Agenda item

Erection of 1 no. dwelling and garage

Councillor Richardson returned to participate in the remainder of the meeting.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer with regards to the (resubmitted) application for the erection of 1 no. dwelling and garage at land to the north of Moor View Cottage, Ovington (for copy see file of minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, elevations, site layout and photographs of the site.  A site visit had taken place earlier in the day.

Parish Councillor J Parkes, spoke on behalf of Ovington Parish Council and in objection to the development.  It was unclear who had ownership of the verged area adjacent to the site but it was maintained by the Parish Council.  Ovington was a small hamlet which had not been subjected to development, it had been limited mostly to conversions or extensions.  The proposed dwelling would be oddly prominent and disrupt the harmony of the surrounding area.  The access had been designed to a standard which could leave the field vulnerable to future development and she reminded the Committee of a previous failed application for five dwellings.  Councillor Parkes expressed concern that the developer had, in her opinion, prevented a potential fire escape route from the Village Hall by padlocking the field gate.  There was no footpath to the lane which was frequented by elderly residents and children, and she suggested an alternative construction access and a construction plan, which would minimise disruption and prohibit vehicles from using the verges.  She also made reference to the garage encroaching beyond the settlement boundary.

The Agent, Dr A Lang, spoke on behalf of the Applicant and addressed the Committee in support of the application.  In responding to the issues raised by the objector, he confirmed that the verged access to the site was from a public highway and the access was acceptable to modern standards.  He suggested that the layout of the lane would lead vehicles to naturally slow their speed and visibility splays were sufficient.  There was nothing untoward about the position of the house or the design and the surrounding area had a mixture of properties with no theme and there were no privacy issues.  He reminded the Committee that this was not a conservation area and there were no constraints with regards to the design or materials.  With regards to the construction period, Dr Lang confirmed that a construction management plan would assist the development of larger sites, but it was debatable whether this application would meet the tests required for implementation.  There were no objections with regards to trees, landscape or ecology and the application was considered acceptable to the Senior Planning Officer.  The restrictions the objector had raised with regards to parking on the road and accessing the lane could not be taken into consideration, as this was a public highway.

The Solicitor, Planning and Development, confirmed that the land ownership was not a consideration when determining planning applications and a construction management plan should only be conditioned should Members feel like they would refuse the application.  She confirmed that it was unreasonable to suggest that an alternative access be used and therefore the Committee should assess the application on the basis of the application submitted.

Councillor Tinsley confirmed that the access to the property was from a public highway, the design and scale was in accordance with the surrounding area and no objections had been lodged by internal consultees.  He noted that the highway was a small lane, but this was an application for a modest development of only one dwelling.  Councillor Tinsley confirmed that future applications were not something for the Committee to consider and an alternative access was an unreasonable request requiring access over third party land.  A construction management plan was unlikely to meet the tests required.  He considered there to be no reason to refuse the application and moved the recommendation to approve as per the reasons outlined in the report.

Councillor Richardson confirmed that as a farmer, who had also attended site visit, he had a different opinion.  Although this was not a large site, it was greenfield land and development would result in the loss of agricultural land.  He considered the property Moor View would be overlooked and the proposed dwelling would be overpowering.  He also considered the issues which may arise with regards to accessing the remaining part of the field when the property was build and could not support the Officers recommendation.

Councillor Brown referred to the narrow width of the lane and hoped that should the application be granted, the applicant would ensure contractors were considerate towards existing residents.

Councillor Clare confirmed that he also attended the site visit and having already looked at the street view online, he went with the impression that the property proposed could be overbearing.  It became apparent when walking towards the site that this property would not be out of keeping with existing properties.  It was also important to note that the Highways Officers were considering the impact of one property and any further development would have to be referred back as a completely new application.  Councillor Clare could not see any safety issues with regards to the access - it was on a right angle bend and any vehicle exiting the site had a clear view to both the left and right.  The proposed dwelling was not out of scale, it would not be overbearing, and therefore he seconded the recommendation to approve the application for the reasons outlined in the report.

Resolved:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in the report.