Agenda item

New dwelling with integral garage for access

Public Participation

Elaine Hartford spoke on behalf of Alderbury Parish Council

The Senior Planning Officer, Warren Simmonds presented the application which was for a new dwelling with integral garage for access.

The Officer drew attention to late correspondence which had been circulated at the meeting. This detailed a representation of objection from S Stephens.

There were no consultee or Highways objections apart from drainage, which could be overcome with conditions. The Parish Council had objected.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

The Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that the distance from Kiln Close Road to the base of the embankment was approximately 7 to 8m. The blue line denoted the land in ownership of the applicant, and the red line was the development site, and curtilage if approved.

The proposals include cutting into the embankment to approximately the half way point. The exposed section would be supported by a retaining wall. The excavation only related to what was necessary for the proposed building, the remaining embankment either side of the property would remain.

If there was a covenant in place over building on the land, that would be a private civil matter, not a material planning consideration either way.

The road was privately owned and the use of it was also be a private or civil matter.

Height of embankment, versus the building. I climbed on that yesterday, so any building above the embankment will be above the other houses – The ground level of the proposed hose is similar to the other houses around it. Similar height above ground level to other similar houses.

An ecological report was carried out in October 2018, which recorded a single site, and it was not believed there would be any impact. No signs of badgers. Dormice survey recommended.

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

Alderbury Parish Council had objected to the application on the basis that the proposals were out-keeping and did not sit comfortably in the plot. The property would overlook those opposite. The site was shown at risk on Environment Agency mapping. Kiln Close was private, maintained by residents and not suitable for heavy plant movement.

A covenant had been made in 2003 by the previous owner, that the land at the back of the 6 plots was only to be sold if all 6 agreed. The embankment was a haven for wildlife including the protected dormouse.

The Division Member Cllr Britton then spoke in objection of the application, noting that Kiln close was a small attractive development with modest sized properties. It was a pity that the covenant could not be taken into account.  This was a narrow and thin plot and the proposals included an uncomfortable erosion of the bank. Quite out-keeping with the size of the other properties of area and abuts straight on to the road.

The brick retaining wall to the rear of the property must be a considerable wall in order to retain the embankment this would be in itself an alien feature. The sloping nature would continue either side of the property. This was shoe horning a large dwelling in to the plot.

Cllr Britton then moved the motion of refusal against Officer recommendation, on the grounds of overdevelopment, alien features of retaining wall, and visual impact. This was seconded by Cllr Devine.

A debate followed where they key issues raised included that the proposal would involve vast lorry movements to move the earth from the bank. It could be considered as overdevelopment, and would destroys the current streetscene.

There were other examples of similar developments in other areas, where it sat quite well. Kiln Close was a cul-de-sac, and the proposal was for one property only.

The end gable would butt right onto the road, right at the entrance to Kiln Close, which would be an overbearing element on the entrance on that close.

The Committee then voted on the motion of refusal.

Resolved

That application 18/10244/FUL be Refused for the following reason: