Agenda item

RESOLVED: That the application 22/00982/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager with an amendment to Condition 8 reading:

 

“Condition 8:

 

Prior to the commencement of the approved development, the following landscape details shall be submitted:

 

a)  which, if any, of the existing vegetation is to be removed and which is to be retained – including details of tree cutting

 

b)  what new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas are to be planted, together with the species proposed and the size and density of planting

 

c)  the location and type of any new walls, fences or other means of enclosure and any hardscaping proposed – hard surfaces shall be of porous materials, or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surfaces to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilages of the dwellings

 

d)  details of any earthworks proposed

 

e)  new tree planting to the west and east boundaries of the site, between the trees on the west boundary, and on the east garden boundaries of the approved dwellings.  These trees shall be of native species, with details to be provided as part of b) of this Condition.

 

Reason: To ensure the submitted details are sufficiently comprehensive to enable proper consideration to be given to the appearance of the completed development.”

 

Audio recording – 2:00:29

 

Andrew Hunter presented the report and gave a verbal presentation, which included:

 

·         An extension of time has been agreed to the 22^nd November

·         Paragraph 4.3.26 reports should have the number 34.39% amended to 38.95% to reflect the figure in the energy strategy statement on its last page

·         Following the adoption of the new Local Plan, the references to the 1996 previous Local Plan in the officer report have been removed and these changes are set out in an addendum to the officer committee report for this item and on the website.

·         The site is a previous dog kennels business behind the dwelling which is at the front

·         The business has now closed and the land has been cleared of most building structures and vegetation.

·         The oak tree car repair garage to the east is the only neighbour and the rest of the site is enclosed by agricultural fields.

·         There is a line of mature trees on the west boundary

·         The nearest dwelling is approx. 300m away to the west

·         The locality is a rural agricultural character and is in the green belt

·         The proposal is for the redevelopment and change of use of the site to residential, involving the clearance of building structures and vegetation and the erection of three detached 4-bedroom bungalows each with pitched roofs, parking for the dwellings and visitors. There will be soft landscaping and the existing access will be widened.

·         The existing site plan was before it had been cleared of the building structures

 

There were no questions from Members.

 

The Chair Neil Burns to speak against the application.

 

Neil Burns thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave presentation which included:

 

·         In the last three years there have been three planning applications granted by the Council. First in 2000 was the conversion of a single stable block to provide a 4-bedroom house. The second in 2021 was the erection of two 3-bedroom and one 4-bedroom dwellings which this application seeks to replace. Thirdly, last week the Council granted permission for the extension of the existing dwelling at the front of the site by 100m sq. to be subdivided into two 4-bedroom dwellings.

·         In 4.3.4 of the officers report which is inappropriate development, the application doesn’t meet either of the two tests of nppf149g. firstly the proposal is not contributing to identified affordable housing needs. Secondly the proposal has an impact on the openness of the green belt.

·         The proposed dwellings are now 4.7m in height, which is over twice the height of the existing buildings and significantly higher than that contained in the 2021 approved scheme. This increases the intrusion into the green belt

·         The current application seeks to relocate the dwellings 20m further the south away from the existing house and public road. This is a far greater visual intrusion into the green belt

·         The existing mature trees to the south east are removed in this scheme, reducing screening and increasing visual intrusion

·         In 4.3.6 of the officer report, NHDC define land excluded from PDL as “land that has previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structures have blended into the landscape”

·         If you refer to the aerial photographs, this was taken before the land was stripped and the existing buildings were substantially dilapidated and overgrown vegetation. The appearance of the site was mainly of grassland and wooded areas. This shouldn’t be considered as previously developed land in NHDCs definition

·         In 4.3.9 of the officers report, NHDC state the proposal is inappropriate development land unless very special circumstances exist. NHDC state that existence of a prior approved planning application is considered a VSC. The current application must be considered upon its content against the planning regulations and not granted simply because there was a previous approved application.

·         This is substantially different to the one given permission in 2021.

·         The applicant has made an application on the basis that the existing development was 1400m sq. this figure is incorrect, the actual size is only 50% of this. The post development is actually larger than the existing. In the evaluations, open areas were included in the calculation

·         The area of the new scheme is agreed with NHDC that it is 30m sq. larger than the previous application and this should be a reason for not granted for an application for a greater extension of building area in the green belt

·         In addition to the technical grounds against planning applications, the current proposal offers only 4-bed properties. If this is approved it will result in the site compromising entirely of six 4-bed houses. None of the needs of the Kimpton Parish housing survey would be met.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair invited Nicky Tribble to speak in favour of the application.

 

Nicky Tribble thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave presentation which included:

 

·         This is a proposal for new housing stock which relates to an existing permission on the site for three dwellings

·         The site has substantial history but the main focus of the approval is for three detached single-story dwellings which were approved in 2021

·         In response to the Councils concerns for inappropriate development in green belt, the principal of the residential redevelopment of the site has already been agreed and supported by officers under the current permission

·         This development could be implemented under the current permission. The applicant however purchased the site with the intention of making some minor changes to the layout, the form and the character of the development

·         This revised proposal seeks to change the location of the access road which will now run along the west side of the site. This design change encouraged the retention and protection of the mature trees along the west boundary of the site.

·         The new dwellings will occupy a similar position and orientation to the current permissions

·         This revised scheme proposed 599 square meters of gross external area. The existing buildings on the site amount to approx. 1400 square meters.

·         The reduction in the build enhances the character and appearance of the locality and results in a substantial improvement to the openness of the green belt

·         The current permission provides a scheme which is minimal and modern in character and appearance. This scheme proposes traditional pitched roof and external materials which is more in keeping with the rural build styles found locally. The low-rise hip roofs will not extend above the maximum height which has already been agreed. The ridge height has not been increased

·         The house types vary slightly in detail and add interest in development which includes alternative materials, brick detailing, and design detailing

·         Careful attention has been paid to the street evaluation to create interest and add variety to the build form

·         It is the applicants intention to develop in a more in keeping style and form to enhance the green belt setting

 

There were no points of clarification from Members

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

 

In response Andrew Hunter advised:

 

·         The highest points of the dwelling is similar to that of the ridge height of the dwellings now proposed

·         The two other applications mentioned by the objector are separate applications and comply with relevant policies

·         There are only three dwellings proposed and falls under the national minimum threshold of affordable housing which is 11 dwellings

·         The impacts on the area are comparable to the 2021 permission because these dwellings are only 30 square metres larger in terms of their footprint and they will be moved further away from the west boundary of the site which reduces their visibility from outside the site

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·         Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·         Councillor Michael Muir

·         Councillor Tony Hunter

·         Councillor David Levett

 

Points raised in the debate included:

 

·         There is a previous approval for a similar application. Currently the site is a dump so I don’t think building houses will make it worse it will only make it better.

·         Condition 8 mentions trees. I would like to see the gaps filled further with trees and some trees planted on the other side

·         This is previous developed land and the previous application was granted so we can’t refuse this application

·         When this was approved last time we didn’t have a 5-year land supply but now we do in the Local Plan, but because this was previous developed land we should grant it

 

In response to points raised, Andrew Hunter advised:

 

·         The applicants can propose increased landscaping to increase trees. We can add an amendment to condition 8 to plant more trees.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen noted that the Member that called this item is not present.

 

Councillor Michael Muir suggested an amendment for Condition 8.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed and Councillor Alistair Willoughby seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That the application 22/00982/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager with an amendment to Condition 8 reading:

 

“Condition 8:

 

Prior to the commencement of the approved development, the following landscape details shall be submitted:

 

a)  which, if any, of the existing vegetation is to be removed and which is to be retained – including details of tree cutting

 

b)  what new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas are to be planted, together with the species proposed and the size and density of planting

 

c)  the location and type of any new walls, fences or other means of enclosure and any hardscaping proposed – hard surfaces shall be of porous materials, or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surfaces to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilages of the dwellings

 

d)  details of any earthworks proposed

 

e)  new tree planting to the west and east boundaries of the site, between the trees on the west boundary, and on the east garden boundaries of the approved dwellings.  These trees shall be of native species, with details to be provided as part of b) of this Condition.

 

Reason: To ensure the submitted details are sufficiently comprehensive to enable proper consideration to be given to the appearance of the completed development.”