Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of 6 detached five bed dwellings including creation of new vehicular access off of Hitchin Road following demolition of existing dwelling.

RESOLVED: That application 17/02466/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Erection of 6 detached five bed dwellings including creation of new vehicular access off of Hitchin Road following demolition of existing dwelling.

The Area Planning Officer (TR) advised that an amended landscaping plan had been submitted to include a 1.8m high close boarded fence along the northern boundary. 

The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

Mr John Wilkins thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02466/1.

Mr Wilkins informed Members that he wished to object to the application in its current form.

As had been noted in the pre-application advice, the Green Belt boundary would need to be moved to facilitate the building of six substantial 5 bedroomed houses.

One third of the whole site lay within the Green Belt as designated by the current proposals map of the Local Plan with alterations 1996 (saved Policies 2007).

Any residential development on the Green Belt proportion of this site would be considered inappropriate development and therefore contrary to the Green Belt Policy.

Following representations by the site owners, it now appeared that this was regarded as an anomaly by the Council.

The original residential curtilage of Glayfada comprised of approximately one acre and subsequently the corner of an adjacent field of approximately half acre was added.

The additional land was absorbed in to the garden area and a line of conifers were planted along the southern boundary of the whole site. It was this adjacent field that was in the Green Belt.

This was discussed during a site visit attended by the Area Planning Officer and Phillips Planning Consultants last summer, when no visual evidence of the Green Belt boundary could be found and it was proposed that the boundary of the Green Belt be changed to follow the line of the trees along the southern boundary of the application site.

There was evidence of the current Green Belt boundary on the Land Registry Plan for title HD479626, the application site.

Mr Wilkins advised that when he became aware that the emerging Local Plan proposed an amended Green Belt boundary he sought urgent information regarding the proposal to move the boundary from the Council to which he had not yet received a reply.

He contended that the Green Belt boundary should not be changed to accommodate this development in its present form.

Further objections had been raised by the owners of the adjacent properties as follows:

·                The first floor balcony planned for Plot 3, which overlooked the gardens of Kurinji and the Reddings, would result in a loss of privacy;

·                The large first floor window of Plot 4, which overlooked the garden of the Reddings would result in a loss of privacy;

·                Plots 3 and 4 were also much closer than the existing house to the eastern boundary, which was adjacent to the above properties.

Mr Wilkins summarised by stating that the proposed development was unlikely to meet local needs, the house, valued in the region of £1 million each, would be targeted at London buyers.

The Chairman thanked Mr Wilkins for his presentation.

Mr Paul Watson, Applicant’s Agent, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 17/02466/1.

Mr Watson informed Members that the proposal had been the subject of very detailed pre-application consideration by officers and the advice received regarding layout, design and character had been readily accepted and incorporated into the proposal.

The report set out a very comprehensive assessment of the application’s merits and recommended that planning permission be approved subject to conditions.

In respect of the southern site boundary, the current owner of the site had lived in the property for 40 years and in that time had not touched the boundary. If there had been an historic change to that boundary it must have taken place some 45 to 50 years ago. This boundary was marked by very mature and substantial conifers.

The Council had agreed and submitted for examination the Local Plan, which included that the Green Belt boundary be amended to follow the current boundary of the site.

It had been suggested that the boundary was being changed to accommodate this development this was not true. The Council undertook a Green Belt review as part of the Local Plan and this development has come along subsequent to that review.

In respect of privacy of neighbours, the adjacent properties benefitted from very long gardens and combined with the length of the gardens if Plots 3 and 4, the physical separation would be between 62 and 72 metres, which compared very favourably with the accepted guideline of 21 metres.

In addition to the high hedge there would be boundary treated landscaping which provided mitigation.

Mr Watson concluded by thanking the officers for their advice through the pre-application stage and the positive approach taken regarding the application.

This was an extremely well considered and high quality scheme that he urged Members to support.

Members asked for clarification regarding the screening that would provide mitigation regarding privacy.

Mr Watson advised that there was an existing hedge which could be enhanced as felt appropriate under the landscaping condition.

The Chairman thanked Mr Watson for his presentation

Members asked for clarification regarding the boundary of the Green Belt and that the proposed balconies would not affect the privacy of neighbours.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the Green Belt Boundary had been reviewed as part of the work associated with the Local Plan. An anomaly had been notice in respect of this boundary and a decision had been made to correct that in the emerging Local Plan.

It should be noted that it was possible to recommend approval of development within the Green Belt providing there were very special circumstances and these had been set out at Page 76 of the report.

In respect of privacy, the Area Planning Officer advised that the back gardens of the neighbours were some 50 metres in depth to the boundary and a further 10 metres from the boundary to the new properties and this distance was more than acceptable as the back to back distance stated in the emerging Local Plan was 30 metres. There were no distances quoted in the emerging Local Plan in respect of distance to gardens.

RESOLVED: That application 17/02466/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.