Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was

recommended for approval subject to the 12 conditions outlined in the report.

 

Shirenewton Community Council, had submitted a written statement outlining the community council’s objections to the application which was read to the Planning Committee by the Head of Planning, as follows:

 

‘Shirenewton Community Council has the following objections to this application.

·         The proposed houses are large four bedroomed dwellings commanding a price unaffordable by local inhabitants. Our community cannot thrive without its younger members and families and the proposed dwellings work against this. Whilst we appreciate the s106 payment towards affordable housing, the sums involved are way too small to permit any significant affordable housing provision.

·         Whilst we accept that The Tan House site (still not trading as a pub) is an eyesore it lies in the historic centre of the village and any partial redevelopment impacts on both the conservation area and the amenity offered by the pub. There would be no outside seating nor children's play area at the pub, and the two large executive houses standing prominently next to the highway will be wholly out of character.

·         The existing hedge on the boundary with the highway should be retained in the present appearance and size to maintain the rural outlook.

·         Many of our residents live outside the village itself and travel in by car. The highways around the pub are narrow and offer no on street parking. Curtailing the available parking will result in obstruction for the immediate neighbours.

·         The parking spaces for the two dwellings are accessed through the pub car park. Insufficient consideration has been given for the dwelling occupiers and visitors to turn to exit their parking and the layout is such that they are prone to being blocked in.’

 

The applicant’s agent, Richard Ball, Architect, had submitted a written statement in support of the application which was read to the Planning Committee by the Head of Planning, as follows:

 

‘I note the planner in her report has gone through the many issues raised by this application and considered them all to have been resolved to her satisfaction.  I have discussed this with my client and he has resolved to take the application to appeal should it be refused.

 

This application does not take any farmland.  It uses secondary land and is therefore in line with current government thinking on housing supply and should be supported.’

 

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

 

·         The main planning policy for the loss of the community facility is LDP Policy CRF1.

 

·         The pub occupies an important historical site in the village.

 

·         Policy CRF1 states in the report of the application that it could reasonably become financially viable and particularly attractive is the outdoor play area, making it a facility as a family pub.

 

·         Policy CRF1 also states – to change part of the facility will not be permitted if it will prejudice the long term retention of the remainder. It will take away both the outdoor area of the pub and also take away parking spaces.

 

·         There is currently no pub open in Shirenewton Village. However, it has an outside area with a separate car park with 20 spaces.  This development will result in only 15 spaces for the car park, as six spaces will be allocated to the houses. The spaces for the houses could be blocked and difficult to access if it became a pub again.

 

·         The surrounding highways area is not suitable for parking provision, namely, Spout Hill and Tan House Court.

 

·         No marketing exercise has been undertaken as expected for Policy CRF1 to advertise as a pub with an outdoor space, neither has it been marketed as a viable commercial option.

 

·         The local Member considered that it would be more suitable to have the planning application for the site, as a whole.

 

·         It is disingenuous to subdivide the site to avoid policy CRF1.

 

·         The report of the application refers to the affordable housing policy. Policy S4 states that the development site with a capacity for three or more dwellings will make provision for at least 60% of the total number of dwellings on sites to be affordable.   Affordable housing should be provided on an on-site basis unless there are exceptional circumstances. The policy also refers to main villages in S1 – for main villages there is a specific issue of affordable housing in rural areas due to limited abilities of existing residents in the countryside, particularly young people to afford housing which restricts their ability to remain with existing communities.

 

·         In terms of infill sites, the policy states that 35% of the housing should be affordable.  If the site has the capacity for two large four bedroomed houses then it should have the capacity to accommodate three smaller houses or bungalows, one of which could be affordable under this policy.

 

·         A £17,000 financial contribution is small in comparison to the £200,000 to £250,000 required for the market value of one on site property.

 

·         The local Member asked the Planning Committee to consider refusal of the application on the grounds of being contrary to Policies S1, SAH 11 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) and supplementary affordable housing policy provision and contrary to policy CRF1.

 

·         However, if the Planning Committee approves the application, the local Member requested that there be a variation of the conditions.  The exterior of the buildings to have soft render and be painted yellow to be more in keeping with the bungalow next door and with the property opposite. Also, a request was made that there be a restriction on permitted development rights due to the potential for unsightly outbuildings being located near to an historical building.  Concern was also expressed regarding the height being 8.2 metres.  The height of the land is higher than that height opposite.  The scale of the buildings was considered to be too great and would not conform to Policy DES 1. As the properties will be higher than the surrounding buildings the Juliet balcony will result in overlooking.

 

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

 

·         The proposed dwellings are in keeping with nearby properties. However, the colour of the proposed dwellings need to be in keeping with these properties to maintain consistency.

 

·         If the pub were to re-open then there would be far more vehicle movements compared to an additional two private houses.

 

·         With regard to the density of the dwellings in front of the former public house, the proposed dwellings do not look out of place.

 

·         The proposed properties would look better with window headers over the windows which would match the properties opposite.

 

The local Member summed up as follows:

 

·         Soft render should be considered instead of rough render.

 

·         Permitted development rights should be removed to prevent additional outbuildings being built, as the proposed dwellings would be located next to an historical building.

 

·         The local Member expressed disappointment that the affordable housing policy was not being considered as it was considered that there was room within the site for three smaller dwellings with one of these dwellings being an affordable property.

 

·         The eastern side of the village has had some affordable housing so the additional affordable housing provision could be managed by a housing association.

 

·         The local Member recommended that the application be refused on the grounds that the affordable housing policy has not been considered.

 

·         If the application is approved, the local Member requested that conditions be added to provide soft render, window headers be placed over the windows to match the properties opposite and that permitted development rights be removed.

 

Following the local Member’s summing up it was suggested that the render specification should be considered by the Delegation Panel if the application were approved.

 

The Development Management Area Team Manager provided the Committee with the following information:

 

·         The application is for two dwellings on this area of land that is part of the curtilage of the Tan House and not for the conversion of the Tan House.

 

·         Whilst the loss of the play area is not great it does not preclude the use of the pub to operate as a pub restaurant facility.

 

·         The pub has been closed for a considerable period of time, in the region of 10 years. This needs to be considered when looking at the viability of the pub.

 

·         There are other pubs in the area with facilities. Therefore, there is not a requirement to look at marketing this facility.

 

·         With regard to parking provision and the protection of the residential parking places, condition 9 within the report of the application addresses this matter.

 

·         In relation to affordable housing provision and the capacity of the site, the application is for two dwellings and it is considered that the site is able to accommodate two dwellings which are of a size, scale, mass and design that are appropriate within that context.  The proposed dwellings are similar to those properties close by which sit appropriately within their scale and format.

 

·         The proposed two dwellings are under the threshold and the commuted sum is in line with the affordable policy.  There is no deviation from the policies.

 

·         With regard to the colour, condition 3 requests samples of all of the proposed external finishes.  This condition could be amended to specifically include colour. As the proposed properties would be located within the conservation area, it was suggested that Heritage Officers be consulted specifically on discharging that condition. This would allow officers to provide advice on the render type and colour that would be appropriate in the conservation area.

 

·         Window headers to be placed over the windows to match the properties opposite were noted.

 

·         With regard to the pub, any change of use or proposals for the pub to not operate as a pub would have to be presented to Planning Committee as a separate planning application.

 

·         Permitted development rights could be removed for the change of external materials.  In relation to outbuildings there are limitations on what the permitted development rights would be available on the property as it is located within the conservation area.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor A. Davies and seconded by County Councillor D. Evans that application DM/2019/01495 be approved subject to the 12 conditions outlined in the report and subject to the following:

 

·         Include window headers front and rear on the two new dwellings via amended elevation drawings before issuing permission.

 

·         Amend condition 3 to include details of the type and colour of the external render.

 

·         Agree the render specification via consultation with Heritage and the Delegation Panel.

 

·         Remove Permitted Development Rights to change external materials.

 

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

 

In favour of the proposal                 -           12

Against the proposal                       -           1

Abstentions                                       -           1

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DM/2019/01495 be approved subject to the 12 conditions outlined in the report and subject to the following:

 

·         Include window headers front and rear on the two new dwellings via amended elevation drawings before issuing permission.

 

·         Amend condition 3 to include details of the type and colour of the external render.

 

·         Agree the render specification via consultation with Heritage and the Delegation Panel.

 

·         Remove Permitted Development Rights to change external materials.