Erection of a detached dwelling, car port and garage. (Demolition of existing dwelling).  (Re-submission)

Erection of a detached dwelling, car port and garage. (Demolition of existing dwelling).  (Re-submission)

Please refer to the late material circulated before the start of the meeting

Public speaking

The applicant made the following statement:

As you will have seen from the officer’s report, we have provided adequate evidence that the building is appropriate for development. The report also notes that the new property is moderate in size, of suitable external appearance and doesn’t over develop the land. The only remaining issue stated by the report is in relation to the potential overlooking of the rear of the adjoining property, Hown Hall Cottage. The residents of Hown Hall Cottage, Mr and Mrs Brown, are keen to support the plans and during telephone calls with the Planning Officer, verbally indicated they were in support.  They also submitted a letter of support, which was received by the Planning Department. This was received within the deadline advised by the Planning Officer to ensure inclusion in the report, but was not included. I emailed the letter of support from Mr and Mrs Brown to the Development Control Committee on Saturday morning. I hope you all received it. The Planning Officers report also details 5 first floor windows, which could be overlooked.  These are located on the rear side of Hown Hall Cottage (the North Side).  We want to note that three of these windows are non-habitable rooms and have obscured glazing and a further window cannot be overlooked as the view is blocked by Hown Hall Cottages chimney-breast. The recent suggestion from the Planning Officer that we could have put roof windows in at a 1.7M height is not feasible for this development. This is due to the protected species requirements for the roof space. It would also compromise ventilation and means of escape. It was a shock last week when we read the report and it’s proposed refusal. Had there ever been any indication at any point from our Planning Officer that support from our neighbours would not be adequate, then of course, we could have looked at re-positioning to accommodate concerns and avoid last minute changes to plans. We made multiple requests for feedback from the Planning Officer prior to the report being published, on all key issues, but nothing was forthcoming. Since reading the report we have taken the opportunity to rotate the house further away from Hown Hall Cottage and also move it 1 metre closer to Moat Lane (as referenced in the report). This was also emailed to the Development Control Committee, Drawing number T84507B. Since doing this there has been communication from the Planning Officer, who now feels the move 1M closer to Moat Lane isn’t required. To conclude, Mr and Mrs Brown from Hown Hall Cottage are also in possession of the revised drawing.  Mr Brown has written again to the Planning Officer to indicate full support for the plans. We have already got to know our neighbours quite well through this process and are looking forward to becoming part of the community. We hope you may be able to support our plans so we can build our family home.

Committee consideration

Vice Chairman, Councillor James Bevan, referred to the dreadful condition of the upper floor of the property and said how he sympathised with the applicant in having to working on a property that might be better demolished. Councillor Bevan said that the applicant had done everything possible to process the application and could do no more. Conversely, he also felt that the planning officer’s hands were tied when recommending that the application be refused.

Several members suggested that it would be better to replace the rundown cottage with another property and did not envisage a problem about overlooking. Despite conflicting views, the majority of members said that they were anxious to replace the cottage with a property of similar size and design to that of the existing property.

Vote

Councillor James Bevan proposed that the application be granted permission and Councillor Brian Jones seconded the proposal. The reasons suggested for approving the application included; (i) that the application complied with the council’s replacement dwelling policy and that (ii) overlooking in the circumstances relating to the proposal was not unacceptable. It was later suggested that standard conditions be applied to the permission, including a condition to prevent permitted development rights for further extensions to the property. Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, also suggested a condition relating to the protection, (and the timing of such protection), for any bats present at the site, for which he said negotiations with the applicant had already taken place. Responding to concerns from Councillor Philip Burford about floor levels at the property, the Development Control Manager said that standard conditions, (relating to the specifications specified in the applicants revised plans), would be applied, although a separate, more specific, levels condition could be applied if the details on the submitted plans were deemed to be insufficient. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant planning permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of appropriate planning conditions. 

For (14)

Councillors James Bevan, Philip Burford, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Jackie Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Brian Jones, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates.

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)