Development of four dwellings to the rear of April Cottage (amended plans, tree survey and transport technical note received 26 November 2020 - includes reduction in dwelling numbers to four).
Part way through the consideration of this application, members took a vote prior to the meeting guillotine of 8:30pm to continue.
The committee considered application P20/V2125/FUL for the development of four dwellings to the rear of April Cottage (amended plans, tree survey and transport technical note received 26 November 2020 - includes reduction in dwelling numbers to four) at April Cottage, 39 Stallpits Road, Shrivenham.
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 was a proposal in respect of one of the district’s larger villages and was in a sustainable location. No objections had been received from the technical consultees in respect of the application. In response to a question regarding a construction traffic management plan, the planning officer reported that in view of the small scale of development, it would not be reasonable for such a plan to be required. Highways obstructions were covered by highway legislation and it was usually acknowledged that there would be some short-term disruption related to small construction sites such as this. It was expected that construction workers would follow a code of practice that included working within reasonable hours. Any unreasonable noise would normally be covered by relevant environmental health legislation for noise nuisance.
Councillor Richard Bartle, a representative of Shrivenham Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.
Ms. Sarah Wright, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.
Ms. Sandra Green a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. The democratic services officer had sent the joint statement by Ms. Wright and Ms. Green to the committee prior to the meeting.
Mr. Jon Langdon–Bates the agent, spoke in support of the application. The democratic services officer had sent the statement by Mr. Langdon–Bates to the committee prior to the meeting.
Councillor Elaine Ware, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. The democratic services officer had sent the joint statement from Councillors Elaine Ware and Simon Howell (the latter also a local ward councillor) to the committee prior to the meeting.
In response to a question, the planning officer reported that there would be a requirement to remove a section of hedge from the front of the site to widen the access and also some trees adjacent to the east and south boundaries. There were no highways objections following amendments to the proposals.
In response to a question as to whether the proposal represented overcrowding, the planning officer reported that the reduction in the number of dwellings on the site, and the reduction of their size, had afforded more space around the dwellings and the parking and public areas. It was not considered that the dwellings would appear cramped in their plots. Although the plots might be slightly smaller than those immediately surrounding, they would all meet the recommended garden sizes and provide sufficient parking, with some opportunity for planting along the access driveway and within the gardens. Planning officers considered that it would be difficult to regard the proposal as overdevelopment. The buildings had been altered in design to be more respectful to the area.
A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P20/V2125/FUL, for the following reasons;
1. Commencement three years - Full Planning Permission
2. Approved plans
3. Surface water drainage details submission
4. Foul water drainage details submission
5. Landscaping scheme submission
6. Tree protection including updated protection plan showing utility routes
7. External and internal boundary treatments submission
8. Slab and ridge levels submission
Pre-construction above slab level
9. Details of materials
10. Access and visibility splays in accordance with plans
11. Parking and turning space in accordance with plans
12. Refuse collection point provided
13. Removal of permitted development rights for Classes B and C (roof enlargements or alterations)