Agenda item

The Ferns, 12 Main Street, Twyford

Applicant: Mr Philip Norwell

Location: The Ferns 12 Main Street Twyford

Proposal: Approval of appearance, scale, layout and landscaping for Plot 3 only

 

(a) The Planning Officer stated that:

This application seeks Reserved Matters consent for Plot 3 only, outline consent was granted at appeal under reference 13/00691, a previous reserved matters application has also been granted under reference 16/00156.

This application seeks to amend application 16/00156, the proposal will remain a single dwelling with a ground and first floor now comprising of 5 bedrooms. The proposed scheme continues to utilise the approved point of access and private driveway from the paddocks off Lowesby Lane.

The proposal does have a larger footprint than that of the existing, however in the context of the site and distances available to nearby dwellings the size of the dwelling is not considered to have any significant impact on neighbouring dwellings or appear overdeveloped in the context.

The proposed dwelling is to be set down into the site and will therefore be no higher than the previously approved dwelling. The application site will retain the majority of the existing hedgerow and tree planting to the southern, eastern and western boundaries, with further planning to be provided in accordance with the previously approved landscaping scheme and demonstrated on amended plans.

There is one update to the report, condition 5 states that prior to the first occupation of any dwelling, a turning space shall be provided at the end of the private drive, as pointed out this land is beyond the applicants ownership and therefore is considered unreasonable.

To conclude the application site lies within an area that has been granted previous outline and reserved matter consent, the proposal whilst slightly larger than previously approved is not considered to give rise to significant overlooking or loss of light and is therefore recommenced for approval subject to conditions as set out in the report with the exception of condition 5 which should be deleted.

 

(b) Christopher Trent, objector, was invited to speak and stated that

·         Big houses – 5 bed house – since original planning permission height has increased by 1m.

·         2 concerns for this area for people facing this house – more obtrusive.

·         In context of Twyford area these houses are very large.

·         Twyford has one of worst affordability ratings in the area.

·          

A Councillor questioned the separation distances from nearby houses.

The speaker responded that he believes there is a 6m gap between this house and the adjoining one. Does not have draft plans to refer to.

The Chair asked for clarification from the planning officers on separation distances.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the measurements demonstrated on the plan are 35m from building to building, with another dwelling at 30m.

The Head of Regulatory Services confirmed that the minimum required distance is 21m.

Phillip Norwell, applicant, was invited to speak and stated that

·         I am seeking to build a home for my family which reflects and respects local area.

·         Want to contribute to the area and become part of the local community.

·         Hope new home will contribute to appearance of village.

·         Family need has increased from 4 bedrooms to 5 due to wife’s parents needing a spare room to visit as they live over 100 miles away.

·         The new scheme delivers a stronger design which is more closely linked to that of the village. The proposed dwelling has been set down – new building is lower than previously approved dwelling. Has been repositioned further away from boundary.

·         Revised scheme on plot 2 was approved last week which was designed by the same architect. Proposals sit comfortably alongside each other.

·         Members had no questions.

 

(c ) Ward Councillor:

The Head of Regulatory Services read out a statement from Cllr Higgins

·         The application history of the site shows that it was a Government inspector that passed the application on appeal and not this council. Although before it was before I became a Member I feel the inspector errored when they did not agree to the Council's request for smaller housing.

·         It is clear Twyford indeed needs smaller housing, which the community have suggested in their representations. Yet this site will not be a vehicle of delivery due to a previous decision by the Inspector.

·         Therefore the Government Inspector has caused this issue and not the Local Planning Authority nor, to be fair, the applicant before you.

·         Objectors have put forward their views on the original application and to be fair the applicant has listened and made some changes. The objectors would like privacy issues to be raised in addition to the argument for smaller housing which promote families.

·         The applicant has also been in touch with me to explain the family reasons for altering the application to suit their needs and their three children.

·         I understand from those conversations the applicant wants to be a firm part of the community to that his family and children will am active role in it. He therefore has made alterations as he wants to live alongside the community and neighbours.

·         The Somerby Ward, and indeed Twyford, need families to continue the lifeblood of the village and should be welcomed. Twyford indeed is a very welcoming community. The applicant has advised he wants his family to a part of the community which naturally we all applaud.

·         Should any screening conditions be required or requested then please feel free to explore this through debate.

·         I would like to thank all parties in taking the positive tone in shaping this application. There have been some concession in that process. However it is difficult to request a smaller housing condition due to Inspectors decision, which is why this Committee have made such a condition on another application in the village to meet the small housing need.

·         Finally my community want the council to hear their views and ensure the right housing is developed in the future as documented in the housing needs study 2016.

 

The Planning Officer commented in relation to the speakers comment in relation to the size of the house and bedrooms – referring to page 5 of report – outline permission did not impose conditions – consideration is therefore limited to design, layout etc. Condition 4 relates to landscaping and screening, also condition 9 asks for existing trees to be fenced off to avoid damage.

A Councillor questioned the removal of condition 5 and whether cars and service vehicles would have adequate space to turn around.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the site does have adequate space for turning and parking.

Cllr Greenow proposed to permit the application. Seconded by Cllr Botterill.

A Councillor questioned whether the apple trees on the site would be removed. The applicant responded that one of the three trees would be retained, the other two would be removed due to poor condition.

A vote was taken. 9 Members voted to approve the application. Cllr Holmes abstained from the vote due to not having visited the site personally.

 

DETERMINATION: PERMITTED, in accordance with the recommendation with the exception of condition 5 which is deleted, for the following reasons;

The application site lies within the village envelope and thus benefits from a presumption in favour of development under policies OS1, BE1 and H6. The proposed development has been designed to have a limited impact on adjoining properties, and is considered capable of reflecting the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and complies with highway requirements.

It is acknowledged that the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Borough’s housing needs, however there is an identified need of the applicant with the larger dwelling not having any significant implication in terms of overlooking, overshadowing, loss of light or privacy predominantly due to the proposed dwelling being set down within the land, to ensure that its overall height is slightly lower tat that of the previously approved dwelling and the proposal providing a distance of over 30 metres between the nearest window of the proposed dwelling and existing dwellings sited on The Paddocks.