Agenda item

Sarah Whatmore made a statement on behalf of Upton Parish Council raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  She particularly referred to the principle of a house on this site and whether the access was acceptable, advising that the Parish Council disagreed to both.  With reference to the principle of a house she explained that this was a small plot and the proposal would result in a house at one end of the plot next to the tree line and close to the historic house.  She referred to planning permission allowed on appeal for 3 dwellings in Beeching Close advising that the Inspector had made specific reference to trees and the historic building adjacent to this site.  The Inspector had referred to the way houses should be located in relation to Station House and the need for additional tree planting. She commented that this proposal was contrary to Local Plan policies H5 and H11.  Furthermore, she advised that the access was unacceptable in that visibility would be reduced due to the large verge proposed.

Lesley Shaw, representing other objectors made a statement objecting to the application also raising concerns relating to matters covered in the report.  She explained that the recommendation for approval had been made on a fundamentally unsound basis.  She reported that she was the freehold owner of the road and that she had not given permission for the proposed access.  Furthermore, she explained that there were covenants on the land covering issues of liability for various matters such a drainage, which had not been addressed.  She referred to there being no legal right of access and commented on Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. She commented that planning permission should be refused because of these matters.  She referred to the setting of a precedent for similar developments should permission be granted.  She commented that the site contributed positively to the village and that the bungalows in Beeching Close had been carefully considered.  Finally, she reported that the proposal was contrary to Local Plan policies H5 and H11 and should be refused.

Mike Orr, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that the proposal was in accordance with the Local Plan; there would be minimal impact in view of the lower level of the site and the mature tree screening; there would be improvements to the junction and the access would be safer for all the residents of Beeching Close.  He referred to discussions with the County Engineer who raised no objection.  He commented that Station House was not listed and its solitary setting had been lost when the application resulting in three bungalows in Beeching Close was approved.  He explained that the proposed house would be no closer than the other properties in the area.  Finally, he referred to the planning permission granted in respect of the neighbouring property “Ravello”, advising that it would be inconsistent of the Council to now refuse this application.

The Council’s Senior Legal Officer advised the Committee that the issues raised by the second speaker in relation to rights of access, land ownership and covenants on the land were private law matters and were not material planning considerations.  She explained that should planning permission be granted these matters would need to be resolved between the private parties involved.

One Member spoke in support of the application commenting that there would no grounds to refuse the application, it being noted that the County Engineer had raised no objection to the proposal. He commented that in the context of the village, Station House was important, but it was not a listed building or within the Conservation Area. He expressed sympathy regarding the concerns raised regarding the loss of trees commenting that it was important that the screening of the site remained. To this end he suggested that an informative regarding the need for a landscaping scheme should be added to any permission.

Another Member suggested that there should an informative setting out the need to protect the verge and what was expected to achieve this.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application UPT/18307/1-X be approved subject to: -

(1)        the conditions set out in the report; and

(2)        an Informative expressing the importance of the landscaping of the site and boundary treatments and advising that notwithstanding the illustrative layout plan these requirements may impact on the size and location of the dwelling which can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site.