Erection of two dwellings (Demolition of existing buildings)

Erection of two dwellings (Demolition of existing buildings)

Public speaking

Mr John Kelly made the following statement: -

‘In my statement to the committee on 14 February 2012, I mentioned that the Horse Chestnut Trees on Tree Preservation Order TPO 52G8, as mentioned in the case officers report, no longer exist, having been felled in 2000. In the revised case officers report on page 109, under update – tree preservation orders, it states, …’the two horse chestnut trees on the northern boundary of the site no longer exist’. However, on page 120 of the revised report, it still states, ….‘there is a tree preservation order on two horse chestnuts which sit within the northern boundary of the site….’ This is not correct. The two horse chestnut trees, (before they were felled), did not sit within the northern boundary of the site, which is shown edged in red on Drawing No 767.10A, which was supplied with this planning application. Only one of the Horse Chestnut Trees was located within the North boundary of the site owned by the applicants, this being T1. The other Horse Chestnut Tree – T2 was located on the other side of Scarr Road on the south bank of No 2 Scarr Cottage, the residence of Mr Bernard Shaw, the LSA Estate Foreman. This tree was located in front of an ancient red sandstone wall, which fully enclosed Mr Shaw’s garden on this part of his property. As a child, I spent some time knocking conkers out of this tree from the raised track of No 9 Scarr Road, much to the annoyance of Mr George Lincoln, the LSA propagation worker who lived at this address. The photo listed as item 5 in my letter of comment, shows the location of this tree. However, there are other photos, plans and legal documents, which support the location of Tree T2. The east boundary is not accurately shown on Drawing No T767.10A, as submitted with this planning application. The east boundary does not meet with the Scarr Road, as is shown quite clearly on items 1- 2 - 4 and 6, which I submitted with my letter of comment on this application. In conclusion, I believe that the applicants have a moral and social duty to fully embrace the Planning Policy Guidelines in respect of ‘Access to the Countryside’ and the directions made ‘Green Lanes’ and ‘Footpaths’ must be maximised for the use of walkers and cyclists. As the applicants have part of the original footpath running over their property. I hope they will give their support to the potential modification order application.

Speaking as the agent for the application, Mr Ben Pearce made the following statement: -

‘This application has been brought before the planning committee to enable full consideration to be made of the other material considerations that empower the council to grant planning permissions that depart from planning policy. No doubt, this is a site where residential development would not normally be granted. However, in this case, those ‘other material considerations’ outweigh the policy objection to residential development on the site. I understand that members have now had the opportunity to visit the application site; you will be aware that the existing buildings you saw have a lawful commercial use over which the council has no control on hours of working or vehicle movements etc. There is also an implemented planning consent for replacement of all of the existing buildings with a 790 square metre storage and distribution warehouse. Members will have noted that the road network serving the site is not ideal to serve a commercial site. You will have also seen that the site is surrounded by residential properties, including some recent residential conversions. The commercial site is now the non-conforming use in the area. The application before the committee will remove that non-conforming use in the countryside and avoid the potential impacts of such a use in this location. In this light, the proposals are supported by neighbouring residents and by Newent Town Council. Your officers have raised no objection to the design of the proposed dwellings. As the focus of the debate has been on the principal of residential development on the site, the applicant would welcome an opportunity to address any specific design issues raised by members during the debate. The sustainability team have approved the proposed bat mitigation measures but have upheld an objection to the removal of a building that already has planning consent to be demolished. The applicant will, of course, request a bat licence from Natural England prior to any work on site and will accept conditions requiring the appropriate bat mitigation to be undertaken. This application provides a deliverable means of achieving the best long term planning for this site, the neighbours and the area in general. The present and approved commercial uses are a legacy of a historic use of this and surrounding land that has little or no relevance to the present day. I would ask the committee to recognise these benefits and grant of planning permission for this development’

Committee consideration

Ward member, Councillor Roger Yeates spoke in support of the proposals and said that he hoped the application would help organise and improve the site. He also said that he could not understand why the recommendation was to refuse the application, particularly when existing buildings at the site constituted development in the open countryside. Councillor James Bevan shared this viewpoint and said that, technically, the site was not in open countryside. Several other members also spoke in support of the application.

Responding to questions, Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, said that there was no proposal for a live/work unit and that there had been no significant changes to the scheme since the previous refusal. He reminded the committee that the principle of allowing a new build residential scheme to create a live/work unit at the site had been dismissed at appeal and that the application was contrary to both the District Local Plan and the Core Strategy.

Councillor Norman Stephens considered the site to be a brown-field site and said that local people would probably welcome the proposals. He disputed concerns about access and said that it made common sense to approve the application. He also questioned the significance of the concerns that had been raised by the first public speaker when living in Gloucester.

Vote

Councillor Norman Stephens proposed that the application be approved and Councillor Roger Yeates seconded the proposal. The reasons suggested for approval included; that the local area would not be able to cope if used for industrial use; that the application would make good use and improve the appearance of the site and that the site was already located within a residential area. Suggested conditions included; that the development be completed within a set time limit; that the developer undertake appropriate landscaping of the site and that the site is secured by fencing. The Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, suggested that a further condition be considered for completion of a contaminated land survey and the suggestion was accepted. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant planning permission for the reasons suggested at the meeting and subject to appropriate conditions

For (10)

Councillors James Bevan, Brian Edwards, Julia Gooch, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, David Thomson and Roger Yeates.

Against (4)

Councillors Val Hobman, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Lynn Sterry and Arthur Thomas

Abstentions (1)

Councillor Terry Glastonbury