Proposed replacement dwelling and garage.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application pending further information.

(Proposed replacement dwelling and garage.)

The Senior Planning Officer (SPO) gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs J Ward, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs Hawkins, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        Local residents were unanimous in their objection to the proposal.  The Parish Council had objected to both the original and the revised application.

·        Prior to making a full application the applicant levelled the site.  Hedgerows had been removed and a mature beech tree felled.  She condemned this as ecological destruction in an environmentally sensitive area.

·        There was no objection in principle to a replacement dwelling.  However, Policy RA3 provided that replacement dwellings needed to be ‘comparable in size and scale with, and located in the lawful domestic curtilage of, the existing dwelling’.  The proposal was for a ‘significantly larger’ dwelling than the original building and located elsewhere on the plot.  There had been no attempt to establish whether or not the land was lawful domestic curtilage or agricultural.

·        NDP policy WNL5 provided that new housing should be accessed directly from a made up road.   The stone track to the site was a footpath. The design and access statement was misleading.

·        Local people accepted the principle of replacing the dilapidated, post war bungalow.  They had raised a number of concerns about its removal ranging from asbestos in the structure, effluent and contamination in the surrounding soils, drainage.  These had not been addressed until the publication of the schedule of updates.

·        If the proposal were more suitably located within the plot it probably would not have been redirected to the Committee.

·        Objectors considered the proposal was contrary to the character of the settlement. It did not respond to the local environment.  It sat awkwardly on a narrow plot – shoe-horned in between two existing dwellings, almost filling the width of the plot completely.  It would be possible to fit a three bedroom dwelling into the plot without it being so cramped in a manner not characteristic of the common, as outlined in paragraph 5.2.11 of the NDP.  It was therefore unclear how the proposal complied with policy RA2.  The walls of the proposed dwelling and garage were about 1m and 2m away from the boundaries with The Willows and Hazeldene respectively and only about 7m away from Hazeldene itself.  Housing on the common tended to be offset, with a low degree of intervisibility.  The location of the proposed dwelling was in a line, with a high degree of intervisibility and more urban in nature.

·        The NDP also contained clear policies on building design principles: WNL4: ‘all new development proposals will be required to demonstrate how they…enhance and reinforce local distinctiveness in terms of scale and mass of development;’. And ‘do not disrupt the amenity of neighbouring properties or environment’… The proposal included a 2.5m high (8ft) grey brick wall along the boundary with Hazeldene. Along with the timber cladding this did little to enhance local distinctiveness.

·        The crowding of Hazeldene and The Willows raised the issue of residential amenity. The report acknowledged that there was harm to the amenity of Hazeldene but did not consider it to be of sufficient weight to lead to refusal.  Loss of light, loss of privacy, overlooking and overshadowing were all material considerations.  The applicant had not made a calculation of the loss of light having regard to the 25 degree rule. It was a marginal judgement as to whether the 25 degree angle necessary at a minimum for light amenity to Hazeldene could be attained.  There appeared to be no calculations to show the severity of the impact or what attempts, if any, have been made to mitigate this significant and demonstrable harm. 

·        Good practice required that account be taken of what other light was available to the affected property.  Hazeldene was surrounded by trees on three sides and the only open aspect was towards the proposed development.  Any margin of error should therefore be in favour of the existing residence.  On Welsh Newton Common mitigation/avoidance could easily be achieved.  A large part of this section of the building was to house a car. 

·        The proposal represented a significant and demonstrable harm to the amenity of the neighbouring Hazeldene and the Willow contrary to one of the core principles the NPPF (paragraph 17), policy WNL4 of the NDP and policy SD1 of the core strategy.

·        Impact on the residential amenity of Hazeldene was compounded by the specific circumstances of the residents.  The report assumed that residents of Hazeldene could enjoy all of their property equally and this was not the case.  There were two registered disabled residents in Hazeldene with varying degrees of mobility.  The side garden was the only outside space that was wheelchair accessible.  When unable to go out the view from inside the property would now be dominated by an 8ft high grey brick wall and a 6m high building.  Whilst loss of a view was not a material consideration the loss of amenity was.

·        Paragraph 64 of the NPPF stated permission should be refused for development of poor design that failed to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions’.   The applicant had not taken that opportunity. The proposal maximised the negative impact on the neighbouring properties and was out of character for the settlement.

·        Ecologically Protected Species had been recorded in close proximity to the site.   It was essential that further surveys and some sort of protection was put in place.   Other recent applications on the common had been required to submit full ecology, tree and dormouse surveys prior to determination. 

·        The comments of the Council’s Tree Officer had not been addressed until the schedule of updates.  The use of limestone paving slabs would also impact on the hedge roots to the north east as an impermeable surface and the close proximity of the build lines with the boundary raised concern about the root protection of what is left of the hedge.  The lack of thought given to root protection zones was an omission.

·        There was also tension between the proposal and the following NDP policies: WNL1 (6) Local habitats and wildlife should be preserved and enhanced by providing species rich hedgerows and tree cover; WNL1 (8) Mature and established trees should be protected and incorporated into landscaping schemes; WNL1 (12) New development must take account of known surface and sub-surface archaeology; NDP paragraph 4.3.12 Opportunities will be sought …to create new species rich hedgerows…plant broadleaf trees… all new developments will be required to provide space for bats, owls, swift, swallow and house martin nests. 

·        The proposal did not fulfil the environmental dimension of sustainability described at paragraph 7 of the NPPF There were no net gains to compensate for the loss of diversity, habitat and amenity that the proposal represented  Given the lack of services on Welsh Newton Common there would be a high level of car use.  There would be increased use of electric light in Hazeldene.  The proposal had no firm commitment to renewables. 

·        Contrary to paragraph 9 of the NPPF the proposal did not improve the living conditions of the neighbours in Hazeldene and the Willows. 

·        In conclusion, even if the presumption in favour of sustainable development was engaged there was significant and demonstrable harm in the application contrary to the NPPF local plan and NDP.  It was not compliant with LD1, LD2, LD3, RA2 (1 and 3), SD1, SS6, as well as WNL1, WNL4 and WNL5 of the NDP and paragraphs 9, and 66 of the NPPF.  She requested that the application be refused.

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

·        The proposal could not be considered to be a replacement dwelling.  It was significantly larger and not on the same footprint.  It had been relocated close to the neighbouring property.

·        The proposal was contrary to NDP policy WNL5 which stated that developments should be small in scale and accessed by a made up road.

·        The application would also involve the removal of a very old hedgerow.  It was therefore inconsistent with the Council’s biodiversity action plan.

·        In response to questions the SPO commented that the proposed condition prompted by the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer, as set out in the schedule of updates, involving a desk top study as a first step, was a standard condition.  The Tree Officer had also proposed a condition, as set out in the schedule of updates, that would address concerns about the protection of the roots of existing trees on the site.

The Development Manager added that the applicant had not carried out an assessment of the 25 degree rule in relation to the daylight enjoyed by the neighbouring property.  The officer assessment was that the impact on amenity was not unacceptable.  This matter could not be dealt with by a condition.  If the Committee required such an assessment to be carried out consideration of the application would need to be deferred to allow that assessment to take place.

In response to concern about the proposed boundary treatment involving an 8ft high wall, the Development Manager commented that this was addressed by a landscaping condition.  A condition also provided that no further hedgerow removal should take place.  The landscaping condition together with the proposed tree protection plan provided control over the development.

Councillor Polly Andrews proposed and Councillor Seldon seconded a motion that the consideration of the application be deferred for further information.  The motion was carried with 12 votes in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred pending receipt of further information on the need for a boundary wall as proposed, the location of the dwelling within the site, a reassessment of the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property and the submission of a daylight/sunlight analysis be sought to consider the impacts in relation to light.

(The meeting adjourned between12.07 pm to 12.15 pm)