Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the erection of a detached dwelling on the site, which has been  assembled from the severed gardens of numbers 29 & 31 Peverel Road with boundary fencing.

The Planner referred to a statement from Objectors on the Amendment Sheet.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Peverel Road:

      i.          Three out of the thirteen material planning considerations had still not been met.

     ii.          Regarding harm to wildlife, section 9.22 of the Officer’s  report stated that gaps will be left in the boundary fencing for hedgehogs, with no consideration made to the low chance of survival for the many nesting deep among the log-piles in the portion of the site that has been untouched for over a decade. Even though such instances were not strictly protected by the Conservation of Habitats Act, a survey is required to assess how many females are present and to ensure they are given the optimal chance of surviving having to establish new nests after construction commences, particularly if this occurs during the crucial post-hibernation months when hoglets are present.

   iii.          One element of the design and layout still failed to meet planning considerations, namely how far the first floor protrudes deep beyond the line of neighbouring homes. This was evident as extensions with first floors extending out this far were not permitted along the very same housing row due to the unreasonable overshadowing caused. It’s clear that in an area of bright concrete terraced and semi-detached houses, a detached brick dwelling with a first floor set back this prominently into neighbouring gardens does not relate appropriately to the buildings and spaces surrounding it. Though I appreciate that efforts have been made to adequately address this issue in the past year or so, with further more open discussions with residents, the moving of this first floor back towards the existing row of houses can be more than offset by increasing the ground floor area, jointly making better use of the land available and increasing the principle of development.

Mr Taylor (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer.