Agenda item

We received the report of the application which was presented for refusal for one reason outlined in the report.

The local Member for Dewstow, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:

·         The infill development will be able to use the land efficiently and enable easy access to existing amenities by means of walking, cycling etc. reducing the need to use private vehicles.

·         The properties will be DDA compliant.

·         The site is not a back land site.

·         It was not feasible to extend the main property into a terrace because by having a physical interconnection it would have meant the access problems and the creation for the current planned property through an alleyway with its associated legal rights of ownership of the space created. Hence, the demolition of the outhouse and the plan to form a shared pathway on that side.

·         This proposal complies with Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) relating to small scale infill development with fewer than 10 dwellings as defined in policies H1, H2, H3 of the Local Development Plan.

·         The existing landscape features and views across the site support this and is in keeping with the surrounding area.

·         The land is large enough to accommodate additional houses and also on site planning.  The garden space will be similar to existing houses in the area.

·         The proposed dwellings will benefit from private garden space for the occupiers’ recreational use.

·         The proposed development will be in keeping with the building line of other properties.

·         Materials used will be in keeping with the original and neighbouring dwellings.  Roofing will match existing dwellings and will complement the street scene.

·         The aspect of the new houses will not affect the privacy of neighbours as there will be no windows at either end of the gables.

·         SPG suggests that it is desirable to have a 50 metre space between principle elevations. There will be a 13 metre space in this case. There is a mitigating factor for the 13 metre space as there is a large detached garage at the property nearby which will shield potential intrusive aspects.

·         There are numerous examples across Caldicot where the desired 50 metre space has been relaxed, with the distance being five metres in some circumstances.

·         The proposal addresses all of the SPG requirements.

·         The local Member supports approval of the application and asked the Planning Committee to consider the mitigating circumstances with regard to the 13 metre space and consider approval of the application.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, the following points were noted:

·         The Development Management Area Team Manager informed the Committee that the proposed dwellings are not affordable units.  The properties are market units.

·         The properties are impractical.  There is not enough room either side of each property.   The site would be better suited to having just one property located on this site.

·         The frontage would be dominated by parked cars.

·         Approval of the application would result in overdevelopment of the site.

·         Some members agreed with the views expressed by the local Member as it was considered that there was enough room on the site to build two detached properties.  There is no overlooking of other properties.

The local Member summed up as follows:

·         Planning Officer concerns had only been expressed regarding the distance between 1 Elm Road and the proposed properties.  The local Member asked for the mitigating circumstances in terms of the distance between the property and 1 Elm Road. Far denser properties on spaces larger than this site had previously been approved by Planning Committee in Caldicot. The local Member therefore asked that the mitigating circumstances of 13 metres between the property and 1 Elm Road be taken into account.

It was proposed by County Councillor A. Davies and seconded by County Councillor G. Howard that application DM/2020/01328 be refused for one reason outlined in the report (as per the officer recommendation in the report).

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

For refusal                -           10

Against refusal                     -           3

Abstentions                           -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2020/01328 be refused for one reason outlined in the report (as per the officer recommendation in the report).