Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single residential dwelling (C3) and associated operational development (Plot 2).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Minded to Permit.

26.24        This application was for the erection of a single residential dwelling (C3) and associated operational development (Plot 2).

26.25        The Development Manager explained that this was the second of two full applications on the site which had permission in principle.  This was slightly different in that the proposed access snaked around the back of Manor Cottage and served both Manor Cottage and the building at the back as well as the proposed application site.  As with the previous application, the principle of development had already been established.  In this case, a single garage accompanied the dwelling and the County Highways Officer had considered the proposal and raised no objection subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.  A number of traditional features had been incorporated into the design and both the scale and design would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area.  The drainage would be dealt with in a similar way to the previous application and the Lead Local Flood Authority was happy with that proposal.  As set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, condition 7 in relation to ecological enhancements had been reworded at the request of the applicant’s agent.  Further to that, the applicant’s agent had suggested alternative wording for condition 8, as per condition 10 of the previous application and, whilst Officers were happy with the suggestion, it was necessary to consult the Council’s Ecological Adviser to ensure they were satisfied. 

26.26         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that, given the similarities between this and the previous application, he did not intend to repeat himself in detail.  As Members were aware, permission in principle existed for residential development on this land and the proposal before the Committee reflected the scale, character, design and proportions of the development at Plot 1 and entirely met with the design expectations of the development plan.  The development would be served by an existing point of access which both met the prescribed visibility standards and enabled adequate space for turning and manoeuvring within the site.  The siting, scale and design of the dwelling would complement that at Plot 1 and other existing neighbouring properties in the area, particularly considering its spacious setting.  As per Plot 1, mature boundary treatments would be retained and all appropriate development management standards would be met through the application.  The applicant’s agent hoped that Members would permit the application in light of its clear compliance with the development management policies and the boost it would provide to housing supply.

26.27         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the amendment of condition 8 provided that the Ecological Adviser was satisfied with the proposed rewording, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member sought clarification as to why two separate applications had been submitted when the permission in principle had been granted for two dwellings on the site.  In response, the Development Manager explained that it had not been necessary for two applications to be submitted; however, in this instance he understood that two separate applications had been made as the plots were in the process of being sold to two different parties.

26.28         Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the amendment of condition 8 provided that the Ecological Adviser was satisfied with the proposed rewording.