Demolition of existing bungalow and garage and erection of new chalet style house (As amended by revised plans amended plans, arboricultural impact assessment, preliminary bat roost assessment, energy statement, and water efficiency calculator received 17/05/2021 and bat survey received 31/08/2021).
The committee considered planning application 20/S3905/FUL for the demolition of existing bungalow and garage and erection of new chalet style house (as amended by revised plans amended plans, arboricultural impact assessment, preliminary bat roost assessment, energy statement, and water efficiency calculator received 17/05/2021 and bat survey received 31/08/2021) at Manana, Latchford Lane, Great Haseley.
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 advised the committee that the report had incorrectly stated that the local ward councillor, Councillor Caroline Newton, had called in the application. The Great Haseley Parish Council had objected to the application and councillor Newton had been invited to speak, but had given apologies in advance, owing to a prior engagement. The planning officer had referred the application to the committee under delegated powers owing to concerns regarding the size of the replacement dwelling.
The planning officer informed the committee that this was an application for the demolition of a bungalow and the construction of a chalet style house, which would be 0.9m higher than the existing dwelling. The site was within a semi-rural street-scene of predominantly small detached pitched roof bungalows, in the built area of Great Haseley. An error at paragraph 6.26 in the report was referred to; it stated that… ‘the amended plans have removed the proposed basement which is no longer required’. In fact, a basement was still contained in the proposal.
The planning officer reported that the overall mass and scale of the replacement dwelling would be larger than that of the existing dwelling by virtue of its footprint and height. Despite this, the proposed design was now considered to fit with the semi-rural character of the area. Unlike the original design, the dwelling would be set-back behind the building line, which would reduce any overbearing impact when viewed from the Latchford Lane street-scene to the north-east. The dwelling now proposed a simple pitched roof form with a height which was no higher than Watersmeet, which was situated to the north-west. Additionally, the development would no longer extend as far into the rear garden, with the rear depth extended only 2.7m beyond the existing. The rear footprint would be set-back 8.7m behind the south-western rear extension at Watersmeet. The planning officer also reported that the replacement dwelling had been purposely sited to protect neighbouring amenity; the south-eastern side elevation would be 1.2m distant from the Birsay neighbouring boundary, and the south-western side elevation would 1.8m from the Watersmeet neighbouring boundary. Birsay was judged to lose only a small amount of light. In terms of any flood risk, a small area to the north-eastern area of the site had been assessed as having a 0.1 percent annual risk of surface water flooding. The council’s drainage officer has been consulted on this matter.
The committee noted condition 12, in respect of the withdrawal of permitted development rights, and enquired whether this would cover a car port. The planning officer confirmed that it would.
The chair stated that there were no public speakers in respect of the application, but noted that statements had been received from Great Haseley Parish Council, who objected to the application, Mr. Toby Garfitt, a local resident, who had objected, and Mr. Mark Hobbs, the agent, in support of the application. All these statements had been shared with the committee.
The committee considered that the development would enhance the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, and that, overall, the benefits of the development outweighed any potential harm. Therefore the application should receive planning permission.
A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P20/S3905/FUL subject to the following conditions;
1. Commencement three years - Full Planning Permission.
2. Approved plans.
3. Bat box.
4. Tree Protection (General).
5. Existing vehicular access.
6. Parking and manoeuvring areas retained.
7. Energy Statement Verification.
8. Electric Vehicle Charging Points.
9. Bat survey compliance.
10.Hours of operation – construction/demolition sites.
12. Withdrawal of P.D. (Part 1 Class A, B, C, D and E).
14. Section 151 of the Highways Act 1980 – informative.
15. Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 – informative.
16. Works within the highway – informative.