Agenda item

Proposal:	Erection of a detached dwelling, garaging and associated works
Location:	Land adjacent to Morphe, Downend, Chieveley
Applicant:	Charles Manly and Jane Parkin
Recommendation:	The Head of Planning and Countryside be authorise to APPROVE planning permission

 

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that she was a Member of Chieveley Parish Council and was present at the meeting when the application was discussed. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/00223/FULD in respect of a proposal to erect a detached dwelling, garaging and associated works on land adjacent to Morphe, Downend, Chieveley.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Mike Belcher, Parish Council representative, Mr Richard Griffiths, objector, Mr Mark Campbell, agent and Councillor Hilary Cole, speaking as Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

3.         Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations.  He advised that the planning application had been called in by Councillor Hilary Cole due to concerns from residents about the effect on the footpath and ten letters of objection had also been received.  However, the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

4.         Paul Goddard was invited to make a comment on the highways matters.  He advised that access to the site was over a footpath and if the Committee was minded to grant planning consent, it did not mean that the site would have vehicular access, as this issue would need to be resolved by the applicant.  In his opinion, vehicular movements from the site would be minimal.  However, the Construction Management Plan included in the conditions, required that the footpath was restored to its original state once construction on the site had been completed.

5.         Mr Belcher in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           The Parish Council did not have any objections to the development.

·           Their concerns were in relation to the narrow and rustic nature of Morphe Lane and the fact that it was a Public Right of Way (PROW), which meant it was used as a footpath by walkers.

·           If Members granted planning consent, the Parish Council requested that visitors to the property were made aware of the status of the footpath to enable priority to be given to pedestrians and repairs were made, following any damage.  Therefore, they hoped the pedestrian right of way would be sympathetically protected.

·           As parking in the lane would cause an obstruction, parking should be provided on the site for construction traffic.

·           A condition was requested requiring reasonable hours for construction work on the site.

·           Suitable screening was required following construction in order to protect neighbouring properties.

6.         Mr Griffiths in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           He was representing some of the objectors.

·           The site where the house would be constructed was within the settlement boundary, but the footpath was not.  Therefore the usual presumption in favour of development did not apply to the whole area.

·           The character of the site should be protected and the proposed dwelling was out of character with the area.

·           The case officer’s report was incorrect as it stated there was currently a garage building on the site.  However the original planning permission had been given for the erection of a workshop.

·           Sustainable development should not preclude protection of the area and there must be a limit to the number of vehicles that could access the lane.

·           The proposed dwelling would result in an additional four vehicles accessing the lane, which represented a 25 percent increase in usage and this was not beneficial to the area.

·           It would be reasonable to refuse planning permission.  However if planning permission was granted, it would be a criminal offence to use the footpath without vehicular rights and proof of private vehicular rights had not been addressed in the report.

·           Consequently a condition should be included requiring proof of private vehicular rights prior to the commencement of construction.

7.         Councillor Anthony Pick asked Mr Griffiths how he had concluded that there would be a 25 percent increase in vehicular movements.  He replied that there were currently 34 daily movements in the lane and another eight equated to a 25 percent increase.

8.         Councillor Hilary Cole enquired which part of the site was within the settlement boundary and Mr Griffiths advised that the lane was not within it.  Derek Carnegie interjected that this was not a planning concern and Mr Griffiths added that as the plot was within the settlement boundary, it would be possible to access it from the Peasemore Road.

9.         Councillor Paul Bryant noted that access to development sites did not need to be within the settlement boundary and wondered why it was important in this case.  Mr Griffiths responded that this was because the only way to access the site was through the lane, which would result in it being overused, as it could not take any further traffic.

10.      Councillor Bryant further enquired if the other six dwellings on the lane were accessing their properties illegally.  Mr Griffiths answered that the occupiers had been granted access either by long use or by the original owner. He added that he expected the plot had been granted access by long use for use of the workshop only and not for access to a dwelling.

11.      Councillor Garth Simpson questioned how vehicles were currently managing to access the lane, since it had been described as narrow.  Mr Griffiths responded that it was accessed with difficulty, as although there was a reasonable width at the bottom, vehicles had to pull into driveways further up the lane.

12.      Councillor Simpson added that he found the proposed 25 percent increase in vehicular movements to be overstated and where he lived, which was similar in nature, the neighbours had a code of conduct for accessing their properties.

13.      Councillor James Cole enquired what the track was constructed of and was advised it consisted of scalping, mud and gravel and was informally maintained by the residents.

14.      Mr Campbell in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           The application was for a single dwelling within the settlement boundary and consequently the presumption was in favour of a new housing development.

·           There were no valid reasons for planning permission to be refused.

·           He had noted that no objections had been received from Highways and PROW officers and that they were in favour of planning consent being granted if legal rights of access to the site could be obtained.

·           Access to the property was not a valid planning matter and there was no planning requirement for this.

·           There was a garage already situated on the site, which generated vehicular movements along the lane and therefore, there would be little impact from the proposed dwelling.

·           Conditions could be included to regulate the construction traffic.

·           He urged the Committee to grant planning permission and heed the officer’s recommendation.

15.      Councillor Hilary Cole asked whether the garage was in use, as the surrounding area looked overgrown.  Mr Campbell confirmed that it was possible for the applicant to use it.

16.      Councillor Bryant enquired whether the refuse lorry accessed the lane and affirmation was received on this point.

17.      Councillor Bryant suggested that sprinklers should be included in the dwelling and Mr Campbell confirmed that this requirement could be included as a condition.

18.      Councillor Hilary Cole in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           She understood the desire to develop the site and the objectors concerns.

·           Just because there was a presumption in favour of development, it did not mean that the application had to be approved.

·           The issue regarding access to the site had to be taken into consideration, as it was a public footpath, which the applicant might or might not have access rights to.

·           She had called the application into the Committee as she had wanted to provide the objectors with the opportunity to voice their concerns.

19.      Councillor Clive Hooker asked if Councillor Hilary Cole was a Member of Chieveley Parish Council and if so, if she had been involved in the discussion about extending the settlement boundary.  Councillor Hilary Cole responded that she was a Member of the Parish Council but the extension to the settlement boundary had been approved by the Planning Policy Group.  However, it was her view that when sites were put forward, they should be visited by Members of the Planning Policy Group, as if this site had been visited, the settlement boundary might not have been extended.

20.      Councillor Pick enquired whether Councillor Cole’s comment referred to the legality or the practicality of accessing the site.  Councillor Cole confirmed she had been referring to the practicality issues, as it would be difficult to widen certain parts of the lane and a fire tender would have difficulty accessing the site in a hurry.

21.      Councillor Simpson asked Paul Goddard if the pedestrian traffic along the PROW had been measured and if the narrowest section of the lane, where it was only three metres wide, would be sufficient for pedestrians to use without putting them at risk.  Paul Goddard responded that no count had been taken.  He considered that three metres would not be sufficient for a pedestrian and vehicle to pass each other; however he assumed there would be places for pedestrians to wait in order to allow a vehicle to pass.

22.      Councillor Bryant sought clarification as to whether a condition could be included covering a requirement for sprinklers in the dwelling.  Derek Carnegie answered that it would not be appropriate from a planning perspective for such a condition to be included as an Inspector would not agree to it being a valid condition.  He added that it was more appropriate to consider whether a fire tender could access the site.

23.      Councillor James Cole questioned whether it was possible to include a condition relating to the requirement for proof of access rights prior to the commencement of construction.  However, Derek Carnegie advised that this was a matter for the applicant to resolve and it was not appropriate to refuse the application on this issue.

24.      Councillor Hilary Cole conjectured that, therefore, it was possible that the site could be landlocked and Derek Carnegie confirmed that this could be the case.

25.      In considering the above application Councillor Jeff Beck proposed that the Committee accepted the officer’s recommendation to grant planning consent.  He added that the query from Councillor Bryant regarding sprinklers was covered in the report; however the applicant should take note of the comments regarding fire tender access.  He also agreed that clearance of the track needed to be taken account of.  Councillor Beck’s proposal was seconded by Councillor Bryant.

26.      Councillor Pick pointed out that he did not believe the objectors had a sustainable argument. 

27.      Councillor Bryant commented that access to the site was not perfect but there were a number of similar sites in the district and it could be resolved if the residents worked together.  Therefore he supported the application and Councillor Simpson also added his support.

28.      Councillor Hilary Cole observed that she did not have any strong arguments against the Committee’s comments.  However, she had called it in to the Committee to enable the objectors and the Parish Council to voice their concerns.

29.      Councillor James Cole stated that granting planning permission was not providing the applicant with access rights and Councillor Hilary Cole added that the applicant and the residents would need to resolve this.

30.      The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Beck as seconded by Councillor Bryant to approve planning permission.  At the vote, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.      The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:   To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

 2.     The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and other documents listed below:

Location and Block Plan 17067/002 P3

Site Plan 17067/001 Rev P3

Proposed Plans and Elevations 17067/003 Rev P2

Proposed Garage Plans 17067/004 Rev P1

Proposed Roof Plan and Sections 17067/005

Associated documents

Design Statement

Planning Statement

Arboricultural Impact Assessment by SJ Stephens Associates

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Site Levels 17067/006

All received with the application on 19th January 2018.

Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with the submitted details assessed against Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 - 2026.

 3.     No development shall take place until a schedule of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling and hard surfaced areas hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to these matters which have been detailed in the current application.  Samples of the materials shall be made available for inspection on site on request. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved materials unless alternative materials are first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials are visually attractive and respond to local character. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS 14 and CS 19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006), and Chieveley: A Village Design Statement.

 4.     Protective fencing shall be implemented and retained intact for the duration of the development in accordance with the tree and landscape protection scheme identified on approved drawing(s) numbered plan Tree Protection Plan within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment. Within the fenced area(s), there shall be no excavations, storage of materials or machinery, parking of vehicles or fires.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the objectives of  the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

 5.     No development shall take place (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) until the applicant has secured the implementation of an arboricultural watching brief in accordance with a written scheme of site monitoring, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

 6.     No trees, shrubs or hedges shown as being retained on tree survey project no.1075 shall be pruned, cut back, felled, wilfully damaged or destroyed in any way without the prior consent of the local planning authority.  Any trees, shrubs or hedges felled, removed or destroyed, or any that dies, become seriously damaged or diseased within five years from completion of the approved development, shall be replaced with the same species in the next planting season unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent for any subsequent variation.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

 7.     No development or other operations shall commence on site until a detailed scheme of hard and soft landscaping for the site is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the treatment of hard surfacing (to incorporate the use of a porous material to any hard surfaced areas) and materials to be used, schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities, an implementation programme and details of written specifications including cultivation and other operations involving tree, shrub and grass establishment. The scheme shall ensure;

a)    Completion of the approved landscape scheme within the first planting season following completion of development.               

b)    Any trees shrubs or plants that die or become seriously damaged within five years of this development shall be replaced in the following year by plants of the same size and species.

c)    Details of the carrying out of any earth moving operations concurrently with the carrying out of the building and other works.

Thereafter the approved scheme shall be implemented in full.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

 8.     No development shall take place until details of sustainable drainage measures to manage surface water within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

These details shall:

a)    Incorporate the implementation of Sustainable Drainage methods (SuDS) in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS (March 2015), the SuDS Manual C753 (2015) and West Berkshire Council local standards;

b)    Include and be informed by a ground investigation survey which establishes the soil characteristics, infiltration rate and groundwater levels;

f)     Include construction drawings, cross-sections and specifications of all proposed SuDS measures within the site;

g)    Include run-off calculations, discharge rates, infiltration and storage capacity calculations for the proposed SuDS measures based on a 1 in 100 year storm +40% for climate change;

j)     Include pre-treatment methods to prevent any pollution or silt entering SuDS features or causing any contamination to the soil or groundwater;

m)   Include details of how the SuDS measures will be maintained and managed after completion.  These details shall be provided as part of a handover pack for subsequent purchasers and owners of the property/premises;

The above sustainable drainage measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the dwelling hereby permitted is occupied or in accordance with a timetable to be submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority as part of the details submitted for this condition. The sustainable drainage measures shall be maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner; to prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and protect water quality, habitat and amenity and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system can be, and is carried out in an appropriate and efficient manner. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006). A pre-condition is necessary because insufficient detailed information accompanies the application; sustainable drainage measures may require work to be undertaken throughout the construction phase and so it is necessary to approve these details before any development takes place.

 9.     No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The statement shall provide for:

(a)  The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors

(b)  Loading and unloading of plant and materials

(c)   Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development

(d)  The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing

(e)  Wheel washing facilities

(f)   Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction

(g)  A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers and in the interests of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS5 and CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

10.    No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the following hours:

7:30am to 6:00pm Mondays to Fridays;

8:30am to 1:00pm Saturdays;

nor at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.               

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining land uses and occupiers. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

11.    No development shall commence until a written specification for the surveying of the public footpath, between Downend and the site access, so as to assess its condition, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The public footpath, between Downend and the site access, must be surveyed in accordance with the approved details before work commences, and again after work has been completed on site. Details of both surveys shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, along with details of any repairs or making good of any damage caused by the works hereby approved, within 1 month of the completion of the development. The repairs and making good shall then be carried out within 1 month of approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the submitted details or in accordance with a timetable to be agreed with the submission of the details of repairs.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to determine whether any damage to the Public Right of Way is attributable to the works carried out by the developer. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS5, CS13 and CS 18 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and, Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

12.    No development shall take place until details of the finished floor levels of the dwelling hereby permitted in relation to existing and proposed ground levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved levels.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the proposed development and the adjacent land. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies ADPP5, CS 14 and CS 19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

13.    No development shall take place until details, to include a plan, indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme before the dwelling hereby permitted is occupied or in accordance with a timetable to be submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority as part of the details submitted for this condition.  The approved boundary treatments shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: The boundary treatment is an essential element in the detailed design of this development and the application is not accompanied by sufficient details to enable the Local Planning Authority to give proper consideration to these matters. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS 14 and CS 19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

14.    The detached garage building hereby permitted shall not be used at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling hereby permitted. The garage building shall not be used as a separate dwelling unit and no separate curtilage shall be created.

Reason: The creation of a separate planning unit has not been considered as part of this application, and may not be acceptable. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies CS 14 and CS 19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

15.    Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) which would otherwise be permitted shall be constructed at first floor level of above on the east elevation of the garage building hereby permitted, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose.

Reason: To prevent the overlooking of Downend Farmhouse in the interests of neighbouring amenity.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (2006).

16.    Any gates to be provided at the site access where vehicles will enter or leave the site shall open away from the adjoining Public Right of Way and be set back a distance of at least 13 metres from the edge of the Public Right of Way. Any such gates must provide a minimum of 3.1m clear opening to allow for emergency access to the site.

Reason: In the interest of emergency access.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).