Unrestricted Document Pack
APOLOGIES Committee Services Tel. 01621 875791
Council Chamber 01621 859677 CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S OFFICE CHIEF EXECUTIVE Fiona Marshall PLEASE NOTE 28 March 2018 VENUE
Dear Councillor
You are summoned to attend the meeting of the;
SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE on MONDAY 9 APRIL 2018 at 7.30 pm. in the Council Chamber. Maldon District Council Offices, Princes Road, Maldon.
A copy of the agenda is attached.
Yours faithfully
Chief Executive
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP CHAIRMAN Councillor R P F Dewick
VICE-CHAIRMAN Councillor A S Fluker COUNCILLORS Mrs B F Acevedo B S Beale MBE R G Boyce MBE Mrs P A Channer, CC Mrs H E Elliott P G L Elliott M W Helm R Pratt, CC N R Pudney THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK AGENDA SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE MONDAY 9 APRIL 2018
1. Chairman's notices (please see overleaf)
2. Apologies for Absence
3. Minutes of the last meeting (Pages 7 - 12)
To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 March 2018, (copy enclosed).
4. Disclosure of Interest
To disclose the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, other Pecuniary Interests or Non-Pecuniary Interests relating to items of business on the agenda having regard to paragraphs 6-8 inclusive of the Code of Conduct for Members.
(Members are reminded that they are also required to disclose any such interests as soon as they become aware should the need arise throughout the meeting).
5. FUL/MAL/17/00556 - AA Dog Rescue, Oldfield Lodge, Burnham Road, Latchington (Pages 13 - 38)
To consider the report of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed).
6. OUT/MAL/18/00129 - Theedhams Farm, Steeple Road, Southminster (Pages 39 - 48)
To consider the report of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed).
7. HOUSE/MAL/18/00184 - 115 West Avenue, Mayland (Pages 49 - 56)
To consider the report of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed).
8. WTPO/18/00210 - Acacia House, 80A Maldon Road, Burnham-on-Crouch (Pages 57 - 64)
To consider the report of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed).
Page 3 For further information please call 01621 876232 or 875791 or see the Council's website – www.maldon.gov.uk. 9. Any other items of business that the Chairman of the Committee decides are urgent
Reports for noting:
In accordance with the recent Council decision (Minute No. 542 refers), the following report is for noting and a copy has been placed in the Members’ Room and on the I drive for Members’ information.
Other Area Planning and Related Matters – Appeals Lodged and Appeal Decisions Monthly Decision List
Note: 1. The Council operates a facility for public speaking. This will operate only in relation to the consideration and determination of planning applications under Agenda Items No. 5 - 8. 2. The Committee may hear from one objector, one supporter, a Parish / Town Council representative, and the applicant / agent. Please note that the opportunity to speak is afforded only to those having previous made previous written representation. 3. Anyone wishing to speak must notify the Committee Clerk or a Planning Officer between 7pm and 7.20pm prior to the start of the meeting. 4. For further information please ring 01621 875791 or 876232 or see the Council’s website – www.maldon.gov.uk/committees
* Please note the list of related Background Papers attached to this agenda.
NOTICES
Sound Recording of Meeting Please note that the Council will be recording any part of this meeting held in open session for subsequent publication on the Council’s website. At the start of the meeting an announcement will be made about the sound recording. Members of the public attending the meeting with a view to speaking are deemed to be giving permission to be included in the recording.
Fire In event of a fire, a siren will sound. Please use the fire exits marked with the green running man. The fire assembly point is outside the main entrance to the Council Offices. Please gather there and await further instruction.
Health and Safety Please be advised of the different levels of flooring within the Council Chamber. There are steps behind the main horseshoe as well as to the side of the room.
Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Meetings held in the Council Chamber are being monitored and recorded by CCTV.
Page 4 BACKGROUND PAPERS
The Background Papers listed below have been relied upon in the preparation of this report: 1. The current planning applications under consideration and related correspondence. 2. All third party representations and consultation replies received. 3. The following Statutory Plans and Supplementary Planning Guidance, together with relevant Government legislation, Circulars, Advice, Orders, Directions and Guidance:
Development Plans Maldon District Local Development Plan approved by the Secretary of State 21 July 2017 Burnham-on-Crouch Neighbourhood Development Plan (2017)
Legislation The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) The Planning Act 2008 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended) The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regs 2007 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regs 2011 Localism Act 2011 The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) The Neighbourhood Planning (Referendum) Regulations 2012 (as amended) The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended) Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 Housing and Planning Act 2016 Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 The Town and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017
Page 5 Supplementary Planning Guidance and Other Advice i) Government policy and guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Technical Guidance Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) Planning Policy for Traveller Sites Relevant government circulars Relevant Ministerial Statements (as referred to in the Report) ii) Essex County Council Essex Design Guide 1997 (Note: superseded by Maldon Design Guide) Essex and Southend on Sea Replacement Waste Local Plan 2017 iii) Maldon District Council Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement 2016 / 17 Maldon Design Guide - 2017 Central Maldon and Heybridge Masterplan - 2017 Planning Policy Advice Note (version 5) - May 2016 Infrastructure Delivery Plan (All versions, including update in Council’s Hearing Statement) Infrastructure Phasing Plan (January 2015 and January 2017 update for Examination) North Heybridge Garden Suburb Strategic Masterplan Framework - 2014 South Maldon Garden Suburb Strategic Masterplan Framework - 2014 Vehicle Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) - July 2006 Accessibility to Buildings SPD – December 2006 Children’s Play Spaces SPD – March 2006 Sadd’s Wharf SPD – September 2007 Heybridge Basin Timber Yard SPD – February 2007 Developer Contributions Guide - 2010 Affordable Housing Guide – June 2006 Heybridge Basin Village Design Statement –2006 Wickham Bishops Village Design Statement – 2010 Althorne Village Design Statement - 2015 Woodham Walter Village Design Statement – 2017 Various Conservation Area Appraisals
Copies of all Background Papers are available for inspection at the Maldon District Council Offices, Princes Road, Maldon, Essex CM9 5DL during normal office hours.
Page 6 Agenda Item 3
MINUTES of SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 12 MARCH 2018
PRESENT
Vice-Chairman Councillor A S Fluker (in the chair)
Councillors Mrs B F Acevedo, B S Beale MBE, Mrs P A Channer, CC, Mrs H E Elliott, P G L Elliott, M W Helm, R Pratt, CC and N R Pudney
888. CHAIRMAN'S NOTICES
The Chairman drew attention to the list of notices published on the back of the agenda.
889. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R P F Dewick and R G Boyce MBE.
890. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
RESOLVED
(i) that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 February 2018 be received.
Councillor N R Pudney informed the Committee that he had been in attendance at the meeting on 12 February 2018
RESOLVED
(ii) that subject to the above amendment the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 February 2018 be confirmed.
891. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
Councillor Mrs P A Channer CC declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Member of Essex County Council and advised that she represented the Maldon Division.
1099 Page 7 Councillor R Pratt CC declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Member of Essex County Council.
Councillor M W Helm declared a pecuniary interest in respect of Agenda Item 6 – OUT/MAL/17/01338 – Mapledean Poultry Farm, Mapledean Chase, Mundon, Essex as he knew both the applicants. He advised the Committee that he would leave the Chamber for this item of business
Councillor Fluker, acting Chairman, declared an interest in respect of Agenda Item 7 – FUL/MAL/17/01364 – Steeple Bay Holiday Park, Canney Road, Steeple, Essex CM0 7RS as he knew one of the objectors.
The Committee received the reports of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services and determined the following planning applications, having taken into account all representations and consultation replies received, including those listed on the Members’ Update circulated at the meeting.
892. OUT/MAL/17/01327 - LAND SOUTH OF 97 SOUTH STREET, TILLINGHAM, ESSEX
Application Number OUT/MAL/17/01327 Location Land South Of 97 South Street Tillingham Essex Change of use of land to residential and construction of 14 residential dwellings (Resubmission of previously Proposal withdrawn application to include Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Management Strategy) Applicant Mr Oliver Mee - J D Mee & Sons Agent Sarah Threlfall - TMA Chartered Surveyors Target Decision Date 6 March 2018 Case Officer Yee Cheung TEL: 01621 875741 Parish TILLINGHAM Member Call In Reason for Referral to the Major Application Committee / Council
The Chairman informed the meeting that the application had been withdrawn that afternoon by the agent.
893. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
RESOLVED that the meeting be adjourned to allow those members of the public in attendance for the previous application to leave the Chamber.
894. RESUMPTION OF BUSINESS IN OPEN SESSION
RESOLVED that the meeting resumes in open session.
1100 Page 8 895. OUT/MAL/17/01338 - MAPLEDEAN POULTY FARM, MAPLEDEAN CHASE, MUNDON, ESSEX
Application Number OUT/MAL/17/01338 Mapledean Poultry Farm, Mapledean Chase, Mundon, Location Essex Redevelopment of poultry farm for approximately Proposal 5,030m² of B1 commercial floorspace with associated access arrangements Applicant B.J. Rock Ltd & S.P.Bardwell Ltd Agent Mr Peter Le Grys – Stanfords Target Decision Date 30th March 2017 Case Officer Anna Tastsoglou TEL:01621 875741 Parish MALDON EAST MUNDON Reason for Referral to the Major Application Committee / Council
It was noted from the Members’ Update that the site is located within the boundaries of Mundon Parish Council. It was further noted that following the publication of the agenda representations were received from interested parties.
In addition to the Members’ Update an Addendum was provided to Members for Agenda Item 6 in relation to a Health Impact Statement.
Following the Officer’s presentation of the report, Mr Peter Le Grys, the Agent, addressed the Committee.
Members debated issues around flood risk given this was a flood zone and the potential adverse impact this development would have on the ecology of the area.
Councillor Mrs B E Acevedo proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and this was seconded and agreed.
RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1 The application site lies within a rural location outside of the defined settlement boundaries where policies of restraint apply. The site has not been identified by the Council to meet the needs of the District in terms of Employment Land and insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the need for an additional 2.4ha of employment land outside the designated sites listed in policy E1. The development would result in an unjustifiable employment use outside the designated areas for employment purposes and by reason of its nature in an unjustifiable encroachment to what is currently considered as agricultural land. The development would be therefore unacceptable and contrary to the policies S1, S2 and E1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017) and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
2 According to the NPPF local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. The
1101 Page 9 development which would create new office space (which falls within the definition of town centre uses) is located outside the town centre and it has not been demonstrated that sequentially preferable sites have not been considered first as required by national and local planning policy in the interests of maximising accessibility by sustainable modes of transport and ensuring the vitality and viability of more central locations. The development is therefore unacceptable and contrary to guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
3 The proposed development is located within a high risk flood zone (flood zone 3a) and no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that there are no other available sites within lower risk of flooding that can accommodate the proposed development. Thus, the development is considered to fail the sequential test and therefore the proposal is unacceptable and contrary to policies S1 and D5 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017), and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
4 The proposed development is located within a high risk flood zone (flood zone 3a) and insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that sufficient drainage strategy has been considered to reduce risk of flooding. The development is therefore unacceptable and contrary to policies S1 and D5 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017), and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
5 The proposed development would be sited in close proximity to ecological and landscape assets, such as a vegetated stream and areas of hedgerows and scrubs, and insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the development would not have a detrimental impact on the existing landscape features. The development is therefore unacceptable and contrary to policies S1 and N2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017), the guidance contained within the Maldon District Design Guide and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
6 The proposed development would materially increase daily trips to and from the site. Insufficient information has been submitted, within the application, to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in levels of trips that would not have a detrimental impact upon the existing network and infrastructure. The development is therefore unacceptable and contrary to policy T2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017) and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
896. FUL/MAL/17/01364 - STEEPLE BAY HOLIDAY PARK, CANNEY RD., STEEPLE, ESSEX
Application Number FUL/MAL/17/01364 Steeple Bay Holiday Park Canney Road Steeple Essex CM0 Location 7RS Change of use of land to allow the occupation of holiday Proposal caravans between the 1st March and the 30th November (inclusive) in each year. Applicant Park Holidays UK Ltd
1102 Page 10 Agent Mr Ian Butter - Rural & Urban Planning Consultancy Target Decision Date 20.03.2018 Case Officer Spyros Mouratidis TEL: 01621 875841 Parish STEEPLE Reason for Referral to the Member Call In Committee / Council Major Application
Following the Officer’s presentation of the application, Mr Chris Norton, an Objector, Mr Kevin Hind, a Supporter and Mr Ian Butter, the Agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.
Members debated the application and concerns were raised regarding the adverse impact it could have on the natural environment, in particular, the habitat for over wintering birds.
Councillor M W Helm proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. This was duly seconded and agreed.
RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reason:
1. In the absence of appropriate habitat assessment or survey information to demonstrate whether or not the development would have an adverse effect upon the internationally and nationally designated nature conservation site, the Local Planning Authority is unable to be satisfied that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the natural environment. The proposal would therefore, conflict with Policies S1, S8, E5, D2 and N2 of the approved Local Development Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. Given the importance and sensitivity of the site the Local Planning Authority considers that a precautionary approach should be adopted and that no permission should be granted until it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not adversely affect protected species or habitats or that any such effects can be mitigated.
897. HOUSE/MAL/18/00122 - THE SCHOOL ROOM, CREEKSEA LANE, BURNHAM-ON-CROUCH
Application Number HOUSE/MAL/18/00122 Location The School Room Creeksea Lane, Burnham-on-Crouch Proposal Extension of existing building to provide studio. Applicant Mr Roger Barcroft Agent None Target Decision Date 19.03.2018 Case Officer Devan Lawson TEL: 01621 854477 Parish BURNHAM NORTH Reason for Referral to the Member Call In Committee / Council
Following the Officer’s presentation of the report, Mr Nick Skeens, Town Councillor, Burnham Town Council and Mr Roger Barcroft, the Applicant, addressed the Committee.
1103 Page 11 Members’ discussion centred on the fact that the proposed development did not accord with policies outlined in the Local Development Plan (LDP), the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Burnham-on-Crouch Neighbourhood Plan. It was noted that considerable work had been invested in these plans and it would not be appropriate to erode those efforts.
Councillor N R Pudney proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officers’ recommendation. This was duly seconded and agreed.
RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reason:
1. The proposed development, by reason of its appearance, scale, siting and cumulative impact in addition to other developments that have occurred at the site, would detrimentally harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and locality by resulting in an addition that harms the character of the existing building at the site. The harm is further exacerbated due to the prominent position of the proposed extension. Therefore, the proposed development is not considered to be in accordance with Policies D1 and S8 of the LDP, guidance contained within the NPPF and the Burnham-on-Crouch Neighbourhood Plan.
There being no further items of business the Chairman closed the meeting at 8.25 pm.
A S FLUKER CHAIRMAN
1104 Page 12 Agenda Item 5
REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 09 April 2018 Application Number FUL/MAL/17/00556 AA Dog Rescue, Oldfield Lodge, Burnham Road, Latchingdon, Location Essex, CM3 6EZ Change of use of land and building to a mixed use of a dog rescue centre and equestrian use which will result in 27 kennels, isolation Proposal block and vet area and 11 stables and will include a detailed mitigation scheme, relocation of exercise areas, fencing and landscaping. Applicant Ms Charlene Nathan Agent Mr Ashley Wynn - Greenhayes Planning Target Decision Date 12th April 2018 Case Officer Ian Harrison, TEL: 01621 875751 Parish LATCHINGDON Reason for Referral to the Level of Public Participation Committee / Council
1. RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE for the reasons set out below and in Section 8 of this report.
2. SITE MAP
Please see overleaf.
Agenda Item no. 5 Our Vision: To make Maldon District a better place to live, work and enjoy Page 13 Agenda Item no. 5
Page 14 3. SUMMARY
3.1 Proposal / brief overview, including any relevant background information
3.1.1 The main part of the application site measures approximately 6000 square metres and is located 285 metres to the south of Burnham Road, Latchingdon. Leading to the north of the main part of the site and connecting the site to Burnham Road is an access track which is included within the application site and continues beyond the application site to serve the dwelling at Treetops.
3.1.2 In 2014 it was brought to the attention of the Local Planning Authority that the site was being used as a dog rescue facility. Subsequent retrospective applications and enforcement action has been undertaken in relation to this use of land. This application has been submitted to seek permission to use the application site primarily as a dog rescue facility. The proposal includes a number of works and mitigation measures that have not previously been proposed, as will be discussed below, and therefore it has been accepted that the application should be considered by the Local Planning Authority. It must be noted that the application should be treated on its planning merits only, based on how the site would be used with the mitigation measures that are proposed in place, rather than previous experiences of the use of the site.
3.1.3 The site contains a large building that measures 23.8 metres deep and 19.7 metres wide with a maximum height of 6 metres. The building is constructed from blockwork and sheet metal to the elevations and roof. The submitted plans show that this would be used to provide two workshops, a store room and 27 kennels. The building would be adapted from the existing situation to incorporate a new structure within the building that would be constructed from sound absorbing/insulating materials, effectively creating a sound-proofed enclosure within the existing building, including an internal ceiling/roof. It is proposed to install mechanical ventilation.
3.1.4 To the east of the main building are two lines of stables that measure 3.6 metres by 23.8 metres and 3.8 metres by 19.8 metres with maximum heights of 3.9 and 3.2 metres respectively. These buildings are constructed from timber and metal to the elevations and sheet metal and corrugated metal to the roofs. The plans submitted with this application show that these structures would be used as stables and the applicant’s planning statement sets out that this is to increase the equestrian use of the site in line with the site’s former lawful use. Although not specifically stated, it is assumed that the stables will only be used for the keeping of horses and it is noted that this could be secured through the imposition of a condition on any planning permission that is granted.
3.1.5 To the south of the main building is a ‘veterinary building and store’ that measures 23.2 metres by 8 metres and is constructed from metal sheeting to the elevations. The submitted plans show that the building would be used as a ‘veterinary area’ and an ‘isolation area’ as well as including a workshop. A similar sound insulating structure as described above is also proposed to be installed within the building.
3.1.6 To the north of the main part of the building is the main parking area to serve the development with two caravans that are known to be used for purposes ancillary to
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 15 the use of the site and not for residential purposes. Only one of those caravans is shown on the submitted plans and the other is not therefore to be considered as part of this application. A small building is also located in this area that measures 4 metres by 11.6metres with a height of approximately 4.5 metres. This is constructed from timber to the elevations with a pitched roof. The building is used for purposes ancillary to the operation of the site.
3.1.7 At the north east corner of the site is a menage that has been used for the exercising of dogs. It is proposed to reduce the use of this exercise area and use two exercise pens to the south east of the kennels.
3.1.8 A management plan accompanied the application when it was originally submitted. This has been amended during the course of the application, with the amended plan being the subject of a further round of public consultation. The management plan includes the following proposals to control and mitigate the use of the site:
Visitor’s hours limited to 1200 to 1700 from Thursday to Sunday (inclusive). The restriction of entry to the kennels to staff and volunteers. The signing in and out of staff and volunteers. Limitations on the timing of feeding to occur and 0730 and 1730 with small groups being feed by 4 members of staff or volunteers. All food will be prepared prior to entry to the kennels and doors will be kept closed during feeding. Dogs will be left to sleep from 1800 with all doors, gates and windows closed. Ventilation will be provided through mechanical means which will be inspected and maintained on a weekly basis. Dogs will only be walked between 0900 and 1100. There will be 27 dogs with a minimum of 10 staff volunteers. In one place it is stated that a maximum of 2 dogs will be walked per member of staff, but in another place it is stated that each dog will be individually walked by a volunteer for a maximum of 30 minutes. All doors will be kept shut as much as possible. Dogs will be given toys in their kennels after having been walked. Temperament depending, some dogs would be exercised for a maximum of 30 minutes in the defined pens in the afternoon, with a maximum of 2 dogs per exercise pen and 1 member of staff or volunteer. The pens will be enclosed with acoustic fencing to avoid the distraction of dogs. Fencing and acoustic fencing will be installed around pens to ensure that dogs are not distracted and mitigate noise escape. The ‘sand school’ will only be used by horses and not dogs. ‘Clicker’ training will take place internally and the use of clickers to control dogs will prevent the need for the use of voices. Calming music will be played within the building. Cleaning of kennels will occur when dogs are being walked. Cleaning will occur on a daily basis. The internal temperature of the building will be monitored. A scheme for displaying and training people with respect to these measures. Noise and building fabric monitoring will occur on six month and yearly basis respectively.
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 16 A bespoke, but similar, arrangement would be in place for new dogs that would be kept in the isolation areas to begin with.
3.1.9 The application has also been accompanied by a planning statement that is considered to be largely summarised by the above. It is relevant to note that this includes an assessment in relation to the existing unauthorised use of the site indicating the works that are proposed as described above as well as the reduction of the number of kennels by 67% (from 83 to 27) the removal of moveable kennels and the reinstatement of greater equestrian use of the site.
3.1.10 An updated noise report (dated 01/03/17) accompanied the application and included the following comments:
In previous reports it was concluded that the maximum noise reading at the nearest noise-sensitive dwelling should not exceed the existing maximum noise even and therefore targets of 41dB(A) and 27 dB(A) were set for daytime and at night. The existing building would offer sound reduction of 29 dB. Alterations to the building would include sealing gaps, retaining double- glazing, the introduction of acoustic plasterboard, mineral wool and sound absorbing panels to the walls and ceiling, the upgrade of the building entrance and the installation of mechanical ventilation. It is noted that noise from mechanical ventilation equipment will also need to be managed. 3 metre tall noise barriers to the external play areas would achieve 16 dB of noise reduction. Noise modelling has been provided to show the escape of noise from the exercise areas and from within the building.
This was submitted as an update to a noise assessment dated October 2016 which includes the following comments:
Measurements of background noise levels were undertaken in three locations. It is calculated that at the nearest dwelling (115 metres from the site) the noise of barking dogs would be at a level of 57dB. 29dB and 16dB mitigation are required though building fabric attenuation to address
3.1.11 Subsequently a further update was submitted on 14/02/18. This was subject to an additional phase of public consultation and includes the following:
No justification supports an argument that boarded dogs in kennels create less noise than rescue dogs and therefore weight should be given to other examples within the surrounding area. A commentary that sets out a number of the proposed management measures which are also included within the management plan that is discussed above. The manner in which the proposed use would occur supports the findings of the original noise assessments that are summarised above.
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 17 Mechanical ventilation would be used and the details of this can be addressed through the imposition of a condition. The support for other proposals at sites within Maldon District has been based on far less mitigation and assessment than the fully sealed development that is proposed by this application.
3.1.12 It should be noted that there are a number of minor inconsistencies between the timings that are set out within the Management Plan and that which is the basis of the assessment within the noise update.
3.1.13 The closest dwellings to the site that are outside the applicant’s control are Treetops (115 metres to the west of the site), Arley Grange (243 metres to the north), Greenacres (290 metres to the north east) and Meadow View Farm (55 metres to the east)
3.2 Conclusion
3.2.1 Having taken all material planning considerations into account, an objection is raised to the proposed development on the grounds that it has not been demonstrated that the dog rescue use of the site would not cause material harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents. Whilst the proposal is considered to be acceptable, or capable of being made to be acceptable in all other respects and regard has been had to the level of support for the proposal and the reasoning behind that support, it is considered that the harm that would be caused by the proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Planning Practice Guidance and policies S1, D1 and D2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan 2017.
4. MAIN RELEVANT POLICIES
Members’ attention is drawn to the list of background papers attached to the agenda.
4.1 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 including paragraphs: 7 Three dimensions to sustainable development 8 Roles of sustainable development 14 Presumption in favour of sustainable development 17 Core planning principles 29-41 Promoting sustainable transport 56-68 Requiring good design 109-125 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 196-197 Determining applications
4.2 Approved Maldon District Local Development Plan (July 2012) Polices: Policy S1 – Sustainable Development Policy S8 – Settlement Boundaries and the Countryside Policy D1– Design Quality and Built Environment Policy D2 – Climate Change and Environmental Impact of New Development
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 18 Policy N2 – Natural Environmental and Biodiversity Policy T1– Sustainable Transport Policy T2 – Accessibility
4.3 Relevant Planning Guidance / Documents: Car Parking Standards Essex Design Guide National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) Maldon District Design Guidance
5. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Principle of Development
5.1.1 The site lies outside the settlement boundary of Latchingdon as defined by the approved Maldon District Local Development Plan.
5.1.2 Policy S1 of the Local Development Plan states that “When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF and will apply, inter alia, the following key principles in policy and decision making:
3) Promote the effective use of land and prioritise development on previously developed land and planned growth at the Garden Suburbs and Strategic Allocations; 4) Support growth within the environmental limits of the District; 5) Emphasise the importance of high quality design in all developments; 12) Maintain the rural character of the District without compromising the identity of its individual settlements;
5.1.3 Policy S8 states that the countryside will be protected for its landscape, natural resources and ecological value as well as its intrinsic character and beauty. Outside of the defined settlement boundaries, the Garden Suburbs and the Strategic Allocations, planning permission for development will only be granted where the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is not adversely impacted upon and provided it is for either:
b) employment generating proposals in accordance with policy E1. e) the re-use of a redundant or disused building that would lead to an enhancement of the immediate setting in accordance with policy E4. f) rural diversification, recreation and tourism (including equestrian and related activities) proposals in accordance with policies E4 and E5
5.1.4 Policy E4 states that the Council will support the change of use of existing rural buildings to other employment generation uses if it can be demonstrated that:
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 19 a) There is a justifiable and functional need for the proposal; b) It will contribute to the viability of the agricultural business as a whole; c) Any development respects the building’s historic or architectural significance; d) Any development will not negatively impact upon wildlife and the natural environment; e) No storage of raw materials or finished goods is to take place outside the building if it would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area; and f) The use of the building would not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing businesses in nearby towns and villages.
5.1.5 The most recent lawful use of the site appears to have been related to equestrian use. Although it is not an agricultural use, it is considered that the land required for the operation (internal and external) and the operational advantage of being in a relatively isolated location means that a countryside location is appropriate for a use of this type. It is considered that this dog rescue represents the re-use of an existing building within the countryside and therefore, whilst the proposal does not meet criteria a) and b) of policy E4, it is considered that the principle of the proposed use can be viewed as an appropriate form of rural diversification. The other criterion is considered to be of limited relevance to the use of the site as a dog rescue.
5.1.6 Although the policies have evolved, it is considered that the general aim and thrust of the policies of the Local Development Plan (LDP) are comparable to the policies that were utilised in the assessment of the previous applications at the site. No objection to the broad principle of the proposed use of land was raised previously and it is considered that this previous conclusion should carry some weight in the assessment of this application.
5.1.7 For the reasons stated above, no objection is raised to the overall principle of the proposed development. However, it remains necessary to consider all other aspects of the development which will be undertaken below.
5.2 Design and Impact on the Character of the Area
5.2.1 The planning system promotes high quality development through good inclusive design and layout, and the creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities. Good design should be indivisible from good planning. Recognised principles of good design seek to create a high quality built environment for all types of development.
5.2.2 It should be noted that good design is fundamental to high quality new development and its importance is reflected in the NPPF. The NPPF states that “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people”.
5.2.3 Paragraph 64 also states that “permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions”.
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 20 5.2.4 This principle of good quality design is reflected to the approved LDP. The basis of policy D1 of the approved LDP seeks to ensure that all development will respect and enhance the character and local context and make a positive contribution in terms of:-
a) Architectural style, use of materials, detailed design features and construction methods. Innovative design and construction solutions will be considered where appropriate; b) Height, size, scale, form, massing and proportion; c) Landscape setting, townscape setting and skylines; d) Layout, orientation, and density; e) Historic environment particularly in relation to designated and non- designated heritage assets; f) Natural environment particularly in relation to designated and non-designated sites of biodiversity / geodiversity value; and g) Energy and resource efficiency.
5.2.5 The site is a significant distance from the main public highway of Burnham Road to the north and due to the presence of other properties, landscaping and other such enclosures, it is noted that the site is not prominent from the public domain. The visual impact of the structures at the site is therefore localised.
5.2.6 The presence of caravans at the site was previously considered to be a negative aspect of the use of the site and it is also considered that the erection of extensive fencing at the site would also cause the development to have a visual impact that is harsher than a conventional rural setting. However, it is considered that the relatively discreet location of the site mitigates part of the visual impact of the use, one of the caravans is not shown on the plans and the removal of an unauthorised caravan is being enforced through other means. A landscaping scheme could be required to soften the impacts of the structures at the site if the application is found acceptable.
5.2.7 As with the principle of the use, although some concerns were raised previously, the previous applications were not refused on the grounds of the visual impact of the development and it is considered that there is no reason to reach a different conclusion in relation to this application.
5.3 Impact on Residential Amenity
5.3.1 Policy D2 of the Maldon District Local Plan states that “Minimising all forms of possible pollution including air, land, water, odour, noise and light. Any detrimental impacts and potential risks to the human and natural environment will need to be adequately addressed by appropriate avoidance, alleviation and mitigation measures.” Similarly, policy D1 states that development should “Protect the amenity of surrounding areas taking into account privacy, overlooking, outlook, noise, smell, light, visual impact, pollution, daylight and sunlight.” This is consistent with the NPPF, one of the core principles of which states that “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.” Moreover, paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by… preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 21 unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability.”
5.3.2 In addition, the National Planning Practice Guidance states that “Local planning authorities’ plan-making and decision taking should take account of the acoustic environment and in doing so consider:
whether or not a significant adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; whether or not an adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; and whether or not a good standard of amenity can be achieved.”
5.3.3 It goes on to state that “Increasing noise exposure will at some point cause the significant observed adverse effect level boundary to be crossed. Above this level the noise causes a material change in behaviour such as keeping windows closed for most of the time or avoiding certain activities during periods when the noise is present. If the exposure is above this level the planning process should be used to avoid this effect occurring, by use of appropriate mitigation such as by altering the design and layout. Such decisions must be made taking account of the economic and social benefit of the activity causing the noise, but it is undesirable for such exposure to be caused. At the highest extreme, noise exposure would cause extensive and sustained changes in behaviour without an ability to mitigate the effect of noise. The impacts on health and quality of life are such that regardless of the benefits of the activity causing the noise, this situation should be prevented from occurring.
5.3.4 The previous application was refused on the grounds that, based on the information provided, the noise and general disturbance generated by the use causes harm to the occupiers of nearby residential properties to the detriment of their standard of accommodation. It was also determined that the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant would not have alleviated this situation. As set out above, it is noted that the proposal is now materially different, but it is necessary for the Local Planning Authority to assess whether the previous concerns have been overcome and have regard to the previous decisions that have been made in relation to this site.
5.3.5 To accompany this application the applicant has submitted a noise assessment which was updated prior to the submission of the application. A management plan has also been submitted. Both of these documents have been the subject of updates during the course of this application. The most relevant elements of these documents are set out at 3.1.8, 3.1.10 and 3.1.11 above.
5.3.6 The Council’s Environmental Health Officers have undertaken three appraisals of submissions by the applicant, one following the submission of the application, one following the submission of a response to the initial response and one following the most recent submissions by the applicant. The comments received can be summarised as follows:
There are grounds for debate over the correct methodology for calculating and assessing the impact of noise caused by dog barking. Due to the nature of the noise it is considered that a subjective assessment is of equal value to a statistical assessment.
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 22 It is highlighted that the submissions of the applicant note that dog barking is the dominant noise source as experienced by those attending the site to undertake noise assessments. There are concerns about the accuracy of the assessment of the background noise levels. There are differences between the sound recordings that have been taken which demonstrate the variable nature of the use. The measurements used for the basis of the assessment and to determine the mitigation required have not been adequately justified and it is not clear why a worse scenario has not been used for calculations as they have been demonstrated to occur at the site. For example, the greatest divergence between background noise and maximum noise that has been used for assessment by the applicant is 29dB, but the statistics available demonstrate that differences of up to 38dB have been recorded. Comparison with other planning applications is not relevant as the examples cited are applications for kennels, most pertinently the addition of additional kennels to an existing operation, which has previously established that it is operational without noise complaints being generated. It is also highlighted that these are applications for kennels rather than a dog rescue and therefore, whilst dogs are present at the site, the character of the noise is materially different due to the dogs having been trained and kept differently. A purpose built structure should be erected to provide appropriate mitigation rather than retro-fitting the existing building which it has been proven is inadequate. Insufficient details have been provided of the mechanical ventilations and any noise that would derive from that equipment. Unacceptable noise impact from the operation of the site has been established, inadequate measures have been taken to address the noise nuisance in the past and there is no guarantee that the proposed mitigation measures would be installed or implemented. It is considered that it would be difficult to impose a condition that would ensure the implementation of the submitted management plan that would comply with the relevant tests. However the latest management plan is considered to be a “good basis for the activity.” The latest response has advised that the additional submissions have not adequately addressed the concerns that had been raised earlier.
5.3.7 In addition to the above, it is noted that there are a number of minor inconsistencies between the timings that are set out within the Management Plan and that which has been the basis of the assessment within the updated noise report. It is also considered relevant to note that monitoring the internal temperature of the building is proposed, but there are no suggestions for how to mitigate any temperature issues. There may be a demand to install air-conditioning units as well as mechanical ventilation and/or open the building which has not been addressed within the applicant’s submissions.
5.3.8 It is considered that substantial weight should be afforded to the specialist advice that has been received by the Local Planning Authority. The National Planning Practice Guidance states that “the decision to grant or refuse a planning application ultimately rests with the local planning authority taking in to account all relevant planning considerations, and not just the advice from one consultee. Local Authorities should Agenda Item no. 5
Page 23 be aware of the need to be able to justify a decision taken, including where it is contrary to a statutory consultee’s view.” In this case, it is considered that there are no grounds to reach a view that is different to the advice that has been received from the consultee.
5.3.9 In line with the advice contained within National Planning Practice Guidance, it is noted that the applicant included submissions that show that it could be attempted to mitigate the impact of the use. However, for the reasons set out above and within the fuller advice that has been provided by the Environmental Health Officers, it is considered that the level of mitigation required has not been satisfactorily assessed, it is not possible to be satisfied that the mitigation would be adequate and therefore it is not possible to be satisfied that the proposal would not cause a significant adverse effect on the quality of life of neighbouring residents.
5.3.10 For this reason it is considered that it must be concluded that it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the use of the application site for the purpose proposed would not cause substantial harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents through the noise generated at the site. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the abovementioned policies of the development plan and the advice contained within the National Planning Practice Framework. The proposal should therefore be refused unless material considerations dictate otherwise.
5.3.11 In corroboration of this, it is noted that substantial letters of objection have been received from three of the closest four neighbouring properties that are listed above. It is accepted that these objections might have their root in the experiences of the existing operation rather than or as much as the likely impact of the proposed operation, which would be materially different, but it is considered that this is additional grounds to apply weight to the advice of the environmental health officers.
5.3.12 It is noted that other kennel developments have been approved within Maldon District. It is established planning law that each case is to be considered on its own merits and with regard to the planning merits of each application. It is therefore the case that the other developments should not prejudice the ability of the Local Planning Authority to determine this application on its own merits.
5.4 Access, Parking and Highway Safety
5.4.1 Policies D1 and T2 of the approved LDP seek to include safe and secure vehicle and cycle parking having regard to the Council’s adopted parking standards and maximise connectivity within the development and to the surrounding areas, including the provision of high quality and safe pedestrian, cycle and, where appropriate, horse riding routes.
5.4.2 The application site is accessed by a private track which is shared by two other properties. The access onto Burnham Road is 300 metres to the north. There is space for the parking of cars within the application site and it has previously been determined that this level of parking provision is appropriate at this site. No objection has been raised to the application by the Highway Authority and the previous application was not refused on those grounds. It is therefore considered that no
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 24 objection should be raised to the application on grounds of highway safety, access or parking.
5.5 Other Material Considerations
Dog Welfare
5.5.1 The Local Planning Authority have received many letters of representation that both support and object to the proposal. Most of the letters of support highlight the benefits that are derived in terms of the improved welfare of dogs. Positive and negative comments have been received in relation to the conditions within the buildings at the site. The Local Planning Authority is not the responsible authority in relation to animal welfare and in reaching the decision must focus primarily on the planning issues of relevance, determining the application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise. The welfare of animals, other than protected species, is not a matter for assessment by the Local Planning Authority.
Waste Management
5.5.2 If approved, a condition would be imposed to secure details of waste storage and collection at the site in the interests of protecting the amenities of neighbouring properties.
Conditions
5.5.3 The potential to impose conditions is discussed at a number of points above. Guidance dictates that a planning permission should be granted if matters of concern can be overcome through the imposition of conditions and, therefore, it is necessary and reasonable to give full consideration to the potential to impose conditions. To be imposed a condition must be necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.
5.5.4 It is noted that concerns have been raised by some parties as to whether conditions would be complied with on the grounds that there are previous examples of breaches of planning control at the site. The likelihood of compliance is not part of the assessment of whether or not a condition is reasonable to impose and the Local Planning Authority should make its decision based on the development that is proposed rather than any previous history of breaches. Any breaches of condition at this site or any other can be acted upon through the council’s planning enforcement function.
Community Facility
5.5.5 Letters of support address a number of wider benefits of the proposed use including the use of local shops and services by people connected with the facility, perceived health benefits for volunteers and the provision of an enterprise that encourages volunteering. These aspects of the proposed use are noted, but are not considered to outweigh the harm identified above.
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 25 6. ANY RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
6.1 FUL/MAL/02/00484 - New stable block of 12 loose boxes, menage, change of use of barn from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture and storage ancillary to equestrian use, and change of use of part of second existing building to a tack room. Approved 12.06.2002.
6.2 AGR/MAL/03/01061 - Erection of agricultural building. Prior Approval Required. 31.10.2003.
6.3 AGR/MAL/03/01186 - Prior approval for the siting, design and external appearance of an agricultural building. Refused. 05.01.2004.
6.4 AGR/MAL/04/00272 - Erection of an agricultural building. Prior Approval Required. 19.03.2004.
6.5 ENF/14/00181/CU - Enforcement Enquiry regarding current use. On 15th June 2015 the Council served Planning Enforcement Notices on land which includes, but is greater than, the application site. The alleged breach of planning control is stated as “Without planning permission the material change of use of the land from mixed agricultural and equestrian to mixed equestrian, retail and use as dog rescue.” An appeal against the enforcement notice was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate on 08 July 2016. The terms of the notices require that dog rescue and retail uses at the site cease, a caravan is removed from the site and that materials are removed from the site. The landowner has been prosecuted on the grounds of failure to comply with the requirements of the enforcement notice.
6.6 FUL/MAL/15/00058 - Change of use to include dog rescue and equestrian -sui generis: Refused 11/02/16.
6.7 FUL/MAL/16/00118/FUL - Retrospective application for change of use of buildings to dog centre and equestrian. Refused. 14/04/16. An appeal in relation to this decision was not considered by the Planning Inspectorate as it was received after the defined deadline for an appeal to be submitted.
6.8 FUL/MAL/16/01131/FUL - Change of use of land and buildings to a dog rescue centre and equestrian including a detailed acoustic mitigation scheme, relocation of exercise pens, fencing and landscaping. Declined to Determine
6.9 FUL/MAL/17/00246/FUL - Change of use of land and building to a mixed use of a dog rescue centre and equestrian use which will result in 52 kennels and 11 stables and will include a detailed mitigation scheme, relocation of exercise areas, fencing and landscaping. Declined to Determine
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 26 7. CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED
7.1 Representations received from Parish / Town Councils
Name of Parish / Town Comment Officer Response Council The Parish Council has reluctantly objected to the application making reference to the following matters:
The noise impact on neighbouring properties.
The inadequacy of the submissions in terms of their detail particularly relating to the mechanical ventilation, trade effluent, Latchingdon Parish waste disposal Comment noted Council. arrangements, the means of constructing the interior sound insulation and the number of dogs.
It is a concern that conditions would not be complied with.
The public support is acknowledged, but it is noted that it is not from local residents that have experienced noise from the site.
7.2 Statutory Consultees and Other Organisations
Name of Statutory Consultee / Other Comment Officer Response Organisation It has been advised that, as per their response to application 16/00118/FUL, no objection is raised to ECC Highway Authority Noted. the proposal subject to a condition requiring details of a parking and turning area to be submitted,
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 27 Name of Statutory Consultee / Other Comment Officer Response Organisation agreed and implemented.
7.3 Internal Consultees (summarised)
Name of Internal Comment Officer Response Consultee The comments of the Environmental Health Officers are noted and Environmental Health Objection on the grounds set out at 5.3.6 above. discussed within section 5.3
A response has been Countryside and Coast received stating that the Noted. Officer. Officer has no comment to make in relation to this application.
7.4 Representations received from Interested Parties (summarised)
7.4.1 20 letters of objection have been received from the following people which object to the application on the grounds listed below:
Mr Andrew Snowdon, Burdons, Manor Road, Dengie Mr & Mrs Graham, Arley Grange, Burnham Road, Latchingdon Mark Mountain, West Villa, Rectory Lane, Latchingdon Mr & Mrs Ashworth, Rosedale Farm, Rectory Lane, Latchingdon. Stephen and Elena Walker, Samsons Bungalow, Lawlinge Road, Latchingdon Mr A Fittock and Miss D Barlow, Meadow View Farm, Burnham Road, Latchingdon Christopher Smith, Red Lyons Farm Bungalow, Burnham Road, Latchindon Cassie Collins, 47 Goldhanger Road, Heybridge Nancy Crisp, 2 Fernlea Road, Burnham-on-Crouch Victoria Scott, 18 Sudeley Gardens, Hockley Pamela McMahon, Tiptoes, Lower Burnham Road, Latchingdon 83 - Mrs N. Gower, 175 Westbourne Grove, Westcliff-on-Sea 84 - Mr H. Gower, 175 Westbourne Grove, Westcliff-on-Sea Adam Prescott, 43 Coombe Road, Southminster Claire Ilesley, 9 Springhouse Road, Corringham Amanda Willson, Treetops, Burnham Road, Latchingdon.
Objecting Comment Officer Response The proposal has been refused previously and yet the site Noted and is still being used for the stated purposes. addressed where Enforcement action should be taken. necessary. Agenda Item no. 5
Page 28 Objecting Comment Officer Response The use causes material harm as stated previously be the Local Planning Authority. Despite some alterations at the site, there is still significant noise disturbance. The proposal is a threat to the health of neighbouring residents. Smells from the site are experienced. Recent ‘dangerous dog’ incidents elsewhere in the country gives grounds for concerns in relation to there being many dogs at the site. Dogs and horses escape the site and enter surrounding land. The noise assessment used is not appropriate for this type of use. Planning permission cannot lawfully be granted where there is established noise nuisance. Granting planning permission would undermine the enforcement action being taken. The background noise levels have not been measured accurately and the weather has not been accounted for. The number of dogs and the number of kennels is not necessarily the same and has not been specified. If more than the stated number of dogs are kept at the site, more will be outside and therefore the noise will increase. Other examples are irrelevant to this proposal. The building is not suitable for the proposed use as it allows noise to escape. Relocating the exercise are will make the impact of noise worse. Ancillary uses such as dog agility training will add to the harm. Any conditions imposed would be duly disregarded. The use detracts from property values The proposal causes an unacceptable volume of traffic. The site is inadequate for the proposed equine use. The facility is not needed as there is an adequate facility in Basildon. The proposal does not represent sustainable development. The conditions within the building are poor/inadequate. The facility is operating as a business rather than a charity. Inadequate storage facilities are shown. A reduction of kennels will make the facility unviable. Dogs will not be available to the facility after Brexit. New housing in the countryside is not acceptable. The ‘homing’ and importing processes are not appropriate. A veterinary facility will be proposed as a later phase. Inadequate waste management details have been provided.
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 29 Objecting Comment Officer Response
7.4.2 286 letters of support have been received from the following people who support the application on the grounds listed below:
Joanna Hull, 21 Marsh Road, Burnham-on-Crouch C. Cornell, 24 Long Meadow Drive, Wickford Steph Ellis, 24 Coast Road, West Mersea Anita Sellick, 15 Heritage Way, Latchingdon Sara Goodwin, 15 Brook Close, Great Totham Ema Pekayilan, 150 Swan Lane, Wickford Donna Nyarko, 23 Mendip Crescent, Westcliff Gary Connell, 47 Church Leys, Harlow Angela Warner, 4 Stammers Road, Colchester Emma Horsley, 6 Burlescoombe Road, Thorpe Bay Linda Clayden, 9 Lower North Street ,Hundon Anthony Curtis, 26 Alder Way, Sudbury Suzanne Lockington, Holkham Avenue, Chelmsford Lynda Cartwright, Culverden, Crays Hill Caroline Rhys-Lewis, 31 Victoria Road, Colchester Deborah Lewis, 35 Second Avenue, Canvey Island Claire Sumner, 100 Windermere Avenue, Hullbridge Claire Ramshaw, 31 Thurstable Road, Tollesbury Sue White, 16 Nelson Road, Basildon Alana Lanigan, 19 Pertwee Drive, Chelmsford Laurie Phillipson, 49 Glebe Road, Wickford Eleanor Owen, Greenacres, Mundon Road, Maldon Mrs Sarah Paterson, 40 Carlyle Gardens, Wickford Julie Boyd, 7 Vine Drive, Wivenhoe Kate Langley, 75 North Street, Southminster Amanda Roberts, 31 Hawkins Way, Braintree Samantha Ward, 45 Louisa Avenue, Benfleet Danielle Van Eeden, 5 Glendale Road, Burnham-on-Crouch Kelly Mayer-Jones, 12 Siward Road, Witham Faye Higgs, 2 St Marys House, Burnham-on-Crouch Barbara Berry, 99 Brackendale Avenue, Pitsea Luke Woodhouse, 6 Robletts Way, Colchester Sally Woodmansee, 120A Sea Street, Herne Bay Pearl Wright, 131 Little Lullaway, Basildon Theresa White, 1 Lewes Way, Thundersley Dianne Pegler, 33 Francis Close, Horndon-on-the-Hill Deborah Butler, 36 Hornsland Road, Canvey Island Mary Anne McGuiggan, 1 Cherry Tree Cottages, The Street, Roxwell Sarah Carney, 31 Kingston Chase, Heybridge Sarah Dodd, 8 North End, Southminster Mr & Mrs Standfast , 18 St Nicholas Road, Tillingham Agenda Item no. 5
Page 30 Linda Day, 6 Homefield Way, Earls Colne Rebecca Harkness, 46 Ronald West Court, Loughborough Hilary Armstrong Watson, 17 Constable Close, Witham Sarah Vernau, 32 St Nicholas Road, Tillingham Debra Regan, 97 Diban Avenue, Hornchurch Stacey Sparks, 44 Albert Road, South Woodham Ferrers Stephen Andrews, 86 Mill Lane, Cressing Angela Moran, 89C Hullbridge Road, South Woodham Ferrers Charlotte Goudie, 468 Arterial Road, Southend Katie Spencer, 1 Dryden Close, Maldon Estelle Raeper, 7 Cavendish Close, Bury St Edmunds Sally Frost, 76 Walnut Tree Way, Tiptree Rebecca Woolston, 32 Highfield Rise, Althorne Adam Douglasm, 1 Romsey Close, Hockley Amy Douglas, 1 Romsey Close, Hockley Sophie Warne, 4 Brinkworth Close, Hockley Lucy Hutchins, 45 Mistley Path, Basildon Lisa Bell, 45 Southcote Crescent, Basildon Madison Belford-Reid, 38 Orchard Road, Maldon Shane Dines, 38 Orchard Road, Maldon Philip Haydon, 14 Scraley Road, Heybridge Linda Curran, 25 Little Bentley, Basildon David Springall, 49 Fitchs Crescent, Maldon Avril Whitehead, 64 Richmond Avenue, Shoeburyness James Starr, 62 Coopers Avenue, Heybridge Emma Frabcey, 33 Azalea Avenue, Wickford Fiona Pratt, Bencott, Newport Avenue, Cold Norton Sandra Wassell, 87 Bramley Way, Mayland Vicki Richmond, 89 Temple Way, Heybridge Claire Coutts, The Bothy, Hall Road, Asheldham Sophie Orr-Adams, 277 Mundon Road, Maldon Paige Halfhide, 5 Steeple Road, Latchingdon Alison Perry, 6 Steeple Road, Latchingdon L. McCab, 4 Steeple Road, Latchingdon Barbara Grimes, 8 Steeple Road, Latchingdon J. Nel, The Flat, Rectory Lane, Latchingdon Jennifer Correria, 10 Steeple Road, Latchingdon A Braun, 9 Steeple Road, Latchingdon Miriam Heppell, 17 Gaynesford, Basildon Lucy Christie, 34 St Giles Crescent, Maldon Graham Lea, 21 Dragon Close, Burnham-on-Crouch Suzie Solly, 62 Whitegate Road, Southend Christine North, 11 Lawlinge Road, Latchingdon Miss Blainey, 20 Lawlinge Road, Latchingdon M. Colin, 43 Burnham Road Sally Lea, 21 Dragon Close, Burnham-on-Crouch Kevin Lore, 24 Burnham Road, Latchingdon
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 31 S. Yield, 20 Burnham Road, Latchingdon S. Smith, 99 The Street, Latchingdon B. James, 73 The Street, Latchingdon Mary Bye, 15 The Bight, South Woodham Ferrers Jade Huckfield, 50 Little Searles, PItsea Alex Hammersley, 9 Brook Lane, Galleywood Linda Alexander, 9 Brook Lane, Galleywood Lauren Wadland, 24 Lappmark Road, Canvey Island Margaret Ford, 45 Burnham Road Helen Aiken, 44 Trenchard Crescent, Chelmsford Justine Fehler, 42A Labworth Road, Canvey Island Cathy Clarke, 11 Buchanan Way, Latchingdon Luch Moloney, 20 Snoreham Gardens, Latchindon Karen Freeman, 9 Sunnyside, Langdon Hills Anne Brown, 487 Beach Drive, St. Lawrence Dee Potter, 30 Lime Walk, Chelmsford Janet Carter, Rowan Lodge, Kelvedon Road, Inworth Mr & Mrs Price, 1 Hornet Way, Burnham-on-Crouch Ray Clifft, 3 Sparrows Herne, Basildon Mr & Mrs Weaver, 104 Mapleford Sweep, Basildon Kim Broughton, Grebe House, Fullbridge Quay, Maldon Christine Allen, The Flat, Asheldham Hall, Hall Road, Asheldham Jacqui Carter, 15 Pippins Road, Burnham-on-Crouch Tara Fallows, 6 Carswell Gardens, Wickford Kayley and Stephen Williamson, 20 Cecil Avenue, Hornchurch Tracey Munday, 23 Merryfields Avenue, Hockley Eve Winger, 11 Mowberry Gardens, Loughton Naoko Brickell, 43 Church Road, Southend Michelle Wright, 80 Bramley Way, Latchingdon Julia Cuthbert, 190 Wantz Road, Maldon Duncan Bliney, Woodstock, Main Road, Woodham Ferrers Mr W and Mrs K South, 10 Brunswick Court, Upminster Nina Newbury, 1 Burrswood Place, Heybridge Basin Debbie Worrow, 26 The Street, Latchingdon Debbie Goddard, 62 Bramfield Road, Purfleet Molly Barnes, 62 Bramfield Road, Purfleet Joanne Stearn, 103 Goldhanger Road, Heybridge Mrs Gavin, 4 Glenleigh Terrace, Maidstone V. Pelham, 7 Redgate Close, Wickford Carol Borroff, Endsleigh, Boxted Dorothy Ramsey, 3 Sparrows Herne, Basildon Pauline Kemp, 3 Jersey Gardens, Falkirk Sylvia Hafez, 47 Plainsfield Braintree Jacqueline Neary, 37 Mildmay Road, Burnham-on-Crouch Jacquelyn May, 64 Maple Way, Burnham-on-Crouch Paige Hornabrook, 12 Mallows Field, Halstead Karen Chinery, 3 Lower Park Road, Brighlingsea
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 32 Yasmin Wade, 101 Joyners Field, Harlow Hayley Britton, 29 Trent Road, Chelmsford Vicki Stansfield, 48 Meteor Road, Westcliff Clare Sedgbeer, 520 Arterial Road, Leigh-on-Sea Mike Brickell, 43 Church Road, Shoeburyness Mrs J. Hopper, 3 Ramsey Chase Amanda Percival, 37 King Street, Maldon Glen Stafford, 13 Ash Grove, Burnham-on-Crouch Amanda Blackhall, 4 Promenade Cottages, Maldon Karen Stubbings, 2 Althorne Close, Basildon Sarah Kench, 151 St Johns Road, Colchester Jo O’Mahony, 84 Latimer Drive, Basildon Amanda Cook, 2 Bramwoods, Chelmsford Jason Moore, 100 Goldberry Mead, South Woodham Ferrers Susan Dow, 7 Heritage Way Margaret Williams, 1a Heritage Way, Latchingdon Molly Griggs, 6 Heritage Way Charlene Dunmore, 9 Hermitage Way L. Race, 10 Heritage Way Evelyn Day, 3 Meadow Way, Latchingdon A Underhill, 18 Heritage Way C. Jarvis, 23 Heritage Way, Latchingdon Bradley Wright, 61 Lawlinge Road, Latchingdon Heidi Fox, 51 Lawlinge Road, Latchingdon Sally Moss, 25 Lawlinge Road, Latchingdon Maxine Courtney, 3 Kingfisher Close, Heybridge Roger Rabbiter, 4B Red Lyons Business Park FR Wright, 8 Buchanon Way , Latchingdon Imogen Day, 3 Meadow Way, Latchingdon Carol Marden, Mayville, Burnham Road M Johnston, 8 Granary Close, Latchingdon Ray Deady, 7 Granary Close, Latchingdon Nigel Smee, 47 The Street Peter Ritzka, 21 Heritage Way Chand Ritzka, 21 Heritage Way DA Feeney, 42 The Street, Latchingdon ME Feeney, 42 The Street, Latchingdon James Curtwright, 47 The Street, Latchingdon Philippe Morel, Tides Reach, Ferry Road, North Fambridge Maya Courtney, 27 Canon Mead, South Woodham Ferrers Nina Dighton, 47 The Street, Latchingdon M. Rogers, 21 Ramsey Chase Jodie Robinson, 47 The Street, Latchingdon Christine Pederson, 12 Heritage Way, Latchingdon Lee Holden, 59 The Street, Latchingdon Lisa Megemis, Oldfield Lodge Farm, Burnham Road, Latchingdon D. Pinder, 11 Granary Close, Latchingdon
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 33 Helen Tutt, 5 Snoreham Gardens, Latchingdon Clair Heady, Ashwell Cottage, The Street, Latchingdon Mark Smith, 13 The Street, Latchingdon L. Robson, 23 The Street JL Tilbrook, 27 The Street Patrick Day, 18 The Street, Latchingdon Bharti Devji, 41 The Street, Latchingdon Judith Hood, 9 Limbourne Drive, Heybridge Kim Holden, 59 The Steet, Latchingdon Holly Syder, 61 The Street, Latchingdon M Snowdon, 63 The Street, Latchingdon Kerry Bilington, The Old Chaple, The Street, Latchingdon Daniel Hunt, 75 Briarwood, The Street, Latchingdon Jill Newman, 89 The Street, Latchingdon Megen Simcock, 4 Burnham Road, Latchingdon EJ Munday, The Willow, 10 Burnham Road, Latchingdon Edna Sibley, 8 Burnham Road, Latchingdon Hannah Frost, 5 Rosie Lily Cottage, Latchingdon Amy Thornton, 4 Rosie Lily Cottages, Latchingdon Kitty Perryman, 2 Crouch Vale Court, Latchingdon Tony Green, 1 Crouch Vale Court, Latchingdon D. May, 5 Snereham Gardens, Latchingdon Tony Cornell, 20 Springfield Cottages, Heybridge Tina Niner, 20 Granary Close, Latchingdon Liam Day, 14 The Street, Latchingdon. Stephen Colderwood, The Annex, Marsh Farm Cottage, Lower Burnham Road, Latchingdon Joan Mantell, 7 Medows Way, Latchingdon B. Harkett, 15 Ludgrove, Latchingdon M. Dennis, 15 Ludgrove, Latchingdon Dadds, 24 Meadow Way, Latchingdon Joanna Hopper, 3 Ramsey Chase, Latchingdon David McMeowiv, 15 The Street, Latchingdon Joseph Chennels, 21 The Street, Latchingdon Warren Derham, 31 The Street, Latchingdon Simon Furza, 29 The Street, Latchingdon M. Duke, 10 The Street, Latchingdon Dino Khan, Red Lyon Busincess Centre Beverly Hills International Limited, Red Lyon Busincess Centre Pitstop Tyres, Red Lyon Busincess Centre V. Bridge, 5 Lawlige Road, Latchingdon S Mymms, 20 Heritage Way, Latchingdon Darren Wicks, 10A Steeple Road, Latchingdon, L Wight, 47 Burnham Road, Latchingdon Graham Moore, 14 Heritage Way, Latchingdon Anita Wilkin, Unit 2 Red Lion Business Centre Dick Ball, 7 Ludgrove, Latchingdon
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 34 Susan Bence, 29 Lawlinge Road, LAtchingdon Kristie Knight, Willow Brook, 8 The Street, Latchingdon Valentine Rutkin, Red Lyons Lodge, Burnham Road, Latchingon. Mr Palmer, Red Lyons Lodge, Burnham Road, Latchingon. Mrs D A Wright, 61 Lawlinge Road, Latchingdon Mr J. Hopper, 3 Ramsey Chase, Latchingdon Joshua Day, 3 Meadow Way, Latchingdon Mrs Dawn Skeels, 49 Dumont Avenue, Point Clear, Clacton, CO168JP Anita Wilkin, 109 Maldon Rd CM0 8DD and Red Lions Business Centre, Burnham Rd, Latchingdon Ms Elaine Todd, 40 Evergreen Drive, Colchester CO4 0HU Karen Spong, 64 Connaught Gardens, Braintree, Essex, CM7 9LZ Yvonne, 9 Crouch Park, Pooles lane, Hullbridge, Hockley, Essex SS5 6PX Tracy Garrad, 37 cross cottage, Boxted, CO4 5SR Hazel Elles, 138 Powers Hall End, Witham, Essex, CM81LS Mr D P Bilney, Woodstock, Main Road, Woodham Ferrers, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 8RN Sheena Wight, 23, Bernard Road, Sawbridgeworth,CM21 9DY Mrs Corrie, 14 Emanuel Road, Langdon Hills, Basildon, Essex Ss16 6EX Sharon & John Reynolds, 31 Eastcheap, Rayleigh, Essex, SS6 9JY Louise Strowlger, 72 Woodside avenue, Benfleet, Essex, SS7 4NY Stevie Strowlger, 72 Woodside avenue, Benfleet, Essex, SS7 4NY Ann Macdonald,38 Wulvesford,Witham,Essex,CM8 1NL Lesley Morgan, 18 Meadway River,Dover, Kent, CT17 0PS Kelly Phillipson, 49 Glebe road, Wickford, Essex, SS11 8ET Caroline Linton, 9 James Carter Road, Colchester, Essex, CO3 9XA Miss Sylvia Ridge, 7 Hornbeam Close, Theydon Bois, Epping, CM16 7JT. Jonathon Kirby, 2 the Poplars, Southminster, Essex, CM0 7FL Carol Grieve, 53 Milton Avenue, Barnet, Herts EN5 2EY Pat Stafford, 18 Kingston Close, Romford, RM6 5QB Krystal Amato, 76 Grifon Road, Chafford Hundred, Grays, Essex, RM16 6RJ Fiona Hurd, Myrtle Cottage, Coggeshall Road, Kelvedon, Essex, CO5 9NU Richard Mark Stylianou-Steed, Carrer Cervantes 11, Villalonga 46720, Spain Mrs Elven, 11 Rokewood Place, Stanningfield, Bury St Edmunds, IP29 4RF Mrs G Lewis-Cox, 38 Leigh Park Road, Leigh on Sea, Essex, SS9 2DU Debi Morrison, 2 Maydene, South Woodham Ferrers, Essex, CM3 5ND Pauline Stackpoole, 3 Glenmere, Vange, Basildon, Essex SS164QS Val Reeve, Hornfield, Franklin Road, North Fambridge, Essex CM3 6NF Mr & Mrs Gray, 4 Althorne Close, Basildon, SS13 1QW Karen Dennis, 28 Silver Leys, Bentley, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP9 2BS Jane Bass, 6, Campion Road, Colchester, Essex CO2 7RT Mrs L J Shea, 52 Waveney Road, Bungay, Suffolk, NR35 1LJ Kat Lovey, 3 Warren Drive, Basildon, Essex, SS14 1GE Rebekah Edwards, 103 London Road, Colchester, Essex, CO6 1LH Miss S Holmes, 25 St Johns Road, Great Wakering, Essex SS3 0AL Bridie James, 53 Tawneys Ride, Bures, Suffolk, CO8 5DB Yvonne Arnold, 34 Sussex Way, Billericay, CM12 0FA
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 35 Julie Stevens, 53 Pelly Avenue, Witham, Essex CM8 1JJ Helen Batchelor,11 Wakelin Chase, Ingatestone, Essex, CM4 9HH Lorraine Colombi, 13 Reed Walk, Colchester, Essex, CO1 1QE James Marshall, 80 Bramley Way, Maryland, CM3 6ET Mrs Julie Mudd, 104 Plumleys, Pitsea, SS13 1NG
Supporting Comment Officer Response
No noise from the site is experienced within nearby properties. Any noise that is heard when the wind blows in the wrong direction is not intrusive. The traffic caused by the use has not been a problem. The use rescues abandoned dogs and provides good accommodation. The use creates employment and encourages people to use local shops and facilities. The use works with the Duke of Edinburgh Scheme. The applicant is a charity. The proposal will be an improvement to the site. The proposal has been prepared by professionals. The proposal is viable. DEFRA and RSPCA support the proposal. The majority of Latchingdon residents support the application. The countryside is the best place for a dog rescue centre. Noted and The management plan would mitigate any negative addressed where impacts necessary. The efforts of the applicant and the volunteers should be acknowleged and rewarded. Noise reducing fences have been installed The re-location of facilities within the site will address any concerns. Working with dogs is therapeutic for children with disabilities. Walking dogs is of benefit to mental health. Some neighbours have previous admitted to be ‘hard of hearing’ and therefore will not be affected. One neighbour has recently bought their property in full knowledge of the presence of the dog rescue. Maldon District Council should be proud of this facility and should work with the facility. The horses at the site are well catered for. The operation has enabled a person to overcome her fear of dogs. Noise should be expected and accepted.
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 36 The operation avoids the need for the Council to put down dogs. The grounds of objection are inaccurate/untrue Other similar facilities have been approved by the Council within the vicinity of the site.
8. PROPOSED REASON FOR REFUSAL:
1 The application relates to the use of the land for equestrian purposes and also the continued use of the land as a dog rescue centre with building operations and management regimes proposed to mitigate noise arising from the dog rescue use. From the information provided, it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the noise arising from use would be adequately mitigated and, therefore, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed use would not cause significant and unacceptable harm to the amenities and quality of life of neighbouring residents. Taking a precautionary stance, the proposal is, therefore, deemed to be unacceptable and contrary to policies S1, D1 and D2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.
Agenda Item no. 5
Page 37 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6
REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 9 APRIL 2018 Application Number OUT/MAL/18/00129 Location Theedhams Farm, Steeple Road, Southminster, Essex Removal of conditions 13 (Flood Response Plan) & 20 (two bus stops on link road) on approved planning permission OUT/MAL/14/00613 (Creation of a new Northern Bypass/Link Road. Conversion of Steeple Road to a cul-de-Sac. Residential Proposal development of approx. 3 hectares, for 94 houses in total, including 28 affordable houses, and all associated works. The provision of new Public Open Space. The allocation of 0.275 hectares of land reserved for the provision of a medical centre) Applicant David Wilson Homes (Eastern Counties) Agent Phase 2 Planning Target Decision Date 27.04.18 Case Officer Kathryn Mathews, TEL: 01621 Parish SOUTHMINSTER Reason for Referral to the Member Call In – Councillor A S Fluker, due to public interest. Committee / Council
1. RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE for the reason detailed in Section 8 of this report.
2. SITE MAP
Please see overleaf.
Agenda Item no. 6 Our Vision: To make Maldon District a better place to live, work and enjoy Page 39 Agenda Item no. 6 Page 40 3. SUMMARY
3.1 Proposal / brief overview, including any relevant background information
3.1.1 The application site extends to around 3ha and is located at the edge of and beyond the settlement limits for Southminster, enclosed on some sides by existing development including houses on Steeple Road to the east and Scotts Hill Road to the south. There is more substantial and new development on the opposite side of Scotts Hill Road (Southfields). There are barns and other development at Witchards Farm to the west.
3.1.2 Outline planning permission exists at the site for the development of 94 homes with associated development which was allowed on appeal under application reference OUT/MAL/14/00613 on 1 August 2016. The Section 106 Agreement associated with the existing outline planning permission makes provision for affordable housing, highway works, residential travel packs, open space, health care, provision of a site for a medical centre; and education.
3.1.3 Details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale were the ‘reserved matters’ as part of the outline planning application and which are the subject of the currently undetermined application reference RES/MAL/17/01189.
3.1.4 The current application seeks to remove two of the conditions attached to the outline planning permission:
3.1.5 Condition 13 (Flood Response Plan (FRP))
Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed Flood Response Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved Flood Response Plan shall be made available to all prospective occupiers prior to their first occupation of any dwelling.
3.1.5.1 The reason for imposing this condition was to ensure future occupiers are aware of the FRP.
3.1.5.2 The applicant considers that this condition is no longer necessary as all the residential development proposed would be within Flood Zone 1 which they claim is supported by the Environment Agency’s consultation response to the current reserved matters application reference DET/MAL/17/01189, dated 29 November 2017.
3.1.6 Condition 20 ( New Bus Stops)
The scheme to be submitted pursuant to the reserved matters shall include details of the provision and location of two new bus stops on the link road, as shown in principle on COTTEE drawing no.1475/9, subject to a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. The development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, and shall be retained as such thereafter.
3.1.6.1 The reason for the imposition of this condition was to ensure that the bus stops are provided.
Agenda Item no. 6 Page 41 3.1.6.2 The applicant considers that this condition is no longer necessary based on correspondence with Essex County Highways dated 19 January 2018 which states that the bus stops are not justified given the infrequency of its service and that, as a result of the upgrading of bus stops associated with the development to the south of Scott’s Hill, no further upgrades to the public transport provision are required. However, the applicant advises that they would provide an eastbound bus stop on the north side of Scott’s Hill (B1010) as part of the development proposed.
3.2 Conclusion
3.2.1 Having assessed the proposal, it is considered that condition 20 is no longer necessary but that condition 13 is still necessary. In addition, no Deed of Variation or new Section 106 Agreement has been submitted or offered as part of the current application. Therefore, the application should be refused.
4. MAIN RELEVANT POLICIES
Members’ attention is drawn to the list of background papers attached to the agenda.
4.1 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 including paragraphs: Core Planning Principles Section 6 Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes Section 7 Requiring Good Design Section 11 Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment Section 10 Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change
4.2 Maldon District Approved Local Development Plan 2017: Policy S1 – Sustainable Development Policy S8 – Settlement Boundaries and the Countryside Policy D1 - Design Quality and the Built Environment Policy D5 – Flood Risk and Coastal Management Policy H4 – Effective Use of Land Policy N3 – Open Space, Sport and Leisure Policy T1 – Sustainable Transport Policy T2 – Accessibility Policy I1 - Infrastructure and Services Policy I2 - Health and Wellbeing
4.3 Relevant Planning Guidance / Documents: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
Agenda Item no. 6 Page 42 5. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 The main issues which require consideration as part of the determination of this application are whether the requirements of the two conditions are still necessary for the development as a whole to be acceptable and planning obligations.
5.2 Condition 13 (Flood Response Plan)
5.2.1 Policy D5 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) is applicable to the consideration of this matter.
5.2.2 This condition was imposed by the Inspector to ensure that all prospective occupiers are aware of the Flood Response Plan prior to their first occupation of any dwelling.
5.2.3 The Emergency Planner has confirmed the need for a flood warning and evacuation plan to be prevalent on the site and distributed to all residents. The Environment Agency, in their consultation response to the currently undetermined application for approval of reserved matters (reference RES/MAL/17/01189), has also noted that the Flood Risk Assessment which accompanies that application states that a Flood Evacuation Plan has not yet been provided and should be considered as part of the site is at risk of flooding. Furthermore, the final layout of the residential development has yet to be determined as only an outline planning permission with all matters of detail reserved has been granted to date (reference OUT/MAL/14/00613). Therefore, it is not yet certain that all of the housing proposed would be within Flood Zone 1. In addition, whilst the dwellings themselves may be within Flood Zone 1, the Agency advises that the Council needs to be satisfied with the emergency flood plan as users would be exposed to flood hazards on access/egress routes.
5.2.4 On the basis of the above, it is recommended below that condition 13 is not removed.
5.3 Condition 20 (Two Bus Stops on Link Road)
5.3.1 The aim of Policy T1 of the LDP is to provide a more sustainable transport network for the District through the delivery of sustainable transport infrastructure. Policy T2 of the LDP aims to create and maintain an accessible environment.
5.3.2 Condition 20 requires that the reserved matters application shall include provision for two new bus stops on the link road as shown on drawing 1475/9 subject to Stage 1 Road Safety Audit.
5.3.3 This condition was imposed by the Inspector at the time the appeal was determined based on the advice of the Highways Officer at that time. In response to the current application, the Highways Officer has raised no objections as, having reviewed the need for additional bus stops, they are of the view that two new bus stops along the proposed link road are no longer necessary. They have advised that, at the time, it seemed that additional bus stops would be beneficial, but having analysed the bus routes in much more detail, they are of the view that they would not bring any benefit at all. Consequently, the removal of the condition would not result in a loss of accessibility to the site as the existing infrastructure is more than suitably placed to serve the development.
Agenda Item no. 6 Page 43 5.3.4 County Highways have also advised that the two bus stops are unnecessary given that the majority of bus movement will pass through the new stops on Scotts Hill regardless. The distance from these stops is still well within comfortable walking distance to serve the new development. Consequently, given the aforementioned and that the frequency of use that the proposed new stops would actually generate, County Highways does not consider it necessary to provide them and that they would not be beneficial to the locality.
5.3.5 The applicant has offered to provide a bus stop (raised kerb and flag post) on the north side of Scotts Hill serving east bound passengers but County Highways have not recommended that this is required.
5.3.6 On the basis of the above, it is not recommended that the current application is refused due to the lack of new bus stop provision.
5.4 Other Matters
5.4.1 As stated above, the Section 106 Agreement associated with the existing outline planning permission makes provision for affordable housing, highway works, residential travel packs, open space, health care, provision of a site for a medical centre; and education. As part of the appeal, the Inspector’s view was that a site for a medical centre would not relate in scale and kind to the development proposed and, therefore, it did not weigh in their decision. However, he was satisfied that the other measures and contributions proposed were necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, were directly related to the proposed development and were fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the appeal proposal; and were, therefore, taken into account in the determination of the appeal. No Deed of Variation has been submitted or offered for these other measures and contributions as part of the current application. Where an application under section 73 is granted, the effect is the issue of a new planning permission, sitting alongside the original permission, which remains intact and unamended. As there would be a new outline planning permission if the current application were to be approved, the lack of a Deed of Variation would mean that none of the previous obligations would be secured. It is recommended below, that planning permission is also refused for this reason.
6. ANY RELEVANT SITE HISTORY OUT/MAL/14/00613 - Creation of a new Northern Bypass / Link Road. Conversion of Steeple Road to a cul-de-Sac. Residential development of approx. 3 hectares, for 94 houses in total, including 28 affordable houses, and all associated works. The provision of new Public Open Space. The allocation of 0.275 hectares of land reserved for the provision of a medical centre – appeal allowed; RES/MAL/17/01189 - Reserved matters application for the approval of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale on approved planning application OUT/MAL/14/00613 allowed on appeal APP/X1545/W/15/3132936 (Creation of a new Northern Bypass/Link Road. Conversion of Steeple Road to a cul-de-Sac. Residential development of approx. 3 hectares, for 94 houses in total, including 28 affordable houses, and all associated works. The provision of new Public Open Space. The
Agenda Item no. 6 Page 44 allocation of 0.275 hectares of land reserved for the provision of a medical centre) - Undetermined to date; DET/MAL/18/05022 - Compliance with conditions notification OUT/MAL/14/00613 (Creation of a new Northern Bypass/Link Road. Conversion of Steeple Road to a cul-de-Sac. Residential development of approx. 3 hectares, for 94 houses in total, including 28 affordable houses, and all associated works. The provision of new Public Open Space. The allocation of 0.275 hectares of land reserved for the provision of a medical centre) Condition 11 - Modelling of Asheldham Brook - Undetermined to date; DET/MAL/18/05015 Compliance with conditions notification OUT/MAL/14/00613 (Creation of a new Northern Bypass/Link Road. Conversion of Steeple Road to a cul-de-Sac. Residential development of approx. 3 hectares, for 94 houses in total, including 28 affordable houses, and all associated works. The provision of new Public Open Space. The allocation of 0.275 hectares of land reserved for the provision of a medical centre) Condition 5 - Proposed phasing of development. Condition 7 - Tree retention & protection. Condition 8 - Fencing & ground protection for trees. Condition 9 - Foul Water Strategy. Condition 10 - Surface water drainage scheme. Condition 12 - Scheme to minimise the risk of off-site flooding. Condition 16 - Ecological Survey. Condition 18 - Construction method statement. Condition 19 - Highways works. Condition 21 - Air quality assessment. Condition 22 - Superfast broadband - Undetermined to date.
7. CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED
7.1 Representations received from Parish / Town Councils
Name of Parish / Town Comment Officer Response Council Unhappy with withdrawal Southminster Parish of bus stops. Information Noted (refer to sections 5 Council on flood zone should be of report). freely given.
7.2 Statutory Consultees and Other Organisations
Name of Statutory Consultee / Other Comment Officer Response Organisation No objections as it is not contrary to the Highway’s Authority’s Development Noted (refer to section Essex County Highways Management Policies, 5.2.5 above) adopted as County Council Supplementary Guidance in February 2011.
Agenda Item no. 6 Page 45 Name of Statutory Consultee / Other Comment Officer Response Organisation As the application is for variation of conditions Sustainable Urban which do not relate to Noted. Drainage Systems (SUDS) surface water flooding they do not have any comment to make on the application Environment Agency (EA) No comments Noted
7.3 Internal Consultees
Name of Internal Comment Officer Response Consultee Having a look at the flood maps and the EA summary, recommends that a condition is Emergency Planner considered to be put in place for a flood warning and evacuation plan to be prevalent on the site and distributed to all residents.
7.4 Representations received from Interested Parties
Letters were received objecting to the application from the following and the reasons for objection are summarised as set out in the table below: Theresa Cassels 4 North End, Southminster Mr and Mrs Neall 10 Kings Road, Southminster
Objection Comment Officer Response Concern for additional school children County Highways have raised no waiting at existing bus stops on Scotts objection to the proposed removal of Hill which are already dangerous for condition 20. children waiting. Such a change to the approved scheme Should consider Steeple Road being left could not be required as part of the open and becoming one way for buses current application. Residents have the right to know that the land set aside for social and recreational The Flood Response Plan was for activities may be flooded at certain times occupiers of the site. of the year. The bus stops are required to serve the County Highways have advised that there residents of the new development and the is no current deficiencies in bus stop proposed medical centre due to provision in the vicinity of the application deficiencies in bus stop provision on site. Scotts Hill.
Agenda Item no. 6 Page 46 Objection Comment Officer Response The Inspector’s requirements with regard to the provision of a Flood Response Plan Refer to section 5.2 of report. should be adhered to.
8. PROPOSED REASONS FOR REFUSAL
1. In the absence of a Flood Response Plan, it could not be ensured that the impacts of potential flooding were minimised as users of the site would be exposed to flood hazards, contrary to the NPPF, NPPG and Policy D5 of the Maldon District Approved Local Development Plan. 2. In the absence of a Deed of Variation or new Section 106 Agreement, the proposal would not make provision for affordable housing, open space, education, residential travel packs, health care or the highway works necessary to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms, contrary to the NPPF and Policies S1, D1, D2, H1, N3, T1, T2, I1 and I2 of the Maldon District Approved Local Development Plan.
Agenda Item no. 6 Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7
REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN PLANNING COMMITTEE 9 APRIL 2018 Application Number HOUSE/MAL/18/00184 Location 115 West Avenue, Mayland Convert Chalet style dwelling to No.1 two storey house together Proposal with single storey rear extension and conservatory Applicant Mr Alan Harrison Agent Mr David Blacker – DSB Property Designs Ltd Target Decision Date 11.04.2018 Case Officer Devan Lawson, TEL: 01621 854477 Parish MAYLAND Member Call In – Councillor Mrs P A Channer, CC Reason for Referral to the Reasons: Public Interest, local knowledge and being aware of the Committee / Council Parish Council view.
1. RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE subject to the conditions (as detailed in Section 8 of this report).
2. SITE MAP
Please see overleaf.
Agenda Item no. 7 Our Vision: To make Maldon District a better place to live, work and enjoy Page 49 Agenda Item no. 7 Page 50 3. SUMMARY
3.1 Proposal / brief overview, including any relevant background information
3.1.1 The application site is situated on the southern side of West Avenue, within the settlement boundary of Mayland. The site is occupied by a chalet style detached dwelling with an integral garage, in an area which is residential in nature.
3.1.2 Planning permission is sought to construct a first floor extension and a single storey rear extension. The proposed alterations will provide greater space at first floor and will provide a dayroom and conservatory on the ground floor.
3.1.3 The first floor extension will increase the height of the dwelling from 6.4m to 7.6m. It will have a maximum depth of 9.6m and a width of 8.6m. The proposal will involve a first floor gable projection over the existing porch and garage and will result in the removal of both the front and rear box dormers. A decorative open sided canopy is also proposed over the entrance to the property.
3.1.4 The rear single storey extension will have a width of 8.6m and a depth of 2.5m. The extension is represented in two halves, with the eastern side having a height of 3.7m to the top of the roof and the western side which is in the style of a conservatory having a maximum height of 3.4m.
3.1.5 As part of the development it is proposed to render what is currently a brick built dwelling. The remainder of the materials will match the existing dwelling.
3.2 Conclusion
3.2.1 It is considered that the proposed development, by means of its style and design, including its scale and siting, is considered acceptable in its setting and will not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling or the locality. In addition, the proposal is not considered to represent an unneighbourly form of development and would not have an overbearing impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. Furthermore, the site provides sufficient amenity space and parking provision. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is in accordance with policies S1 and D1 of the Local Development Plan (LDP).
4. MAIN RELEVANT POLICIES
Members’ attention is drawn to the list of background papers attached to the agenda.
4.1 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 including paragraphs: 14 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development 47 – Boost the supply of high quality homes 56 -66 – Requiring Good Design
4.2 Maldon District Local Development Plan 2017: S1 Sustainable development
Agenda Item no. 7 Page 51 S8 Settlement boundaries and the countryside H4 Effective Use of Land D1 Design quality and built environment T1 Sustainable Transport T2 Accessibility
4.3 Relevant Planning Guidance / Documents: Car Parking Standards Essex Design Guide National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Maldon District Design Guide
5. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Principle of Development
5.1.1 The principle of altering a dwelling to provide facilities in association with residential accommodation is considered acceptable, in compliance with policy D1 of the LDP. Other material planning considerations are discussed below.
5.2 Design and Impact on the Character of the Area
5.2.1 The planning system promotes high quality development through good inclusive design and layout, and the creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities. Good design should be indivisible from good planning. Recognised principles of good design seek to create a high quality built environment for all types of development.
5.2.2 It should be noted that good design is fundamental to high quality new development and its importance is reflected in the NPPF. The NPPF states that:
“The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people”.
“Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions”.
5.2.3 This principle has been reflected to the approved LDP. The basis of policy D1 of the approved LDP seeks to ensure that all development will respect and enhance the character and local context and make a positive contribution in terms of:- a) Architectural style, use of materials, detailed design features and construction methods. Innovative design and construction solutions will be considered where appropriate; b) Height, size, scale, form, massing and proportion;
Agenda Item no. 7 Page 52 c) Landscape setting, townscape setting and skylines; d) Layout, orientation, and density; e) Historic environment particularly in relation to designated and non-designated heritage assets; f) Natural environment particularly in relation to designated and non-designated sites of biodiversity / geodiversity value; and g) Energy and resource efficiency.
5.2.4 Similar support for high quality design and the appropriate layout, scale and detailing of development is found within the Maldon District Design Guide (2017).
5.2.5 The dwelling subject of this application is a chalet style dwelling which has a similar scale, bulk and design to the neighbouring pair of semi-detached properties situated to the west of the site. However, as the application site is a detached property and the surrounding area is made up of an eclectic mix of dwellings, it is not considered harmful to the character and appearance of the locality as the architectural characteristics of the property no longer bear a significant resemblance to the neighbouring dwellings.
5.2.6 The proposal will raise the height of the existing dwelling from 6.4m to 7.6m, a total of 1.2m. Plan No 2018/01/01/115WA shows that the increase in height will result in a dwelling which is approximately 0.9m greater in height than the neighbouring dwelling located to the west and to 1.2m greater in height than the dwelling to the east. However, it is noted that No. 100 West Avenue situated to the northeast of the site is 8.4m in height. Therefore, the proposal would not be out of keeping with other properties within the streetscene, which are not uniform in nature. Furthermore, the application site is set back further than the property to the east which will reduce its prominence within the streetscene. Therefore, it is not considered that the increase in height will materially harm the character and appearance of the area.
5.2.7 The proposal will include a first floor gable addition over the existing garage and porch area. Front projections such as this, although they differ in design, are common features within West Avenue. In addition, whilst brick is a prominent material within the area, the use of render can be found on properties within the vicinity of the site. Therefore, it is not considered that the use of materials or design of the first floor element will be at odds with the character and appearance of the area.
5.2.8 The proposed single storey rear extension by way of its scale, bulk and design is considered to be in keeping with the dwelling to an acceptable degree. Furthermore, as the proposal is situated to the rear of the dwelling it is not considered to result in detrimental harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene.
5.2.9 It is considered that the proposed development by way of its scale, bulk and design is considered to be in keeping with the surrounding area to an acceptable to degree and would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the locality or the site, in accordance with polices D1 and H4 of the LDP and guidance contained within the NPPF and the Maldon District Design Guide.
Agenda Item no. 7 Page 53 5.3 Impact on Residential Amenity
5.3.1 The basis of policy D1 of the approved LDP seeks to ensure that development will protect the amenity of its surrounding areas taking into account privacy, overlooking, outlook, noise, smell, light, visual impact, pollution, daylight and sunlight. This is supported by section C07 of the Maldon District Design Guide (2017).
5.3.2 The application site is located within a residential setting and shares a boundary with properties to the east and west. The proposal is located approximately 1.8 metres from the boundary shared with adjoining property No. 117 West Avenue which is located to the west and 1.4m from No.113 West Avenue located to the east. The proposal will not involve the construction of any additional windows at first floor level. The existing windows within the east and west elevations are to remain as they are currently and will continue to serve a landing and a bathroom. Therefore, it is not considered that there will be any increase in overlooking or loss of privacy to the neighbouring occupiers.
5.3.3 The proposal will increase the height of the dwelling by 1.2m. Given that the rear of No.117 is situated further back than the dwelling subject of this application it is not considered that the proposal will result in a loss of light or have an overbearing impact on the occupiers of No. 117.
5.3.4 It is noted that the development will result in some loss of light to the occupiers of No.113 during the evening hours and will increase the bulk of development in proximity to the neighbouring boundary. However, given the separation distance between the proposal and the neighbouring property and the limited increase in height it is not considered that the loss of light will be substantial. Furthermore, the first floor element would not project beyond the main part of the rear elevation of the neighbouring property. Therefore, it is not considered that the proposal will be materially harmful by way of loss of light or by being overbearing. It should also be noted that no letters of objection have been received from the neighbouring occupiers.
5.3.5 Therefore, the proposed development will not result in a demonstrably harmful impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers,
5.4 Access, Parking and Highway Safety
5.4.1 Policy T2 aims to create and maintain an accessible environment, requiring development proposal, inter alia, to sufficient parking facilities having regard to the Council’s adopted parking standards. Similarly, policy D1 of the approved LDP seeks to include safe and secure vehicle and cycle parking having regard to the Council’s adopted parking standards and maximise connectivity within the development and to the surrounding areas including the provision of high quality and safe pedestrian, cycle and, where appropriate, horse riding routes.
5.4.2 The Council’s adopted Vehicle Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) contains the parking standards which are expressed as maximum standards. This takes into account Government guidance which encourages the reduction in the reliance on the car and promotes methods of sustainable transport.
Agenda Item no. 7 Page 54 5.4.3 The dwelling has four bedrooms and the Council’s adopted Parking Standards require a dwelling of this size to provide a maximum of three spaces. Upon visiting the site it was noted that there is a garage located to the front of the property which could provide space to park one vehicle and a driveway which can accommodate two vehicles. Therefore, it is considered that the site could accommodate up to three vehicles in accordance with the Council’s adopted vehicle parking standards. As a result, the development is not considered to result in any material harm regarding access, parking and highway safety.
5.5 Private Amenity Space and Landscaping
5.5.1 Policy D1 of the approved LDP requires all development to provide sufficient and usable private and public amenity spaces, green infrastructure and public open spaces. In addition, the adopted Maldon Design Guide SPD advises a suitable garden size for each type of dwellinghouse, namely 100m2 of private amenity space for dwellings with three or more bedrooms, 50m2 for smaller dwellings and 25 m2 for flats.
5.5.2 The proposal will result in a minor loss of the rear amenity space. However, the resulting garden area will be 193m2 which is in accordance with guidance contained within the Maldon District Design Guide. Therefore, there is no objection with regard to amenity space.
6. ANY RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
6.1 None.
7. CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED
7.1 Representations received from Parish / Town Councils
Name of Parish / Comment Officer Response Town Council
Mayland Parish The roof height is over and above Please see section 5.2.6 Council the neighbouring properties.
8. PROPOSED CONDITIONS
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON: To comply with Section 91(1) of The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). 2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with approved drawing: 2018/01/01/115WA, 2018/01/02/115WA, 2018/01/03/115WA, 2018/01/04/115WA, Proposed Street Scene.
Agenda Item no. 7 Page 55 REASON: In order to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with policy D1 of the Local Development Plan. 3 The external surfaces of the development hereby approved shall be constructed of materials and finish as detailed within the application. REASON: To protect the amenity and character of the area in accordance with policy D1 of the Local Development Plan. 4 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) no dormer window or other form of addition or opening shall be constructed in the roof or gable walls of the building(s)/ extension hereby permitted without planning permission having been obtained from the local planning authority. REASON: To protect the amenity and character of the area in accordance with policy D1 of the Local Development Plan.
Agenda Item no. 7 Page 56 Agenda Item 8
REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 9 APRIL 2018 Tree Preservation Order TPO 13/91 (WTPO/MAL/18/00210) Location Acacia House 80A Maldon Road, Burnham-on-Crouch TPO 13/91 T1 False Acacia - Remove dead & dying wood from canopy. Remove hollow limb on South Side & re-balance Proposal canopy. Reduce canopy by 3m due to proximity of dwelling and presence of perenniporia fraxinea. Owner Mr Robert Hammond Agent Mr John Foss – Manor Tree Services Case Officer Devan Lawson Parish BURNHAM NORTH Member Call In by Councillor N R Pudney. Reason for Referral to the Reason - The tree requires attention regarding fungus and dead Committee / Council wood. The applicant wants to keep the tree, but it does need attention as there is a danger if not treated.
1. RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE for the reason as detailed in Section 9 of this report.
2. SITE MAP
Please see overleaf.
Agenda Item no. 8 Our Vision: To make Maldon District a better place to live, work and enjoy Page 57 Agenda Item no. 8 Page 58 3. SUMMARY
3.1 In February 2018, the Council received an application for works to a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The application proposes to remove dead and dying wood from the False Acacia’s canopy and to remove a hollow limb on south side and re-balance the canopy. It is also proposed to reduce the canopy by 3m due to the proximity of the dwelling and the presence of a fungus.
3.2 It should be noted that the removal of dead wood does not require consent from the Local Planning Authority (LPA). However, only dead wood can be removed. There is also a split branch in the canopy of the tree that can be repair pruned without permission.
3.3 The Site
3.3.1 The False Acacia Tree is located within the rear garden of Acacia House, 80A Maldon Road, Burnham-on-Crouch, within the settlement boundary of Burnham-on- Crouch.
3.3.2 The site is located on Maldon Road, which is a main access route to the centre of Burnham-on-Crouch. The prominent location of the site means that it plays a significant role in the character and appearance of the gateway to Burnham-on- Crouch.
3.3.3 The tree is mature, attractive and of a significant size. It is considered significant in its setting; the view of the tree is framed by Acacia house and the neighbouring property. It is of a considerable size and due to its position in a prominent location, it is highly visible from vantage points within the public realm and the adjacent highway.
3.3.4 There are other trees located within the streetscene. However, they do not substantially restrict views of this large, mature and impressive tree.
3.4 Ownership
3.4.1 The tree is within the property of Acacia House, 80A Maldon Road, Burnham-on- Crouch which is known to be owned by Mr Robert Hammond.
4. MAIN RELEVANT POLICIES
Members’ attention is drawn to the list of background papers attached to the agenda.
4.1 Corporate Plan 2015 - 2019: Corporate Goals: 2. Protecting and shaping the District – 2.b. Protection and enhancement of the District’s distinctive character, natural environment and heritage assets.
4.2 Relevant Planning Guidance / Documents: National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
Agenda Item no. 8 Page 59 5. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Impact on the Amenity Value and the Character and Appearance of the Area
5.1.1 The False Acacia Tree is located in the rear garden on 80A Maldon Road, Burnham- on-Crouch. It is mature and attractive and is considered significant in its setting. The view of the tree is framed by Acacia House and the neighbouring property, 80 Maldon Road. It is of a considerable size, and due to its position in a prominent location, it is highly visible from vantage points within the public realm and the adjacent highway.
5.1.2 The supporting arboricultural report is lacking in detail and does not provide valid arboricultural justifications for the works applied for. Furthermore, the photograph in the report (APPENDIX 1) of the tree in leaf does not appear to show the tree in decline. The crown appears healthy and vigorous and the report states that the tree has a life span of 20+ years.
5.1.3 A 3m reduction to the canopy, which would substantially reduce the visibility of the tree from within the public realm and the adjacent highway, is considered to detrimentally impact on the amenity value of the tree. Therefore, given the significant amenity value of the tree and the lack of justification for the works it is considered that the works would be excessive and would result in material harm to the amenity of the tree and the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
5.1.4 The proposal also includes the removal of a limb on the south side. The arboricultural report states that the canopy reduction, in height and on the north side, would be necessary to balance the tree following the limb removal. However, as discussed in greater detail in the following section, the removal of the limb is not considered to be arboriculturally acceptable. Therefore, this does not provide significant justification for the loss of amenity resulting from the proposed works.
5.1.5 If the tree is suffering from decline by the decay fungus as suggested in the report, then extensive reduction works such as that applied for would have a detrimental impact on the tree’s energy reserves and likely cause further and more rapid decline, which would also have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the tree.
5.1.6 Given that sufficient justification for the proposed works has not been provided, the extent of the works proposed and the detrimental impact on the amenity value of the tree and the character and appearance of the area, it is not considered that the works are acceptable.
5.1.7 As previously outlined, the removal of dead wood does not require consent from the LPA. However, only the deadwood should be removed. It is also noted that there is a split branch in the canopy that can be repair pruned without permission.
5.2 Health of the Tree
5.2.1 The crown of the tree does not appear to be in decline. It appears healthy and vigorous. In addition, as outlined within the arboricultural report the tree is expected to have a lifespan of 20+ years. However, as previously outlined if the tree were to be in decline then the extensive works proposed would have a detrimental impact on the tree’s energy reserves and likely cause further and more rapid decline.
Agenda Item no. 8 Page 60 5.2.2 The arboriculutural report also states that removing the limb on the south side would be prudent before it falls, to then allow the extent of damage from the fungus to the main stem to be assessed. This is arboriculturally unacceptable and not accurate, because the fungus quoted in the report causes decay to the base of the tree, removing a branch 2m up the main stem to assess the condition of the wood internally is unlikely to provide accurate results. To properly assess what affect a decay fungus is having on the internal condition of the wood, an assessment using a Picus or resistograph is required to be undertaken by a suitably qualified arborist. The removal of this stem would leave a large wound that would likely make the tree more susceptible to infection by other decay pathogens, and goes against the pruning advice provided in BS3998:2010.
5.2.3 Furthermore, no justified reason to suggest the stem will fall has been given, apart from a comment regarding bark compression. This is not followed up in any way by assessing the tensile strength on the other side of the branch or justifying the extent of bark compression. A lot of branches show compression folds underneath but this does not necessarily justify that works are required. Furthermore, there has been no evidence provided to demonstrate that other solutions such as cable bracing have been explored and that the proposed works are the only solution.
5.2.4 Therefore, it is considered that the proposed works will be detrimental to the health of the tree. Furthermore, as no other management options for the tree appear to have been explored, the works are not justified and the concerns raised in relation to the health of the tree have not been sufficiently evidenced and nor do they outweigh the significant contribution the tree makes to the amenity of the area.
6. SITE HISTORY 17/01205/WTPO - TPO 13/91 - False Acacia - 3m Crown reduction and remove deadwood. Refused for the following reason: ‘The false acacia tree subject of this application is a significant and mature tree which is of high amenity value to the surrounding area. Given the presence of fungi and a weak limb, it is considered that further investigation and information regarding the condition of the tree and the impact of the proposed works should accompany the application. In the absence of such information and justification for the proposed works it is considered that it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the proposed works would not have an unacceptable impact on the health of the tree and the contribution of that tree to the visual amenity of the area. Taking a precautionary stance, it is therefore considered that the application should be refused.’ 93/00081/WTPO - To remove dead and damaged branches reduce crown by 15%-20% and remove sucker. Refused.
Agenda Item no. 8 Page 61 7. CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED
7.1 Representations received from Parish / Town Councils
Name of Parish / Town Comment Officer Response Council Burnham-on-Crouch Town Support Noted Council
7.2 Representations from Internal Consultees
Name of Comment Officer Response consultee Dead wood does not require planning permission. There is a split branch in the canopy that can be repaired prune without permission.
The arboricultural report lacks detail and valid arboricultural justification for the proposed works.
The photograph in the report of the tree in leaf does not appear to show it in decline. The crown looks healthy and vigorous. The report states it has a lifespan of 20+ years.
The suggestion that removing the leader would be prudent to remove the stem before it falls, to allow the extent of damage from the fungus to the main stem Tree Officer Please see section 5. to be assessed is arboriculturally unacceptable and not accurate. The fungus quoted causes decay at the base of the tree, removing a branch 2m up the stem to assess the wood internally is unlikely to provide accurate results. To properly assess what affect a decay fungus is having on the internal condition of the wood, an assessment using a Picus or resistograph is required to be undertaken by a suitably qualified arborist. The removal of this stem would leave a large wound that would likely make the tree more susceptible to infection by other decay pathogens, and goes against the pruning advice provided in BS3998:2010.
No justified reason to suggest the stem will fall has been given, apart from a comment
Agenda Item no. 8 Page 62 Name of Comment Officer Response consultee about bark compression. This is not followed up in anyway by assessing the tensile strength on the other side of the branch or justifying the extent of bark compression. A lot of branches show compression folds underneath but this does not necessarily justify works are required. Other solutions such as cable bracing have not been explored.
Advisory: It would be more prudent to have an internal decay assessment and climbing inspection of the tree undertaken by a suitably qualified arborist, to determine the extent of any decay, and identify any biomenchanical defects in the crown and then provide a management strategy based on this information.
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 The False Acacia Tree subject of the TPO offers a significant contribution to the character and appearance of Maldon Road, an important gateway to Burnham-on- Crouch, due to its position and its large, mature and attractive nature.
8.2 There has been no acceptable justification provided to suggest that the tree is suffering from decline or that the stem will fall. Furthermore, there has been no evidence provided which suggests that other management regimes have been explored to prevent the need for such excessive works. Therefore, it is considered that it would be more prudent to have an internal decay assessment and climbing inspection of the tree undertaken by a suitably qualified arborist, to determine the extent of any decay, and identify any biomenchanical defects in the crown and then provide a management strategy based on this information.
9. RECOMMENDATION
Refuse Consent for the following reason:
The False Acacia tree subject of this application is a significant and mature tree which is of high amenity value to the surrounding area. The justification provided does not sufficiently demonstrate that the tree is suffering from decline by the decay fungus as suggested or that the limb on the south side will fall. In the absence of such information and justification for the proposed works it is considered that it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed works would not have an unacceptable impact on the health of the tree and the contribution of that tree to the visual amenity of the area. Taking a precautionary stance, it is therefore considered that the application should be refused.
Agenda Item no. 8 Page 63 Tree in Lead Photograph
Agenda Item no. 8 Page 64