Amenity land to garden at Land at Rear of 24 Forcefield Road, Cullompton

What was proposed

The application sought to change 198 square metres of amenity land behind a house into residential garden space.

“Change of use of amenity land to residential garden.”

“This application proposes the change of use of an area of amenity land to residential garden totalling 198sqm, extending the rear curtilage of 24 Forcefield Road.”

Officer report

The site

The land was amenity space with footpaths linking nearby roads, within Cullompton’s settlement boundary and the Critical Drainage Area.

“The site is located at Land at NGR 301610 106827, Rear of 24 Forcefield Road, Cullompton, Devon, within the defined settlement boundary for Cullompton. The land currently forms a piece of amenity land for the residential area and also provides footpaths connecting Forcefield Road with Orchard Way and Spicer Close. The site is located within flood zone 1 which represents the lowest probability of flooding; however, it is located within the Cullompton Critical Drainage Area.”

Officer report

Other planning matters

Officers found no unacceptable amenity, highway, ecology or drainage impacts if suitable controls were secured.

“Policy DM1 seeks to create visually attractive places and avoid adverse amenity impacts. Given the nature of the proposed development, there are no concerns in terms of unacceptable overlooking, loss of light or overbearing impacts amounting from the proposal which seeks to extend the existing rear garden curtilage of 24 Forcefield Road and therefore no adverse amenity impacts are anticipated.”

“Devon County Council (DCC) Ecology were consulted on this matter and noted that the enhancement habitats occur within the curtilage of the private garden. Although gates will be installed to allow access, the biodiversity net gains cannot be legally secured. As the gains cannot be secured, created private garden should only be recorded as either ‘urban – vegetated garden’ or ‘urban – unvegetated garden’.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The Highway Authority had no comments, while ecology advice identified a need for off-site biodiversity units and water management requirements were raised.

“Water re-use (smart water butts, rainwater harvesting, grey flushing toilets) 2. Discharge into the ground (infiltration); or where not reasonably practicable, 3. Discharge to a surface waterbody; or where not reasonably practicable, 4. Discharge to a surface water sewer, highway drain, or another drainage system; or where not reasonably practicable, 5. Discharge to a combined sewer. (Subject to Sewerage Undertaker carrying out capacity evaluation)”

“As a result of the above, it is considered unlikely that a 10% net gain is achievable on site. Therefore, further consideration from the applicant and consultant ecologist is required as to the most appropriate off-site mitigation enhancement off site or the purchasing of off-site biodiversity credits).”

Officer report

Public representations

No public representations were received, and no comments had been received from the town council when the report was written.

“At the time of writing this report, no comments have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke, and two ward members also addressed the committee.

What members discussed

Members discussed anti-social behaviour, poor maintenance, the importance of Local Green Space and conditions that could control the development.

“Anti-social behaviour, lack of maintenance and neglect in the amenity space. • The significance of Local Green Space designation with reference to the National Planning Policy Framework and Neighbourhood Plans. • Conditions that could be applied should permission be granted included:- (i) Requiring details of boundary treatment prior to installation.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee resolved to grant permission subject to additional conditions, with one councillor voting against.

“It was RESOLVED that permission be granted subject to the additional conditions referred to above (i – iv) with delegated authority being given to the Development Management Manager and the Chair of the Planning Committee to finalise the wording of the conditions.”

“Notes:- (i) Ross Pearson spoke as the applicant. (ii) Cllr S Robinson and Cllr L Knight spoke as the Ward Members (iii) Cllr G DuChesne voted against the decision.”

Minutes

The final decision

Permission was granted because the land was considered not strategically important to the open space, could encourage anti-social behaviour, and would improve the property’s amenity space.

“Reason for Decision: - Suggestions indicated that the land was not strategically important to part of that open space and was inducive to anti-social behaviour by reason of its location and enclosure. It would also facilitate improved amenity space for the property.”

Minutes