Agenda item

Demolition of dwelling known as 1 Victoria Cottage and erection of dwelling, with associated access and garaging on land between Victoria House and Pine Tops

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of dwelling known as 1 Victoria Cottage and erection of dwelling, with associated access and garaging on land between Victoria House and Pine Tops in a field to the east of Victoria Cottages, Garden House, Cockfield (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Williamson, Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph of the site, views along Garden House Lane, proposed site plan, and proposed house type.

A submission objecting to the application had been received from local residents which the Clerk read as follows:

The residents who have lodged an objection to this proposal believe that their concerns have not been sufficiently answered in the reports and specifically the Committee Report, namely

·         Safety concerns regarding access

·         Future use of brownfield site

·         Additional garaging

·         Disproportionate size on new house in comparison to that earmarked for demolition

·         Contradiction of planning approval for barn earlier in the year

·         Inadequate heritage report on house to be demolished

Consequently we are seeking legal advice.

The Committee Report was not placed on the portal for public view until Thursday 13 April.  Letters from the Planning Department with the link to the report were not received until Saturday 15 April not giving the five ‘full’ working days to digest the report and consult the necessary professional advisors.  In effect we have had two working days by which to organise our case – this is wholly unfair.  The Planning Department have had two weeks to prepare their report, objectors have had two days.

We consequently request that members adhere to the necessary protocol and postpone a decision to allow objectors adequate time to put forward their case.  If members are of a mind that a decision must be made today we will be seeking a judicial review based on the above.

C Cuskin, Planning and Development Solicitor informed the Committee that the Committee agenda and reports had been available for public viewing on the County Council’s website on 10 April 2017 and this met the statutory requirement to provide 5 clear working days.  Eighteen notification letters had been sent by email and two by first class post on 12 April 2017.  This was not a statutory requirement but was good practice.

Councillor Nicholson sought clarification on the safety concerns regarding access to the proposed development.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that Garden House Lane was an unadopted and narrow.  The application would result in no increased traffic movements on Garden House Lane and would have no safety impact.  The property at 1 Victoria Cottage would be demolished and seeded over, with the retention of the garage for use by local residents.  Any future development of that site would require a planning application.

While the application was for a large house, the plot was large enough to accommodate it, and design and conservation had raised no objection.  The barn development referred to by objectors would take up some of the field of the development but over 1 hectare of land remained for the development.  There was no heritage impact by the demolition of 1 Victoria Cottage.

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that the proposed development would lead to fencing being removed along Garden House Lane which would increase its width.  Councillor Richardson informed the Committee that the highways issues which previously led to refusal of the application had been addressed and moved approval of the application.

Ms M Ferguson addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant.  The previous application in 2015 had been refused on highways issues and these had been much discussed at the time.  This was the sole reason for refusal of the previous application.  The applicant had addressed the highways issue and had overcome the highways reasons for refusal.

Garden House Lane was already used for agricultural reasons and this use would cease when the development took place.  The applicant had lived in Cockfield all of his life and wanted to improve the village.

Referring to the representation made by objectors, Ms Ferguson informed the Committee that the application had been submitted for over two months which had provided sufficient time for comments on it, whereas the applicant had only 4 hours to react to the letter of objection.

Councillor Patterson informed the Committee that she was satisfied with the advice given by the legal officer that statutory processes had been adhered to and considered that the application would result in a highway improvement.  Councillor Patterson seconded approval of the application.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions contained in the report.