Agenda item

Further to the report it was noted that the Planning Inspectorate decision letter regarding the appeal for the earlier refused scheme for four detached dwellings had now been received.  The appeal had been dismissed and the Inspector had made particular comment that the rather precise layout, coupled with the size and design of the dwellings would be an incongruous modern development divorced from the main road and village centre lacking integration between the development and the village as a whole and that the proposed development would be unsympathetic to the formal yet well integrated pattern exhibited by surrounding buildings.

Furthermore, the Committee noted that additional comments had been received from the Conservation Officer stating that the success of the current proposal would depend on the detailing.  The Conservation Officer had suggested that the front wall needed to be higher and constructed of natural stone and notwithstanding the submitted drawings, the railings should be omitted.  Furthermore, windows should be white painted wood with chunky sills and recessed, materials should be natural stone, and detailed information on the construction of the dormers was required.  As such it was therefore proposed that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, additional conditions requiring further details of these matters should be requested. 

Dominic Harding, Sally Timberlake and H G Johnson had all given notice that they wished to make a statement objecting to the application but they declined to do so.

Mr D O’Higgins made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically raised concerns that the proposal was contrary to Policies DC1 and DC9; proximity to the highway; the height of the roof line; over dominance; the proposal being out of keeping; lack of availability of elevations; safety; access; traffic; vehicle movements; pedestrian safety; lack of visibility; road safety within the development; construction vehicles; lack of passing ability; lighting; the narrowness of the road; the proposal neither enhancing or preserving the character of the area; impact on the Conservation Area and damage to the Green during construction.

Mr T Falkner the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that the scheme had evolved due to lengthy pre-application discussions.  He suggested that the proposal was in keeping with the character and appearance of the area respecting its historic nature.  He explained that a footway would be provided along the site’s road frontage which was a significant highway safety improvement, and the designs supported the traditional design locally.  He advised that 10 units would be provided (being just over 30 dwellings per hectare), 4 of which would be affordable units.  He explained that car parking was adequate and that access would be taken through the existing site at Mill Road.  Finally he explained that financial contributions would be made towards local facilities by way of a Section 106 Agreement.

The local Member spoke against the application raising concerns regarding access to Packhorse Lane; pedestrian safety; car parking; reduced visibility; height; slab levels; vehicle movements and traffic.  She suggested that consideration of the application should be deferred to enable the land to be given to the County Council towards a land bank for highway improvements in this area.

Some Members spoke against the application agreeing with the concerns raised regarding access and traffic.  It was commented that any large vehicles might mount the footway to park and as such the kerb should be increased in height to prevent this. 

Other Members spoke in support of the application welcoming the footway noting that this was regarded as a highway improvement and had been welcomed by the County Engineer. 

It was proposed by Councillor Joyce Hutchinson and seconded by Councillor Mike Badcock that consideration of application MAR/19761/1 should be deferred to enable the Officers to seek an independent highway view on the traffic issues and in particular the provision the footway.  However this was lost by 9 votes to 5 with 1 abstention.

It was proposed by the Chair and

RESOLVED

(a)        that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee and the local Member be delegated authority to approve application MAR/19761/1 subject to:-

(1)        the   completion  of  a   Section 106  Agreement  to  secure   the  required financial contribution for highways and social infrastructure;

            (2)        the conditions set out in the report;

(3)        additional conditions  to  provide  for  the removal  of  the  railings; further details of the windows and dormer detailing; the  front  wall  needing  to  be  higher  and  constructed  of natural stone; the  erection of a panel  of materials on site and a requirement that the  kerbing  details of the footpath  should  be agreed to address the concerns raised regarding vehicles mounting the pavement.

(4)        an informative to provide that notwithstanding the details proposed, porches should be provided to plots 1 to 4.

(agreed by 10 votes to 5)

(b)        that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee and the local Member be delegated authority to refused application MAR/19761/1 should the Section 106 Agreement not be completed within the 13 week period (which ends on 17 May 2007) with the reason for refusal being based on the lack of necessary financial contributions towards improving local services and facilities (agreed by 15 votes to nil).