Two dwellings at Land To East Of Providence Bungalow, Frome Road, Radstock

What was proposed

The application sought permission in principle for two dwellings on land east of Providence Bungalow, accessed from Maple Drive.

“This application relates to the land east of Providence Bungalow, accessed from Maple Drive, within Radstock. The site lies withing the Radstock Conservation Area.”

“The application seeks permission in Principle for the erection of 2no dwellings.”

Officer report

The site and its history

Earlier applications permitted four and one dwelling, while a later application for five detached bungalows and garages was refused.

“25/04915/PIP - REFUSED - Permission in Principle for the erection of 5 no. detached bungalows and garages…”

“25/01681/PIP - PERMITTED - Permission in Principle application for the erection of 1 no. detached dwelling and double garage.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the location, land use and amount suitable, and found no policy-based reason to refuse the proposal.

“The development of the adjacent site and its granted permission in principle was considered to be of a limited extent of land, within a triangle bound on 2/3 sides by residential properties. The triangle was considered to be of limited contribution to the hillside specified above within the Conservation Area character appraisal. The triangle land was created through the development of Maple Rise.”

“Furthermore, officers have carefully considered whether there are any other policy or material considerations which would amount to a reason for refusal under paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF. It is concluded that no adverse impacts have been identified which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

The town council objected, while eleven objections raised concerns including amenity, traffic, ecology, landscape, flooding, access and the conservation area.

“11 Objections Received. A summary is as follows: - Loss of residential amenity - Dwellings would be dominant on hillside, overbearing - Privacy impacts, loss of use of gardens - Impact cannot be resolved at PIP stage - Due to elevation overlooking would not be mitigated - Impact upon conservation area - Any additional development harmful and contrary to previous assessments - Goes against priority of brownfield sites - Additional traffic pressure…”

“- Unsafe amount of traffic onto main road - Site not wide enough for emergency vehicles - Additional air pollution from traffic - Essential part of landscape for views and ecology - Removal of trees has taken place on site - Number of animals and wildlife on the sit e - No BNG provision - Degradation of land - Unsustainable location - Cumulative impact of other approvals - No sections to show the land levels - Errors within arb reports - Existing use of the site as green…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward councillor’s statement asked for refusal, citing amenity, conservation, access, ecological damage, the development boundary and planning history.

What members debated

Members discussed the permission-in-principle limits, future technical details, housing supply, sustainability, ecological damage, overdevelopment and the conservation area.

“In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed: 1. As this application was for a permission in principle application, the Committee could only consider location, land use and the amount of development. 2. If the Committee was minded to approve the application there would follow a further technical details application which would be judged against the relevant policies. 3. Details such as ecology and protection of the trees would be considered at the…”

Minutes

How members voted

The motion to permit was carried by seven votes to three.

“Cllr Jackson suggested that the motion be delegated to permit, but this was not accepted by Cllr Simon as mover of the motion. She expressed concern about over development, ecological damage and that the site was not a sustainable location due to the limited bus services.”

“On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (7 in favour and 3 against).”

Minutes