree of harm to landscape character um but for the reasons I’ve already outlined we’ve given a low level of weight to that so in conclusion um where where officers are Fallen is that there’s significant benefits in terms of economic benefits and a low level of um harm to the character of the area um so taking this into consideration The Proposal is considered to comply with uh local and National planning policies um thank you very much thank you Michael we have one speaker registered for this item a member of the public speaking against the application Mr Christopher Walpole Mr Walpole if you’d like to take a seat there where the microphone is and when you’re ready push the button in the middle and when the red light comes on you have three minutes okay thank you for allowing me to speak this evening I’ll be as quick and prompt as I possibly can I’m here as a member of The freighting freighting Village member of the public and I wish to object personally to this application um the reason being that we looking at this is 4.5 hectares and I know that it may not be required in a full concentation because it’s not over 20 hectares or more but nonetheless when we look at the local area and the amount of Farmland where lost and bear in mind this is top grade f one Farmland it has a significant impact in the local area without any Shadow of Doubt in an area that is a significant Market guarding and a growing Market guarding area we’ve lost enough Farmland good Farmland in the area and Del Plastics I don’t believe carried out enough due diligence with this looking to relocate we have Centurion Park which is a significant site with lots of vacant buildings there which may well be suitable we also have further up the harage Gateway brandfield sites that are up for development not many miles away I don’t know why we’re really looking at grade one Farmland at all for f further development um something I would like to add very quickly here and I hope it is significant and relevant is that the company concerned has previously secured a suitable site and then so choose to sell it off for development um I hope that is relevant now I don’t think we’ve had enough of an environmental impact analysis there’s a keen bird watcher the area is prevalent with skylikes birds of prey only last week I saw a red kite hovering in the area and also a number of bats which are struggling we’ve had habitats these days that area is significantly important it may only be a small area as you quote a Farmland but is a significant area of Farmland um and one that’s really important from the environmental and ecological aspect and finally the problems we occurred this winter in the fighting area of flooding were absolutely acute where I live in hager’s Lane the water was backing up for weeks on end and coming up onto the Pau areas as it was many of the houses in hagger lane and part of the key driver of that has been the penguin development opposite so I’m very very concerned over the impact this is going to have on local residents and frating we may be a mile further down the road but I still think when you look at the temps waterer sewage layout and excess water there will be a significant impact we can’t stand anymore building in this area because of the water run off and sewage is just not able to cope um and standing it is something like a six diameter pipe that runs from freighting into the main sewer via the pumping station again I think we need to have a full report which we are awaiting for manga water to the whole village over three minutes now okay thank you very much for allowing me to speak thank you thank you very much uh Mr pingram is there anything that mentioned by the speaker that you’d like to come back on um there were some points but I think I’ll just wait for the discussion and um if members fill the need to ask specific questions I’ll answer them thank you members over to you questions for the officer councelor sudra thank you chair so um my question is around the access and the Pavements on the main road do you say that they will be made good in front of the bus stop etc for easy access and I’m sort of talking about wheelchairs disability vehicles thank you thank you yeah um so part of The Proposal is it doesn’t quite show it on on this might better if I go to the next one um on the opposite side of the road um where there’s an existing uh footway that’s going to be extended to connect with the footway further down the road and on the right hand side of that access um it will be widened so what there’ll be is 1.8 meters in width so um yes they will be improved um is essentially the answer there um within the site there’s also proposed here again just indicative but from the um the car parking area there is a footway that’s going to connect to where the bus stops are proposed and there’s also footways just there I hope you can see where I’m hovering on the screen but um yeah yeah so there will be Tac level not just left as grassland as it is at the moment yeah my understanding is yet that they they new footways so yes Council W thank you chairman um mine question is on this drainage I know this is the outline permission and um so presumably all the full details of drainage will come in the main application if it gets to that stage um as far as our last speaker is concerned my understanding I correct me if I’m wrong at the present moment this building if it goes ahead won’t have or shouldn’t have any bearing on the drainage for the rest of Arley because there’ll be a surface water drain for the building itself uh which will go to the local ditches once it’s pass the pond and um the foul water will be dealt with by taking away by tanker so I don’t think if I got it right that this building should have the effect on the rest of freighting so I’d like the officer to confirm that and are we right that we have to wait really to the full application at the present moment there are notes Here so saying that uh it’s not yet 100% decided thank you yes so in terms of the uh surface water drainage um to where I’m hovering to the bottom left hand corner there’s an attenuation um Basin there and if I just go to a different slide um might be about that one um you can see that the red line actually then connects down so the water will then be assimilated there and fed into the the ditch specifically how it works I’m not an expert but um that is the plan um again just to clarify it is an indicative layout so in theory that that could change but I’m guessing by the fact that the red line is right there there’s no reason why that would um that would change um and in in terms to answer your question about the sort of surface water drainage um s6s UDS and um the environment agency have haven’t raised any objections with that um my understanding is it wouldn’t um worsen any existing problems that there might be um same with foul foul water I think what you said is is right it will be taken off by a tanker so um that that would be yeah removed from the site um and then also just to add that um conditions 11 and 18 of the recommendation um actually require full details to be submitted alongside the um the future Reserve matters application should you recommend approval this evening thank you thank you Michael um councelor Alexander thank you chair I minded to be careful that I don’t slide into Reserve Matters from what we are looking at now which is outlin but I have just wanted to question questions if I may the first question that I have is there is a oh you have the block plan up that’s good um there is a public foot way there will this in any way affect the use of the public footway would Ingress and exit from the work site um yes so as I was saying before the um part of The Proposal is is to improve the existing um footway provision so it’s not going to impact it’s actually going to improve that position forgive me I must have misled you I do apologize what I was trying to get at here is during the construction module and the Ingress and the exit from the work side will there be disturbance on the public footpath um I think I probably prefer you to condition 13 which uh would require construction methodology and timetable that would be submitted alongside Reserve matters application so they would go into detail about the exact construction works and how it how how it would actually operate at that that stage so I don’t have those details before me but um equally I don’t see why why it would necessitate um issues with the existing footpath during construction um chair I think that is that is something that we could look at when it comes back to us or if indeed it does come back before this committee um as I rate that as quite important and then the second thing I would like to bring up my M Jam is the on the cus at this morning we were told that was a septic tank I was sort of under the understanding that may be a biomass or suage um construction there could you tell me what exactly will they be dealing with the uh the sewage and I know it’s going out by tanker incidentally because I are holding tanks in these things but please explain that to me before you answer that um Mr pingram I’m just going to bring in our planning manager here just for minute Mr pman G thank you um just going back to your access question and actually I might come on to your sewage question in a second um going back to the access question uh in terms of public foot paath the public right way that’s available is great Bentley 2 which is on the far side that wouldn’t be affected by this development at all it’s too far away are you referring to the access point of vehicle access point to the development itself disrupting return question thank you you’ve answered my question right thank you okay no problem okay so it was that I’ve got it on screen here but that’s good thank you thank you appreciate that um obviously access is part of this outline so the point of access uh for the vehicular and pedestrian access for which there are obviously two points shown the vehicle access on the on the left hand side and and and The Pedestrian point of access uh in the center they are right now part of this conversation the layout Beyond those access points the drive the car parking area and all the other bits and pieces that are shown on that indicative plan are to show that it’s there’s a scheme possible but not necessarily is it that scheme so at an outline stage we have to kind of consider is there at least one scheme that’s possible and they’re saying this is one such scheme that is possible and we’re not disagreeing as officers hence the recommendation of approval um but there may be alternative schemes so ultimately when it comes to the reserve matters which is the uh Landscaping the uh layout uh scale and so on uh all of those matters uh will be uh up for consideration when that application comes along sewage is not a reserve matter so what we’ve got here are conditions within your uh papers to consider those in any event we’re making them in effect Reserve matters because we want to have those issues considered at the point that the reserve matters come along so they are not normally but in this case we said actually we want to know about the surface water drainage uh and all of those other Associated matters and that is what is in your recommendation um foul water sewage I’m not aware that we have a Pacific condition on that but we do great thank you I missed that I’ll find it in a minute uh but we’ve got that anyway uh but just to also point out that Anglia water are content that there is sufficient capacity uh for this development uh and obviously in their judgment they’re judging the size or potential maximum size of the development on the area they’ve got before them thank you thank you Mr pman G councelor Alexander once again Mr pman G has given the full and robust answer and um I’m more than happy to accept that until the next stage alone thank you councelor Goldman thank you chair uh yeah I’d just like to ask I mean I’m I’m in agreement with the the concept of the whole thing but what I’m sort of missing a little bit is why are we using prime Farmland why not use Brownfield site or opposite side of the road even could you answer that thank you um yeah I suppose it’s not what what we’re looking at is the application theyve put forward and as part of that um there are um allocated sites within um the local plan um and part of the submission has explained why each of those are not possible um I think it’s detailed within the report um the reasoning behind that so they’ve demonstrated why the allocated employment sites are not feasible for the various different reasons why they’ve chosen this specific I can’t answer that we we have what we have before us um but in terms of the the land the grade one Farmland that that is correct by my understanding that is the correct grade for it um but where where we’re at is just it’s it’s a reasonably limited size site um or loss of that land should I say um Natural England require only consultation when it hits 20 hectares I think this is outlined in in the update sheet um and it’s just weighing up in the balance the economic benefits versus that that harm to the the landscape character as I was saying in my presentation so it’s something for you to take into consideration in your determination us as officers have weighed it all up and we we consider the economic benefits outweigh that level of harm thank you thank you very much are there any further questions for our officer if there are not then we are now into the debate councelor Alexander thank you chair um I know it seems wrong to use such high graded agricultural land but unfortunately it stretched right across our country and all over the British ARS that land like this is falling in small Parcels to such buildings the economic benefit from such buildings in my mind you don’t you know J way way out strips the the value of the land as I see it because Natural England wants 20 hectares and then they discussed and this is only 4.5 which is a small amount of land and prata to to what is being offered here the educational side the building side the employment so at an outline stage I’m prepared to propose that we accept this um as we not to the agenda thank you councelor Alexander do you have a second councelor sudra thank you chair yeah I have to agree with um um councelor Alexander voice yes um yeah I mean it’s in the right location probably because there are other commercial properties there already um so you be quite happy with this application though it would be nice to see it as it develops and maybe come back to us with the yeah thank you councelor sudra councelor uh sorry Mr pman G were you indicating to speak uh only the there was sort of a question will it come back and I think the answer is just yes yes okay I I the only only thing I can say about the application was there was some concern mentioned by our speaker earlier regarding the impact on um protected species but I I did just have another read through again regarding um the report that’s come through from NIS County Council Place Services ecology um that there’s no objection and um condition with mitigation so I’m reasonably happy with that so we will go to the vote we have a proposal from um councilor Alexander uh proposal of approval as per the recommendation in our papers and seconded by councelor sudra may I have a show of hands please for and that application is approved the next item on the agenda is items oh yes we want councelor MC Williams back in and councelor MC Williams is now back with us so we will go to item six on the agenda which is 24 stroke three sorry Tri 035 stroke F Barn a to the rear of five Hunters Chase Arley and to present this application Mr yasma thank you CHC good evening members uh so this item concerns the land to the RAR of five Hunters Chase in outside of odley and the proposal there is um one dwelling in Le of approved application 2234 59 Kun not and this is a resubmission of a previously refused application the application site is to the west of five Hunters Chase which is that property there there yeah you can see it sorry there uh and the the side is a fairly extensive one located on the north side of Hunter Chase this Slither of land to the West of the application side indicated in blue is also in the applicant’s ownership and the the barn that benefits from the the prior approval is located in this far Northeastern corner of the site in terms of the aial and The Wider context so the site is located well north of the village of Hardley it’s reasonably close to the northern boundary of our district and it’s uh south of the village of Deon it’s well it’s well located outside settlement development boundary of Hardley and that’s made repeatedly clear in the in your office’s report antis Chase and the surrounding area is is fairly rural in character um there’s a predominant in terms of the predominant buil form and uh placement of dwellings you would have picked that up today as well uh dwellings are fairly fairly moders to even larger dwellings set um set centrally within within large or spacious plots that’s a predominant uh character in terms of the build form uh Hunt’s chase at this Eastern end is is very silver and verdant in character uh this gradually changes towards the other end the Western end where it becomes more uh more open in in nature um with with less sort of ver verges and yeah just more far more open Farmland in the west this is a more zoomed in pardon yeah apologies this is a plan uh demonstrating the prevailing character of the area that I’ve just talked about so this purple line the dash line just it kind of shows uh what I was trying to articulate I guess which is the the predominant build form of these dwellings set spaciously within the centy within spacious plots this um this bar here is is referred to in the report as Barn B and that also benefits from a prior approval and an inl of application for a dwelling in a in a slightly different location uh further to the east so bringing that dwelling closer to the cgus rooll road uh Frontage members who sat on the committee about a year ago would be entirely familiar with that with that approval so hopefully this slide is used useful because um I’m now going to move to the do the actual proposal in front of you but before I do so that’s that’s a that’s an aerial zoomed in version of the application site uh you would have stood here today and You’ have seen all those trees um one of the um a request from from the from the chair and the vice chair following the the preat yesterday was just to to be very clear in terms of the location of the of the dwelling um and the and the one and only tree proposed to be removed which is this um pin oak located in that area there so the proposed block plan I’m quickly going to talk you through this and we we totally expecting questions perhaps discussion or points of clarification further the um you know when when members um deliberate this application but in a nut show um since the original submission um which proposed the the the inl of dwelling in a in a different location in this Northeastern location here officers have engaged with the applicant and their agent um and negotiated a a significant in the context of this scheme significant amendments to the location of the of the dwelling and other elements such as the the location of the driveway uh land scaping improvements U you know the the general layout of the scheme this is because we we felt that um the site and the circumstances here including the planning history um and the the fact that there’s a prior approval in place to convert that building which is fairly tightly located next to an existing house and that other Barn we we felt that there are specific site and other circumstances uh here present which which allows presents opportunities to uh to improve upon the overall layout um of Prior approval conversion scheme and we decided to take those opportunities uh and we we now feel that um this proposal you know you be fairly familiar with it by now it’s proposing to to locate the dwelling in that location there officers for the reason set out in the report feel that this will more com comfortably appear as a as a suitable infill residential development in an area where the prevailing character is one of dwelling set centrally within plots so that is the why behind this proposal and why we’ve ended up with this layout like I said we we expect further questions on this but I thought it’s better to to to to set this narrative early on in the presentation uh moving on to photographs that’s the existing Barn the photo of the prior approval building taken from the conversion statement of the applicants it looks slightly different now there uh this is a more up to- dat photograph standing on the site in that sort of eastern part of the site looking towards the existing barn and the tree there to the left is the Big Oak Tree just uh off site just on the Northern boundary last two photographs standing on hunst CHAS just looking on on that you know towards that axis existing axis and that’s looking straight into the site in a Northern Direction in terms of the the proposed Landscaping well this the proposal and the landscaping and in particular the the situation around trees it’s a it’s a very straightforward position to convey onto you the T t7 tree which is referred to as t7 in the arric cultural uh document that is a a pin oak tree that’s the the only tree proposed to be removed and that’s located in this area here clearly to make space for the for the dwelling uh the applicants proposing significant additional tree planting and Landscaping the the attractive hedge row along the front will be retained there will be one two three additional proper trees to be to be planted I can refer it to the species if required there will be an orchard to the west and um a sort of enclosed rear Garden area enclosed by a newly planted hedge and again the thinking behind this is to is really to safeguard the the best of the site which is that beautiful oak tree along the northern boundary you’ll see there’s a good good separation between the the dwelling and and that oak tree um and they you know there won’t be the the same there won’t be pressure to remove that tree compared to how it will be if if if the dwelling is sort of in this location here uh existing I’m sorry proposed elevations it’s it’s a it’s a very modest dwelling one bedroom very similar nodding strongly to the to the character of the of the barn this existing Barn one bedroom Lounge dining area either side of the axis and a bathroom at the back there and just finally again for this is we think this is good good background information so the prior approval scheme is shown here on the left and that that’s the barn in question and the the previously refused scheme proposed um the you know the dwelling just slightly further to the to the to the west of that barn and that created problems with the layout a very impractical situation there with the you know the parking area um located some 35 MERS away from from the dwelling I’m relying on memory here but the scheme was refused for poor poor design amongst other things uh that’s not really important right now what is important is is the why behind this revised design which which we’ve outlined here um and then finally again this shows the the the the barn B approved in Le of scheme around the corner facing kishell Road I guess you can say it it follows the same design principles that we we’ve tried to embed here which is good layout good Landscaping uh good engagement with the the the streets in without appearing prominent or out of place um and yeah we we we just tried it’s a different side clearly we tried to repeat that here um the applicant have been very responsive and um that is where we are you know the the recommendation is is one of approval we have had an objection from um odley Parish Council Unfortunately they they they’ve actually taken the time to write to me today explaining that they can’t come in they can’t because they don’t have a representative to send here but they specifically asked me to just um uh you know make make members aware of of their objection which is set out in in the report um we haven’t had any third party comments or objections uh just just to do this properly um the odly parish council objection and the relevant grounds are set out on page 74 of your report um paragraph 7.1 um sorry one letter of objection has been received from third party but no no no additional OB ction has been received that’s what I meant to say in terms of late reps late representations or the update sheet uh we have recommended all those conditions plus an additional condition U seeking the removal of the existing agricultural building in that Northeastern corner of the site uh prior to commencement of any above ground works that’s simply to ensure that there that we don’t accidentally or inadvertently end up with two buildings on that site that concludes my presentation uh chair and your requested to consider the officer’s recommendation thank you thank you Jacob um we have one speaker on this item um the agent Miss Allison Cox Miss Cox if you’d like to take a seat you have been here before so you know you push the button and you have three minutes it’s the middle one yeah no that one than you there good evening chair and members of the planning committee firstly I would like to start by thanking officers for taking such proactive approach to the consideration of this application following negotiations preference to the alternative location of the dwelling was given in order to enure the longevity of the veteran oak on the rear boundary the previous site layout indicated that the north corner of the dwelling was at risk from overshadowing and there was a concern that this would have prop ended up in future uh pressure to trim the tree the centralized location further improves the overall site layout by providing maximum levels of space Not only around the new building but also mimic in other dwellings in the area it is acknowledged that the proposal will result in the loss of one early mature tree but members are reminded that the trees are not subject to any form of protection and this tree could be removed at any time the scheme has been amended in line with officers guidance and now results in a far superior policy compliance scheme from a general layout access designed Landscaping perspective when compared to the prior approval conversion scheme in conclusion the scheme is deemed acceptable by officers in all aspects and should members agree it will give three generations of the same family the opportunity to live next door to each other thank you thank you very much Miss con and I’ll just ask the officer if there was anything there that he wants to come back on no okay so members questions for the officer councelor Alexander thank you would you excuse me I got chronic hay fever would you believe barking here like a dog I’m a little confused by this and I bring members uh attention to page 71 and 72 which starts with the TR landscape officer which is first on the 01 2024 which moves to 05 2025 and on page um 72 there appears to be some discrepancy or some confusion on exactly what happened or what is going to happen on that land to those trees the last part of it which is 29524 um that the amended uh uh layout still shows a position of the dwelling and nexx and I don’t really have any problems with that whatsoever but what I do have confusion with we were told today that a tree had already previously been moved and cut away this apparently isn’t correct would you confirm please whether or not that actually has taken place and was if it was cut down and was it cut down with the original application or with the new application that’s before us prior to this preempting the fact that they’re under presumption that there will be planning permission and the second one is the amount of trees that to come down we were understand understanding today that two of those um trees were to be removed but tonight I’m hearing that there only one to be removed I wonder if you could just clear up those points for me and I’ll be grateful no problem so I understand the question to be confirmation or otherwise if the t7 pin oak has been removed already second question is the the confirmation of the num the the number of trees proposed to be removed right so so in terms of the first question um it’s not a good Simon there it is so so I think there’s there slight confusion here um I’ve been to the site this morning and I know members have been there as well um so I I Tred to to to to sort of P locate myself on the site more or less where the dwelling is going to be located um and and it appeared to me that the the pin oak has been removed but so I have to ask the question to the to the applicants and their agent um and and and and the the response we got was that that the pin has not been has not been removed that they are dis in this um so so that that that’s that’s that’s the position that’s the answer to that question uh in terms of the U overall number of trees proposed to be removed I can confirm that is only that single single tree the pin oak that’s proposed to be removed located in in that area there thank you chair uh sorry if I could just add it it is um it is slightly academic as to whether the the PIN o has been removed or not because that that tree is not subject to a tree preservation order um and in the context of this scheme there will be significant additional uh planting as well as a landscape scheme that we are looking to secure as part of a planning condition that’s part of the recommendation thank you okay so one tree in your mind has been been removed already and in well not in particular your mind but in from the officer’s point of view has been removed from that side we were under the understanding that two more trees would have come down today one of them being a black locust which is a rather unusual tree to find in this especially in this area doesn’t normally grow in in this part of the world so what I’m trying to establish is are you now saying that in effect one tree should have been removed from that site and there be no other trees at this point to be removed from that site responding to the to the to the facts available to me and the the submission in front of us um I I can’t comment on what has or has not been said this morning on site by the agent um I can only comment on the evidence in front of us and the the submission proposes the removal of One Tree um but um significant additional pre-planting now I have a an indication to my left here that our head of planning Mr pman G would like to speak thank you bear with me one thing I just want to check one thing first before I say anything more just looking at the condition number seven just to check yeah okay thank you right um how can I be not blunt [Music] um ultimately the planning position is not the same perhaps as our moral position and our moral position is to try and Safeguard as many trees as we can and I wholeheartedly support that however I cannot control what people can do to their land in respect of trees that are not protected by Pacific planning legislation EG tree preservation orders or the conservation area uh designation uh on that basis that anyone with the applicant or whoever it might be whoever might be responsible for this particular land or any other piece of land could remove all of the trees on this site without needing any kind of consent from us without any reference to this application whatsoever uh and we start with a plain piece of paper a plain site as it is they are proposing to remove one tree they are safeguarding a majority of other trees but I would say perhaps the more valued position is the large Oak at the back of the site which is mature is Grand and probably is table but I I know our tree officer hasn’t gone that far um because we’ve got an outstanding issue with the consent they have got which is for the bar that is there currently that they could use uh for a property uh because of the The Quirk of Prior approval that’s uh permitted development um and if they were to live there they would be under the shadow of that particular tree and I think possibly would come to uh regret living underneath the shadow of that particular tree whereas what we’re looking at is a potential opportunity to look an alternative locality for a property of similar size uh that would have suitable distance and therefore lightly Safeguard the longevity of that tree without conflict of living there and I think ultimately that was the primary purpose of discussions that officers have had in respect of uh finding a suitable location it does mean that a tree in the center of the site may go go well will go it’s very obvious it will go um but out of all of where you could locate this building we felt this was the the best location you could find that gives you the distance from the tree that has in our view more value doesn’t come forward of the perceived building line to such an extent that it would become imposing on the Street Scene It would maintain the trees to the front of the sides that would protect and bl allow the building to blend in uh so marrying up all of those considerations we felt that that loss of a tree unprotected and could be removed tomorrow uh was a sacrifice worthwhile so that’s kind of the remit we’ve taken forward on this one I yeah that’s the one tree that we’re aware of going I’m not aware of any other trees going if they are they are not currently protected if however the implementation of this application was made the trees that are there or remain there at the time of implementation will be protected for at least five years given the condition that’s imposed on the site that would be engaged the moment Works commence it’s not the best power in the world but it’s all of got uh and we try to use it whenever we can in that context hopefully that’s as much as I can give you chair may have respond to that at no time did I suggest that the ownership of the land should be um in any way attack for any that an owner wish to do what I’m trying to establish is that what is printed in here as our agenda is our Bible that’s what we go by um and we all read it most thoroughly to what we’re being told today that uh there’s a a strong differentiality between what we have seen and what we’ve been told now I can plainly see from many years of experience of sitting here chair that when we visited that site if those trees remain there the small trees remain there practically the site would be lost and it would not be viable in any way shape or form that was not what I was questioning what I was questioning is that we are being told one tree is going one tree has been removed it’s confusing to us sitting here and 100% Clarity is impossible but there must be some clarity for us to understand from the site visit to here to a final decision on on the application and that’s what I was trying to say thank councelor Alexander I mean I will just come in here under under other circumstances perhaps I might agree with with you but there are no tpos on these trees so chair would you repeat that please say under other circumstances I would agree with you you know we all love trees but there are no tpos on any of these trees yes CH I accept that and the point is what I’m trying to make is that um that was never mentioned I never mentioned tpos or the I’m m pointed out that one of them was quite an unusual tree it’s a shame it’s in the right wrong place at the wrong time but um I could also see that to open this up into a viable um uh application that we can go with it’s just the confusion on who’s cutting what down and what’s to remain to protect the tree that is it’s coming into its um full maturity now the oak is a priority here in every way shape form and it is protected by its 15 by the stem to 1.5 above the ground on its stem hem uh for uh the distance of the root they’ve obviously matched that now and so they’ve gone out of that way to be able to meet us some way in the protection of that tree now that’s what I was trying to establish it was confusing and I didn’t understand it and I still don’t understand it councelor white oh sorry Mr yasma did you want to come back help and just to give um a little bit of reassurance I’ve been there today and as as the LPA officer who’s been closely involved with this case I I feel you’ve you’ve got uh sufficient tree and arric cultural information to make to make an informed decision here you Mr yasma councilor White thank you madam chairman um just to put everybody’s mind at rest one tree that’s referred to in here has already gone and what we’re talking about is that uh we would expect if we granted it that it would be the Black Forest local or the falic as it’s called um is the one that would come out but that s is very well supported with existing trees at the present moment and so under a very rare circumstance um I I I would go along with the what’s proposed however that’s not my question my question is purely and simply the two bonds that were on the site one of which is now granting uh uh it will allow us to build the uh the new one bedroomroom Bungalow in a slightly different position but nevertheless um that so does that and the other Barn which granted permission for the other property will those two bars be removed there’s there’s a condition added in the late paper that specifically requires them to remove that bom um you know when when they reach um slab level basically the barn the barn needs to go and all the all the associated daies and building material needs to be removed from side yeah councelor Goldman thank you chair yeah um I’m in full agreement with the current plans I’ve got problem visiting the site today sort of fully understood and as far as I understand it the one tree that’s come down and there’s a further two trees to come down which I again I haven’t got a problem with because it’s going to be replaced with a so-called Ard to the side the elevation of the property that’s going to be moved to the center of the main site yeah um so I would like to propose it thank you as there no more questions from the officer are we now in debate members I’ll take that accept that proposal from councelor Goldman one more question councelor sudra thank you chair so um with this being class no fullback and inl c will will there be any extensions allowable on this and any other properties be allowed to be built on this land we have um recommended condition um 12 on page 90 which basically removes all permitted development rights for any further their ground floor extensions roof extensions um so that effectively means if they want to extend this dwelling after it’s been built they need to come back to the council and submit a formal planning application and that that condition we feel is necessary and Justified not least in light of the the planning history here but also because of the the rural location uh and frankly just to to maintain that that strong rural silen character uh and it’s quite a unique site and it’s a unique set of circumstances that have developed here thank you chair okay so any further planning would be required if there was something to go on there is that what you saying okay thank you right um councelor MC Williams if I may chairman I’ve got very little voice at the moment which is quite unusual for me um if I could I would like to actually um propose that we approve the application and I think that’s what John was relating to and I will second him for that we have a prop proposal from councelor Goldman all right so are you happy to Second councelor Goldman’s proposal and I take it councel Goldman your proposal was as per the recommendation in our papers right okay so there you have the proposal from councelor Goldman as per the recommendation on page 64 and seconded by councelor McWilliams could I have a sh of hands for this application approval that is unanimous this application is approved thank you members and we will now have a five 10 minute break and we will return shortly for application sorry agenda item seven e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e welcome back to part two tendering District Council planning committee meeting on 9th of July 2024 and we are now up to item seven on the agenda which is 24 stroke 00 45 sorry 455 stroke full land to the rear of 110 harage Road and to present this application for us this evening our officer Oliver Ashton good evening chair good evening members so the application before you is for three dwellings in L um of a prior approval application which was approved in June of last year uh at land to the rear of 110 harage Road in Little clack so this this is the red uh site plan and location plan so you can see um the site in its location to the rear of 114 to 110 and so the existing buildings are poultry houses which are still on site and not in use anymore redundant to the West is a residential uh development ribbon development along harage Road and Har and residential development to the north also and to the east and south of the site is open agricultural fields so this is the site in a bit more context you can see uh there’s three units there um and The Wider little clacton residential development and agricultural fields to the right and there an arrow view of the site in a bit more context so just highlighted there um and the key information on this application really is that um the South the site lies outside of the sment development boundary um so you can see how that hugs the three um units there at the moment um there is one plot proposed which you’ll see shortly which extends uh south of that line um but the starting point of the application is um the principle of the inl being approved the prior approval being approved last year in assessment development boundry with those two units at the front being within that um so here you just have a little bit um more context in terms of the site access you can see the existing access at the front of the site there are no propos changes to that um and the existing dwelling to be retained some photographs here of the three barns that are on the site at the moment um so this is Barn a barn B and barn C so they’re all of similar character the proposed dwellings to replace them will be clad with tiled roofs and similar design to match what’s they on site at the moment to respect the rural character of the area uh this is the priority approval block plan you can see before you so there are the three uh units that were proposed with imunity space and parking um in the exact footprint of the existing barns as proposed um the proposed block plan does indicate in these dotted lines here the position of those existing Barns and here you can see the new dwellings that are located within that footprint partially um but plot two is the one that’s furthest south that only has a small proportion but um does hug some of that existing footprint um the plot two has also got a large rear garden with no proposed development um outside of the settlment development boundary other than that that dwelling proposed elevations of plots one and three um we’ll show before you so highlights the clad and TI roof with upvc windows and doors and plot two is slightly different and it’s got timber timber fronts there and glazing to the rear um there have been no um objections from ESS Count Council highways um the existing trees on the site are to be retained um ecology there’s been a PA that’s been submitted with a condition to um ensure that ecology is considered and protected um and there have been no other points raised as part of the application there has been if you just check your update sheet I’ve included um the comments from little um Clon Parish Council that did raise some concerns with the Demolition of the bonds but of the principal development as already mentioned has been established through the prior approval application and and the majority of the S is within the settlement development boundery thank you chair thank you Mr Ashford and speakers we have one speaker for this item the agent Miss Allison Cox you have three minutes again Allison good evening again chair members of the planning committee this application follows the granting of a prior approval application for three dwellings all three of the inl dwellings have either overlapping Footprints or share common walls plots one one and three are entirely within the settlement boundary of little Clon as of their Gardens and the existing building plot B for this reason a condition which propos preventing future homeowners from undertaking any alterations to the home would seem to be unreasonable contrary to paragraphs 56 of the mppf it is also observed that condition s requires the submission of a visibility playay plan this was submitted on the 27th of March and is listed as an approved plan in conclusion the scheme is deemed acceptable by officers in all aspects regarding design sighting highways Landscaping amenity and ecology issues and I hope that members will agree with the recommendation thank you thank you very much Mr Ashford is there anything you’d like to come back on no okay so members questions for the officer councelor Alexander uh yes thank you chair um I actually see the value of site visits when we visit uh we read the agenda and then we go to visit a site like this and then you see it in the the reality and I must be honest with you that um I actually see nothing whatsoever wrong with the application that’s before us and chair when you are ready to accept that I would like to move proposal of approval on this thank you councelor Alexander are there any further questions for the officer councelor sudra thank you chair um I didn’t quite understand uh that last bit with with the um two uh properties have be having their Garden within the boundary and the third I didn’t quite understand thank you um ultimately the settlement boundary runs immediately behind one of the poultry houses uh and what this scheme is is it’s an alternative obviously to uh what has been allowed in respect to the conversion of those free uh poultry houses yeah uh and what youve got instead is obviously free properties but taking opportunity that they are replacement they have pushed that third property back a bit which means it’s now at just outside of the settlement boundary but in many respects very much part of um the kind of setting of this locality um the reason actually this is before you it’s one of those debates that if this had been totally in the middle of the countryside and a proposal uh was made exactly like this but there wasn’t a settlement boundary involved I would probably have said there was no real change from the understanding of the conversion of the free properties to the replacement of those free properties in the near enough the same position as as before in this case because before the properties were all within the settlement boundary and what we’re doing is slightly altering that in order to go over the settlement boundary there’s a slight policy change there that wasn’t really considered it’s a it’s a technical thing but ultimately for the the sake of caution we’ve brought it to you as members on that technicality given the delegation that you’ve given us just so it’s a precautionary approach um in respect of uh The Mention Of permitted development uh obviously as the permitted development rights for the creation of a class Q Barn conversion would not allow it to extend thereafter if it was a barn conversion and so normally when you deal with inl applications uh because you’re also in the countryside and you know you don’t want to essentially allow a mansion instead of what was a rural building or at least similar to a rural building at some point um you are trying to protect the character of the countryside and so forth you do tend to remove permitted development rights in in situ in order to to replicate the position you would have had at at permitted development and have that control over the rural character that we’re trying to protect the point here being made is that the the two of the properties are actually within the settlement boundary and so there is and I do concede an argument to say that removal of permitted development rights for those two properties could be taking one step too far as unreasonable but because of the edge of settlement position and The Limited Gardens and the interaction between the three I’m actually maintaining the recommendation to keep the removal of permitted development four or free properties in this instance and that is the recommendation I’m maintaining for for you does that cover everything that was needed yeah kind of so we’re giving it leeway is that is that what you’re sort of saying um so all all all properties that being up proposed would have no permitted development rights to extend and so forth uh one is slightly beyond the settlement boundary but we have obviously this significant weight that must be given to the fallback which is the conversion of the free under part Cube okay that’s great thank you very much okay uh further questions councelor MC Williams in that case chairman that was nicely explained to me so I would like to Second The Proposal from friend thank you councilor M Williams um I just put my little bit in here I um I was a little bit confused when I looked at it but um it’s clear now and I don’t have a problem with this application so I’ll certainly be supporting it um so we do have a proposal councilor Alexander to uh approve sorry who’s that thank you chairman just before you uh go to the vote I just wanted to uh provide a bit of clarity uh on that there is an additional condition suggested within the update sheet condition 17 just making sure that members are aware that they are looking that as well and uh also just in the interest of clarity I think something might have gone wrong with the formatting of the report so whereas the uh recommendation to about the conditions being listed at 10.1 uh they’re actually listed at paragraph 11 thank you Mr Gyver so as per Mr Gyver has just explained we have a proposal uh from councelor Alexander which has been seconded by councilor MC Williams so may I have a show of hands for approval that application is approved and that was unanimous item eight on the agenda it’s application 24185 full Clon Rugby Club Valley Road Clon on C and to present this item M Mr Ashford here over to you thank you chair so this is an application submitted by um Clon rubby club for the retention of an existing cabin building uh on site and serving as a changing room and a proposed new cabin building along with additional fencing um storage structures and other external equipment the application is before you as it’s cited on land owned by T Council so this uh outlines the site plan in red um so you can see the rocker club house to the South to the northwest corner of the site um with the Clon bows clubs at the East and car park and the railway line as well following um along to the West so this is deite in a bit more context to the north you can see Valley Road and also residential dwellings to the Northwest and Southeast but the predominant character of the areas with the large Recreation ground around to the South um some slight photos for a bit of context so this is looking uh North with the railway line in the background you can see the main uh rugby club building um which is brick built with ti roof and in far distance there is a existing um container which is to be retained uh just there and this provides a bit more context looking west of the site so that’s the existing uh cabin building there which has been converted it’s being used by um existing teams for the Rugby Club so youth teams the Rugby Club has expanded significantly and needs the additional space and this is looking north um so again you can see the existing cabin building and there will be an additional one in similar scale to the one that’s already on site attached to the back and some further context just to close up there highlighting that the applicant has proposed to paint the container in a cream color to match the um end elevation Gable elevation there um but that’s for members to to decide in terms of condition there is some additional Landscaping proposed as you can see on this block plan here um which highlights the uh existing cabin building and proposed building and then and just zoomed in there in a bit more detail so the trailer single extend around to screen um those buildings because there is obviously a high degree of visibility to those um this also highlights the equipment container building you can see on site and a proposed new 2 m high steel um wire fencing with Gates uh the P will also be extended slightly and the elevations show that fencing in a bit more detail um which will provide significant screening there will be some limited views but on the whole the proposed buildings will be well screened from their surrounds and these are the proposed floor plans so this highlights the new changing room which will be added onto the back of the existing uh building that’s on site and internally in the main building there is uh alterations to provide into some new toilets in the shower area and also wastebin storage area to to the west and propos just that in a bit more detail um zoomed out uh there is some member support for application um it’s but there are no objections and there is no uh objections for members of the public for S6 County Council highways or the environmental health Protection Team thank you chair thank you Mr Ashford there are no speakers for this item and if you could just confirm the reason reason this application is before us is because it is in the ownership of the council the land yeah thank you members questions for the officer no questions councelor Goldman thank you chair uh but it’s not exactly a question um I think this is of great benefit to the club and the greater public as well and the people that use it so I think it’s brilliant really no objections as all in fact I would like to propose that we accept it thank you thank you councelor Goldman any further comments on this application I do believe it’s a good idea they’re going to paint it though hopefully change the container color Mr G thank you chairman and uh just before we proceed to any vote on this uh just a a very minor formatting correction again uh whereas the report says the conditions are listed under 8.2 they are in fact listed under 10.2 thank you Mr Gyver councelor MC Williams well thank you chairman I would like to Second the proposal by councelor Goldman thank you thank you very much councelor MC Williams so we have a proposal from councelor Goldman and seconded by Council MC Williams for the recommendation as on page 118 of your agenda which Mr Gyver has just explained there is a brief amendment to that is 10 10.2 not 8.2 so for approval may I have a show of hands please that application is approved thank you very much and that just leaves me to tell you the date of the next meeting which is not as printed in the agenda the date of the next meeting is Thursday the 15th of August so that’s Thursday 15th of August so thank you all for tuning in to the live stream tonight