Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER    

Conversion of existing dwelling "The Lodge" into 6 apartments (5 x 2-bed and 1 x 3-bed). Erection of four terraced 2-bed dwellings and five detached dwellings (1 x 5-bed, 2 x 4-bed and 2 x 2-bed) including landscaping and parking following demolition of existing buildings. Alteration of existing access and creation of additional access

RESOLVED: That application 22/02675/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 14 minutes 48 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that the Applicant was actually Mr J Grint and not Clear Architects as stated in the report.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 22/02675/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Bryony May

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

 

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       The northern access would remain as a gated entrance.

·       The southern access point would lead to the land gifted to the Parish Council and to the 4, two bedroom dwellings.

·       There would be 15 dwellings in total.

·       The application met the affordable housing allocation, as the dwellings in the Grange were conversions and not new builds.

·       The four affordable houses would be sited facing inwards and not towards the street.

·       Replacement trees would be planted.

 

The Chair invited Davina Malcolm to speak against the application. Ms Malcolm thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The development would cause the destruction of wood land.

·       There were no guarantees that the gifted land would not be developed on, at a later date.

·       The site was on green belt land and was outside the village boundary.

·       The site was in the conservation area of Kimpton Bottom and was an area of principle historic interest with wooded boundaries.

·       The development of the four houses was considered as infill building but would be hidden from the street by trees.

·       The removal of woodland negated the conservation and green belt status.

·       Kimpton needed affordable homes, the application stated all the homes were exceptional, but the 4 affordable homes were not exceptional.

·       The deciduous trees and wildlife should be protected, the new dwellings would cause traffic and light pollution.

·       There would be a loss of over 50 trees and the associated wildlife would be displaced, it would take decades to replenish these losses.

·       There would be water build up from the removal of the trees.

·       The site would have a 51.3% biodiversity net gain, however who would look after the new woodlands.

·       The village was surrounded by farms and footpaths, it did not have a need, nor funding to maintain any extra gifted land.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Malcolm for her presentation and invited Councillor Ralph Muncer to speak against the application. Councillor Muncer thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The Grange conversion and the building of the lake homes would give a new lease of life to the site.

·       The siting of the four affordable homes was not in keeping with the rest of the development. These dwellings were situated in green belt and conservation land and were outside the settlement boundary. The siting of these dwellings would cause harm to the area.

·       Very special circumstances had not been demonstrated to build in this area as specified in paragraph 152 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The applicant was seeking to use the infill building exception to this policy, however this should not be used as the site was outside the village boundary.

·       The applicant had failed to demonstrate any very special circumstances and great weight should be allocated to the harms caused by this development under paragraph 205 of the NPPF.

·       The Parish Council had raised concerns regarding the loss of the Rookery, and these had not been addressed.

·       The affordable homes should be integrated into the site as currently there were clear distinctions between the two styles of homes. Planning applications had previously been refused for this reason.

·       The site was not identified in the Local Plan.

·       The applicant should listen to the residents, as the proposed development would cause harm to the green belt and to the Kimpton conservation area.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Tom Tyson, Councillor Muncer advised that, had the four affordable dwelling been situated in a more conservative area and the concerns of the Parish Council been addressed then the objections may have been resolved.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Muncer for his presentation and invited Paul Hunter to speak in support of the application. Mr Hunter thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The Grange was in disrepair and the development would preserve the building as well as providing new affordable housing.

·       The Grange was a special building and would have a renewed purpose.

·       The development would provide access to a new public woodland.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Hunter for his presentation and invited Arron Breedon the Agent to the Applicant to speak in support of the application. Mr Breedon thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The application had a holistic approach to the development and included the gifting of land.

·       The development would use a fabric first approach and would provide a 51.3% biodiversity net gain.

·       Demolishing the dilapidated barn and outbuildings would enhance the setting.

·       The development had a sense of openness and space and was not a cramped rural scene.

·       The Grange would be redeveloped into 6 apartments, with improvements to the roof, walls and windows as well as an internal refurbishment to restore it to its former glory.

·       The site would have less volume of buildings than in its current form, and the buildings would be distributed across the site.

·       There would be three new lake homes nestled into the topography, these would be bespoke and built to a high standard.

·       There would be two homes integrated into the garden walls, and four affordable homes on the boundary line.

·       All the properties would be built using a fabric first approach, they would have sustainable technology to reduce energy, air and ground heat pumps, solar panels throughout the development and have an underground drainage system.

·       The development would gift land to the Parish Council and back garden space to neighbouring properties.

·       The development was a significant improvement to the current setting.

 

The following Member asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

 

In response to questions, Mr Breedon advised that:

 

·       The back gardens would be gifted to residents living at 2-14 Kimpton Botton.

·       The affordable homes would be built to a high standard off site and brought in by way of a panel system, the homes would have heats pumps to reduce consumption and reduce running costs.

·       The affordable homes were located within the southern boundary and would be considered as infill buildings within the greenbelt. These homes would be directly opposite established homes and would continue the ribbon of the street.

·       The Paish Council would receive yearly payments for 10 years to maintain the gifted wildlife area. The money would allow the Parish Council to maintain the new wildlife habitats.

·       The affordable homes had south facing gardens meaning they faced away from the road. The homes would be obscured by hedgerows and trees.

 

The Chair thank Mr Breedon for his presentation.

 

In response to points raised, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       The majority of the proposed felled trees were Category C or U. There were a few Category B trees that would also be felled.

·       There would be a 51% Biodiversity Net Gain across the site.

·       On balance the benefits of the scheme outweighed the harms as stated in paragraph 4.4 of the report.

·       The Parish Council had requested £10K per year for 10 Years for maintenance of the new wildlife areas, the applicant had agreed to this.

·       The development complied with paragraph 154 of the NPPF, as the land was previously developed and would be providing affordable dwellings therefore there would be no more than substantial harm to the greenbelt.

·       The barn removal improved the openness and views across the site.

 

Councillor Amy Allen proposed to grant permission and this was seconded by Councillor Ruth Brown.

 

The following Members took part in debate:

 

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Caroline McDonnell

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

 

Points raised in debate included:

 

·       That they did not seem to be any legal reason to object to the application.

·       There were concerns that the affordable housing faced into the development instead of towards the road.

·       The development was of a high standard and opened up the estate to the public.

·       There were concerns that the replacement trees would take decades to develop.

·       The Paish Council had not objected to the development.

·       There would be planting to obscure the affordable homes.

·       There were concerns that the four houses would not be integrated into the street scene.

·       There were concerns that the north entrance was gated but the south entrance was not.

·       The southern access was merely for the four affordable houses and their refuse collection. There was no access through the site.

 

In response to points raised in debate, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·       Officers summarised that the benefits of this development outweighed the harms.

·       The drainage concerns had been addressed by the applicant.

·       It would be difficult to justify a condition requiring no gates to the north entrance in the event of an appeal, especially as the site currently had gated access.

 

In response to points raised in debate, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       The affordable housing details were set out in the Section 106 heads of terms.

·       The benefits of the siting of the four houses outweighed the harms.

·       The landscaping details for the site had been submitted and were substantial.

·       There was no road access between the two sites.

·       The site currently had two gated entrances.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 22/02675/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 21:00.