Replacement self-build home at 8 Harold Road, Frinton-on-Sea

The site and surroundings

The site contained a fire-damaged detached dwelling, garage and front garden in a street with varied two- and three-storey homes, opposite the conservation area.

“The application site comprises of a detached two storey dwelling located within the development boundary of Frinton. The house presents two prominent gable features facing the main highway along with a ground floor canopy area providing a porch/ entrance feature. The site benefits from an existing flat roof garage to the side and vehicular access with modestly sized front garden that is enclosed by existing boundary fencing.”

“The local area comprises of a mixture of two and three storey dwellings varying in terms of design and materials. Many of these houses have front projections and dormer additions and appear independently to one another.”

Officer report

Earlier application and appeal

An earlier replacement-house application was refused and dismissed on appeal because of concerns about bulk, the conservation area, neighbours’ amenities and privacy.

“A previous application for full planning permission was received under reference 25/00671/FUL for the replacement of the existing building. This application was refused given the significant size and bulk of the proposal and its impact upon the visual amenity of the area and nearby conservation area. There was also considered to be a significant impact to the amenities of neighbouring sites.”

“The appeal inspector confirmed that the site was outside of the conservation area and following a visit to the neighbours stated “Although the view from the garden is a private rather than a public one, from this part of the Conservation Area the bulk of new building at second floor level and the large expanse of dormer windows would be visually imposing and would harm the setting of this designated heritage asset.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the revised design reduced height, massing and bulk, fitted the street, protected the conservation area setting and avoided significant harm to neighbours.

“The proposal seeks planning permission for the demolition of a fire-damaged dwelling and its replacement with a reduced-scale 2½-storey self-build home. The previous application was refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal due to concerns regarding its impact on the Conservation Area and neighbouring amenity..”

“Compared with the previous scheme, the amended design incorporates reduced height, massing and bulk, resulting in a form that integrates more comfortably within the street scene, preserves the setting of the nearby Conservation Area, and not considered to adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residential properties sufficient to warrant refusal.”

Officer report

Support and concerns

One letter supported the proposal because it would improve the writer’s view; four objections raised concerns including light, overlooking, noise, the garage and visual harm.

“- Impact to light received to neighbouring side facing windows. - Level of fenestration introduced will result in an increase level of overlooking to neighbours. - Increase to noise from garden/ swimming pool. - Concerns over how the garage will be maintained. - Footprint of new building would be significantly larger and will not be in keeping with others in the locale thereby resulting in a harmful impact to the visual amenity of the street scene.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The council’s senior assistant planner presented the application, followed by the applicant’s representative in support and three speakers against it.

What members discussed

Members discussed the building’s footprint, its relationship with number 10, the conservation-area setting, the appeal inspector’s comments and whether changes or deferral were possible.

“Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- Officer response thereto:- Am I right in thinking that in the drawing that you have tabled it shows the new proposed building on a very similar, if not identical, footprint of the previous house and garage? The footprint has been slightly reduced it appears from a comparison. Overall, the whole scale and mass have reduced. Am I right in saying that the footprint of No.”

“In the immediate vicinity there is a block of flats, a Church and a tenement, are these within the Conservation Area? No, but they are within the sight of the Conservation Area and therefore affect its setting. Was enough weight given by Officers to the Inspector’s remarks in producing this report and its recommendations? In short, yes, is the answer. That was one of the many areas of consideration that was part of this application.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor Codling moved approval, Councillor White seconded it, and the motion was agreed unanimously.

“It was moved by Councillor Codling, seconded by Councillor White and unanimously:-”

Minutes

The decision

The committee authorised planning permission subject to the officer’s conditions, with any necessary enforceable wording changes and appropriate informatives.

“(a) the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 9.1 of the Officer report (A.4), or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the conditions as referenced is retained; and…”

“(b) informative notes be sent to the applicant, as may be deemed necessary, by the Head of Planning and Building Control.”

Minutes