Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of dwelling and new access drive.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

13.2          This application was for erection of a dwelling and new access drive.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 25 May 2023 for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the safety of the access.  The Planning Committee had visited the site on Friday 16 June 2023.

13.3          The Planning Officer advised that the application sought full planning permission for the erection of a detached two storey, four bedroom dwelling.  The site currently formed part of the residential curtilage of 2 Moorfield Road, a detached property on a corner plot within the designated development boundary of Brockworth.  The proposed new dwelling was designed with a hipped roof with grey tiles and the walls would be faced with render on a brick plinth.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application as set out in the Committee report.

13.4          The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member drew attention to Page No. 31, Paragraph 8.24 of the Committee report in relation to the condition which would be attached regarding the protection of any retained trees and raised concern that condition 7 was not strong enough to ensure the two existing mature trees on the site were protected.  The Planning Officer confirmed the trees would be retained and protected and the condition would ensure measures were in place as stated in the Tree Protection Plan.  The Member asked if it was possible to strengthen the wording by removing the reference to ‘any retained tree’ and instead specifying the two mature trees.  In response, the Legal Adviser explained that the proposed condition was intended to protect the trees during construction.  Going forward it may be possible to seek a Tree Protection Order for particular trees but that was a separate process.  Another Member drew attention to condition 5 regarding pedestrian visibility splays and sought clarification as to whether the hedge shown in the photograph at Committee was required to be further reduced in order to comply with the height restriction in the condition.  The County Highways representative explained that the Manual for Gloucestershire Streets required visibility splays of two metres by two metres and this access would be in excess of 10 metres, therefore the condition was satisfied in terms of visibility.  The Member asked for clarification as to whether the hedge needed to be reduced any further in height and, if not, whether that could be enforced.  The Development Management Team Manager (South) explained that the condition was there to ensure that the area set out in the condition was kept free from obstructions for the lifetime of the development – anything within that area would need to be 0.6 metres or below.  His interpretation was that there was plenty of space without encroaching into the hedge that was remaining and, as it stood, that was as far back as the hedge needed to go and the height did not need to be reduced further.

13.5          With regard to the distance from the junction, a Member noted that the Minutes of the previous meeting stated there was a requirement for the access to be a width of 20 metres from the junction and the plans submitted showed this was 10 metres; she asked for clarification on the distance from the junction.  The Planning Officer advised it was 19.9 metres from the centre point of the access.  The Member drew attention to Page No. 29, Paragraph 8.14 of the Committee report which suggested that the garden space that would be left would be reasonable, and would mirror those of neighbouring dwellings, but she disagreed with that statement.  In her view, the house was far too big for the area and would not mirror existing properties, furthermore, she was concerned there were only two parking spaces which was not enough for a four bed dwelling.

13.6          Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.