Agenda item

Proposal Description: Item 6: (AMENDED) Construction of six houses and associated works

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

(i)             An error on the application description, that this application was for 5 dwellings and not 6 as stated. Furthermore, permitted development has been removed by Condition 20 for classes A (extensions), B (roof alterations), C (any other alteration to the roof), and E (outbuildings).

(ii)            Appropriate Assessment – The applicant has provided a revised technical note and calculations in relation to the nutrients for this site, as set out in full within the Update Sheet.

(iii)          An amendment to Condition 17 to ensure each dwelling has EV charging on site as follows:1 to ensure provision for cycle parking as follows:

Condition 17. An electric vehicle charging point (EVCP) shall be installed for each dwelling prior to the commencement of the parking hereby approved, and thereafter maintained and kept in good working order for the lifetime of the permission.

(iv)      A further condition was proposed in relation to the management of the site as follows:

          Condition 23:

          Before any development pursuant to this permission is commenced,           written details including a plan showing details of measures to be             adopted by the applicant or any other party becoming responsible for          the development, for the management and maintenance of un-adopted        common areas comprising shared land outside the private garden             areas and dwellings; shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

          Reason: To ensure that satisfactory future arrangements for the                     maintenance of the common parts of the development are secured in         the interests of good planning and the amenities of future residents,     since the development is not to be adopted by the local authority.

In addition, the planning case officer gave a verbal update at the meeting noting an error within the report in relation to the trees on the eastern side of the site which had been referred to as a TPO. However, this was only the case for a section of the eastern side of the site, as referenced in the case officer’s presentation.

During public participation, Ian Galvin and Iain Flemming (presentation shown) spoke in objection to the application and Stuart Garnett spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Westwood and Councillor Thompson spoke as Ward Members in objection to the application.

In summary, Councillor Westwood raised the following points:

1.    He was supportive of new housing on the site in principle but had three main concerns with the proposal.

2.    The first concern related to the scale and density of the development. He believed it negatively impacted adjacent properties due to its close proximity and overbearing height. He noted it would create a new Close, not just a new house, with no provision for refuse vehicle access, requiring up to 15 bins to be placed on the narrow road.

3.    He stated that the development further degraded biodiversity on a site where many mature trees had already been felled, and that the proposal failed to comply with Winchester District Local Plan Policies DM15, DM16, and CP20.

4.    His second concern was that the development did not fit within the character of the Sleeper's Hill area. He highlighted that the Sleeper's Hill local area design statement identified the leafy, wooded character as its most important feature and that this development was not in keeping with it.

5.    He warned that the development set a precedent for dense development in the area, drawing a comparison to the high-density infill that had occurred on Chilbolton Avenue.

6.    Lastly, he raised concern regarding the revisions to the proposal. While the number of properties was reduced from six to five, the building heights were increased, therefore the total internal area had only reduced by 4%. He quoted the council's landscape officer, who had described a marginally larger scheme as "overdevelopment" that conflicted with the character of Sleeper's Hill.

7.    In conclusion, if minded to approve, Councillor Westwood urged the committee to request a site visit before making a final decision to understand the full impact, which he considered was not conveyed by the plans and photos.

In summary, Councillor Thompson raised the following points:

1.    She spoke in support of nearby residents' raising objection to the application.

2.    While not against building on the site, she felt the five proposed houses constituted an overdevelopment. She noted that although the scheme was altered from six houses to five, this did not address the proximity of buildings to existing trees, and the remaining houses were increased in size and height. She added that plot one appeared squeezed onto a narrow driveway.

3.    She described the Sleeper's Hill area as being characterised by large plots with mature trees and low-density housing, as set out in the Sleeper's Hill Local Area Design Statement, which she considered an important document.

4.    She quoted the council's landscape team's response, which highlighted a lack of space for substantial trees to screen the development and raised issues with TPO trees and the adverse effect on views from Sleeper's Hill.

5.    She echoed the concern that Sleeper's Hill was becoming the "next Chilbolton Avenue," with developers building as many homes as possible on large plots.

6.    In conclusion, Councillor Thompson also considered that it was important for the committee to conduct a site visit to fully understand the context of the plot before making a decision.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

In response to questions, the Council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer clarified the appropriate tests that need to be applied in the imposition of any additional planning conditions, the proposed siting of the trees for plot 1 on the landscape plan and the criminal law in respect of damage to trees served with tree preservation orders. 

          RESOLVED:

          The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report, the     Update Sheet and the verbal update.