Members considered an application for 1no. dwelling, including the upgrade of access, private drive and new associated garage – a redesign of approved plot 2 under application number 135838.

There were no officer updates at the start of this item.

The first public speaker to the item was the applicant, Mrs Hazel Walker.  She raised the following points:

·         People at neighbouring properties and the parish council had raised issues that had previously been dealt with;

·         The applicant wanted a site to build a dream home; the principle of a new home had previously been established;

·         Legislation encouraged the fact that designs should not be imposed unnecessarily;

·         Materials had been used in the design that were more complementary of the surrounding area;

·         There was no need in the location to develop a second dwelling that mirrors the property on Plot 1 – this was supported by Planning officers;

·         The footprint of the proposed development had increased on the northern end of the site, without any implications for the south of the site;

·         The revised design was not significantly larger in mass to the original dwelling;

·         The windows were no higher than previous designs and would not overlook any amenities;

·         The twisting of the building did not create any element of overlooking or loss of privacy;

·         The proposal would not have a negative impact on any views; in fact it was considered that the proposal would be less detrimental than the previously approved design;

·         Foul sewage would be discharged into a private sewage plant; this solution had been deemed acceptable by an ecologist, as well as Natural England;

·         The approach taken by the applicant toward potential harm to species had been supported by Natural England and was not a consideration.

The second speaker was Mr Styles, an objector to the application, speaking on behalf of his family and a neighbour.  He raised the following points of view:

·         A stretch of the private lane accessing the property was owned by the neighbour;

·         The first application on the site was not objected to, despite others in the village raising their objections.  The vendor in that application kept residents well informed throughout the design process, and talked about two ¾ sized houses which was deemed acceptable;

·         Objections to the application included:

o   It would be impossible to manoeuvre a fire engine in the lane;

o   A dustbin lorry could not access the lane;

o   An inadequate sewer was discharging waste into the village sewer, which floods every time it rains.  Anglian Water had not corrected a problem which has existed for years;

o   Permission had been granted for two ¾ sized houses; the present application was for a 5 bedroomed house with a significant sized workshop;

o   There was potential for 5 or more cars daily accessing the site;

o   The demand on the sewer would create even more foul water and would affect water voles;

o   This proposal could set a precedent for the adjoining plot; the proposal was too big and out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57