Agenda item

Variation of conditions 2 - Approved Plans and 6 - Landscaping Scheme of application P16/V3165/FUL. (Proposed 4no. dwellings and works there to.)

(Amended plans and additional information received 24 April 2020, amended site plan showing waste vehicle tracking received 1 May 2020 and amended plans and information received 29 July 2020). (Additional ecology information received 22 October 2020 and NatureSpace Report received 27 November 2020).

The committee considered application P20/V0348/FUL for the variation of conditions 2 - Approved Plans and 6 - Landscaping Scheme of application P16/V3165/FUL. (Proposed 4no. dwellings and works there to.) (Amended plans and additional information received 24 April 2020, amended site plan showing waste vehicle tracking received 1 May 2020 and amended plans and information received 29 July 2020). (Additional ecology information received 22 October 2020 and NatureSpace Report received 27 November 2020) on land adjoining No. 38 Barrow Road, Shippon.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.

The planning officer reported that this application and application P20/V0369/FUL, on land adjoining the same address (also on the meeting’s agenda), should be treated as separate applications and were not dependent upon one another.

The planning officer reported that the application sought a variation to an existing planning permission granted in 2017.  The principle of allowing four dwellings on the site had been established by that planning permission. The application was in respect of a variation to approved plans, which included the re-positioning plots 3 and 4 and amending their layout and detailed design. The planning officer also reported that there were three listed buildings in close proximity to the site; the location of these listed buildings were shown on a map at paragraph 1.3 of the report.

The planning officer drew the committee’s attention to the ridge heights of the proposed dwellings, as St. Helen Without Parish Council and four neighbours.

had objected with regard to the height above ground level of the proposed dwellings. Referring to paragraph 5.9 of the report, the planning officer confirmed that the buildings would be 8.1m in height (plots 1,2 4) and 7.6m in height (plot 3). The site levels were not intended to be lowered, as in the previous application. In terms of actual height, the ridge of plots 1 and 2 would be 0.23 metres above the approved ridge for those plots. The actual ridge height of plot 3 would be the same as approved plot 3, with plot 4 being 0.45 metres higher than the approved plot 3.  Some objectors had communicated to the council their own estimated height values, measured from ground level, which were incorrect.  All measurements being considered as part of the application had been taken from a datum and were heights above sea level. The planning officer acknowledged that the height of the dwellings in some cases would be slightly more than those approved, but advised that height should not be considered in isolation, but as part of the overall impact of a development.

Councillor Michael Page, a representative of St Helen Without Parish Council spoke objecting to the application. The democratic services officer had sent a statement from the parish council to the committee prior to the meeting.

Mr. David Churchouse, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. The democratic services officer had sent Mr. Churchouse’s statement to the committee prior to the meeting.

Mr. Alex Cresswell, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Catherine Webber, the local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee expressed concern at the cramped form of the development and considered that it clustered in a way which would be harmful to the local character of the area. Notwithstanding the explanations regarding the height measurement of the buildings, the committee remained concerned about the ridge heights of the development. It considered that the development would adversely harm visual amenity and would be harmful to the character of the area and setting of listing buildings.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission was carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P20/V0348/FUL, for the following reasons;

1.     The proposal would result in the development being clustered and overdeveloped in one part of the site;

2.    The development would result in a cramped form of development which would be out of character for the area.

3.     Coupled with the increase in ridge heights, more complex building design and changes to the northern boundary wall, the development would adversely harm the visual amenity and be harmful to the character of the area and setting of listing buildings