Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for outline planning permission for a new 4 bedroom dwelling with some matters reserved (DEV-014-2014/15).

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Control) presented a report concerning outline planning permission for a new four-bedroom dwelling with some matters reserved on land adjacent to Longacre Cottage, School Road in Stanford Rivers.

The Assistant Director reported that this application had been considered by Area Plans Sub-Committee East at its meeting in March 2015. A proposal to refuse the application had been defeated, but before the Officer’s Recommendation to grant the application could be considered four Members of the Sub-Committee had invoked the Minority Reference rules in the Constitution to refer the application to the Committee with no further recommendation. However, the Sub-Committee did request that further information on ‘limited infilling in villages’ be provided for the Committee to consider, along with four additional highways related conditions covering issues concerning sight lines, the surface material to be used on the driveway, no discharge of surface water into the highway, and any gates to be positioned six metres back from the highway.

The Assistant Director advised the Committee that the application site was rectangular in shape and situated on the east side of the triangular village green in Toot Hill bounded by School Road, Toot Hill Road and Epping Road. The site was to the north of Long Acre Cottage, and was within both the metropolitan Green Belt and the village envelope of Toot Hill.

The Assistant Director explained that the proposal was an outline application for a new four-bedroomed dwelling. Approval was being sought for the reserved matters of access and site layout; detailed floorplans and elevations had been submitted for information purposes. The application had been submitted by the owners of the adjacent property, Long Acre Cottage.

The Assistant Director informed the Committee of the main issues to be taken into consideration for this proposal. Although paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that new buildings within the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, there were 5 exceptions listed of which one was ‘limited infilling in villages’. The site was clearly within the village envelope of Toot Hill and the proposal could be considered appropriate development. The residential curtilage shown on the indicative plans was considered to be of an appropriate size, and a condition had been added to restrict the curtilage to the indicated area only and not extend into the paddock behind the site. The plans had indicated the removal of a section of the current hedge to the front of the site to improve highway visibility with the rear part of the hedge to be retained. It had been concluded that the revised frontage of the site would still be appropriate for the location and provide for safe vehicular access to and from the site. Finally, the plans indicated the provision of a garage plus a driveway area that could accommodate several vehicles, so the proposal would not give rise to on-street parking.

Consequently, Planning Officers had concluded that, although the site was located in the Green Belt, the proposal could be considered as an infill plot within a village envelope and therefore the new dwelling was an appropriate development. Consequently, outline planning permission had been recommended for approval.

The Assistant Director reported that, although limited infilling within villages was now permitted, there was no explicit definition within the NPPF. Therefore, the Sub-Committee had requested that further information be provided for the Committee to consider. There had been two recent appeal decisions on this issue within the District: at Hornbeam Lane in Sewardstone; and Pond House in Matching Green. Both appeals had been upheld with the Planning Inspector agreeing that the proposals had come within the bounds of infill development. The decision for Matching Green had particular relevance for this application as there was not a continuous line of buildings and the site also faced a village green.

The Committee noted the five representations which had been received in relation to the application. Stanford Rivers Parish Council had objected to the application, whilst two neighbouring properties had offered their support. Aboriculturists from the District Council had no objections provided their suggested tree protection conditions were included, and Essex Highways had withdrawn their objection following a site visit. The Committee heard from the applicant before proceeding to debate the application.

The local Member for Passingford highlighted that there had never been a building on this particular site and that the Parish Council was against the application. The village currently had a feel of openness and greenness about it, and the site in question was a two-acre field so this application could not be considered infilling as per the Sewardstone and Matching Green appeal decisions. The Member would oppose this application on the grounds of inappropriate development in the Green Belt. A local Member for Loughton St John’s also agreed that this was not infilling and therefore would not support the application.

However, a number of other Members of the Committee were in favour of the application. A local Member for Chigwell Village emphasised that there were no detailed guidelines from the Government about what constituted limited infilling, and the proposed development would not be out of character with the surrounding area. A local Member for Waltham Abbey North East also highlighted that the proposed building would be screened and therefore there would be little impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. The Committee also noted that the neighbours were supportive of this application. The Assistant Director added that this application was likely to set a precedent if allowed, and similar applications could be expected from both within Toot Hill and other villages in the District.

A number of Members stressed that the size of the proposed curtilage for the dwelling would need to be tightly controlled and that any extension to the size of the currently proposed curtilage would require further consent. The Assistant Director pointed out that condition 3 restricted the size of the curtilage to that currently proposed.

The Chairman highlighted the concerns of the Committee regarding the lack of a definition for ‘limited infilling within villages’, and that this application could set a precedent within the District. However, this particular application was practical, was in keeping with the street scene, and provided an extra dwelling within the District. Therefore, the Chairman indicated his support for the application. The Committee felt that the Government should be requested to provide a better definition of what constituted limited infilling within a village setting, and that the Council required policies on this issue within its Local Plan.

Resolved:

(1)        That planning application EPF/2936/14 on land adjoining Longacre Cottage, School Lane in Stanford Rivers be granted outline planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

            11.       There shall be no discharge of surface water onto the Highway.

            12.       Any gates provided at the vehicular access shall be inward opening            only and shall be set back a minimum of 6 metres from the back edge of the    carriageway.