Three detached homes at The Coal Shed Site, Hadstock

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing a car repair workshop and associated structures to build three detached homes: two two-bedroom homes and one three-bedroom home.

“The applicant seeks planning permission for the proposed demolition of the existing commercial car repair workshop and its associated structures and hardstanding, and to redevelop the site with 3 no. detached dwellings. The housing mix provides for 2no. 2-bed dwellings and 1no, 3-bed dwelling.”

“The proposal seeks to demolish the buildings and structures associated to the car repair business (Class B2) and erect 3 no. residential dwellings (Class C3) and associated works.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The former coal facility is now a car repair workshop on a brownfield site beside fields, paddocks, rural buildings, vegetation and public rights of way.

“The application site refers to ‘The Coal Shed Site’, located to the west of Linton Road (B1052) in the village of Hadstock. The is a former coal distribution and storage facility and is now occupied by a car bodywork repairs workshop. The site area spans 0.16ha and is situated to the northwest of Hadstock’s village core. An existing vehicular access point to the site exists off Linton Road.”

“The site is bounded by established tree and vegetation planting and there is an existing gated access point to the southeast of the site onto access track. To the north and west the site is bordered by arable fields, to the east by paddock land and to the south by what appears to be a cluster of rural buildings possibly making up a farmstead or stables.”

Officer report

Earlier advice and site history

An earlier application changed agricultural land to a coal distribution and storage facility, while pre-application advice supported three homes on the brownfield site.

“Reference Proposal Decision UTT/0115/92 Change of use from agricultural to re-siting of approved coal distribution and storage APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS”

“Officer advice was on the proposed scheme was given, without prejudice, on 16th June 2023 (UTT/22/2941/PA) and was generally supportive of the proposals. The principle of development of three dwellings on this brownfield site was considered acceptable. It was confirmed that the need to advertise the existing commercial use for 6 months is not required as it is not designated as an employment site.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the homes low-profile, sympathetic to the surroundings and a visual improvement, with the proposal complying overall with planning policies.

“The proposed design of the dwellings is simple and responsive to existing built form in the site’s environs and the proposed scale and form of the dwellings would appear sympathetic and low-profile within the site. The appearance and layout of the proposed dwellings would appear as a visual improvement to the existing appearance of the site which currently detracts from the semi-rural nature of the site.”

“The proposals have been assessed against the relevant policies contained within the Development Plan and the NPPF. It has been concluded that overall they comply with these policies. The proposals are acceptable and thus are recommended for approval subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Responses from consultees

Highways and ecology supported the proposal subject to conditions, while environmental health raised no adverse comments subject to contamination and construction safeguards.

“From a highway and transportation perspective the Highway Authority stated that the impact of the proposal is acceptable to the Highway Authority subject to compliance conditions. The Highway Authorities consultee response can be found in Appendix 1 of this report.”

“No adverse comments on the proposals subject to pre-commencement conditions regarding contaminated land and construction impacts. UDC Environmental Health consultee response can be found in Appendix 3 of this report.”

Officer report

Views from the community

The parish council neither supported nor objected, three neighbours supported the scheme, and one neighbour objected over flooding, access, potholes and traffic information.

“Hadstock Parish Council neither objected nor supported this planning application and made the following comments: • Development outside settlement boundary – conflict with Policy S7 • The drainage strategy is insufficient to manage surface water flood risk/exacerbated by climate change • Poor fit with local character - suburbanising. • Sets precedent for future development outside village boundary • Limited local services and connectivity • Lack of highway visibility.”

“There is one letter of objection for this application. The following comments were received: - Surface water flooding not suitably addressed - Insufficient access/lack of visibility - Increase of potholes - No separation of pedestrian pathways from vehicle access - Inaccuracies in the planning application regarding traffic movements/sustainability credentials…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

A councillor called in the application, a parish council speaker raised concerns, and the agent spoke in support.

What members discussed

Members discussed flooding on Linton Road, the proposed hard surfacing, the design, drainage, highway arrangements and protection of the public right of way.

“In response to questions from Members, Officers made the following comments: • This was not an allocated employment site and therefore could be used for alternative development if a need was identified. • It was a criminal matter to block a public right of way, an informative to flag this could be added. There was no suggestion it would be blocked. • The site had a low risk of flooding and therefore the flood authority had not been consulted.”

“Members discussed: • Flood risk on Linton Road. • Proposed hard surfacing at the site. • Design within the application.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Pavitt proposed approval and Councillor Lemon seconded the proposal.

“Councillor Pavitt proposed approval of the application. This was seconded by Councillor Lemon.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee authorised permission subject to the report’s conditions, adding measures to keep the right of way open during construction and prevent surface water discharge onto the highway.

“RESOLVED that the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to grant permission for the development subject to the conditions set out in the report with the addition of an extra line within condition 9 to ensure that the right of way was not blocked during construction and a condition that there should be no discharge of surface water onto the highway.”

Minutes