Application No.
Decision
Date of Decision
Conditions/Reasons / Applicant’s Name /

Proposal

/ Location

Alresford Parish Council

17/00951/FUL
Approval - Full
21.07.2017
Delegated Decision / Mr Michael Smallbone / Alteration to planning reference 12/00796/FUL, change of finish on bedroom extension only (Right hand side facing property), from brickwork to hardie plank on concrete blocks. / 9 The Chequers
Alresford
Colchester
Essex
CO7 8BW
01The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: drawing no 1207-02 and drawing no 1207-01 revision B showing the new materials annotated.
Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Ardleigh Parish Council

17/00742/FUL
Approval - Full
19.07.2017
Delegated Decision / Ms Anne-Marie Pelerin - Endeavour Automative Ltd / Proposed erection of an extension to the showroom, and the erection of a valet building following the demolition of existing valet/showroom building. / Haddocks Hyundai
Fox Street
Ardleigh
Essex
CO7 7PP
01The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason - To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
02The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: DWG. No. M1125-A-P-102, DWG. No. M1125-A-P-202 REVISION F, DWG. No. M1125-A-P-204 REVISION B and DWG. No. M1125-A-P-205 REVISION A.
Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
17/00901/FUL
Refusal - Full
21.07.2017
Delegated Decision / Mr Ben Wallis / Resubmission of planning application 17/00061/FUL - Proposed detached dwelling, including retention of mobile home for duration of building work. / Benson Stud
Harts Lane
Ardleigh
Colchester
Essex
CO7 7QE
01At paragraph 55 the National Planning Policy Framework ("the Framework") states local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.
Saved Policy HG18 (Permanent Dwellings for Agricultural Workers) reflects the aims of the now redundant PPS7 and sets out the relevant criteria against which the proposal should be assessed. Whilst PPS7 is redundant the method for assessing rural workers dwellings (i.e. the functional and financial tests) remains a key consideration to the merits of each individual case.
From the information provided it has been demonstrated that there is a functional need for a 24 hour presence to manage the long established equestrian business in the interests of both animal welfare and security for these highly valuable animals. However, no justification has been put forward to suggest there is a need for two people to be present 24 hours a day and this need is therefore already being met by the applicant from his dwelling which is tied to the business. Whilst the applicant now wishes to enter semi-retirement and enable his son to take over and expand the business, the original two year temporary permission for a mobile home under planning reference 14/01452/FUL was on the proviso that the son was able to accommodate one of the two dwellings within the site following the expiry of the temporary permission as opposed to occupying a third permanent dwelling within the site. It has therefore not been adequately justified that the functional need within the site requires a third permanent dwelling, thereby failing the requirements of Policy HG18.

Beaumont Parish Council

17/00219/LUEX
Lawful Use Certificate Granted
21.07.2017
Delegated Decision / Mr & Mrs A Sanderson / Use of barn as self contained independent dwelling. / The Barn
Elm Farm
Swan Road
Beaumont
Clacton On Sea
Essex
CO16 0AN
01The Local Planning Authority is satisfied that on the balance of probability, the use described in the First Schedule has taken place for a continuous period of at least four years prior to the date of this application and that a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use should therefore be granted in accordance with Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The use of the land as noted below is immune from enforcement action under Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and is now considered to be lawful.

Bradfield Parish Council

17/00854/FUL
Refusal - Full
19.07.2017
Delegated Decision / BL and JE Mitchell and Sons / Development of two three bed bungalows. / Land to rear of 1 and 2
Station Road
Bradfield
Essex
CO11 2UP
01The application site is located outside of a defined Settlement Development Boundary as defined by the Saved Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017). Outside Development Boundaries, the Local Plan seeks to conserve and enhance the countryside for its own sake by not allowing new housing unless it is consistent with countryside policies. Saved Tendring District Local Plan (2007) Policy QL1 sets out that development should be focussed towards the larger urban areas and to within development boundaries as defined within the Local Plan.
The Council is in a position where it can now identify a 5 year housing supply and as such there is no requirement for the 'skewed' approach to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, under paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), to be engaged. Furthermore, with the emerging Local Plan progressing well, officers consider that greater weight can be given to the core planning principles under paragraph 17 of the NPPF that development should be genuinely plan-led and that the Council should actively manage patterns of growth and should make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.
With this in mind, the emerging Local Plan includes a 'settlement hierarchy' aimed at categorising the district's towns and villages and providing a framework for directing development toward the most sustainable locations. Bradfield is categorised in emerging Policy SPL1, along with seventeen other villages, as a 'Smaller Rural Settlement' in recognition of its size and relatively small range of local services. Bradfield and other smaller villages are considered to be the least sustainable settlements for growth and development should normally be restricted to small-scale development only, respecting the existing character and form of the village. With this in mind, the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017) settlement development boundary for Bradfield has been extended. The growth envisaged for Bradfield over the plan period has already been allowed for within the extended defined boundary but does not include this site. As such the location is considered to be amongst one of the least sustainable locations for growth where development will only serve to increase the number of people having to rely on cars to go about their everyday lives failing to meet the socially sustainable strand of sustainability.
The site is located adjacent to, but outside of a Settlement Development Boundary and consequently is located in an isolated rural location. The nearest settlement is Bradfield which within the Established Settlement Hierarchy (2016) performs poorly, with no GP Surgery, defined village centre, defined employment area or railway station. Therefore, it is considered that the majority of trips, including those for day-to-day needs, would need to be made by car to access essential services and facilities.
The NPPF advocates a plan-led approach that actively seeks to achieve sustainable patterns of growth, but this development, due to its siting outside of any defined settlement development boundary, is not considered sustainable. In applying the NPPF's presumption in favour of sustainable development, the adverse impacts of the proposal on the Council's ability to manage growth through the plan-led approach, are not outweighed by the benefits. The development is unnecessary and there are no public benefits that might warrant the proposal being considered in an exceptional light.
02Policy EN3 of the Adopted Tendring Local Plan 2007 states that new development which does not have a compelling functional need to be located in the Coastal Protection Belt will not be permitted, and even where a compelling functional need is demonstrated, the development should not significantly harm the landscape character and quality of the undeveloped coastline.
Policy EN5 of the Adopted Tendring Local Plan 2007 states that development which would harm or otherwise fail to conserve the natural beauty of the landscape of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, including views towards it from outside, will not be permitted.
Environmentally, it is necessary to consider the impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. Whilst the Council's Principal Tree and Landscapes Officer, following consultation, has stated that there are no trees or significant vegetation on the application site that add much to the areas character, the site is situated in the Stour Valley Landscape Character Area, which forms an important rural setting to the open waters of the Stour estuary and are visible from the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Despite the elevated position of the application site, the proposed development will be relatively well assimilated within the existing development and on balance will not significantly harm existing views of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However, it will not accord with the existing ribbon development pattern and will contribute to the gradual erosion of the countryside, thereby causing significant harm to the existing landscape quality and quality of the undeveloped coastline, and therefore fails to adhere to Policy EN5.
On this basis, it is considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable intrusion to an open countryside and consequently would fail the environmental strand of sustainability and be contrary to the above policies.
03Paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework ("the Framework") requires that development should "respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials". Paragraph 60 adds that it is "proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness". Similarly, "Saved" Tendring District Local Plan (2007) Policy HG13 on "Backland Residential Development" requires that proposals for residential backland development should meet all the criteria listed therein, including criterion (iii) that states "a safe and convenient means of vehicular and pedestrian access/egress can be provided that is not likely to cause undue disturbance or loss of privacy to neighbouring residents or visual detriment to the street scene. Long or narrow driveways will be discouraged.", criterion (v) which states "the site does not comprise an awkwardly shaped or fragmented parcel of land likely to be difficult to develop in isolation or involve development which could prejudice a more appropriate comprehensive development solution", and criterion (vii) which states "the proposal would not be out of character with the area or set a harmful precedent for other similar forms of development".
This particular section of Station Road has a strong and linear pattern of development, with no existing examples of residential development situated behind the main frontage along Station Road. Therefore, the introduction of the proposed two bungalows is not considered to be in-keeping with the existing linear development, resulting in an unjustifiable intrusion into the countryside, to the serious detriment of the character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the site itself is an awkwardly shaped plot that does not lend itself to the possibility of further development and would therefore likely be developed in isolation.
The access point to the site, situated to the east of the property known as 'Wingarth' appears to be both long and narrow and would be unable to facilitate two cars side by side entering and exiting the site, thereby potentially resulting in a detrimental impact to the highways network. Further to this, despite existing vegetation along the adjacent boundary, there are concerns to the impacts on the residential property known as 'Triangles', which would have a significant detrimental impact upon the resident's amenity in respect to noise and disturbance caused by traffic movements.
Therefore the proposal fails to meet the criteria of Policy HG13 and there is a standing objection to the principle of development within this site.
17/00856/OUT
Refusal - Outline
19.07.2017
Delegated Decision / Mr and Mrs Garner / Erection of one detached dwelling. / Land to The rear of The Laund
Heath Road
Bradfield
Essex
CO11 2UZ
01The site lies outside of the Settlement Development Boundary as defined by the Saved Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017). Outside Development Boundaries, the Local Plan seeks to conserve and enhance the countryside for its own sake by not allowing new housing unless it is consistent with countryside policies. Saved Tendring District Local Plan (2007) Policy QL1 sets out that development should be focussed towards the larger urban areas and to within development boundaries as defined within the Local Plan.
The Council is in a position where it can now identify a 5 year housing supply and as such there is no requirement for the 'skewed' approach to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, under paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), to be engaged. Furthermore, with the emerging Local Plan progressing well, officers consider that greater weight can be given to the core planning principles under paragraph 17 of the NPPF that development should be genuinely plan-led and that the Council should actively manage patterns of growth.
With this in mind, the emerging Local Plan includes a 'settlement hierarchy' aimed at categorising the district's towns and villages and providing a framework for directing development toward the most sustainable locations.
Bradfield is identified as a 'village' within saved Policy QL1 of the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and is defined as a 'Smaller Rural Settlement' within Policy SPL1 of the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017) in recognition of its size and small range of local services. These smaller villages are considered to be the least sustainable location for growth. The emerging Local Plan identifies opportunities for a small increase in housing stock over the plan period. To allow for this to happen Settlement Development Boundaries have been drawn flexibly, where practical, to accommodate a range of sites both within and on the edge of villages and thus enabling them to be considered for small-scale residential 'infill' developments. With this in mind, the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017) settlement development boundary for Bradfield has been extended. The growth envisaged for Bradfield over the plan period has already been allowed for within the extended defined boundary but does not include this site. As such the location is considered to be amongst one of the least sustainable locations for growth where development will only serve to increase the number of people having to rely on cars to go about their everyday lives failing to meet the socially sustainable strand of sustainability.
The NPPF advocates a plan-led approach that actively seeks to achieve sustainable patterns of growth, but this development, due to its siting outside of any defined development boundary, is not considered sustainable. Whilst it is recognised that the proposal would contribute economically to the area, for example by providing employment during the construction of the development and from future occupants utilising local services, in applying the NPPF's presumption in favour of sustainable development, the adverse impacts of the proposal, both on the undeveloped character of the locality and on the Council's ability to manage growth through the plan-led approach, are not outweighed by the benefits. The development is unnecessary and there are no public benefits that might warrant the proposal being considered in an exceptional light.
02Paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that development should "respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials". Paragraph 60 adds that it is "proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness". Saved Policy QL9 and EN1 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and Policy SPL3 and PPL3 of the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017) seeks to ensure that development is appropriate in its locality and does not harm the appearance of the landscape.
The northern side of Dairyhouse Farm appears undeveloped and is rural in character with open countryside beyond. Consequently, it is considered that the proposed residential development on this site would set a harmful precedent as it would not accord with the existing settlement pattern and therefore would not sit comfortably in its setting. It would result in the unplanned advance of urbanisation into this area of countryside eroding the rural character of the locality. It is therefore, considered that development of this site would result in an overriding harm to the rural character of the surrounding area.
In applying the NPPF's definition and assessment of sustainability, the development is considered to fail the environmental strand for the reasons set out above.

Brightlingsea Town Council