2 new houses at Halfacre, Rotherfield Peppard

Two homes in place of a bungalow

The application sought permission in principle to demolish an existing bungalow and replace it with two new dwellings, called in by the ward councillor.

“Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of x2 new dwellings.”

“The application had been brought to planning committee as it had been called-in by the ward councillor. The application was for a permission in principle for the demolition of an existing bungalow, to be replaced with two new dwellings.”

Minutes

Only the principle considered at this stage

At this stage only location, land use and the amount of development would be assessed, with design details left to a later technical consent; the site had unprotected trees.

“The committee were reminded that for these types of application consideration needed to be given to location, land use, and the amount of development. If permission in principle were to be granted then a subsequent technical details consent would be required to assess the specific site layout, design, form and scale of the dwelling along with other matters that would form part of a full planning permission.”

“The proposed site was within Rotherfield Peppard where the development plan supported housing growth through infill and redevelopment. The site was surrounded by residential land in a contiguous line of housing development. The size of the site did have scope for two dwellings to be accommodated.”

Minutes

A site large enough for two homes

Officers found the varied street supported the principle, the layout only indicative, and the site large enough for two dwellings with adequate separation, parking and amenity space.

“While the access arrangements were not fixed at this stage there was adequate space on site to accommodate parking without the need for the dwellings to be set further back on the site.”

“The site was large enough to accommodate two dwellings and to allow adequate visual separation from the neighbouring properties as well as providing amenity space in excess of design guide standards.”

Minutes

Officers recommended approval

A neighbour queried light to a secondary window, but officers found no overriding issue with the principle of the development and recommended approval.

“The neighbour to the east had not objected, while the neighbour to the west had queried possible issues in terms of light through their eastern utility window but this did not serve as primary accommodation.”

“It was considered that there were no overriding issues rendering the principle of the proposed development to be unacceptable in terms of location, land use or the amount of development and as such it was recommended for approval.”

Minutes

The applicant's agent spoke

The applicant's agent spoke in support of the application.

Members asked about the call-in

Members asked why the application had been called in and were told it was over concerns about overdevelopment.

“The committee queried what the reason was for the call-in and were advised that it broadly was due to concerns over potential overdevelopment.”

Minutes

Permission granted on a vote

A motion to approve the application was carried when put to the vote.

“A motion, moved and seconded, to approve planning application P25/S0908/PIP, was carried on being put to the vote.”

Minutes

Permission in principle approved

The application was approved.

“RESOLVED: to approve planning application P25/S0908/PIP.”

Minutes