Meeting documents

The Planning Officer updated members that 2 further letters of objection had been received including a photo montage that would be displayed during the Planning Officer’s presentation.  With the aid of slides and photographs the Planning Officer summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda report including the key considerations.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was to approve the application.

In response to questions, the Planning Officer clarified points of detail raised by Members.  Members were informed of the following:

·         A condition would be included to agree details of materials;

·         The proposed dwelling would sit 5 metres forward of the building line.  Amended plans had been received which set out the finished floor levels;

·         The difference in ridge height between the proposed dwelling and Classet House was 1.2 metres which reflected the topography of the area.

Comments raised by Mr Goddard and Mr Watts in objection to the application included the following:

·         Proposed dwelling was substantially higher than existing dwellings;

·         Proposed dwelling was intrusive to neighbouring properties;

·         The proposal was outside the development boundary;

·         The proposal was out of keeping with the existing landscape.

The Committee was then addressed by the Applicant’s Agent, Andrew Preston.  He informed members that the applicant was a former resident and wished to return to the village.  He commented that the site was just outside the settlement limit and was the last vacant plot along Frog Lane and was a natural location for development.  He referred to the plot being in a sustainable location which adjoined existing housing.  The design was in keeping with the area.  The proposed dwelling was slightly higher but was in line with the natural rise in properties.  There would be no overlooking and appropriate boundary treatments were being proposed.

Ward Member, Cllr. Ros Roderigo referred to the proposed development being outside settlement limits and that the Parish Council was always opposed to this.  She raised concerns over the dwelling being 5m in front of the existing houseline and was therefore unable to support the application. 

During the ensuing discussion, a member supported the views of the Ward Member.  He also felt that the proposed dwelling was unsuitable for the site as it was a small house and a difficult plot.

The Area Lead West referred to the height difference being a metre and a half and advised against height difference being a reason for refusal.  He advised members to consider whether the development would cause adverse harm to the neighbouring property.

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application for the following reasons:

·         The overbearing nature of the development;

·         Inappropriate design;

·         The proposal was contrary to policy ST6.

 On being put to the vote the proposal was carried unanimously.

(Voting: unanimous)