Agenda item

Construction of one Detached House with Associated Siteworks with Access from The Paddock.

Public Participation

Mrs Anne Boddon, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Paul Atfield, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Tom Grech, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Simon Trueick, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Ms Claudia House, Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Ian Myhill of Market Lavington Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Morgan Jones, Senior Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that planning permission be granted with conditions for the construction of one detached house with associated siteworks, with access from The Paddock.

Key issues were stated to include the principle of development; layout, design and impact on residential amenity; impact on highway & pedestrian safety; impact on ecology and surface water and drainage.

The proposal was for a detached dwelling with a new access to the site to be created from The Paddock. Plans of the proposal were shown to the meeting. It was noted that there was extant planning permission to construct a dwelling nearby the site. The site itself had a long planning history. The current application was for just one dwelling. Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) provided support in principle for schemes within the built-up area of a village, which this site was.

Plans and aerial photos were shown to the meeting. The site sat between number 12 The Paddock and number 12 Ridgeway Close. The materials proposed in the plans tied in with existing properties. A photo was shown of where the new access to the site from The Paddock would be. Loss of parking spaces as a result of the scheme was a key local concern. The Highway Authority stated that the proposal met relevant standards and that it would not have significant impact on the highway network. 

The site had previously been overgrown although it had recently been cleared by the applicant. Impact on neighbour amenity was an important consideration for this application. There would be loss of light to the dwelling next door, but this was not considered an unacceptable impact.

The principle of development was supported at the site and when all factors had been considered the officers recommendation was to approve with conditions.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the loss of light at number 12 The Paddock. The officer stated that this was a material consideration. There was a clear impact on the ground floor windows, however those rooms did have other windows and there was already a boundary fence that would reduce light levels. Although there was an impact, from a planning perspective it was not considered enough to refuse planning permission. 

In response to a question regarding how close the proposed dwelling was from the neighbouring property at number 12 The Paddock, it was stated that it would be about a metre from the boundary fence.

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

The unitary division member, Cllr Richard Gamble, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Gamble stated that although he had been there it was quite difficult to view the site. There had been an earlier application for three houses, which he had called in as he felt it was so unsuitable for the site. That application had been withdrawn and then another application put in for a single dwelling. This was then revised to the current application. Although it was felt this proposal was better than previous ones he felt that there were still issues with it.  In the Wiltshire Core Strategy, Core Policy 57 was in place to ensure high quality design and place making. However, he did not feel that the building was integrated into its setting. Visual amenity on The Paddock due to the new access road was also affected. The Highways Officer recommended approval. However, it was felt that there may be problems with access.

In response to public statements the officer stated that most of the points raised had been covered in the report. The extant planning permission for a two-storey extension at number 12 Ridgeway Close was mentioned in the report so had been considered. Number 14 Ridgeway Close was not part of the application site. The Highway Authority had looked at the application and provided support for the proposal.

Cllr Mark Connolly proposed a motion to follow the officer recommendation and grant planning permission with conditions. There was no seconder for this proposal.

Therefore, Cllr Richard Gamble proposed a motion to refuse the application, this was seconded by Cllr Paul Oatway QPM.

Cllr Oatway QPM, stated that vehicles may have difficulty accessing the site and in particular expressed concern about access for emergency vehicles. For clarification the officer explained that the access was 4m wide. Usually an estate road built to an adoptable standard was 5.5m wide (this allows two cars to pass). Therefore, it was quite wide for a single lane track.

Cllr Ian Blair-Pilling had visited the site and asked neighbours about parking. He did not think that taking away parking by putting in a new access road was reasonable. It would have an impact on parking in the street and a visual impact. Cllr Blair-Pilling was also concerned about the loss of light to number 12 The Paddock. The resident of number 12 The Paddock had stated during public speaking that one of the ground floor rooms whose light would be affected by the proposal did not have another window so would be severely affected by loss of light. This felt wrong.  It seemed the proposal was contrary to policies related to place shaping and neighbour amenity.

Others stated that whilst they felt this site could have a dwelling built on it, it was not felt that this proposal was right. There were issues of scale and amenity impact on the neighbours. Therefore, they did not support the application.

Cllr Connolly stated that the principle of development was met as the site was within the confines of the village. On planning balance this was probably the best proposal for the site. It was not clear how it could be improved to have less impact on the neighbours. The application could not be turned down for highways reasons as the Highways Officer had supported the application.

Prior to voting on the proposed motion, the reasons for refusal needed to be specified. After debate and discussion these were determined to be: the building layout, form and effect on the streetscape; the impact on neighbour amenity due to overdevelopment, overshadowing, overbearing and loss of light.

At the conclusion of the debate it was;

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission, against officer recommendation for the following reasons.

The proposed development, due to the position and layout of the proposed plot and associated new access onto The Paddock, along with the siting, scale and design of the proposed dwelling, would not respond positively to the character of the established built environment and would fail to integrate effectively into its setting. As a result, the development would have a harmful impact on the streetscape and the character and appearance of the area. As such, the application conflicts with Core Policy 57 ‘Ensuring High Quality Design and Place Shaping’ of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, in particular criterion iii.

The proposed development, due to the siting of the dwelling within close proximity to neighbouring dwellings and its overall mass and form, would have an unacceptable harmful impact on the amenities of the residents of the neighbouring dwellings as a result of overshadowing, a loss of light and an overbearing impact. The proposed development is therefore not considered to be compatible with the adjoining residential dwellings due to the harmful impact on the amenities of their occupants, in particular no.12 The Paddock. As such, the application conflicts with Core Policy 57 ‘Ensuring High Quality Design and Place Shaping’ of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, in particular criterion vii.