Agenda item

a) 3/12/0252/FP – Recommended for Refusal.

b) 3/12/0253/FP – Recommended for Refusal.

Jane Orsborn addressed the Committee in support of the applications.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of applications 3/12/0252/FP and 3/12/0253/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director read out a statement on behalf of the local ward Member, Councillor L Haysey.  Councillor Haysey referred to the letter from the applicant in that this set out the reasons why these applications should be approved.

The Director stated that Councillor Haysey had highlighted that Officers had acknowledged the need for the replacement dwellings.  She emphasised that Officers felt that the replacement dwellings should occupy the existing footprint of the dwellings that would be demolished.

Councillor Haysey had stated that there were sound reasons as to why the second dwelling should be located in a new position on the site.  Councillor Haysey also commented that the applicant and his structural engineer had felt that the Landscape Officer had not taken into account the reasons for the proposed siting of the two properties.

Councillor Haysey was of the view that these dwellings were necessary accommodation for workers in the agricultural sector and were not an unnecessary expansion of housing into the green belt.  Councillor Haysey had urged the Committee to grant both applications.

In response to comments from Councillor Mrs R Cheswright relating to concerns from neighbours regarding loss of privacy, the Director stated that this should not be an issue as there were no windows facing numbers 3 and 4 Penny Royal.

Councillor M Newman referred to there being no objection in principle to the applications.  He stated that building the plot 1 house towards the western extremity of the site would overcome any issues regarding the radius of influence of the trees.

Councillor Newman referred to the points mentioned in the report regarding alternative solutions to the problem of subsidence, other than the re-siting option put forward by the applicant.  He commented that there were always structural solutions for overcoming such issues and he felt that the reasons for building away from the existing footprints were not overwhelming.

Councillor N Symonds concurred with the points raised by the local Member and stated that building additional properties on the sodden clay soil would result in lots of problems.  She emphasised that the existing dwellings had a lot of cracks in the walls and were not fit for habitation.

The Director advised Members that there was an in principle objection to the building on plot 2 in the green belt.  Members were advised however that there was no in principle objection to replacement dwellings.  Officers had not been satisfied that sufficient information had been provided to justify the need for new dwellings on the site.  The Director referred to a range of engineering solutions that could be put in place on the site.

Councillor M Alexander proposed and Councillor A Burlton seconded, a motion that the Committee support the Director’s recommendations in respect of applications 3/12/0252/FP and 3/12/0253/FP.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

The Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of applications 3/12/0252/FP and 3/12/0253/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.