6
The Committee received report ES/1596 of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, which related to planning application DC/23/0038/FUL.
The application sought full planning permission for the construction of a new dwelling on land adjacent to 48 Mclean Drive, including the provision of off-street parking on land at 2 Smith Crescent.
As the case officer's "minded to" recommendation of approval was contrary to the recommendation of refusal received from Kessingland Parish Council the application was considered by the Planning Referral Panel on 9 June 2023, in accordance with the scheme of delegation set out in the East Suffolk Council Constitution, who referred it to the Committee for determination.
The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planner, who was the case officer for the application. The site's location was outlined and the Committee was shown an aerial image of the area. The Senior Planner noted the two parcels of land for the dwelling and parking respectively.
The Committee was apprised of the planning history on the site; five applications had been made with all refused planning permission.
The Committee was shown photographs demonstrating vies into the site and its relationship with surrounding dwellings. The Senior Planner said that the site contributed to the character of the area to some degree but was not protected from development.
The Senior Planner summarised the five previous applications on the site and their reasons for refusal, highlighting that two of the refusals had been appealed and these appeals dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate, as detailed in the report.
The Senior Planner outlined the parking space's relationship with the dwelling site.
The proposed layout for the site was displayed and the Senior Planner noted the amendments made on the southern boundary in response to comments on residential amenity; it was proposed to remove permitted development rights via condition to avoid a high boundary being put on the southern boundary and to encourage landscaping.
The proposed elevations were displayed and the Senior Planner considered the design to be an enhancement on the 1980s style bungalows in the area.
The parking plan was displayed; officers noted that the Highways Authority had not objected to the parking arrangements. The Committee was shown photographs demonstrating views of the proposed parking space, its relationship to the dwelling site, and other allocated parking in the area. The Senior Planner confirmed that the distance between the dwelling and the parking site would be 45 metres, which although not ideal was characteristic for the area. The Senior Planner displayed aerial images of similar parking arrangements near the site.
The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as the principle of development, design, the character and appearance of the area, neighbour amenity, and parking/highway safety.
The recommendation to approve the application, set out in the report, was outlined to the Committee.
The Chair invited questions to the officers. Councillor Ashdown queried how it could be guaranteed that the occupant of the dwelling would use the allocated off-street parking. The Senior Planner advised that this would be controlled by condition and the Planning Manager (Development Management, Major Sites and Infrastructure) added that it would be in the occupier's interest to maintain the space for their own use and any sub-letting of the space could be dealt with via a breach of condition notice.
Councillor Hammond asked if officers were confident that adequate measures would be taken to effectively deal with surface water drainage. The Senior Planner advised that surface water drainage details would need to be submitted for approval as part of the discharge of conditions. The Planning Manager noted that in terms of the wider effects from minor developments, there was little ability at the planning stage to influence the capacity of sewer networks and attenuation; any developer would be required to pay to connect to the foul water drainage network and it was Anglian Water's responsibility to ensure there is capacity.
In response to a question from Councillor Pitchers about the installation of an electric vehicle (EV) charging point at the parking space, the Senior Planner said that Building Control had advised that the developer would need to ensure a power supply to the site; the Planning Manager considered this could be achieved through an underground wire and would a challenge for the developer to overcome. Councillor Ewart asked how any such works would be made good and officers advised this would be controlled by a Construction Management Plan and the Highways Authority would have responsibility to ensure that any dug-out sections are made good at the conclusion of the work.
Councillor Gee sought clarification on how the EV charging point's use would be restricted to the occupier only. The Planning Manager believed that there are various security arrangements for EV charging points to secure them; the Chair reminded the Committee that this was not a material planning consideration and would be an issue for the developer and/or the occupier to resolve.
The Chair invited Ms Truman, who objected to the application, to address the Committee. Ms Truman stated that her home neighboured the application site; she pointed out that previous applications on the site had been refused as parking was segregated from the site and highlighted that the current application proposed the same solution, querying how this could be deemed acceptable.
Ms Truman set out the issues that would be caused for neighbours should the application be approved, which centred around the predicted negative impact to on-street parking in the area and residential amenity. Ms Truman also queried how a 1.8 metre wall on the southern boundary was acceptable when she and other residents were not allowed to erect any boundary higher than one metre.
Ms Truman detailed the concerns of neighbours opposite the southern boundary whose amenity would be impacted if such a wall was built, likening it to living in a prison. Ms Truman considered the harm that would be caused by the development outweighed any benefits it would bring.
There being no questions to Ms Truman the Chair invited Councillor Graham, Chairman of Kessingland Parish Council, to address the Committee. Councillor Graham advised that the Parish Council had objected to the application from the start and considered it represented poor quality design, contrary to policies WLP8.29 and H2 of the Waveney Local Plan and Kessingland Neighbourhood Plan respectively.
Councillor Graham considered that the development would remove much needed on-street parking in the area and queried comments that Kessingland was well served by public transport; he highlighted that a bus service only ran between 9am and 5pm and that the claim of being able to get to the rail station in five minutes was inaccurate.
Councillor Graham said that the design did not reflect existing bungalows in the area and the development was being crammed in; he stated that the current application was no better than the previous ones refused on the site. Councillor Graham explained that the Parish Council was open to development in principle but was opposed to this application.
Councillor Graham quoted the decision notice from the second dismissed appeal, regarding the loss of parking spaces having a negative impact on the highway to the detriment of highway user safety.
There being no questions to Councillor Graham the Chair invited Mr Bennett, the applicant's agent, to address the Committee. Mr Bennett said it was acknowledged that more housing was needed across the country and this type of development was a suitable way to achieve this goal. Mr Bennett highlighted that at one of the dismissed appeals the Inspector had stated no problem with the design of the dwelling and that the issue was the proposed parking arrangements.
Mr Bennett said that the off-street parking proposed matched what 70% of existing dwellings in the area benefitted from. Mr Bennett considered that a lockable post could be used to secure the space for the occupier. Mr Bennett was of the view that the applicant had attempted to acknowledge the concerns of neighbours, having made amendments to the southern boundary and fenestration on the southern elevation in response to concerns raised.
Mr Bennett concluded that the applicant had attempted to make an interesting building that fitted in to its surroundings; he pointed out that photovoltaic panels were proposed and rainwater harvesting was being considered.
The Chair invited questions to Mr Bennett. Councillor Hammond referred to Ms Truman's comments about the wall on the southern boundary and asked Mr Bennett for his thoughts. Mr Bennett explained that amendments had been made to remove a section of the wall on the southern boundary to increase the openness and reduce the impact on neighbour amenity.
The Chair invited Councillor Green, the ward member for Kessingland, to address the Committee. Councillor Green referred to the five applications previously refused, along with the two dismissed appeals, and considered there was very little difference in the current application to warrant approval.
Councillor Green was of the view that the development would overshadow and intrude onto neighbouring properties and represented poor design against policy, as quoted by Kessingland Parish Council. Councillor Green was concerned about the distance to the off-street parking and said that the photographs in the officer's presentation did not provide an accurate reflection of the parking issues in the area.
Councillor Green said there was and would be difficult access to the site due to the significant on-street parking and was concerned about the movement of construction traffic and its impact on highway users, as well as refuse vehicles once the development was completed.
Councillor Green disputed the comments in the Design & Access Statement about public transport links, considering it to be limited in Kessingland. Councillor Green concluded that the site was unsuitable for the proposed development.
There being no questions to Councillor Green, the Chair invited the Committee to debate the application before it. Several members of the Committee spoke against the application, noting concerns about occupiers parking on the street and not in the allocated space and highlighting that the development would exacerbate an existing parking issue in the area.
The Chair invited the Planning Manager to comment on points raised during debate regarding parking. The Committee was advised that the Highways Authority was a statutory consultee for all planning applications and provided advice in respect of parking and highway safety; having originally objected to the application the Highway Authority's final position was one of recommending approval subject to conditions, including one regarding the allocation of the parking space. The Planning Manager acknowledged the concerns raised during the debate and advised that should the Committee resolve to refuse the application on parking grounds it needed to form a robust reason for going against the advice of the Highways Authority.
Councillor Gee considered very little had changed in the new application when compared to the refused ones and suggested they did not go far enough. Councillor Gee was of the view that the proposed design did not harmonise with the existing area and could foresee immense problems if it was approved; she cited concerns relating to loss of amenity and said that there was no argument for it as the parking arrangements had not been improved. Councillor Gee said she was minded to not approve the application.
Councillor Hammond spoke in favour of the application; he acknowledged it was not an ideal development but noted that more housing was needed and could not see material planning reasons to refuse the application.
Councillor Ewart was pleased there was robust debate as that had been the Planning Referral Panel's intention when referring the application to the Committee. Councillor Ewart found the orientation of the development challenging and considered the application was a difficult one to decide on.
Councillor Pitchers suggested that the application could be refused due to its negative impact on the streetscene; Councillor Ashton was minded to vote against the application but was concerned that the Council could end up in a position where the application was approved on appeal.
Councillor Pitchers proposed that the application be refused, seconded by Councillor Gee. The Planning Manager advised that a robust reason for refusal needed to be formulated and sought further information from Councillor Pitchers; he was minded to refuse the application due to its impact on the streetscene, parking and loss of green space.
The Planning Manager noted the previous reason for refusal was due to the poor layout and design quality contrary to policy WLP8.29 of the Waveney Local Plan and policy H2 of the Kessingland Neighbourhood Plan. The Principal Planner added that H2 provided further detail not contained in WLP8.29 and highlighted that inspectors had not previously critiqued design, orientation or loss of open space; he advised the Committee that, based on the flavour of the debate, it could consider refusing the application in respect of layout and impact on the area.
Councillor Hammond contended that the design was a subjective matter and that the Committee had been advised what proposed had been designed to minimise massing and overlook, considering it to be a reasonable attempt to minimise harm. Councillor Ewart was of the view that the orientation of the dwelling was poor and would impact negatively on residential amenity.
Following advice from the Democratic Services Officer, the Chair confirmed with Councillors Pitchers and Gee that the recommendation they had proposed and seconded was to refuse the application on the grounds that it was contrary to policies WLP8.29 of the Waveney Local Plan and H2 of the Kessingland Neighbourhood Plan, regarding the site layout and poorly functioning detached parking arrangement. Both councillors confirmed this was correct.
There being no further debate the proposal to refuse the application was put a vote and it was by a majority
RESOLVED
That the application be REFUSED on the grounds that it is contrary to policies WLP8.29 of the Waveney Local Plan and H2 of the Kessingland Neighbourhood Plan, regarding the site layout and poorly functioning detached parking arrangement.