Agenda item

Rocklands: 68 The Street: Demolition of bungalow and erection of four dwellings for Mrs Firman (Plots 2, 3 & 4) and Mr and Mrs Firman (Plot 1): 3PL/2008/1467/O (Agenda Item 8a)

To consider applications deferred at previous meetings including some, but not all, of those shown on the attached Schedule of Deferred Applications.

Minutes:

This item had been deferred at the 15 December 2008 Committee meeting.

 

Members were reminded of the proposal, which was in outline form and involved the demolition of an existing bungalow and its replacement with four dwellings.  The site was within the Settlement Boundary and Members were shown a map showing other similar ‘backland’ development in the vicinity.

 

The new dwelling fronting The Street would have its own access, the three behind would be accessed jointly from an existing access to the adjacent property.  This access would be improved and a footpath would be provided across the site frontage.

 

An indicative layout plan and elevations were shown.

 

Further information had been provided to the Environment Agency and they had raised no objection to the proposal.  Anglian Water had confirmed that there was sufficient capacity to deal with foul water from the development.  All details had been passed to the Council’s independent drainage consultant who had confirmed that the scheme would not exacerbate flooding in the street.

 

There had been a great deal of local objection and concerns included drainage, highway safety, density and impact on the area.

 

It was noted that the Chairman and other Members of the Committee had received representation direct from Mr Witt concerning flooding.

 

Mr Witt, representing the Parish Council, said he had 40 years experience as a drainage consultant and he did not agree with the figures provided by the applicant.  There had been three major storms in the past five years leading to health and safety problems, with sewage in houses and gardens.  He believed the new development would make the problems more critical.

 

Mr Jones, objector, said that flooding was a huge issue in the village with ten dwellings threatened.  As a governor of the school he was concerned that one new dwelling was too close to a classroom with possible noise, disturbance and screening problems.  He thought that water from the development would flow into the playground and school buildings.

 

Mr Riley, a consultant with 30 years experience of solving drainage problems, said the drainage scheme had been designed to provide three times the required capacity.  They were aware of problems in the village and the new development would improve the situation.

 

Mr Took, Agent, appreciated the concerns of local people but said that all the experts had accepted the scheme.

 

Mr Smith, Ward Representative, said there were long-term drainage problems in the village.  He thought the scheme would be detrimental in terms of drainage and appearance.  Until the drainage problems in the village were overcome he urged the Committee not to cause the residents further distress and damage.

 

Members debated the drainage issue at length.  They felt they had received conflicting information and that the expert’s opinions conflicted with the evidence of local people. 

 

The Solicitor advised them that they were required to assess the evidence provided and that failure to do so could result in costs at appeal.

 

RESOLVED to refuse the application on grounds of overdevelopment and the effect on the area.

 

Councillor Bowes abstained from voting as she had arrived late, during the presentation of the item.

 

Supporting documents: