877
The Committee considered an application for the demolition of brick boundary wall t
Lexden Manor and the construction of three 4-bedroom detached houses, each with
internal garage, plus individual private driveways connecting to Marlowe Way with
the retention of two Tree Protection Order trees. The application was referred to the
Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Lissimore for the reasons set out in
the report.
The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out together
with further information on the Amendment Sheet.
Chris Harden, Senior Planning Officer, presented the report and assisted the
Committee in its deliberations. A presentation was given of site photographs, aerial
views and sketches of the proposed site layout and property design, including street
scene illustrations and detailed proposed floorplans. In terms of the unilateral
undertaking, whist the monitoring fee had been paid, the unilateral undertaking had
not been finalised. A comment had been received from the Member of Parliament, Will
Quince, requesting that the Committee pay particular attention to the concerns that
had been raised by local residents, including the appearance of the proposed
properties and their height. Reference was also made to concerns that part of the wall
had already been demolished, but it was confirmed to the Committee that removal of
part of the wall would not have required planning permission. Since the report had
been written, eight further letters of objection had been received which were largely
re-iterating concerns raised previously in respect of the size and design of the
proposed properties, parking and overlooking issues.
The Committee were advised that overall this was a very finely balanced scheme
which had attracted a lot of objections. The existing area was a very nice mix existing
properties and open spaces, which contributed to the overall value of the area. In terms
of the principle of the development, it was within the settlement limits and the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) gave a presumption in favour of such sustainable
development, and therefore the proposal should be judged on its planning merits.
Although there would be some loss of open space to the front of the proposed
properties, there would be a condition applied to ensure that there were no enclosures
on the frontage area, and it was not considered that the loss of open space would be
so significant to constitute supporting a refusal on these grounds.
The building of Lexden Manor was a pleasant building but one which was not listed or
locally listed, which reduced the level of protection attributed to it. Some views of the
manor would be lost if three dwellings were built in front of it, although some additional
sight lines may be opened up between the proposed houses with the removal of the
existing wall. It was not considered that the loss of the view of Lexden Manor and its
setting was so significant that a refusal could be justified on those grounds, as
indicated in the report.
With regard to the form of the development, the proposed design was different to the
surrounding area, which was comprised of dwellings with no particular architectural
merit but which comprised a pleasant urban context. It was recognised that the
proposed development represented good design in terms of a sharp contemporary
scheme and with the use of high quality materials could fit in with the character of the
area. The designs showed a traditional gable width, coupled with more modern
features on the front, and with the use of high quality materials with a variation in the
middle dwelling including the roof material meant that the properties could fit into the
setting. It was therefore not considered that the proposals should be refused on the
grounds of design, scale and form.
The Committee heard that the garden areas did exceed the area required for dwellings
of this nature and scale, and in this regard it was difficult to argue that the proposal
represented an over-development of the site. The dwellings were considered far
enough away from neighbouring properties to avoid an overbearing impact or loss of
light, and although the rear of the proposed dwellings did look over Lexden Manor,
obscure glazing conditions would ensure that windows did not overlook any private
amenity spaces. It was considered that there were adequate parking spaces on site,
with two spaces to the front of the property in addition to the garage. The Committee
were advised that a condition could be added to require that the garages be retained
as garaging if it wished.
This was a very finely balanced case. It was possible to say that there would be some
loss of open space and some loss of the view of Lexden Manor, while on the other
hand this was a sustainable development with design considered acceptable to the
character of the area and no highways issues, retained trees and some openness on
the site. The recommendation was therefore that the application be approved subject
to the finalisation of the unilateral undertaking.
Simon Sorrell, a local resident, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions
of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 and in opposition to the application. The
Committee heard that Marlowe Way was situated in an area with its own character, no
through traffic and houses of similar design and uniform height on low density plots.
Equally important were the open, publicly accessible green spaces, which were vital
to the streets’ attraction and amenity of local residents and wildlife. The Committee
were requested to refuse the application in order to protect the open area of land that
was the subject of the application, together with other such areas in the locality. The
demolition of the section of the wall that had taken place was described as a flagrant
breach of planning control, and concerns were expressed that the objection that had
been received from residents had been given insufficient weight on the Officer’s report,
which seemed to favour the applicant. The Committee heard that the proposal
conflicted with policies DP1 and DP15. The proposed scheme design seemed to be in
conflict with policy DP1, which required designs that respected the character of the
immediate area, and the proposed houses were three floors high and higher than any
other dwellings in the area. Marlowe Way enjoyed a particular character which
deserved to be recognised, and the Committee were requested to consider the
concerns that had been raised by so many, the detrimental impact that the proposal
would have on Marlowe Way, and to refuse the application.
By way of a point of clarification, the Chair explained to the Committee that the partial
removal of the boundary wall was considered to be permitted development, and as
such no planning permission would have been required for these works.
Robert Pomery, a Planning Consultant, addressed the Committee pursuant to the
provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 and in support to the application.
The Committee heard that both national planning policy, and the Council’s own Local
Plan supported the use of land in locations which were accessible to schools, shops
and other services, and the use of such sites reduced the need for housing growth on
greenfield land. The site was described as a ‘windfall site’, which made an important
contribution to the Council’s housing supply and it was important that these sites
continued to be developed. The site in question had emerged through the
simultaneous purchase of Lexden Manor by the applicant, and the area of frontage on
Marlowe Way which had afforded the opportunity to combine the two sites. The
Committee was referred to the Local Plan Policies, and were informed that the land
did not benefit from any protections or other designations, other than the trees subject
to Tree Protection Orders, and the land was not public open space. The scheme was
compliant with the policies of the Council in every respect and included the provision
of solar panels, electric vehicle charging points for veery property and ground source
heat pumps. Although the proposed buildings had been described as three storey, this
was incorrect as the buildings were two storey with accommodation in the roof space.
Officers were content that there were no aspects of the proposal that would sustain or
support refusal of planning permission.
Councillor Lissimore attended the meeting, and, with the consent of the Chair,
addressed the Committee. The Committee heard that the application had been called
in much earlier in the year, and the length of time that been taken to bring it before the
Committee demonstrated that it was not a straightforward application. It was felt that
the proposed design of the scheme was out of keeping with the locality, and the fact
that the proposals had been described as ‘finely balanced’ meant that approval was
by no means guaranteed. It was suggested that the development was out of character
for the area and was not a good design. The Committee were directed to the street
scene illustration that had been shown, which it was suggested did not demonstrate
that fact that houses to both the left and right of the proposed development were chalet
style properties which although two storey buildings, were not full height two stories.
Similar style properties were commonly located in the area immediately surrounding
the proposed scheme, many of which had very low roof lines and restricted roof height.
The proposed development properties had roof heights that were at least 1.8 metres
higher than all neighbouring properties, and properties within the estate. The
Committee’s attention was drawn to the report which stated that the design of the
proposed properties differed significantly in design from neighbouring properties.
Local residents and Councillors believed that the design went against the Council’s
own design policies, and was in fact in breach of National Planning Policy Framework
section 12 in respect of achieving well designed places, DP1 design and amenity in
the Council’s development policy, in addition to DP12 and DP14 in that the
development did not enhance the site or surroundings. Given the acknowledged and
significant design differences from neighbouring properties, the Committee was urged
to reject the application on the grounds of design.
Councillor Buston attended the meeting, and, with the consent of the Chair, addressed
the Committee. The Committee heard that there were sufficient material planning
considerations, including deviations from the Council’s own policies to justify refusing
the application. The unique character of the area was characterised by mostly low rise,
mostly chalet bungalows which presented a uniformity of a fundamentally open plan
aspect, with open green publicly accessible spaces of key importance to the area. The
proposal before the Committee was completely at odds with the unique character of
the locality, and the design did not respect of reflect the character of the site, its context
or surroundings. Councillor Buston referred to a similar application which had been
made in the area which had been refused, as the presumption in favour of sustainable
development did not override the harm that would have been caused to the character
of the local area. He suggested that the parallels to be drawn between the two cases
were compelling, and reminded the Committee again that the land currently in question
was publicly accessible. He suggested that the application would not make Marlowe
Way a better place for its residents, and called for the reinstatement of the wall that
had been partially removed from the boundary of the site.
The Senior Planning Officer responded to the concerns that had been raised, and
confirmed that the case was finely balanced, with arguments both for and against the
scheme. The Committee heard that it was a judgement on whether a more
contemporary design was to be favoured in the area, and although it was the opinion
of the Senior Planning Officer that the difference in the street scene was not enough
to justify a refusal, this was again a matter of judgement. It was confirmed to the
Committee again that the partial removal of the wall did not require planning
permission. Although there were similarities between this case and the case that
Councillor Buston had referenced, there were also significant differences in the impact
that building on a green space would have had in each area, and each case was to be
determined on its own merits.
The Committee carefully considered the points that had been made, and
acknowledged that the application was finely balanced and that accordingly the views
of residents should be carefully considered. Concern was expressed about the modern
design of the houses, and although some Committee members favoured the stye of
design in itself, serious reservations were voiced as to whether it was appropriate in
the setting. Of particular concern to the Committee was the height of the proposed
properties in comparison the rest of the locality, and the fact that the proposed
buildings were very distinctive in design and not at all in keeping with the area.
A Committee member voiced a particular concern in respect of the requirement of
obscured glazing, considering that the ability to open windows was of key importance
in a family home. Consideration was given to the Lexden Manor overlooking the
scheme, although it was acknowledged that the Manor already overlooked existing
properties in the area.
A Committee member raised questions about the green space which was the subject
of the application, seeking clarification on rights of access over this land, and who had
been responsible for maintaining it up until this point. The Committee recognised that
although the green space would not be entirely lost, it would be punctuated by tarmac
driveways, and the view of the Manor impeded.
The Committee did acknowledge the environmentally sustainable elements of the
design, but sought clear assurances from Officers that the scheme was in keeping
with the policies that had been referenced by Councillor Lissimore.
By way of response, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that other design options
were possible for the site, and while the design could not be referred to as poor in and
of itself, it was a judgement as to whether it was in keeping with the character of the
area. The ownership and maintenance of the land prior to the acquisition by the
applicant had not been established, but whether or not the area had been maintained
by the highway authority, it was now private property. The Committee heard that it was
possible to fit obscure glazing that could be opened above a height of 1.7 meters
above the floor level to allow for ventilation. The Senior Planning Officer suggested
that if the Committee was minded to refuse the application, then it should be very clear
on the grounds for the refusal.
With regard to the queries that Councillor Lissimore had raised, the Committee were
advised that it was for it to make a judgement in terms of the design. Both the Essex
Design Guide and the National Policy Framework did promote a variety of designs and
encouraged contemporary design in some areas, but a judgement was required in
terms of context.
There was some discussion in the Committee about the current and present ownership
of the land, and Simon Cairns, Development Manager, explained that he believed
through anecdotal evidence that the land had previously been owned by the original
developer. Although there may be issues of prescriptive rights relating to access of the
land, this was not a material planning issue, and would be a civil law matter. The main
planning consideration was the character of the proposed development and whether
it would result in material harm.
A Committee member asked for clarification from the Officers as the chance of an
appeal being successful should the Committee be minded to refuse the application,
and the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that in his opinion an appeal could go either
way. He did consider it highly unlikely that costs would be awarded against the Council,
as he considered that a refusal would not be viewed as unreasonable, but urged the
Committee to be clear and careful when determining the specific grounds for refusal,
if this was the route that it wished to go down. Any refusal reason would be key to any
propose development on the site in the future, as the Committee could indicate that it
was opposed to all development on the site and the loss of the green space, or that it
would consider a modified proposal in the future. As the land was privately owned,
there was a right to apply for development, and as the land was within settlement limits
there was a presumption to approve a sustainable development, but the Committee
could decide that it did not consider the site was suitable for development at all
because of the loss of open space and the setting of Lexden Manor.
A Committee member suggested that they considered that the site would be
developed in the future, but that the Committee had the opportunity to try to ensure
that any future design was more in keeping with the locality. The Committee
considered whether the Council would be placed at risk of a costs order being made
against it should a refusal be appealed the subject of an appeal, and debated whether
or not the matter should be deferred to allow the applicant to return with updated
designs. The Development Manager did not consider that there was a risk of costs
being awarded against the Council as matters that were being considered were within
the context of the application, and the Committee had a variety of options before it.
The Committee considered whether or not to refuse the application in principle, but a
number of Committee members indicated that they could not support this approach,
and it was considered that a proposal more in character with the area would be
considered more favourably.
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the application be refused on the basis that the
proposed design, scale and form was out of character for the local area.