Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

 

The local Member for Mitchel Troy and Trellech United, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:

 

·         There is sufficient space within the plot to accommodate an infill dwelling.

 

·         A neighbour had expressed concern regarding access.  However, there are three points of access onto the site.

 

·         There is a mixture of dwellings within the cul-de-sac consisting of bungalows, dormer bungalows and two storey dwellings.

 

·         The local Member would like to see a sympathetic design with regard to the height of the dwelling. Therefore, consideration of a dormer style dwelling might be more preferable at this stage resulting in less visual impact on the cul-de-sac.

 

Mr. D. Lloyd, objection to the application, had submitted a written statement in respect of the application which was read to the Planning Committee by a Planning Officer, as follows:

 

‘Outline approval is being sought for a five bedroomed detached house with double garage on a garden plot in The Narth, with all matters other than access reserved.

 

There are 2 major areas of concern.

 

Access

 

There are 3 points to note here:

 

1.            You will have seen from the site visit on Tuesday that access to the site is very poor. There are several approaches to the proposed site, none of which is suitable for heavy construction traffic or indeed medium sized vehicles. Any attempt to bring material directly to the site will result in damage to property and boundaries.                    

 

The owners of Ty Gwyn which is on the road leading to the proposed development, recently successfully brought a legal case against one of the major courier companies for damage to hedges and walls by a large vehicle.

 

2.            Once at the site, access via the private lane is very restricted with limited options for turning vehicles around, even a car. Access is needed for emergency vehicles due to an elderly resident.

Any construction traffic must be located on the site itself. At no time should the private lane be blocked

 

3.            The proposed access, driveway and turning circle for the development is directly opposite the master bedroom of Lindsey, a single storey bungalow. The dimensions and scale of the house suggests likely occupation by a family with several cars and therefore traffic in and out throughout the day and evenings. This will have a severe impact on the wellbeing of the residents of Lindsey.

 

Any construction management plans need to include a stipulation that large deliveries must be made elsewhere, decanted and transported to site via suitable sized vehicle.

 

Dimensions

 

The maximum dimensions on this outline application mean that the proposed dwelling will have a dominant and overbearing impact on the bungalow “Lindsey” as well as being detrimental to the amenity, space, light pollution and privacy for Lindsey and all neighbouring properties as outlined in policy EP1. This can only truly be appreciated from the site itself.

 

Nearby comparable sized properties, at Worcester House and Beaufort House do not overlook any other properties.

 

There is an outstanding question relating to the siting of the drainage field in relation to the proposed dwelling. Building Regulations say drainage fields should be a minimum of 10 metres away from buildings or other drainage sites, the latest drawings show 7 metres. The approval of the maximum dimensions will have a bearing on this.

 

If the maximum dimensions of the proposed dwelling were reduced, this could potentially allow for a different access which will not be as intrusive on the residents of Lindsey.

 

The final point to note is that maintenance of the private lane is the responsibility of the current residents, but it is in fact owned by a third party. No documentation is available online to indicate any attempt to notify this third party of the proposal and seek their permission for additional access over the lane.’

 

Mr. G. Price, the applicant’s agent, had submitted a written statement in respect of the application which was read to the Planning Committee by a Planning Officer, as follows:

 

‘Thank you for the opportunity to submit this short statement in support of the above application for outline planning permission.

 

The planning application was submitted following a pre-application enquiry for two houses on the site. The Council’s officers advised that an application for two houses would not be acceptable. However, an application for one house which met National and Local Planning Policies would be supported.

 

This application meets all relevant policies including those relating to phosphate discharge including updates which did not come into effect until after the submission of this application.

 

David Wong’s Committee Report clearly explains the application and how it complies with Planning Policy, the report also addresses to objections submitted by Trellech United Community Council and neighbours.

 

I do not consider it necessary to repeat the points that Mr Wong has covered. However, I would like to clarify two points.

 

Firstly, regarding the leylandii hedge along the southern boundary. The application proposes removing the leylandii and replacing it with an indigenous hedgerow. This will increase biodiversity and remove the physical stress that the unbridled leylandii places upon the existing broad leaf trees.

 

Secondly, a late objection from a neighbour alleges that the proposed private foul drainage scheme does not satisfy Building Regulations in so far as it does not comply with Approved Document H2. The Approved Document states that as an alternative approach, the requirements can be met by following the recommendations of British Standard 6297, I can confirm that the drainage system has been designed within the parameters of the British Standard rather than the Approved Document.

 

In conclusion, the proposal complies with all of the Council’s planning policies and I ask the Committee to approve the application.’

 

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

 

·         Members were reminded that this application was for outline approval only at this stage. The appearance and layout of the proposed dwelling would be addressed at the reserved matters stage while the means of access and scale of the dwelling were to be considered at this outline stage.

 

·         The Construction Traffic Management Plan will be consulted with the Highways Department for a detailed and professional view to ensure that neighbours or emergency vehicles are not prejudiced.

 

·         Amend condition 9, whereby the upper and lower scale parameters for the height of the dwelling be 8m upper and 4m lower.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor A. Easson and seconded by County Councillor J. Bond that application DM/2021/00037 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and that Condition 9 be amended as follows:

 

·         The upper and lower scale parameters for the height of the dwelling be 8m upper and 4m lower.

 

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

 

In favour of the proposal                 -           15

Against the proposal                       -           0

Abstentions                                       -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DM/2021/00037 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and that Condition 9 be amended as follows:

 

·         The upper and lower scale parameters for the height of the dwelling be 8m upper and 4m lower.