Agenda item

It was noted that no comments had been received from the Parish Council.

Anita Maqdhavan made a statement objecting to the applications raising concern relating to matters already covered in the report.  She specifically raised concerns regarding increased traffic, particularly during school time; access to the highway; loss of privacy particularly to her garden; noise and disturbance from vehicles; the character and appearance of the area changing.  She expressed a preference for application CUM/5932/4 and sought details of the height of the new building commenting that she had concerns that it might adversely affect her amenity.

Mike Giles had given notice that he wished to make a statement objecting to the applications but he declined to do so.

Jen Joynson, the applicant of application CUM/5932/4-X made a statement in support of the application commenting that there was adequate screening in that on one side there was a mature laurel hedge which was approximately 12 feet high stretching along the garden boundary; the access was adequate and the road was one way with a single lane of traffic travelling at slow speeds; neighbouring houses had suffered from subsidence and therefore trees had been removed to address that;  tree removal would be kept to a minimum; and vehicle movements would not be unacceptable and that at one time there had been 5 cars entering and leaving the site.

One of the local Members commented that he had been asked to represent the views of the neighbour.  He explained that the site was adjacent to the Green Belt but also close to the village.  He commented that in his opinion the most significant objection was the loss of privacy due to the construction of a second dwelling at the back of the site.  He suggested that there would be overlooking of the neighbouring houses and garden and also neighbouring gardens further down the road.  He asked that a condition be attached to any permission to require that the dwelling to the rear of the site should be single storey and that the hedges should be retained.

One of the local Members supported the applications but considered that a slab levels condition should be added to both permissions if Members were minded to approve the applications.

One Member commented that in his view there was no reason to refuse the applications but he expressed concern regarding the removal of the trees and sought clarification regarding which ones were to be removed and the impact of this on the general landscape.   The Officers explained which trees were likely to be removed commenting that they were not worthy of preservation in any event.  It was suggested that an informative could be added to any permission advising that the Council would wish to see the hedgerows retained.

Other Members spoke in support of the applications noting that a number of matters were reserved such as height, appearance and landscaping.

On considering the applications one Member raised a general question regarding consultation with Thames Water.   The Officers explained that Thames Water was a utility provider and had asked to be consulted when a proposal provided for 10 dwellings or more, although Thames Water had previously requested to be advised of applications in an area where there were known water associated problems.  It was also commented that the Council’s drainage engineer provided advice on planning applications.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

(a)        that application CUM/5932/3 - X be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and a further slab level condition and an informative to advise the applicant that the Council would wish to see the hedgerows retained; and

(b)        that application CUM/5932/4 – X be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and a further slab level condition and an informative to advise the applicant that the Council would wish to see the hedgerows retained.