Skip to main content

Agenda item

23/02849/FUL, Land South West Of Chapel Lane


Esther Hill, Planning Officer, introduced the application for the erection of a dwelling with double garage, adapted vehicular entrance point and related landscaping.


The Planning Officer drew the Sub-Committees attention to the following points;

·         The location of the site within the village and the access to the proposed dwelling.

·         The site was divided into two, a single dwelling and a wildflower meadow / drainage field.

·         There were constraints which included a single Tree Preservation Order and a Tree Preservation Order on a group of trees near the site. No work would be carried out near the trees.

·         There were Grade II Listed Buildings to the East of the site and one to the North-East of the site.

·         The site was located within flood zone 1.

·         Alterations to improve the access including 25 metre visibility splay into the site, proposed parking for 2 cars and cycling parking and a turning area.

·         New native hedge planting was proposed as well as a drainage field and two retaining walls on the East and West of the site.


Jenny MacDonald addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of Standlake Parish Council. The Sub Committee asked for clarification on the following points;

·         Two thirds of Wildflower land would have to be maintained and managed;

·         The narrow entrance to the site of 3 metres which included an overhanging thatch on property;

·         There were no passing places located on the road and vehicles often had to reverse to let on-coming vehicles pass by. These vehicles were for domestic use;

·         At school drop-off and pick-up times there was a high volume of traffic;

·         Swift Cottage, the first house on left hand side onto Chapel Lane, often floods and ground water was extremely high.


Paula Gaffney addressed the Sub-Committee as a local resident.


Neil Parry addressed the Sub-Committee as the Agent representing the applicant.


The Planning Officer continued with their presentation with attention to the following

·         The dwelling would be built on undeveloped land within the village which was in accordance with policy H2 and OS2;

·         Taken into consideration were design, heritage impact, highways, flood risk, residential amenities and ecology;

·         The development compliments the surrounding areas and would use materials to reflect this. The site would not be harmful to the character and heritage of the surrounding area. The pattern of the development would be integrated;

·         The site would include a wildflower meadow / drainage field which was covered by Section S106 agreement;

·         The existing use is agriculture and as such has the potential to generate a similar number of vehicular movements, to that associated with a single dwelling. The area of drainage / wildflower meadow may or may not be maintained by others, but is unlikely to require frequent access to the area. Officers could therefore not demonstrate that the proposal, if permitted, would result in an unacceptable level of intensification of use that would warrant the refusal of the application; 

·         The site was located in flood zone 1. The concerns around ground water had been covered by additional information submitted very late in the application process, which included a flood report and a strategy, which had resulted in the Drainage Officer removing their objection. However, the application has high public interest with drainage being one of the main concerns raised. The Planning Officer therefore considered that it would be in the public interest and the interest of transparency, to allow for re-consultation with residents so they have the opportunity to view and comment on the additional drainage information which has been submitted;

·         The Planning Officer’s recommendation was to defer the application to enable the opportunity for re-consultation.


The Chair invited the Sub-Committee to discuss the application, which raised the following points.


·         How would the re-consultation change the objections that had been heard from the residents.  The Planning Officer explained that this would give objectors the opportunity to look at the additional information and for their technical experts to be able to comment and potentially challenge the information provided;

·         The Sub-Committee raised concerns about the highways, access, and parked vehicles at the access point of the site. Could the parking be enforced with double yellow lines. Could comments include that the lane is also used as a footpath. The Planning Officer agreed to request OCC Highways response to concerns raised;

·         Would the drainage officer be consulted regarding the concerns over the ground water. The Planning Officer agreed to request a more in-depth comments regarding drainage and flooding;

·         Would the wildflower field be covered by S106 agreement and be a binding agreement.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the S106 agreement covered the use of the land and any change of use would need to be submitted to the Council.


Councillor Harry St. John proposed the application be deferred in line with the officer recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Julian Cooper and was put to the vote. There were 11 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 abstention. The Vote was carried.


Councillor Lysette Nicholls proposed a site visit. This was seconded by Councillor Dan Levy, was put to the vote, and was agreed unanimously by the Sub-Committee.


The Sub-Committee Resolved to:


  1. Defer the application, in line with officer’s recommendations
  2. Agree a site visit – Democratic Services would notify the Sub-Committee members of the date the application will come back to committee and organise the site visit at a suitable time near the committee date.
  3. Officers agreed to request OCC Highways and Drainage officers attend the next meeting of the Sub-Committee/, and provide a bespoke response to concerns raised.