Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Proposed erection of a single dwelling, associated parking and landscaping.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated permit.

46.20        This application was for the proposed erection of a single dwelling, associated parking and landscaping.

46.21        The Planning Officer explained that the application related to a parcel of land adjacent to the property known as Springbank which was located along the eastern side of Old Road in Southam. The site comprised of an area of sloping lawn which currently formed the side garden of the host dwelling. The site was bound by residential properties to the north and south and by Cleeve Hill Road to the east beyond the existing fence and hedge. The site was located within the Green Belt and the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The application had been submitted in full and sought permission for the construction of a detached dwelling and associated parking and landscaping. The proposed dwelling would be located centrally on the plot in alignment with the host dwelling. The dwelling would appear two storey in height from the front elevation, though, due to the sloped nature of the site, the accommodation would be arranged over three floors. Planning permission had been granted in April 2020 for the erection of a single storey front extension and the construction of new dormer windows and roof lights to the host dwelling, Springbank. Those works had not yet commenced but the applicant intended to construct the new dwelling and carry out the approved extensions/alterations to Springbank at the same time therefore the new dwelling had been designed so as to reflect and compliment the scale, appearance and character of the host dwelling through the extensions and alterations. An assessment of the material considerations could be found on Pages 94 - 101 of the Officer’s report. As set out in the report, Officers had identified no adverse impact of granting planning permission, therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the presumption in favour of sustainable development indicated that planning permission be granted. As detailed in the additional representations sheet, since writing the Committee report County Highways had reviewed the revised site layout plan which demonstrated the proposed visibility splays and had confirmed that they had no objections subject to conditions. On this basis the recommendation for delegated permit had been changed to permit with three additional conditions and informative notes as recommended by County Highways. The additional conditions and notes were listed in the additional representations sheet.  

46.22        The Chair invited an objector to address the Committee. He advised that the photographs in the presentation which accompanied the Officer’s report clearly showed the windows of Oaklands overlooking the site and demonstrated the loss of light that his family home would suffer from the proposed new dwelling. The proposal was to cram a new home into one end of the Springbank site, 10 metres from the windows serving Oaklands’ primary living spaces – which was only 5-6 metres from the boundary. The section plan which accompanied the application, showed a flat level section but this was in fact not the case. As per the objector’s letter of 7 October, the section drawing did not accurately represent the relationship between the dwellings, in particular the 25 degree line, and the impact on the living conditions and amenity afforded by Oaklands. This was due to the sloping nature of the site and the non-uniform ground floor levels of Oaklands. Nor did the plan reflect that site levels on the Oaklands/Dipping Well boundary differed by nearly four metres across the east-west axis which could be clearly seen in the Planning Officer’s presentation. The plans for the proposed dwelling therefore did not reflect the overbearing awareness of the proposed building – as viewed from the garden and primary living spaces of Oaklands – which would result in the enjoyment of his home and garden being unacceptably impaired. As could be seen clearly from the plans, the first floor windows of Oaklands would overlook the garden in the proposed dwelling, and the proposed solution of subdividing the garden to provide a ‘private amenity space’ both acknowledged the issue and was a nonsense as it would be unreasonable not to expect future occupiers to seek to remove. Again, the distance to the proposed dwelling was only 10 metres and this seemed contrary to the Council’s own policy (SWDP21) which required that new developments should provide an adequate level of privacy. In addition, the rear windows of the proposed dwelling would overlook the south-east corner of Oaklands’ private garden leading to a loss of privacy in the family’s main outdoor space. The proposed development was within designated Green Belt and its right-angle orientation to Oaklands and Dipping Well, and proximity to Oaklands, as well as its cramped relationship to the existing dwellings meant that it was clearly not well-related to its neighbours and nor was it consistent with the spacious appearance of the surrounding area. The Parish Council objection used the term ‘overdevelopment’ and the objector felt this was an appropriate term in this case. The objector noted that Southam seemed to lack the basic facilities which would meet the definition of a village or service village as per the Joint Core Strategy and therefore it did not seem justifiable that the proposal should be viewed as ‘infilling in villages’ and the objector requested that the Committee did not grant permission to the proposal.

46.23        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. He explained that the Officer’s report clearly set out that the principle of development in the location was considered acceptable in planning policy terms as the proposal represented infilling within a village as set out in Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy. There was no doubt that the application was proposed on an underdeveloped plot which was well related to the existing built development. The application site was bound by residential development to the north, south and west and, although it was within the Green Belt, Paragraph 145 of the National Planning Policy Framework supported limited infilling in villages. Southam was definitely a village which even had its own village hall that benefited the community. Neighbouring concerns had been raised in relation to the potential impact on privacy of garden space of the new dwelling with potential overlooking from the Oaklands property so minor revisions had been made to include a fence and gate to the rear garden of the new house to reduce any perceived impact on privacy and to ensure there were no direct views into the private space by the rear patio doors. The objectors had raised further concerns that the occupants of the new house could choose to remove the fence but it was felt that someone wanting to impact on their own privacy in that way was nonsensical. The section drawing disproved the concerns regarding the perceived overbearing impact on Oaklands and demonstrated that the gable wall would only appear the same as that of a single storey dwelling when viewed from Oaklands. Furthermore, the gable wall was some 12 metres away from the rear windows of Oaklands which was very common place in housing developments. Although it was accepted that there would be some minor overshadowing of the extremities of the neighbours gardens at particular times of the day, that harm would not unduly affect the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. Overall, the supporter believed that the scheme proposals were in accordance with both the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning policy and it constituted a sustainable form of development and should therefore be supported and the Officer’s recommendation for approval endorsed.

46.24        A Member indicated that looking at the plans for the lower ground floor it appeared to show that the only windows were to the lounge and bedroom and she wished to check that this was correct as it meant that there was a plant store utility room, bathroom and main hallway without any natural light coming through. The Planning Officer confirmed that the Member’s interpretation of the plans was correct and explained that it was to do with the ground levels and in particular the lower ground level to the rear being dug into the ground so that there was no natural light. The Member then referred to the fact that on the previous application for development on this site permitted development rights had been removed for additional windows and whilst she appreciated this was not relevant to the lower ground level it was relevant to the upper ground floor and first floor particularly as the objector was concerned about the loss of privacy. She questioned whether it was possible to remove permitted development rights for windows on the north elevation. The Planning Officer stated that although no openings were shown on the revised plans for the north elevation it would be possible to include the removal of permitted development rights for openings on the north elevation should permission for the development be granted. It was proposed that the application be permitted with the addition of the conditions suggested by County Highways and the removal of permitted development rights for openings on the north elevation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That, subject to the addition of the conditions suggested by County Highways and the removal of permitted development rights for openings on the north elevation, the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer report.