Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of 3 no. dwelling houses.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

57.20        This application was for the erection of three no. dwelling houses.

57.21        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to part of an extensive garden to the rear of a property known as ‘Brookfield’ on the south side of the A46, which was characterised by commercial and residential development along its length. The proposed development would be set to the rear of existing residential development and to the north of a recently permitted housing scheme. The proposal was for three dwellings comprising of a pair of semi-detached properties and a single detached property. This had been reduced from four units following negotiations with the applicant. The properties would be two and a half storeys and their design would reflect those permitted on the adjacent scheme. In terms of the principle of this development, the proposal would represent infilling in the context of Policy SD10 and was acceptable. The site would be accessed through the recently permitted housing development and would effectively form a continuation of an estate road within that development. Eight off-street parking spaces would be provided as well as three additional garage spaces and the formation of a turning head. The proposed development would be a continuation of the existing residential development and the design and scale of the proposal would be in keeping with that scheme, which would result in an acceptable integration with that development. Concerns had been raised in respect of the relationship with existing properties to the north of the site and the overlooking of gardens, however, the reduction in the number of units had allowed for a more spacious layout, which had improved the relationship with the existing property. The dwellings would be sited at a lower level than the properties fronting onto the A46 due to the fall in levels towards the south. Plot 1 would also be set over 21 metres away from the rear elevations of ‘Brookfield’ and ‘Deerhurst’ meaning there would be no harmful impact in terms of loss of light or any overbearing effect. In terms of overlooking, the development would overlook neighbouring gardens to a degree, however, those gardens were extensive and any overlooking would be to the end of those gardens and so was considered to be acceptable. The proposal would result in the loss of leylandii and some ornamental trees although this would be mitigated by the provision of a new three metre beech or hornbeam screen to the eastern boundary as well as additional tree and shrub planting to the front gardens. Concerns had also been raised about the potential impact on future occupiers given the proximity to the village hall. To address this, a two metre acoustic fence was proposed to the eastern boundary of the site. The Environmental Health Officer had also raised no objections to the proposal on noise grounds. In light of this, the proposal was considered acceptable and was recommended for permit.

57.22        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee. On there being no response, the Development Manager read the applicant’s submission that she, along with her husband their two sons and dogs had lived at Brookfield, in Ashchurch Road for 20 years, it was an excellent location to live with good local facilities and schools with a close community. The very large garden had become too large for the family and they would like to maintain a more normal size of garden, hence the application for three homes in the rear. Sadly the leylandii trees, which were planted about 25 years ago as a hedge, had grown so much they had become overly tall and oppressive so the application proposed to replace them with more appropriate pleached hornbeam trees at three metre height to give privacy but still allow some daylight. In addition to this, to prevent any noise from the village hall, they would be erecting a two metre acoustic fence - the village hall was very well run and had never caused the family any noise nuisance in the 20 years they had lived three doors from it as it mostly hosted family gatherings, children’s parties and exercise classes during the daytimes. The revised plans showed the new tree planting and fencing to provide noise and visual screening as requested by the Planning Officers. The western boundary did not overlook a property, only gardens. The applicant had listened to the Urban Design Officer’s comments and recommendations and had revised the house designs and had worked with Officers throughout the consultation period and amended the plans where requested and on advice of the relevant Officers. The three new homes complied with all current planning legislation and policies. For clarity, neither the applicant’s property nor garden had ever flooded and, even in the 2007 flooding, it was not affected with no flood water ever running through the property or garden. The Gloucestershire County Council drainage team had reviewed the plans and had approved the proposed management of water, both surface and sewage. The recommendation to the Committee by the Planning Officer was that the application should be permitted as it was in accordance with all planning regulations and she respectfully requested that the Committee approve the application in line with the Officer’s opinion.

57.23        A Member raised the concerns that had been expressed by the Parish Council and Village Hall Committee in relation to the development’s close proximity to the village hall and how noise and car parking could affect future residents. She indicated that she could not see within the conditions the requirement for a 2 metre acoustic fence to be erected as part of the planning permission and questioned whether it was only included as part of the design drawings. In her view it was essential that this should actually be constructed and on this basis she asked whether it could be included as a specific condition within the planning consent.  The Planning Officer indicated that if the fence was shown on the drawings then this would be covered by the condition which indicated that construction had to be in accordance with the approved drawings; should this not be the case then a condition could be added to ensure that the fence was constructed. The Development Manager indicated that conditions could be made more specific to include the acoustic fence on the relevant boundary. The Planning Officer confirmed that having just checked, the acoustic fence was shown on the approved drawings so it would also be covered under that condition. The Member indicated that she would prefer a specific reference to the erection of the acoustic fence in the conditions particularly since the village hall was to be extended and the Village Hall Committee felt that it was really important for the fence to be erected to alleviate any noise issues that future residents may complain about as the Committee did not wish to see any future restrictions on the use of the village hall; it was her view that this was really important and on the basis of the change suggested by the Development Manager to specifically reference the acoustic fence she proposed that the application be permitted. This was seconded and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation subject to the addition to the conditions to specifically reference the erection of the acoustic fence.