Agenda and minutes

Councillors Wheeler and Seacome.  Councillor Hobley sent apologies for his late arrival. 

17/02402/CONDIT Ragged Stone, Old Reddings Road

Councillor Babbage – a family member lives in the vicinity of the application site – will leave the Chamber.

17/02402/CONDIT Ragged Stone, Old Reddings Road

Councillor Collins – knows the site well.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 14^th December 2017 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

Councillor Babbage left the Chamber before the start of the debate on this item. 

MP introduced the application as above, saying that planning permission for a single-storey dwelling on land to the rear of Ragged Stone was originally granted in November 2015.  Work subsequently started, and during construction it became apparent that the height of the building would be higher than the approved scheme, and an application for a minor amendment was therefore made.  The report refers to an increase of 300mm, but in fact this is 250mm on the lower part of the dwelling, and 150mm on the higher part.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Britter.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Richard Burgess, neighbour, in objection

Is representing the many residents who are opposed to this application, and who are unhappy at the lack of important detail in the very dismissive officer report.  Regarding visual impact, at 6.1.1, the report states that the land levels in Old Reddings Close are 500mm higher than the application site, which should soften the visual impact of the new structure, but this isn’t the case from the adjoining properties in Old Reddings Road.  At 6.2.4, the report downplays the impact on the immediate neighbours, suggesting that boundary enclosures would help, but this isn’t possible next to Roebuck, as the wall is touching the boundary fence.  The application raises the height of the structure by 30cm (four bricks), which increases shadow and reduces sunlight over the neighbour’s garden.  The report gives no explanation of the reason for the increase.  It says it was influenced by a number of factors, including the need to provide a deeper than typical ground-bearing slab due to poor conditions – but what does this have to do with increasing the built height of the wooden structure on top of the slab? 

The structure had been built to the now-requested size months before  the current application was made on 9^th December.  The enforcement team was told it was too high in October; work stopped, then continued apace.  The original 2015 plans and the current update show an increase of 30cm in the thickness of the roof structure, and the enforcement team confirmed that larger roof timbers had to be introduced to strengthen the roof.  Was this due to a monumental architectural error and lack of scrutiny by planning officers, hoping local residents wouldn’t notice?  Why wasn’t the structure design adjusted at the beginning to accommodate the larger roof supports and maintain the approved height?  And why was the developer confident to carry on work, even though the error had come to light?  Reflecting on the innocuous, short sentence in the RPA ‘’Construction detailing of roof depth has resulted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 245.

Councillor Babbage returned to the Chamber for this item.

Councillor Hobley arrived at the meeting during this item.

AHoldstockintroduced the application as above, to fell a very large oak tree in the rear garden of the applicant’s property.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Whyborn.  The recommendation is to permit, subject to the applicant re-planting a species to provide amenity to the local area. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Ling, applicant, in support

The tree has a negative impact on his garden, home and family life – no grass, flowers or shrubs can grow underneath it, and the garden cannot be used for social events, such as barbecues.  When the  tree is in leaf in the summer, light is blocked out of the garden; the bare soil acts as a huge litter tray for local cats, and any vertical surfaces and the trampolineare covered with moss, making it impractical to use.  The main impact of the tree is on his five-year-old daughter, who can’t use the garden in summer or winter – there is no grass, and she cannot invite friends to play.  Neighbours support the application to remove the tree, there have been no objections, and the ward councillor is also supportive.  Is asking Members to agree to the request to remove the tree.

Councillor Whyborn, in support

The applicant’s family is suffering a very considerable loss of amenity resulting from this tree.  Hopes we have learnt in the last few decades not to allow developers to build so close to oak trees, but this house pre-dates any current recommendation.   Wrong decisions were made, and this tree is in the wrong place in relation to the houses.  Members will have seen the loss of amenity it causes on Planning View:  there is no grass at all, as the tree takes all the goodness from the soil.  There is also a risk of branches falling.  Asked for the application to come to Committee, being aware that anything to do with trees can be controversial; it is not usual for someone to ask to fell an oak tree, and it wasn’t clear at the initial stage that the officer would agree.  Would like to add four points to the issue of loss of amenity:  the report states that the pruning needed to improve the situation would detract from the tree’s visual amenity – it would end up shaped like a lollipop, and have no amenity for the rest of the neighbourhood; there is the risk of the tree roots undermining the property – it is not mature and therefore still growing bigger; an application to fell the tree was refused 15 years ago – if it had been permitted, we would now have two mature trees in its place; and finally, the question of what will happen if nothing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 246.