application no. application type registered parish...

South Oxfordshire District Council – Planning Committee 1 July 2020

APPLICATION NO. P19/S2061/FULAPPLICATION TYPE FULL APPLICATIONREGISTERED 2.7.2019PARISH ROTHERFIELD PEPPARDWARD MEMBERS Jo Robb & Lorraine HillierAPPLICANT Mr & Mrs F NicksonSITE Highfield, 17 Stoke Row Road, Peppard Common,

RG9 5EJPROPOSAL Erection of a single storey detached 2-bedroom

dwelling, with associated works to facilitate a new access, together with external landscaping (width and height of dwelling reduced and changes to external layout as shown on amended plans received 11th September 2019 and additional fire engine tracking plan received 24th October 2019 and reduction in width of rear patio and pedestrian footpath and details of boundary treatment and levels as shown on amended and additional plans received 5th February 2020 and corrections to existing tree heights, retention of existing close-boarded fence and replacement front hedging as shown on amended plans received 17th June 2020).

OFFICER Paul Lucas

1.0 INTRODUCTION1.1 Officers recommend that planning permission is granted. This report explains how

officers have reached this conclusion. The application is referred to the Planning Committee at the Planning Manager’s discretion with the recommendation conflicting with Rotherfield Peppard Parish Council’s recommendation of refusal.

1.2 The application site is identified at Appendix A. It comprises part of the rear garden of No 17 Stoke Row Road, located within the built-up area of Peppard Common. Part of the site is a formal garden area including a vegetable patch with a slight downward slope with a gradient of 1 in 33 resulting in a drop of about 1 metre from north-east to south-west. In contrast, the rear of the site falls away more steeply so that the rear boundary is roughly 8.5 metres lower than the central part of the site. This part of the garden is less cultivated with more trees and displays the characteristics of a traditional orchard. No.17 is an early 20th century two-storey detached house. It has an unusual orientation where the front elevation is at about 40-degrees to the road with a front hardstanding providing a parking area in the northern corner of the site. The site backs onto residential properties forming a two-storey frontage development onto Shiplake Bottom, set at a lower level due to the site’s gradient. The site boundaries consist of a mixture of hedging, close boarded fencing and wire fencing. The rear boundary fence is above the eaves height of No’s 70/72 Shiplake Bottom.

1.3 The side boundary to the south-east is with the side and rear garden of No.15 Stoke Row Road. The side boundary to the north-west is with the rear gardens of No.19 Stoke Row Road and No.78 Shiplake Bottom, where the adjoining land follows a similar gradient. These gardens also historically formed part of a larger traditional orchard before being subdivided within the ownership of individual dwellings. Unlike No.17, No’s 15 & 19 have front elevations that are parallel with Stoke Row Road. The

71

Agenda Item 10

http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/planning/ApplicationDetails.jsp?REF=P19/S2061/FUL


traditional orchard falls within the definition of a habitat of principle importance under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, also known as a priority habitat (as per page 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

2.0 PROPOSAL2.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a single storey two

bedroom dwelling with separate vehicular access from Stoke Row Road between No’s 15 & 17, as shown on the current set of plans and other supporting documentation submitted with the application. The application has been amended to reduce the width and height of the proposed dwelling, to increase the size of the parking spaces, to reduce the width of the rear patio and pedestrian side access and provide more details of boundary treatment and levels.

2.2 The current plans can be found at Appendix B. Other documents can be viewed on the Council’s website.

3.0 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS3.1 Rotherfield Peppard Parish Council – RPPC Parish Council recommends refusal of

this application for the following reasons:1. Notwithstanding this development is single storey, because of the slope of the surrounding land and the elevated position of the proposed dwelling and its scale and layout it would be oppressive and unneighbourly.2. This is back-land development that would create problems of privacy for neighbours to the SW in Shiplake Bottom and the neighbours either side of the proposed development in Stoke Row Road.3. The old orchard areas to the rear of the gardens between Shiplake Bottom and Stoke Row Road make an important contribution to the rural scene in the area and are an important space in terms of the character of the area and ecology. Fragmentation of the area will result in a loss of open space and be detrimental to an important wildlife habitat.

Waste Management Officer (District Council) - No objection

Drainage (South&Vale) - No objection subject to surface water and foul drainage pre-commencement planning conditions

Countryside Officer (South Oxfordshire & Vale of White Horse) - No objection subject to ecological mitigation and orchard management plan planning conditions

Tree Officer (South Oxfordshire District Council) - No objection subject to tree protection and landscaping planning conditions

Highways Liaison Officer (Oxfordshire County Council) - No objection subject to highway and parking related planning conditions

Neighbours – Five households with representations of objection, summarised as follows:

No other tandem/backland development in the vicinity Would set an undesirable precedent for other tandem/backland development Previous applications to develop the land have not been supported A flat-roofed bungalow in this location would represent an over intensive design,

detracting from the unique semi-rural appearance of the surrounding area Loss of frontage hedging and replacement with vehicular access and close-

boarded fencing would be harmful to character of street scene

Page 172

http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P19/S2061/FUL


Retention of on-site trees by future residents that have fallen or are of poor arboricultural quality is unrealistic

Height of trees inaccurate on section plans [this has now been corrected] Future residents would wish to lower the height of the rear boundary planting Damage to off-site Holly/Hazel/fruit trees in rear garden of No.78 to facilitate

construction Dwelling would restrict light to the boundary hedge of No.19 Loss of privacy to No’s 15 & 19 due to position of dwelling about 17 metres from

their rear elevations and from overlooking of gardens Nuisance to No’s 15 & 19 through noise from dwelling and use of driveway,

particularly by larger delivery vehicles and smoke pollution from chimney Side elevation of dwelling oppressive to outlook from rear of No.19 due to

proximity to rear garden boundary Unsightly and obtrusive, resulting in loss of privacy to No.78 and other Shiplake

Bottom properties backing onto the site due to rear glazing in elevated position in relation to boundary treatment

Light spread not prevented by limited screening in winter months Disruption to local tranquillity during the construction phase Inadequate remaining garden areas for proposed dwelling and retained No.17 Development on the site including solid boundaries would sever the pathways of

various species of wildlife through the site into the adjoining gardens/orchards Inadequate sightlines at the access point onto Stoke Row Road and insufficient

turning space for fire engines and larger delivery vehicles Safety risk to adjoining occupiers from traffic passing along the boundary of

No.15 Bin collection point too far back into site Covenant on site controls treatment of boundaries and erection of buildings Covenant at No.15 requires that property to maintain the boundary fencing

4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY4.1 On the application site:

P18/S4206/FULConstruction of two detached dwellings within the curtilage of 17 Stoke Row Road, with associated works to facilitate a new access, together with external landscapingWithdrawn (13/02/2019) following officers’ indication that the application would be unacceptable on ecological, visual, arboricultural, residential amenity and highway safety and access grounds.

P10/E0043Construction of access road and erection of three two-storey 4-bedroom detached dwellings.- Refused (09/04/2010) - Appeal dismissed (11/11/2010) for the following reasons:

substantial harm would be caused to both the character and appearance of the area;

potential to cause significant harm to the site’s ecological value and to protected species;

inadequate mix of dwelling types and sizes to meet the needs of current and future households in the District

The plans and appeal decision for P10/E0043 can be found at Appendix C.

P67/H0226OUTLINE - DWELLINGHOUSE AND ACCESS- Refused (03/05/1967)

Page 173

http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/planning/ApplicationDetails.jsp?REF=P18/S4206/FUL

http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/planning/ApplicationDetails.jsp?REF=P10/E0043


http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/planning/ApplicationDetails.jsp?REF=P67/H0226


On land to the rear of No.19 that now belongs to No.78:P73/H0465 - Refused (23/08/1973)Erection of one dwellinghouse.

5.0 POLICY & GUIDANCE5.1 South Oxfordshire Core Strategy (SOCS) Policies

CS1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable developmentCSB1 - Conservation and improvement of biodiversityCSEN1 - Landscape protectionCSH2 - Housing densityCSM1 - TransportCSQ2 - Sustainable design and constructionCSQ3 - DesignCSR1 - Housing in villagesCSS1 - The Overall Strategy

5.2 South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 (SOLP 2011) policies;C6 - Maintain & enhance biodiversityC8 - Adverse affect on protected speciesC9 - Loss of landscape featuresD1 - Principles of good designD10 - Waste ManagementD2 - Safe and secure parking for vehicles and cyclesD3 - Outdoor amenity areaD4 - Reasonable level of privacy for occupiersEP2 - Adverse affect by noise or vibrationEP3 - Adverse affect by external lightingG2 - Protect district from adverse developmentG5 - Best use of land/buildings in built up areasH4 - Housing on sites within the built up areas of towns and villagesT1 - Safe, convenient and adequate highway network for all usersT2 - Unloading, turning and parking for all highway users

5.3 Emerging South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2034:The council is currently progressing the emerging local plan through the examination stage. The plan currently carries limited weight. Relevant policies include;

DES1 - Delivering high quality developmentDES2 - Enhancing local characterDES3 - Design and Access StatementsDES5 - Outdoor amenity spaceDES6 - Residential amenityDES9 - Promoting sustainable designENV1 – Landscape and countrysideENV2 - Biodiversity Designated sites, priority habitats and speciesENV3 – Biodiversity Non designated sites, habitats and speciesENV12 – Pollution impact of development on human health, the natural environmentEP3 - Waste collection and recyclingH16 - Infill developmentH1 - Delivering new homesH8 - Housing in the smaller villagesINF4 - Water resourcesTRANS5 - Consideration of development proposals

Page 174

http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/planning/ApplicationDetails.jsp?REF=P73/H0465


5.4

5.5

Neighbourhood Plan:None

Supplementary Planning Guidance/DocumentsSouth Oxfordshire Design Guide 2016 (SODG 2016) – Section 7 – Plots & Buildings

5.6 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

5.7

The policies within the SOCS and the SOLP 2011 of relevance to this application are in general conformity with the provisions of the NPPF and NPPG and therefore this application can be determined against these relevant policies.

Other Relevant LegislationHuman Rights Act 1998The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the processing of the application and the preparation of this report.

Equality Act 2010In determining this planning application, the Council has regard to its equalities obligations including its obligations under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

6.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS6.1 The planning issues that are relevant to this application are whether the development

would: Be in accordance with the Council’s strategy for the distribution of housing; Result in the loss of an open space or view of public, environmental or

ecological value; Be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surroundings, including

important trees; Safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers and

provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers; Demonstrate safe and convenient access and adequate off-street parking

provision for the development; and Give rise to any other material planning considerations.

6.2 Principle of DevelopmentThe SOCS classifies Peppard Common as a “smaller village”. Under Policy CSR1, residential development on infill sites of up to 0.2 hectares is acceptable in principle in “smaller villages”. The supporting text for Policy CSR1 states, “Infill development is defined as the filling of a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage, or on other sites within settlements where the site is closely surrounded by buildings.” In officers’ opinion, the site is surrounded by buildings, because it is bordered on all sides by dwellings and their gardens. Under these circumstances, officers consider that the principle of housing on the site is currently acceptable. Consequently, the proposal falls to be assessed primarily against the criteria of the SOLP 2011 Policy H4, which are addressed below.

6.3 Loss of Open SpaceCriterion (i) of Policy H4 of the SOLP 2011 requires that an important open space of public, environmental or ecological value is not lost, nor an important public view spoilt. The proposed development is supported by a preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA). The PEA has concluded that the south-western area of the site is a traditional orchard, a habitat of principle importance under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and

Page 175


Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, also known as a priority habitat (as per page 70 of the NPPF), and likely supports reptiles and birds. The report recommends retention and protection of as much of the traditional orchard as possible, and the manipulation of habitats to encourage reptiles to disperse from the site.

6.4 The restrictive covenant that applies to the application site requires the former traditional orchard land to be “used only as an orchard or garden ground” in connection with the dwellinghouse known as Highfield. There is presently no obligation on the landowner to maintain the current ecological value of the land. The development would be sited on the vegetable patch and amenity grassland, avoiding impacts on the traditional orchard to the south-west. The PEA makes recommendations for mitigation and enhancement to the site, to meet policy requirements. The Council’s Countryside Officer has raised no objection based on the retention of the orchard area and the imposition of planning conditions requiring the implementation of the recommendations in the PEA and an orchard management plan condition. On this basis impacts on protected species are unlikely. Issues regarding fence permeability and preventing movement through the rear gardens are noted, but the site also likely benefits permitted development rights with regard to boundary fencing (notwithstanding that the covenant stipulates the form of two sections of fencing). The Countryside Officer is satisfied that impacts on hedgehog (priority species) movement could be addressed through conditioning the use of hedgehog holes in boundary fences. This is included in the relevant section of the supporting PEA and is covered by the recommended condition. In the light of the above assessment, officers consider that the proposed development would comply with Policy C6 of the SOLP, Policy CSB1 of the SOCS and paragraphs 170 and 175 of the NPPF.

6.5 There is no public access to the site. The site has formed part of a residential plot associated with Highfield for several decades. It is bordered by residential plots on three sides. The site would be visible in public views along Stoke Row Road, where the driveway would be noticeable and due to its elevated position, the dwelling would be likely to be seen in views from Shiplake Bottom. However, in both instances, the proposed development would be seen in the context of established residential properties and driveways and would not obstruct an important public view. This criterion would therefore be satisfied.

6.6 Visual ImpactCriterion (ii) of Policy H4 of the SOLP 2011 requires that the design, height, scale and materials of the proposed development are in keeping with its surroundings and criterion (iii) requires that the character of the area is not affected. Criterion (v) explains that if the proposal constitutes backland development, it would not extend the built limits of the settlement. Policies CSQ3 of the SOCS and D1 of the SOLP 2011 expand upon the requirement for good design. Policy CSEN1 aims to ensure that the District’s landscape is protected. In this location, backland development could be visually acceptable as it would be contained within established residential development and would not extend the built-up limits of Peppard Common into the countryside.

6.7 Officers recognise that Stoke Row Road is characterised by detached dwellings on sizeable plots with highway frontages and there is no backland development in the near vicinity. Shiplake Bottom to the south-west of the site is of a different character with a mix of dwelling types, mostly on smaller plots than those in Stoke Row Road. Shiplake Bottom is at a significantly lower level, and there is substantial vegetation on the south-west boundary of the appeal site. As a result, the site relates most closely to the character of Stoke Row Road. The proposal would introduce a single dwelling into a backland position. The absence of a highway frontage would result in a divergence from the prevailing pattern of development.

Page 176


6.8 Officers are mindful of the previous appeal decision P10/E0043 where a backland residential development consisting of three detached dwellings spanning the rear of No’s 15 & 17 Stoke Row Road was dismissed, with one of the grounds being because it was found to be significantly out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area. A comparison of the proposed and appeal layouts is set out below:

6.9 The key difference between the current application and the appeal scheme is that the amount of development would be significantly reduced, with one single-storey dwelling, albeit on a narrower plot, instead of the three two-storey dwellings. The proposed dwelling would also be more closely-related to the frontage development, being about 20 metres from the closest rear corner of No.17, whereas the appeal scheme would have been around 10 metres further back into the garden areas.

6.10 Officers found that the upper floors and pitched roofs of the appeal scheme would be clearly evident in public views from opposite the proposed access point on Stoke Row Road and these concerns were shared by the appeal Inspector. In comparison, the proposed dwelling would only be partly visible, due to its single storey scale and position behind the rear of No.17. It would also be at least 1 metre lower than the ground level. This means that the proposed dwelling itself would be observed, but as it would be more subservient in height to the existing frontage dwellings, it would not appear unduly prominent from public vantage points to the east. The proposed dwelling would also introduce an individual and varied design and layout, which in officer’s

Page 177



opinion would not appear overtly discordant with its surroundings than the appeal scheme.

6.11 The introduction of the additional driveway onto Stoke Row Road would be apparent. However, officers note that the frontage largely consists of boundary hedging punctuated by driveways. The proposed access would not be out of keeping with this pattern, particularly as the applicant has confirmed that a replacement section of hedge would be planted behind the required visibility splays. The hedge detail could be secured as part of a pre-commencement landscaping condition. The proposed access would create an opening of about 6.6 metres, whereas the appeal access was wider at 8.7 metres. The narrower access now proposed would help to further limit the visibility of the proposed dwelling from Stoke Row Road.

6.12 The proposed site sections show that the proposed dwelling would be elevated above the dwellings on Shiplake Bottom and the boundary foliage at the rear of the site. Whilst this means that the rear of the proposed dwelling would be likely to be visible in public views from Shiplake Bottom, this is already the case for the rear of the two storey frontage dwellings on Stoke Row Road. The roof of the proposed dwelling would be positioned below the eaves height of No.17 and so would only be viewed from the west against the backdrop of the established line of two storey housing. In relation to light pollution, officers consider that the proposed dwelling would not add to this to an excessive degree, given its location within the built up area of the village and the number of dwellings in the surrounding area. A planning condition is recommended to require details of any desired external lighting to be agreed with the Council prior to its installation.

6.13 Officers accept that existing trees and shrubs on the site would not completely screen the development. However, the Council’s Tree Officer considers that any trees to be removed are not of sufficient quality to represent a constraint to development and could be replaced as part of a pre-commencement landscaping condition. The Tree Officer is of the opinion that the tree protection details submitted with the application would ensure that retained trees would be protected during the construction process. A separate pre-commencement hedge protection condition would ensure that the hedge located along the boundary between No.17 and No.19 would be protected. Whilst local objectors believe that future occupiers would remove many of the trees due to their poor quality, their retention is required on ecological grounds and secured through the planning conditions recommended by the Council’s Countryside Officer.

6.14 The Tree Officer has also commented that the proposed development is within close proximity of the adjacent Holly and Hazel Trees that are located within the neighbouring gardens to the north-west and the proposed works would likely require pruning of these trees and may require works within their root protection areas. When assessed in accordance with BS 5837:2012, these trees are of insufficient arboricultural value to be considered a constraint to the proposed development, due to their limited public amenity value and their low arboricultural quality. The trees do not meet the criteria to be protected by a tree preservation order. It is therefore recommended that the applicant notifies the tree owner of these works prior to the commencement of the site works, so they are made aware of the impact of the works and can take the appropriate management. It is also advised that the owners of these trees consult a competent arboriculturist to provide advice on the future management of these trees.

6.15 Although residents may be particularly sensitive to changes in visual amenity, it is a common planning principle that public views are of greater value than those from private property. Taking into account all the above considerations, whilst there would undoubtedly be a degree of change, officers are of the opinion that this particular form

Page 178


of backland development would have an acceptable impact on the settlement pattern of this part of the village and would not detract unduly from the semi-rural character and appearance of the land behind the road frontage. In the light of the above assessment, the proposed development would be in accordance with the above policies.

6.16 Residential AmenityCriterion (iv) of Policy H4 of the SOLP 2011 requires that there are no overriding amenity objections. Criterion (v) explains that if the proposal constitutes backland development, it would not create problems of privacy. Policy D4 explains that development will not be permitted if it would unacceptably harm the amenities of neighbouring properties through loss of privacy, daylight or sunlight.

6.17 Officers acknowledge that the proposed dwelling would be located close to the garden boundaries of several adjoining dwellings and the retained garden for the host dwelling, No.17. Due to the single storey scale of the proposed dwelling, its siting at a lower ground level, officers consider that the separation distances with the rear aspect of the dwellings at No’s 15, 17, 19 Stoke Row Road (17-21 metres) and 78 Shiplake Bottom (36 metres) would be acceptable in relation to light, outlook and privacy. In particular, there would be no conflict with the recommended minimum 25 metre window to window distance as set out in Section 7 of the SODG 2016, as that standard refers to first floor windows where there would not be intervening boundaries.

6.18 The proposed dwelling would be more evident when observed from the rear gardens of the aforementioned neighbouring properties. The dwelling would be set back 4.5 metres from the boundary with No.15 and 2.8 metres from the boundary with No.19 and No.78. This would prevent the single storey building from appearing unduly overbearing as the applicant has demonstrated that boundary fencing could be retained and installed (notwithstanding the restrictive covenant). There would also be scope for additional planting inside any boundary fencing, to be secured through the aforementioned landscaping condition, which would help to soften the visual impact of the development and prevent any overlooking at close quarters. There would only be one side-facing window in the north-west facing elevation and this would serve an en-suite and be obscure-glazed, which could be secured through a planning condition.

6.19 Concerns expressed by local objectors about overlooking from the rear windows and patio at the rear of the dwelling are understood, due to being located upslope from the adjoining gardens as they fall away to the south-west. The distances of the closest windows would be 3.8 metres to No.78’s boundary and 5.9 metres to No.15’s boundary. The patio would be positioned 6.5 metres to No.78’s boundary and 8.6 metres to No.15’s boundary. Privacy screens of 1.8 metres above patio height would be installed along the north-western and south-eastern sides of the patio to prevent direct views towards the boundaries. This means that any views towards the neighbouring gardens on either side would be at relatively oblique angles and as such any loss of privacy would not be so significant to warrant refusal of planning permission.

6.20 Although the rear of the two storey dwellings in the previous appeal scheme were positioned about 30 metres from the rear windows of No’s 66-72 Shiplake Bottom, officers refused planning permission on grounds of a perceived loss of outlook and overlooking to those adjoining occupiers. However, the Inspector concluded that there was no substantial evidence to demonstrate that the vegetation along the south-western boundary would be threatened and that there would be an adequate area of unaffected levels close to this boundary. The current proposed dwelling would be single storey, would have a degree of separation a further 10 metres from this boundary than the appeal scheme and the protection and bolstering of the vegetation could also be secured by the conditions previously discussed. This would avoid any overbearing

Page 179


impact on the outlook of the residents in Shiplake Bottom and any perception of overlooking that might arise would not be sufficient to refuse planning permission.

6.21 Adjoining residents have also raised concerns about pollution from the proposed chimney. Building Control have confirmed that as it would exceed 600mm above the roof it will meet building regulations. In terms of smoke nuisance, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has commented that it is difficult to say if it will definitelybe a problem due to many different factors such as type of fuel used, time of day,duration etc. If a problem was to arise the Environmental Health Team would have to investigate at that point and potentially serve a notice, for example, to only use smokeless fuel. The amount of vehicular activity associated with a single two-bedroom dwelling would not result in an excessive use of the access or visits from large delivery vehicles to cause a level of disturbance that would detract from the residential amenity of No.15 to a significant degree to justify refusal of planning permission.

6.22 Officers are satisfied that the garden areas for the proposed dwelling and retained for No.17 would exceed the recommended minimum standards of 50 square metres for two-bedroom dwellings and 100 square metres for larger dwellings. Based on the above assessment, officers consider that the current application would have an acceptable impact on the light, outlook and privacy of adjacent residential properties and as such would comply with the above policies and guidance.

6.23 Access and ParkingCriterion (iv) of Policy H4 of the SOLP 2011 also requires that there are no overriding highway objections. Criterion (v) explains that if the proposal constitutes backland development, it would not create problems of access. Policy T1 of the SOLP 2011 seeks to ensure that all new development would provide a safe and convenient access for all users of the highway. The SOLP 2011 Policy T2 aims to secure adequate parking and turning provision for new developments and the SOLP 2011 Policy D2 aims for safe and convenient parking designs.

6.24 The proposed development would introduce a new vehicular access onto Stoke Row Road. The current plans demonstrate that there would be adequate space provided within the site for three vehicles to park and turn within the site, to meet adopted standards and enter and egress the site in forward gear. In the Highway Liaison Officer’s expert opinion, the proposal would be unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the highway network in the vicinity and in conjunction with the anticipated low vehicle speeds along the driveway would not increase the risk to highway and pedestrian safety to an unacceptable degree. In the rare event of a fire tender that is larger than that shown on the submitted vehicular tracking diagrams attending an emergency on the site, this would have sufficient personnel in attendance to be able to carry out a reversing manoeuvre safely. A general delivery vehicle would be more likely to use the driveway and as these would be usually be smaller in size when compared to a fire tender, the Highway Liaison Officer is satisfied that it is likely this type and sized vehicle would be able to access/egress the development in forward gear.

6.25 In relation to construction traffic, the Highway Liaison Officer has raised no objection and officers have added an informative to advise the applicant to join the Considerate Constructors Scheme. In the light of the above assessment, officers consider that the proposed development would not result in problems of access and would accord with the above policies.

Page 180


6.26 Other Material Planning ConsiderationsAs the proposed collection point would be within 5 metres of the highway, the Council’s Waste Management Officer has commented that the current layout is acceptable from a service perspective. Matters related to surface water and foul drainage can be dealt with through pre-commencement planning conditions. Exceptionally, officers consider it necessary to apply a planning condition to remove certain permitted development rights (extensions/porch/outbuildings/hardstandings/means of enclosure) in order to enable the Council to retain control over future householder development that might otherwise detract from the ecological value and visual appearance of the site, or be unneighbourly.

6.27 The existence of restrictive covenants relating to the erection of buildings or boundary fencing is not a material planning consideration that should influence whether planning permission is granted. Instead they are a separate legal matter that would have to be resolved by the applicant in order to allow any planning permission to be implemented. The following restrictions were applied to the south-western part of the application site, when it was transferred from a traditional orchard into the ownership of No.17:

The following restriction was applied to part of the traditional orchard land when it was transferred into the ownership of No.15:

Page 181


The current site plan for this application allows for the retention of the 5ft boundary fence along the relevant part of the south-western site boundary, thereby ensuring that there is no conflict with the restrictive covenant at No.15.

6.28 Community Infrastructure LevyThe proposal is CIL liable based on £150/square metre (index-linked), 15% of which would go to Rotherfield Peppard Parish Council due to the absence of an adopted Neighbourhood Plan.

7.0 CONCLUSION7.1 The proposed development would be acceptable in principle, would safeguard the

character and appearance the surrounding area, and would not detract from the living conditions of adjoining residents, would provide adequate amenity for future residents of the proposed dwelling and would not be prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety. Subject to the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with Development Plan Policies, Supplementary Planning Guidance and Government Guidance.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION8.1 Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:

1 : Commencement of development within three years2 : Development in accordance with the approved plans 3 : No change in levels other than on approved plans4 : Schedule of Materials to be agreed prior to development above foundation level5 : Obscure glazing to side opening6 : Withdrawal of Permitted Development Rights 7 : New vehicular access 8 : Parking & Manoeuvring Areas Retained in accordance with the approved plans9 : Vision splay to be provided and retained

Page 182


10 : No Carport conversion into accommodation11 : Details of hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatment to be agreed12 : Tree protection (implementation as approved)13 : Boundary Treatment to be agreed prior to commencement of development14: Hedge protection to be agreed prior to commencement of development15 : Wildlife Protection (mitigation as approved)16 : 25 Year Orchard Management Plan to be agreed prior to occupation17 : External Lighting to be agreed prior to installation18 : Details of surface water drainage to be agreed prior to commencement of development19 : Details of foul drainage works to be agreed prior to commencement of development

Informatives20 : Land Ownership Informative21 : Tree Maintenance Informative22 : Highways Informatives23 : Drainage Informatives24 : Considerate Constructors Scheme Informative

Author: Paul LucasContact No: 01235 422600Email: [email protected]

Page 183

This page is intentionally left blank