Agenda item

Proposed dwelling

Refuse (contrary to officer recommendation)

This application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting held on 14 March 2018 for a site visit.  The site visit took place on 16 April 2018.

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet regarding the commissioning of a preliminary drainage assessment, amended conditions 4 and 7, and additional condition 17 (surface water drainage scheme).

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

-        Mr T Scrivens – Objector;

-        Mrs S Ord – Objector; and

-        Mrs N Graves – Ward Member

Mr Frost advised that in most cases site visits did not need to be arranged, with members instead able to rely on the visual presentations, as well as the advice and information given by the officers when making their decision.   Therefore, members who had been unable to visit the site should not feel disbarred from voting on the recommendation.

Mr Price and Whitty responded to members’ questions and comments.  The proposed retaining wall form formed the bulk of the length of the eastern boundary with the majority incorporated into the eastern flank wall of the proposed dwelling.  The stability of the ground and its construction were a matter for control under the building regulations.  He explained the visible elements of the retaining wall from a public perspective.   With regard to the scale and bulk, this was a question of design and the National Planning Policy Framework was clear that such matters should not be dictated by the Planning Authority.  It was acknowledged that whilst the design was a matter of taste, it would be complimented by the choice of local materials being timber boarding, stone and a slate roof.  The proposed over hangs and variations in setback would offset its massing and bulk.  Its bulk and scale in the street scene was not that different to that of other nearby properties.  The South Downs National Park Authority’s Dark Skies Officer’s suggestion that the glazing should be low light transmission glass had been included and would be secured by condition 9.  Following concerns raised at the previous meeting regarding surface water drainage management, additional condition 17 had been added to deal with surface water runoff.  Condition 4 required the submission of a drainage scheme to provide drainage under the access track.  With regard to the Small Scale Development Construction and Environmental Management Plan required by Condition 10 and the two drainage conditions, officers advised that condition 10 could be amended to require details to be submitted for approval to prevent the wash of building materials etc off the site onto the road to be included in the Plan. 

Mr Whitty advised that if members favoured the removal of the word ‘winter’ in condition 17 this was acceptable.  With regard to the proposed retaining wall, if members were particularly concerned about safety then a barrier could be secured by a condition if members wished.  If members were concerned about how the water passing through the retaining wall would be dealt with then a condition could be added requiring details to be submitted as part of the drainage strategy.

In a vote the officer recommendation to permit the application was not carried.

Following the discussion the majority of members considered that the development by reason of its design scale and bulk would be prominent, out of character and harmful to the qualities of the South Downs National Park and contrary to certain policies.

Refuse for the following reasons:

The application site is located in a sensitive, edge of settlement position adjacent to woodland and within the South Downs National Park. The proposed dwelling, by reason of its design, scale, form and massing would result in a form of development that fails to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness in terms of the existing built form and character. The resultant dwelling would be a prominent and visually inappropriate feature, detrimental to the overriding rural quality, character and appearance of the landscape of this part of the South Downs National Park.  As such the development is considered to be contrary to policy BE11 of the CDLPFR 1999, paragraphs 56, 60, 61 and 115 of the NPPF and policies SD4 and SD5 of the emerging South Downs Local Plan Pre-submission Draft (Sept 2017).

(This decision was contrary to the officer’s recommendation)