Agenda item

Erection of a single storey detached 2-bedroom dwelling, with associated works to facilitate a new access, together with external landscaping (width and height of dwelling reduced and changes to external layout as shown on amended plans received 11th September 2019 and additional fire engine tracking plan received 24th October 2019 and reduction in width of rear patio and pedestrian footpath and details of boundary treatment and levels as shown on amended and additional plans received 5th February 2020 and corrections to existing tree heights, retention of existing close-boarded fence and replacement front hedging as shown on amended plans received 17th June 2020).

Councillor Lorraine Hillier and Councillor Jo Robb, the local ward councillors, stood down from the committee for consideration of this application.

The committee considered application P19/S2061/FUL for the erection of a single storey detached 2-bedroom dwelling, with associated works to facilitate a new access, together with external landscaping (width and height of dwelling reduced and changes to external layout as shown on amended plans received 11th September 2019 and additional fire engine tracking plan received 24th October 2019 and reduction in width of rear patio and pedestrian footpath and details of boundary treatment and levels as shown on amended and additional plans received 5th February 2020 and corrections to existing tree heights, retention of existing close-boarded fence and replacement front hedging as shown on amended plans received 17th June 2020) at Highfield,17 Stoke Row Road, Peppard Common.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

The planning officer reported that application site had a restrictive covenant that applied to the former traditional orchard land to be “used only as an orchard or garden ground” in connection with the dwelling house known as Highfield. There was presently no obligation on the landowner to maintain the current ecological value of the land. The development would be sited on the vegetable patch and amenity grassland, avoiding impacts on the traditional orchard to the south-west.

The planning officer also reported that the roof of the proposed dwelling would be positioned below the eaves’ height of No.17 and thus would only be viewed from the west, against the backdrop of the established line of two storey housing. In relation to light pollution, planning officers considered that the proposed dwelling would not add to this to any large degree, given its location within the built-up area of the village and the number of dwellings in the surrounding area. A planning condition was recommended to require details of any desired external lighting to be agreed with the council prior to its installation. The garden areas for the proposed dwelling, and retained for No.17, would exceed the recommended minimum standards of 50 square metres for two-bedroom dwellings and 100 square metres for larger dwellings.

The proposed vehicular access onto Stoke Row Road would be unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the highway network in the vicinity and, in conjunction with the anticipated low vehicle speeds along the driveway, would not increase the risk to highway and pedestrian safety to an unacceptable degree. The highway liaison officer had no objection to these arrangements.

The democratic services officer reported that the statement of objection from the Rotherfield Peppard Parish Council had been sent to the committee prior to the meeting.

Mr. Martin Pratt, a local resident of 15 Stoke Row Road, spoke objecting to the application.

Councillor Lorraine Hillier, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

Councillor Jo Robb, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee considered that proposed dwelling and access, by reason of its position and appearance, would constitute a form of backland development that would be out of keeping with the prevailing two-storey frontage development and thereby detract from the sylvan character and appearance of the area.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P19/S2061/FUL for the following reason;

1.         the proposal constituted a form of backland development that would be out of character with the appearance of the local area.