Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/21/015

Planning Application - five dwellings (following demolition of existing house)

Planning Application - five dwellings (following demolition of existing house)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as the proposed scheme was on the same site as a previous application which was refused by the Committee in September 2020. In addition, the Parish Council had voiced objections to the application.

As part of his presentation the Principal Planning Officer outlined the previous application and the reasons for refusal, as set out in Appendix 1 of Report No DEV/WS/21/015. He also highlighted the changes made to the scheme in the current proposal.

The Committee was shown videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 64 of the report.

Speakers:    Denis Elavia (neighbouring objector) spoke against the application

Councillor Terry Rich (Withersfield Parish Council) spoke against the application

Councillor Peter Stevens (Ward Member: Withersfield) spoke on the application

David Barker (agent) spoke in support of the application

During the debate some of the Committee continued to voice concern in respect of highway flooding. The Case Officer reminded Members of the sustainable drainage strategy submitted by the applicant; in response to which the Highways Authority and the Lead Local Flood Authority had not raised objection.

Comments were also made by Members on the attractiveness of the proposal but that it was not considered in keeping with the surrounding area. Councillors also made reference to overdevelopment and the potential urbanisation of the village.

Councillor Roger Dicker spoke in support of the application and highlighted that the site was within the development boundary and the Conservation Officer had not objected.

Councillor Peter Stevens proposed that the application be refused for reasons 2, 3 and 4 as listed as the previous refusal reasons in Appendix 1 (excluding reason 1 which related to highway flooding). This was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that as the refusal reason relating to highway flooding had been disregarded it would not be necessary to invoke the Decision Making Protocol in this instance.

Accordingly, upon being put to the vote and with 11 voting for the motion and 4 against it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Section 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings) Act 1990 requires the Local Planning Authority to have special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Furthermore, Joint Development Management Policies DM17, DM1, DM2 and DM22, all of which, seek to protect heritage assets and ensure good design appropriate for the character and context of the site. The site is wholly within the Withersfield conservation area and in this case the courtyard style layout of a group of 5 dwellings, would depart from the mainly linear form of this part of the village harming its appearance. The loss of a significant tree on the frontage of the site is also considered to be harmful to the character of the conservation area as it forms part of a group of trees contributing to its amenity. The application does not therefore preserve or enhance the conservation area and does not accord with Joint Development Management Policies DM17, DM1 and DM2. Having regard to paragraph 196 of the NPPF, the less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset (Withersfield conservation area) is not outweighed by any public benefit.

2. Joint Development Management Policy DM12 states that for all development, measures should be included, as necessary and where appropriate, in the design for all developments for the protection of biodiversity and the mitigation of any adverse impacts. Additionally, enhancement for biodiversity should be included in all proposals, commensurate with the scale of the development. In this case scale of development proposed, 5 dwellings including hard-surfaced areas and parking, results in very space for new planting and biodiversity enhancements to replace the three trees and grassed areas being lost. The loss of trees also represents a loss of habitat for bats and birds. The proposed mitigation set out in the Design and Access Statement is not considered sufficient outweigh this harmful impact representing a net loss in biodiversity. The development does not therefore accord with Joint Development Management Policy DM12.

3. Thistledown Cottage adjoining the site to the south currently has a relatively open aspect to its northern boundary, with ground floor windows to the gable end of the dwelling. The proposed development introduces a new dwelling of significant scale and form within 5 metres of the gable end. This is considered to be overbearing and harmful to the existing amenity of this dwelling. Furthermore, the Old Bakery to the north west of the site currently enjoys a relatively verdant boundary to Milton House. Proposed plot 6 would be sited close to this existing boundary resulting in the loss of existing vegetation and trees. A two-storey dwelling would be positioned within 5 metres of the existing boundary. This would result in harm to the amenity of the Old Bakery by virtue of over-bearing and additional noise disturbance. This would be contrary to Joint Development Management Policy DM2, which amongst other things, requires new development to avoid harm to existing residential amenity.

(Shortly after commencing this item it became apparent that Members of the Committee were having difficulty in viewing one of the screens which displayed the Case Officer’s presentation to the meeting. The Chair therefore permitted a short adjournment in order to allow Democratic Services Officers time in which to relocate some of the screens within the room to ensure that Committee Members were able to adequately view the display. Once completed, the Chair reconvened the meeting and apologised for the interruption.)