One dwelling at Land South Of Elmstone Ledbury Road, Staunton

What was proposed

The application proposed one dwelling with access from Chestnut Drive, private amenity space and associated works.

“Erection of a dwelling with associated access from Chestnut Drive, private amenity space and associated works.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 587-square-metre garden site lies outside the settlement boundary, near local services, a listed cottage, a conservation area and a public footpath.

“The site would develop at the rear of the two-storey dwelling, 'Elmstone’ which has a timber fence with a height of approximately 1.8 metres and a coniferous hedgerow running along its front and side curtilage boundary. The site area currently is an area of garden.”

“Whilst within the designated Staunton and Corse Locally Valued Landscape the site lies outside of the designated Staunton / Corse Conservation Area that concentrates on the original Chartist Settlement.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no previous planning history for this site, but nearby residential permissions included sixteen dwellings and earlier decisions involving dwellings.

“There has been no previous planning history related to this site. However, to the west of ‘Elmstone, recent permission has been granted under reference P0731/22/FUL for the “proposed residential development (Use Class C3) for the erection of No. 16 dwellings and associated infrastructure, landscaping, parking and works. Demolition of existing garden centre”. Given the proximity to the site, it is considered necessary to list the history associated with that site.”

“P0308/20/FUL - Erection of two dwellings with associated works. (Redevelopment of a frontage plot on previously developed land) - Granted - 8th July 2020”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, concluding that the sustainable location, housing, economic, landscaping and biodiversity benefits outweighed the less-than-substantial harm to the listed building’s setting.

“With regard to heritage impacts, it is acknowledged that the proposal would result in harm to the setting of a nearby listed building. However, this harm is assessed as less than substantial within the meaning of the NPPF. In accordance with paragraph 208 of the Framework, this harm has been weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.”

“It would materially contribute to the supply of housing, representing a social benefit; • The site is considered to have good accessibility and sustainability credentials, with future occupiers able to access local services and facilities on foot; • The proposal is of an appropriate design; • It would provide additional landscaping, representing an environmental benefit; • It offers opportunities for biodiversity enhancement, also an environmental benefit; • The provision…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council raised concerns, while highways, flood risk, ecology, Natural England and conservation officers raised no objections subject to conditions or requirements.

“The proposed development is not expected to affect the character or appearance of the Snigs End Conservation Area because the site is mostly hidden from views within the area by modern buildings. Therefore, the proposal is considered consistent with the requirements for the Locally Valued Landscape, which is classified as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). No objections following receipt of boundary wall statement subject to conditions.”

“The application will require the purchase of 0.07 offsite units to meet the requirements for BNG. This has been confirmed in the BNG statement form and the submitted BNG report. The ecology officer raises no objections subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

One neighbour asked for agreed boundaries and retention of boundary trees for screening, habitat and visual appeal.

“One representation has been received stating the following:”

“As our property shares a boundary with the proposed development I would like to see a boundary assessment completed to ensure that the boundaries are agreed. Many of the drawings show conflicting boundaries. Furthermore I would like to ask that the existing trees on the boundary where ownerships is not clear are retained to provide screening, habitat and visual appeal”.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent spoke in support through a written representation; there were no objectors, parish speakers or ward members speaking.

Committee discussion

Members asked about off-site biodiversity credits and the listed building, while a member considered the cottage’s setting sufficiently protected.

“Q: What are the specific characteristics of the Grade Two listed building nearby? Apologies if you cannot answer this, as it should have been asked beforehand.”

“Councillor Moseley advised an initial element of concern was the setting of Wayside Cottage, however on page 99 of the officers report it points out, it is already very constrained and there is a very limited amount of harm that could affect that building and the rural setting has largely been lost due to the surrounding twenty first century housing. There is a small buffer and as seen on the site visit, it is sufficiently far enough away not be affected by this building.”

Minutes

The vote

Members proposed and seconded acceptance of the recommendation, then voted nine for, none against and none abstaining.

“Councillor Julie Gooch proposed that they accept the Officers Recommendation…”

“The Chair summed up what was to be voted on. That they are moving to accept the officer’s recommendation as detailed in the schedule and the late material.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee resolved to grant permission in accordance with the recommendation, the schedule and the late material.

“RESOLVED:- That they are moving to accept the officer’s recommendation to Grant Permission as detailed in the schedule and the late material.”

Minutes