Agenda item

The Committee was advised that the planning application had been amended from that originally submitted to address issues of design and other issues raised during the consultation process.

The Committee noted that the comments of the Parish Council had been received and had been circulated separately to Members prior to the meeting.  Details of those comments were also reported in full at the meeting.

It was noted that the applicant had agreed to widen the road at the front of plot 4 at the pinch point which it was considered would help alleviate some of the highway safety concerns raised.

It was noted that one further letter had been received from the residents of Collage Cottage referring to Local Plan Policy H6 commenting that there should be no more than 1 or 2 dwellings and therefore the application was inappropriate.

The Officers referred to the Local Plan advising that the site was currently vacant in the Conservation Area and was capable of accommodating more than 1 or 2 dwellings.  The Officers considered that allowing 5 dwellings would allow the site to be developed comprehensively at an acceptable level which could be justified having regard to its current appearance and its previous use.  The Officers considered that the proposed development would enhance the Conservation Area, subject to the use of appropriate materials.

The Committee noted that the issue of neighbour amenity has been raised, details of which were set out in the report.  It was highlighted that the specific concerns had been highlighted regarding the impact of the building on plot 4 on the cottages opposite. The Officers explained that the cottages were some 13 metres away and due to the lower roof line of the proposed dwelling it was considered that the impact would be acceptable.  The Officers also considered that there would be no unduly harmful impact from the dwelling on plot 3 and advised that the dwellings on plots 1 and 2 had been moved.  It was reported that there would be some loss of trees, which individually were not worthy of preserving and therefore a landscaping scheme was required.

Mr Bramwell made a statement objecting to the applications reiterating concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He explained that the main concern was that the proposal was contrary to planning policy.  He referred to Chapter 8 of the Emerging Local Plan emphasising that the development was not appropriate for Sparsholt in that a number of requirements in the Plan were not satisfied. He specifically referred to the lack of infrastructure in the village reporting that there was no school, public facilities and no main drainage.  He referred to the Structure Plan which provided that development of this type was not appropriate.  He welcomed the widening of Watery Lane although he suggested that this would not address the parking problems.  He also expressed concerns regarding pollution of the local water course and suggested that an Environmental Impact Assessment should be first undertaken.  He reported that there was currently a flooding problem. 

Mr Green, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the applications advising that the proposal had been designed carefully following consultation with the Council’s Officers and having regard to the character of the area. He explained that the site was capable of being developed.  He commented that the proposal was a sensitive scheme in keeping with the areas; large incongruous buildings would be replaced; the siting would continue the rhythm of development in this area; the style was similar to traditional buildings in the area; the elevation was appropriate; there would be reuse of the current footprint; the entrance would be reduced and therefore compatible with others in the area; the new development would fit discreetly behind existing dwelling; a tree planting scheme was proposed; and the scale and type of development was appropriate in the context of the infrastructure of this village.

On Member spoke in support of the applications, agreeing with the Officers’ conclusion that on balance the proposal was acceptable.

Other Members spoke against the application considered that the proposal was contrary to planning policy.  It was commented that the emerging Local Plan provided for no development in this area, whereas the existing Local Plan specified 1 or 2 dwellings.  It was commented that an application for 5 dwelling was totally unacceptable and unjustifiable in Sparsholt.  It was considered that the development was not sustainable and that in approving such an application the Council could be setting a present for approval of other similar applications in unsustainable locations contrary to planning policy.  Furthermore, Members questioned the type of housing proposed which its was suggested would no be meeting the housing needs of the District.  It was commented that just because the existing buildings were no longer in use and unsightly, was no reason to approve an application which would otherwise be contrary to policy. 

It was proposed by the Chair that application SPA/15623/3 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.  This was lost by 3 votes for and 14 against.  However, Members considered that Conservation Area Consent should be granted for the demolition of the farm buildings.

It was thereupon proposed by Matthew Barber, seconded by Councillor Terry Cox and by 14 votes to 2, with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

(a)        that application SPA/15623/3 be refused with the reasons for refusal to be formally endorsed at a future meeting of the Committee, such reasons to included the proposal being contrary to Local Plan Policy, in particular Policy H6 in that a development of this size would be totally unsustainable in this location; and

(b)        that application SPA/15623/4 – CA be approved subject to the condition set out in the report.