Decision details

The Chair and Vice Chair of Committee had visited the site on the previous day.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and updated the committee as the Protected Species  and Bat Survey had been received shortly before the committee meeting but it had not changed the recommendation of the report. An amendment was required to reason 5 for refusal to show that the information had been received.

A change was required to paragraph 114 of the report to remove the word ‘not’ from the first sentence .

The following spoke under the Public Participation at Meetings Scheme:

·         Mr Robert Hopkins, ELLERT, Applicant – video presentation

The recommendation to refuse the application subject to changes to reason 5  was moved.

Members noted that there was a need for affordable housing in Tideswell but that the site of the application was not suitable.

The motion to refuse the application subject to changes to reason 5  was seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following amended reasons:

1.    Significant harm to TPO protected trees from the construction of houses within the root protection areas and underneath canopies resulting in the immediate and unnecessary loss of one tree and immediate damage to remaining protected trees contrary to Policies GSP1 -3 DMC11, DMC13, & L1.  This would be highly likely to result in dieback, or death of the trees along with likely significant pressure from future residents for removal or lopping of trees if the development were to proceed.

2.    The proposed layout and the design of the houses, does not adequately reflect the established pattern of development in the locality and would harm the valued character and appearance of the local built environment and the streetscene and the setting of the adjacent listed buildingcontrary to Polices GSP1-3 & DMC11, DMC3 DMC5 and DMC7.

3.    The significant harm to local biodiversity contrary to Policy GSP1-3, DMC1 from the immediate loss of the Lime Tree, the loss of semi natural green space and the adverse impact of the development on the remaining protected trees some or all of which would suffer immediate and longer term damage which would shorten their lifespan and likely result in pressures for removal/and/or significant alteration to their crowns from any future residents were the development to go ahead.

4.    Harm to the significance of the Conservation Area from the loss and damage of the protected trees and the poor layout/design which is not outweighed by the public benefit arising from the limited provision of affordable housing contrary to Policies DMC5 and 8.

5.    The submitted Tree Report does not meet the required standard as it contains a significant error in tree identification along with other inaccuracies.  Furthermore the plans are incompatible with recommendations of the tree report most notably in respect of proposing strip foundations contrary to the report’s recommendations.