Five bungalow development at Land Adjacent Crispins, Roots Lane, Wickham Bishops

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for five three-bedroom bungalows, detached garages and an access road, with only access decided at this stage.

“Application Number 25/00616/OUT Location Land Adjacent Crispins Roots Lane Wickham Bishops Proposal Outline application with all matters reserved except for access for 5no 3 bedroom bungalows with detached garage and access road including turning head off existing drive.”

“Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of five (5) 3 bedroom bungalows each with detached garages with an access road including turning head off the existing drive. The proposed access is for determination under this application, with the matters of appearance, layout, landscaping and scale being the reserved matters for future applications should Outline planning permission be approved.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a 0.49-hectare part of a residential garden outside the village boundary, with mature trees, grass and existing accesses.

“The application site is located at the junction of Roots Lane and Grange Road and is outside of the settlement boundary of Wickham Bishops. To the north and east of the site, within the settlement boundary, are residential properties comprising a mix of predominantly detached bungalows and two storey dwellings.”

“The site itself measures 0.49 hectares and comprises part of the existing residential garden of ‘Crispins’, which is a detached two storey dwelling shown in land edged blue on the application plans. The site is laid to grass with numerous mature trees within the site and along the site’s frontage, which extends to the south along Grange Road which is a single lane road.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the site was considered sustainable and the housing, growth and ecological benefits outweighed countryside, urbanisation and tree harms.

“Based upon the Council’s 5 years housing land supply position the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development applies and therefore the development of sites such as this outside of settlement boundaries needs to be considered as to whether the development is sustainable development to meet the definition of the NPPF and…”

“LDP policy S1. For the reasons explained above the site is considered to be located in a sustainable location on the borders of a village which provides for a range of facilities, services and various transport modes for accessibility. This position, along with the Council’s intentions for growth options and the recent appeal decisions in Wickham Bishops, further assist in supporting the principle of development at this site.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council recommended refusal, while highways, ecology, archaeology and tree advisers raised no objections or supported the proposal subject to conditions.

“Name of Internal Consultee Comment Officer Response Environmental Health No comments to make No response required Place Services Archaeology No objections No response required Place Services Ecology No objection subject to conditions requiring mitigation measures undertaken in accordance with the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, a non-licensed Great Crested Newt Method Statement, a Construction Environmental Management Plan for Biodiversity, a Biodiversity Enhancement…”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Nine objections raised concerns about traffic, safety, landscape character, urbanisation, construction damage, views, heritage and tranquillity.

“Representations received from Interested Parties (summarised)”

“Objection Comment Officer Response Impact upon the character, safety and environmental integrity of local setting Please see the Assessment section 5.2 and 5.9 of the report Additional traffic congestion due to narrowness of Grange Road and lead to safety risks for pedestrians, cyclist and horse riders Essex County Council Highways have no objections to the application The proposed development threatens to significantly alter the visual and environmental character of this…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The officer presented the application and an objector addressed the committee.

The committee debate

Members questioned the differences from the earlier application, while officers explained changes in national policy and mitigation for trees and recreational disturbance.

“A Member then recalled that a similar application on the same site was recommended for refusal a year ago and questioned the Officer on what the differences were between the current application and a previous one.”

“Councillor Morgan suggested that the reasons for refusal would be based on what the application was called in for which was as follows: • The site being outside the settlement boundary, contrary to Local Development Plan (LDP) Policy S8. • Over-development of the site, contrary to LDP Policy D1. • The proposals would result in the urbanisation of an area currently rural in nature and erode the character and appearance of this part of the village, contrary to LDP Policy H4.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee refused permission because settlement-boundary and urbanisation harms significantly and demonstrably outweighed the limited benefit of five additional homes.

“RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason: Notwithstanding that Maldon District Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, the harm which would be created by the development outside the development boundary of Wickham Bishops is not outweighed by the very limited contribution made by five additional homes.”

“Accordingly, the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this National Planning Policy Framework with particular regard to paragraphs 135, 136 and 187, and the proposal would conflict with the development plan's spatial framework contrary to Policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Approved Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017).”

Minutes