Minutes:
Item 3
Application Number: 4402/16
Proposal: Erection of detached single storey dwelling with detached garage utilising existing vehicular access
Site Location: GISLINGHAM – The Little House, High Street, IP23 8JG
Applicant: Burgess Homes Ltd.
The planning officer advised Members of the following changes:
· Page 45, under the heading Conclusion, reference to policy HB8 to be deleted as this was not relevant
· Page 46, Section 2, reference to policy HB8 to be deleted as this was not relevant
Phil Cobbold, the Agent, said that the protected trees would not be lost and any future pruning would have to be by application to the Council. The proposed dwelling was sensitively designed to give the appearance of an outbuilding and was situated to the rear of and subservient to the cottage. The Old Rectory was approximately 70 metres from the proposed dwelling, and there was no adverse impact on its setting. He also pointed to other dwellings built in the village within the curtilage of listed buildings and also backland development.
Councillor Diana Kearsley, Ward Member, repeated the concerns for the protected trees and the impact on the listed buildings from the proposed development. She also had concerns with regards to the shared drive and the limited visibility on the bend.
The Arboricultural Officer responded to Member’s questions regarding the impact of the proposed dwelling on the protected trees.
During the debate Members raised question regarding the footprint of the proposed dwelling and generally agreed that this would be overdevelopment of the site. It was felt that the proposed site of the dwelling would restrict the growth of the protected trees leading to repeated requests to lop and shape them preventing them from growing to their full potential. There would also be an adverse impact on the adjacent listed buildings.
It was generally felt that the proposal was unacceptable in its current format.
Councillor David Whybrow proposed the motion which was seconded by Councillor Roy Barker.
By 7 votes to 2
Decision – That Full Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed dwelling would be positioned in close proximity to an Oak tree (T9) and an Ash tree (TB) at the rear of the plot which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (No. MS 283). Whilst the accompanying arboricultural report identifies measures to help lessen direct impact upon the trees the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that it adequately addresses their above ground attributes which will have an adverse impact on living conditions and usability of the garden. Furthermore, the Oak tree (T9) has a low broad spreading crown and will not have adequate space for future growth without significant pruning. Accordingly, it is considered that the layout design of this proposal does not provide suitable integration of new development with the natural environment and is likely to result in pressure to fell or ongoing pruning. Such requests will be difficult for the Council to resist and would threaten the value of the trees and consequently the character and appearance of the local area. Consequently it is considered that the proposal does not relate well or secure the protection of these important natural features. The proposal is contrary to policies GP1 and H13 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan 1998, policy CS5 of the Core Strategyand paragraphs56-66 ofthe NationalPlanning Policy framework
2. The proposal would result in harm to the character, setting and significance of the Grade II listed properties Little House and Suryodaya by eroding the existing openness currently afforded to their setting, without providing any significant public benefit. This identified harm is not outweighed by any public benefit that would be achieved should the proposed development be granted. The proposal is therefore contrary to Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework(2012), andPolicies HB1and HB8of theMid SuffolkLocal Plan (September1998), andPolicy CSSof theMid SuffolkCore Strategy(September 2008).
The business of the meeting was concluded at 11.10 a.m.
…………………………………………
Chairman
Supporting documents: