Agenda item

Outline application for the demolition of an existing bungalow and associated outbuildings and the construction of 9 dwellings with all matters excluding access reserved for future consideration.

The Senior Planning Officer, PH, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Senior Planning Officer, PH advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was an outline application for the demolition of an existing bungalow and associated outbuildings and the construction of 9 dwellings with all matters excluding access reserved for future consideration.  It was noted the outline application was recommended for approval, subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and conditions set out within the report.

The Senior Planning Officer, PH referred Members to the existing layout and buildings across the site and noted the woodland bounding the site and a public right of way (PROW) along the north side of the site.  Members noted an indicative layout of 9 properties, reiterating that the application was outline, with all matters reserved excluding access.  The Senior Planning Officer, PH noted that there would be improvements to the access, in terms of widening and to footpaths.  He noted no objections from statutory or internal consultees and added that Condition 5 as set out in the report was missing a few final words “…radii is complete”.

Members noted there had been 6 letters of objection from nearby residents, with issues including: suitability of the access; loss of residential amenity, loss of privacy; that the precedent of development could impact further on the area; impact upon the PROW; land ownership; impact upon a nearby Listed Building; groundworks, drainage and ecology.

The Senior Planning Officer, PH noted there were no policies that prohibited the development and therefore it was down to a planning balance, as set out in the NPPF.  He added that Planners felt that the scheme could be integrated into the area, and the site was sustainable, within walking distance to shops and with bus stops nearby.  He noted in terms of impact on residential amenity, the scale and layout would be subject to a future application, as would issues such as landscaping and any impact on the Listed Building opposite the site.

It was noted that Highways had no objections and that the proposals in terms of access arrangements were acceptable, and there would be a S106 contribution of £15,000 towards upgrading Footpaths 91 and 92 to the north and west of the site, with the Council’s PROW Team having no objections to the proposal in relation to those footpaths.  Members were informed that Ecology, Drainage and Contaminated Land Officers were satisfied subject to conditions as set out in the report.

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer, PH and noted Local Member, Councillor J Turnbull was in attendance to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor J Turnbull noted that there had been concerns in terms of vehicles parking at the adjacent garage, restricting the view at the access to and from the site, on a very tight corner.  He added that there was concerns in terms of drainage, with the area being where natural springs from Brandon ran though and could potentially be dangerous in winter.  He added the retention of the PROW was important.

The Chairman thanked Councillor J Turnbull and asked Mr A Moss to speak on behalf of a local resident in objection to the application.

Mr A Moss noted he was a Planning Consultant and his client lived to the west of the site and objected to the application.  He explained that his client did not object to residential development at the site, rather the main issue was of overdevelopment of the site which would then impact upon amenity and highway safety.  He noted the application was in outline, excluding access arrangements and that if approval were given for 9 dwellings in principle, this was agreeing to the impact of 9 dwellings in terms of amenity.  Mr A Moss contended that therefore it must be proven at this stage, not the reserved matters stage, that there would be good amenity and not a detriment to those dwellings of neighbouring properties.  He added that as the plans were indicative, it was not possible to fully assess the impact to his clients’ property.  He noted the report stated that minimum separation distances could be achieved for the dwellings within the scheme, however, it did not mention separation distances to adjacent properties.  Mr A Moss noted a change in levels between his clients’ property and the application site and this would have an impact upon privacy.  He noted that 4-5 bed properties would be larger than the existing bungalow and cited a recent appeal decision in relation to an application at Bowburn which had been refused by Committee in relation to separation distances, and the decision had been upheld upon appeal.  Mr A Moss concluded by asking the Committee to refuse the application for the reasons stated, citing the separation distances between plots 8 and 9 to his clients’ property meant the application was contrary to Policy Q8.

The Chairman thanked Mr A Moss and asked the Senior Planning Officer, PH to comment on the points raised.

The Senior Planning Officer, PH noted that it was not felt that the application represented “overdevelopment”, the density being around 17 dwellings per hectare, a low density.  He reiterated that the position of the units would not be determined until the reserved matters stage.

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer, PH and asked Members for their comments and questions. 

Councillor J Clark noted she agreed with the speaker in relation to needing further information in terms of the position of the 9 dwellings and wondered in therefore it would be beneficial to defer the application pending such information.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that the application was an outline application, with details in relation to site layout to be subject to further consideration in the future.

He added that the Committee were considering the principle of whether 9 dwellings could be accommodated on the site, and although Members must be satisfied that the site is capable of accommodating an acceptable layout, the final layout would be considered at the reserved matters stage.

Councillor M Davinson asked if there could be a comparison in terms of density of the application approved at Item 5b for Members’ information.  He added there would be the opportunity to consider the layout at the reserved matters stage and also noted that the signage in relation to the bend in the main road would benefit from being renewed.

Councillor O Temple noted from his experience that a density of 17 properties per hectare was generous, with the county average in the region of 22 and the national average being around 43.  He noted too the details would be for the reserved matters stage, however, noted the access could benefit from a widened splay and relocation of a pole.  He moved that the application be approved.  The Senior Planning Officer, PH noted the application Councillor M Davinson referred to had a density of around 28 units per hectare.  Councillor J Clark noted on the information given that she no longer proposed deferment of the application, noting issues could be revisited and addressed at the reserved matters stage.  Councillor M Davinson seconded Councillor O Temple’s proposal for approval.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report.