Agenda item

Two storey detached 4bed dwelling and detached double garage with associated external works.

The Planning Officer, Michelle Hurton 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 Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for a two storey detached 4 bed dwelling and detached double garage with associated external works and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.  The Planning Officer noted that paragraph 93 of the report referred to the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order, however, it should have referred to the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Ghulam Kamran, local resident in objection, to speak on the application.

G Kamran thanked the Chair and Committee and explained he was the resident of 31A Lobley Hill Road, the immediate neighbouring property to the application site.  He noted he respected the applicant, adding they were a good neighbour.  He noted the recent issue in terms of an area of unregistered land that was in use by the occupants of 31 and 32 Lobley Hill Road for 25 years.  He noted that on the A690 side of Lobley Hill Road there was limited parking for friends and family to park and the elderly and children used the area at the rear of Lobley Hill Road, not the A690 side at the front.  He referred to the turning head mentioned in condition 13 and noted that the turning head would need to be constructed prior to commencement of works on the dwelling and would be retained and be available for use in perpetuity.  He noted that the applicant had acknowledged on several occasions that he and residents used the area in question and noted that while beyond the scope of the Committee, he felt it could set a dangerous precedent in respect of other applications. 

G Kamran reiterated that 31A and 32 Lobley Hill Road used the area in question and were in a better position in terms of any potential adverse possession claim and explained that he had information within documents from a previous owner of his property in respect of the land.  He noted it was not a simple proposal as regards laying tarmac on his land and reiterated that 31A and 32 maintained the area and used it for parking.

The Chair thanked G Kamran and asked Elaine Irving, the applicant, to speak in relation to her application.

E Irving thanked the Planning Officers for their work in relation to the application and noted that the proposals would improve the land and access situation in the area.

The Chair thanked E Irving and asked Councillor J Elmer, as Local Member, to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor J Elmer referred to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Part 15 which noted applications should preserve or enhance the local environment and landscape.  He referred to a slide which compared aerial photos from Google maps at different points in time and noted that the older aerial photo showed a high degree of vegetation around the site, including trees and bushes.  He noted that the current aerial view showed the site had been cleared, very much thinned, clear felled other than some trees on the boundary of the site, noting a stack of timber on the site.  He noted those works had been carried out prior to the application and therefore the assessments carried out by Officer were after the changes to the site.  He noted CDP Policy 40 referred to no loss of trees or amenity unless there were demonstrable benefits. 

He added that the Council’s Arboriculturist had referred to the trimming of trees at the edge of the site and that an application may increase the pressure to prune or remove trees as a result of issues such as leaf drop or unwanted shade.  He referred to the proposed site plan and the close proximity to those trees, leading to a high likelihood that they would be pruned.

Councillor J Elmer noted CDP Policy 24 referred to transport infrastructure and noted the points raised by the residents as regards land ownership and the turning head.  He noted that residents had used the area for quite some time and asked therefore if it was viable for the applicant to convert, and if there was no turning head it would be difficult and dangerous as vehicles would need to reverse and such was the need that it was conditioned.  He noted that he felt the application was invalid in terms of legal challenge to the turning head.

Councillor J Elmer left the meeting at 10.46am

The Chair asked the Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper to respond to the points raised.  The Principal Planning Officer reminded Members that in terms of land ownership issues, Planning was not the arbiter, however, there was the condition within the recommendations relating to the turning head.  He added that a Land Registry search showed that part of the site was unregistered, however, the requisite checks were satisfactory in planning terms.  He noted that ultimately if the applicant did not have control of the land they would not be able to carry out the works proposed.  In terms of the clearing of the site, he noted that this had taken place prior to the application being submitted and added that there was a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) made in 2022.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor A Bell noted he had been unable to attend the site visit and asked for clarification as regards the status of the back lane, whether it was an unadopted track given there were more than six properties.  The Highway Development Manager, Phil Harrison noted that it was not maintained at the public expense and noted that it was possible for access to be a private road and that would not be deemed reason to recommend refusal of a planning application.

Councillor A Bell noted that issues relating to the trees had been referred to by Councillor J Elmer and asked if there was anything within the conditions relating to this, such as the protection of roots. 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the proposed position of the dwelling had been moved to be outside of the area where root systems existed and therefore, based on the information from the Council’s Arboriculturist, Planning Officers were satisfied.  He noted now issues in terms of overshadowing and noted the conditions contained sufficient protections in respect of trees.

Councillor A Surtees asked for clarification on a piece of land that had cars parked on it.  The Principal Planning Officer referred to the aerial photograph on the projector screen and highlighted the area in question, noting it fell outside of the red line boundary for the application.

Councillor L Brown noted a number of neighbouring properties surrounding the site and suggested that, should the application be approved, that construction start time began at 8.00am rather than 7.30am to protect residential amenity.

Councillor I Roberts noted she had attended the site visit and noted the area to the bottom of the aerial photograph was being used as a car park and asked if that was the area G Kamran referred to, he confirmed it was.

Councillor A Bell noted it was a difficult application, however, issues of land ownership were outside of the scope of the Committee.  He asked if all the requisite notices had been served in respect of the unregistered land, adding if so he would propose that the application be approved as per the recommendation.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the necessary press notices had been completed.  Councillor D Oliver seconded the proposal for approval.  The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) asked if that included the proposal from Councillor L Brown in relation to the 8.00am start time for construction.  Councillor A Bell noted it did.

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED as per the conditions set out within the report, subject to amendment of the construction hours to have an 8.00am start time.

Councillor J Elmer entered the meeting at 10.58am