Agenda item

Proposal: Erection of a single residential dwelling with onsite parking and turning.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and updated members that two further letters had been received from local residents. One noted that seven of the letters of support were from people who did not live in the village. The other questioned if the applicant owned the entire site – this had been checked with the agent who had confirmed all the land was in the applicant’s ownership.

She then presented the application as detailed in the agenda, highlighting that a temporary Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) had been placed on trees at the site.

Mr G Walker, spokesperson for Compton Dundon Parish Council, noted they had taken the view that this type of development was needed in the village and had discussed the temporary TPO. The Parish Council had also carefully considered infill development permitted elsewhere in the village and also the impact on the nearby by-way.

Mr T Pole, addressed members in objection to the proposal. He raised concerns about the drainage ditch to the east of the site which when flooded went across the application site. He also noted due to the restricted size of the site aby development would likely cause damage to tree roots. There would be very little space in front of the building which was likely to give an overbearing appearance. He questioned if there was a need for this property to be built in such a rural location.

Mr M Jones and Mr A Harvey, spoke in support of the application and their comments included:

·         At least one tree was already damaged or diseased and could come down at any time and damage a mobile home in the adjacent field.

·         The government supports self-builds and the build will bring local employment.

·         Applicants were well known in the village and have family ties.

Mr C Swain, applicant, noted the temporary TPO had been put in place following comments from a local tree surgeon about health of the trees. They were mindful of the by-way surface and would monitor and repair to any standards necessary. He noted there were a number of properties in the village that had very little, if any, land in front of the buildings. He also noted local people had commented on the proposal and no objectors had contacted him directly or raised objections at Parish Council meetings.

Ward member, Councillor Stephen Page, commented it was a difficult application. He noted it had support of the Parish Council who looked at these matters very carefully, but he also acknowledged and understood the comments of those who had raised concerns.

During debate members made comments in support of the application including:

·         It’s a modest house

·         There are questions about the current health of some of the trees and surprised there was a temporary TPO.

·         Weighing up arguments, feel no demonstrable harm could be done.

·         A house near a drove is acceptable.

In response to comments made, the Area Lead clarified:

·         The size of the site and dwelling, and details of the by-way.

·         Officers were not suggesting there was issue about principle, but by virtue of the layout and cramped nature the proposal may be an intrusive consolidation of built form.

·         The TPO was only temporary in order to provide time to consider the application. If members were minded to approve the application it was recommended the TPO slips away as the trees are unlikely to have a future.

·         Removal of Permitted Development Rights for extensions and outbuildings would be reasonable due to the size of the site.

As members were minded to approve, the Area Lead suggested the wording for the justification would largely be the reverse of the reason indicated in the agenda report. He suggested there should be conditions for:

·         Time limit

·         Plans

·         Landscaping

·         Removal of Permitted Development Rights for extensions and outbuildings

·         Details of hardstanding to be agreed

At the end of discussion it was proposed to approve the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, as the proposal was considered to be acceptable, subject to the conditions and wording of the justification as suggested by the Area Lead. On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried unanimously in favour.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)