Agenda item

Curtilage alterations involving change of use of land from agriculture to residential and from residential to agriculture, terracing, landscaping and associated works (part retrospective).

It was noted by Cllr Jeans that due to a compulsory re-boot of his computer at this point, he would not take part in this agenda item, as would be off line for parts of it.

 

Public Participation

David Warder’s statement in objection to the application was read by the Clerk due to technical difficulties during the meeting.

Edward Donne spoke in objection to the application

Gerry O’Rourke statement in objection to the application was read by the Clerk due to technical difficulties during the meeting.

Dan Roycroft spoke in support of the application

Cllr Simon Welch spoke as representative of Ebbesbourne Wake PC

 

The Planning Officer, Christos Chrysanthou presented the application for curtilage alterations involving change of use of land from agriculture to residential and from residential to agriculture, terracing, landscaping and associated works (part retrospective).

 

The application was recommended for approval as set out in the report.

 

The main issues which had been considered to be material in the determination of this application were listed as, scale, design, bulk and general appearance in its visual impact on the surrounding area.

 

Site photographs taken from several surrounding points and directions were show and explained.

 

The site was in the rural surroundings of Ebbesbourne Wake, in an AONB, approximately 500m from the village.

 

The approved curtilage in 2000 was shown and explained, followed by the proposed curtilage. A woodland copse was to be provided either side.

 

 

The proposals aim to reduce the lawned area adjacent to the was driveway, to omit the stables and barn area to the south and to remove the top section of the terraces (from 3 to 2).

 

The plan also showed two existing gates on the byway alongside the site, however as these were outside of the application site, RoW had been consulted and had recommended a condition to make sure the byway was kept clear of obstruction. RoW could enforce this condition if considered expedient.  

 

Slide 31 showed the proposed adjusted terracing and sloped grass bank meadows

 

A landscaping scheme was proposed. With copses on east and west, helping to screen the site.

 

The Landscaping Officer had considered the proposals and was satisfied with the proposed species, noting a low impact on the AONB.

 

The Ecology Officer commented on the water meadow aspect. It was confirmed that the Water Meadow was not a designated ecology site. A condition was suggested to use native trees when planting.

 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer, where it was clarified that the land surrounding the application site was also in the ownership of the applicant.

 

On the plan of 2000, the hatching on the west, indicated an area which was proposed to be included within the curtilage but had subsequently been removed from inclusion.

 

The house had some history and was not a new build. Some aspects had been

re-built with enlargements over the years.

 

Any condition on the gates on the byway could be enforceable by RoW.

 

Members of the public, as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application. The clerk read two statements of objection due to technical difficulties experienced by one speaker, these statements had been provided prior to the meeting. Some of the main points included comments around the reasons for refusal in 2020 and suggestions that those reasons had not been addressed.

 

Other points were the creation of a permanent change to the AONB landscape and that the remaining 2 tiers would have a visual impact on the surrounding area and the preservation of historic views of the Ebble Valley. 

 

Comments around other similar case histories for retrospective permission were raised, along with questions over whether a president would be set, should the application be approved.

 

The Parish Council representative spoke in objection, noting that out of 30 letters submitted in relation to the application, only 2 had been in support, which had come from people outside of the village. The retrospective aspect was noted along with the comments and input received on the previously withdrawn and refused applications for the site.

 

Concern around whether what was presented in the plans would be what was carried out, based on the grounds that previously this had not been the case given the unauthorised construction of the retaining walls and terraces.

 

Local Member Cllr Jose Green then spoke to the application, noting that she had come to the meeting with an open mind and that not being able to have site visits currently due to covid restrictions had been a hindrance in addition to the Planning Portal currently being unobtainable.

 

Cllr Green noted that she had herself lived in the Chalke Valley or in an AONB for many years and was familiar with the application site.

The house was originally a humble farmhouse with a few outbuildings, and what was there now was pleasant to look at. The Ebble Valley had also recently been awarded funding towards the Clear Water project.

 

Cllr Green noted that she had called the application in due to the huge outcry it had caused locally, over the last year or more. With 70 objections and only 2 in support, which she noted was unheard of in her 26 years in planning to have this volume of objection in a small village.

 

It was suggested that the Applicant had perhaps acted on bad information as they appeared to think that they had already been given the change of use permissions.

 

Cllr Green then moved that the application be refused on the grounds of being contrary to CP51 and CP57, and NPPF para 172 & 127 in line with the reasons of previous refusal in the report as little had changed.

 

This was seconded by Cllr Ian McLennan.

 

The Committee was invited to discuss the application, the main points included

the amount of objections and references to the past history, the scope of the application as a whole and that the committee was asked to make a judgement on all aspects as a whole rather than individually.

 

The lack of response from the AONB and whether that indicated that it did not feel strongly about the proposals.

 

The tree planting aspects of the proposals and the possible benefit to flood alleviation and that the terraces would create a more useable space for the applicant.

 

The Committee confirmed they had heard and seen all relevant visual materials, and voted on the motion of refusal, against Officer recommendation with the reasons as stated above.

 

The motion was not carried.

 

The Chairman, Cllr Westmoreland then moved the motion of approval in line with Officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

 

Cllr Green raised a query on lighting and conditions. It was confirmed that any lighting scheme would need to be approved.

 

The Committee confirmed they had heard and seen all relevant visual materials, and voted on the motion of approval, in line with Officer recommendation.

 

It was:

 

Resolved: that application 20/10665/FUL be approved in line with Officer Recommendation subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

Drg. no. 942-MP-01/A LANDSCAPE MASTERPLAN Date rec 30/11/2020

Drg. no. 942-MP-02/A WIDER LANDSCAPE MASTERPLAN Date rec

30/11/2020

Drg. no. 942-MP-03/A CURTILAGE PLAN Date rec 30/11/2020

Drg. no. 942-MP-04/A PROPOSED SITE LOCATION PLAN Date rec

30/11/2020

Drg. no. 942-MP-05/A ELEVATION - TERRACES (WITHOUT PLANTING)

Date rec 30/11/2020

Drg. no. 942-MP-06/A ELEVATION - TERRACES (INDICATIVE PLANTING

SHOWN) Date rec 30/11/2020

Drg. no. 942-SW-01/A DETAILED STRUCTURAL PLANTING PLAN - 1 of 2

Date rec 30/11/2020

Drg. no. 942-SW-02 B DETAILED STRUCTURAL PLANTING PLAN - 2 of 2

(Revised) Date rec 07/01/2021

Doc. Ref: 942-LS Revision B 2020-12-01 Landscape Statement, Indigo

Landscape Architects (Revised) Date rec 07/01/2021

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report, David Watts Ecology, 19 February 2021 Date rec 19/02/2021

 

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

 

2. Within 3 calendar months of the date of this decision the top section of the terracing shall be removed and all soft landscaping comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following completion of the development; All shrubs, trees and hedge planting shall be maintained free from weeds and shall be protected from damage by vermin and stock. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or; diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. All hard landscaping shall also be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in

accordance with a programme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

 

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory landscaped setting for the development and the protection of existing important landscape features.

 

3. Prior to the commencement of planting of the woodland belt all trees/ shrubs must be checked be by an ecologist experienced in tree identification to ensure only native species of local provenance have been sourced to be planted.

 

REASON: In the interests of biodiversity.

 

4. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no gates, fences or stiles should be erected across the public right of way (Restricted Byway EWAK9).

 

Reason: Structures across a restricted byway are an obstruction.

 

5. No external lighting shall be installed on site until plans showing the type of light appliance, the height and position of fitting, illumination levels and light spillage spillage in accordance with the appropriate Environmental Zone standards set out by the Institute of Lighting Engineers in their publication “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light” (ILE, 2005)”, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

The approved lighting shall be installed and shall be maintained in

accordance with the approved details and no additional external lighting shall be installed.

 

REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to minimise

unnecessary light spillage above and outside the development site.