Planning Application No. CB/17/04312/FULL (Flitwick)
- Meeting of DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, Wednesday, 31 January 2018 10.00 a.m. (Item 128.)
- View the background to item 128.
Address: Land at 11 and rear of 13 The Ridgeway, Flitwick, Bedford,
Erection of one bungalow and one two storey house with access off Durham Close.
Applicant: Acorn Building Services (Luton) Ltd
The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/04312/FULL for the erection of one bungalow and one two storey house with access off Durham Close on land at 11 and rear of 13 The Ridgeway, Flitwick, Bedford, MK45 1DH.
In advance of consideration of the application the Committee's attention was drawn to additional comments as set out in the Late Sheet.
In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from an objector to the application under the public participation scheme. The Chairman sought clarification on an issue raised by the objector.
The Committee was advised that the ward Member (Councillor Turner), who had called in the application, had been present earlier and had intended to address the meeting but had been unable to stay beyond the lunchtime adjournment. He had expressed his apologies at being unable to remain. A member of the Committee (Councillor Gomm), who was also a ward Member, stated he would speak on the application.
The planning officer responded to the points raised so far as follows:
· The trees on the site had no Tree Preservation Orders on them and they could therefore be removed at any time.
· The parking of construction vehicles would be a temporary disruption.
· The development of the land in question had not taken place at the same time as the erection of the other properties because the land had only become available after the original development had taken place.
· There was no requirement for the provision of garages.
· Any requirement for waking routes to local amenities only applied to new developments and could not be applied retrospectively.
· The removal of permitted development rights was recommended in order to prevent the owner of the proposed bungalow from installing windows in its loft.
· There was no overbearing or loss of light to the bathroom window in the existing neighbouring property. Further, the position of the development was considered acceptable given the similar relationship between dwellings already present in Durham Close.
The Chairman referred to comment passed by the objector to the objections raised by local residents and how these had been ignored by the planning officer. He briefly outlined the process by which the Committee was required to determine applications.
(Note: At this point in the proceedings Councillor Gomm, as a ward Member, withdrew from the seating allocated to Members of the Committee and sat at the seat allocated to public speakers in order to address the meeting).
The ward Member expressed his concern at the environmental impact of the application. He stated that the development site provided a natural barrier and was of benefit to the area. Should the development be approved it would result in extra vehicle movements and parking and have a detrimental impact on residents and the area. He supported the refusal of the application.
(Note: Councillor Gomm left the meeting room at this point 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:
· A Member's comment that the land under question provided a reasonable infill site and he was surprised that the site had not been built on at the same time as the original development.
· A second planning officer’s comment that that the Environmental Protection Act covered the hours of work and local authorities were not expected to impose controls on matters already covered by legislation. If construction work were undertaken at unreasonable hours the Council already had the means to take appropriate action. A condition for wheel cleaning for a development of this size was not usual but could be imposed if the Committee wished. In response to the Chairman’s suggestion that, as an alternative, there be a condition requiring that roads be kept clear the second planning officer explained that this issue was already covered by highways legislation. Further, there would be an additional cost to the developer to hire the necessary vehicle and for a two dwelling development it would be unprecedented.
· The use of an informative regarding the need to ensure that roads were kept clear of mud and other debris was suggested and supported by Members.
On being put to the vote 8 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.
that Planning Application No. CB/17/04312/FULL relating to land at 11 and rear of 13 The Ridgeway, Flitwick, Bedford, MK45 1DH be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.
- 14 17.04312 Map, item 128. PDF 108 KB
- 14 17.04312 Report, item 128. PDF 113 KB
- 14 17.04312 Schedule, item 128. PDF 72 KB