Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for the demolition of the existing dwelling at 19 Coopersale Common, Coopersale and  the erection of six detached houses (2 x 3 bedroom and 4 x 4 bedroom) and associated amenity space, car parking, cycle storage and landscaping.

The Principal Planning Officer presented a report for the demolition of the existing dwelling at 19 Coopersale Common, and the erection of six detached houses (2 x 3-bedroom and 4 x 4-bedroom) with associated amenity space, car parking, cycle storage and landscaping. This application was considered by Area Planning Sub-Committee East at its meeting on 11 October 2017 and was referred to this Committee for a decision with a recommendation to approve the application.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that the site currently contained a late Victorian/early 20^th Century large detached house and garage within a generous mature landscaped curtilage. Its principal elevation faced Coopersale Common; the southern and eastern boundaries adjoined highway land at Parklands, whilst the northern boundary adjoined the boundaries of The Shrubberies (a semi-detached house) and The White House (a detached two-storey house). The site was in an urban area which was neither listed nor within a conservation area. The surrounding area was predominantly defined by two-storey semi-detached and detached dwellings, but there was a three-storey block of flats located further south of the site.

The Principal Planning Officer reported Planning Officers had concluded that the application would provide much needed housing of a type which would meet an existing local housing need within an urban area of the District. This benefit would outweigh the limited harm from the height of the houses being higher than the neighbouring properties surrounding the site. The space provided around the boundaries of the site, along with the provision of good quality soft landscaping, would ensure that this additional height would not be prominent. In all other aspects, the design of the houses was considered acceptable and would preserve the character and appearance of the area. The application would not cause serious harm to highway safety or parking provision, and would not have an excessive impact on neighbouring amenity. It was therefore considered that the proposal met the requirements of sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and the application was recommended for approval.

The Principal Planning Officer also related the appeal decision for the original application (EPF/2113/16) to build eight terraced houses on the site, which had been received since this application was considered by Area Planning Sub-Committee East on 11 October 2017. The Planning Inspector had dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the eight houses, as a result of their scale and cramped appearance along Coopersale Common, would harm the character and appearance of the area, and the proposed landscaping would be insufficient to overcome this harm. The Planning Inspector also found that the proposal would have an overbearing impact on the adjacent property, The White House.

The Principal Planning Officer reminded the Committee that the current scheme had reduced the number of houses to be built from eight to six, and there was now a 2.9 metre gap between the adjacent property, The White House, and the nearest house of the proposed scheme. Thus, Planning Officers were of the opinion that this revised scheme had overcome the reasons for refusal and the reasons for dismissal of the appeal of the previous application.

The Committee noted the summary of representations that had been received in respect of this application, which included an objection from the Town Council plus 11 letters of objection from local residents. The Committee heard from an Objector,  the Town Council and the Applicant before proceeding to debate the application.

Cllr R Jennings felt that the development would fit in well with the area, but was slightly concerned about the gap between The White House and the nearest new house being only 2.9 metres. The Principal Planning Officer responded that the gap between The White House and the existing dwelling was only 2 metres, so it would be an improvement on the current situation.

Cllr G Chambers opined that the application contained too many new houses, and he did not like the design of the proposed houses as they were not in keeping with the immediate area. Cllr G Chambers felt that an application to build four houses would be more acceptable. Cllr J M Whitehouse stated that he had voted against the application at the meeting of Area Planning Sub-Committee East, and following the receipt of the Appeal decision, saw no reason to change his mind and would vote against the application again. The revised application had only marginally increased the gaps between the houses, and Cllr J M Whitehouse was disappointed that no evidence had been provided by Essex County Council regarding the parking issues in the area.

The vote on the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for the application was lost.

Cllr J M Whitehouse proposed that the application be refused planning permission, due to the cramped nature of the development, the impact of the development on the neighbours, the development would be out of character with the immediate vicinity, and the environmental harm that the development would cause. Cllr G Chambers seconded the motion to refuse planning permission, and sought to add design as another reason for refusal. The Principal Planning Officer cautioned the Committee against including the environmental effects of the development as a reason for refusal.

Decision:

(1)        That planning application EPF/1973/17 at Newstead, 19 Coopersale Common in Coopersale be refused permission for the following reason:

1.         The proposed development results in a cramped appearance in the street scene, and the proposed units were over dominant in bulk, height and massing and were out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to paragraph 17 and chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework and along with policies DBE1, DBE2, DBE9 and CP2 of the adopted Local Plan and Alterations.