Agenda item

Approval of Reserved Matters for erection of 3 dwellings, parking and associated landscaping approved under Outline Permission 19/10610/OUT (Scale, layout, external appearance, landscaping and access).

Councillor George Jeans left the meeting before the start of this item and did not take part in the discussion or vote.

Public Participation

Mr Matt Hume spoke in objection to the application

Rupert Byerley spoke in objection to theapplication

Ms Deborah Slade (Agent) spoke in support of the application

The Senior Planning Officer, Lynda King noted the site visit held earlier in the day and introduced a report which recommended that the application for Approval of Reserved Matters for erection of 3 dwellings, parking and associated landscaping approved under Outline Permission 19/10610/OUT (Scale, layout, external appearance, landscaping and access). be approved.

Key details as stated in the report included:

• Scale of development
• Visual impact upon the surrounding area
• Relationship to adjoining properties
• Design – bulk, height, general appearance
• Environmental/highway impact

A plan of the 2019 Outline application proposal for 3 dwellings was shown. It was noted that in 2019, the outline application, was supported by the parish council and the site was at that time included in the settlement boundary.

The 2019 outline permission did not restrict the houses from becoming 3 bedrooms at reserved matters stage or that there could be rooms in the roofspace.

A slide indicating the gable end of a bungalow next to the site which was at a lower level than the planned development was explained, as were some additional slides which showed the sight lines from approximately 43m along the road, which provided context to visibility information.

The Officer noted that following recent clearance works, it had become noticeable that the floor level had been built up over time with waste materials. It was suggested that an additional condition be added to those listed in the report. The condition which was read out by the Officer, suggesting that prior to the commencement of development, the slab levels of the dwellings be agreed by the Local Planning Authority, and that an informative note be added to the permission indication that it would be expected that the slab levels would be at a lower level than the existing ground levels, to take account of the need to remove made up ground on the site, and to improve the relationship with the neighbouring bungalow.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the proximity between the surrounding hedge and the neighbouring property, which was stated to be approximately 1m.

The Committee asked for clarification on the exact topographical detail regarding the suggested additional condition to require the ground level to be reduced. Whilst the officer was able to indicate on the presentation slide an approximate level, the Committee expressed concerns over not having a plan to detail this, stating that having evidence of where the proposed rooflines would be once the ground level had been reduced, was also important in ascertaining the level of overbearing this development would have on the bungalow next door.

The Committee also questioned whether the proposed dwellings had moved over slightly since the outline application in 2019, as they appeared to be closer to the hedge and as such closer to the neighbouring dwelling.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the committee raising concerns about the access into the site, relationship to the neighbouring property, drainage, land levels, and the size, design and scale of the dwellings proposed.

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Rich Rogers then spoke in objection to the application, noting that in 2019 the outline application was for 3 two-bedroom dwellings over two floors, which had now become 3 three-bedroom dwellings over three floors, with increased living space and vehicle movements, which he considered to be a fundamentally different scheme.

Councillor Rogers moved the motion of refusal, against officer recommendation and stated that the scheme as presented was incongruent to CP45, CP48, CP57, and CP62.

Cllr Rogers went on to state that the development was unsuitable for the rural area, excessive overbearing and unsuitable and failed to reflect local need. He found the design to be visually intrusive and the key omission was the topographical relationship between site and neighbouring properties.

It was stated that the proposed houses would cause overlooking and overshadowing and significant loss of privacy and were unacceptable in terms of neighbouring amenity due to the siting, scale and overbearing nature with increased traffic volumes. Cllr Rogers noted that it was deeply concerning that an outline application for 2-bedroom properties could become 3 bedroom at reserved matters stage.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Nabil Najjar.

A debate followed where the Committee discussed the concerns around the unknown slab level and the issues regarding drainage which had been raised by those who made representations. The Committee were not able to clarify with a plan, to what degree the development would overlook the neighbouring dwellings, in addition to what appeared to be a slight movement towards the boundary of the development in comparison to the outline application.

The Committee discussed the option of deferral to allow time for revised plans to be submitted in accordance with the newly proposed ground level.

The Officer advised that drainage issue were dealt with through reserved matters and that a foul and drainage water scheme was to be added. 

The division member Cllr Rogers, then retracted his motion of refusal and proposed Deferral to allow time to address the concerns raised.

The original seconder Cllr Najjar agreed with the retracted and newly proposed motions and seconded the motion of deferral.

At the close of debate, the Committee voted on the motion of Deferral, against Officer recommendation, for the reasons as stated.

It was;

Resolved

That planning permission for PL/2022/07560 be deferred to allow for the submission of revised plans to address the following:

• Address slab level / overlooking
• Movement towards boundary
• Drainage