One detached dwelling at 4 Barnfield Cottages, Sandy Lane, Bean

What was proposed

The application proposed one detached four-bedroom dwelling, changes to the existing house and frontage, parking, engineering works and conservatory demolition.

“Proposal: Erection of one detached dwelling, alterations to the ground levels to the front of the site to facilitate parking spaces and associated engineering works and demolition of existing conservatory…”

“(6) Planning permission is sought for the erection of a new detached dwelling on the site located between Nos.4 and 5 Barnfield Cottages. In order to accommodate this, alterations are proposed to the existing house including removal of the existing conservatory and relocation of its main entrance to the front elevation. The frontage will also be altered in order to provide off-street parking, pedestrian access and landscaping.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a sloping residential garden beside two Barnfield Cottages, containing an end-terrace cottage with no existing on-site parking.

“(2) The entirety of the application site is part of the residential curtilage of No.4 Barnfield Cottages. The site area is approximately 540 square metres. The site's frontage is a fairly steep bank and the house itself sits higher than Sandy Lane by approximately 1.5m, there is a trellis style fence to the front of the plot atop the raised bank. The remaining land within the plot slopes gently uphill westwards, towards the rear of the plot.”

“(3) The site contains a two-storey end of terrace cottage with a conservatory to the side and some rear additions. The property's main entrance is in its side elevation. The plot is relatively wide at approximately 16.5 metres, with a depth of 32 metres and the existing house itself is around 7 metres wide (including the conservatory). The remainder of the plot is laid out as a residential garden including a lawn, patios and some domestic outbuildings.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding that the infill dwelling’s benefits outweighed its greenfield location and limited access to services.

“(78) The proposed dwelling can be adequately accommodated on this site and will not result in any demonstrable harm to adjoining properties, the design and appearance of the development is acceptable and will not cause harm to the character of the area, there are adequate parking facilities proposed for the new house. I also note that the scheme will provide an acceptable quality of accommodation for future residents.”

“(79) I have not therefore identified any disbenefits of the proposed development except that the development is not very well located in terms of accessibility to public transport, services and facilities. It is also on greenfield land. However, the proposal would be a logical infill development that provides an additional dwelling. As such, I consider that this is a strong benefit that outweighs the identified disbenefits in this case.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Heritage officers had no further comments, Southern Water sought a drainage condition, and biodiversity officers supported mitigation and off-site biodiversity measures.

“(12) Southern Water recommend a condition relating to surface water runoff.”

“(14) KCC biodiversity advise that the ecological information indicates that the proposal is unlikely to result in adverse impacts to protected or notable species, provided sensitive working methods are employed. In terms of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) they note that the submitted BNG assessment demonstrates a net loss of 0.05 habitat units which will likely be offset through offsite units or statutory credits.”

Officer report

What residents said

Eight objection letters raised concerns about overdevelopment, traffic, parking, privacy, drainage, infrastructure, wildlife, access and construction disruption.

“- Overdevelopment of an already congested road - The street cannot absorb further intensification without creating a cramped, 'shoehorned' appearance - Highway safety concerns - narrow, congested road with difficulties for emergency and service vehicles, another household will increase traffic and parking and hazards for pedestrians - Impact to neighbour amenity - more noise, disturbance and activity, overlooking, overshadowing and loss of privacy - Pressure on local…”

“- Narrow access path raising concerns about non-compliance with accessibility standards, lack of security, limited emergency or maintenance access - Concerns over who is responsible for maintenance - Increased on street parking pressure…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker opposed the application and answered members’ questions about access beside a neighbouring property.

The committee vote

The chair moved and a seconder supported a motion to follow the officer recommendation, which was carried.

“This item was not called down for debate and so the Chair moved a motion to support the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission. The motion was seconded, put to a vote and carried.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions.

“Grant planning permission subject to conditions…”

Minutes