Demolition of stables and construction of new sustainable self-build dwelling with associated works and change of use of land to C3. (resubmission of PL/2022/09808 and PL/2022/03190).
Minutes:
Public Participation
Gen Collins, as Principal Planning Officer, presented the report which recommended that the Committee delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives and officers securing a completed Section 106 unilateral undertaking from the applicant to establish the proposals as a self-build development for the demolition of stables and construction of new sustainable self-build dwelling with associated works and change of use of land to C3.
It was noted that Members of the Committee had undertaken a site visit on Tuesday 5 November 2024, the day prior to the Committee meeting, with the Case Officer, Arboricultural Officer, and Highways Officers being present.
Key material considerations were identified including the principle of development; design and landscape; impact on trees; earthworks/land stability; heritage; residential amenity; highways; biodiversity; and drainage.
Attention was drawn to late representations that had been submitted following publication of the agenda, however it was confirmed by officers that the material considerations raised had already been taken into account within the report.
Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. Members queried aspects relating to highway safety including traffic generation, potential conflicts with traffic movements, and the nature of the access as a private, unadopted road. Further queries were made in respect to fire safety and access to a suitable water supply, the width of the private lane being suitable for an emergency vehicle, and the minimum distances required pursuant to overhead power lines and new housing. Members also sought clarity on the separation distances between neighbouring properties and the proposed new dwelling with regard to overlooking and potential loss of residential amenity.
In response, the Case Officer and attending Highways Officers explained that the baseline existing land use was a material consideration in terms of the site being a previously developed site that had existing traffic generation currently used by one party, and with the site having three stables, there was the potential to have an even greater associated traffic generating on-site use. Members also heard from the attending Highways Officers who represented the Local Highways Authority, that the proposed single dwelling would not likely result in an increase in traffic generation when compared against the existing/potential stabling use. Moreover, the Highways Officers argued that the residential use would not result in substantive highway harm using the private lane and entering the public highway.
Members were also informed that the applicant had committed to relocating the stables to other land owned by the applicant which would be accessed from an existing agricultural access point and not through this proposed site, thus mitigating the risk of exacerbating the use of the private lane. Members were also advised that sufficient separation distance existed between the proposed new dwelling and existing dwellings to safeguard neighbouring amenity. This would be further mitigated by the presence of existing mature boundary trees, and in addition, a suggested planning condition which would require the submission of a detailed Landscape Plan to secure additional tree planting. As such, officers had concluded that the development would not result in a material impact to the residential amenity to warrant a refusal.
Members were reassured that the Case Officer had consulted with Dorset & Wiltshire Fire Rescue Service and that no objection to the scheme had been raised. It was further noted that fire and rescue considerations fell under building control regulations rather than being within the remit of the Highway or Planning Authority. Furthermore, it was highlighted that the applicant would be notifying the electricity provider to discuss the proposal and that the subsequent Construction Management Plan and Construction Method Statement would outline the necessary details to make the site serviceable in terms of construction.
The named public speakers as detailed above then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee.
Councillor Bill Parks, as the Local Unitary Member, then spoke to the application where he thanked officers for their hard work throughout the planning history of the site.
A debate then followed where Members acknowledged the representations made by neighbouring residents and the Parish Council, and considered the suitability of the site to accommodate a dwelling with regard to access, traffic generation, and fire safety. Additional input was sought from the attending Legal and Highways Officers on the use of the lane as the only means of vehicular access to serve the proposal, and Members were advised to consider the material planning considerations as set out in the published report, from what they saw in person at the scheduled Member site visit, and from hearing the planning issues being debated.
At the conclusion of the debate, Councillor Jonathon Seed moved to approve the application in line with officer recommendations which was seconded by Councillor Stewart Palmen. Following a vote on the motion, it was:
Resolved:
The Committee delegated authority to the Head of Development Management to GRANT planning permission subject to officers securing a completed S.106 unilateral undertaking from the applicant to establish the proposal as a self-build development and be bound by the following planning conditions and informatives listed below:
Conditions
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.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
b) loading and unloading of plant and materials;
c) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;
d) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate;
e) wheel washing facilities;
f) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;
g) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; and
h) hours of construction, including deliveries;
i) Identification of ecological protection areas/buffer zones and tree root protection areas and details of physical means of protection, e.g. exclusion fencing.
j) Working method statements for protected/priority species, such as nesting birds and reptiles.
k) Mitigation strategies already agreed with the local planning authority prior to determination, such as for bats; this should comprise the pre-construction/construction related elements of strategies only.
l) Work schedules for activities with specific timing requirements in order to avoid/reduce potential harm to ecological receptors; including details of when a licensed ecologist and/or ecological clerk of works (ECoW) shall be present on site.
m) Key personnel, responsibilities and contact details (including Site Manager and ecologist/ECoW).
has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
The approved Statement and CEMP shall be complied with in full throughout the construction period. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved construction method statement.
REASON: To minimise detrimental effects to the neighbouring amenities, the amenities of the area in general, detriment to the natural environment through the risks of pollution and dangers to highway safety, during the construction phase. To ensure adequate protection and mitigation for ecological receptors prior to and during construction, and that works are undertaken in line with current best practice and industry standards and are supervised by a suitably licensed and competent professional ecological consultant where applicable.
Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: To ensure the proposal can be built safely with structural integrity
The development shall not be first occupied until the approved recycling facilities have been completed and made available for use in accordance with the approved details and they shall be subsequently maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter.
REASON: In the interests of public health and safety.
REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.
• location and current canopy spread of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land;
• full details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development;
• a detailed planting specification showing all plant species, supply and planting sizes and planting densities;
• finished levels and contours;
• means of enclosure;
• car park layouts;
• other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas;
• all hard and soft surfacing materials;
• minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse and other storage units, signs, lighting);
• proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications, cables, pipelines indicating lines, manholes, supports);
REASON: To ensure a satisfactory landscaped setting for the development and the protection of existing important landscape features.
REASON: To ensure a satisfactory landscaped setting for the development and the protection of existing important landscape features.
REASON: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area [and neighbouring amenities].
REASON: In the interests of highway safety.
REASON: To ensure that the development can be adequately drained.
In order that trees to be retained on-site are not damaged during the construction works and to ensure that as far as possible the work is carried no demolition, site clearance or development should commence on site until a pre-commencement site meeting has been held, attended by the developer’s arboricultural consultant, the designated site foreman and a representative from the Local Planning Authority, to discuss details of the proposed work and working procedures.
Subsequently, and until the completion of all site works, site visits should be carried out on a monthly basis by the developer’s arboricultural consultant. A report detailing the results of site supervision and any necessary remedial works undertaken or required should then be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Any approved remedial works shall subsequently be carried out under strict supervision by the arboricultural consultant following that approval.
REASON: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that the trees to be retained on and adjacent to the site will not be damaged during the construction works and to ensure that as far as possible the work is carried out in accordance with current best practice and section 197 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.
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.
REASON: To avoid illumination of habitat used by bats and additional sky glow in a sensitive development landscape edge location.
REASON: To enable the Local Planning Authority to ensure the protection of trees on the site and along the site boundary (on land within the applicant’s control) in the interests of visual amenity.
Planning Informatives
The proposed development will require separate approval and a separate license from the EA for any sewerage treatment plant to be installed on site.
The applicant should note that under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and the Habitats Regulations (2010) it is an offence to disturb or harm any protected species including for example, bats, breeding birds and reptiles. The protection offered to some species such as bats, extends beyond the individual animals to the places they use for shelter or resting.
Please note that this consent does not override the statutory protection afforded to any such species.
In the event that your proposals could potentially affect a protected species you should seek the advice of a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist and consider the need for a licence from Natural England prior to commencing works. Please see Natural England’s website for further information on protected species.
The habitat within the proposed development site and the surrounding area is suitable for roosting, foraging and commuting bats. An increase in artificial lux levels can deter bats which could result in roost abandonment and/or the severance of key foraging areas. This will likely result in a significant negative impact upon the health of bat populations across the region. Artificial light at night can have a substantial adverse effect on biodiversity. Any new lighting should be for the purposes for safe access and security and be in accordance with the appropriate Environmental Zone standards set out by the Institute of Lighting Engineers in their publication GN01:2021, ‘Guidance for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light’ (ILP, 2021), and Guidance note GN08-18 “Bats and artificial lighting in the UK”, issued by the Bat Conservation Trust and Institution of Lighting Professionals.
The applicant is requested to note that this permission does not affect any private property rights and therefore does not authorise the carrying out of any work on land outside their control. If such works are required, it will be necessary for the applicant to obtain the landowners consent before such works commence.
If you intend carrying out works in the vicinity of the site boundary, you are also advised that it may be expedient to seek your own advice with regard to the requirements of the Party Wall Act 1996.
Councillors Andrew Davis, Bill Parks, and Pip Ridout requested that their votes in abstention be recorded.
Councillor Ernie Clark requested that his vote against the motion be recorded.
Supporting documents: