Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 23/01392/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 2 hours 14 minutes and 24 seconds

N.B. Councillors Louise Peace and Mick Debenham returned to the main Chamber at 21:44.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a verbal update and advised that:

·       There was an ecology condition included in the application, and no development could take place until a construction management plan had been submitted in writing and approved. This had been agreed by the agent and applicant.

·       There had been a request from Ecology for a plan to manage the 10% Biodiversity of the site, however this was not required under the Environment Act, and policy NE4 of the Local Plan due to the size of the development.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 23/01392/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Daniel Allen, the Senior planning officer stated that the dotted line indicated the visibility splays on the road.

The Chair invited Mrs Gill Shenoy to speak against the application. Mrs Shenoy thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       The development would not provide any affordable housing.

·       Plot 4 of the development would block out the light to an existing house and would not comply with the Right to Light 1959 act.

·       There would be a distance of 25 feet from the back door of plot 4 to an existing house.

·       There were concerns that the access opened onto a busy newly improved cycle lane and bridleway.

·       The development was situated near a blind corner and there was no footpath to the school.

·       The development was on a very busy narrow road.

·       Trees had recently been felled in the area without permission.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Daniel Allen, Mrs Shenoy stated that the trees had been cut down 6 months ago.

The Chair thanked Mrs Shenoy for her presentation and invited Parish Councillor Helen Lumley to speak against the application. Councillor Lumley thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       There were concern regarding the traffic access onto Turf Lane and the nearby cycle way.

·       Turf Lane was a narrow dead-end road with frequent users and high risks due to blind corners.

·       The dwellings were not in keeping with the local area or the needs of the area.

·       The ridge height of 8 metres would affect the quality of life of nearby residents.

The Chair thanked Councillor Lumley for her presentation and invited Councillor Dominic Griffiths to speak against the application. Councillor Griffiths thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       The road width at Oak Lane and Turf Lane was a car and half wide.

·       Under the Construction Management Plan only the construction site would be widened, and it was questionable whether a large lorry would be able to turn into either road.

The Chair thanked Councillor Griffiths for his presentation and invited Mr James Gran the Applicants agent to speak in support of the application. Mr Gran thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       The scheme was for 4 dwellings with large rear gardens.

·       HCC Highways had deemed the site access acceptable, and there would be visibility splays on Turf Lane.

·       The site would have a public walkway maintained for perpetuity.

·       The concerns regarding the public highways were outside the scope of this development.

·       A similar scheme had been approved for Ashwell Common which was situated closer to the blind bends on Turf Lane.

·       The nearest plot which was situated due north of the existing dwellings did not breach the 25-metre rule taken from the elevation of 22 Oak Lane for light shading.

·       The closest windows to residents would be obscured and would have high level openings to safeguard privacy.

·       The dwellings would be set back and would not affect any loss of light.

·       The site was within the village boundary of Graveley which was designated as a category A village in the Local Plan.

·       There was an acceptable turning area for large vehicles with a dedicated turning area as stated under Condition 5.

·       The rear properties would be completed first to allow ample turning area, which would be 20 metres in width.

·       The development was for 4 dwellings that were appropriate and in fitting with the character of the village.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Ian Mantle, Mr Gran stated that Turf Lane was an adopted road.

The Chair thanked Mr Gran for his presentation.

In response to points raised the Senior Planning Officer stated that Highways had amended their plans and condition regarding large vehicles. The new road would not be adopted and therefore any waste disposal would need to be taken outside of the site for collection.

The following Members took part in debate:

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

Points raised in debate included:

·       The site looked very different before the trees were cut down.

·       This was not the right size houses for the need but no legal reason to oppose the application.

·       There may have been a legal reason to oppose this application if the trees had remained.

·       The site looked very different in summer.

·       There were concerns regarding the proximity of plot 4 to existing dwellings.

·       The development was for 4 houses and would not greatly impact the cycleway.

In response to points raised in debate the Development and Conservation manager stated that:

·       The site was within the setting of a grade 2 listed house and the Graveley  Conservation Area but outside it.

·       The Conservation Officer was satisfied that although there would be some harm from this development, that the harm would be at the very bottom of the spectrum of less than substantial harm and would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.

·       There was no legal definition regarding proximity, however in this case the BRE standard was used as a guide. A 25% line was drawn to indicate whether the proposed plot would overshadow the existing houses, this was not the case. The proposed dwelling was in any event to the north of the existing neighbouring dwelling.

Councillor Simon Bloxham proposed and Councillor David Levett seconded and following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 23/01392/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager