Agenda item

The Hollies, 6 Cross Street, Gaddesby

Applicant:     Mr Jamieson

Location:      The Hollies, 6 Cross Street, Gaddesby

Proposal:      Proposed two storey dwelling

 

 

(a)  The Development Manager (LP) presented the report and stated that:

The proposal seeks full permission for the erection of a two storey three bedroom dwelling which has been amended during the application process. 

Since the publishing of the report three further representations have been received, no additional issues have been raised within those representations from those discussed within the report.

There are no further updates to the report and the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out in the report.

 

(a)  Gary Fox, on behalf of the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Housing Need Survey concludes a requirement for housing is 2 Affordable Housing, 8 Shared Ownership and 8 Open Market

·         Planning permission given to 14 homes and considered for 11 dwellings

·         Proposal does not satisfy requirement for housing need

·         Not an extension to or enhancement of existing dwelling

·         Conservation area

·         Attractive, historical and peaceful setting

·         Detracts from setting

·         Loss of privacy for immediate neighbour

·         Parking issues

·         Pedestrian access issues

·         Change to streetscene

·         Not in keeping with area

 

(b)  Austin Healey, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Dust and noise issues

·         Overbearing

·         Overdevelopment

·         Overlooks property, privacy issues

·         Hedging removal not possible – will struggle to keep alive

·         Parking lots go over boundary into neighbouring property

 

A Cllr stated that the 2012 NPPF discouraged inappropriate development in a residential garden and asked what the policy is in the current version.

 

The Development Manager stated that it is the policy making that indicates the residential development within existing gardens. There is nothing to specifically state new development.

 

A Cllr stated that a development elsewhere had previously been refused for this reason.

 

Cllr Holmes proposed to refuse the application as it would be bad planning. The Silver Birch Trees should not be taken down. It is overdevelopment in a village, impacts negatively on the streetscene, and there are parking issues.                    

 

Cllr Baguley seconded the proposal to refuse due to loss of trees and changes to streetscene in a conservation area. A development should improve not harm to conservation area.

 

A Cllr stated that there would be an impact on the streetscene, changes to a conservation area and there are highways problems.

 

A Cllr stated that it would damage the rural character and asked if the proposer and seconder would include inappropriate development of a residential garden as a reason to refuse.

 

The proposer and seconder accepted the reason.

 

A vote was taken and it was unanimously decided that the application should be refused.

 

Determination: Refused for the following reasons:

 

The proposed erection of a new dwelling in this location is considered to represent overdevelopment of the site.  Accordingly, the proposal is considered to conflict with Policy D1 a) of the emerging Local Plan, BE1 of the Melton Local Plan 1999 and the NPPF paragraphs 127 b) and 131.

 

The proposed erection of a new dwelling in this location would be out of keeping with the established character of the surrounding residential area. Accordingly, the proposal is deemed to conflict with Policy D1 a) and c)of the emerging Local Plan, BE1 of the Melton Local Plan 1999 and the NPPF paragraph 9, 127 c) and 130

 

The proposed erection of a new dwelling in this location would result in the inappropriate development of a residential garden. Accordingly, the proposal is deemed to conflict with NPPF paragraph 122 d)