Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 12/02420/FULD in respect of the erection of a single dwelling.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Alison Strong, Parish Council representative, Mr Colin Jackman, objector, and Mr and Mrs Pipikakis, applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

Ms Alison Strong in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Whilst mindful of the Parish Council’s role in enabling appropriate evolution of the village, the application went against the Parish Design Statement and had therefore resulted in strong objection from the Parish Council;

·        Recent debate in the House of Commons had resulted in Local Authorities being able to resist development of gardens;

·        The area in question comprised family homes, built at a similar time with appropriate spacing around them. Some were extended but all were in keeping with each other. The proposed development would have a detrimental impact by reducing the size of the family home and garden at number 20 Manor Crescent;

·        The green space in front of the crescent was used by children to play, and the proposed development would require access across this green space;

·        The application did not meet the needs of Compton;

·        Occupation of the new property was likely to be through lettings, not sale, as the level of mortgage approvals was falling.

Councillor Vickers asked whether there was other detached housing in the road. Ms Strong responded that at one end of the road there were a number of detached bungalows, and at the other a detached house that used to be the police house. None were visible from the crescent.

Mr Colin Jackman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        As the adjoining neighbour Mr Jackman’s family would be particularly affected by the additional property;

·        Whilst extensions were welcomed, the addition of a dwelling was not;

·        Mr Jackman believed that the addition would make his property appear terraced and might therefore affect it’s value;

·        Mr Jackman was concerned that the addition would set a precedent;

·        There was a concern over the capacity of the drainage system to cope with an additional property. The existing drains were understood to be underdeveloped and blockages occurred on occasion;

·        The green area was used as a play area by local children as it was set back from the road. An additional driveway would increase the risk of an accident;

·        Mr Jackman did not believe the current owners had been in residence long enough to accurately assess the use of the area and in particular the green space;

·        The disruption caused by the demolition of the existing structure would cause bad feeling and result in any occupants being unwelcome in the area.

Councillor Hunneman requested clarification regarding access across the green space in front of the site. Mr Jackman responded that the green was owned by the Council, and that in front of this house it was at its deepest so was considered a good area for children to play in.

Mr and Mrs Pipikakis in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Mr and Mrs Pipikakis had worked extensively with Planning Officers to develop a plan that had been recommended for approval;

·        Two objections had been received but neither overlooked the site. The immediate neighbour to the other side of the development had not objected;

·        Access across the green had already been approved for number 20, and other houses in the crescent had access across the green to reach their properties. Any damage to the green by vehicles involved in the development would be made good;

·        Having previously lived in Chieveley they felt they knew the area sufficiently to understand how the area was used and they believed that the green was not played on by children;

·        They did not believe that the additional dwelling would create a terraced feel to the crescent;

·        They believed it would be more beneficial to Compton to have two smaller dwellings on the plot rather than a single large house;

·        There were a number of different types of properties in the area, some of which were infill properties;

·        Having rented houses in the area, they had seen the high demand for similar small properties to rent;

·        The garden would remain large in comparison to modern developments.

Councillor Cole expressed concern that permission was being given to cross the green space in front of the crescent for access, commenting that the Council should be protecting green spaces. Derek Carnegie advised that the Council owned the space and had granted permission for access to the properties.

Councillor Allen requested clarification that the proposed dwelling would be built within the existing garden at number 20. Mrs Pipikakis confirmed this, and Derek Carnegie confirmed that the resulting size of each garden was not of concern.

Councillor Allen asked how close to the neighbouring property this dwelling would sit. Jake Brown advised that the plans showed a gap of 476 mm between it and the neighbours single storey extension.

Councillor Cole asked how long the applicants had lived at the address. Mr Pipikakis responded for one year, but had lived in the area for 20 years.

Councillor Cole requested clarification that the applicants were intending to reduce the size of their own property in order to build the new dwelling. Mrs Pipikakis responded that they would lose a single storey extension that was not currently useable due to damp and poor design.

(21.57: The Chairman proposed that the meeting be extended until 22.30 in order to complete business. The Committee agreed this at a vote).

In her capacity as Ward Member, Councillor von Celsing raised the following points:

·        The application did not fit with the village design statement;

·        The site was within the AONB in one of the less sustainable villages in the area;

·        The proposal did not fulfil Compton’s housing needs and other sites had been identified within Compton such as Fairfields;

·        The green in front of the crescent was well used;

·        Councillor von Celsing believed that the gap between the dwelling and the immediate neighbour was too small;

·        Councillor von Celsing believed that more objectors would have come forward had the application not been timed over the Christmas period;

·        None of the photographs submitted by the applicant in support of their application were of Manor Crescent.

Councillor Vickers reflected that there had been a failure to protect the character of his own area and did not wish to see this happen elsewhere. Councillor Vickers proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of inadequate parking, the safety of pedestrians and children, and that it would be out of keeping with the area. The proposal was seconded.

Derek Carnegie advised the Committee that the report had been comprehensive, and Planning Officers had considered that the harm generated was not great enough to warrant refusal. Officers added that as there was existing access across the green this could not be given as a reason to refuse the application, and the lack of one parking space would not be a strong enough argument to refuse the application.

The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal to refuse the application. At the vote the proposal was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

Reasons

·        Inadequate parking;

·        The safety of pedestrians and children

·        It would be out of keeping with the area