Retrospective home extensions and pool at 21 Harwich Road, Little Clacton, Clacton-on-Sea

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for a side and rear extension, connected outbuildings, a pool house, enclosed seating area and five heat pumps.

“Development: Householder Planning Application - Various works including extension to outbuilding, extension to home, hardstanding, drainage and swimming pool. (Retrospective)”

“This application is before the Planning Committee at the discretion of the Head of Planning and Building Control, and seeks retrospective planning permission to retain a single storey side/rear extension that projects from the rear of the dwelling house and which connects to 2no outbuildings. To the north-east of this, a large pool house complete with an enclosed outdoor seating area has been erected and which connects to the rear extension.”

Officer report

The site

The site contains a detached chalet bungalow inside Little Clacton’s settlement boundary, outside a conservation area and away from a listed building setting.

“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

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the development would seriously harm neighbouring amenity through its overbearing scale and unassessed heat-pump noise.

“Nevertheless, the proposals size, scale and proximity to the neighbouring properties does pose serious harm with the side/rear extension appearing as an overbearing addition that towers over the neighbour’s amenity space and property. Additionally, 5no.”

“The size and scale of the side/rear extension, being 35.02m in length and with an overall height of 3.53m, will significantly protrude above the shared boundaries with Number 19 Harwich Road. This is a visually dominant addition that towers over the adjacent residential dwelling and their private amenity space, resulting in an oppressive and overbearing feature that in turn results in serious and detrimental harm to neighbouring existing amenity. Furthermore, 5no.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected overdevelopment, amenity, drainage, noise and disturbance, while Environmental Protection requested a noise impact assessment.

“Environmental Protection recommends that a Noise Impact Assessment is carried out by a relevantly qualified, competent person. This will need to include any external plant such as air conditioning units, heat pumps, pool pumps/filtration and ventilation systems where applicable. Details of any mitigation and the expected noise reduction achievable should also be submitted as part of this assessment and recommendations implemented, as necessary.”

“Overdevelopment of the site • Development is outside of the % of permitted development • Out of keeping with the surrounding area • Loss of amenity space • Discharge of water from the site into neighbouring gardens • Noise and disturbance to the surrounding properties amplified by lack of divide…”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Eight letters raised concerns including overdevelopment, noise, flooding, boundary structures, visual dominance, heat pumps and the lack of a noise assessment.

“A total of eight letters have been received that raise the following planning matters in the public interest:-”

“Air Source Heat Pump appears industrial in nature and may produce excessive amounts of noise.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Council’s Assistant Planner presented the application; the applicant’s representative spoke in support, while a member of the public and councillors spoke against.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed enforcement, the timing of works, heat-pump information, Building Control and whether the missing information prevented assessment of noise harm.

“Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- Officer response thereto:- Though enforcement was in place, the construction continued unabated. Would you say that was a fair assumption? The Planning Enforcement Team have been involved with this application site, but it is important to note that no formal stop notice has been issued but the applicant, to my understanding, has been previously advised to stop works by our enforcement team.”

“It might be that they are perfectly okay and there is no significant harm to neighbours, but we just don’t have that information before us so that is why it is forming part of our recommended reasons for refusal. So, they are not a material consideration for the application before us tonight? That is incorrect. They are a material consideration for this application.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Goldman moved refusal, Councillor Alexander seconded it, and the committee agreed unanimously.

“It was moved by Councillor Goldman, seconded by Councillor Alexander and unanimously:-”

“(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 the appropriate Officer updates, so long as the principle of the reasons for refusal as referenced is retained.”

Minutes