Agenda item

Jeremy Snell made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding development in this beautiful area.  He advised that a recent survey had shown that 75% of brown field sites were garden and their development was known as “garden grabbing”.  He raised concern regarding this proposal in terms of its adverse impact on Symonds Farm House.  He suggested that the proposal did nothing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  He commented that the plans were incorrect in that there was a further extension to the neighbouring house which was not shown.  He commented on the refusal of an application for a dwelling on a neighbouring site and suggested that weight should be given to this.  He reported that he disagreed with the conclusions reached by Officers in terms of public views and suggested that the proposal was contrary to Policy H6 of the Local Pan.  He further expressed concern regarding impact on the boundary explaining that a 2.4 metre wall in this rural area would be detrimental resulting in loss of views and outlook.  He commented that there would be overlooking and that the neighbour would be unwilling to reduce the height of their hedge.

Martin Smith the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application.  He referred to the planning policy framework in terms of design of the building and its setting and commented that the proposal was acceptable.  He reported that the site benefited from its own access and Childrey had been identified as a village which could accommodate infill.  He referred to the extent of consultation on the Local Plan when support for some infill and small scale development had been supported. He commented that the proposal contributed towards the aim of providing additional housing.  He advised that the existence of a listed building in the Conservation Area did not preclude development. He commented that previous applications on this site had been withdrawn and the scheme now put forward had been redesigned having regard to the comments received.   He suggested that the simple design was appropriate and the size of the dwelling would mean that the property would be subservient to Symonds Farm House.  Finally, he reported that there would be no over looking.

In response to a comment made the Officers clarified that the County Engineer had agreed that the measures needed to meet his requirements were within the control of the applicant and not reliant on the lowering or removal of a hedge by a neighbour.

Members supported the application but considered that care should be taken to protect the trees along the access; the surface material of the access should be appropriate in this location and be retained and that a roof light which should be removed because of its appearance.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application CHI/19225/1 be approved subject to the following: -

(1)        the conditions set out in the report with conditions 6 and 7 amended as follows: -

“6.        LS11    Protection of Trees During Construction to include handing digging along the access if necessary.

7.                  Notwithstanding the approved plans, details of the proposed surface treatment of the access road and parking and turning area shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the District Planning Authority.   The development shall only be carried out using the approved materials and those materials shall remain at all times thereafter.”

(2)        a further condition to require the removal of the upper roof light in the north elevation.