Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 6 no. dwellings with associated landscaping, parking and means of access following the demolition of the existing dwelling.

Applicant: Palatine Homes

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 411 to 444.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

·         Summarised comments from the Council’s Ecology Officer;

·         Additional conditions 20 and 21;

·         Amendment to Informative 1.

Stuart Shafran, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Stuart stated that the site was classified as designated woodland, with a woodland TPO covering the entire site. Despite these protections, Stuart stated that the community was faced with yet another unpopular and inappropriate development proposal. Stuart stated that access to the proposed site was via a single lane byway next to a school, where there had been a history of near misses. Stuart added that the proposed development site was located directly opposite a school, whilst noise and dust as a result of the development would cause a significant impact to pupils. Stuart stated that there was no management plan in place to mitigate against construction impacts. Stuart stated that the biodiversity net gain statement within the ecology report was only valid where the remaining woodland was retained and managed properly, and was of the opinion that the woodland management plan could not possibly be applied to private gardens. Stuart cited Government guidelines that stated biodiversity offsetting should only be used as a last resort in exceptional circumstances. Stuart stated that parking for residents and visitors of this properties would be problematic, with only three spaces being provided for a 4-bedroom house, and no provision for visitors, leading to cars being parked on the byway leading to yet further safety issues. Stuart stated that the last ecological survey was carried out many years ago, whilst there was no highways safety report associated with the application. Stuart was of the opinion that the previous application should not have been approved, whilst an additional two dwellings would compound issues. Stuart felt that what was required was an alternative scheme, delivering one or at most two houses whilst retaining the existing woodland.

Steven Brown, agent, spoke in support of the application. Steven stated that for a site of this size, within development limits, it had a disproportionally long planning history which would be concluded via grant of planning permission. Steven stated that the applicant would bring six much needed family homes in a verdant setting, which respected the character of the area. Steven added that the application would include root protection measures, ecological buffers, and would respect the amenity of neighbouring property and visual amenity enjoyed along Oaklands Lane. Steven stated that the proposal for six dwellings would make more efficient use of the site via provision of smaller dwellings with lower ridge heights. Steven added that the applicant was a privately owned development company focussed on delivering high quality and bespoke schemes such as this. Stephen noted that the applicant now owned the site and were eager implement the scheme if granted planning permission. Steven stated that the scheme represented a collaborative approach, with no technical objections from any statutory consultees, whilst this was the exact type of scheme encouraged by policies. Steven commented that concerns regarding vehicular traffic had been comprehensively addressed within the officer report, whilst the application would deliver an affordable housing contribution and elective vehicle charging, whilst retaining the existing boundary trees and ecological buffers.

Andrew Mickleburgh noted the additional comments from the Council’s ecology officer and associated conditions and amended informative as set out within the supplementary planning agenda. Andrew noted that the principle of development had already been established.

Alistair Neal sought clarity as to whether the original scheme had been called into Committee. Marcus Watts, case officer, confirmed that the original decision had been made via the officer scheme of delegation.

Wayne Smith queried how many trees would be lost within the woodland protection area to facilitate the development. Marcus Watts stated that every tree on site was covered by a TPO, whilst only three trees which were dead or in decaying health were to be removed. Marcus added that the number of trees to be planted would exceed the trees felled.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendation and additional conditions and amended informatives as set out within the supplementary planning agenda. This was seconded by Alistair Neal.

RESOLVED That application number 230283 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 429 to 435, additional conditions 20 and 21 and amended informative 1 as set out within the supplementary planning agenda.