PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA

Transcription

1 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA Tuesday, 05 June 2018 at 07:15 PM Council Chamber, Braintree District Council, Causeway House, Bocking End, Braintree, CM7 9HB THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC (Please note this meeting will be webcast and audio recorded) Members of the Planning Committee are requested to attend this meeting to transact the business set out in the Agenda. Membership:- Councillor K Bowers Councillor Lady Newton Councillor Mrs L Bowers-Flint Councillor Mrs I Parker Councillor T Cunningham Councillor F Ricci Councillor P Horner Councillor Mrs W Scattergood (Chairman) Councillor H Johnson Councillor P Schwier Councillor S Kirby Councillor Mrs G Spray Councillor D Mann Members unable to attend the meeting are requested to forward their apologies for absence to the Governance and Members Team on or governance@braintree.gov.uk by 3pm on the day of the meeting. A WRIGHT Chief Executive Page 1 of 110

2 Chief Executive INFORMATION FOR MEMBERS - DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI), Other Pecuniary Interest (OPI) or Non- Pecuniary Interest (NPI) Any member with a DPI, OPI or NPI must declare the nature of their interest in accordance with the Code of Conduct. Members must not participate in any discussion of the matter in which they have declared a DPI or OPI or participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting. In addition, the Member must withdraw from the Chamber where the meeting considering the business is being held unless the Member has received a dispensation from the Monitoring Officer. Public Question Time Registration and Speaking on a Planning Application/Agenda Item Anyone wishing to speak are requested to register by contacting the Governance and Members Team on or governance@braintree.gov.uk no later than 2 working days prior to the meeting. The Council reserves the right to decline any requests to register to speak if they are received after this time. Registered speakers will be invited to speak immediately prior to the relevant application/item. Registered speakers wishing to address the Committee on non-agenda items will be invited to speak at Public Question Time. All registered speakers will have 3 minutes each to make a statement. The order in which registered speakers will be invited to speak is: members of the public, Parish Councils/County Councillors/District Councillors, Applicant/Agent. The Chairman of the Planning Committee has discretion to extend the time allocated to registered speakers and the order in which they may speak. Documents: There is limited availability of printed Agendas at the meeting. Agendas, Reports and Minutes can be accessed via WiFi: Public Wi-Fi (called BDC Visitor) is available in the Council Chamber; users are required to register when connecting. Health and Safety: Anyone attending meetings are asked to make themselves aware of the nearest available fire exit. In the event of an alarm you must evacuate the building immediately and follow all instructions provided by staff. You will be directed to the nearest designated assembly point until it is safe to return to the building. Mobile Phones: Please ensure that your mobile phone is switched to silent during the meeting in order to prevent disturbances. Webcast and Audio Recording: Please note that this meeting will be webcast and audio recorded. You can view webcasts for up to 6 months after the meeting using this link: We welcome comments to make our services as efficient and effective as possible. If you have any suggestions regarding the meeting you have attended, you can send these to governance@braintree.gov.uk Page 2 of 110

3 PUBLIC SESSION 1 Apologies for Absence Page 2 Declarations of Interest To declare the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, other Pecuniary Interest, or Non-Pecuniary Interest relating to Items on the Agenda having regard to the Code of Conduct for Members and having taken appropriate advice where necessary before the meeting. 3 Minutes of the Previous Meeting To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 22nd May 2018 (copy to follow). 4 Public Question Time (See paragraph above) 5 Planning Applications To consider the following planning applications and to agree whether any of the more minor applications listed under Part B should be determined en bloc without debate. Where it has been agreed that applications listed under Part B will be taken en bloc without debate, these applications may be dealt with before those applications listed under Part A. PART A Planning Applications:- 5a Application No FUL - Land North East of Sportsmans Lane, HATFIELD PEVEREL b Application No FUL - Land at Meadow Park, BRAINTREE c Application No FUL - Tennis Club, Braintree Road, GOSFIELD PART B Minor Planning Applications:- 5d Application No FUL - The Cart Lodge, Coggeshall Road, EARLS COLNE Page 3 of 110

4 5e Application No FUL - 14 Britten Crescent, WITHAM f Application No FUL - Owls Hill House, Owls Hill, TERLING g Application No LBC - Owls Hill House, Owls Hill, TERLING h Application No FUL - 19 Watermill Road, FEERING i Application No FUL - April Cottage, Alphamstone Road, LAMARSH j Application No ADV - Frankie and Bennys Restaurant, Galleys Corner, Braintree Road, CRESSING k Application No VAR - The Spinning Wheel, Rowley Hill, STURMER Urgent Business - Public Session To consider any matter which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be considered in public by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency. 7 Exclusion of the Public and Press To agree the exclusion of the public and press for the consideration of any Items for the reasons set out in Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Local Government Act At the time of compiling this Agenda there were none. PRIVATE SESSION 8 Urgent Business - Private Session To consider any matter which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be considered in private by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency. Page Page 4 of 110

5 PART A AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5a APPLICATION 17/01726/FUL DATE NO: VALID: APPLICANT: Mr C. Fillingham Strutt And Parker Farms Limited, C/o Agent AGENT: Mr Chris Loon Springfields Planning & Development, 15 Springfields, Great Dunmow, CM6 1BP, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION: Erection of 3no. dwellings with garages, access, related infrastructure and landscaping LOCATION: Land North East Of, Sportsmans Lane, Hatfield Peverel, Essex For more information about this Application please contact: Mrs Natalie Banks on: Ext or by to: natalie.banks@braintree.gov.uk Page 5 of 110

6 SITE HISTORY None relevant to this application. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Currently the Council s development plan consists of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005) and the Core Strategy (2011). The Council is currently working on a Draft Local Plan, which was approved by the Council unanimously for consultation on the 20 th June 2016 and was the subject of public consultation between the 27 th June and 19 th August The Draft Local Plan, now referred to as the Publication Draft Local Plan, was approved by the Council on 5 th June 2017 for consultation and for submission to the Secretary of State. The public consultation ran from 16 th June to 28 th July The Publication Draft Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 9 th October The Section 1 of the Draft Local Plan is currently the subject of an examination by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Part 2 Draft Local Plan examination will take place later this year. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, from the day of publication the Council can give weight to the emerging Draft Local Plan and the weight that can be given is related to: The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given) and; The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Accordingly the Council can currently afford some weight to the emerging Publication Draft Local Plan It should also be noted that the Council was previously working on a Site Allocation and Development Management Plan (the ADMP). This plan was subject to extensive public consultation in 2013 and The ADMP was not however submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, due to the decision to begin work on a new Local Plan, to take into account the most up to date Government guidance. However parts of the ADMP have been rolled forward into the Draft Local Plan. It is therefore considered that it would be consistent with the provisions in paragraph 216 of the NPPF, to afford more weight in decision making to the parts of the Draft Local Plan which have been rolled forward from the ADMP, due to the more advanced stage reached by those elements. Page 6 of 110

7 National Planning Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 RLP1 RLP2 RLP7 RLP8 RLP9 RLP10 RLP16 RLP56 RLP78 RLP84 RLP90 RLP100 Housing Provision Town Development Boundaries and Village Envelopes Housing and Mixed Use Sites House Types Design and Layout of Housing and Mixed Use Areas Residential Density Hamlets and Small Groups of Dwellings Vehicle Parking Countryside Protected Species Layout and Design of Development Alterations and Extensions and Changes of Use to Listed Buildings and their settings Braintree District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 CS5 CS8 CS9 The Countryside Natural Environment and Biodiversity Built and Historic Environment Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan 2017 SP1 LPP1 LPP41 LPP45 LPP50 LPP55 LPP60 LPP68 LPP71 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Development Boundaries Infill Developments in Hamlets Parking Provision Built and Historic Environment Layout and Design of Development Heritage Assets and their Settings Protected Species, Priority Spaces and Priority Habitat Landscape Character and Features INTRODUCTION / REASON FOR APPLICATION BEING CONSIDERED AT COMMITTEE This application is being presented to Committee as it was called in by a Member. SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located to the north-east of Sportsman s Lane, which lies within Nounsley, to the south of Hatfield Peverel. It lies outside of the Page 7 of 110

8 Village Envelope of Nounsley and within open countryside. The site is broadly rectangular and comprises 0.14 hectares and is currently unused grassland. The site has some semi mature trees within it. It has a frontage with Sportsman s Lane of around 45 metres and the site itself lies at a higher level than the adjacent highway. The site abuts a public and well used footpath to the north-western boundary, beyond which lies the vehicular access to the Grade II* Listed Priory and Grade II Listed Registered Park and Garden. Just beyond the access lies the Sportsman s Arms Public House. The north eastern boundary is defined by a 1.2 metre post and rail fence, whereas the south eastern boundary is formed of an existing hedgerow, beyond which lie 2 storey semi-detached properties (No.18 and No.22). The site frontage to the south-west is formed by hedge and tree planting, beyond the road lie a linear form of residential dwellings. PROPOSAL The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 3no. detached residential houses with detached garaging on land to the north-east of Sportsman s Lane, including access, parking and landscaping. The site would be served by a single point of access off Sportsman s Lane. CONSULTATIONS ECC Highways No objections subject to conditions in respect of car parking, including materials of surfacing, vehicle turning and access arrangements and visibility splays. Ecology A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) has been submitted. No objections provided the recommendations detailed in the PEA are followed to ensure ecological protection and enhancement. Recommend a condition in respect of a biodiversity method statement. Historic Building Consultant No objection. Comment that there would be negligible impact on the significance of heritage assets. BDC Environmental Health No objections subject to conditions in respect of construction work hours, a dust and mud control management scheme and a piling scheme. BDC Landscape Officer Do not object to the application. Agree with the conclusions in the Arboricultural Report. There are no significant landscape features within the site (Category C trees) and poor hedges. Recommend a Condition for a landscape scheme to provide a level of amenity along the frontage with Sportsman Lane. REPRESENTATIONS Hatfield Peverel Parish Council Do not support the application. Comment that:- Page 8 of 110

9 The site was not supported in the call for sites for the new Local Plan, nor is it an allocated site within that Plan or the emerging Neighbourhood Plan; Is contrary to Policies; Is inappropriate due to the location of the green wedge identified within the emerging Neighbourhood Plan and access issues; Is in Local Landscape Character Assessment Area 6 Lies within a special landscape setting. 36 letters of objection have been received in response to the public consultation the main planning points of which are summarised below: The site is outside of the village envelope within open countryside It outside the Neighbourhood and local plans and situated within the green wedge No need for further housing. No benefit to the village Inadequate access and parking provision. Adverse impact to verges. Increased traffic and safety concerns to all users of the Lane Infrastructure and services cannot accommodate any more houses Adverse impact to adjacent footpath Will harm nearby Listed Buildings and Listed Park and Gardens Village has poor public transport links Impact on wildlife Loss of trees Increase flood risk The size and design of the properties do not fit with the village. Cramped development. Out of character with the pattern of development in area. Harm to the visual and landscape character of the area Harm to neighbouring amenity REPORT Principle of Development Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Council s development plan consists of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005) and the Core Strategy (2011). The application site is located outside of the village envelope for Nounsley and as such is within the countryside. The development therefore conflicts with Policy RLP2 of the Local Plan Review and Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy which seeks to direct housing to within settlement boundaries. Policy CS5 states that beyond settlement limits development will be strictly controlled to uses appropriate to the countryside, in order to protect and enhance the Page 9 of 110

10 landscape character and biodiversity, geodiversity and amenity of the countryside. The Council is currently working on a Draft Local Plan, now referred to as the Publication Draft Local Plan. The Plan was approved by the Council on the 5 th June for a Regulation 19 consultation and for submission to the Secretary of State. The public consultation ran from the 16 th June to 28 th July The Plan was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in October 2017 for examination in public in early In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, from the day of publication the Council can give weight to the emerging Draft Local Plan and the weight that can be given is related to: The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given) and; The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Accordingly the Council can currently afford some weight to the emerging Publication Draft Local Plan The Council acknowledges that in terms of what the NPPF requires, it does not currently have a deliverable 5 year supply of land for housing that meets the full objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing, together with an additional buffer of 5%, as required under paragraph 47 of the NPPF. The NPPF provides specific guidance in relation to the determination of planning applications in such circumstances, stating at paragraph 49 that Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant polices for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. This is further reinforced at paragraph 14 which identifies the presumption in favour of sustainable development as sitting at the heart of the NPPF, and that for decision-taking this means where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant polices are out-of-date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework (NPPF) taken as a whole; or specific polices in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. The scale of the shortfall in housing supply is a matter that has been the subject of argument at recent Public Inquiries relating to residential developments in the District. A key aspect of the argument has been whether to apply the Sedgefield approach or the Liverpool approach to the calculation of the shortfall. The difference between the two is that under the Page 10 of 110

11 Sedgefield approach, Local Planning Authorities make provision for any undersupply from previous years over the next 5 years (i.e. front loading) whereas the Liverpool approach spreads provision for the undersupply over the full term of the Plan (i.e. reducing the level of supply needed in the first five years when compared to the Sedgefield approach). The conclusion reached by two Planning Inspectors (ref. appeal decision Land at West Street Coggeshall dated 12 July 2017, and Land at Finchingfield Road Steeple Bumpstead dated 6 th September 2017) is that although the District Council advanced the Liverpool approach, the Sedgefield approach should be applied to the calculation until there is greater certainty with the Local Plan. These appeal decisions are a material consideration in the determination of residential development proposals and it must therefore be acknowledged that whilst the District Council s forecast housing supply (as at 30 December 2017) is considered to be 5.15 years based on the Liverpool approach, it is 4.03 years based on the Sedgefield approach. Neither paragraph 14 or 49 of the NPPF fix the weight to be afforded to a conflict with policies of the Development Plan in circumstances where they are out of date. Weight is for the decision taker. Officers advise that in light of a lack of a five year supply of housing land, the second bullet point in the decision taking section of paragraph 14 is triggered and as a consequence lesser weight can be given to policies which restrict the supply of housing. The lack of a 5 year housing land supply is therefore a material consideration which weighs in favour of the proposed development. The site was put forward in the Call for Sites as part of the new Local Plan. The site was considered initially by the Local Plan Sub Committee (ref: HATF318). Officers recommended to the Committee that the site not be allocated for residential development. The application site does not benefit from a draft allocation within the emerging Local Plan. Sustainable Development The NPPF makes it clear that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It identifies three dimensions to sustainable development: environmental, social and economic. These roles should not be considered in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. The development will undoubtedly bring both social and economic benefits, albeit relative to the scale of the development. The development will provide housing and will provide benefits during the construction stage and thereafter with additional residents supporting the services/facilities within the village and nearby towns/villages. Para.55 of the NPPF states that in order to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village Page 11 of 110

12 nearby. LPA s should avoid isolated new homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy states that future development will be provided in accessible locations to reduce the need to travel. The strategy set out in the Publication Draft Local Plan is to concentrate growth in the most sustainable locations - that is, by adopting a spatial strategy that promotes development in the most sustainable locations, where there are opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport links to nearby shops, services and employment opportunities. This means for the new Local Plan: That the broad spatial strategy for the District should concentrate development in Braintree, planned new garden communities, Witham and the A12 corridor, and Halstead. The hierarchy within the Publication Draft Local Plan also identifies 5 Service Villages which act as local centres for their surrounding rural areas. Although Hatfield Peverel is identified as one of these villages, Nounsley is not. Further, the site lies outside of the village settlement boundary. The application site therefore is located in the countryside, which is at the bottom of the settlement hierarchy identified in the Core Strategy and Publication Draft Local Plan. It is in a location where the Council s existing and proposed development strategies seek to restrict new residential development unless there are exceptional circumstances. This application must be considered on its merits and an assessment must be made of the amenities/facilities available within the village. Nounsley itself does not benefit from a post office, local shop, primary school provision, village hall or similar. There is one Public House, which is currently vacant (and is sited on the edge of the settlement and outside of the defined boundary). In terms of accessibility to nearby towns and villages to access services, whilst there are bus services from Nounsley, to Hatfield Peverel, Maldon and Chelmsford, these are not frequent and would provide limited realistic flexibility and opportunities for occupiers to have adequate service to such services especially in terms of access to school or to commute further afield. The relative close proximity of Hatfield Peverel to the north is noted. Indeed this is a key service village where there are a number of facilities and services including Infants and Junior school, doctors surgery, shops, Public Houses and restaurants, library, Church and similar, as well as the railway Station. In terms of accessing those facilities, occupiers of the site would most realistically travel via Nounsley Road and Ulting Road. Via this route, the School is located 1.1 miles from the site, the town 1.5 miles and the train station 1.9 miles. The route itself would not be entirely via footpaths, with much of Nounsley Road being without a footpath and being a narrow rural road. Sportsman s Lane equally does not have a footpath running up to the site and there would be conflict between pedestrians and vehicles, as pedestrians would be forced to walk in the road. Further, much of the route, especially along Ulting Road, is without lighting and this is another factor that Page 12 of 110

13 would discourage occupiers of the site from walking or cycling to Hatfield Peverel. Overall given the distances involved and the characteristics of some of the route being via narrow rural roads with no footpath or unlit footpaths, occupiers of the site are unlikely to connect to the services in Hatfield Peverel on foot and bicycle. To conclude, in terms of the settlement hierarchy in both the adopted Development Plan and the emerging Local Plan, the site would not be considered a sustainable location for residential development. The site does benefit from some bus service provision; however, this is infrequent to allow anything more than occasional use. The site has relatively poor footpaths links with Hatfield Peverel, such that occupiers of the development would rely on the private vehicles to access school, shops, employment and similar. The site is therefore considered an unsustainable location. The planning balance is concluded below. Design, Appearance and Layout / Impact upon Heritage Assets The NPPF requires planning to always seek to secure high quality design. Policy RLP90 of the Local Plan Review and Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy also require a high standard of design and layout in all developments. The grain of development in the immediate area is generally of detached dwellings (although the adjacent site is a semi-detached pair) with sizable gardens. The dwellings on the north side of Sportsman s Lane are sited close to the roadside, as is the adjacent site (No. 18 and 22), whereas dwellings on the opposite southern side of Sportsman s Lane are set further back into their plots. The scale, design and appearance of the dwellings in the locality is very mixed with 2 storey and bungalows in existence and modern dwellings sitting alongside traditional and listed dwellings. The dwellings are proposed to be set back from the roadside, behind the retained hedgerow, and would be staggered in their siting. The dwellings would not be cramped in their siting and the plot sizes are comparable with those in the locality and meet the size requirements set out in the Essex Design Guide. Their siting set back from the roadside, although allows the landscaping to be retained, would be somewhat at odds with the grain of development to the immediate north side of the Lane, which differs from the linear form of dwellings to the southern side of Sportsman Lane. The dwellings are pushed further into open countryside and although the impact of the development on the wider landscape may be restricted, the proposal would insert 3 substantial dwellings in a location where existing development is petering out and much more sporadic on this north side of the road. The proposed dwellings are traditional in appearance with 1st floor accommodation within the roof space supported with dormer windows. Materials are of weatherboarding and render under a slate roof. Given the mixed pattern of development in the area and the varied style and materials of dwellings in the locality, the overall layout and design is not considered Page 13 of 110

14 objectionable. However, the proposals will introduce development where none exists at present with clear consequences for the character of the locality. The site lies within proximity to a number of heritage assets (28 Sportsman Lane, Lightfoots and White Gates and the Registered Park and Garden associated with the Grade II* Hatfield Priory). The development site, which would be separated from listed buildings by the Sportsman PH and by modern development on the southern side of the road is considered to have no impact on the environment in which 28 Sportsman s Lane and Lightfoots are experienced, as the intervening built form is considered to have severed any physical or visual links between the two. It would have a minor impact on the environment in which White Gates is experienced, but this is identified as being low, as the house has already been enclosed by modern development to both east and west. The site would abut the southern entrance to Hatfield Priory; however this is a secondary access to the building of lesser significance. The boundary of the park and garden is relatively well established along the boundary of the site and it is considered that the key views which allow an understanding of the park and garden are from inside the park and garden looking inwards, as opposed to views looking inwards from outside or out from inside. As such the impact on the significance of the heritage asset from the development of this site is considered to be negligible. To conclude it is considered that whilst the detailed design and appearance of the dwellings are acceptable and sympathetic to the character and appearance of the locality and there would be no harm to the setting of heritage assets, some harm would result in terms of siting and an encroachment of the countryside. The development therefore results in some conflict with Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy and Policy RLP90 of the Local Plan Review. Impact on Neighbour Amenity The NPPF requires planning to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policy RLP90 of the Local Plan Review states that there shall be no undue or unacceptable impact on the amenity of any nearby residential properties. In terms of the impact to future occupiers, the internal layout will provide for acceptable amenity in terms of space dimensions, light and outlook. The private amenity areas are sufficient in size and scale, meeting with standards set out within the Essex Design Guide. In terms of the impact to neighbouring properties, given the siting of the dwellings and distances with neighbouring properties, there would be no material adverse impact upon their amenity in terms of outlook, loss of light or similar. No. 22 to the south-east lies some distance from the boundary and its relationship with Plot 3 would not be overbearing or harmful in other respects. Plot 1 is set in from the boundary and at some distance from the Sportsman s Arms PH. The dwellings will be visible to the dwellings to the opposite side of Sportsman s Lane, but given the separation distances and siting of the Page 14 of 110

15 properties, it is not considered that detrimental harm would be caused to the occupiers of these properties. The Council s Environmental Health Team has suggested several conditions, for example in respect of hours of construction, piling and dust/mud control management. Given the scale and nature of this development these conditions are not required in order to make the development acceptable and therefore it would not be justified to attach them to any grant of consent. Highway Issues The Highway Authority has considered the proposal and raise no objections subject to a series of conditions. A condition requiring the access into the site to be constructed to an acceptable standard is recommended to be attached to any grant of consent. The development is therefore considered acceptable in terms of its impact upon highway safety and capacity. Whilst it is noted that several local residents have raised concern with regards to this matter, Officers do not consider in the absence of an objection from the Highway Authority that there are highway safety grounds to resist the proposal. The development provides for adequate parking and turning provision within the site. Each dwelling would have a single garage and driveway space. A further visitor space is allocated. This would be acceptable for the 1no. 3 bed dwelling and 2no. 4 bed dwellings, meeting adopted standards. OTHER MATTERS Trees/Hedges The application has been submitted with an Arboricultural Report. Officers concur with its conclusions, in that there are no significant landscape features within the site and the hedges are deemed poor with a significant component of elm (which will inevitably succumb to a cycle of affliction from Dutch elm disease). There is no objection on landscape grounds, subject to a securing a suitable landscaping scheme along the frontage with Sportsman Lane. The plans indicate that the existing hedgerow planting to the site frontage and other boundaries will be retained and strengthened, and this is to be secured via condition, in the interests of visual amenity. Further soft planting and appropriate hard surfacing materials and boundary treatments can also be secured via condition. Land Contamination The application was not supported by a Land Contamination Assessment or similar. However, given the current and historic use of the site, it is considered that contamination is unlikely. A condition can be placed on any grant of consent which requires a survey and remediation strategy to be submitted should contamination be found on site during the construction phase. Page 15 of 110

16 Ecology An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Preliminary Ecological Appraisal) has been submitted. This has been assessed and it is concluded that the proposals can proceed without detriment to any legally protected species provided the specific guidance within the report is fully adhered to. Subject to this being secured via condition, there are considered to be no ecological constraints to development. Flood Risk The site lies within Flood Zone 1, the lowest zone of flood risk and as such flood risk is not considered a constraint to the development. Neighbours have raised concerns with flood risk and it is considered that a condition could be imposed on any permission to address surface water drainage and similar. CONCLUSION AND PLANNING BALANCE The application site is located outside of the Village Envelope for Nounsley and is therefore within the countryside. The development therefore conflicts with Policy RLP2 of the Local Plan Review and Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy. Notwithstanding the conflict with the abovementioned policies of the adopted development plan, the presumption in favour of sustainable development sits at the heart of the NPPF. The Framework is clear in its instruction at paragraph 14 that for decision taking, where relevant development plan policies are out of date this means granting planning permission unless i) specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted; or ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. The Council acknowledge that it cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land and thus although Policy RLP2 of the Local Plan Review and Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy still carry weight, this must be reduced in light of para. 14 of the NPPF. Accordingly, the LPA must therefore apply the tilted balance to the consideration and determine and assess whether any adverse impact of granting consent would demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Assessment of the planning balance must take account of the economic, social and environmental impact of the proposed development. The development would provide 3no. units contributing to housing supply. However, the development would fail to comply with Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy and the site would not represent a suitable location for housing having regard to the accessibility of local services and facilities. In addition, insertion of three dwellings at this point on Sportsman Lane would result in a distinct detriment to its rural character and openness on this western side. Page 16 of 110

17 Having assessed the specific merits of the site which the proposal would bring against the Council s policies and the requirements of the NPPF both individually and as a whole, Officers consider that the planning balance falls against granting planning permission. Accordingly it is recommended that this application is refused. RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that the following decision be made: Application REFUSED for the following reasons:- 1 The site is located in the countryside, outside any defined village envelope as identified in the adopted Local Plan Review and adopted Core Strategy. The site is in a location with limited access to facilities, amenities, public transport links and employment opportunities and would undoubtedly place reliance on travel by car and do little to enhance or maintain the vitality of the area. Although there is a ribbon of development to the south side of Sportsmans Lane, few buildings exist to the north, permitting views across open countryside in that direction and contributing to the rural character of this stretch of the Lane. The introduction of three substantial dwellings would detract from the intimate, rural character of the Lane, at a sensitive village edge. In such circumstances, the adverse impacts of the development are considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefit arising for a development of 3 dwellings, contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy RLP2 and RLP90 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005) and Policy CS5 and CS7 of the Braintree District Core Strategy (2011) and Policies SP1, SP3, LPP50, LPP55 and LPP71 of the Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan (2017). SUBMITTED PLANS Location Plan Plan Ref: 001 Concept Plan Street elevation Floor Plan Plan Ref: Elevations Plan Ref: Floor Plan Plan Ref: Elevations Plan Ref: Floor Plan Plan Ref: Elevations Plan Ref: Garage Details Plan Ref: Site Survey Plan Ref: TESSA LAMBERT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Page 17 of 110

18 PART A AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5b APPLICATION NO: 17/02290/FUL DATE VALID: APPLICANT: Hallmark Developments Ltd Gary Taylor C/O Ken Judge & Associates Ltd, PO Box 5233, Danbury, Essex, Chelmsford, CM3 4UP AGENT: Gary Taylor Ken Judge & Associates Ltd, PO Box 5233, Danbury, Chelmsford, CM3 4UP, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION: Residential development to erect 6no. 2 bedroom bungalows set in two blocks. LOCATION: Land At, Meadow Park, Braintree, Essex For more information about this Application please contact: Mrs Natalie Banks on: Ext or by to: natalie.banks@braintree.gov.uk Page 18 of 110

19 SITE HISTORY 09/00084/DAC Application for approval of details reserved by condition of approval 06/00045/FUL - Variation to planning permission 05/00201/FUL 06/00045/FUL Variation to planning permission 05/00201/FUL (amendments to plots 71, 79 and Club House) - Erection of 43 no. 1 and 2 bed assisted living apartments, 21 no. 2 bedroom cottages, 31 no. bungalows, 4 no. 1 bed flats and 2 no. 1 bed cartlodges for the elderly, ancillary club room, restaurant, associated parking, access and landscaping 05/00201/FUL Erection of 43 no. 1 and 2 bed assisted living apartments, 21 no. 2 bedroom cottages, 31 no. bungalows, 4 no. 1 bed flats and 2 no. 1 bed cartlodges for the elderly, ancillary club room, restaurant, associated parking, access and landscaping Granted Granted S106 Granted S POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Currently the Council s development plan consists of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005) and the Core Strategy (2011). The Council is currently working on a Draft Local Plan, which was approved by the Council unanimously for consultation on the 20 th June 2016 and was the subject of public consultation between the 27 th June and 19 th August The Draft Local Plan, now referred to as the Publication Draft Local Plan, was approved by the Council on 5 th June 2017 for consultation and for submission to the Secretary of State. The public consultation ran from 16 th June to 28 th July The Publication Draft Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 9 th October The Section 1 of the Draft Local Plan is currently the subject of an examination by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Part 2 Draft Local Plan examination will take place later this year. Page 19 of 110

20 In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, from the day of publication the Council can give weight to the emerging Draft Local Plan and the weight that can be given is related to: The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given) and; The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Accordingly the Council can currently afford some weight to the emerging Publication Draft Local Plan It should also be noted that the Council was previously working on a Site Allocation and Development Management Plan (the ADMP). This plan was subject to extensive public consultation in 2013 and The ADMP was not however submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, due to the decision to begin work on a new Local Plan, to take into account the most up to date Government guidance. However parts of the ADMP have been rolled forward into the Draft Local Plan. It is therefore considered that it would be consistent with the provisions in paragraph 216 of the NPPF, to afford more weight in decision making to the parts of the Draft Local Plan which have been rolled forward from the ADMP, due to the more advanced stage reached by those elements. National Planning Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 RLP2 RLP56 RLP69 RLP74 RLP80 RLP90 Town Development Boundaries and Village Envelopes Vehicle Parking Sustainable Urban Drainage Provision of Space for Recycling Landscape Features and Habitats Layout and Design of Development Braintree District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 CS5 CS8 CS9 The Countryside Natural Environment and Biodiversity Built and Historic Environment Page 20 of 110

21 Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan 2017 SP1 SP5 LPP37 LPP1 LPP37 LPP42 LPP46 LPP56 LPP64 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Infrastructure & Connectivity Housing Type and Density Development Boundaries Housing Type and Density Residential Conversion of Buildings in the Countryside Protected Lanes Conservation Areas Educational Establishments Other Material Considerations Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Essex Design Guide Page 76 & 77 Amenity Space Page Rule & Overlooking Page Design Essex Parking Standards INTRODUCTION / REASON FOR APPLICATION BEING CONSIDERED AT COMMITTEE This application is being presented to the Planning Committee at the request of the Vice-Chairman. SITE DESCRIPTION Meadow Park is a purpose built retirement village in the south of Braintree. The retirement village is not within the Town Development Boundary in the adopted Braintree District Local Plan Review but is within the development boundary in the Publication Draft Local Plan. The proposed development boundary in the emerging Local Plan is tightly drawn so that it would include the John Ray Pavilion on the west of Meadow Park but not the land beyond the Pavilion. The Hawthorns, which is a 4-storey block of flats is the principal building on the development facing towards London Road. The John Ray Pavilion stands in its own grounds in the green space facing towards the residential development, to the south-west of The Hawthorns. The Pavilion performs an important function in the street scene both as a non-residential building and in marking the edge of the development to the west. As noted earlier, the proposed development boundary is drawn tightly around the existing development, including the John Ray Pavilion which is for the use of the residents. The application site encompasses much of the retirement village, the Pavilion and the open land between the retirement village and the slip road to the A120 which is to the south of the site. Marshalls Park is to the north, and there is a small cluster of residential dwellings opposite the site on London Road. Great Notley Garden Village is to the south west on the other Page 21 of 110

22 side of the by-pass. There is an attenuation bund situated on the western part of the site and the John Ray Walk passes along the southern edge of the site. PROPOSAL This proposal is for the erection of 6 2-bed bungalows. They would be set out in 2 blocks of 3 either side of the existing John Ray Pavilion, on land outside of the development boundary. Each block is designed in a terraced form with the outer dwellings set forward of the central bungalow. Whilst the two outer bungalows would face toward the Meadow Park development, the central unit would have its entrance door to the side, wrapped around the rear of the adjoining unit on each block. It would also feature a small hipped outshot to the rear and French doors to the front. Each block would measure approximately 6.9m in height for the central bungalow, down to 5.6m for the outer units, 27.35m in width and 16.57m in depth. The roof design features hipped corners with a half-hipped gable at either end. A small area of amenity space would be provided at the front for the central units which measures approximately 28sqm, with an area to the rear of the front facing bungalows, measuring approximately 16.6sqm. Each block would be provided with 2 vehicle parking spaces to the front adjacent to the Pavilion with a further 7 vehicle spaces to the side. These spaces would measure approximately 2.3m x 5.0. Four of the spaces would be accessible and would measure approximately 2.9m x 5.0m. The materials proposed are facing brickwork for the plinth with eternit Cedral weather-boarding and interlocking tiles for the roofs. The application is accompanied by the following supporting documents: Planning Statement Air Quality Assessment Noise Survey and Assessment Report Preliminary Ecology Appraisal Survey Estate Agents Letter regarding potential demand. The Planning Statement indicates that the amenity space is commensurate with the existing development which has been acceptable for the target market of over 55 years of age retirement living who generally dislike the unnecessary stress of maintaining a larger garden. The design standard followed is Approved Document M of the Building Regulations. Twelve existing parking spaces will be lost to the existing Pavilion but two new parking areas of 7 spaces each and two new areas each side of the pavilion building of two spaces each make an increase of 6 new spaces. The site is very well connected to public transport and although the new units are 2 bedroom they do not need two spaces per unit given their target market. The Air Quality report indicates that there are no air quality grounds for refusal, however, mitigation of any emissions should be considered. In terms of noise mitigation, figures from the WHO s Guidelines for Community Noise and BS8233 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Page 22 of 110

23 Buildings have been used which suggest that significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life are avoided. To achieve appropriate internal noise levels, building envelope constructions are recommended. The Estate Agent s letter indicates that demand for this type of accommodation appears to stem from the southern part of the County due to prices in the northern part of the county being considerably lower. Bungalows are particularly in demand. CONSULTATIONS ECC Highways no objection, subject to a condition requiring travel packs. BDC Environmental Health no objection subject to construction conditions and that the recommendations of the Noise Survey report in Section 5.2 in regards to the construction of the properties are implemented. BDC Ecology no objections subject to pre-commencement conditions relating to protected species. BDC Waste no comments. REPRESENTATIONS Nineteen representations have been received, which are summarised as follows: Disruption during construction; Path around the building is too narrow for a mobility scooter or for 2 people walking side-by-side; Overdevelopment; Lack of landscaping; Loss of privacy and amenity; No noise attenuation proposed; Loss of memorial tree to former resident; Over-bearing design height is significantly higher than existing development; Insufficient parking and loss of existing parking; Loss of view/outlook; The access road is too narrow; Lack of drainage information; The information in the noise and air quality reports is misleading and understates the problems; The Planning Statement is misleading in many respects including parking, landscaping and connectivity to public transport; Loss of setting of the Pavilion, and removal of a significant part of the amenity garden; Impact on the design of the existing development as an entrance to the scheme; Impact on property values of existing residents; There is no demonstrable need for the bungalows; Page 23 of 110

24 Impact on wildlife. REPORT Principle of Development The application site is located in the Braintree West Ward and is outside of the Braintree Town Development boundary, within an area where countryside policies apply. Planning law requires that proposals that accord with the local authority s Development Plan must be approved without delay. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision-taking. Paragraph 17 sets out Core Planning Principles, which require that development is, amongst other things, plan-led, creative, and of high quality design which takes account of the different roles and character of different areas. The NPPF also states that where the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. The Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. The scale of the shortfall in housing supply is a matter that has been the subject of argument at recent Public Inquiries relating to residential developments in the District. A key aspect of the argument has been whether to apply the Sedgefield approach or the Liverpool approach to the calculation of the shortfall. The difference between the two is that under the Sedgefield approach, Local Planning Authorities make provision for any undersupply from previous years over the next 5 years (i.e. front loading) whereas the Liverpool approach spreads provision for the undersupply over the full term of the Plan (i.e. reducing the level of supply needed in the first five years when compared to the Sedgefield approach). The conclusion reached by two Planning Inspectors (ref. appeal decision Land at West Street Coggeshall dated 12 July 2017, and Land at Finchingfield Road Steeple Bumpstead dated 6 th September 2017) is that although the District Council advanced the Liverpool approach, the Sedgefield approach should be applied to the calculation until there is greater certainty with the Local Plan. These appeal decisions are a material consideration in the determination of residential development proposals and it must therefore be acknowledged that whilst the District Council s forecast housing supply (as at 30 December 2017) is considered to be 5.15 years based on the Liverpool approach, it is 4.03 years based on the Sedgefield approach. Page 24 of 110

25 The lack of a 5 year housing land supply is therefore a material consideration in the determination of this planning application and must be factored into the overall planning balance. Design and Appearance Policy RLP90 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policy CS9 of the Braintree District Core Strategy require that the design of development should recognise and reflect local distinctiveness, and be sensitive to the need to conserve local features of architectural, historic and landscape importance. Proposals for development should: 1. Seek to protect the character of the existing street scene, the setting of attractive buildings and historic interest of the locality, the landscape value of existing tree cover and generally to ensure that new development does not materially detract from the character of the settlement. 2. Seek to ensure that in the development of infill plots, the scale, design and intensity of any new building is in harmony with existing surrounding development, respects neighbouring amenities and that inappropriate backland development is prevented. 3. Have regard to the extent to which proposals for housing development will contribute towards meeting local housing needs. 4. Seek to protect the character and historic interest of the locality. The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. It is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people (para 56). Decisions should aim to ensure that developments: Will function well and add to the quality of an area; Establish a strong sense of place to create attractive and comfortable places to live; Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development; Respond to local character and history; Create safe and accessible environments; Are visually attractive. Whilst not readily visible from London Road or the A120 slip road and by-pass due to the bund and the existing hedgerow, it is important to note that Meadow Park has a distinct established envelope around the development which is clearly deliberate. The John Ray Pavilion is a non-residential building Page 25 of 110

26 for the use of the residents at Meadow Park and as such sits in its own grounds, with parking spaces provided either side (the actual amount is not clear). It faces towards the single storey dwellings associated with the development which helps to establish its function as a communal building. Its setting is also pleasant and attractive in character with the green space around it providing an open and verdant back-drop and its siting here was quite deliberate in terms of providing an attractive setting for the building. As such, this building performs an important function not only as a communal building but also in terms of the layout of the street scene. At present, it functions as a focal point in this part of Meadow Park and marks the edge of the planned development. To place a terrace of 3 dwellings either side of the Pavilion will not only erode its character and function as an important building but will also result in the loss of the attractive green space around it. In addition to the above Policy requirements, the Council has adopted the Essex Design Guide which sets out requirements for such matters as amenity space, spatial relationships and layout. In terms of amenity space, the EDG suggests that a minimum of 50sqm is provided for 2-bed dwellings. The amenity space provision for the new units is considerably short of the requirements set out in the Essex Design Guide. The proposal is therefore not considered to be acceptable as it would fail to provide adequate amenity space for future residents. In terms of the design of the two terraces of bungalows, a clear attempt to reflect the existing residential development has been made and whilst this approach is not objectionable in itself, the principle of setting the new development here is not acceptable as it would not protect the existing character of the development or the setting of the Pavilion, contrary to the NPPF and the local plan policies referred to above. Impact on Neighbouring Residential Amenities Policy CS9 of the Braintree District Core Strategy and RLP90 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review seek, amongst other things, to ensure that new development will respect the amenity of existing residents. In this case, given that the development is single storey in height, it is not considered that the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity in terms of being overbearing, over-looking or overshadowing/loss of light. Highway Considerations Policy RLP56 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review seeks to ensure that all new development is provided with sufficient parking in accordance with Essex County Council s Vehicle Parking Standards The Standards require that for developments of this type (i.e. retirement developments), 1 space should be provided per unit with an additional space for every 8 units. These spaces should measure 2.9m x 5.5m. In this case, a total of 18 spaces would be provided, however, it is not clear if these spaces are for the new residential development or if they would include parking provision for the Page 26 of 110

27 Pavilion. They are also short of the required size set out in the Standards. Whist ECC Highways has not objected on these grounds the development would result in a net loss of parking for the pavilion and in parking spaces which are below the Standards. It is therefore considered that this issue warrants a reason for refusal in its own right. Other Issues The applicant has indicated that there is a need for this type of development and has included a letter from a local estate agent. However, no base data has been included and it would appear that rather than there being a demonstrable need for this type of accommodation, there is a demand. Nevertheless the development would result in the provision of 6 new dwellings, which would provide both social and economic benefits. The Planning Balance The application site is located outside the Town Development Boundary for Braintree, wherein residential development is not normally acceptable in accordance with RLP2 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 14 is clear that for decision taking this means that development proposals that accords with the development plan must be approved without delay or where the plan is absent, silent or out-of-date, unless there are specific policies in the Framework that indicate development should be restricted (known as Footnote 9). It is concluded that as there is no footnote 9 objection to this proposal, the Council therefore needs to consider the application in the light of the tilted balance whereby permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF taken as a whole. There are three elements which need to be balanced to ensure that development will provide wider benefits in the public interest. The NPPF refers to these elements as environmental, social and economic benefits. These roles should not be taken in isolation because they are mutually dependent. It is acknowledged that the development would result in some socio-economic benefits in terms of construction jobs in the short-term, the contribution the new residents could make to the local economy, and the small contribution it would make to housing supply. However, it is considered that these benefits would not outweigh the environmental harm that would result from the development as a consequence of the detrimental impact on the character of the street scene and wider residential development and upon the setting of the Pavilion, the poor residential amenity as a result of the sub-standard gardens, together with loss of parking for the Pavilion and the sub-standard parking spaces, as referred to above. Page 27 of 110

28 Conclusion It is therefore concluded that whilst the development will bring some benefits in terms of providing new housing and a small contribution to the economy, these benefits would not outweigh the likely environmental harm as outlined above. It is therefore concluded that the application should be refused. RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that the following decision be made: Application REFUSED for the following reasons:- 1 Part 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. The design of development should seek to ensure that new development will add to the quality of the area and establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive places to live, work and visit. In this case it is considered that the John Ray Pavilion building performs an important function not only as a communal building but also in terms of the layout of the street scene, and the role it plays in marking the edge of the developed area at Meadow Park. It functions as a focal point in this part of Meadow Park and marks the end of the planned residential development. This proposal will have an unacceptable impact upon its design and setting result in the loss of the green space around it. As such, this proposal would not represent sustainable development as a result of the environmental harm, contrary to the aims of the NPPF, Policies CS5, CS8 and CS9 of the Braintree District Core Strategy and RLP2 and RLP90 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review. 2 It is also considered that the sub-standard gardens, loss of parking spaces at the John Ray Pavilion and sub-standard sized parking spaces would result in a poor quality residential environment that would be enjoyed by the proposed residents and the existing residents that use the Pavilion, as a consequence of the deficiency of useable private amenity space and the limited parking provision, contrary to the Standards set out in the Essex Design Guide and the Essex County Council Vehicle Parking Standards and Policy CS9 of the Braintree District Core Strategy, Policy RLP90 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review, Policies SP6, LPP45, LPP50, and LPP55 of the Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan and Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) of the NPPF. Page 28 of 110

29 SUBMITTED PLANS Location Plan Plan Ref: 2404/LP/A Existing Site Plan Plan Ref: 2404/1 Proposed Block Plan Plan Ref: 2404/5 Proposed Site Plan Plan Ref: 2404/6 Proposed Plans Plan Ref: 2404/7 Proposed Sections Plan Ref: 2404/8 TESSA LAMBERT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Page 29 of 110

30 PART A AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5c APPLICATION NO: APPLICANT: 18/00027/FUL DATE VALID: Gosfield Lawn Tennis Club Mr Jonathan Goldsmith, 6 Pretoria Road, Halstead, CO9 2EG DESCRIPTION: Proposed new tennis floodlighting to 2 no. centre tennis courts including the erection of 9 no. lighting columns, with a total of 10 LED lights, measuring 6.7 metres in height, the construction of a concrete footpath between the car park and pavilion, and associated development LOCATION: Tennis Club, Braintree Road, Gosfield, Essex, CO9 1PR For more information about this Application please contact: Mrs H Reeve on: Ext or by to: helen.reeve@braintree.gov.uk Page 30 of 110

31 SITE HISTORY 83/00547/P 81/00568/P 97/00182/FUL 15/00051/ADV 17/00634/FUL 17/01865/FUL Proposed residential development (2 dwellings) Proposed residential development Demolition of existing timber pavilion and construction of new pavilion Erection of 2 faced sign board on posts Proposed new tennis floodlighting to 2 centre tennis courts including the erection of 8 no. LED lighting columns measuring up to 8 metres in height and associated development Proposed new tennis floodlighting to 2 no. centre tennis courts including the erection of 8 no. LED lighting columns measuring up to 8 metres in height and associated development (Re-submission of planning application ref: 17/00634/FUL withdrawn in May 2017) Refused Refused Granted Granted Withdrawn Withdrawn POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Currently the Council s development plan consists of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005) and the Core Strategy (2011). The Council is currently working on a Draft Local Plan, which was approved by the Council unanimously for consultation on the 20 th June 2016 and was the subject of public consultation between the 27 th June and 19 th August The Draft Local Plan, now referred to as the Publication Draft Local Plan, was approved by the Council on 5 th June 2017 for consultation and for submission to the Secretary of State. The public consultation ran from 16 th June to 28 th July The Publication Draft Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 9 th October The Section 1 of the Draft Local Plan is currently the subject of an examination by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Part 2 Draft Local Plan examination will take place later this year. Page 31 of 110

32 In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, from the day of publication the Council can give weight to the emerging Draft Local Plan and the weight that can be given is related to: The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given) and; The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Accordingly the Council can currently afford some weight to the emerging Publication Draft Local Plan It should also be noted that the Council was previously working on a Site Allocation and Development Management Plan (the ADMP). This plan was subject to extensive public consultation in 2013 and The ADMP was not however submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, due to the decision to begin work on a new Local Plan, to take into account the most up to date Government guidance. However parts of the ADMP have been rolled forward into the Draft Local Plan. It is therefore considered that it would be consistent with the provisions in paragraph 216 of the NPPF, to afford more weight in decision making to the parts of the Draft Local Plan which have been rolled forward from the ADMP, due to the more advanced stage reached by those elements. National Planning Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 RLP2 RLP65 RLP80 RLP90 RLP92 RLP129 RLP134 RLP135 RLP151 Town Development Boundaries and Village Envelopes External Lighting Landscape Features and Habitats Layout and Design of Development Accessibility Sports and Leisure Facilities Sports Causing Noise or Disturbance Floodlighting of Sports Facilities Protection of Community Services Page 32 of 110

33 Braintree District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 CS5 CS8 CS10 The Countryside Natural Environment and Biodiversity Provision for Open Space, Sport and Recreation Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan 2017 SP1 SP6 LPP1 LPP53 LPP55 LPP67 LPP68 LPP73 LPP81 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Place Shaping Principles Development Boundaries Provision of Open Space, Sport and Recreation Layout and Design of Development Natural Environment and Green Infrastructure Protected Species, Priority Spaces and Priority Habitat Protecting and Enhancing Natural Resources, Minimising Pollution and Safeguarding from Hazards External Lighting Supplementary Planning Guidance External Lighting, 2009 INTRODUCTION/REASON FOR APPLICATION BEING CONSIDERED AT COMMITTEE This application is brought before the Planning Committee in accordance with the Council s Scheme of Delegation as the applicant is a Braintree District Council Officer. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located in the countryside, beyond the southern-most edge of Gosfield village development boundary. The site comprises Gosfield Tennis Club, which is a private members club and has 4 outside tennis courts with wire mesh fence surrounding, an informal car parking area at the entrance and a small single storey pavilion building. Also within the site ownership is an allotment, directly opposite the parking area, and a caravan/camping area along the southern end of the site. The site is bounded by a hedgerow along the road frontage, which has recently been reduced to allow for signage, a tall conifer hedge along the northern boundary, a tall tree screen along the upper west boundary and open to the lower west and south boundaries. Neighbouring uses include a row of established semi-detached residential properties immediately to the south of the site and a detached dwelling (No. 5 Braintree Road) immediately to the north of the site with open countryside to the west and south of the site. Page 33 of 110

34 An access road to No. 5 Braintree Road runs through the site between the tennis courts and the allotments. The site itself is relatively flat with general topography beyond being gently undulating with resulting views of the open countryside for some distance and there are clear views of the rear elevations of the above mentioned row of properties along Braintree Road. PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to provide floodlighting to 2 no. centre tennis courts, which would comprise the erection of 9 no. lighting columns (galvanised with a green finish) measuring 6.7 metres in height, with a total of 10 no. LED lights. 6 no. columns would be placed at the outer corners of the courts with 3 no. at centre points. The central column would have 2 no. LED lights affixed. Also proposed is the construction of a concrete footpath between the existing car park and pavilion. The lights themselves would have baffles/screening around the rear of the luminaires and one side and the angle of tilt has been confirmed to be at approximately 10 degrees. In terms of hours of operation, it is proposed that the lights would be used within the following times:- Mondays to Fridays Saturdays - Sundays and Bank Holidays - 4pm to 10pm 4pm to 6pm No use PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS It is considered appropriate to note the previous applications for similar proposals, for the avoidance of doubt. Two previous applications have been withdrawn, reference numbers 17/00634/FUL and 17/01865/FUL. Insufficient information had been submitted on both occasions in order to fully assess the impact of the lighting on nearby residents and the wider countryside. Amendments have been made to the scheme generally including the inclusion of detailed luminaire design data. The height of the columns has been reduced and different LED lights are now proposed; the angle of tilt has also been reduced and the proposed hours of operation have been reduced. CONSULTATIONS Sport England General support given for the proposal. Braintree District Council Environmental Health Team Detailed response received relating to lighting and noise, summarised as follows:- Page 34 of 110

35 I am satisfied that the potential light overspill impact concerns over the previous scheme have been addressed through the latest scheme. Consequently, I do not consider that the impact from light overspill lux levels will detrimentally impact upon the amenity of local residents. I raised concerns relating to potential glare impact to residents from the previous scheme also. The reduced lighting unit angle of approximately 10 degrees, use of the different units utilised in this application (which have a reduced angle of spread of light), combined with the layout and orientation of houses and gardens locally, mean that I am satisfied that glare from the application will not unduly impact upon the amenity of local residents. In terms of noise, there would be some level of impact in relation to noise, over and above existing levels as a result of the courts being lit. However it is not considered it would be to a level which would constitute a statutory nuisance. The lighting would benefit hours of play to a larger extent in the winter months when neighbouring windows would be closed. Hours of play would be extended slightly in the summer months, but with only 2 courts being lit, it is not considered the additional use would be excessive. In summary, no objection is raised on Environmental Health grounds, subject to conditions being imposed. Braintree District Council Ecology Officer Verbal response given, no objection raised to the proposals in terms of habitats or countryside location. REPRESENTATIONS 5, 7, 9, 23 and 25 Braintree Road notified and a site notice was displayed at the entrance to the site. The Parish Council have been notified but no responses have been received. Objections received from Nos. 5 (3 reps), 23 (2 reps) and 25 Braintree Road. Concerns summarised as follows:- glare and obtrusive light on neighbouring amenity Demonstrable impact of lighting within the countryside Increase in noise as a result of increasing usage. The Tennis Club have not discussed the proposals with neighbours Justification that lighting will help keep club running is unfounded Gosfield is a small village and has been running since 1919 without lighting Impact on wildlife Deed applied to the club prevents activities which would cause nuisance or annoyance to residents. It is considered the floodlighting would be contrary to the Deed Block plan is incorrect and includes own land/right of way (No. 5) Page 35 of 110

36 Rural campsite would be affected REPORT Principle of Development The site lies within the countryside, wherein countryside policies apply. Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy states that development outside town development boundaries, village envelopes and industrial development limits will be strictly controlled to uses appropriate to the countryside, in order to protect the landscape character and biodiversity, geodiversity and amenity of the countryside. RLP Policies 65 and 135 state that external lighting will only be permitted, provided that:- lighting should not be unacceptably intrusive lighting is designed as an integral element of the development low energy lighting is used the alignment of lamps and provision of shielding minimises spillage and glow, including into the night sky the lighting intensity is no greater than necessary to provide adequate illumination lighting should not have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area there should be no loss of amenity to nearby residential properties there should be no danger to pedestrians and road users there should be no unacceptable harm to natural ecosystems/nocturnal fauna RLP Policy 134 requires that sports causing noise or disturbance will only be permitted if harm would not be caused by the nature, scale, extent, frequency or timing of the proposal and there would be no unacceptable increase in traffic on minor roads. Additional Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to external lighting supports the above-mentioned criteria and states that all installations must be energy efficient and "Dark Sky" compliant, thereby not causing obtrusive light pollution, glare, or spillage. It also states that lighting in itself is not necessarily a problem; it may become a problem where it is excessive, poorly designed, badly installed or poorly maintained. The Local Planning Authority will consider the positive benefits to be gained from any lighting proposal, particularly for safety of movement, security of property, extension of working practices or the extension of sporting and leisure activities. It is considered that the principle of floodlighting to an existing and established use is an acceptable one, however further consideration is given below. Page 36 of 110

37 It is noted that this is a rural setting, and there is a general presumption to protect the countryside from inappropriate development and the Dark Sky initiative seeks to prevent obtrusive light pollution, glare or spillage. However, the NPPF also seeks to support the rural economy and states that local plans should support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of businesses and enterprise in rural areas and promote the retention and development of local services and community services. Furthermore, the NPPF also places importance on promoting Healthy Communities and states that opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. The Tennis Club has been operating from this location for many years and the Council, in accordance with national and local policy, supports the provision of sporting and leisure facilities. The provision of lighting may encourage the extended use of the facilities and help to sustain the leisure resource it provides. This lighting scheme follows 2 previous applications which were withdrawn. The lighting itself has now been designed to minimise light spillage and glare with the proposed lighting having baffles on the rear and side of the luminaires and the angle of tilt to the luminaires is approximately 10 degrees (from the horizontal), thus minimising light spillage upwards and beyond the area that the luminaires are intended to light, i.e. the 2 centre tennis courts. The lights are low energy and supporting documentation submitted has been assessed and confirmed that light spillage and glare would be at minimum levels. Impact on the Character of the Countryside As indicated above, the luminaires have been designed to minimise light spillage and glare beyond the area which is intended to be lit. However, the Tennis Club is sited in a rural location, which currently has no external lighting and very little additional street lighting exists beyond the site in the vicinity. It is therefore recognised that this proposal will have an impact on the character of the countryside, and the tennis courts themselves will become lit and therefore visible within an area that is otherwise dark, during evening hours. However, it is considered appropriate to balance this impact against the provision and retention of rural facilities, which has been discussed in this report. The hours of operating the lights will be limited to between 4pm and 10pm Mondays to Fridays, 4pm to 6pm Saturdays and no lighting on Sundays and Bank Holidays and the design, specifically the angle of tilt and fitting with back and top baffles limits light spill, glare and general obtrusiveness beyond the tennis courts. It is considered that although there would be an impact on the countryside, the benefits of supporting the proposal and assisting with the longevity of the Club as a sports and leisure facility in a rural area, outweigh the impact on the character of the countryside and the proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable. Page 37 of 110

38 Impact on Neighbour Amenity As described earlier, residential properties are located directly to the north and south of the site and the given the topography of the site and surrounding area, the tennis courts are visible, at least to the row of semidetached properties. There is a tall conifer hedge bounding the northern perimeter of the site which separates the site from the residential neighbour, 5 Braintree Road. In this case, of particular pertinence is the assessment undertaken by the Council s Environmental Health Officer, who raises no objection to the proposed lighting scheme from an Environmental Health perspective, which have been outlined earlier in this report. The neighbours concerns relating to light pollution are noted. However, with this revised scheme it is considered that the concerns raised about light spillage and glare have been overcome. As previously stated, measures have been taken to reduce these issues with the necessary lighting data submitted for full consideration by the Environmental Health Team, who have concluded that impact in terms of obtrusive light are at a level which would not warrant refusal of the application. It is considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring the angle of tilt to be retained at 10 degrees, as this element was made clear during discussions with the Club s lighting contractor and the Council s Environmental Health Officer. Moving onto concerns raised by increased noise emanating from the site, again the Environment Health Officer s comments are noted and it is concurred that although there may be increased noise associated with the additional hours, it is not considered it would be to such a level that would warrant refusal of the application on these grounds. Noise levels should not be greater in terms of impact than that which currently exists during late evening mid-summer play (when light levels allow). In other months, when the weather is cooler and windows are less likely to be open, this is less likely to be an issue The proposed hours of floodlighting use have been reduced from previous applications. For the avoidance of doubt, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition restricting hours of flood lighting to that proposed within the application, which is Mondays to Fridays, 4pm 10pm, Saturday, 4pm 6pm and no use on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Other areas of concern raised by residents include the incorrect Block Plan, which has now been updated and neighbours have been re-consulted. Issues relating to the Deed of Grant to the Club fall beyond the scope of material considerations and as such cannot form part of the consideration. Lastly it is noted that some neighbours state they were not notified by the Club of the proposals, whereas supporting documentation by the Club indicates Page 38 of 110

39 otherwise. Officers would always encourage applicants to discuss proposals with neighbours. However, there is no statutory duty to do this and the planning process provides the relevant notification to neighbouring properties. Highway Issues The proposed lighting columns would be sited approximately 70 metres from Braintree Road. Given the assessment that the lighting would not be obtrusive to residential neighbours who are closer, it is not considered there would be undue issues caused to passing vehicular traffic or pedestrians from the lighting columns and as such, the proposals are considered to be acceptable in this respect. CONCLUSION The assessment of the lighting proposals finds that the proposed lighting would not be obtrusive to neighbouring residential amenity, neither would it cause harm to natural ecosystems. It is acknowledged that the proposed lighting will have an adverse impact upon the character of the countryside local to the site. However, the limits on the use of the lighting and the benefits of sustaining a rural leisure resource are considered to outweigh that adverse impact. It is therefore concluded that the proposed flood lighting is acceptable and meets the necessary above mentioned National and Local Planning Policy and Supplementary Planning Guidance. RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that the following decision be made: Application GRANTED subject to the following conditions and reasons and in accordance with approved plans:- APPROVED PLANS Location Plan Block Plan Lighting Plan Supporting Documents Plan Ref: A Plan Ref: LED Lighting Design 1 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. Reason This Condition is imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed above. Page 39 of 110

40 Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 3 The lighting scheme shall be installed exactly in accordance with the technical specification - Luminance Pro Lighting Systems report dated 27th November Reason To minimise pollution of the environment and to safeguard the amenities of the adjacent neighbouring residential occupiers. 4 The floodlighting shall only be operational between the followings times and days:- Mondays to Fridays 4.00pm pm Saturdays 4.00pm pm Sundays and Bank Holidays - No Use All floodlighting shall be switched off outside those hours. Reason To minimise pollution of the environment and to safeguard the amenities of the adjacent neighbouring residential occupiers. 5 The angle of tilt to the luminaires hereby approved shall be no greater than 10 degrees. Reason To minimise pollution of the environment, reduce glare and to safeguard the amenities of the adjacent neighbouring residential occupiers. 6 The lighting columns hereby approved shall be no greater than 6.7 metres in height. Reason To minimise pollution of the environment and to safeguard the amenities of the adjacent neighbouring residential occupiers. TESSA LAMBERT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Page 40 of 110

41 PART B AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5d APPLICATION NO: APPLICANT: 17/02116/FUL DATE VALID: Mr & Mrs R A Ramsey The Cart Lodge, Coggeshall Road, Earls Colne, CO6 2JS DESCRIPTION: Erection of stable block, change of use of 2.44 acres of agricultural land to equestrian and erection of 3 bay cart lodge style garage LOCATION: The Cart Lodge, Coggeshall Road, Earls Colne, Essex, CO6 2JS For more information about this Application please contact: Mrs F Fisher on: Ext or by to: fayfi@braintree.gov.uk Page 41 of 110

42 SITE HISTORY 13/01468/FUL 13/01469/LBC 15/00160/FUL 15/00161/LBC 15/00181/MMA Residential conversion and extension of the cart lodge into a four bedroom house, erection of garden store and installation of adjacent air source heat pump and change of use of building and curtilage from agricultural to residential use. Residential conversion and extension of the cart lodge into a four bedroom house, erection of garden store and installation of adjacent air source heat pump and change of use of building and curtilage from agricultural to residential use. Amendments to approved scheme as follows: Elongation of previously approved extension; adjustments to design of new windows and doors in extension; addition of new dormer window; and minor internal amendments - NOT PROCEEDED WITH SEE 15/00181/MMA Amendments to approved scheme as follows: Elongation of previously approved extension; adjustments to design of new windows and doors in extension; addition of new dormer window; and minor internal amendments APPLICATION NOT PROCEEDED WITH SEE 15/00182/LBC Minor material amendment of approved application 13/01468/FUL (Residential conversion and extension of the cart lodge into a four Granted with S106 Agreement Granted Application Returned Application Returned Granted Page 42 of 110

43 bedroom house) - elongation of proposed extension by approx. 1.2m 15/00182/LBC Residential conversion and extension of the cart lodge into a four bedroom house; amendment to scheme approved under 13/01469/LBC 15/00041/DAC Application for approval of details reserved by condition no. 3 of approved application 13/01469/LBC - NOT PROCEEDED WITH SEE 15/00046/DAC 15/00046/DAC Application for approval of details reserved by condition no. 3 of approved application 13/01469/LBC 15/00101/DAC Application for approval of details reserved by condition no. 3 of approved application 13/01469/LBC 15/00103/DAC Application for approval of details reserved by condition no. 3 of approved application 13/01469/LBC 17/02117/LBC Same as 17/02116/FUL - LBC not required Granted Application Returned Part Grant, Part Refused Granted Application Returned POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Currently the Council s development plan consists of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005) and the Core Strategy (2011). The Council is currently working on a Draft Local Plan, which was approved by the Council unanimously for consultation on the 20 th June 2016 and was the subject of public consultation between the 27 th June and 19 th August The Draft Local Plan, now referred to as the Publication Draft Local Plan, was approved by the Council on 5 th June 2017 for consultation and for submission to the Secretary of State. The public consultation ran from 16 th June to 28 th July The Publication Draft Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 9 th October The Section 1 of the Draft Local Plan is currently the subject of an examination by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Part 2 Draft Local Plan examination will take place later this year. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, from the day of publication the Council can give weight to the emerging Draft Local Plan and the weight that can be given is related to: Page 43 of 110

44 The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given) and; The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Accordingly the Council can currently afford some weight to the emerging Publication Draft Local Plan It should also be noted that the Council was previously working on a Site Allocation and Development Management Plan (the ADMP). This plan was subject to extensive public consultation in 2013 and The ADMP was not however submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, due to the decision to begin work on a new Local Plan, to take into account the most up to date Government guidance. However parts of the ADMP have been rolled forward into the Draft Local Plan. It is therefore considered that it would be consistent with the provisions in paragraph 216 of the NPPF, to afford more weight in decision making to the parts of the Draft Local Plan which have been rolled forward from the ADMP, due to the more advanced stage reached by those elements. National Planning Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 RLP2 RLP18 RLP56 RLP62 RLP80 RLP81 RLP85 RLP90 RLP100 Town Development Boundaries and Village Envelopes Extensions to Existing Dwellings in the Countryside Vehicle Parking Development Likely to Give Rise to Pollution or the Risk of Pollution Landscape Features and Habitats Trees, Woodland Grasslands and Hedgerows Equestrian Facilities Layout and Design of Development Alterations and Extensions and Changes of Use to Listed Buildings and their settings Page 44 of 110

45 Braintree District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 CS5 CS8 CS9 The Countryside Natural Environment and Biodiversity Built and Historic Environment Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan 2017 SP1 SP6 LPP1 LPP45 LPP50 LPP54 LPP55 LPP60 LPP71 LPP73 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Place Shaping Principles Development Boundaries Parking Provision Built and Historic Environment Equestrian Facilities Layout and Design of Development Heritage Assets and their Settings Landscape Character and Features Protecting and Enhancing Natural Resources, Minimising Pollution and Safeguarding from Hazards INTRODUCTION / REASON FOR APPLICATION BEING CONSIDERED AT COMMITTEE This application is being presented to Committee, as the Development Manager, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee concluded that the impacts of the development could be considered to be significant. SITE DESCRIPTION The Cart Lodge is a Grade 2 Listed Building which forms part of an historic farm complex centred on Peartree Hall and Peartree Farm. The site is in a rural location to the South of Earls Colne village. The Cart Lodge has recently been converted into a dwelling and it should be noted that all three buildings are listed in their own right, but are now in separate residential ownership. The Cart Lodge is located to the East of Peartree Hall and is surrounded by agricultural land. PROPOSAL The proposal has been revised in an attempt to overcome officer concerns and as a result now comprises the change of use of 2.44 acres of agricultural land to equestrian, the erection of a timber clad stable block, which would measure 8.56 metres by 7.32 metres and 3.6 metres high, and the erection of 3 bay cart lodge style which will measure 9 metres in width, 5.8 metres in depth and 5.6 metres in height. The cart lodge will be constructed of an oak Page 45 of 110

46 frame with oak weather boarding and a peg tile roof. It will comprise 2 open parking bays and one enclosed bay which would be used to house a staircase to gain access to the first floor. The applicant has stated that the first floor of the cart lodge will be used as an office. CONSULTATIONS Statutory Consultees Essex County Council Historic Buildings Consultant state that there are considerable concerns with regards to the proposal to erect a stable block on land between the farmhouse and the host dwelling. This will be a large structure, which will be prominent in views from the rear of the farmhouse and which will completely sever the surviving historic link between the farmhouse and the cart lodge. Similarly, there is objection to the erection of a cart lodge building between the listed outbuilding and listed cart lodge, not least because the structure would seem to be unnecessarily large in accommodating first floor space. Given its location, set away from the complex of listed building, the Historic Buildings Consultant would not object to the creation of the proposed menage. This is based on the assumption that it will be a fenced area as opposed to a roofed building, as they would not be supportive of the creation of building of this scale with the wider landscape in which the farm complex is sited. Consequently, they object to the application from a conservation perspective, as they consider that it will result in harm to the significance of the listed building as per paragraph 134 of the NPPF. The application could be improved by the movement of the stable block close to the proposed menage, and the re-orientation of the cart lodge ninety degrees and its reduction in size and/or design to omit the first floor accommodation. Internal Consultation Environmental Health No objections to the application on Environmental Health grounds. However, in view of the proximity of nearby residential properties it is recommended that works of demolition, site clearance and construction are controlled to minimise disturbance to nearby residents by way of conditions. Landscape Services - There is a horse chestnut tree immediately adjacent to the existing shed. If the application is permitted a Tree Protection Plan should be submitted under condition showing the root protection area of this tree and the neighbouring lime, as well as the location and type of tree protective fencing. The RPA is calculated by 12 x the diameter of the main stem. This may raise issues with the type of foundations that are to be used, as trenching within the RPA is not acceptable. Page 46 of 110

47 REPRESENTATIONS Earls Colne Parish Council The parish council state that they have no objections but would wish to see the upper floor level of the cart lodge used for storage and not for use as residential accommodation. Neighbour Representations 1 letter of support received. The occupiers of Peartree Hall positively support the current planning application for the developments at The Cart Lodge. The proposed developments have been planned in such a way that the impact for nearby residents will be minimal. The stables, hay store, tack room and Cart Lodge (with office above) will be largely out of sight, so should not be an issue. It is noted that the development is for personal use only (and not as a business) and that muck will be disposed of promptly, so as to avoid unwanted smells etc. It is also very much appreciate that the ménage will be placed in the side field, rather than the central field, thus not impacting our views of the countryside. It is understand that each of the 3 properties which made up the original Peartree Hall Estate (i.e. Peartree Hall, Peartree Farm and the Cart Lodge), now separated, require some development in order to make the now individual properties function optimally in their own right. As long as such developments take place in a way that is supported by Braintree Planning and the Neighbouring properties each should be allowed to make developments that enhance their own property, whilst not negatively impacting the remaining two. REPORT Principle of Development Policy CS5 of the Braintree District Core Strategy, Policy RLP2 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policy LPP1 of the emerging Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan state that development outside development boundaries will be strictly controlled to uses appropriate to the countryside to protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. In addition to this, Policies RLP18 and RLP 90 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policies LPP38, LPP50 and LPP55 of the emerging Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan relates to extensions to dwellings located within the Countryside and state that in the countryside, new outbuildings should be well related to the existing development on the site and within the curtilage of the dwelling. Page 47 of 110

48 Also relevant are countryside Policies RLP80, RLP81 and RLP85 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policies LPP54, LPP71 and LPP73 of the emerging Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan which allow inter alia for the provision of equestrian facilities outside of designated development boundaries, subject to there being appropriate equestrian infrastructure nearby, like bridleways and byways and as long as there would be no alterations to the public highway to accommodate the proposed use, no floodlighting installed and no significant effect on the setting of designated or non-designated heritage assets. Also of significance, is the relationship that the proposal will have on the surrounding historic buildings, and therefore, the proposal should be considered in line with heritage policies, namely Policy RLP100 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policy LLP60 of the emerging Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan. In this case the principle of development is considered acceptable for each element subject to compliance with the abovementioned policy criteria. Design and Appearance and Impact on Heritage Asset The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies that the protection and enhancement of the historic environment is an important element of sustainable development and whilst it establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, it states that the significance of a heritage asset can be harmed or lost as a result of development within its setting (para 132). Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Although the proposed development does not involve works to the structure of a heritage asset the above policies are quite clear in that the setting of a heritage asset is just as important as the heritage asset itself and therefore should be afforded the same protection. When considering the impact of the proposed development on the heritage asset and the historic interrelationship between 'The Cart Lodge' on this site and listed Pear Tree Hall and Pear Tree Farm adjacent, it should be noted that together these buildings make a significant contribution and provide important evidential value into the understanding of the form, function and historic context of the site. The subdivision of these historic buildings into separate residential occupation has resulted in a proliferation of ancillary outbuilding buildings and this is considered to have had a detrimental impact on the ability to understand the buildings as a single historic complex. It is considered that any further built development separating the plots is likely to be of further detriment to this understanding. Since the conversion of the The Cart Lodge into a residential dwelling, its domestic curtilage appears to have remained relatively undefined, however, whilst visiting the site it was evident that some effort had been made to define the curtilage by the planting of a hedge around the property. The hedging Page 48 of 110

49 encloses a small rear garden and a large parking area to the side. There is also a large timber garage/shed on the site which sits to the West of the host dwelling. This will be replaced by the proposed cart lodge. In terms of design and appearance, the proposed 3 bay cart lodge is of considerable size and scale, particularly in terms of its height and massing. Its positioning within the site is responding to the fact that the site is surrounded by open fields. Any other location further from the dwelling would result in the 3 bay cart lodge being more visible in the rural setting. Whilst, this is considered the most suitable location for the cart lodge, it is considered that the erection of the cart lodge building at the height proposed would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building and would only seek to provide a substantial visible barrier between the site and that of the Pear Tree Hall to the West. In line with heritage advice, officers requested that the cart lodge was scaled down in terms of its size and that the orientation of the cart lodge was amended. As a result of this request the orientation of the cart lodge was changed, however its height remains as originally proposed. Without these amendments officers considered that the concerns with regards the size of the cart lodge remain and as a result cannot be supported. With regards to the proposed stable building, the size of which has been reduced, it is officer opinion that the built form is substantial, however, it would appear to be a reasonable size for the purpose of stabling of horses. The design of the stables is considered acceptable and traditional materials would be used in its finish however, as stated above, there are heritage concerns with regards to the impact that the stable building and cart lodge will have on the significance of the heritage asset and it is considered that the erection of these buildings would further erode the understanding of the historic complex of this and the buildings. In line with the requirements of the NPPF, the proposal has been assessed holistically and is considered to cause harm, but is considered less than substantial harm to the significance to the setting of the Grade II listed buildings. Given the intended use of the site, it has not been shown that there are any public benefits to the proposal which would outweigh the harm caused, and therefore the proposal is considered to be in conflict with the NPPF and the abovementioned heritage policies. Impact on Rural countryside As stated above, in terms of impact of the equestrian use on the rural countryside the relevant and equestrian policies apply namely, Policies RLP80, RLP81 and RLP85 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policies LPP54, LPP71 and LPP73 of the emerging Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan. The final element of the proposal comprises the change of use of 2.44 hectares of adjoining agricultural land to land used for domestic equestrian use. The original submission requested the change of use of 3.5 acres of agricultural land and the erection of a menage. As a result of officer concerns, the menage has now been removed from the proposal and the total area for the change of use has been reduced to 2.44 hectares. Page 49 of 110

50 The applicant states that the stable block is for a horse and pony which are currently kept at livery. They also state that the horses will be ridden across land in the ownership of the applicant and that belonging to family relatives at Claypits Farm, which provides access to America Road and Tey Road and from there onto the local bridleways. The relevant policies state that for most proposals, the availability of suitable off road routes will need to be considered, providing a safe and traffic free route for horse riders to use. In some circumstances, however, the availability of on-site facilities may lessen this need and would be considered on a case by case basis. In this case, there will be no alterations to vehicular highways needed in the area, there will be no flood lighting on the site and no significant effect on important landscapes, or nature conservation interests. Officers have checked the Public Rights of Way maps and have not found any bridleways or byways designed to accommodate horse riders within close proximity or easily accessible to the site without crossing land which is outside of the control of the occupiers of The Cart Lodge, however the size of the area proposed for domestic equestrian use appears to be adequate for its needs and sufficient land appears to be available for grazing and exercising of horses where necessary. The domestic equestrian land would be close to the heritage assets identified, however, no concerns are raised by the Historic Buildings Consultant in relation to the effect that the change of use will have on the setting of the designated heritage assets. Officers therefore consider, given the domestic nature of the proposal, that the change of use is compliant with the relevant policies. Impact on Neighbouring Residential Amenities The above policies state that new development should not have any unacceptable or undue impact on neighbouring residential amenities by way of loss of privacy, overshadowing, loss of light or overbearing impact. The application site area is quite substantial and borders the properties of Pear Tree Hall, Pear Tree Farm and the Annexe at Pear Tree Farm. It is not considered that the proposal as a whole would impact on the residential amenity of the individual properties. The Environmental Health Officer has requested that conditions be added any permission given to ensure that there are measures in place to limit the impact of the development on the nearby residents both during construction and for the life of the development. It is therefore considered that the proposal is compliant with the abovementioned policies in terms of impact on neighbouring residential amenity. Page 50 of 110

51 Highway Considerations The site would be accessed via the current access along Coggeshall Road. Although the proposed domestic equestrian use of the site would be used in association with The Cart Lodge, thus negating the need for additional parking, it is likely that equestrian related parking would still take place (i.e. horse box, maintenance equipment etc.). Notwithstanding this however, it is apparent that there would be enough space on site for this to take place without prejudicing the public highway. Conclusion As stated above there are heritage concerns with regards to the impact that the stable building and cart lodge will have on the significance of the heritage asset and it is considered that the erection of these buildings would further erode the understanding of the historic grouping to which this heritage asset belongs. In line with the requirements of the NPPF, the proposal has been assessed and is considered to cause harm, but is considered less than substantial harm to the significance to the setting of the Grade II listed buildings. Given the intended use of the site, it has not been shown that there are any public benefits to the proposal which would outweigh the harm caused, and therefore the proposal is considered to be in conflict with the NPPF and the abovementioned heritage policies. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to the NPPF, Policy CS9 of the Braintree District Core Strategy, Policies RLP18, RLP90 and RLP100 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policies LPP38, LPP50, LPP55 and LPP60 of the emerging Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan. RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that the following decision be made: Application REFUSED for the following reasons:- 1 The historic interrelationship between The Cart Lodge, Pear Tree Hall and Pear Tree Farm makes a significant contribution and provides important evidential value in understanding the form, function and historic context of the site. In this case, the size of the 3 bay cart lodge and location of the stables would introduce additional built form which would erode the understanding of the historic complex of buildings and would have a negative impact on the setting of 'The Cart Lodge' and the historic complex within which it stands. In addition to this, whilst stables are a common feature within a rural landscape, the size and scale and location of the stables hereby proposed would, in conjunction with the proposed 3 bay cart lodge, result in a sprawling mass of Page 51 of 110

52 built development which would result in further intrusion into the countryside which would further dilute the historical understanding of the site. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to the NPPF, Policy CS9 of the Braintree District Core Strategy, Policies RLP18, RLP90 and RLP100 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policies LPP38, LPP50, LPP55 and LPP60 of the emerging Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan. SUBMITTED PLANS Location Plan/Site Plan Plan Ref: plan A Site Plan Plan Ref: plan B Elevations Plan Ref: SB001 Elevations Plan Ref: SB002 Floor Plan Plan Ref: SB003 Elevations Plan Ref: SB004 Elevations Plan Ref: Floor Plan Plan Ref: TESSA LAMBERT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Page 52 of 110

53 PART B AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5e APPLICATION NO: APPLICANT: AGENT: 18/00244/FUL DATE VALID: Mr & Mrs Moore 14 Britten Crescent, Witham, Essex, CM8 1QE CWN Developments Ltd 239 Springfield Road, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 6JT DESCRIPTION: Conversion of attached garage to habitable accommodation LOCATION: 14 Britten Crescent, Witham, Essex, CM8 1QE For more information about this Application please contact: Mrs F Fisher on: Ext or by to: fayfi@braintree.gov.uk Page 53 of 110

54 SITE HISTORY 01/02130/REM Erection of 61 no. residential units 01/02131/REM Erection of 61 no. residential units 91/01564/POWS Erection Of Approx. 800 Dwellings, Business Park, Primary School, Neighbourhood Centre, Community Facilities, Granted Granted POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Currently the Council s development plan consists of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005) and the Core Strategy (2011). The Council is currently working on a Draft Local Plan, which was approved by the Council unanimously for consultation on the 20 th June 2016 and was the subject of public consultation between the 27 th June and 19 th August The Draft Local Plan, now referred to as the Publication Draft Local Plan, was approved by the Council on 5 th June 2017 for consultation and for submission to the Secretary of State. The public consultation ran from 16 th June to 28 th July The Publication Draft Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 9 th October The Section 1 of the Draft Local Plan is currently the subject of an examination by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Part 2 Draft Local Plan examination will take place later this year. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, from the day of publication the Council can give weight to the emerging Draft Local Plan and the weight that can be given is related to: The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given) and; The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Accordingly the Council can currently afford some weight to the emerging Publication Draft Local Plan It should also be noted that the Council was previously working on a Site Allocation and Development Management Plan (the ADMP). This plan was subject to extensive public consultation in 2013 and The ADMP was not Page 54 of 110

55 however submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, due to the decision to begin work on a new Local Plan, to take into account the most up to date Government guidance. However parts of the ADMP have been rolled forward into the Draft Local Plan. It is therefore considered that it would be consistent with the provisions in paragraph 216 of the NPPF, to afford more weight in decision making to the parts of the Draft Local Plan which have been rolled forward from the ADMP, due to the more advanced stage reached by those elements. National Planning Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 RLP3 RLP17 RLP56 RLP90 Development within Town Development Boundaries and Village Envelopes Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings in Towns and Villages Vehicle Parking Layout and Design of Development Braintree District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 CS9 Built and Historic Environment Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan 2017 SP1 SP6 LPP1 LPP38 LPP45 LPP50 LPP55 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Place Shaping Principles Development Boundaries Residential Alterations, Extensions and Outbuildings Parking Provision Built and Historic Environment Layout and Design of Development INTRODUCTION / REASON FOR APPLICATION BEING CONSIDERED AT COMMITTEE This application is brought before the Planning Committee as the Town Council object to the application, contrary to officer recommendation. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located on Britten Crescent on the Maltings Lane development in Witham. The property is a brick built 3 storey terraced dwelling with an integral garage which faces to the rear of the site (away from the street) and enjoys 1 parking space within the rear parking courtyard. Page 55 of 110

56 Permitted Development Rights have been removed under application reference 01/02130/REM for this part of the development which requires that there should be no alterations to the external appearance of garages and car ports without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. PROPOSAL The proposal seeks permission for the conversion of the garage into a family room. The proposal would not involve any extension to the existing property. A window is proposed in place of the garage door (on the rear elevation). No other changes to the external appearance of the dwelling are proposed. CONSULTATIONS Witham Town Council has objected to the proposal on grounds of loss of parking and could potentially impact on local amenity for parking. REPRESENTATIONS A site notice was displayed near the property and neighbouring properties were notified. No representations have been received. REPORT Principle of Development The property is located within a town boundary and therefore subject to Policy RLP3 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policy LPP1 of the emerging Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan. Alterations to properties will be permitted within town boundaries where it satisfies amenity, design, environmental and highway criteria. The principle of the proposed garage conversion is therefore considered acceptable subject to design, impact on parking provision, and other material considerations which are detailed below. Design and Appearance Both the NPPF and the NPPG require all new forms of development to be well designed. The NPPG (paras ) elaborates on this in a residential context, by requiring Local Planning Authorities to consider whether the layout, scale, form, details and materials come together to help achieve good design and connected objectives. Policy RLP17 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policy LPP 38 of the emerging Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan reiterate this, allowing for the extension of an existing dwelling provided that there is no over-development of the plot, the siting, bulk, form and materials of the extension are compatible with the original dwelling, and providing there is no unacceptable material impact on the identity of the street scene, scale and character of the area. Page 56 of 110

57 The NPPF states that new development should seek to improve streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places by using design which reflects local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, thereby resulting in a form of development which is visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. In addition to this, Policy RLP90 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policies LPP50 and LPP55 of the emerging Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan require designs to recognise and reflect local distinctiveness in terms of scale, density, height and massing of buildings, and be sensitive to the need to conserve local features of architectural and historic importance, and also to ensure development affecting the public realm shall be of a high standard of design and materials, and use appropriate landscaping. The proposed conversion of the garage into a family room involves removing the garage door and infilling with a brick wall with window. The proposed alterations are considered to be minimal and would make a neutral contribution to the overall appearance of the property, given that the garage currently faces rearwards towards the rear parking court. As such it is considered that the proposal complies with the abovementioned polices concerning design and visual amenity. Impact on Neighbouring Residential Amenities The proposed new window, by virtue of its positioning, would not result in a loss of light, privacy or outlook to neighbouring properties and is therefore considered to be acceptable in this regard. Highway Considerations Policy RLP56 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policy LPP45 of the emerging Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan states that developments should comply with the parking standards set out in Essex County Council s Vehicle Parking Standards document. Accordingly, the requirement for dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms is a minimum of 2 parking spaces. As identified above, the application site currently benefits from 2 parking spaces: one space within the garage and one space within the rear courtyard area. Planning permission is required for the conversion of the garage because the Reserved Matters approval for this phase of the Pondholton Farm housing development (application reference 01/02130/REM refers) contains a restrictive condition which states that: Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 Schedule 11 Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, there shall be no alterations to the external appearances of the garages or car ports without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. Page 57 of 110

58 Reason: To ensure that adequate provision remains for cycle storage and to maintain adopted car parking standards. The wording of the condition prevents external alterations being made to the garages or car ports but critically, does not restrict or prevent the conversion of the garage or car port provided that the proposal makes no change to the external appearance. In this regard, it should be noted that the local planning authority have granted several applications for a Certificate of Lawfulness for similar proposals within Britten Crescent. In those cases the proposals retained an under croft parking space and the garage door, but converted the garage space behind the garage door through the provision of a new internal wall. The effect of which reduced the available parking provision to 1 space. It should be noted that a similar approach could be utilised at the application site. Planning permission would not be required to construct a new internal wall adjacent to the garage door and to convert the existing space to habitable accommodation, provided the external garage door was retained in situ (as a false garage door). As the proposal would result in the loss of the garage parking space, albeit a substandard parking space (as the size of the space does not comply with current standards - the existing garage currently measures 4.8 metres by 2.7 metres internally which does not comply with the current adopted standards which requires garages to measure 7 metres by 3 metres internally), the overall parking provision for the dwelling would therefore fall short of the current adopted parking standards, which require a minimum of 2 parking spaces (inclusive of available garage parking provision at current standards). Officers share the concerns of Witham Town Council over the loss of parking provision, however in light of the above Officers do not consider that a reason for refusal could be substantiated in this case. CONCLUSION The internal conversion of the garage is considered compliant with policy in terms of its visual impact. Although there would be a loss of a substandard parking space, it is considered that a reason for refusal could not be substantiated on grounds of loss of parking and the application should therefore be approved. RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that the following decision be made: Application GRANTED subject to the following conditions and reasons and in accordance with approved plans:- APPROVED PLANS Location Plan Block Plan General Plans & Elevations Page 58 of 110

59 1 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. Reason This Condition is imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed above. Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 3 The external materials and finishes shall be as indicated on the approved plans and/or submitted application form. Reason To ensure that the development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality. TESSA LAMBERT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Page 59 of 110

60 PART B AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5f APPLICATION NO: APPLICANT: AGENT: 18/00364/FUL DATE VALID: Mr N Clark Owls Hill House, Owls Hill, Terling, Essex, CM3 2PS Inkpen Downie Architecture Ms Linh Bane, 2 Balkerne House, Balkerne Passage, Colchester, Essex, CO1 1PA DESCRIPTION: Demolition of later 20th century extensions, erection of new reconfigured extension, including 2 storey cross-wing, rebuild of existing dormer window LOCATION: Owls Hill House, Owls Hill, Terling, Essex, CM3 2PS For more information about this Application please contact: Mrs F Fisher on: Ext or by to: fayfi@braintree.gov.uk Page 60 of 110

61 SITE HISTORY 80/00902/P Erection of detached 2- Refused storey dwellinghouse. 88/01825/P Demolition Of Existing Granted Porch And Replace With New Porch 96/00723/FUL Erection of two storey rear Granted extension and re-roofing works 96/00724/LBC Erection of two storey rear Granted extension and re-roofing works 05/01671/LBC Replacement of plastic Granted window to wooden framed 12/01607/FUL Erection of greenhouse Granted /01335/LBC Works to roof including Granted replacing tiles where necessary and new roof felt. Treatment of timbers. Works to floor in lounge, dining room and garden room including new flooring and potentially removing concrete floor (dining room only) 15/01234/LBC Stripping oak, elm, Granted mahogany and pine beams of paint, varnish and black staining 15/00258/DAC Application for approval of Granted details reserved by condition no. 3 of approved application 15/01234/LBC 17/00896/FUL Removal of existing single Refused storey extension at rear and erection of two storey cross wing and single storey garden room 17/00899/LBC Removal of existing single Refused storey extension at rear and erection of two storey cross wing and single storey garden room 17/01652/DAC Application for approval of Granted details reserved by condition nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of approved application 14/01335/LBC 18/00365/LBC Demolition of later 20th Pending Page 61 of 110

62 century extensions, erection of new reconfigured extension, including 2 storey cross-wing, rebuild of existing dormer window Decision POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Currently the Council s development plan consists of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005) and the Core Strategy (2011). The Council is currently working on a Draft Local Plan, which was approved by the Council unanimously for consultation on the 20 th June 2016 and was the subject of public consultation between the 27 th June and 19 th August The Draft Local Plan, now referred to as the Publication Draft Local Plan, was approved by the Council on 5 th June 2017 for consultation and for submission to the Secretary of State. The public consultation ran from 16 th June to 28 th July The Publication Draft Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 9 th October The Section 1 of the Draft Local Plan is currently the subject of an examination by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Part 2 Draft Local Plan examination will take place later this year. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, from the day of publication the Council can give weight to the emerging Draft Local Plan and the weight that can be given is related to: The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given) and; The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Accordingly the Council can currently afford some weight to the emerging Publication Draft Local Plan It should also be noted that the Council was previously working on a Site Allocation and Development Management Plan (the ADMP). This plan was subject to extensive public consultation in 2013 and The ADMP was not however submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, due to the decision to begin work on a new Local Plan, to take into account the most up to date Government guidance. However parts of the ADMP have been rolled forward into the Draft Local Plan. It is therefore considered that it would be consistent with the provisions in paragraph 216 of the NPPF, to afford more weight in decision making to the parts of the Draft Local Plan which have been rolled Page 62 of 110

63 forward from the ADMP, due to the more advanced stage reached by those elements. National Planning Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 RLP3 RLP17 RLP56 RLP90 RLP95 RLP100 Development within Town Development Boundaries and Village Envelopes Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings in Towns and Villages Vehicle Parking Layout and Design of Development Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas Alterations and Extensions and Changes of Use to Listed Buildings and their settings Braintree District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 CS9 Built and Historic Environment Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan 2017 SP1 SP2 SP6 LPP1 LPP38 LPP45 LPP50 LPP55 LPP56 LPP60 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Spatial Strategy for North Essex Place Shaping Principles Development Boundaries Residential Alterations, Extensions and Outbuildings Parking Provision Built and Historic Environment Layout and Design of Development Conservation Areas Heritage Assets and their Settings INTRODUCTION / REASON FOR APPLICATION BEING CONSIDERED AT COMMITTEE This application is brought before the Planning Committee in accordance with the Council s Scheme of Delegation as the Parish Council wish to support the application contrary to officer s recommendation. SITE DESCRIPTION Owls Hill House is a detached Grade II* Listed Building within the Terling Village Development Boundary and is also within the Conservation Area. The house is timber framed and plastered and dates from the late 14 th century. It has since been altered in the late 16 th, 19 th and 20 th centuries. The core of the building is orientated east-west along the street and there is a modern Page 63 of 110

64 single storey extension to the rear of the house, and a two storey gable projection nearest the Eastern side of the dwelling. Parking for two vehicles is located to the east side of the building along the boundary with 1-3 Sebbys Gardens. There is a detached garage at the end of the driveway and to the rear the house is a generous sized rear garden which slopes gradually in a Southerly direction. PROPOSAL This proposal is similar to a previous submission which has been refused permission on grounds that the single-storey element of the proposal was considered harmful to the heritage asset (Planning application 17/00896/FUL & 17/00897/LBC refers). This revised scheme involves the demolition of the existing single storey rear extension, the erection of a replacement single storey rear infill extension and two storey extension. The two storey gable extension would be jettied at the first floor and would project a total of 5 metres reducing down to 4.4 metres in depth. The width of this extension would measure 3.4 metres and would be inset off the Western side of the dwelling by 0.7 metres and would be 5.9 metres in height. This part of the extension would be finished in a render finish to match the existing dwelling and would have a clay plain tiled roof. The proposed single storey rear extension would measure 3.7 metres in depth at its shallowest point and 4.3 metres at its longest depth. The total width of the single storey element would be 7.3 metres which incorporates a section which is extended off the existing two storey gable. The depth of the extension off the existing gable would be 0.8 metres. The overall height of the extension would be 3.3 metres. The materials used in the construction of the single storey extension would comprise a render finish, with bi-fold doors and a lead roof with a sky light. The proposal also involves the height reduction in the central rear dormer. CONSULTATIONS Historic England These revised proposals involve reconfiguring the current kitchen/sitting area and study room; the existing cross-wing will be extended outwards to form an enlarged kitchen and the existing sitting room will be reconfigured to form a new lounge that links with the kitchen. The two-storey cross-wing will replace an existing single-storey structure and will accommodate a WC, utility room and hallway. The layout of the current scheme involves retaining most of the existing footprint of the house, with the historic fabric remaining untouched. Lowering the position of the existing dormer window and the height of the new glazed elevation to the lounge has informed the pitch of the lean-to roof of the extension. Roofing over the kitchen is an extension of this lean-to. Page 64 of 110

65 As stated in respect of the previous application, Historic England would welcome the proposed demolition of the existing single-storey extension which relates unsatisfactorily to the historic core of the house and would have no objections on heritage grounds to the addition of a two-storey cross wing extension. We consider the current, revised proposals for a two-storey and a single-storey extension, produced by Inkpen Downie Architecture to be more contextually appropriate in terms of scale, massing and detailed design and that our previous concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. We would have no objections should your authority be minded to approve the application. Historic England have no objections to the current, revised proposals on heritage grounds and they consider that the application meets the requirements of the NPPF, in particular paragraph numbers 132 and 134. Essex County Council Historic Buildings Consultant This application follows a previous application on the site, to which Historic Buildings Consultant offered an objection in principle to the proposed conjoining single storey extension. In this application the Historic Buildings Consultant summarised the significance of the site thusly: The house, by virtue of the extent, age and quality of the surviving fabric and form, is listed grade II* for its historic and architectural significance. The building is also considered to make a strong positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Terling Conservation Area. In his original response the Historic Buildings Consultant also commented that: the existing single storey extension is considered to be of poor design, and is considered to relate poorly to the historic core of the house. In particular the roofline, which is higher than the eaves height of the core of the building, creates an unsympathetic visual and physical relationship. Its flat roof nature is also an incongruous visual element which is at odds with the form of the rest of the building, and which is detrimental to its architectural significance. There is therefore not only no objection to its removal, but active support from a heritage perspective. The Historic Buildings Consultant states that they would reiterate these comments in relation to this application, as well as previous comments on the proposed erection of a two storey extension. Namely these stated that this proposed extension is large in form, and represents a considerable addition to the listed building in a manner which alters the plan form of the building and which reduces the primacy and prominence of the historic main rang. This kind of cumulative accretion is a form of development which is normally resisted, as each addition erodes the primacy of the historic core, and the ability to appreciate its architectural and historic significance. The Historic Buildings Consultant also concluded that in principle a two storey range set at right angles to the main body of the house is considered to be a more appropriate means by which to extend the building, not least because it allows the historic core of the building to be better read and experienced. It is also a much more traditional means of extending such a medieval building, sympathetic to the grain of the built form on the site, and much more in keeping with the way in which the building was likely to have Page 65 of 110

66 been extended historically. There is therefore considered to be harm caused by this element of the proposal, but it is also considered that this harm would be outweighed by the benefit elicited from the demolition of the existing single storey extension. The tacit support for this element from a conservation perspective is therefore predicated on the loss of the single storey extension. They repeat this comment in relation to this revised application, and state that they do not believe that the proposed fenestration, which looks to be generic and modern in character, is appropriate to its context, and would suggest that a fenestration pattern, which better divided up the individual windows with a more appropriate glazing pattern and proposed to reconfigure the tripartite window would improve the character of the extension. However, as previously commented there are considerable objections to the replacement single storey infill extension, both in regard to form and design. Whilst it is acknowledge that the design has improved since the previous iteration, they would still object to the principle of what is proposed, and would repeat verbatim their previous comments: The proposed extension would infill the gap between two rearward ranges, running parallel to the fourteenth century range. This would not only harm the visual prominence of the front range, but would also need to be considered in conjunction with the previous extensions to the building, which have already altered it architectural character, and extended its plan form, and the other additional extensions proposed as part of this application. The result would be to create an amorphous block of development on the site, which would fundamentally harm the architectural character of the listed building. The proposed extension can therefore be seen to represent an over development of the site through the piecemeal addition of accretions to the listed building which have a cumulative impact on its historic and architectural character and appearance. The result is to overwhelm the historic core of the building, the character of which is obscured by the number of later additions, meaning it can be less easily understood in its original form. The fact that the extent of the development on the site necessitates the creation of an awkward flat roof light detail to secure light into the core of the building, this in itself is normal an indicative factor that the built form has expanded beyond what is appropriate on the site, and in a manner which does not relate well to the historic core. The proposed application is an improvement over that which was previously applied for, however, for the reasons set out above, they conclude there is no objection to the demolition of the existing single storey element, or the reconfiguration of the existing dormer window in the rear elevation, or the proposed reconfigured element at the northern end of the rear elevation. Whilst I would identify harmed caused by the creation of a two storey rear extension, I would have to conclude that the harm caused by this element would be offset by the benefit accrued from the demolition of the single storey rear extension, and therefore considering these elements holistically I would not object. However the single storey extension, which would infill the gap between the two extensions is considered to be harmful to the architectural and historic significance of the listed building, and is therefore considered to be objectionable. For the reasons set out above I would therefore not be able Page 66 of 110

67 to support this element in any form, and would suggest that it is omitted from any scheme. I therefore would identify the application as it is currently formed would result in less than substantial harm to a grade II* listed building, as per paragraph 134 of the NPPF. The proposal is also not considered to meet the criteria set out in section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act I therefore cannot support the application from a conservation perspective. REPRESENTATIONS Terling Parish Council The proposal is to the rear of the property and has no visual impact on the Owls Hill Street scene. The Parish Council have advised that they unanimously support the revised proposal which is considered a credit to the expertise of the heritage architect employed by the applicant. It is noted that English Heritage, by way of their consultee response of 19 March 2018, is both considered and positive combining now to support the application and commend it for approval and the Parish Council accord with their views. The Parish Council disagree with the consultation response received from the Historic Buildings Consultant which appears to be at odds with English Heritage. The Parish Council would suggest Braintree District Council give minimal weight to The Historic Buildings Consultant s views and take the advice of English Heritage and the applicant s architects to bring forward the proposal. The Parish Council continues to commend the application for approval. Raislings House, Owls Hill, Terling 1 letter of representation has been received from the occupiers of Raislings House, Owls Hill, Terling. Their comments state that as an immediate neighbour they support the application. From the front elevation there will be no changes, thus maintaining the original look of the house from the road. From the rear, the changes will give the house an improved, more symmetrical look without detracting from any of the features which warranted the original listed registration. The inside will be much improved and will satisfy the needs of a growing modern family with a lighter and airy feel to the property. REPORT Principle of Development Both the NPPF and the NPPG require all new forms of development to be well designed. The NPPG (paras ) elaborates on this in a residential context, by requiring Local Planning Authorities to consider whether the layout, scale, form, details and materials come together to help achieve good Page 67 of 110

68 design and connected objectives. In this case the site lies within the defined development boundary. In this location, as set out in Policies RLP3, RLP17 and RLP90 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review, Polices LPP 1, LPP 38, LPP 50 and LPP 55 of the emerging Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan and Policy CS9 of the Braintree District Core Strategy, development will only be permitted where it satisfies amenity, design, and highway criteria and where it can take place without detriment to the existing character of the area and without unacceptable impact on the amenities of adjoining residential properties, including on privacy, overshadowing and loss of light. The dwelling is a Grade II* Listed Building located within the Conservation Area and therefore Policies RLP95 and RLP100 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policies LPP 56 and LPP 60 of the emerging Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan apply. These heritage policies state that development involving internal or external alterations, extensions and partial demolitions to either a listed building, a locally listed heritage asset, or an otherwise designated heritage asset will only be permitted if the proposed works or uses do not harm the setting, character, structural stability and fabric of the building, and do not result in the loss of or significant damage to the building s historic and architectural elements of special importance, whilst using appropriate materials and finishes. Therefore, when considering the proposal against these policies the principle of alterations to the heritage asset can be acceptable subject to compliance with the above relevant criteria. Impact upon Listed Building and character and appearance of the Conservation Area Paragraph 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and: the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. When considering the impact of development on a historical asset the NPPF states in paragraph 132 that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Page 68 of 110

69 Where an application would result in less than substantial harm this should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal as set out in NPPF paragraph 134. Policy RLP95 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review supported by Policy CS9 of the Braintree District Core Strategy states inter alia that works will be permitted where they not detract from the character, appearance and essential features of the Conservation Area; any new development is situated in harmony with the existing street scene and building line, and is sympathetic in size, scale and proportions with its surroundings; architectural details on buildings of value are retained; and, building materials are authentic and complementary to the building s character. Policy RLP100 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review supported by Policy CS9 of the Braintree Core Strategy states inter alia that works will be permitted where they do not harm the setting, character, structural stability and fabric of the building (or structure); and will not result in the loss of, or significant damage to the building or structure s historic and architectural elements of special importance, and include the use of appropriate materials and finishes. Officers consider that the existing single storey rear extension relates poorly to the historic core of the house. The roofline, which is higher than the eaves height of the core of the building, creates an unsympathetic visual and physical relationship. The roof is showing signs of age and is starting to fail and therefore the removal of this modern extension is considered a positive move. With regards to the proposed two storey extension, officers consider that it is large in its form and represents a considerable addition to the listed building in a manner which alters the plan form of the building and reduces the primacy and prominence of the historic main range. This kind of cumulative form of development would normally be resisted, as each addition erodes the primacy of the historic core and the ability to appreciate its architectural and historic significance. Officers do, however, accept that a two-storey range set at right angles to the main body of the house is considered to be an acceptable means by which to extend the listed building, not least because it allows the historic core of the building to be better read and experienced, but is also a more traditional means of extending such a medieval building. The Historic Buildings Consultant advises that any harm caused by this element of the proposal would be outweighed by the benefit elicited from the demolition of the existing single storey extension. However, support for this element from a conservation perspective can only be given in response to the loss of the existing single storey extension. The erection of the single-storey replacement extension is considered to not only harm the visual prominence of the range, but would also result in a form of development which would harm the architectural characteristics of the heritage asset. Page 69 of 110

70 Officers are concerned that the depth of the single storey rear extension would represent an over development of the dwelling. The single storey element does not sit comfortably between the two gable elements but instead projects outwards encompassing the existing two storey gable extension. This element of the design only further detracts from the existing plan form of the building and as a result is considered to have a negative impact on the heritage asset. Officers, therefore consider that holistically the proposal causes harm to the heritage asset and as this harm is considered to be less than substantial, it should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In assessing public benefit, National Planning Practice Guidance explains the term public benefits as follows: Public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress as described in the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 7). Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. However, benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits. Public benefits may include heritage benefits, such as: sustaining or enhancing the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting reducing or removing risks to a heritage asset securing the optimum viable use of a heritage asset in support of its long term conservation In applying the above criteria, Officers consider that the proposal would benefit the applicant, but would be of very limited public benefit. The optimum viable use for the building is considered to be as a single residential dwelling and this is the existing use. It is therefore considered that the proposal as a whole fails to accord with Paragraph 134 of the NPPF and the abovementioned policies. Impact on Neighbouring Residential Amenities Taking into account the position of the dwelling, and having regard to the proposed works, it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon adjacent residential properties in terms of loss of natural light, overshadowing, overbearing, or in terms of overlooking and is considered compliant with the above-mentioned policies. Page 70 of 110

71 Highway Considerations No changes are proposed to the existing parking and access arrangements and it is considered that there are no highways impacts associated with the proposal. CONCLUSION In conclusion, there is no objection to the demolition of the existing single storey element, or the reconfiguration of the existing dormer window in the rear elevation. Whilst it is considered that the creation of the two-storey rear extension would be harmful, it is concluded that the harm caused by this element would be offset by the benefit accrued from the demolition of the single storey rear extension, and therefore there is no objection to the twostorey rear extension. Harm has also not been identified to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposed single-storey extension would infill the gap between the two rear two storey gabled extensions and is considered harmful to the architectural and historic significance of the listed building. As Officers are required to consider the proposal holistically and without full support from the Historic Buildings Consultants, it is considered that the public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm caused to the heritage asset and therefore the proposal would fail to accord with the requirements of the NPPF and the above-mentioned policies. RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that the following decision be made: Application REFUSED for the following reasons:- 1 The single storey rear extension is considered to cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II* Listed Building, and the harm which has been identified is not considered to be outweighed by any public benefits. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the NPPF, NPPG, Policies CS9 of the Braintree District Core Strategy, Policies RLP17, RLP90 and RLP100 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review, and Policies LPP38, LPP50, LPP55 and LPP60 of the Publication Draft Local Plan. SUBMITTED PLANS Location / Block Plan Existing Plans Existing Elevations Proposed Plans Proposed Elevations Plan Ref: A-1719-PL-01 Plan Ref: A-1719-PL-02 Plan Ref: A-1719-PL-03 Plan Ref: A-1719-PL-04 Plan Ref: A-1719-PL-05 TESSA LAMBERT - DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Page 71 of 110

72 PART B AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5g APPLICATION NO: APPLICANT: AGENT: 18/00365/LBC DATE VALID: Mr N Clark Owls Hill House, Owls Hill, Terling, Essex, CM3 2PS Inkpen Downie Architecture Ms Linh Bane, 2 Balkerne House, Balkerne Passage, Colchester, Essex, CO1 1PA DESCRIPTION: Demolition of later 20th century extensions, erection of new reconfigured extension, including 2 storey cross-wing, rebuild of existing dormer window LOCATION: Owls Hill House, Owls Hill, Terling, Essex, CM3 2PS For more information about this Application please contact: Mrs F Fisher on: Ext or by to: fayfi@braintree.gov.uk Page 72 of 110

73 SITE HISTORY 80/00902/P Erection of detached 2- Refused storey dwellinghouse 88/01825/P Demolition Of Existing Granted Porch And Replace With New Porch 96/00723/FUL Erection of two storey rear Granted extension and re-roofing works 96/00724/LBC Erection of two storey rear Granted extension and re-roofing works 05/01671/LBC Replacement of plastic Granted window to wooden framed 12/01607/FUL Erection of greenhouse Granted /01335/LBC Works to roof including Granted replacing tiles where necessary and new roof felt. Treatment of timbers. Works to floor in lounge, dining room and garden room including new flooring and potentially removing concrete floor (dining room only) 15/01234/LBC Stripping oak, elm, Granted mahogany and pine beams of paint, varnish and black staining 15/00258/DAC Application for approval of Granted details reserved by condition no. 3 of approved application 15/01234/LBC 17/00896/FUL Removal of existing single Refused storey extension at rear and erection of two storey cross wing and single storey garden room 17/00899/LBC Removal of existing single Refused storey extension at rear and erection of two storey cross wing and single storey garden room 17/01652/DAC Application for approval of Granted details reserved by condition nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of approved application 14/01335/LBC 18/00364/FUL Demolition of later 20th Pending Page 73 of 110

74 century extensions, erection of new reconfigured extension, including 2 storey cross-wing, rebuild of existing dormer window Decision POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Currently the Council s development plan consists of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005) and the Core Strategy (2011). The Council is currently working on a Draft Local Plan, which was approved by the Council unanimously for consultation on the 20 th June 2016 and was the subject of public consultation between the 27 th June and 19 th August The Draft Local Plan, now referred to as the Publication Draft Local Plan, was approved by the Council on 5 th June 2017 for consultation and for submission to the Secretary of State. The public consultation ran from 16 th June to 28 th July The Publication Draft Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 9 th October The Section 1 of the Draft Local Plan is currently the subject of an examination by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Part 2 Draft Local Plan examination will take place later this year. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, from the day of publication the Council can give weight to the emerging Draft Local Plan and the weight that can be given is related to: The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given) and; The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Accordingly the Council can currently afford some weight to the emerging Publication Draft Local Plan It should also be noted that the Council was previously working on a Site Allocation and Development Management Plan (the ADMP). This plan was subject to extensive public consultation in 2013 and The ADMP was not however submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, due to the decision to begin work on a new Local Plan, to take into account the most up to date Government guidance. However parts of the ADMP have been rolled forward into the Draft Local Plan. It is therefore considered that it would be consistent with the provisions in paragraph 216 of the NPPF, to afford more weight in decision making to the parts of the Draft Local Plan which have been rolled Page 74 of 110

75 forward from the ADMP, due to the more advanced stage reached by those elements. National Planning Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 RLP100 Alterations and Extensions and Changes of Use to Listed Buildings and their settings Braintree District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 CS9 Built and Historic Environment Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan 2017 LPP60 Heritage Assets and their Settings INTRODUCTION / REASON FOR APPLICATION BEING CONSIDERED AT COMMITTEE This application is brought before the Planning Committee in accordance with the Council s Scheme of Delegation as the Parish Council wish to support the application contrary to Officer s recommendation. SITE DESCRIPTION Please see report for application reference 18/00364/FUL PROPOSAL Please see report for application reference 18/00364/FUL CONSULTATIONS Please see report for application reference 18/00364/FUL REPRESENTATIONS Please see report for application reference 18/00364/FUL REPORT Please see report for application reference 18/00364/FUL Page 75 of 110

76 CONCLUSION In conclusion, there remains is no objection to the demolition of the existing single storey element, or the reconfiguration of the existing dormer window in the rear elevation. Whilst it is considered that the creation of the two-storey rear extension would be harmful, it is concluded that the harm caused by this element would be offset by the benefit accrued from the demolition of the single storey rear extension, and therefore considering these elements holistically there is no objection to the two-storey rear extension. Harm has also not been identified to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposed single-storey extension would infill the gap between the two rear two storey gabled extensions and is considered harmful to the architectural and historic significance of the listed building. It is therefore considered that whilst the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to a Grade II* Listed Building, when the harm when weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, is considered that the proposal would fail to accord with the NPPF and the abovementioned polices. RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that the following decision be made: Application REFUSED for the following reasons:- 1 The single storey rear extension is considered to cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II* Listed Building, and the harm which has been identified is not considered to be outweighed by any public benefits. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the NPPF, Policy CS9 of the Braintree District Core Strategy, Policy RLP100 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review, and Policy LPP60 of the Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan. SUBMITTED PLANS Location / Block Plan Existing Plans Existing Elevations Proposed Plans Proposed Elevations Plan Ref: A-1719-PL-01 Plan Ref: A-1719-PL-02 Plan Ref: A-1719-PL-03 Plan Ref: A-1719-PL-04 Plan Ref: A-1719-PL-05 TESSA LAMBERT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Page 76 of 110

77 PART B AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5h APPLICATION 18/00419/FUL DATE NO: VALID: APPLICANT: Mr Asa Howard C/O Agent AGENT: TMA Chartered Surveyors The Gatehouse, Rainsford Road, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QL DESCRIPTION: Proposed first floor rear extension and small extension to front porch LOCATION: 19 Watermill Road, Feering, Essex, CO5 9SR For more information about this Application please contact: Will Collier on: Ext. or by to: will.collier@braintree.gov.uk Page 77 of 110

78 SITE HISTORY 12/00727/FUL 17/01191/FUL Erection of single storey rear extension Erection of first floor rear extension Granted Refused POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Currently the Council s development plan consists of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005) and the Core Strategy (2011). The Council is currently working on a Draft Local Plan, which was approved by the Council unanimously for consultation on the 20 th June 2016 and was the subject of public consultation between the 27 th June and 19 th August The Draft Local Plan, now referred to as the Publication Draft Local Plan, was approved by the Council on 5 th June 2017 for consultation and for submission to the Secretary of State. The public consultation ran from 16 th June to 28 th July The Publication Draft Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 9 th October The Section 1 of the Draft Local Plan is currently the subject of an examination by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Part 2 Draft Local Plan examination will take place later this year. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, from the day of publication the Council can give weight to the emerging Draft Local Plan and the weight that can be given is related to: The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given) and; The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Accordingly the Council can currently afford some weight to the emerging Publication Draft Local Plan It should also be noted that the Council was previously working on a Site Allocation and Development Management Plan (the ADMP). This plan was subject to extensive public consultation in 2013 and The ADMP was not however submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, due to the decision to begin work on a new Local Plan, to take into account the most up to date Government guidance. However parts of the ADMP have been rolled forward into the Draft Local Plan. It is therefore considered that it would be consistent Page 78 of 110

79 with the provisions in paragraph 216 of the NPPF, to afford more weight in decision making to the parts of the Draft Local Plan which have been rolled forward from the ADMP, due to the more advanced stage reached by those elements. National Planning Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 RLP2 RLP3 RLP17 RLP56 RLP90 Town Development Boundaries and Village Envelopes Development within Town Development Boundaries and Village Envelopes Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings in Towns and Villages Vehicle Parking Layout and Design of Development Braintree District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 CS9 Built and Historic Environment Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan 2017 SP1 SP6 LPP1 LPP38 LPP45 LPP50 LPP55 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Place Shaping Principles Development Boundaries Residential Alterations, Extensions and Outbuildings Parking Provision Built and Historic Environment Layout and Design of Development Other Material Considerations Essex Design Guide Page 76 & 77 Amenity Space Page Rule & Overlooking Page Design Essex Parking Standards/Urban Space Supplement INTRODUCTION / REASON FOR APPLICATION BEING CONSIDERED AT COMMITTEE This application is brought before the Planning Committee due to the officer recommendation being contrary to views of the Parish Council. Page 79 of 110

80 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located within the Feering development boundary. It is not within a Conservation Area or subject to any listing. No.19 is a three bedroom semidetached dwelling that has previously been altered at the rear by the addition of a single storey extension across the width of the house. At the rear, the original rear elevation of No.19 is set back from that of No.21 by approximately 1.2 metres. There is an integral garage to the side of the house with an additional parking space within the curtilage in front of the garage. Footpath 16 runs adjacent to the rear site boundary, and a playing field is situated further to the rear, providing an open aspect to the rear of the dwellings in this part of Watermill Road. PROPOSAL It is proposed to erect a gable extension at the first floor, over part of the single storey rear extension to provide a fourth bedroom, and a small side extension to the existing front porch. CONSULTATIONS Feering Parish Council No objections, subject to an officer assessment that the proposal complies with the 45 degree angle test. No objections to the front porch. REPRESENTATIONS A site notice was displayed near the front of the property and neighbour notification letters were sent out to adjacent properties. In response, six letters of representation were received in respect of the submitted proposal (5 objections and 1 support). The comments of the objections are summarised below: First floor rear extension is overbearing. First floor extension will alter the character of the houses in the area. Rear extension will overlook path and public park. Sets an unwanted precedent. Limited space to extend in gardens, more appropriate to convert loft space. The Neighbourhood Survey found that there was a need for smaller homes (2 or 3 bed) in the area, therefore don t extend. The plans are inaccurate. It is stated in the Planning Statement that the rear extension covers only part of the existing single storey extension, but the plans show this not be the case. Views have not been taken into consideration. Page 80 of 110

81 The proposed rear extension is considered to be overly large given the size of the garden and building footprint. Existing ground floor extension is oversize according to the Essex Design Guide. Setting the extension away from the boundary wall of the adjoining property does not reduce its overbearing impact. The 45 angle line shown on the plans is incorrect. The proposal would adversely affect the amenities of no. 21 causing loss of light and outlook, exacerbated by the orientation of the properties and small size of the rear garden of 21 Watermill Road. No other similar extensions in the area. The rear garden of No. 21, the adjoining property is already enclosed in on two of its four sides, and the proposed extension will worsen the effect of enclosure, extending one third of their garden length. Important considerations were missed by the previous planning officer. The proposed roof has an overbearing impact. Minimum garden size should be 100sq metres. This remains the case and the existing ground floor extension is in breach of this. Loss of sunlight to patio area of No. 21 One support representation received from Foliots, Rye Mill Lane, Feering, comments summarised below: The extension is of a relatively modest size The applicant has a need for an extra bedroom. The resubmission complies with planning policies and rules. The property looks smaller than neighbouring properties and therefore a modest extension will not look out of place. The extension projects beyond the adjoining property by only 2 metres (approx.) and this is not considered invasive. REPORT Principle of Development The site is located within a development boundary where there is a general presumption in favour of sustainable development, subject to satisfactory design, highway considerations and subject to there being no detrimental impacts upon neighbouring residential amenity. There is therefore no objection in principle to an appropriately designed extension in this location. Design, Appearance and Layout Policy CS9 of the Braintree District Core Strategy seeks to promote and secure the highest possible standards of design and layout in all new development and the protection and enhancement of the historic environment. Policy RLP3 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review states inter alia that: Within village envelopes and town development boundaries residential development will only be permitted where it satisfies amenity, design, Page 81 of 110

82 environmental and highway criteria and where it can take place without material detriment to the existing character of the settlement. Proposals for development should:- 1. Seek to protect the character of the existing street scene, the setting of attractive buildings and historic interest of the locality, the landscape value of existing tree cover and generally to ensure that new development does not materially detract from the character of the settlement. Policy LPP1 of the Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan states inter alia that within development boundaries, development will be permitted where it satisfies amenity, design, environmental and highway criteria and where it can take place without material adverse detriment to the existing character and historic interest of the settlement. Likewise RLP90 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review seeks a high standard of layout and design in all developments, large and small in the district and requires that there shall be no undue or unacceptable impact on the amenity of any nearby residential properties; Designs shall recognise and reflect local distinctiveness: these requirements, amongst others, have been carried over to Policy LPP55 of the Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan. The adopted Development Plan requires that extensions and alterations to an existing dwelling be considered in the light of the impact on the existing property, on neighbouring properties and the locality. Extensions and alterations to properties within towns and villages are judged against the criteria set out in Policy RLP17 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review. Namely, there should be no over-development of the plot when taking into account the footprint of the building and the relationship to the boundaries and the siting, bulk, form and materials of the extension should be compatible with the original dwelling. Policy LPP38 of the Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan states inter alia that: Residential alterations, extensions and outbuildings will be permitted, provided they meet the following criteria; a. There should be no over-development of the plot when taking into account the footprint of the existing dwelling and the relationship to plot boundaries. The Council will have regard to the cumulative impact of extensions and outbuildings on the original character of the property and its surroundings b. The property design, siting, bulk, form and materials of the alteration, extension or outbuilding should be compatible with the original dwelling and character of the area c. Extensions and outbuildings will be required to be subordinate to the original dwelling in terms of bulk, height and position d. There should be no unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining residential properties, including on privacy, overshadowing of light or an overbearing impact Page 82 of 110

83 e. There should be no adverse material impact on the identity of the street scene and/or the appearance of the countryside This proposal is a resubmission of a previous planning application (application reference 17/01191/FUL) which was considered at Planning Committee on 7 th November Members at the Planning Committee overturned the Officers recommendation to grant planning permission for the proposed extension. Planning permission was refused on the following grounds: In this case, it is considered that the first floor rear extension by virtue of its size, scale and siting would give rise to an unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing impact on the neighbouring dwelling at no. 21 Watermill Road to the detriment of the amenity of the existing occupiers. This adverse impact is exacerbated by the orientation of the properties and the small size of the rear garden of no. 21 Watermill Road. As such it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to the core principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS9 of the Braintree District Core Strategy, Policies RLP3, RLP17 and RLP90 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policy LPP38 of the Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan. This application seeks permission for a first floor rear extension and enlargement of the front porch. The rear extension would measure 4.2 metres in width and 3.5 metres in depth and would be built directly over the existing single storey rear extension, positioned 1.7 metres away from the boundary of the adjoining property, No. 21. The main change since the previous application comprises a reduction in the width of the extension ensuring a gap of 1.7 metres (previously 1.2 metres) between the side of the extension and the boundary. The other change is an enlargement of the front porch by increasing its width. The rear view of the houses in this part of the estate is characterised by a mix of gabled and non-gabled elevations and mix of brick and render finishes. It is considered that the proposed extension is subordinate in scale to the host in terms of footprint and the ridge is set lower than the main roof. It is also considered that the gable arrangement is in keeping with the character of the area and the host dwelling. The rear gardens of No.19 and the neighbouring properties are modest in size. The proposed extension will not further decrease the size of the rear garden, which at approximately 86 square metres is already below the 100 square metres required by the Essex Design Guide for houses with three or more bedrooms. This was considered to be acceptable for a three bedroom family house when planning application reference 12/00727/FUL was approved. Given that the proposed extension has no further impact on the size of the remaining garden space, it is not considered reasonable to refuse the application in this regard. The property has a front porch, and the proposal is to increase its width, bringing it closer to the ground floor living room window. The scale of the change proposed is considered to have minimal impact on the overall Page 83 of 110

84 appearance of the property and is therefore considered to be acceptable in this regard. Impact on Neighbour Amenity The key consideration in this case is how the extension would affect the adjoining property, No.21 Watermill Road. It is noted that an objection has been received from this property, raising a number of concerns, mainly concerning loss of light, overshadowing and the extension appearing overbearing. The rear extension extends approximately 2.4 metres beyond the rear wall of the adjoining property (No.21), due to the way that the rear wall of No.19 Watermill Road is set back from No.21. The extension is also set back from the boundary by 1.7 metres. Comments from No.21 Watermill Road concerning the inaccuracy of the 45 degree lines drawn on the plans are noted, and have been checked by the Officer on site. It was concluded that the drawings were accurate, but that the 45 degree line from the ground floor French doors depicted on rear elevation view (see Drawing No /210) has been shown from the quarter-point position rather than the centre of the window. The Essex Design Guide states the line should be taken from the centre of windows. The Officer thus drew a line from the centre of the ground floor French doors on section view, and found that the line did indeed pass through a part of the upper floor of the rear extension. However, the extent to which the line was breached was not considered to be severe, as a substantial proportion of the extension remained clear of the 45 degree line. Furthermore, it is noted there is no breach of the 45 degree line on plan view; in fact the line easily clears the extension, largely due to the way the extension has been repositioned further away from the boundary (by 1.7 metres). Comments from No.21 Watermill Road also refer to the fact the existing single storey extension breaches the 45 degree line. Again this has been checked, and the breach has been found to be very minimal, the line only clipping the corner of the existing extension. No. 21 Watermill Road lies directly north of No. 19, and as such, it is acknowledged there would be some overshadowing and loss of direct sunlight to the rear garden and rear windows of No.21. However, this impact is not considered sufficiently severe to justify refusal of permission. The proposal is in compliance with the Essex Design Guide, for the reason that there would be no combined overshadowing zone caused by a breach of the 45 degree line on both plan and section views. Furthermore, the only breach on elevation view is assessed to be minor. With respect to the concerns raised about overlooking into the playing field, this is not considered to be a reason for refusal, as the windows on the rear elevation would not directly overlook into private gardens or face opposite facing windows from neighbouring properties. Page 84 of 110

85 Highway Issues No changes are proposed to the existing parking and access arrangements. It is considered that there are no highways impacts associated with the proposals. Other Issues Representations have been made that the applicant could enlarge the property by way of a loft extension. The applicant has previously advised that it would not be possible to convert the property to meet building regulations due to the limited height within the existing loft; and it would result in the loss of a bedroom to accommodate a staircase. Notwithstanding whether there are alternative ways in which a property could be extended an applicant may submit any application they choose to make and the Local Planning Authority is required to determine such an application on its own merits. It is not a material planning consideration in this case as to whether the property could be enlarged in a different way that would be preferred by other parties. The officer visited the site of No. 21 Watermill Road in April 2018 and considered the plans to be accurate. An informative is recommended for inclusion on the decision notice to ensure that access to the site for construction purposes is via the garage, not the rear footpath. CONCLUSION In this case, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of design and highway considerations and is in keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area. The scheme is an improvement on the previous design and complies with the Essex Design Guide. Whilst it is accepted there would be some impact on No.21 Watermill Road, this is not considered to be sufficiently detrimental to warrant the refusal of planning permission. RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that the following decision be made: Application GRANTED subject to the following conditions and reasons and in accordance with approved plans:- APPROVED PLANS General Plans & Elevations Plan Ref: 210 Version: A Location Plan Block Plan Roof Plan Plan Ref: 211 Page 85 of 110

86 1 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. Reason This Condition is imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed above. Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 3 The external materials and finishes shall be as indicated on the approved plans and/or submitted application form. Reason In the interests of visual amenity. TESSA LAMBERT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Page 86 of 110

87 PART B AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5i APPLICATION 18/00427/FUL DATE NO: VALID: APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs L & Z Ivatt April Cottage, Alphamstone Road, Lamarsh, Essex, CO8 5ES AGENT: Optimum Architecture Ltd Mr Stuart Davis, Nags Corner, Nayland, Nr Colchester, CO6 4LT DESCRIPTION: Proposed single storey rear and side extension and alterations LOCATION: April Cottage, Alphamstone Road, Lamarsh, Essex, CO8 5ES For more information about this Application please contact: Daniel White on: Ext or by to: daniel.white@braintree.gov.uk Page 87 of 110

88 SITE HISTORY 17/01322/FUL Erection of single storey rear and side extensions and alterations Withdrawn POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Currently the Council s development plan consists of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005) and the Core Strategy (2011). The Council is currently working on a Draft Local Plan, which was approved by the Council unanimously for consultation on the 20 th June 2016 and was the subject of public consultation between the 27 th June and 19 th August The Draft Local Plan, now referred to as the Publication Draft Local Plan, was approved by the Council on 5 th June 2017 for consultation and for submission to the Secretary of State. The public consultation ran from 16 th June to 28 th July The Publication Draft Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 9 th October The Section 1 of the Draft Local Plan is currently the subject of an examination by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Part 2 Draft Local Plan examination will take place later this year. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, from the day of publication the Council can give weight to the emerging Draft Local Plan and the weight that can be given is related to: The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given) and; The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Accordingly the Council can currently afford some weight to the emerging Publication Draft Local Plan It should also be noted that the Council was previously working on a Site Allocation and Development Management Plan (the ADMP). This plan was subject to extensive public consultation in 2013 and The ADMP was not however submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, due to the decision to begin work on a new Local Plan, to take into account the most up to date Government guidance. However parts of the ADMP have been rolled forward into the Draft Local Plan. It is therefore considered that it would be consistent with the provisions in paragraph 216 of the NPPF, to afford more weight in decision making to the parts of the Draft Local Plan which have been rolled Page 88 of 110

89 forward from the ADMP, due to the more advanced stage reached by those elements. National Planning Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 RLP3 RLP17 RLP56 RLP90 RLP100 Development within Town Development Boundaries and Village Envelopes Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings in Towns and Villages Vehicle Parking Layout and Design of Development Alterations and Extensions and Changes of Use to Listed Buildings and their settings Braintree District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 CS9 Built and Historic Environment Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan 2017 SP1 LPP38 LPP45 LPP55 LPP60 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Residential Alterations, Extensions and Outbuildings Parking Provision Layout and Design of Development Heritage Assets and their Settings INTRODUCTION This application is brought before the Planning Committee due to the Parish Council supporting the application contrary to Officer recommendation. SITE DESCRIPTION The application site comprises of a detached thatched roofed cottage, April Cottage, situated within the Lamarsh Village Envelope. April Cottage is situated on Alphamstone Road adjacent to the Grade II Holly Cottage to the west and Pear Tree Cottage to the East. April Cottage itself is not statutory listed, however is considered a non-designated heritage asset and is on the Braintree Local list. April Cottage is a peculiar shaped cottage, with the thatched roof dominating most of the elevations, with part of the cottage being situated in the neighbouring properties front garden (Pear Tree Cottage), together with the plot itself being of an irregular shape. April Cottage is a relatively small, largely un-altered cottage with the exception of the windows and a single storey extension to the rear. The front garden is quite small in its size with the off-street parking being beside the dwelling itself. The garden to Page 89 of 110

90 the rear is relatively long and narrow with a section of the garden jutting out towards the neighbouring property, Holly Cottage. SITE HISTORY This application follows a withdrawn application (17/01322/FUL) and a preapplication enquiry both of which were very similar proposals to this application. The main differences between the previous applications and this application are the omission of the pitched roof over the kitchen as well as the repositioning of the rear extension. In the withdrawn application it was made clear to the applicant that the application would have been refused due to the fragmented forms which sat uncomfortably beside one another, and that the massing and presence of continuous built forms would have had an adverse impact upon the setting of Holly Cottage. Following the comments from the withdrawn application, the applicants sought pre-application advice and were advised that despite revisions to the plans the proposal would not address the core concerns raised in the previous application. The pre-application comments were extremely similar to those in the withdrawn application with the addition of the proposal impacting upon the Grade II listed Holy Cottage further due to the extension stepping towards the listed building due to the irregular plot shape and the complex assemblage of forms which would indicate overdevelopment within its setting. PROPOSAL The application proposes to erect a single storey rear and side extension and alterations. The extensions will provide the applicants with an additional storage area in both the existing porch and the creation of a new hallway which would lead into the new lounge. The proposed materials for the single storey rear extension is render to match the existing dwelling, large panes of glass for the rear elevation with coloured powder coated aluminium folding sliding doors, with handmade clay plain tiles for the roof and a brick plinth of which the brick is not specified. The single storey side extension would also use render to match the existing dwelling, with white flush casement heritage UPVC windows to match the existing property and lead for the flat roof. CONSULTATIONS Parish Council - Support the application as they feel it would create a more sustainable dwelling within the village, it would not have a harmful impact on the surrounding properties or the immediate area. REPRESENTATIONS One representation was received in support of the proposal. The representation supports the proposal as the plans, in their opinion, are thoughtful and blend well into the village architecture and the materials proposed are of high quality. Page 90 of 110

91 REPORT Principle of Development Policies RLP3, RLP17 and RLP90 make provisions for the extension to the existing dwelling subject to compliance with certain criteria. Policy RLP100 makes provisions for development involving internal or external alterations, extensions to a listed building or structure, subject to certain criteria. The proposal is considered acceptable in principle and the above mentioned policies are discussed in more detail below. Design, Appearance and Layout Policy CS9 of the Braintree District Council Core Strategy states that the Council will promote and secure a good standard of design and layout in all new development. Policy RLP3 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 allows for development within town development boundaries and village envelopes only if it can take place where it satisfies amenity, design, environmental and highway criteria and without material detriment to the existing character of the settlement. Policy RLP17 makes reference to new development being both of a good standard of design and in harmony with the character and appearance of the area, and extensions not resulting in the over-development of the plot. Policy RLP90 requires designs to recognise and reflect local distinctiveness in terms of scale, density, height and massing of buildings. It also states there shall be no unacceptable or undue impact on neighbouring residential amenities. As April Cottage is considered a non-designated heritage asset, paragraph 135 of the NPPF would apply and states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. The NPPF allows for alterations and works to a listed building. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. However where the development or works would lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. Policy RLP100 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review and Policy LPP60 of the Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan state that development which could impact upon the setting of a listed building, a locally listed heritage asset, or an otherwise designated heritage asset will only be permitted if the proposed works or uses do not cause harm to the setting, character, structural stability Page 91 of 110

92 and fabric of the building, and do not result in the loss of, or significant damage to the building s historic and architectural elements of special importance, and use appropriate materials and finishes. It is considered that the proposed single storey rear and side extensions and alterations would be of a poor quality of design and layout. The ridge height of the single storey rear extension is almost as tall as the existing chimney, and the extension projects 2.5m beyond the original dwelling making it appear visually dominant. It is also considered that the single storey rear extension would be at odds with and compete visually with the simple form of April Cottage, making it an unacceptable form of development for this property. It is considered that the proposal would not be of a good standard of design and not in harmony with the character and appearance of the area and therefore would result in the overdevelopment of the plot. It is also considered that the single storey rear extension would cause harm to the character and setting of the Non-designated heritage asset and would compete visually with the original dwelling in terms of its form and scale. Due to the siting of the proposal, it would neither preserve nor enhance the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed Holly Cottage, and would also cause harm to this heritage asset. The extension would cause harm to the setting of Holly Cottage due to its siting, with the single storey rear extension being situated only 1.3m away from the neighbouring boundary at its narrowest point. While the comments of support within the letters of representation are noted, it is considered that the proposal would have to be substantially amended in order for it to meet the criteria set out in both the Braintree District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy, and the Braintree District Local Plan Review. In conclusion, in terms of size, form and siting of the single storey rear extension, it would create a large, prominent and visually dominant addition to the cottage and would represent a significant increase to the size of the original dwelling, together with having an harmful impact on the character of the non-designated heritage asset and the character and setting of the adjacent Grade II listed Holly Cottage, contrary to the NPPF, Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy, Policies RLP3, RLP17, RLP9, RLP100 of the Local Plan Review and Policies SP1, LPP38, LPP45,LPP55 and LPP60 of the Publication Draft Local Plan. Impact on Neighbour Amenity In this case it is not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon neighbouring residential amenity in terms of loss of natural light, overshadowing, overbearing, or in terms of overlooking. Page 92 of 110

93 Highway Issues It is not considered that there would be any highway implications associated with this application as the existing parking spaces are being retained to the side of the property. CONCLUSION In conclusion, in terms of size, form and siting of the single storey rear extension, it would create a large, prominent and visually dominant addition to the cottage and would represent a significant increase to the size of the original dwelling, together with having an harmful impact on the character of the non-designated heritage asset and the character and setting of the adjacent Grade II listed Holly Cottage, contrary to the NPPF, Policies CS9, RLP3, RLP17, RLP90, RLP100, SP1, LPP38, LPP45,LPP55 and LPP60. It is therefore recommended that planning permission is refused. RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that the following decision be made: Application REFUSED for the following reasons:- 1 The proposed extension by reason of its size, siting, bulk and design would result in an unacceptable form of development, out of keeping with the host dwelling, resulting in a significant increase in the size of the property, out of character and visually competing with the simple form of the host dwelling, contrary to the NPPF, Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy and Policies RLP3, RLP17 and RLP90 of the Local Plan Review. 2 The application site lies adjacent to Holly Cottage a property statutorily listed as being of Grade II value in the list of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest. The proposed extension would be detrimental to the setting of this adjacent listed building eroding the spaciousness of its setting and detracting from the historic character and appearance of the listed property, contrary to the NPPF, Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy and Policy RLP100 of the Local Plan Review. SUBMITTED PLANS Heritage Statement Flood Risk Assessment Existing Plans Plan Ref: Location Plan Plan Ref: Proposed Plans Plan Ref: Proposed Block Plan Plan Ref: TESSA LAMBERT - DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Page 93 of 110

94 PART B AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5j APPLICATION 18/00448/ADV DATE NO: VALID: APPLICANT: Suggitt 5-7 Marshalsea Road AGENT: Turnerbates Ms Cecilia Severin, Studio 3, 14 Marshalsea Road, London, SE1 1HL DESCRIPTION: Application for consent to display an advertisement - 1no. illuminated Totem sign LOCATION: Frankie And Bennys Restaurant, Galleys Corner, Braintree Road, Cressing, Essex, CM77 8GA, For more information about this Application please contact: Mrs F Fisher on: Ext or by to: fayfi@braintree.gov.uk Page 94 of 110

95 SITE HISTORY 02/00194/FUL 02/01686/ADV 02/01687/ADV 02/02166/ADV 02/02167/ADV Erection of a single storey restaurant (with takeaway facility), with associated parking and landscaped areas Display of restaurant signage Display of restaurant signage Display of illuminated restaurant signage Display of illuminated restaurant signage Granted Refused Refused Granted Granted POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Currently the Council s development plan consists of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005) and the Core Strategy (2011). The Council is currently working on a Draft Local Plan, which was approved by the Council unanimously for consultation on the 20 th June 2016 and was the subject of public consultation between the 27 th June and 19 th August The Draft Local Plan, now referred to as the Publication Draft Local Plan, was approved by the Council on 5 th June 2017 for consultation and for submission to the Secretary of State. The public consultation ran from 16 th June to 28 th July The Publication Draft Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 9 th October The Section 1 of the Draft Local Plan is currently the subject of an examination by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Part 2 Draft Local Plan examination will take place later this year. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, from the day of publication the Council can give weight to the emerging Draft Local Plan and the weight that can be given is related to: The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given) and; The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Accordingly the Council can currently afford some weight to the emerging Publication Draft Local Plan Page 95 of 110

96 It should also be noted that the Council was previously working on a Site Allocation and Development Management Plan (the ADMP). This plan was subject to extensive public consultation in 2013 and The ADMP was not however submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, due to the decision to begin work on a new Local Plan, to take into account the most up to date Government guidance. However parts of the ADMP have been rolled forward into the Draft Local Plan. It is therefore considered that it would be consistent with the provisions in paragraph 216 of the NPPF, to afford more weight in decision making to the parts of the Draft Local Plan which have been rolled forward from the ADMP, due to the more advanced stage reached by those elements. National Planning Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 RLP107 Outdoor Advertisements Braintree District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 CS9 Built and Historic Environment Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan 2017 SP1 SP6 LPP1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Place Shaping Principles Development Boundaries INTRODUCTION / REASON FOR APPLICATION BEING CONSIDERED AT COMMITTEE This application is brought before the Planning Committee in accordance with the Council s Scheme of Delegation as the Parish Council have objected to the application contrary to Officer s recommendation. SITE DESCRIPTION The site comprises a Frankie and Bennys restaurant which is located on Galleys Corner which is located outside of any defined settlement boundary. Galleys Corner is an area of transport related development made up primarily of takeaway restaurants, a pub, a hotel, a garden centre, a petrol filling station, a car wash and car sales. Page 96 of 110

97 PROPOSAL It is proposed to erect an illuminated totem sign within the grounds of the car park of the restaurant. The height of the totem has been reduced by the applicant during the lifetime of the application so that it is identical in height to the totem which sits alongside the KFC restaurant chain. The sign now measures 6 metres in height. The main face of the totem will measure 2.5 metres in width by 1.98 metres in depth and will have laser cut graphics and would be illuminated using internal LEDs. CONSULTATIONS Essex County Council - The Highway Authority has no comments to make on this proposal; given the luminance levels do not exceed the recommended level of 600 cd/m for a medium district area (small town centre), as contained within the Technical Report No.9 Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements Third Addition. All signage must be kept clear of the highway. Environmental Health - No objection to the proposal on Environmental Health grounds, however it is recommended that a condition is in place to ensure that the totem is not illuminated outside trading hours. REPRESENTATIONS Cressing Parish Council Object to proposal as it is considered that this business already has sufficient lighting to its premises that can be seen from both Millennium Way and the A120 and to add yet another road side advertising structure could cause drivers to be distracted at a very busy and dangerous junction. The building is of fairly low build, but its advertising logo is highly visible and to add anything future will add to the light pollution that already exists in this area. The environment in this area has been badly affected by development and needs improvement, not more structures that will add to the poor visual impact of the area. In addition, 1 letter of representation has been received from Councillor James Abbott which states that this business already has prominent lit advertising of its name on the building, as seen prominently from the adjacent Millennium Way and areas adjacent to the site. The proposal is for a garish US-style 7m tall LED-lit totem. This structure would be taller than the building itself. It would be a distraction to drivers on Millennium Way, would not be functional as there is already prominent lit advertising on the building, but would add yet further to the severe light pollution that has been allowed to build up in the Galleys Corner/retail park area over the years. This light pollution is not only local to the immediate area, it is prominently visible for several miles across the countryside with the plethora of badly designed lights directly seen from rural locations such as Black Notley and White Notley across the valley of the river. Page 97 of 110

98 The comments further state that Braintree District Council has recognised the need to make environmental improvements to the site area in its Draft Local Plan, now submitted, as in policy LPP47. It is not sustainable or energy efficient to add more lit ads to a business that already has lit ads. BDC and ECC need to get a grip on the environmental impacts and access problems in this area the poor structural landscaping, the traffic congestion, the poor connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians, the damage to kerb lines and verges that has been extant for years, the severe litter problem - and the light pollution. REPORT Principle of Development Advertisements fall under a separate statutory control from development, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations In determining applications for express consent the local planning authority may only consider two issues, the interests of amenity and public safety. Amenity refers to the effect upon the visual and aural amenity in the immediate vicinity and public safety refers to the effect on traffic or transport on land, over water or in the air. The main issue to consider with this application is its effect upon the visual amenity of the area. Impact on Amenity In terms of impact on amenity the NPPF provides policy context as to how advertisements should be determined by recognising that poorly placed advertisements can have a negative impact on the appearance of the built and natural environment. Control over outdoor advertisements should be efficient, effective and simple in concept and operation. Only those advertisements which will clearly have an appreciable impact on a building or on their surroundings should be subject to the local planning authority s detailed assessment. Advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts. In terms of impact on amenity Regulation 3 of Advertising Regulations 2007 under Sub section 3.-(2) (a) states that factors relevant to amenity include the general characteristics of the locality, including the presence of any feature of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest. Policy RLP107 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review permits outdoor advertisements providing that the advertisement is displayed in close proximity to the activities they are advertising, the area of display of an advertisement should be visually subordinate to the feature of the building on which it is located, there is not a proliferation of advertisements on the building/site, issues of public safety, including traffic safety have been taken into account. Additionally particular importance must be paid to the luminance, design and siting of outdoor advertisements in sensitive locations, such as urban fringes, countryside and residential areas. Page 98 of 110

99 In this case Frankie and Benny s restaurant is a purpose built building located outside of any defined settlement boundary but within an urban fringe location known as Galley s Corner. Galley s Corner is an area of transport related development made up primarily of takeaway restaurants, a pub, a hotel, a garden centre, petrol filling station, car wash and car sales. The totem is to be located in the centre of the car park belonging to the restaurant. In terms of impact on amenity, the height of the totem sign has been revised to reduce its height to 6 metres and will be of identical approved height to the totem sign located at the nearby KFC restaurant. The positioning of the proposed totem is away from any major roads and whilst it will be visible, it is not considered that it will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area when considering the general characteristics of the locality. As such, while the concerns raised by Cressing Parish Council and within the letter of representation received in connection with this application are noted, Officers conclude that the proposed illuminated totem sign is acceptable and compliant with the above policies in this regard. Public Safety The Advertising Regulations 2007 outline that any advertisement should be considered in relation to the safety of a person using a highway. This point is replicated by Policy RLP107 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review which outlines that public safety, including traffic safety, will be accorded a high priority in decision making. It is considered that the proposed advertisements would not obstruct visibility splays or vehicle movement and therefore it is considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact upon highway safety. The applicant will be advised with regards to their obligations to prevent glare to passing motorists via relevant informatives. Conclusion Officers conclude that the proposed illuminated totem sign would not have a detrimental impact in terms upon amenity or public safety and is considered to be compliant with the abovementioned policies and can therefore be supported. RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that the following decision be made: Application GRANTED subject to the following conditions and reasons and in accordance with approved plans:- Page 99 of 110

100 APPROVED PLANS Signage Details Plan Ref: 503 Version: Rev A Location Plan Plan Ref: 501 Block Plan Plan Ref: 502 Elevations Plan Ref: p200 Version: Rev A 1 The consent hereby granted shall expire at the end of a period of 5 years from the date hereof. Reason This condition is imposed pursuant to the Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and in the interests of visual amenity. 2 The consent hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed above. Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 3 The luminance levels should not exceed the recommended level of 600 cd/m for a medium district area (small town centre), as contained within the Technical Report No.9 - Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements Third Addition. Reason To ensure that users of the highway are not subjected to glare and dazzle in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies as adopted as County Council Supplementary Guidance in February The totem sign permitted by this consent shall only be illuminated during the opening hours of the premises to which it relates. Reason To minimise pollution of the environment and to safeguard the amenities of the locality and the appearance of the development. TESSA LAMBERT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Page 100 of 110

101 PART B AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5k APPLICATION NO: APPLICANT: 18/00511/VAR DATE VALID: Radford Group Ltd Mr Sam Rogers, Unit 1A Homefield Road, Haverhill, Suffolk CB9 8QP DESCRIPTION: Application for a variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 10/01248/FUL - Amendments are proposed to the cartlodge of Plot 7 to include for doors to provide additional security to the future occupier. LOCATION: The Spinning Wheel, Rowley Hill, Sturmer, Essex, CB9 7XF For more information about this Application please contact: Mr Sam Trafford on: Ext or by to: sam.trafford@braintree.gov.uk Page 101 of 110