Agenda item

Further to the report the Committee was advised that there might be a discrepancy in the plans regarding the red line and the extent of the residential curtilage.  It was explained that comments had not been received from the Consultant Architect. However, comments had been received from the Architects’ Panel in support of the proposal subject to issues regarding detail. The Panel felt that the proposal was acceptable in this location.  The Committee was advised that should it be minded to approve the application, authority to do so should be delegated to the Chief Executive to further investigate these matters.

It was reported that the Environment Agency had now withdrawn its objection subject to a number of conditions, namely (a) that there be no raising of ground levels across the site; (b) that there be no storage within the floodplain; and (c) that any walls and fences should be permeable to flood water.  It was suggested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application these conditions should be attached to any permission.

Mr Smith made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically commented that this was a substantial house and raised concerns that the design made the house appear significantly larger and there would be large red brick walls which would be clearly visible from the Thames Path spoiling the enjoyment of views from passers by in this Green Belt location.  He further raised concerns regarding adverse impact on amenity; inappropriate development in the Green Belt; the car parking area and hardstanding being out of keeping with a dwelling; further consideration being needed regarding the elevations; adverse impact from high red brick walls above ground level; and the need to see beyond the 30% rule and consider the actual impact.  Finally, he commented that there were some buildings shown on the plan that consultees knew nothing about. 

Ms Roz Uren made a statement objecting to the application commenting that the peace and tranquillity of the surrounding area would be lost; some small neighbouring plots had developed into larger ones and the cumulative impact of this; technical anomalies; the devastating visual impact the proposal would have on the surrounding area; loss of character; the formality of a new building being out of keeping; the impact of the extensive landscaping; adverse impact from the proposed materials, namely red brick, and the setting of a precedent for future development.

The local Member John Woodford advised that there had been some concerns regarding development near the river bank in the past, and other properties had not had permitted development rights removed. He suggested that careful consideration should be given to materials and that he could see no reason to refuse the application.

Other Members supported the application also, although it was suggested by one Member that another issue to consider was the impact of the proposal in terms of leisure and its impact on users of the Thames Path.  He realised that many people visited the area along the river, but notwithstanding this the Committee needed to consider the proposal in terms of its policy context.  He referred to its size explaining that there was a 30% volume increase rule which the Committee must have regard to.  He suggested that beauty was in the eye of the beholder and that he considered the design acceptable in terms of height and the use of red brick.  However, he suggested that the use of good quality materials was important and asked that a condition be added to any permission requesting that they first be submitted to and approved by the Council.  He asked that such materials be presented to the Committee for determination.

One Member referred to the comments of the Environment Agency concerning landscaping and it was explained that the landscaping shown on the plans was indicative only.  It was noted that the landscaping was shown outside the application site and it was uncertain whether the scheme needed planning permission.

One Member expressed concern that views were sought from the Environment Agency and thereafter the Agency was asked to withdraw its objections.

By 15 votes to nil, with 1 abstention and 1 of the voting Members not being present during consideration of this item, it was

RESOLVED

that the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application APT/9217/1 subject to the following: -

(1)        the Officers investigating a discrepancy in the plans regarding the extent of the residential curtilage and the issues regarding detail raised by the Architects’ Panel;

(2)        the conditions set out in the report;

(3)        further conditions to provide (a) that there be no raising of ground levels across the site; (b) that there be no storage within the floodplain; (c) that any walls and fences should be permeable to flood water; (d) that materials be first submitted to approved by the Planning Authority; and

(4)        materials being submitted to Committee for approval.