Agenda item

The Committee noted that permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of four dwellings and garages had been allowed on appeal.  It was noted that there was a requirement that the rooms should be on the ground floor only. However, it was reported that the Officers considered that accommodation in the roof space was acceptable.  It was considered that there would be no harm arising from the dormers in the roof space; there would be no overlooking and the distances to neighbouring buildings were acceptable.

It was noted that there had been four letters of objection and that one concern which had been raised was landscaping to the rear of site.  It was reported that the applicants had discussed this with the Council’s Arboricultural Officer who had advised that the indigenous hedgerow would grow which would provide adequate screening. Notwithstanding this a condition to require a landscaping scheme was proposed.

It was noted that the windows faced into the site and hence there would be no overlooking and that the closest property would be sufficiently far enough away to avoid harm from overlooking.

Mr Ian Thompson made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application.  Mr Thompson explained that he also represented the views of neighbouring residents.  He raised concern relating to matters already covered in the report commenting that it was difficult to understand the Officers’ opinion.  He commented that recommendation of approval was odd having regard to the clear view of the Inspector as set out in his report.  He commented that the number of bedrooms per dwelling; the need for accommodation on the ground floor; a turning head within the site and the need for screening had been ignored.  He considered that Officers had disregarded the Inspector’s decision and Policy H12.  He raised concern regarding the number of bedrooms per dwelling, the number of dwelling and commented that the application was contrary to planning policy and should be refused.

Mr M Gallington made a statement in support of the application.  He commented that as outline planning permission had been granted there was only a need to consider design and scale. He commented that the scale was acceptable in that four very modest chalet bungalows were proposed which he considered were sympathetic to the surrounding character and environment, more so than some neighbouring properties.   He reported that the design was sympathetic to the surrounding landscape and that first floor windows would face into the village so that the roof lights facing out had a minimum impact.  He reported that the use of landscaping would create a natural boundary and that in this regard the Council’s Arboricultural Officer had been consulted.  He explained that there would be an upgrade of the lane which would be of benefit to all the other properties along the lane.  He reported that there would be an upgrade of the water and sewage supplies. He commented that there was a turning area in the development shown in the drawings at the entrance to the property which would benefit the existing homes.  Finally, he commented that having more properties would increase the use of the existing services. 

Mr N Lyzba had given notice that he wished to make a statement at the meeting but he declined to do so.

Some Members spoke against the proposal making the following comments: -

·                    The comments of the Parish Council were understandable as the proposal now recommended for approval appeared to have no regard to the Inspector’s comments

·                    The Inspector had specified living accommodation at ground floor and yet this was not the case in this application.

·                    The Parish Council was concerned about the public’s perception of the planning process and the apparent lack of regard to Inspector’s views.

·                    The proposal was contrary to Policy H12.

·                    Chilton village did not have a clear village envelope.

·                    There was concern regarding the number of dwellings and the number of bedrooms for each.

·                    There was concern regarding the future maintenance of the lane.  The Officers reported that the upkeep of the lane would be the same as at present.

·                    There was concern regarding the water and sewage disposal and who was responsible for adopting these.  The Officers highlighted that a condition was proposed requiring details of drainage.

·                    There was a need to improve the access and this was key to the whole proposal being acceptable.

Other Members spoke in support of the proposal making the following comments: -

·                    It was commented that the Officers now recommended approval of this application in the light of the Inspector’s decision which had to be taken into account.

·                    The design was acceptable.

·                    There was no harm caused by chalet bungalows on this site

·                    Whilst the Inspector’s decision had referred to accommodation at ground floor level, reference had been made to the need to apply for planning permission for dormer windows which implied that the Inspector might have had in his mind that use of the roof accommodation might be possible.

·                    Policy H12 was subjective and that had the applicant shown one bedroom as a study, that would have met the criteria.  In this regard it was suggested that the policy needed to be reviewed and to make reference to floor space limits instead of bedrooms.

·                    There was no harm arising from the proposal.

·                    There was two storey houses on the adjacent plot which was of similar size and therefore it was difficult to see how this plot would have more impact.

·                    The proposal might enable families to move into the village.

By 12 votes to 3 it was

RESOLVED

that application CHI/16448/3 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.