Agenda item

Proposal: Erection of a dwelling house with new access.

Updates: Since the report was published there have been a further 3 letters of objection referring to the potential loss or damage of the oak tree.

The Specialist, Development Management presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, proceeded to show the site and proposed plans. His Key considerations were as follows:

Policies SS1 and SS2, Impact on local character, Ecology, Highways and impact on green infrastructure, the latter being the predominant issue.

He pointed out the sufficient local services in the area and that there were no ecological or highways issues with the application. The plans show the Oak tree and its root area within the proposed site that is protected with a TPO. The tree officer’s previous objection was withdrawn after the plans were amended and the distance between the dwelling and tree was extended further. Both the tree officer and the specialist agreed that the development can be achieved without harm to the Oak tree.

Concerns that the tree could be damaged in the future could not be considered a reasonable likelihood and advised approval of the application with conditions.

A representative of Charlton Musgrove Parish Council then addressed the committee. Her comments included:

·         A unity of the villagers in recognising the needed protection of the oak tree

·         A previous application on this site that was refused and upheld by SSDC

·         A risk of harm to the future growth of the protected oak tree.

·         The Parish Council had no objection to further development within the village but does not support this application.

Members of the public then spoke in objection to the proposal. Their comments included:

·         The protection of the tree was of high importance to villagers and along with written objections there was also a petition regarding the objection of the application

·         The proposed application does not meet the criteria outlined in the national policy framework or the policies in the local plan.

·         Felt the distance between tree and development is not sufficient

·         The conditions regarding the hedgerow were not implementable as this was not within the ownership of the applicant.

The agent then addressed the committee. He thanked the planning officer for his report. He explained that they addressed the issue the tree officer had with the distance between the dwelling and the tree to ensure that works could be carried out without impacting the tree or its roots. The tree will be protected with fencing and other conditions in the future preventing further development. He asked the application be approved as recommended.

Ward Member Councillor Bastable highlighted the strong response received by local residents. He felt that there are mitigating circumstances that should mean this application is refused. This is due to the close proximity of the tree to the dwelling and the potential loss of the tree. The conditions cannot be policed. The car parking and garden will be under the canopy and future work may then be asked for in relation to the tree. Asked that the committee support in the refusal of the application.

During discussion, members raised comments including the following:

·         The site had previously had an application refused by SSDC

·         There were queries around the age of the property opposite the site and the distance of that house and the tree being that the house is an older property and much further away from the proposed dwelling.

·         The maintenance of the hedgerow not being in the ownership of the applicant and knowing the felling of the ash tree is within the proposal of the application, how that would be managed.

·         A separate proposal was made to approve the application

The specialist, Development Management responded with the following:

·         There could be a condition where the felling of the ash tree would happen before any further work commenced.

·         There was no relevant history included in the report, the old application was not deemed as relevant history.

·         A site visit was undertaken by the specialist, development management.

Proposal for Refusal was then seconded with the following reasons:

Policies SS1, SS2 and SS5

The close proximity and potential loss of the Oak tree

Policies EQ2, and EQ5

NPPF -175 C

A vote was taken on the proposal and there were 8 votes in favour to refuse, 1 against and 2 abstentions.