Agenda item

Matthew Barber, Terry Cox, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Angela Lawrence, Jerry Patterson, Margaret Turner and John Woodford each declared a personal interest and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee was advised that an additional plan had been received today showing amended access and parking.  It was commented that the CountyEngineer had seen the proposal and had not raised any objection although additional comments had been received which were read out at the meeting.  The County Engineer had made reference to the Government’s recently published guidance on highway matters, “Manual for Streets”.

The Committee was advised that should it be minded to approve the application, conditions should be included to provide for appropriate drainage and to require development in accordance with the amended access/parking plan.

Mr Morris made a statement objecting to the application advising that his principle objection was overdevelopment. He commented that due to the small scale of this site it could not accommodate more than a two bedroom house.  He stated that the land had been recently separated off from Eastcourt, a small cottage and therefore was not part of a large Victorian property but comprised of the original garden of that cottage. He advised that the plot was small and narrow in a prominent position in the central street of Chilton.  He advised that the proposal was contrary to Planning Policy H12 in that the dwelling was overly large.  He considered that the Officers had overlooked this policy, which had been included in the Local Plan with just such infill sites in mind. He commented that even a 3 bedroom house would be too large on this site having regard to its size, location and level of land.  He considered that there would be inadequate amenity space and that a set back location was necessary as the land was in an area of groundwater flooding.  He also raised concern regarding access, visibility splays; parking, the narrow frontage and hedge constraining visibility; removal of the neighbours hedge; the Officer’s comments that the hedge would provide screening yet there was an intention for its removal; and the need to protect boundaries in view of the removal of a neighbour’s tree.  Finally, he concluded that the small size and the constrained setting of this infill site was such that it was only able to take a further 2 bedroom property.

Mr K Howard made a statement objecting to the application commenting that his home was adjacent to the site.  He raised concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concern regarding the small size of the site; parking; cars reversing in and out of the access; and safety.  He raised concern regarding the dimensions of the parking area; damage to hedge roots from construction; the pending comments of the County Engineer; drainage; lack of details of the necessary soak way and its location; the need to retain boundaries which were not in the ownership of the applicant; lack of vegetation on the northeast boundary; the need to protect the hedge; and the removal of a tree not in the applicant’s ownership.

Mrs G Webb, the applicant made a statement in support of the application commenting that this was a standalone site which had been classified as a trunk road and not part of a garden. She explained that the garden at the rear equated to nearly 50% of the plot. She advised that the house was not crammed on the site; the proposed dwelling was wider than the neighbouring house by 70cm only; the footprint was only 1.4 metres more than the neighbouring house; there would be no loss of light or overlooking; the distances between the proposed house and the neighbouring property were acceptable; there were no windows in the gable end and therefore no loss of privacy; the house was not too large for the plot and the access was acceptable; the County Engineer had raised no objection; the design was acceptable in the Conservation Area; there was no intention to remove the hedge or trees.

One Member raised concerns regarding the proposal noting that this proposal had been refused previously and dismissed on appeal and that the reasons for the objection to the application remained.  She stated that the County Engineer now appeared to be unable to object due to the recent publication in May 2007 of “Manual for Streets”, which had caused the reclassification of Main Street as a “street”. She added that this meant that Main Street in Chilton did not “singularly perform the functions of facilitating vehicular movement”. She expressed disbelief at some of the assumptions made and wished to address several important points on which she sought clarification.  She questioned whether it was right that the Committee could subsequently approve an application when its previous refusal had been upheld on appeal. She considered that allowing such an application would bring the appeal process and the Planning Inspectorate into disrepute. She suggested that applications which had been refused on highways grounds should not be reconsidered by the Committee within a given period. She considered that if appeals were upheld and then subsequently applications for the same proposal were approved by the Committee, this would cause difficulties for the Council in trying to explain these decisions to members of the public.  She referred the Committee to the comments of the Planning Inspector, which concluded that the proposal was unacceptable. She stated that the only thing which had changed with this application was the Government Guidance. She questioned why the proposal was considered safe now when it was considered dangerous 6 months ago when nothing had actually changed.  Finally, she commented that she accepted that the Committee should pay heed to Government Policy and Guidance.  However she felt that it would have to adjust its thinking to accept the new manual and added that the Committee ought to consider whether it conflicted with the Vale’s Local Plan Policies. She urged the Committee to refuse the application.

One Member raised concern regarding imposing a condition regarding boundary treatment when the land did not belong to the applicant.  To this end it was agreed that the wording of condition 4 in the report should be amended.

Some Members raised concern at the application noting the Inspector’s comments in terms of a small scale development of up to 3 bedrooms. It was considered that this 4 bedroom property was too large on this site and that the proposal was contrary to H12 of the Local Plan.

Other Members spoke in support of the proposal commenting that if there was a discrepancy between the Local plan and Planning Policy Guidance then the Policy Guidance applied. It was noted that the Local Plan had been on deposit when this advice had been published and therefore it could not be included.  It was commented that there were no grounds for refusal given the explanation now received.  Furthermore, it was commented that the last time the application had been considered, the Committee had been raised regarding parking and this had now been addressed.

One Member advised the Committee that on consideration of the Local Plan at the Inquiry evidence had been put forward that there were insufficient small bedroom houses in the District and that debate had concentrated on providing a wider diversity of housing stock with a specific aim to provide smaller accommodation.

By 11 votes to 3  with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that application CHI/20377 be approved subject to:

(1)      the conditions set out in the report with condition 4 being amended to read “RE7 submission of boundary treatments”;

(2)      additional conditions to address drainage; to require development in accordance with the amended plan and to remove permitted development rights to retain control of further extensions to the house.