Meeting documents

Proposal: Erection of 2 detached dwellings with garaging and parking together with vehicular access.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report, and highlighted briefly the history of the site, and reference to a tree on the site that was the subject of a provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The site for was not considered to be in a sustainable location as it was some distance away from local facilities. There is extant permission on the site for one dwelling but the Local Planning Authority did not feel there was justification for two large two-storey dwellings.

Mrs S Nicholas, representative for Huish Episcopi Parish Council, noted that they had no objection in principle but had hoped for much needed bungalows. The current proposal would enhance a site which had been an eyesore for years. It was felt the proposal was in keeping with nearby houses, and if the site was deemed sustainable for one dwelling why not for two dwellings?

Mr G Richmond, addressed members in support of the application on behalf of nine households in Pibsbury including four nearest to the site. He considered the report to contain inconsistencies and noted that the report also failed to refer to poor monitoring of the historical usage of the site. Reference was made to previous appeal decisions on the site. It was felt the proposal was in keeping with other two storey dwellings nearby and was dismayed that the recommendation was for refusal.

Mrs S Rolli, applicant, disagreed that the site was not in a sustainable location, as the secondary school was within walking distance and buses passed the site. The tree subject to a TPO had permission to, and would be removed as part of the extant permission on the site. She queried if the tree had not been a concern for the extant permission why was it now? She noted that several new oak trees had been planted nearby and felt the Tree Officer had not researched the site and locality properly. Originally they hoped to apply for three properties but reduced the number to two after consulting the local authority and nearby residents.

Ward member, Councillor Roy Mills, commented the site had been untidy for a long time. He felt this proposal was reasonable and he supported the application.

During discussion varying opinions were raised by members including:

·         Regarding sustainability the applicant had stated site was in reach of facilities if required. Site has been an eyesore and the proposal could only improve the site and complement other houses nearby. Don’t think dwellings would damage the large tree but the roots may go under the buildings.

·         Not overly keen on the design, and dwellings are quite large for the plot, but the tree should be protected.

·         Could the site be redesigned so that the dwellings were around the tree, rather than needing to fell the tree?

·         A previous application for a bungalow had been allowed on appeal, tree was not a concern then but is now.

·         No problem with principle of two dwellings

·         Applicant could continue with extant permission and fell the tree.

·         Application should be deferred with a view to retaining the tree.

·         TPO has only recently come forward.

In response to points made during discussion the Development Manager and Area Lead clarified that:

·         The site was possibly big enough for the two dwellings to be repositioned and retain the tree.

·         Members could defer the application with a view to negotiation with the applicant regarding redesign of the site layout with a view to keeping the tree.

·         Members needed to consider if the tree was of sufficient importance to defer the application.

Most members were minded to approve the application on the grounds that the site was considered to be in a sustainable location and that loss of the tree had been acceptable with the extant permission on the site.

The Area Lead clarified the suggested wording for the justification and noted that conditions would be required for time limit, approved plans, materials, landscaping and parking.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, subject to the conditions and reason as suggested by the Area Lead. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried 8 in favour, 2 against, with 2 abstentions.

(Voting: 8 in favour, 2 against, 2 abstentions)