Agenda item

Erection of a 4 bedroomed detached family dwelling with integral garage, and associated access and landscaping (revised plans received 22 March with revised SAP calculations, energy statement, change to proposed external finish, movement of dwelling to rear by 1.4 metres, inclusion of air source heat pump, amended site access and biodiversity net gain calculations).

The committee considered planning application P22/S4565/FUL for the erection of a 4 bedroomed detached family dwelling with integral garage, and associated access and landscaping (revised plans received 22 March with revised SAP calculations, energy statement, change to proposed external finish, movement of dwelling to rear by 1.4 metres, inclusion of air source heat pump, amended site access and biodiversity net gain calculations), on land off Rectory Road, 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 introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to the committee due to the objection of Great Haseley Parish Council.

The planning officer informed the committee that the main concerns for the parish council was that the bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling was too large, that it would be unsympathetic to surrounding area, and also cause drainage issues.

Outline consent was previously approved in March 2022 for a one and a half storey dwelling on the site. The planning officer informed members that the current proposal would reduce the height by 200mm from the previously approved scheme, but that the main difference between the two was that the current proposal included front and rear gables which would increase the footprint of the dwelling.

In addition, the planning officer highlighted to members that amended plans had proposed that the dwelling be set back by an additional 1.4 metres from highway, and he was satisfied that there was sufficiently distance between the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring properties to conserve neighbouring amenity.

The planning officer did note that concerns had been raised about the ground source heat pump potentially causing a disturbance but confirmed that this was unlikely to occur as it was placed 1.8 metres from the boundary. On another potential concern about flooding, the planning officer also noted the drainage officer’s representation and that they had no objection subject to foul and surface water conditions.

Overall, as the planning officer believed the design of the dwelling reflected the newly constructed dwellings in the area, there was no loss of neighbouring amenity, there were no objections from technical consultees, and the overall benefits of the application were outweighed by any harm, he recommended the application be approved.

Charlotte and Tom Mitchel, the applicants, spoke in support of the application.

The committee inquired into the distance between the proposed dwelling and the boundary of the site. In response, the planning officer confirmed that the building did have a larger footprint than what was approved at the outline stage but that the distance between it and the boundary was policy complaint. In addition, he noted that the dwelling did fit with the overall appearance of the surrounding properties. 

On members question’s about flooding and drainage, the planning officer responded that there was concern raised by the parish council about increasing the flood risk, but that the drainage officer had no objection subject to drainage mitigation conditions for surface and foul water, submitted prior to development, and the committee was satisfied with the response.

Overall, the committee agreed that the application was in character with the surrounding area and with the existing street scene and commended the materials and sustainable features of the proposal. For these reasons, and as there were no objection from drainage officer, they agreed the application should be approved 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 P22/S4565/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement three years - Full Planning Permission

2. Approved plans

3. Landscaping Scheme (trees and shrubs only)

4. Surface water drainage

5. Foul water drainage

6. Material samples

7. Boundary treatment

8. Glazing

9. Electric vehicle charging points

10. Parking & Manoeuvring Areas Retained

11. New vehicular access

12. Energy statement compliance

13. Ecological compliance condition

14. Vision splay protection

15. External lighting