Front wall, gates and fencing at 21 Harwich Road, Little Clacton, Clacton-on-Sea

The site

The site contains a detached chalet bungalow inside Little Clacton’s settlement boundary, outside a conservation area and unlikely to affect a listed building.

“The application site is located on the north-western side of Harwich Road and contains a detached chalet bungalow, facing south-east.”

“The site resides inside the Settlement Development Boundary for Little Clacton. The area is not within a Conservation Area nor would likely affect the setting of a Listed Building.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered extensions, roof alterations, a home extension and a retrospective rear gym; another retrospective application remained current.

“25/01061/FULHH Householder Planning Application - Various works including extension to outbuilding, extension to home, hardstanding, drainage and swimming pool. (Retrospective) Current…”

“25/01141/FULHH Householder Planning Application - New gym to rear of property. (Retrospective) Approved…”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found limited visual and neighbour harm, but considered the wall and gate would seriously reduce visibility and endanger highway users.

“The proposed works will not result in significant visual harm occurring to the character and appearance of the area, nor will it pose significant harm to the neighbouring amenities. However, it will pose a serious and detrimental risk of harm to highway users, sufficient enough to warrant a recommendation of refusal of this application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Council’s Assistant Planner presented the application; a member of the public, the parish council chairman and the ward member spoke against it.

Members’ consideration

The application was considered with the officer report, including its planning issues, consultation responses, representations and refusal recommendation.

“The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of refusal.”

“At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Assistant Planner (BB) in respect of the application.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee authorised refusal because the boundary features would reduce visibility and create a serious and detrimental risk to pedestrian safety.

“(a) the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse planning permission subject to the reason(s) as set out below or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the reasons for refusal as referenced is retained.”

“The height of the wall, gate and fencing along the shared boundaries will reduce the visibility of users exiting the application site, as well as pedestrians utilising the public footpath abutting the boundary wall. This impeded visibility will pose a serious and detrimental risk to pedestrian safety who frequent the public footpath and who are entitled to cross highway land in a safe and unobstructed manner.”

Minutes