One two-bed dwelling at Land At Sx 737 449 Wallingford Road, Kingsbridge

What was proposed

The application proposed one two-bedroom, two-storey flat-roof dwelling with access, parking, landscaping, drainage, solar panels and other works.

“Development: Erection of residential dwelling with associated access, parking, landscaping, drainage and other incidental works.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was on sloping land accessed from Wallingford Road, between existing and emerging residential development, with a vineyard nearby.

“The site is at the top of a sloping area of land accessed off Wallingford Road, in Kingsbridge. There is an existing development of six houses under construction at the bottom of the slope, at road level, with the land sloping steeply up to the east towards the new Applegate Park development off Belle Hill. There is an area of vineyard between the developments to the east and west of the slope, and an area of soil and spoil from the ongoing development to the west.”

“The application seeks the erection of a single dwelling on the site. The dwelling would be a two-bed, two-storey, flat roof dwelling, in a contemporary design, with external walls comprising of corrugated metal and timber cladding. A sedum roof is proposed across the top of the dwelling, which also includes solar PV panels.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council objected, while drainage concerns were overcome and the tree officer and South West Water raised no objection.

“Kingsbridge Town Council: objection. Due to the length of the objection, it is appended in full at the end of this report, but the keys areas of concern are the principle of development, the scale and design of the dwelling, highways, drainage, trees and ecology, and alleged misinformation in the application.”

“Drainage: initial objection overcome following submission of additional information…”

Officer report

Objections received

Five objections and two comments raised concerns about countryside development, access, drainage, landscape, ecology, the vineyard and other works.

“Five objections and two comments have been received. These representations can be seen in full on the Council website, but can be summarised as follows:”

“Development in the countryside • No justification for development • Landscape harm • Questions about suitability of access track • Allegations about site clearance and potential harms • Objection to drainage strategy • Questions about viability of vineyard and the relationship of the dwelling to the vineyard use. • Allegations of non-compliance with CEMP on other development • Concern about further development proposals…”

Officer report

What speakers said

The objector and ward member said the proposal conflicted with the neighbourhood plan and raised concerns about access, flooding, ecology, views and light pollution.

Members’ concerns

Members debated the countryside location, neighbourhood plan, ecology, dwelling scale, access gradient, drainage, highway effects, local need and light pollution.

“During the debate: • This was a standalone dwelling in the open countryside and not architecturally suited for the site. • It was felt the views of the residents had not been considered and the work to produce a Neighbourhood Plan should not be dismissed. • The complete absence to an Ecology Report and lack of understanding on the impact on wildlife.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

A proposed refusal was withdrawn, and the committee deferred the application for further advice on ecology, emergency access, gradients, drainage and policy.

“It was then PROPOSED and SECONDED to refuse the application. The reasons for refusal: • Lack of ecology assessment given the proximity to a wildlife hedge and the adjacent planning approval recognised the wildlife corridor. • Dwelling on an agricultural site. • Inadequate access and the gradient of the access making it too steep for emergency vehicles. • Surface water onto the highway.”

“Before the vote was taken, the Head of Development Management suggested to Members to defer the application. It was clear Members had concerns with several issues related to this development and clarification needed to be sought to address the concerns raised. The proposal to refuse the application was withdrawn and It was then PROPOSED and SECONDED to defer the application. The reasons for deferral: • Ecology (view to be sought from ecology consultant).”

Minutes