One new dwelling at Rosemary Cottage, Felsted

What was proposed

The application proposed one detached dwelling and a new access onto Causeway End Road, behind Rosemary Cottage.

“PROPOSAL: Construction of 1no. new dwelling and new access onto Causeway End Road…”

“The applicant seeks planning permission to construct of 1no. new dwelling and new access onto Causeway End Road, to the rear of Rosemary Cottage within the existing rear garden.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was part of Rosemary Cottage’s rear garden, beside homes under construction, residential gardens and an arable field.

“The application site comprises part of the rear garden of Rosemary Cottage, located on the southern side of Causeway End Road, Felsted. The site largely comprises amenity grassland and is enclosed by tall ornamental hedgerow and other established vegetation. The main dwellinghouse of Rosemary Cottage lies to the north of the site, the residential garden of Kew Cottage abuts the site to the east and the site to the west is currently under construction for 4no.”

“The northern area of the site lies within the defined settlement limits of Causeway End, but the rear garden is located outside of these limits, within the open countryside as per Policy S7. There are no designated heritage assets in the vicinity of the site, and the entirety of the plot is located within Flood Zone 1.”

Officer report

Relevant planning history

Nearby approvals included four dwellings, while another one-dwelling proposal nearby was refused and later allowed on appeal.

“UTT/22/2743/FUL - Erection of 1 no. Dwelling complete with all related works including access. Refused 07.11.2023 (Land East Of Oaklea Causeway End Road, Felsted)”

“APP/C1570/W/24/3343058 - Erection of 1 no. Dwelling complete with all related works including access. Appeal Allowed 07.01.2025 (Land East Of Oaklea Causeway End Road, Felsted)”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, considering the design, location, land use, access and planning balance acceptable subject to conditions.

“The proposed development involves the erection of one detached 2-storey dwelling at the site which takes a traditional approach to design. By way of its scale, massing and bulk, it would not appear out of character with the pattern of development adjacent the site or the wider surroundings.”

“The proposals have been assessed against the relevant policies contained within the Development Plan and the NPPF. It has been concluded that they comply and in accordance with these policies and guidance. In conclusion, it has been found that the proposals are acceptable and thus are recommended for approval subject to conditions.”

Officer report

What people said

The highway and ecology consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while the parish council and eleven residents objected on several grounds.

“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.”

“Felsted Parish Council object to this planning application for the following reasons: • Backland development, outside the village development limits • Would be an incongruous introduction out of keeping with the vernacular of Causeway End Road.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three councillors spoke against the application during the committee’s consideration.

The committee debate

Members discussed countryside impact, vehicle movements, access, drainage, overdevelopment and whether refusal reasons existed.

“In response to questions from Members, officers: • Outlined the NPPF definition of Previously Developed Land and the High Court judgement as stated in paragraph 14.3.24 of the report. • Said that Essex CC Highways had raised no objections regarding access arrangements. • Said that the 4 dwellings were under construction adjacent the site.”

“Members discussed: • That the development would not intrude any further into the countryside. • That a 5-bedroom dwelling would inevitably involve lots of personnel movement. • Access issues. Officers said these had been satisfactorily addressed. • Foul water drainage concerns. Officers said these had been satisfactorily addressed. • Overdevelopment concerns. • If there were any reasons for possible refusal.”

Minutes

The votes

A proposal to approve was lost on the Chair’s casting vote, followed by a refusal proposal that was carried.

“Councillor Church said that whilst he was not overly happy with the development, he would propose approval. Councillor Pavitt said that he could not see a reason for refusal and seconded the proposal. This proposal was lost on the casting vote of the Chair.”

“Councillor Sutton expressed concern at the size of the development, cross- referenced to the Emerging Local Plan. She proposed refusal on the grounds of GEN2 – Overdevelopment in location. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Lemon.”

Minutes

The final decision

The Strategic Director of Planning was authorised to refuse permission on GEN2 grounds concerning overdevelopment in the location.

“RESOLVED that the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to refuse permission on the grounds of GEN2.”

Minutes