Two-bedroom rural dwelling at Grange Road, Lawford, Manningtree

The site

The site was outside but close to Lawford’s settlement boundary, in the countryside, with access from Grange Road and surrounding agricultural land.

“The application site is located on the northern side of Grange Road with access to the highway located alongside the boundary with No. Grange Road. The site is located outside of, but close to (some 115m to the west of) the defined settlement development boundary of Lawford. The site is therefore considered to be in a countryside location.”

“To the north and east the site is bordered by best and most versatile agricultural land (according to the agricultural land classification for the East of England region the land around the site is grade 1 and 2 agricultural land). Further to the east is the settlement of Lawford. The site is within Flood Zone 1 which has a low risk of flooding and there are no listed buildings near the site.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier applications included a refused conversion proposal, an approved prior conversion, and permission for a two-bedroom bungalow that remained extant.

“20/01184/COUNOT Proposal to convert agricultural buildings into 3 two-bedroom bungalows, with two parking spaces and a private amenity per dwelling. Determination (Prior approval refused)”

“21/01718/FUL Proposed replacement of an agricultural building with a two bed bungalow (in lieu of Prior Approval for 1 No. 2 bed dwelling, subject of application 21/00704/COUNOT). Approved…”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the proposal comparable in sustainability to the existing permission, with no residential amenity harm and improved landscape and biodiversity benefits.

“Planning permission (ref. 21/01718/FUL) was granted on 17 April 2024 for the construction of a two- bedroom bungalow on a smaller site, with a three-year implementation timeframe. This permission remains extant and is considered to carry significant weight in the planning balance, despite the site being located outside any designated Settlement Development Boundary (SDB).”

“Furthermore, the proposed development involves the removal of unsightly existing structures and is regarded as a more effective and visually appropriate use of the land compared to the extant approval. The scheme would have no adverse impact on residential amenity, and the access and highway safety implications remain broadly in line with the extant approval.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

The highway authority raised no objection subject to conditions covering visibility, turning, access, parking and construction arrangements.

“From a highway and transportation perspective the impact of the proposal is acceptable to Highway Authority subject to the following mitigation and conditions: As indicated on drawing no. 03H, there should be no obstruction above ground level within a 2.4 m wide parallel band visibility splay as measured from and along the nearside edge of the carriageway across the entire site frontage.”

“The proposed development shall not be occupied until such time as the vehicle parking area indicated on the approved plans, has been surfaced, sealed and if required marked out in parking bays. The vehicle parking area and associated turning area shall be retained in this form at all times.”

Officer report

Parish and residents

The parish council questioned whether the site was outside the settlement area and agricultural, while no third-party comments or objections were received.

“Lawford Parish Council comments that this application looks like it is outside the settlement area and there should be a check on whether this land is for agricultural use.”

“No third-party comments or objections were received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Council’s Planning Team Leader gave an oral presentation, and there were no public speakers.

Members’ discussion

Members questioned the fallback permission and were told that its continued validity and realistic implementation gave it significant material weight.

“Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- Officer’s response thereto:- The fallback position sets a precedent that it is acceptable in planning terms to develop this site against planning policy; can you explain to me why that is? Because there is planning permission in place on the site, which was only granted last year, it has a three-year time limit, this means in planning terms a two-bedroom dwelling has been granted here.”

“Do Members have to have regard to the material planning considerations? By law, Members must have regard to material planning considerations. If Members take into consideration something that is not a material planning consideration or fail to take into account something that is a planning consideration, then the decision would be open to be challenged. Material planning consideration is legally required.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Alexander moved approval, Councillor Smith seconded it, and the motion was carried unanimously.

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

Minutes

The decision

The Head of Planning and Building Control was authorised to grant permission subject to the stated conditions and necessary informative notes.

“1) the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 10.1 of the Officer report (A.2), 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…”

“2) the sending of any informative notes to the applicant as may be deemed necessary.”

Minutes