Agenda item

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer (Michelle Payne) presented the report, which related to a proposed replacement dwelling and revised scheme following a previous grant of planning permission. It was before the committee at the request of Cllr. Babbage due to the level of local concern, and had also been objected to by the parish council.

Public speakers

There were three speakers on this item, an objector, the agent on behalf of the applicant and the Ward Councillor for the area.

The objector made the following points:

-       There is no question that the property needs updating and although permission was granted for a large dwelling in October which was two stories there is now permission being requested for a three storey property which is 24% bigger.

-       The trees to the south of the property are to be removed and the construction of the mezzanine level will allow the properties to be overlooked.

-        The extra square footage increases the roof area that will cause flooding lower down the hill.

-       Flooding is a huge problem in the area with the flooding of the lower gardens being a regular occurrence.

-       36 neighbours were contacted on consultation and 38 neighbours objected.

The applicant then made the following points:

-       He believes that the neighbour canvased the area to gain support for the objection

-       Neighbours had asked for the height of the roof to stay the same and that he didn’t build too close to the neighbours garden – both requests that he complied with.

-       He doesn’t think that  it is unreasonable to have a four bedroom property on a plot of half an acre.

-       As the site slopes the property will be lower than the others in the area

-       The proposed property will be eco-friendly with solar panels and will be a low carbon home.

-       There has been a problem with flooding and understands that this is a concern – however after a survey it was discovered that there was a collapsed drain on the property which will be repaired.

Councillor Babbage then spoke as Ward Councillor in objection.  He made the following points:

-       Although this is a large plot it is a very large building that is being proposed.

-       There is significant concern as there could be up to three storeys of solid wall facing the neighbour.

-       An improved design could mitigate problems..

Member questions

One Member noted that the objector referred to a 24% increase in the area of the site, which did not appear in the report. What were the Planning Officer’s figures on this? The Planning Officer did not have a specific figure, though the new mezzanine would increase the floor space.

One Member asked whether it was correct that the parish council had objected to the previous scheme. The Planning Officer clarified that the parish council had objected to a previously withdrawn scheme rather than the updated version that followed.

One Member asked for a summary of what exactly had changed, as it was difficult to visualise the intermediate stage between one house and two. The Planning Officer explained that most of the accommodation would be on the lower ground floor. There would be a 1.4m increase in the depth of the wing running from east to west, and 1m from north to south. On the upper ground floor, there would be a 1m increase in the north-south wing. Overall, these were relatively modest additions, with the mezzanine level being created within the volume of the original approved house.

One Member asked how much concrete would be added. The Planning Officer responded that there would be a limited additional amount, but there was an extant permission for a very similar dwelling to this.

Member debate

One Member praised the applicant for a sensible approach, in particular to the question of energy.

Another Member noted that the applicant seemed to have gone the extra mile in terms of working with neighbours to address their worries. The building was in a dip and even with the new build seemed to be smaller than neighbouring properties. It looked different to other houses in the area, but it did not need to look identical. It would be reasonably well sheltered and low down, and was an exciting new build all round.

One Member agreed with their colleagues that it was an innovative and appropriate design. The plot was to its advantage as it was virtually invisible from the road. The architect and owner had addressed the solar panel issue.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

FOR: 9

AGAINST: 0

ABSTAIN: 1

PERMITTED