Four replacement homes at Easton Lane, Easton Bavents, Reydon

What was proposed

Four dwellings were proposed to replace three cottages lost to erosion and one existing dwelling expected to be lost within 20 years.

“This brings the total development proposal to 4no. dwellings to replace dwellings previously lost and/or due to be lost to erosion. 3.2This application is almost identical to a previous submission ref. DC/23/4736/FUL. That application was refused by the LPA for reasons (summarised) below: 1.The Warren is not located within the Coastal Change Management Area.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the revised application acceptable overall because The Warren’s demolition could be secured and replacing erosion-threatened homes carried significant weight.

“8.19Accordingly, officers conclude that the scheme is – giving substantial weight to the recent appeal decision – acceptable in design and landscape terms and arguably in compliance with the relevant Local Plan policies cited. Even if one were to still conclude some harm and policy conflict in that regard, the benefit of replacing homes lost and at threat of erosion is a material consideration of significant weight in the planning balance. 111”

“That is because the dwellings to be replaced were unrestricted, and this scheme should be treated as replacement homes, not entirely new dwellings. 8.26It is necessary to remove permitted development rights in respect of dwelling extensions and works within the curtilage. This is due to the highly sensitive landscape context.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

The parish council, ward member and National Landscape team objected over countryside location, landscape harm, alternatives, farmland and ecology; some consultees had no objections.

“Fundamental unsuitability and unacceptable harm to the National Landscape The core objection is, and remains, the unsuitable location of the proposal in the open countryside within the National Landscape (formerly AONB). This was the fundamental and overriding reason for the previous Appeal’s dismissal.”

“Amendment insufficient: The applicant’s administrative correction – rectifying the technicality concerning the inclusion of The Warren within the red-line boundary – does not mitigate the fundamental environmental harm identified by the Inspector. Similarly, any conditions regarding the demolition of The Warren would not address the underlying issue of unsuitability and harm to the National Landscape.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, a parish council representative, the applicant and the ward member addressed landscape, farming, alternatives, coastal erosion, design and policy.

What members debated

Members debated the buildings’ height and scale, replacement principle, alternative sites, screening, policy interpretation, precedent and the likelihood of an appeal.

“Councillor Hammond noted that one of the three reasons stated for refusal on the original application was due to scale. He asked if there was anything to be done to address the mismatch of scale because of the additional size allowed under permitted development rights and if that was a valid reason for objection last time. The Planning Manager said it was in the report and read the section of the report.”

“Councillor Hammond agreed. We have to support the principle of replacement for this awful situation of losing properties to the sea. The Copperwheat and poultry sheds sites are red herrings. We cannot get involved in family land ownership. But we do set a precedent if we do allow these replacements that really push the definition of replacements. Should consider writing into the policy that it is a ‘like for like’ replacement.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to approve failed, followed by a majority vote for an alternative motion to refuse the application.

“On the proposal of Councillor Ashdown, seconded by Councillor Ashton, the recommendation to approve the application failed.”

“An alternative recommendation was sought. The Planning Manager referred Members to relevant policies including WLP8.26 which related to relocation and roll back of dwellings, WLP8.35 - Landscape Character, Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. He advised against the non-demolition of the Warren. He said they could look at the impact of the design.”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

The committee found that the tall buildings did not respond to their surroundings, would harm the National Landscape and had an unacceptable landscape mitigation scheme.

“The Planning Manager summarised that they were refusing due to the overall conflict with policy WLP8.26, that they are tall buildings that do not respond to the scale of the surrounding context and as a consequence will cause harm to the National Landscape contrary to WLP8.35. It was also contrary to the Countryside Rights of Way Act and the NPPF. The landscape scheme proposed is unacceptable in terms of mitigating the impact. Councillor Hammond agreed.”

Minutes