Agenda item

New dwelling with integral garage and access.

Public Participation

Sarah Stephens spoke in objection to the application

Nigel Lilley (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Elaine Hartford spoke on behalf of Alderbury Parish Council (PC)

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Warren Simmonds presented the application which was for a new dwelling with integral garage and access. The application was recommended for approval with conditions, as set out in the report.

 

Attention was drawn to the late correspondence which was circulated at the meeting which included three letters from third parties (C Webber, R Hall & L Wood) each objecting to the proposed development on grounds including obstruction of access to the embankment for maintenance, unacceptable development and instability to existing mature trees.

 

This application was a resubmission of a previously refused scheme earlier this year. The current scheme was amended by a reduction in the proposed reduced footprint of the dwelling.

 

The site was part of a former piece of railway land. Photos were shown from the top of the embankment looking out in all directions.

 

The eastern projection has been significantly reduced, the height of the house was the same, however the bank had been found to be higher than previously detailed.

 

A section from Kiln Close showing the embanked behind the proposed development was shown on a slide.

 

Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that the report still referred to an integral garage, this was confirmed as an error, there was no garage proposed, as off street parking was now proposed.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

 

The local resident noted that the existing dwellings were all of a larger scale with either 4 or 5 bedrooms. She felt that the architecture of the proposed development did not match what was already there.

 

It was noted that the close of dwellings was tucked away from the rest of the village and residents had a sense of privacy, and felt that would be altered if the proposed dwelling went ahead.

 

Other concerns focused on drainage issues and what may become of the remaining land at a later date.

 

The Agent drew attention to the Planning statement that had been submitted with the application, as it had addressed some of the comments made by the Committee on the last occasion.

The red line area was designed so that it did not extend north or west, so there was no residential use on top of the bank, but it did extend south for parking.

 

The property would be 70m back from the highway and would be the second house from the entrance, so would not act as a gatehouse.

 

The retaining wall would not appear as a dominant feature.

 

Elaine Hartford, Chairman of Alderbury PC spoke in objection to the revised application., with reasons which were largely the same as they had been for the previous application.

 

The current scheme amendments did not alter the fact that the parish council felt it was totally out of keeping with neighbouring properties and the plot was too narrow from east to west, and would overlook the neighbouring properties.

 

There were also concerns relating to drainage, heavy plant vehicles using the private road which was deemed not suitable and the change of use of the railway bank which was part of the history of the area and was considered an attractive outlook.

 

It was noted that many trees had been cleared some time ago, before the ecological survey had been carried out and this it was suggested would weaken the bank.

 

The Division Member Cllr Richard Britton then spoke in objection to the application, noting that he welcomed the changes that had been made, and that he felt it had been a genuine attempt to meet the issues of the committee. However, he added that in his opinion they did not address all of the issues.

 

Kiln Close was characterised by decent sized houses in good sized plots and snakes around to the left. All existing houses sat in their own plots. The idea to dig in to the embankment was out keeping with the rest of the development.

 

The remaining wall along the back of the property would be an alien feature in this plot. The development would have an adverse impact on the streetscene itself.

 

The front elevation had been set back from the edge of the road, however with the removal of the embankment it would be a prominent feature in the Close and would be seen from the properties on the Southampton Road.

 

There would be an adverse ecological impact, it was a cramped development, as it was long and thin on a long thin plot.

 

Cllr Britton then moved the motion of refusal against Officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Devine.

 

A debate followed where the key points raised included that the entrance to the close was set out with houses on the right and the vegetation on the left. This proposal would change that layout.

 

There was always some associated disruption during development, with plant movement and deliveries, but that would be short lived.

 

There was a shortage of new 3 bed houses.

 

The applicant had made efforts to address the previous reasons for concern.

 

It may be appropriate here to have the permitted development rights removed so that any future paraphernalia would have to come through a planning application process.

 

The Ecological report had not put any major restrictions in place.

 

A condition could be included so that the height of the bank be maintained.

 

There were no objections from the statutory consultees now that some of the development had been reduced. There were no planning reasons to prevent the development going ahead.

 

The Committee then voted on the motion of refusal. The motion was not carried.

 

Cllr Hewitt then moved the motion for approval with permitted development rights removed and conditions regarding the retained height of the embankment and a construction management plan.

 

This was seconded by Councillor Dalton.

 

The Committee then voted on the motion of approval with the additional conditions as stated above.

 

Resolved:

That application 19/02051/FUL be Approved with the following conditions.

 

1.The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 

2.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Drawing number Cw/p/14A dated Feb'19, as deposited with the local planning authority on 12.04.19, and

Drawing number Cw/pa/10A dated Feb'19, as deposited with the local planning authority on 12.04.19.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

 

3.No construction or demolition work shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays or outside the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays.

Reason: In the interests of amenity

 

4.No burning of waste or other materials shall take place on the development site during the demolition/construction phase of the development.

Reason: In the interests of amenity

 

5.No development shall commence on site until a scheme for the discharge of foul water from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be first occupied until foul water drainage has been constructed in accordance with the approved scheme.

REASON: To ensure that the development can be adequately drained

 

6.No development shall commence on site until a scheme for the discharge of surface water from the site (including surface water from the access / driveway), incorporating sustainable drainage details together with permeability test results to BRE365 at the location of any proposed soakaways, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be first occupied until surface water drainage has been constructed in accordance with the approved scheme.

REASON: To ensure that the development can be adequately drained

 

7.No part of the development hereby approved shall be first occupied until the parking area shown on the approved plans has been consolidated, surfaced and laid out in accordance with the approved details. This area shall be maintained and remain available for this use at all times thereafter.

REASON: To ensure that adequate provision is made for parking within the site in the interests of highway safety.

 

8.The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the recommendations made in the submitted Ecological Constraints Survey Report (Daniel Ahern, Dec 2018). Any permitted external lighting should be minimised as per the recommendations in the submitted Ecological Constraints Survey Report.

Reason: To ensure adequate mitigation in respect of protected species and to retain existing dark wildlife corridors.

 

9.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England)Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending those Orders with or without modification), no development within Part 1, Classes A-E shall take place on the dwellinghouse hereby permitted or within the curtilage.

REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to enable the Local Planning Authority to consider individually whether planning permission should be granted for additions, extensions or enlargements.

 

10.No development shall commence above ground level until a Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CMP shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities

c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (to include access to, and movements within the site for construction vehicles and construction related traffic).

h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

The approved CMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: In the interests of amenity and Highway safety.

 

11.Other than as expressly described by the approved drawings (Condition 2), the existing level(s) and form of the embankment shall not be altered.

Reason: In the interests of amenity