Agenda item

Proposal Description: Item 6: Erection of detached dwelling 

It was noted that the majority of the committee had visited the application site on 12 November 2024 to enable members to observe        the site in context and to gain a better appreciation of the proposals.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out the following:

(i)             The emerging Local Plan contained a policy which has a requirement for a minimum buffer of 15 metres between development and ancient woodland or veteran trees. The trees neighbouring the site are not designated as Ancient Woodland and have not been identified as veteran trees in the Arboriculture Assessment therefore this buffer distance was not needed to ensure the appropriate protection of these trees.

(ii)            Clarification regarding the height of the proposed dwelling, the ordinance survey datum of the current house ridge height is 46.00 while the new dwelling is 47.65. This is a difference of 1.65 metres.

During public participation, Peter Catchpole and Councillor Alex Loughran (Colden Common Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and Phillip Robinson (agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Cook spoke as Ward Member. In summary, Councillor Cook raised the following points:

·       She acknowledged that the planning officer recommended the application for permission and they considered it would not adversely impact the character of the area and was in accordance with policies DM15 and DM16, nor harm neighbouring residential amenity in accordance with policy DM17 of Local Plan Part Two (LPP2). She noted that it was the neighbour who was the applicant of No.6.

·       She questioned the recommendation's assertion that the development would not harm adjacent protected trees, referencing policy DM24. She pointed out that the emerging local plan policy DNE15 advises against building within 15 metres of trees.

·       She highlighted that the proposed three-storey, four-bedroom property does not meet the minimum parking standards despite changes to the parking layout at the rear of No.6.

·       Concerns were raised about the proximity of the new build to footpath number 11, an ancient right of way, the felling of trees, and the overdevelopment of the current spacious street scene.

·       She referenced the Village Design Statement, which identifies the characteristic layout and open spaces of the Brickmaker Estate, designed by Chilworth Homes, which won numerous awards.

·       She argued that the estate, designed in the 1960s to provide family homes in a spacious and thoughtful manner, was predominantly two-storey, and the proposed three-storey development was overdevelopment, inappropriate, and harmful to the character of the green and surrounding homes.

·       If the committee were minded to permit the application, she urged that consideration be given to the Winchester City Council Tree Officer's report from May 2022, which suggested tree protection conditions if consent were granted.

·       She expressed gratitude for the site visit and noted the excitement of reviewing plans but described the application as attempting to "put a pint into a half pint glass", indicating it was imaginative, but out of character, deviating greatly from the original development.

·       She urged the committee to refuse the application in its current design, height, and size. If permitted, she suggested the applicant consider making changes to their current home to fulfil their desire to build something special, as the family wishes to remain in Colden Common, a village she praised as an excellent place to live.

In response to questions, the council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer clarified that the possibility of subsidence from trees would be a matter for building control to determine and for the applicant and builders to ensure that conditions were suitable for current building practices.  

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED:

                     The committee agreed to refuse permission for the following                      reasons:

(i)             Contrary to policies: CP13 of Local Plan Part 1 (LPP1),  DM15 and DM16 of Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2) and the Colden Common Village Design Statement (VDS) 2021, for reasons of height, size and siting in relation to the trees (which have tree protection orders) and the public right of way which results in a cramped and overbearing layout and appearance that fails to ensure adequate space for parking and manoeuvring with potential future pressure to fell trees given the limited space available. Therefore, the proposal fails to respect the characteristics or contribute to the distinctiveness of the area and will result in a harmful impact to the visual amenities and the wider character of this part of Colden Common. The precise wording to be delegated to the Chair of Planning Committee, and approved by the Vice-Chair, in consultation with the Service Lead: Built Environment.