Address:       65 High Street, Ridgmont, Bedford, MK43 0TX

Demolition of existing wooden storage barn, relocation of 3 existing wooden stables and construction of new dwelling within existing paddock and plot behind no.65 High Street, Ridgmont.

Applicant:     Mr & Mrs Lambeth

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/03684/FULL for the demolition of an existing wooden storage barn, relocation of 3 existing wooden stables and construction of a new dwelling within the existing paddock and plot behind no. 65 High Street, Ridgmont, Bedford, MK43 0TX.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional/amended conditions and reasons.

It was noted that a Parish Council representative, who had registered to speak under the public participation scheme, had been unable to attend because of another appointment.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from the applicant’s agent under the public participation scheme.  A Member sought clarification regarding the suitability of the existing access to the site of the proposed new dwelling given it’s narrow width, the need for a vehicle to carefully manoeuver into the access and the possibility of it being obscured, for example, by the hedge in no. 63 High Street  should it be allowed to grow out.  In response the agent stated that the actions of the neighbour were outside the applicant’s control whilst the risk of an incident when a vehicle was entering the access was minor given that the road was within a 20 mph zone with little, predominantly residential, traffic.

A ward Member read out a statement on behalf of the occupants of 61 High Street who objected to the application but who had been unable to attend in person due to a prior commitment. 

The above ward Member then set out her case in objection to the application.  She stated that there had been an error on the supplied map and there was no Green Belt boundary immediately to the front of the proposed dwelling as indicated as the entire village lay within the Green Belt.  She also referred to the recent Green Belt review and its description of Ridgmont as having a sense of openness as a result of the village being mainly of ribbon development and usually only one building deep.

The ward Member referred to the village partly laying within a conservation area and the related description within the Council’s conservation document of its special characteristics and attractive features including Listed Buildings and open spaces with particular reference to the Listed Building at no. 61. 

The ward Member next described the size and position of the existing barn and stable in relation to the back of no. 61 and the relative position of the proposed new dwelling.  She emphasised that, whilst the existing barn lay on the boundary with the back garden of no.61 and the stable was some 5 meters from the  boundary, the new dwelling would be only one and a half meters from the boundary.  In addition whilst the existing barn lay on the boundary open, rural views could be had to either side from the rear garden of no.61.  In contrast the proposed dwelling would lay almost the full length along the rear boundaries of nos. 61 and 63, was taller than the barn and stable and so replaced a rural, open, outlook with that of a new building.

Turning next to the trees on the boundary with no. 61, and in particular an ash tree, the ward Member commented on the difficulty in ensuring the ash tree’s protection during the building works, even by condition, and she raised the possibility of it being lost for various reasons.

The ward Member considered the existing access between nos. 61 and 65 High Street which was to become the entrance for the new dwelling.  She referred to the tight turn required into the access, the attractiveness of the wall to the right of the access and her concern at its possible future removal to increase the access width.

In conclusion the ward Member stated that the proposed dwelling would lead to overdevelopment of the site, being too large for the setting, and it would have a harmful impact on the neighbours’ amenity being only 20 meters from the back of No. 61 High Street whereas the Council’s own Design Guide required a minimum of 21 meters.  Further, the new dwelling would be detrimental to the setting, laying as it did within both the Green Belt and a conservation area and located close to Grade II Listed Buildings at nos. 59 and 61. The ward Member stated that she believed these factors provided sufficient grounds for refusal and queried the reason for having the means to protect the integrity of an area if they were not used.

(Note: At the conclusion of her representation Councillor Mrs Clark left the Chamber and took no further part in the debate or in the vote on this item).

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         Several expressions of concern by Members regarding the suitability of the access, in particular with regard to its width and the absence of a proposed alternative.

·         The highways officer’s statement that the visibility splay on leaving the access on to the High Street could be obstructed on one side by the planting in the garden of no. 63 and  that this could not be controlled by condition as the land was not in the applicant’s control.  The visibility could, however, be increased on the side of no. 65.  He had also stressed that, whilst the access was not to modern standards, it was currently in use, although he was personally unable to confirm this, and as such the Council did not have the authority to prevent such use from continuing.

·         The highways officer’s statement that the traffic calming measures and 20 m.p.h. limit on the High Street allowed drivers time to manoeuvre on the road in order to enter the access.  The width of the access was estimated to be slightly over two metres based on the submitted plans.

·         The planning officer’s confirmation that the access was used for vehicular access by the occupants of no. 63 who enjoyed a retained ‘right of way’ to the end of their plot and by the applicant (no. 65) to reach the paddocks located on the application site.

·         The planning officer’s statement that whilst the village was washed over by the Green Belt there was an infill boundary surrounding Ridgmont and the application site lay within it.  Policy DM6 of the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2009 applied and set out when development within the Green Belt was permitted.  Further, whilst the distance back to back between no. 61 and the new building was just over 20 meters the distance between the rear elevation of no. 61 and the two high level roof lights of the new dwelling was 22 meters and the distance was, therefore, compliant with the Council’s guidelines.

·         The impact of the windows to the rear of the new dwelling on no. 61 would be controlled by requiring the windows to be above 1.7 meters.  The windows would serve the en-suite and bathroom and so were unlikely to be used by the occupants to stand and look out of.

·         The planning officer’s comment that the proposed dwelling had been reduced in size from that originally proposed in the pre-application and was set back and projecting away from nos. 61 and 63 .  As such it was not considered overdevelopment or harmful to the amenity of neighbours and any impact would not be considered sufficient to warrant refusal.  Although the existing barn would be lost it was not considered to be of any significant architectural or heritage value.

·         That the tree officer was supportive of the proposed measures to protect the retained trees and that the recommended condition was of the pre-commencement type to ensure that protection took place.

·         A Member’s comment that trees overhanging the new dwelling was not a planning issue.

·         The planning officer’s comment that the application site already contained a built environment in the form of the barn and stables.  Whilst there would be some impact it was not considered by the planning officer that it would adversely impact the locality.

·         The openness of the conservation area and that experienced by no. 61 was a separate issue to the openness of the Green Belt.

·         A Member’s comment that whilst the Parish Council had submitted many comments it had not formally objected to the application.

·         The amendment of a condition to ensure semi mature trees were used on the border with no. 61 to assist in the screening of the new property.

·         That the materials to be used reflected the commentary in the planning officer’s report and were of high quality complimentary conservation style.

·         A Member’s comment that there would be minimal impact on the conservation area because the new building would not be visible from the High Street.

·         The conditioning of a construction traffic management plan setting out the means of access to the application site by an alternative access prior to commencement.

On being put to the vote 6 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 2 abstained.  Cllr Nicols asked for his abstention to be recorded.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/03684/FULL relating to 65 High Street, Ridgmont, Bedford, MK43 0TX be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.