Agenda item

Councillor Paul Bizzell had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report, the Committee noted that one additional letter had been received from the applicant’s agent referring to highway matters and offering to provide some measures suggested by the County Engineer, such as a footway link and the deletion of gates at the access.  The agent had also referred to the Parish Council’s comments advising that whilst the proposal was for 3 dwellings, there was a net gain of 2 dwellings only and that the design principles had been adhered to and the proposal was not out of character. 

Mr I Thompson made a statement on behalf of Chilton Parish Council objecting to the proposal commenting that the Parish Council was not adverse to development but considered that two dwellings only could be accommodated on the site.  He further raised concerns relating to matters already covered in the report and specifically highlighted concerns regarding traffic; on street parking; traffic reversing into the narrow road; pedestrian and cyclist safety; loss of light to the property to the north; over development and proximity. He reported that the Parish Council considered the proposal contrary to Policies H11 and H5 of the Local Plan and out of character with the village. 

Mr Martin, the owner of the neighbouring property “Heathers” also raised concerns relating to matters covered in the report. He specifically referred to proximity explaining that there was a side access on his boundary and that the main front entrance to the proposed property would be about 6 feet from his front door resulting in loss of light, loss of privacy and disturbance.  He also commented on concerns regarding on street car parking and traffic congestion.

Mr R Cadman, the owner of “Rosedale” adjacent the application site, raised concerns regarding the proximity of one of the proposed dwellings which would be 1.5 metre away from his property; noise; disturbance; loss of light; loss of privacy and over development.

Mr Whitfield, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application.  He specifically refuted the comments of the Parish Council commenting that limited weight should be given to the policies in the Emerging Local Plan in that some policies had been the subject of objection and the Inspector’s view on these had yet to be received. He referred to the concerns raised regarding loss of light, suggesting that there might be marginal infringements to “Heathers” only. He explained that there would be no significant loss of sun light or day light generally.  He drew Members’ attention to the planning merits of the application reporting that there was no objection to the principle of development; the County Engineer had no objection in terms of highway traffic, safety or congestion; the design was in accordance with national guidance; the site was not in the Conservation Area; a footway would be provided; and main planning considerations were met. He suggested that there was no reason to refuse the application and that conditions should be imposed to address concerns raised as appropriate.

The local Member spoke against the application suggesting that the proposal was a step too far.  She explained that the proposal was inappropriate on this confined site.   She expressed concern regarding the proximity of the side front door to the neighbouring dwelling which would lead to disturbance and loss of privacy.  Whilst welcoming the footway which she consider would make the area safer for pedestrians she questioned whether this would lead to a further narrowing of an already very narrow road way.  She advised that on and off street parking was already a problem in this area.  She referred to other development in the village raising concerns regarding the cumulative effect of this.  She advised that she considered the development unneighbourly; over development and that there would be parking problems.

Another Member spoke in support of the application noting the views of the County Engineer and the advice of the Officers.  Reference was made to the comments of the Inspector on an appeal allowed nearby and it was suggested that in this context the current application was acceptable although an addition condition to address slab levels would be appropriate.

One Member referred to the proximity of the proposal with the neighbouring property and sought advice as to whether re-siting one of the dwellings had been discussed with the applicant.  The Officers confirmed that the gap was under 2 metres but advised that a fence on the boundary was already in place.  The application had been considered as presented.  The Officers advised that consideration needed to be given to the harm caused and that proximity in itself did not necessarily mean that harm would be caused, as was considered the case with this proposal, not withstanding that there were windows on that elevation facing the neighbour.

By 12 votes to 5 it was

RESOLVED

that application CHI/17014/3 be approved subject to: -

(1)        the conditions set out in the report;

(2)        further conditions to require a footway link, the removal of the gates fromthe scheme at the access and slab levels to be agreed.