Agenda item

Councillors Roger Cox, Terry Cox and Angela Lawrence had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Mr D Hutchinson made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council, commenting that whilst no objection would be raised to a sympathetic and appropriate development of the site, there were concerns regarding this proposal in terms of its scale, mass and design.  He commented that there were too many houses proposed and that this would be too high, especially as there was an incline on the site resulting in even higher building.  He referred to the access, commenting that the road was already an over busy route through the village.  He expressed surprise that there had been no consultation with appropriate authorities and he referred to the listed building next to the development site.  He reiterated concerns regarding height and explained that at the eastern gateway to the village properties were low level and previous applications for two storey properties had been refused.  Finally, he suggested that a single storey development of no more than two units might be acceptable and that the application should be deferred to enable consideration of this.

Mr J Martin made a statement objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He commented that four large dwellings on this site were not acceptable in view of their proximity to the highway, their adverse visual impact on this main approach into the village, density, inadequate screening and height.  As a result the proposal would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area.  He referred to a previous decision to refuse planning permission which he considered had not been taken into account and commented that planning policy statement 3 provided that villages should not be dealt with in the same way as urban areas and that Members should have regard to the rural character of this site.  Finally, he commented that the proposal was contrary to Policies DC1 and DC9 of the Council’s Local Plan and that Members should be consistent in their decision making and refuse this application.

Mr N Lyzba, the applicant’s agent, made a statement in support of the application, commenting that the proposal was in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 3 in terms of density; it was a good development and made a good use of the land.  He reported that the site was currently occupied by an undistinguished bungalow and that the development proposed would be more traditional in design.  He explained that the bedrooms were to be in the roof space so the proposal was not two storey; access was adequate, height was acceptable and there had been no objections from the Highways Authority.  He explained that the density was low in view of the sewer across the site which needed to be safeguarded and retained.  He commented that a bungalow would be out of keeping and that the scheme had no real impact on the listed building referred to, apart from a visual improvement.  Finally, he commented that the proposal was neighbourly and should be supported.

One of the local Members commented that the Parish Council had been proactive in encouraging housing in the village but the key to this was protecting the character of the village.  She advised that the entrance to the village was undistinguished because the existing property was barely noticeable.  She explained that the development was proposed on a raised site and would be two storeys and would present the entrance to the village in a different way.  She commented that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, an additional condition to require slab levels to be agreed should be included and she requested to be consulted as local Member on the scheme.  Finally, she commented that the current gateway to the village should be retained and raised concerns regarding the existing level of traffic on the access road and pedestrian safety.

Some Members spoke in support of the application, agreeing that the proposal accorded with Planning Policy Statement 3;  the density was low and there was no reason to refuse the application.  One Member commented that there was a well in the garden to which the Officers responded that in light of this the Council’s Environmental Health Officer’s comments with regard to the application would be checked.

Another Member made reference to the sewer in the site, questioning the easement between the structures, to which the Officers advised that Thames Water had raised no objection in planning terms.

One Member questioned whether a financial contribution could be sought towards waste collection.  However, the Officers responded that the Council had yet to establish a policy regarding smaller developments and that the likely sums involved were less than the likely costs in securing such contributions.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

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/5011/4 subject to:-

(1)       the conditions set out in the report;

(2)       a further condition to provide for slab levels to be agreed and the slab constructed before any development above slab level proceeds;

(3)       the Officers seeking confirmation from the Environmental Health Officer that he has no objections to the proposal in terms of the well on the site.