Up to 9 homes at Land To The West Of Clatterbury Lane, Clavering

What was proposed

An outline application sought permission for up to nine homes, with access decided now and all other matters reserved.

“PROPOSAL: Outline planning application with all matters reserved except access for the construction of up to 9 no. residential dwellings.”

Officer report

The site

The site was part of an open agricultural field beside Clatterbury Lane, with hedgerows, trees, nearby permissions and public footpaths.

“The application site comprises part of an open agricultural field on the northern part of Clavering (Hill Green) located at the western side of Clatterbury Lane. On the ground, the site appears somewhat detached from the existing built area of Hill Green. However, there are extant permissions for housing to its immediate south and on the opposite side of Clatterbury Lane. The front (east) and northern site boundaries are defined by hedgerows and some limited trees.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers considered the location suitable, with acceptable highways, flood risk, amenity, ecology and other issues, and recommended approval subject to conditions.

“The application was assessed against the recently adopted Local Plan (LP) and was found to be on the edge of a moderately accessible Larger Village that offers a suitable location for non-strategic housing in accordance with the spatial strategy of the plan. The development would create limited combined harm to the character and appearance of the area.”

“The Highway Authority confirmed that the development is acceptable in terms of highway safety for all highway users and not detrimental to the capacity of the highway network. Flood risk, residential amenity, ecology and other planning issues are acceptable and policy compliant.”

Officer report

Objections raised

Ward members, residents and a community group objected over sustainability, access, landscape, ecology, countryside, infrastructure and the neighbourhood plan.

“Limited employment and social opportunities. • Loss of arable land. • Loss of hedge/habitat. • Loss of views/rural aspect. • Narrow and unlit footpath / Narrow road. • Neighbourhood Plan in progress / local democracy compromised. • Neighbourhood Plan must bring dwellings forward. • Neighbourhood Plan pre-empted. • No community engagement. • No housing need in Clavering. • No need for symmetrical village. • No need to ‘round off’ built form. • No pavement or streetlighting.”

“Exposed high ground. • Farm machinery using the lane and site. • Fear of precedent. • Harm to ancient Oak (TPO). • Harm to character and appearance of the area. • Harm to open countryside. • Highway safety concerns. • Inability to sell properties locally. • Inaccurate submissions and drawings. • Increased density. • Lack of individual sustainability outweighs housing land supply. • Lack of services and facilities. • Landscape harm.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish council representative spoke against the application, while the agent and applicant spoke in support.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned whether the site was within the built area and raised concerns about sustainability, benefits, planning strategy, the neighbourhood plan and agricultural land.

“Said that they considered that the site was within the existing built area of Clavering, rather than outside. It would have new buildings on two sides through two extant permissions (one under construction and another one alive until November 2027). • Said that Members could make a judgement on whether or not the proposal was outside the built area. • Said that Place Services had expressed no ecology objections.”

“Members discussed: • Concerns that the site opposite was yet to be built and whether or not the location was inside or outside the built area. • That the location could be considered to be unsustainable and provided no real benefits. • The fact that the proposed location was not in the Local Plan and also went against the wishes of the Parish Council and how it may pre-empt the Neighbourhood Plan in progress.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to refuse was proposed and seconded, and the committee authorised refusal.

“Councillor Silcock proposed refusal of the application as it was contrary to the spatial strategy of the Local Plan and was in conflict with Core Policy 3 of the Local Plan. This was seconded by Councillor Haynes.”

“RESOLVED that the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to refuse the application in line with the proposal.”

Minutes