Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval 163364/O (site for 3 detached dwellings with garages and access).

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval 163364/O (site for 3 detached dwellings with garages and access).  

(Councillor Fagan fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr B Thomas, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Fagan, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        There had been strong local opposition to the outline application granted by the Committee in April 2017.

·        Unfortunately neither the Parish Council nor an objector had been able to attend the meeting to speak on the reserved matters application.

·        The Parish Council had submitted a detailed and considered response objecting to the reserved matters application.  They had commented that the reserved matters application did not observe the spirit of the outline permission. 

·        The proposal was for 3x4 bed dwellings. This was in conflict with the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).  Within the Ross Housing Market Area the most required size was 3 bedrooms followed by 2.  Residents were objecting to the scale of the application.

·        She referenced some letters from local residents.  These highlighted concerns about:

·        Scale:  low rise, well-spaced, dormer cottage style 3-bedroom houses had initially been proposed.  The current proposal was for 3 large two storey houses with double detached garages.  Because of the sloping topography of the site the first floor levels of the properties would be the same height as the eaves of the bungalows opposite the site.  The ridge height was 7m.  The increased scale could have a greater impact on the environment than had been predicted.

·        Design:  the houses were of urban design and not in keeping with the area.  They would be intrusive and screening would be ineffective.

·        The dwellings would be overlooked by most of the village.

·        The hedgerow to the fore of the site would be at the first floor level of the properties making the development overbearing.

·        Most of the ancient hedgerow would be removed to provide the three driveways.

·        Drainage – several concerns remained over drainage issues.  It was noted, however, that this issue had been discussed at the outline application stage.

·        Traffic – concerns similarly remained over highway issues.

·        Working hours – the outline permission had permitted construction work between 7am-6pm Monday to Friday.  8am-1pm Saturday.  This would have an unacceptable impact on residents.

·        The National Design Guide 2019 supported paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which stated that, “permission should be refused for development of poor design that failed to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions”.

·        Referring to the three objectives of sustainable development, economic, social and environmental she commented that the proposal was contrary to both the social and environmental objectives.

·        The proposal was contrary to policy LD1.  The height, scale and massing of buildings was out of keeping with the spirit of the outline planning application and the identity of that part of Kingsthorne.

·        The application appeared to be driven solely by the economic objectives and did not take account of the social and environmental objectives and the views of the local community.

·        The houses did not integrate with or relate well to the surroundings because of the topography and the ground conditions.

·        The nature of the landscape posed problems for drainage and this meant that the ridge height had had to be elevated.  The height of the first floor would be equal to the ridge height of the nearest neighbour.  If the proposed dwellings took proper consideration of their surroundings they would be of a smaller scale and footprint and consequently have less of a negative impact.

·        She questioned whether the development met the requirements of policy RA2, providing the size, type, tenure and range of housing to reflect local demand.

·        She also questioned whether the proposal complied with policies SS6, LD1 and SS1.

·        There were policies to protect the identity of a villagescape from development that was out of scale and context.

The Chairperson emphasised that the application before the committee was a reserved matters application.  The question of drainage had been addressed as part of the outline permission.  Working hours if the development proceeded had also been conditioned as part of the outline application.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        The development was sustainable providing family homes. There was a good bus service and the junior school was a short walk away.

·        The local reservations about the scale of the properties were recognised.

·        The builder had recently delivered a scheme in Pembridge that had been sensitive to the requirements of the NDP.

·        Much Birch like other settlements benefitted from an assortment of house styles.

·        The developer had reduced the ridge height as requested.

·        The 3 double garages at the front of the properties would be dominant, compromising the design of the development.  Despite the available bus service the development would be car centred.

The Development Manager reiterated that the application was a reserved matters application.  The principle of development had been established.  The application form had suggested that four bedroomed properties would be proposed.  In terms of complying with the spirit of the outline permission negotiations had taken place to reduce the ridge height to 7m, which was realistically the minimum height for a two storey dwelling. The dwellings were of a cottage style. The development was in keeping in terms of scale and design with the local vernacular.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  Noting that the Committee appeared minded to approve the application she requested that consideration be given to rainwater harvesting on the houses and garages, the provision of a hedgehog corridor, and revisiting the working hours for construction amending them to 8am to 6pm on weekdays.

Councillor Rone proposed and Councillor Johnson seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation. The motion was carried with 12 votes in favour, none against and one abstention.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

1.         C07 - Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

INFORMATIVES:

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations. Negotiations in respect of matters of concern with the application (as originally submitted) have resulted in amendments to the proposal.  As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

2.         For the avoidance of doubt, conditions 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 18 on outline permission ref: 163664 are all matters of compliance. This reserved matters application approves the details under conditions 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.45 am and 11.52 am.)