Agenda item

Outline application with all matters reserved for the proposed demolition of existing dwelling & erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space. (As amplified by ecology information received 27 July 2023 and as amplified by Bat Emergence Survey dated 8 September 2023 and as amplified by plan P-054).

The committee considered planning application P23/S1818/O for the outline application with all matters reserved for the proposed demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space (as amplified by ecology information received 27 July 2023 and as amplified by Bat Emergence Survey dated 8 September 2023 and as amplified by plan P-054), on land at 5 Burcot Park, Burcot.  

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 the meeting. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to the committee due to the objection of Burcot and Clifton Hampden Parish Council. In addition, she informed members that since the report was published, the forestry officer had registered no objection as they expected more information to be proved at the reserved matters stage.

The application itself was for the demolishing of a single dwelling and the subdivision of the plot to create two dwellings. She also confirmed that the application had received 14 letters of objection from residents and that the parish council had also objected.

The planning officer also emphasised to the committee that the application was for outline permission only with all other matters to be considered in future reserved matters applications, such as deign and access. Therefore, only the principle of replacing one dwelling with two was being dealt with by the committee at the current stage.

The site was washed over by the Green Belt. However, the planning officer confirmed to members that limited infill in the village was acceptable in the Local Plan and that, due to the position of the site in the village, this application would be considered an infill development as so was acceptable on those grounds.

On the concerns of neighbours, the planning officer clarified that she did not believe there would be any loss of character to the area as a result of the buildings demolition as it was not listed in any way, and she also highlighted that there were no policies preventing non-listed buildings being demolished. Furthermore, as the application only proposed indicative designs, the future character of the area could not be assessed at the current stage, but rather when the reserved matters application was submitted. On potential loss of amenity space, she also noted that both proposed properties would have amenity space in excess of that required in the design guide. In addition, the parking and highway aspect of the scheme had also received no objection form the local highways authority.

The planning officer also brought members’ attention to the plot size of the proposed dwelling and that they would not be dissimilar to the others in the cul-de-sac.

On drainage, the drainage engineer had registered no objection subject to conditions, and on the bat assessment, it was confirmed that the presence of a maternity roost meant that the applicant had to enter into a license scheme with Natural England before there would be permission to demolish the dwelling.

Overall, as the demolition and subdivision of the plot was policy compliant, and as there were no objections from technical consultees, she recommended that the application be approved.

Caron Greene, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

Councillor Sam Casey-Rerhaye, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

The committee asked for clarification about if the proposed application would meet the criteria for an infill development. In response, the planning officer confirmed to members that the National Planning Policy Framework allowed for infill within villages in Green Belt and therefore, as the site was within the built-up limits of Burcot, it was considered infill by officers and therefore acceptable on those grounds.

Members inquired into the status of the Burcot Neighbourhood Plan and if it could affect the definition of infill. In response, the development manager clarified that as it was not made and adopted, the plan carried limited weight. However, she emphasised that neighbourhood plans were not permitted to contradict the Local Plan and so it would not change the definition of infill to material effect the proposed application.

On a question about if the construction of the building would have an impact on the application, the development manager confirmed that the buildings’ design would not be materially relevant to the application before the committee.

The committee noted that there were a number of plots in the cul-de-sac of a similar size to the proposed subdivision, including the plot directly opposite the site which was almost identical in size to the proposal, and that other matters such as design would be considered at the reserved matters stage.

Overall, as the committee agreed that there were no material planning reasons for refusal, they agreed to accept the outline application subject to conditions.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was carried on being put to the vote. 

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P23/S1818/O, subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement - Outline with Reserved Matters

2. Parking & Manoeuvring Areas retained

3. Foul drainage details required

4. Surface water details required

5. Drainage report required

6. Energy Statement required

7. Electric Vehicle (EV) charging point