Appeal Statement Ms Catrina Clulow the Oasis 16 Silchester Road
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Appeal Statement Prepared on behalf of Ms Catrina Clulow In Respect of The Oasis 16 Silchester Road Tadley RG26 3PX Against Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council For Non-Determination Of Planning Application 17/02371/ROC Prepared by John Hunt of Pike Smith & Kemp Rural & Commercial Ltd December 2017 1 Introduction 1.1 This statement has been prepared in support of a planning appeal made by Ms Catrina Clulow (the Appellant) against the non-determination of application reference 17/02371/ROC, (the application,) which sought to vary a condition attached to approved planning permission 16/02593/FUL (the permitted development), which allows the construction of a new dwelling at The Oasis, 16 Silchester Road, Tadley, RG26 3PX (The Property). 1.2 Specifically the application sought: “Variation of condition 1 of 16/02593/FUL to allow amendments to the approved plans to relocate dwelling within site.” 1.3 The application was received by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (B&DBC) on the 6th July 2017, with a letter confirming validation sent on the 17th July 2017 confirming that the application was valid as at the 6th July 2017. A determination deadline was given of the 31st August 2017. 1.4 As the application was made under s73, it was in full and contained a number of supporting documents. This documentation is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate as part of the appeal and includes: Site and elevation plans relating to the approved dwelling Site and elevation plans relating to the relocated dwelling Detailed planning statement Original decision notice. Communications with case officer during application process 1.5 The original planning statement contained detailed justification for the proposal and as such it is not proposed to repeat this in detail here. 2 The Site 2.1 The Oasis is located off Silchester Road within Tadley in Hampshire. Silchester Road is relatively long and connects Tadley in the west with Pamber Heath to the east. The subject property is located on the southern side of the western section of the road and is situated towards the edge of the settlement area of Tadley. The land use immediately surrounding the subject property is a mix of residential with a builder’s merchant yard located on the western boundary. 2.2 The majority of houses on this part of Silchester Road have direct road frontage with front and rear gardens, the subject property differs in this respect as it is set well back from the road and accessed via a longer access drive located between numbers 14 and 18 The access drive is owned freehold as part of The Oasis and this currently forms the only routine access to the property. 2.3 The adjacent builder’s merchant yard occupies a large area with both internal and external storage areas. External storage comprises building, civils and drainage materials, these can include, pallets of bricks, blocks, insulation and attenuation crates amongst other items. 2 2.4 The property currently comprises of an existing single storey dwelling located close to the northern boundary of the plot. The dwelling permitted under 16/02593/FUL is a more modern, thermally efficient two storey building located more centrally in the plot. The remainder of the land slopes gently from north to south widening at the bottom to form a reverse L shape. The sloping topography of the site means that The Oasis is situated quite a bit lower than the dwellings along the front of Silchester Road. 2.5 Overall the property extends to approximately 0.75 acres (3,035 square metres) mostly laid to lawn with a number of mature trees on the boundary and on adjacent properties. To the east, north and south the spacing of the residential properties along with the existing vegetation, creates a relatively “open” feeling. To the west there is a more commercial feel created by the builder’s merchant yard and retail elements beyond, albeit this is very well screened from the subject property by existing vegetation. The appellant has also recently undertaken a number of improvements to the site, including planting scores of new specimen trees and shrubs on the property. 3 Relevant Planning History 3.1 The planning history for the property is relatively straightforward. There are two recent planning applications which are relevant to this appeal which relate both to the newly permitted dwelling and the existing bungalow located on the site. 3.2 The first application is B&DBC reference 13/00788/HSE which was for “Erection of side extensions, conversion of loft to living accommodation involving raising of the roof and construction of 8 no. dormer windows and 1 no. roof light”. This application relates to the existing bungalow and was ultimately permitted. Importantly, the permission is extant as the planning permission has been implemented. The implementation of this consent has been acknowledged by B&DBC both by way of a building regulations inspection and written confirmation in the planning application referred to below. 3.3 The second planning application is B&DBC reference 16/02593/FUL which was for the “Erection of a replacement dwelling”, and permitted the dwelling which is the subject to the s73 application for which this appeal is submitted. 3.4 It should also be noted that the appellant has also submitted two pre-application submissions to B&DBC. The first was submitted prior to the submission of the 2016 planning application, which sought advice in relation to the now permitted dwelling. It is also relevant that during the application process for the new dwelling, the planning officer dealing with the case at that time commented that given the size and location of the site it would be more than capable of accommodating at least two dwellings. 3.5 Following on from the approval of the new dwelling, the appellant was very interested to investigate the potential for two dwellings on the site, one potentially for her parents in later years, and instructed an architect to draw up designs for a modern contemporary house proposed to have been located in the north eastern part of the site. 3.6 The one potential pitfall to a second dwelling in this location is that the newly permitted house was itself located in a position which may have caused the two dwellings to be relatively close to each other and as such did not make the best use of the whole site. 3.7 A second pre-application was therefore submitted to B&DBC which sought to relocate the permitted dwelling to the south of the site and erect a new second dwelling on the site. 3 3.8 The response to the second pre-application was generally favourable in terms of the relocation of the dwelling, but raised a number of minor concerns with regards to a second dwelling on site. None of these issues were however considered to be insurmountable. Indeed one was to allow the two dwellings greater amenity space between them. Upon that advice, the Appellant agreed the extra amenity space is desirable. 3.9 Amid some local negativity involving a member of the DC Committee and threats made by him to the Appellant, in September 2017 the appellant also sought clarity as to their ability to retain the existing bungalow, or repurpose it, along with the newly permitted dwelling, and what mechanism, if any, the LPA had to enforce the demolition of the bungalow. The legal advice obtained is highly relevant and comment on this is contained later in this statement. 4 The Proposal 4.1 Following on from the pre-application responses the appellant was keen to move forwards with relocating the permitted dwelling further south down the site. An application was therefore submitted to amend the approved plans to show the permitted dwelling relocated approximately 12m to the south. Plans for a new second dwelling to replace the extant bungalow were put on hold pending the outcome of the s73 application. 4.2 No other alterations to the external appearance of the permitted dwelling were proposed, with the only other slight change being that as the dwelling in the relocated position would be on naturally lower ground, it was not proposed to significantly lower the ground level artificially, as indicated in the 2016 location. There is no objection to this, and the closest neighbours have written letters in support. 5 The Application Progress 5.1 Initially the progress of the application went well. Given that the proposal was to relocate a dwelling that already had permission, it was not believed that there would be any major opposition to the proposal. It was therefore surprising that within a couple of weeks of the application “going live” that an e-mail from Councillor Leeks to the case officer was then showing on the B&DBC website. This e-mail stated: “I feel because of the amount of public concerns about this development if you feel like granting this then I would like a committee decision perhaps nearer the time of your decision we could talk.” 5.2 This was surprising because as at the date of the e-mail, 25th July, only one public comment objecting to the development had been made, this on its own would not appear to represent a particularly high level of public concern. 5.3 A number of representations were eventually made to B&DBC, all objecting to the application – these representations will be referred to later in this statement. It should also be noted that later within the application process a number of neighbours wrote letters in support of the application, which they provided directly to the applicant, these letters of support were sent directly to the case officer.