Agenda item

20/00364/HOUSE - 8 The Cobbins, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex, CM0 8QL

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed)

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number

20/00364/HOUSE

Location

8 The Cobbins, Burnham-On-Crouch, Essex CM0 8QL

Proposal

Proposed part single, part 2 storey side / rear extensions. Including roof alterations to proposed attached garage with planning approval ref HOUSE/MAL/19/01092.

Applicant

Mr & Mrs Lambert

Agent

Mr Ashley Robinson - Ashley Robinson Property Designs

Target Decision Date

28.05.2020

Case Officer

Annie Keen

Parish

Burnham-on-Crouch North

Reason for Referral to the Committee / Council

Member Call In  - Councillor W Stamp

Reason: H4 and S6

 

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Lead Specialist Place took the meeting through the report addressing concerns expressed in recent emails relating to both the report and the recommendation.

 

Firstly, he advised that the report outlined the main planning issues and material considerations. He acknowledged that the inclusion of the garage in the report may have led to some confusion regarding the applicant’s position. However, the fact that the garage had been granted planning permission by South East Area Planning Committee in 2019 was a material planning consideration in determining this application, therefore appropriate to include in the report.

 

Referring to the plans for this application he clarified that the percentage of floorspace in the Officer’s report included the previous permission for the garage, together with the proposed new extension.

 

He concluded by reminding the meeting that unfortunately personal circumstances would have to be very special to outweigh the harm identified to  planning policy. Planning had to consider the life time of the development.

 

A lengthy discussion ensued around the issue of size and bulk and the housing mix onthe estate. Councillor Stamp referring to the Cobbins Estate said that the proposedapplicationwas no bigger than some of the existing houses. The Lead Specialist Place advisedthat each application had to be determined on its own merit. Parts of thisdevelopment would have been approved prior tothe National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF) and Local Development Plan (LDP). That the general acceptance was that additions should appear subservient, not dominant, within the site and to the main dwelling and that the special circumstances for one ofthe annexes had fallen away.

 

Councillor Fluker noted thatit was a subjective view that the application contravened policies D1 and H4 ofthe LDP and asked to seethe existingand proposed elevations. At this point the Lead Specialist Place, for the purpose of clarity, explainedthat the dotted outline on the elevation represented the garage that already had extant planningpermission

 

Councillor Fluker, on reviewing the proposed versus the existing elevations commented that the windows and fenestrations all looked balanced and whilst it was a big house the plot itself was equally large.

 

The Lead Specialist Place in response to a comment regarding the original garageplanning permission reportedthat this need had now fallen away, and the currentapplicationaddition was to meet the needs ofthe father. He advised that should therecommendation onthis applicationbe overturned the other permission could still be implemented.

 

Councillor Fluker suggested that if officers were minded to approve they couldcondition that the applicant could not undertake both elevations.

 

At this point the Lead Specialist Place reminded the meeting that there was an optionthat the applicant sign a Unilateral Undertaking (legal agreement) to waive the previous planning permission for the garage, given that the harmwas increased byboth permissions. Furthermore, he reiterated there no longer were special circumstances for two annexes, one set of supportingevidence had fallen away.

 

Councillor Fluker referring to the proposed elevations said he felt that the application did accordwith D1 and H4 as the plot was large enough to accommodate the alterations.He recommended that the application be approved, and Councillor Stamp agreed.

 

Councillor Boyce supportedthe Officer’s recommendation to refuse asthe lifetime ofa building needed to be considered. Councillor Stamp then referred back to the option of alegal agreement. She felt that since the circumstances had changed regarding theoriginal planning permission the applicant may be open to negotiation. The importantthing was tofacilitate households to take care oftheir elderly.

 

Councillor Fluker, notingthe urgencyof the health needs involved, said he would notsupport the delay incurred by seeking a legal agreement. He felt that officers shoulddecide to either support the officer recommendation or a recommendation that reflectedtwomembers’ views. If the decision was refuse, then the default for the applicant was to appeal. Councillor Stamp concurred and added that Councillor Fluker had made a valid point inthat the application could be accommodated on the site and was in keepingwith the area.

 

Councillor Boyce said that he was happy with either recommendations.

 

The Director of Service Deliveryreminded the meeting that the reason for refusal wasdue to unacceptable scale and bulk. He asked Officers if views put forward inthe meeting had changed their opinion of the Planning Officer’s recommendation to refuse.

 

The Lead Specialist Place said no, but that if officers were minded to overturn therecommendationthe planning rights of the previous development would need to be removed through a signed legal agreement. He added thatthis was not a lengthy process. The Director of Resources noted thatthere already was planning permission for asubstantial addition, that special circumstances did not apply therefore there was no logic to go against the Planning Officer’s recommendation to refuse.

 

The Director of Service Delivery, having taken all views into consideration, said he felt that a middle ground approach by way of a legal agreement was the best option. He proposed that a signed legal agreement be sought to remove the planning rights from the earlier approved development. If accepted by the applicantall final conditions would be delegated to officers. Ifnot accepted, then the application would be refused, and the applicant would have the option to appeal.

 

 

The Director of Service Delivery,taking intoaccount the aforementioned comments,RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the Applicant agreeing to enter in to a legal agreement expunging  the planning permissiongranted on the previous application(Planning Application 19/01092/HOUSE. Should the Applicant accept then all final conditions be delegated toOfficers. If the Applicant was not willing to enter into a legal agreement, then the application was to be refused for the reason outlined in section3.2 of the officer’s report.

 

Supporting documents: