Agenda item

Erection of 3 dwellings with off street parking, garaging and private outdoor amenity space (Outline application to determine access only).

The Case Officer provided members with the following update:

• The annual position statement had fixed the land supply to 5.02 years.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site as well as important heritage assets and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the indicative site plan, site boundaries and views from within the proposed site and surrounding areas were shown. Members were informed that the site wasn’t within the conservation area and there were no Tree Protection Orders on site. Details of the topographical survey were provided, and the Case Officer referred to the existing and proposed site access and road layout. Comments had been raised by the Highways team in which they had identified that the access road was narrow but had been deemed acceptable subject to conditions. To conclude the presentation, the officer identified key issues such as the principle of development being within the settlement boundary, character and appearance, living conditions, flood risk, highways safety and parking. The Case Officer’s recommendation was to grant subject to conditions.

Public Participation

Local residents spoke in objection to the proposal. They highlighted the congestion issues which had been an ongoing problem, particularly due to school traffic and were concerned that further development would have contributed negatively to an already busy lane which was not easily passable. Both Mr Ward and Mr Savoy were also concerned regarding difficult areas for access as well as highlighting issues surrounding inadequate drainage systems. Public objectors hoped that members would refuse the application.

Mr Grimwood thanked the committee for allowing him to speak and spoke in support of the proposal. He had visited the site for several years and felt that the proposal would have been a result of gentle infilling. There were no adverse impacts on the character of the area and was pleased to see that the proposed properties would have been set back from the road, providing ample off-site parking. Mr Grimwood did highlight the traffic movements, however, did not feel as though the proposal would have caused an increase in parking. Therefore, he hoped members would support the officer recommendation.

Mr Baimbridge spoke as the agent and thanked the officers for their report. He highlighted that there had been no objections from technical consultees or the Case Officer. The Highways authority was satisfied with the proposal and the plans submitted were indicative which demonstrated the accommodation of three dwellings. The agent felt as though the proposal was an effective use of the land and was in keeping with Bay Lane. Mr Baimbridge referred to the loss of the fruit trees and orchard, however, noted that it was not a reason for refusal. It was a small site with a particular interest to contribute to housing land supply and complied with Local Plans and the NPPF. He respectfully requested the committee to approve.

Members questions and comments

• Clarification regarding whether the Highways department consider visitor parking when conducting their assessments.
• Concerns regarding offsite parking and whether there would have been impacts on the visibility splays.
• The proposal provided sufficient off-street parking.
• Cllr Jespersen noted the officer view, however, did feel as though the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site. She also highlighted biodiversity mitigation and was not convinced that the site access wouldn’t have been impacted by further development. Cllr Jespersen did not feel as though this was a good scheme.
• Members noted the large scale of the proposal. However, noted that it was not for consideration.
• Cllr Rideout understood the concerns of the local residents and other members, however, did feel as though it was sustainable location with adequate parking and there were no issues raised from Highways colleagues. Therefore, there were no substantive reasons to refuse.
• Members considered the biodiversity impacts due to the loss of the orchard.
• Comments regarding additional conditions which incorporated loss of trees and biodiversity.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Les Fry, and seconded by Cllr Rory Major.

Decision: To grant the officer’s recommendation for approval.