Agenda and minutes

Councillor Baker.

There were none.

Councillor Colin Hay:  14/01823/FUL Land at Manor Farm

Councillor Fisher:        14/02003/FUL Unit 3 Naunton Park Industrial Estate,

14/01823/FUL Land at Manor Farm

Councillor Clucas:       14/01823/FUL Land at Manor Farm

Members on Planning View:  Councillors Babbage, Barnes, Chard, Lillywhite, McCloskey, Seacome, Stennett and Thornton.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 19^th March 2015 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections

Officer introduction:

MP described the application as above, which was deferred last month for further discussion with the agent regarding a reduction in size of the proposal and work on the tree.  As a result, the ridge height has been reduced from 5.8m to 5m, and the eaves height from 4.3m to 4m. A revised tree method statement has been submitted, which proposes no reduction in the height of the tree but the crown adjacent to the new building to be lifted.  Officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Asked that Members take into consideration all previous neighbours’ objections and comments on this application, which has been going on for over a year.  Neighbours welcome the small reduction in overall height to 5m and gutter height to 4m, but the proposal will still be larger in volume than the previous building; its impact will be intrusive and neighbours will look out on a wall of metal cladding.  If brick construction to the front could be conditioned, this would improve the appearance and sound insulation.  Neighbours are concerned that the two 4m access doors increase the possibility that large vehicles could be driven into the building and operate from a site that is clearly not suitable; if these doors are left open during the working day, the noise could be intolerable.  Neighbours welcome the restrictions on working hours as proposed, having suffered from noise disturbance in the past due to late working hours and weekend working.  Hopes that similar restrictions will apply to any further development on the site, which is quite likely to take place.  Noted at the previous meeting that Members were concerned about the ash tree, and suggested it should be replaced with a mature tree of equal stature should it be damaged during the construction process.  Neighbours welcome this approach. 

Member debate:

PT:  following on from the speaker’s comments, do the hours of operation as set in Condition 7 still stand i.e. 0800–1800 Monday to Friday, 0800-1300 Saturday, and not at all on Sunday and Bank Holidays?

KS:  have Highways officers made any further representations?  There were concerns at the last committee meeting regarding the height of the roller doors, clearly designed to accommodate larger vehicles on the site.  Will these be soundproofed?  Even with the doors closed, noise from the building will travel.

DS:  following on from what the speaker has said, do we know if an extractor system will be in operation when the weather is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

Officer Introduction:

CS described the application for eight dwellings, as above, in the Swindon Village Conservation Area and adjacent to a GII* listed church. Members will note from the report and the lay-out that there have been suggestions that the adjoining parcel of land should be transferred to the Church, but this is outside the application site.  Officers feel such a legal agreement is not needed at this stage.  The existing access to the site is via Church Road, an unclassified road.  Officers have worked closely with Highways officers, whose original objections to the scheme have now been dealt with through amendments and now support the proposal.  The scale, layout and design all fit comfortably within the conservation area.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Fisher, and due to a lengthy objection from the Parish Council concerning the impact on the conservation area, highway matters, and the listed church.

Public Speaking:

Mr Hunter, local resident, in objection

Is opposed to the application for many reasons, but primarily because the proposed site access is problematical, through a narrow lane and destructive to the conservation area. The proper access to this site is through Manor Court, already designed in and shown on the drawings – this access was referred to in the original Manor Court development, for exactly this eventuality.  The access point at Manor Court is already prepared and would negate the need to use a narrow lane inside the conservation area – it is large, wide and outside the conservation area.  If the application is rejected, the applicant can re-draw the access by way Manor Court and reapply. This will avoid encroachment in the conservation area; be vastly safer for vehicles and pedestrians who would not have to share this narrow road with cars and trucks; allow the existing lane to remain an attractive example of what the conservation area is there to protect; remove the need for the verges to be ripped up – they have been there for generations and cared for by neighbours;  remove the need to obstruct the public footpath; remove all the issues that are shown in the traffic sweeps in and out of the narrow lane, which appear to be a desperate attempt to make it fit no matter what. To summarise, this application should be refused because the applicant has refused to use the correct access which is readily available at Manor Court.  If this change was made, all reasons for objection would be removed and the conservation area would remain untouched.

Mr Bower, agent for applicant, in support

From the 1950s until two years ago, the site formed part of a small farm which sold eggs to local people, and was also used for caravan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

Officer Introduction:

CS told Members that this property is a locally-indexed building, and described the proposal as above.  It is at Committee because the applicant is a Director of the Council, and due to objections from the Parish Council.  The recommendation is to approve, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

KS:  has looked at the planning history of this site, and notes a previous application to demolish the house and build three detached dwellings in its place.  Is concerned that the authority has said no in the past to this level of development, and yet here is creating a self-contained unit ancillary to the house.

CS, in response:

-       the applications for three separate dwellings were quite different; this is for an extension to an existing dwelling, subservient and in keeping with the character of the house.  Officers consider it to be a straightforward householder application for an extension, and are happy with it.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

1 in objection

0 abstentions

PERMIT

Officer Introduction:

MP introduced this householder application, which is very similar to one at the same property which the Committee considered in February.  The scheme has been revised on design grounds, and the applicant has come back with the original design, with dormer windows.  Officers consider it regrettable that their previous recommendations have not been taken in, but feel that the proposal is acceptable, on balance.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

KS:  if officers felt there were previous problems on design grounds, why do they now consider them OK?

MP, in response:

-       officers always seek provisions to improve a scheme, but if the applicant choses not to make revisions officers then still have to consider the scheme, on balance, consider the scheme to be acceptable.

PT:  the extension looks higher than what was there before.

KS:  when this application was at Committee in February, said that these types of application are always very difficult.  There will be impact on the neighbouring property; beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but it will mean a significant change for the neighbours, who will find looking at a two-storey brick wall at the bottom of their garden difficult.  Understands why the applicant wants to make improvements, but this has to be weighed against the impact on the conservation area.  Officers say they have made an on-balance recommendation, but the design which is already approved is better – the extra storey will be difficult.  Cannot support the proposal – it isn’t right in this location.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

2 in objection

0 abstentions

PERMIT

There were none.