Proposal: Approval for Reserved Matters of Landscape, Appearance and layout. Application 3/13/0674/OUT (granted on appeal) for construction of 29 residential dwellings.
The application seeking approval for reserved matters of landscape, appearance and layout for the construction of 29 residential dwellings was presented by the Planning Officer. An email from the land owner had been received on the morning of the committee and this had been circulated to all committee members prior to the meeting.
There were a number of mature trees on the site which were the subject of Tree Preservation Orders and there had been some issues raised during consultation regarding land ownership, but the Planning Officer was able to confirm that the land was within the ownership of the applicant.
In 2015, a full permission had been granted for 3 bungalows on part of the site with a condition to protect the oak trees, and in 2016, 29 dwellings had been approved in outline at appeal. A further application to amend conditions had been dismissed. The 2015 application had lapsed but the 3 bungalows were now proposed again as part of the 29 dwellings.
There had been 2 neighbour objections which had already been addressed in the Inspector’s appeal decision.
An element of affordable housing was proposed and would be located to the west of the site. The proposed road would be private but built to adoptable standards.
In summary the officer recommendation was to approve.
Oral representation was received from Mr Charalambakis, he was concerned about the possibility of flooding into neighbouring gardens due to the development and asked about traffic management and yellow lines. He also wanted to know who would be responsible for compensating him if his fence fell down.
The Major Projects Officer responded that these concerns had already been considered as part of the outline application which had been approved by the Inspector, there was a drainage condition which has not yet been discharged but officers were confident that this could be dealt with. Traffic on site had also been considered by the Inspector at appeal and it was concluded there was no evidence that the local road network could not accommodate the traffic created by the new development. Boundaries were a civil matter and not part of granting planning consent.
The Chairman pointed out that Dorset Highways would wait a while to see if there was an impact on the area to decide if yellow lines were needed.
In response to a question regarding the estate road not being suitable for adoption, members were advised that due to the requirement of a bridging structure over the tree routes the Highways authority could not consider it suitable for adoption but would ensure the construction was to required standards. This had also been considered in the appeal decision, but the Highways authority had not wanted to take on the responsibility of the structure.
Officers were confident that a suitable layout could be put in place to protect trees and cover drainage.
Although some members found the design of the houses uninspiring, generally they felt that the site fulfilled the criteria, was workable and manageable.
The affordable housing contribution was negotiated in the 2016 section 106 agreement and was not negotiable at reserved matters stage
Proposed by Cllr Bartlett, seconded by Cllr Worth
Decision: that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes.