Agenda item

Planning Application Documents.

Planning Officer, Emma Pickernell, presented the report relating to the erection of a two storey replacement dwelling and filling in of the swimming pool.  The application was at committee at the request of Cllr McCloskey due to the potential impact on neighbour amenity.  The Officer stated the scheme had been revised and considered it to be an acceptable scheme and recommended to permit with conditions.

Members asked the following questions, with the following replies from the Officer:

·         Would the pile foundation be hammered piles or board piles?  The exact methodology had not yet been finalised.  A condition had been attached asking for a piling method statement and the Environment Health team would be consulted when this was received.

·         Where would the construction traffic enter the site from and given there are a number of outbuildings between the house and the road, how would construction traffic get in without demolishing one of them?  All vehicular access would be from Copt Elm Road and a condition was attached requiring a construction method statement to be submitted clarifying how vehicles would  access the site.  Some of the outbuildings would be removed and the pool filled in.

·         Were there two roof terraces as there only appeared to be a privacy screen for one terrace?  The floor plan showed one roof terrace on the first floor and the green areas on the plan were flat roofs which would have sedum planting on them and were not accessible.

·         Was the house declared derelict?  The Officer was not aware it was derelict.

·         Would the pool be filled in with rubble as this could be problematic?  A suitable way with drainage would be found and a structural engineer would be on site.

·         Regarding the footprint of the new build, it overlapped with the existing one so as not to upset the offset from the river.

·         The Officer was not sure about the increase in square meterage, but said there was not a significant difference.

The Chair moved to the debate and members made the following comments:

·         A very contemporary design although people in this area may wish to see a more traditional look.

·         New design was interesting and exciting.

·         Pleased a bat survey would be done before demolition, as supported bio-diversity.

·         Why demolishing one building to build another in its place as this was not a green thing to do?  The Chair clarified that if that was what the applicant wanted to do they were entitled to ask for planning permission to do this.  The Officer also commented that the existing building was dated and probably inefficient from an energy and insulation point of view and that a new build could be more efficient from a sustainable aspect.

·         Was the applicant was duty bound to include electric charging points?  The Officer replied that there was no specific policy on this and although the Highways Authority had started asking for this, it was not a condition here as this was a replacement rather than a new build. The Chair added though that this could be included retrospectively.

There being no further comments, the Chair moved to vote on the Officer’s recommendation to permit.

FOR : 11

PERMITTED unanimously