964
The Committee considered an application for the creation of a three-bedroom detached house. The application was referred to the Planning Committee as it had been called in by Councillors Barton and Willetts.
Councillor Barton requested the application be referred to the Planning Committee in the event of a recommendation of refusal for the following reasons:
- The site has been controversial so in the interests of openness and fairness, it is appropriate for this application to be referred to the Planning Committee.
- The new application has taken on board the comments from the Planning Committee and the recently adopted Local Plan does indicate it meets all policy requirements.
Councillor Willetts requested that the application be referred to the Planning Committee in the event of a recommendation for approval, the reasons being as follows:
- The private drive is narrow and has no sight splay at its junction with the A1124 Lexden Road, and no remedial action is proposed as part of this application. The existing access is already a hazard for pedestrians passing by on Lexden Road, and further development at this unsuitable location will further exacerbate the dangers. This matter is neither addressed by ECC Highways policy nor by the City Council Planning Policy. Therefore in making a decision, the Planning Committee needs to take the safety issues pertaining to the access to the decision.
- The proposed site is very small and tightly constrained and the designated parking appears to extend beyond the curtilage of the development site so as to impede the safe flow of traffic to other houses in what is already a cramped geometry. Again, this is not directly covered by Colchester City Council (CCC) Planning Policy and needs determination by the Planning Committee.
- While each application must be determined solely on its merits, there is a history of refusal of applications and appeals on this site for broadly similar developments, and previous Planning Inspectors conclusions need to be carefully weighed for relevance by the Planning Committee in regard to this application.
The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out.
Nadine Calder, Principal Planning Officer, presented the report and assisted the Committee in its deliberations. The Committee heard that the proposal was for a single detached dwelling located on a grass area which was shown as an area of white land on the Local Plan meaning that it did not have a purpose. The Committee were shown street scene images of what the proposal would look like and the site in its current form where a metal fence had been erected around the site. It was noted by the officer that the erection of this fence was disputed and that it is likely to require planning permission. The Principal Planning Officer detailed that the parking proposal would subdivide an existing garage and asked Members to consider the planning history of the site which included a range of proposals on the site, all of which had been refused permission by the Council and, where appealed, were dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate. As part of all the recent applications the land in its current form was considered to make a positive contribution to the local area and since there has been no significant change in local or national policy to warrant a different conclusion. The Principal Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the main difference between this application and the last was the introduction of a feature wall and that if the Committee were minded to refuse the application they requested that consideration be given to a further reason for refusal due to the absence of a signed unilateral undertaking to secure developer contributions.
Richard Flower addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. The Committee heard that over the past 12 years all applications put on the site had been refused and that development on the site would cause detrimental harm to the street scene creating a cramped development with a very small garden. The speaker outlined that this was a private road which was currently getting more traffic than had been planned for and noted that the applicant had not contributed to the upkeep of the road. The speaker concluded by outlining that there were many soothing words in the proposal but asked the Committee to refuse the proposal and consider what the implications of the principle of development would be if approved.
Michael Smith (Agent) addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. The Committee heard that the site had been reassessed against the Council’s policies and that the proposal had provided a clear set of matters that should address previous issues whilst taking into account the context of the site. The Committee were asked to consider policy DM12 and noted that the front of the building would face onto the road and adjacent to the existing dwelling and would cause no loss of light. It was noted that there would be a smaller garden but that there would be controlled parking for the proposal in a highly sustainable location which was served by a multitude of busses in the area. The speaker concluded by detailing that the proposal had a high level of architectural quality and that the negative aspects had been addressed asking that the application be approved.
The Democratic Services Officer read out a statement from Councillor Lyn Barton as follows:
"The applicant is a resident of Shrub End Ward and I am speaking in my capacity as her ward councillor.
This application has a chequered history but the last time it came to planning several members were inclined to approve it but gave a few recommendations. These suggestions have now been incorporated by the applicant and in the light of the newly approved local plan which favours such applications I see no reason not to approve.
We visited the site and the piece of land in question is an overgrown unattractive site which does nothing to enhance the area. The proposed dwelling does ,in my opinion ,complete the line of houses currently in situ. It blends in nicely.
This is a private road and Highways have raised no objections to the entrance/ exit to Highfield Drive.
I would ask the committee to approve this application as from what I can see others of a similar nature in Lexden have been approved. We have to be fair and consistent in our approach."
Councillor Willetts addressed the Committee and detailed his concerns regarding the access road being of a single track nature and how it joined onto Lexden Road. It was noted that a previous policy had detailed that where there was a single track road then no more than 5 dwellings could be served by it. The Ward Member drew attention to the fact that there would be a similar application coming forward in the future in the area which was causing concern for residents. The Committee heard that the road was not the leafy lane that it was made out to be and that the safety implications of lack of visibility splays and cars reversing onto Lexden Road had raised concerns. The Committee heard that the decisions from the Planning Inspectorate had relevance to the proposal before them and asked the Committee to take these material considerations into account. Councillor Willetts concluded by noting the Council’s previous refusals on the site and that there should be no further intensification on site or development.
At the request of the Chair the Principal Planning Officer responded to the points raised by the Have Your Say speakers. The Committee heard that policy DM17 in the Local Plan adopted in 2022 and the previous policy of DP15 were very similar which was significant to the decision as the Planning Inspector had put significant weight on these policies when making their previous decision. It was noted that the proposal was in a sustainable location and that that the design of the proposal was acceptable, but these did not overcome the harm that would be caused by the development. The Officer outlined that the Planning Inspector had made it clear that no landscaping could improve the proposal and that just because the site was untidy that did not mean that it should be developed on as that would set a precedent for future developments. The Committee were cautioned that should they wish to refuse the application on highways matters this could be an issue as none of the previous applications had been refused on this basis and no objection had been received from the Highway Authority.
Members debated the application noting that the proposal was contentious and that the long history of the site coupled with the number of planning appeals did give significant weight to refusal. In response to a question from the Committee the Development Manager advised that a condition could be added to control the slab level that the dwelling should be built at however if this was agreed then it would need to be demonstrated that a material change had taken place to overcome the reasons cited by previous Planning Inspectorate decisions. It was further noted by the Principal Planning Officer that neglect of the site would not be a reasonable cause for approval.
The Committee continued to debate the application on the issues including: the NPPF and the relevant paragraphs that were detailed under its previous iterations when decisions were made, that the Council had approved other applications without adequate parking in the city centre, that the proposal was finely balanced, and that there would need to be significant clear cut reasons to overturn the previous decisions of the Council and Planning Inspectorate.
The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that material weight did need to be applied to the Planning Inspectorate’s previous decisions and that the NPPF had been updated since the previous application, but the relevant paragraph had been included in the new iteration just under a different number. The Development Manager advised the Committee that the NPPF had to be looked at as a whole and specific paragraphs could not be cherry picked or looked at in isolation. They detailed that it was always possible to find places to justify developments and commented that the Principal Planning Officer has detailed how the proposal related to the Local Plan Policies and that there was no material change in policies since the previous iteration of the application had been before the Committee.
Members concluded the debate by discussing the weight of the Local Plan and the Planning Inspectorate’s previous decisions.
RESOLVED (EIGHT votes FOR, ONE vote AGAINST, with ONE ABSTENTION) that the application be refused for the reasons as set out in the report and with the additional reason for refusal as follows:
- That there was a lack of mechanism to secure developer contributions (Community, Parks and Recreation and RAMS).