To receive any questions relating to items on the agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Note: A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.
Minutes:
Marc Gouldsworthy referred to Application No 23/00209/FULL
Question 1 - Strategic Policy S1 as laid out in the Local Plan Review Policy 2013-2033 and sustainable development principles refer to environmental impact and protecting and enhancing our environment. As the proposal consists of substantial loss of the existing natural environment replacing it with hard standings and buildings, does the committee consider that the net loss of biodiversity has been mitigated and that as noted on page 15 and clauses S1 l & m of the policy, that it has achieved net gains for nature (bio-diversity net gains and achieved the urban greening factor)?
Question 2 - Does the Committee consider that Policy S1 clause h and Policy S2 clause 2.25, have been satisfied in respect the proposals being sustainable and respect the local character, heritage, surroundings and materials of the surrounding area. That is to say that the designs in terms of scale and aesthetics take into account Bampton’s existing heritage and design of existing properties. Noting that these requirements were heavily pushed and conditioned in the Newton Court development in regard to architecture and size of property and that the proposed development in terms of mass and style is out of keeping and do not mirror the properties in Frog Street and Newton Court.
Question 3 - Strategic Policy S9 has been implemented to protect the environment. Noting that the only ecologic report submitted was highlighted by the author as only considering the existing temporary and brick structures, do the Committee feel adequate ecological reporting and adequate assessments have been undertaken on the full extent of the site and now in the areas of the revised drainage strategy that is proposed to discharge into the watercourse via a headwall satisfy this policy, particularly as there are reports of protected species living in and around the watercourse. Consideration should be given that the report will be nearly 3 years old and the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management note that it would now be invalid and a new assessment by a professional ecologist would need to be undertaken.
Question 4 - Does the Committee consider that the requirements of DM 1 have been satisfied which requires a clear understanding of the site and its constraints to be taken into account, with buildings integrated with the surrounding buildings, with Conservation Area Appraisals and Mid-Devon and Village Character Assessment evaluating the settlement being undertaken (as they do not seem to appear in the documents submitted to date). Also, consideration of the adverse effects on the neighbouring properties and amenity of neighbouring properties in regard to architecture, siting, scale and massing as the current proposals have been considered as they will create privacy issues, as well as the loss of light with adjoining properties.
Also noting that the current proposals do not comply with Building Regulations in respect to Approved Document J and that if constructed as designed would not only be in breach, but it would also incur potential financial costs for the re-siting of existing oil tanks to several adjacent existing properties when they need to be replaced.
Question 5 - Finally, and most importantly, the proposal put forward do not consider the actual boundaries noted on Local Plan Review 2013 – 2033 Adopted July 2020) / Adopted Policies Map: Bampton (July 2020). It can be demonstrated that national boundaries have been introduced as they are not all defined by land ownership or physical boundary, such as hedges, walls, fences, or road. There is a clear ‘buffer zone’ created with the plan to the existing residential dwellings on Newton Court which would mitigate a number of the points previously raised. It can also be seen that there is sufficient land to the west of the development zone that would accommodate the construction of two dwellings that would be in line with Mid-Devon policies. How will the Committee address this non-compliance of the proposals put forward not being located within the clearly defined residential development are BA1- Development Plan.