Agenda item

Councillor Yvonne Constance had declared a personal interest in these applications.

Further to the report, Officers reported that an additional 9 letters had been received from local residents all but one of which had responded previously to the planning application. An additional letter had also been submitted by DPDS Consulting Group on behalf of a local resident.   It was explained that whilst 6 of the letters received made reference to the Conservation Area Consent application only, the comments received in all of the new letters concern matters to be considered as part of the planning application and not the merits of the loss of the garage.  It was reported that the majority of comments received reiterated previous concerns as summarised in the report. However Officers explained the new comments as follows: -

·                    The water table was extremely high for much of the year because the land lay immediately below White Horse Hill and therefore drained a huge area;

·                    The kitchen of the White Horse Public House which was downstream had flooded four times this year already;

·                    As there was no mains drainage there could not be an acceptable drainage solution;

·                    Beechtree Cottage had been flooded in July last year and again earlier this year. Due to the slope of the plot and its position in the village relative to the Ridgeway this resulted in Beechtree Cottage being severely impacted by run-off. Another property on this plot would exacerbate the problem;

·                    The Council needed to take into consideration the Council’s Flood Management Policy and PPS25: Development and Flood Risk. A number of comments had been made relating to the requirements of these documents;

·                    The statutory test  as stated within the Planning – ListedBuilding and Conservation Area Act 1990 meant that considerable weight should be given against proposals that harmed the setting of listed buildings.  The test was also whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area;

·                    There was uncertainty whether the Conservation Area application and the planning application having been submitted on separate forms satisfied the 2008 Order and regulations,  (having sought advice Officers were of the opinion that the applications did comply with these regulations);

·                    Comments had also been raised regarding the contents of the Design and Access Statement, (in this regard Officers were of the opinion that sufficient information had been submitted in order to allow the merits of the proposal to be properly assessed).

The Officers reported that additional comments had also been received from the Parish Council raising objection to the Conservation Area Consent application stating that its comments had already been outlined in the previous correspondence and by several members of the village.

Officers reported that in light of the additional comments which had been received from neighbouring residents relating to flooding, drainage and surface run-off these new comments had been passed to the Council’s Principal Drainage Engineer for further consideration. Further to his previous comments as set out in the report, in respect to objections raised on flooding and drainage issues the Principal Drainage Engineer had also stated the following: -

·                    The proposed development site was not located within a flood zone as indicated on the Environment Agency’s Flood Map;

·                    The Council had on record only four reports of property flooding in Woolstone village close to the proposed development site. All were in July 2007 which had been an exceptional event. Three properties affected were located adjacent to a watercourse which had overspilled. The remaining property might have been affected by a combination of the watercourse overspilling and surface water runoff from land and highway.

·                    Beech Tree Cottage was not reported to this Council as being internally flooded.

·                    Other than in July 2007 there had been no other reports of flooding being made to the Council in Woolstone in the last 8 years.

·                    Ground conditions in Woolstone were predominately clay and therefore much of the flooding concerns might be as a result of surface water runoff i.e. when the ground became saturated.

·                    The proposed method of drainage was an acceptable means of disposal and with the absence of mains drainage was the same method currently being used by other properties in Woolstone with little problem.

·                    All proposed drainage work would have to comply with Building Regulations and the use of soakaway was still permissible in clay conditions.

·                    Groundwater and natural springs might possibly affect this area but the Council did not hold any information or records and appropriate action could be taken under Building Regulations if necessary.

·                    An appropriate foul and surface water scheme could be secured by planning condition provided that it was submitted and approved prior to any work commencing on the site.

Further to the report, the Officers explained that the period for the advertisement of the Conservation Area Consent application had yet to expire.  The Committee was therefore asked to agree that approval of this application should be delegated to the Deputy Director in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Committee subject to the expiry of the period for consultation and no new matters having been raised.

Terry Gashe from DPDS Consulting Group made a statement objecting to the application referring to a letter he had sent to Members of the Committee about these applications.  He specifically rasied concern regarding procedure and the requirement in the legislation in terms of two statutory tests, namely effect on the neighbouring listed building and the need to have special regard to the impact on the Conservation Area.  He commented that even if a proposal only marginally failed these tests then planning permission should be refused.  He commented that he considered that the proposal failed the test regarding the setting of the listed building in that the hard surface parking area would result in an intrusive appearance which would be exasperated with the parking of 4 vehicles.  He considered that the parking proposed was a hard surface more akin to an urban setting.  Furthermore, he considered that the removal of the large hedgerow in this rural area would result in an uncharacteristic open and exposed area.  He referred to the Conservation Area explaining that he had looked at the character and he disagreed with the Officer’s comments in this regard considering that the proposal would not enhance the character or appearance of the area.  Finally, he reiterated that the proposal failed the two statutory tests and should be refused.

The local Member raised concern regarding flood risk commenting that flooding was a concern in the village. She explained that Beechtree Cottage was at the point of a triangle in the lane and to the right of the cottage was very narrow. She reported that water constantly ran down Church Road; there was a hill stream through the centre of the village and that there was no mains drainage.  She reported that the Pub had flooded 4 times this year and that Beechtree Cottage was still wet in June this year. She commented that the hardstanding coupled with a new cottage would increase surface water run off and hence the risk of flooding.  Furthermore, she considered that the openness would be obtrusive and uncharacteristic in this location.  Finally, she noted that should permission be granted a surface water scheme would be required and she asked that permeable surface materials be used.

Some Members spoke in support of the application agreeing that the proposal would be in keeping it being noted that there was a mix of cottages in the area.  It was further considered that in terms of flooding the proposal was acceptable having regard to the comments of the Council’s Principal Drainage Engineer who was an expert in these matters.  It was however supported that permeable materials should be used where appropriate.    One Member suggested that a 15 inch water soakaway should be considered.

One Member suggested that crushed stone or gravel should be used for the parking area with a view to the surface being permeable and as less urban in appearance as possible. 

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

(a)       that application WLS/5900/5 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report with a further condition to address slab levels.

(b)       that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) be delegated authority in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee authority to approve application WLS/59000/7Ca subject to the condition set out in the report following the expiry of the period for consultation on the advertisement consent and no new material considerations having been identified.