Agenda item

Proposal: The erection of 1 No. detached dwelling.

The Planning Officer presented the application, and highlighted what had now been built on the wider site. He noted this was the first of two side by side applications. He briefly reminded members of the extant consent on the original site. It was noted that badgers had been found on the site, but instead of re-locating the sett, it was proposed to install a badger fence.

The Planning Officer explained the main considerations and reasons for recommending refusal of the application.  He advised that as in the past, the officer recommendation was that Pibsbury was not a sustainable location, but acknowledged previous application had been approved to other approvals locally and distance to facilities.

Mr G Richmond, Mrs S Jameson and Mr G Barton addressed members in objection to the proposal. Some of their comments included:

·         Acknowledge approval for two houses on wider site, but now effectively proposing three

·         Feel applicant is now trying to over utilise the site.

·         There is no support locally or parish council  support for two houses on Plot 1,

·         Planning Officer has remained consistent with their pre-app advice, but applications continue to be submitted even though there is awareness of advice against the proposal.

·         There is little respect for the environment and no attempt at landscaping the already built dwelling.

·         There are benefits for drainage and habitats of having trees. Since the large tree has been felled, the ditch continually has water in it regardless of rainfall.

·         New proposals give little scope for landscaping due to parking and garaging provision.

·         Feel beneficial to owner and community to have a single dwelling with landscaping to provide a buffer with agricultural fields.

·         Challenge some information provided by the agent regarding the useable width of the plot due to the presence and maintenance of the drainage ditch.

·         In 2016 a nearby proposal for two dwellings on a similar site was deemed over-development.

Mr M Stenner, read a statement on behalf of Symonds and Sampson Estate Agents in support of the application. He referred to statistics about local house prices and saleability, and based on the market they had suggested the site was better suited to two dwellings. He noted the neighbouring built property had eventually sold for a lesser price than expected, partly due to properties of that size not selling locally as they were too large.

Ms S Vickery, applicant, referred to the Local Plan and the number of houses needed in the area. She noted the sites were brownfield and as there was already planning permission for one dwelling, she felt the principle of development had already been addressed. She commented that a reputable company had been commissioned for the badger survey, and the work proposed could be done satisfactorily. A quarter of an acre plot was proposed for each property and hence would be in proportion with properties opposite, and she noted schools were within walking distance.

Agent, Mr D Parkin, commented there was no market in Pibsbury for such a large dwelling as that already approved. He disagreed with comments may by an objector and acknowledged that the Planning Officer had been consistent in his views about two dwellings on this plot. He noted both dwellings would be built in matching materials and it was difficult to see why two smaller dwellings would have a detrimental impact. He commented it was a brownfield site and badgers would be suitably protected. If consent was not granted he asked what would happen on such brownfield sites.

Ward member, Councillor Clare Aparicio Paul, commented she needed to be consistent in her approach regarding the site. She noted the following S73 application on the agenda was intrinsically linked to this application. There was a need to consider if the whole site could fit two properties. She acknowledged the principle of development had already been established, but also that the feelings of the community were now mixed. Reference to what would and wouldn’t be in keeping had now become quite an emotive issue for the site.

There was a very brief discussion, one member recalled his memory of the site being a garage but did not believe it was ever intended for the site to become a hamlet.  Another member noted that house valuations were not a planning matter and felt this proposal was wrong for the location.

It was proposed to refuse the application as per the officer recommendation, and on being put to the vote, was carried 11 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

(Voting: 11 in favour of refusal, 0 against, 1 abstention)