EHDC Part 1 Section 1 Item 1 the Birches, Headley
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
12 PART 1 EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT OF THE SERVICE MANAGER PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Applications to be determined by the Council as the Local Planning Authority PS.381/2012 8 November 2012 SECTION 1 – SCHEDULE OF APPLICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Item No.:1 The information, recommendations and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting. PROPOSAL REPLACEMENT THREE STOREY DWELLING, ATTACHED GARAGE AND DETACHED GREENHOUSE/STORE WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND OUTBUILDINGS (AMENDED DRAWINGS RECEIVED 4 OCTOBER 2012 AND 5 OCTOBER 2012; ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 15/10/2012) LOCATION: The Birches, Arford Common, Headley, Bordon, GU35 8AD REFERENCE : 51015/006 PARISH:Headley APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Anderson CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 16 October 2012 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 29 October 2012 COUNCILLOR(S): Cllr A J Williams / Cllr R C S Millard SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION This application is referred to Committee at the request of Councillor Williams so that the design can be fully considered in terms of the character of development on Arford Common in accordance with Local Plan Policies GS3 (b) and (c) and HE1 (a) and (b). 13 Site and Development The Birches is a 1890's style detached two-storey dwelling, in 1.6 acres of land outside the Settlement Policy Boundary, Conservation Area of Arford and the Local Gap. The application site is accessed via an unmade driveway, which runs south-westerly from Arford Common. The plot is rectangular and well-screened on all boundaries by a mix of mature trees, hedgerows and other vegetation. Planning permission is sought for a replacement three storey dwelling of an innovative design, to be constructed on the same part of the site as the existing dwelling, although not on exactly the same footprint. Relevant Planning History 51015 - Detached dwelling with garage following demolition of one dwelling, permitted in 2008 51015/001 - Refusal of consent to felling of trees in 2008 51015/002 - Felling and work to trees, Consent 2008 51015/003 - Felling and work to trees, Consent 2009 51015/004 - Felling and works to trees, Consent 2012 51015/005 - Felling and works to trees, Consent 2012 Development Plan Policies and Proposals East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review C5 - Local Landscape Features C6 - Tree Preservation GS3 - Protecting the Countryside E1 - Conservation of Energy H16 - Maintaining a Range of Dwelling Sizes outside Settlement Policy Boundaries P6 - Privacy and Daylight HE1 - Design HE8 - Development affecting the setting of a conservation area C11 - Gaps Between Settlements Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance Headley (Arford) Conservation Area Conservation areas are designated areas of special architectural interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. It is the quality and interest of the area rather than individual buildings which is important. The consequence of conservation area designation is not to preserve conservation areas unchanged but requires that new development is designed in a sensitive manner which has regard to the special character of the area. 14 The Council’s policy on allowing development within conservation areas is set out in Policy HE4 of the East Hampshire Local Plan: Second Review, where development will be permitted only where it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. Headley Parish Plan 2006 Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments Arboricultural Officer - No objection on condition that all work is carried out in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan. Principal Conservation Officer -The unlisted property Iies adjacent but outside the conservation area. I am advised that there is a substantial tree screen to the west (which I see correlates to an Area TPO). It is also noted there is a previous permission for redevelopment. I have not made a site visit, but on the basis of these facts there is no immediate conservation area concern. The appropriateness of the design will be for others to determine. Reference in the D & A Statement is made to the opportunity to gain views out to the countryside beyond. The building would therefore have to be visible from outside the site. This may be something to bear in mind when considering the more general impact. County Ecologist - Originally advised that further information should be sought regarding the potential for bats to be roosting in the existing dwelling. Also, clarification was sought regarding the potential of the site with regards to other protected species, including reptiles. Further comments: 22/10/2012 Bats The applicant's ecologist has provided additional comments on the soffit hole. I believe that this demonstrates that the soffit is not particularly suitable roosting habitat. I would completely agree with the ecologist in the assessment that a hole of this nature is certainly less suitable, and given that it provides no access to wall cavities, I would be satisfied that the development is unlikely to result in an offence against the EU directive that protects bats. I would therefore raise no further concerns over this. Reptiles The applicant has submitted amended marked up plans showing the new line of the tree protection fencing. This would appear to be a good solution to protecting reptile habitat during the works while also giving reptiles represent a continuation of habitat, protected during the works. All I would suggest is that prior to the erection of the amended tree protection fencing, the vegetation outside the proposed tree fencing is sensitively strimmed to encourage any reptiles on the outside of the fenced area to migrate towards the habitat that will be retained and protected inside the fencing. If this is done in spring / summer / autumn, this should be done in two stages - first, strim slowly and evenly down to about 20cm (working towards the retained area rather than away from it) and leave for 24 hours or so, then strim down to shorter / ground level. This will allow reptiles to move into the protected area, and make the affected habitat inhospitable. 15 Alternatively, as these areas do not appear to present hibernation potential, the areas that would be outside the protective fencing could all be mowed in the winter, and just kept short so only the sections to be protected by the fencing are left rougher / longer. It would also be of benefit to put in a small log-pile in any retained area if this is compatible with the applicant's aspirations, to provide a bit of extra cover. I would suggest that it may not be possible to secure all these general management / clearance works under a condition, as it may fall out of the remit of what constitutes development. An informative note advising on the need to carry out vegetation clearance in a manner that avoids killing / injury of reptiles may be more appropriate. However, I would suggest that the amended layout of the tree protection plan is secured through a planning condition, to ensure that killing / injury of reptiles is avoided during the development. Headley Parish Council - We OBJECT to the design of the proposed dwelling which is not in keeping with the existing houses on the Common and which stands in a prominent position. The design is contrary to Policy GS2 (b). Representations Nine representations have been received, seven raising objections and two supporting the application. Issues raised are: a) box-like design would be out of character with other buildings in the area; b) pitched roofs are considered to be an important feature in the area; c) would be visually prominent in the area; d) changes in levels between properties in the area and the proposed materials and colour of the building would increase its visual prominence and dominance; e) 'ugly' building would not be adequately screened by trees; f) support principle of an eco-friendly house, but could be designed in a more sympathetic way; g) loss of privacy; h) modern, energy efficient design that would fit into its surroundings; and i) well-screened by trees from outside site. Determining Issues 1. Principle of proposal and Policy H16 of the Local Plan 2. Design and Impact on the character of the area 3. Impact on the amenities of neighbours 4. Parking and highways safety 5. Protected species 6. Use of renewable energy 16 Planning Considerations 1. Principle of proposal and extent of development permitted under Policy H16 of the Local Plan The existing dwelling is a fairly modest traditional pitched roof cottage. It is not listed and permission has previously been granted to demolish and replace it, although that permission has now expired. The principle of demolishing and replacing the dwelling is acceptable - the Local Gap designation is not of any significant concern because this is not an undeveloped area of land. Due to the countryside location, there is a restriction on the amount of increase in habitable floor area that is allowable under Policy H16 of the Local Plan. The original (1974) dwelling had a floor area of some 160 square metres and the proposed would have a habitable area of 240.25 square metres, an increase of 49% over the original. It would also have some external sitting areas on terraces and balconies. These would have to be required by condition to be retained as open areas so as not to contravene Policy H16. It is also recommended that the open car ports and the garages only be used for parking and domestic storage in order to comply with Policy H16.