BAYDON PARISH COUNCIL

 

MINUTES OF PLANNING MEETING HELD AT THE BYPA HALL ON

16th January 2006 (Subject to approval at BPC meeting on 20th February 2006)

 

PRESENT:                                                                                                                

Mr K. Barnes (Chairman)

Mrs S. Grove

Mrs S. Bailey

Mrs J. McGowran

Mr T. Dominy

Mr A. Seymour

Mr J. Grove

 

Also in attendance: L. Knight (Clerk), Ruth Hopkins (Gleeson Homes), Cllr B Twigger, 25 members of the public.

1.             APOLOGIES

All councillors were in attendance. No apologies.

                                                                                                                                   

2.             DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest on any matter on the agenda.

 

3.             COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

The meeting was opened to the public to allow them to raise comments on planning application K/53477/F and to put questions to Ruth Hopkins from Gleeson Homes.

 

The following comments were noted:

1.      The proposed site for 9 adjoining car parking bays which is located directly behind the property known as ‘Barrowdale’ was a major concern; specifically the volume of noise that would be generated at certain times of the day (e.g. car doors slamming, engines starting, etc.). This property was purchased for its peaceful surroundings and the adjacent car park would turn a very quiet location within the village into an excessively noisy one. Could the proposed layout of the houses be altered to spread the car parking load around?

2.      There are several points of concern in relation to Pine Cottage, the property directly opposite the proposed entrance to the development.

i)      Every vehicle turning right out the development in the dark hours (am or pm) would illuminate all of the bedroom windows with their headlights.

ii)     Privacy would be compromised, as plots 1 & 2 of the development will overlook the property. Furthermore the boundary is within 21 metres of the existing garden.

iii)    There is a dispute over the ownership of a strip of land that runs alongside Aldbourne Road as the documentation for Pine Cottage shows that it belongs to that property, however, the Highways Dept are also laying claim to it.

iv)    The building line that has been taken by Gleeson Homes is an arbitrary one and does not follow the line of the existing properties on Aldbourne Road.

3.      There is also a privacy issue raised in relation to Orchard House as the upper windows of plots 21 & 22 would overlook the rear of the property. A further concern was that the planned choice of screening shrubs may damage the foundations of the property and invalidate its NHBC agreement.

4.      The proposal, as it stands, requires the removal of an existing tree currently protected by a tree preservation order. The point was raised that if a tree with a TPO could be removed to suit a proposed building plan then what is the point of the TPO? It was a unanimous point of view that removal of the tree should not be allowed.

5.      The number of properties being proposed is felt to be too many and there are concerns over the negative impact that this may have on the village.

 

 

Page 2006-05

6.      The application leans on Kennet District Council Local Plan Policy HC22; however it is felt that it does not conform to KDC policy (HC22) as it is not in harmony with the village in terms of its scale and character.

7.      The planned development includes parking for 49 vehicles. Based on the size and types of properties being proposed it is considered probable that every household will have 2 cars. It is also highly feasible that a number of the properties will be inhabited by young adults living with their parents and that they will have their own cars, thereby increasing the number of vehicles for some households to as many as 3 or 4. This increase in traffic is likely to have an adverse impact on the village. Road safety, in particular the safety of pedestrians (especially children) walking along Aldbourne Road is a major concern.

8.      There were numerous comments about the width of Aldbourne Road after the development had been completed and it was a concern that the road width may be narrowed to 5 meters or less in parts. As this road is also a thoroughfare for buses, a local coach company (Barnes of Aldbourne), farm traffic, horse transporters, general commercial and residential traffic (including on street parking) it was thought that once the proposed footpath had been constructed then the remaining road width would be insufficient to take the load. It was felt that as the current details are vague in parts, a precise plan with verifiable measurements should be produced and approved before planning permission is granted. The footpath was deemed a fundamental requirement though.

9.      The extra car traffic generated from this development will also have an effect on the volume of cars that already use Manor Lane as a rat run (to avoid the Aldbourne Road/Ermin Street junction). Road visibility is very poor in Manor Lane (narrow road with pinch points, high hedges on one side and driveway entrances on the other) and with the additional issue of a lack of pavement there is a constant risk of injury to pedestrians.

 

The Chairman advised the public to write directly themselves to KDC with any comments or concerns that they might have.

 

4.             PLANNING APPLICATIONS

 

The Council considered planning application K/53477/F for 24 residental dwellings on the land between Fortune Field and Baydon Cote.

 

The following comments and concerns were raised : 

 

1.      The Accessibility Study produced by Gleeson Homes as part of the documentation package is seriously flawed as it referred to the 2001 Census for its research and had warded Baydon with Aldbourne for all of its case studies. Baydon has been warded with Ramsbury for the past few years.

2.      The garages on plots 20/21 are too close to the boundary of 48 Downsmead. This coupled with the proposed apex of the roof would result in a total loss of all evening light from the garden. Could the garages be re-aligned so that they are further way from the boundary and additionally could the proposed garages have barn-end roofs to further reduce the impact?

3.      With the safety of children in mind, the perimeter of the balancing pond should be securely fenced.

4.      There is a concern that, due to its size, the proposed area for 9 adjoining cars parking bays may become a dumping ground. Parking bays should be more evenly spread around the development.

5.      In keeping with the rest of the village, street lighting should be kept to a minimum.

 

Page 2006-06

6.      There is a concern that the plot of land currently outside the village building line may be built upon at a later date. Assurances were given at the time that this could not happen without the removal of the pond or one of the proposed houses, which in itself could/would not happen.

7.      Baydon Parish Council needs to have input to the 106 agreement. This is of particular concern as the 106 agreement for the Fiveways development incorrectly allocated funds to St Johns school rather than St. Nicholas.

 

Baydon Parish Council agreed the points of concern raised by the villagers and the Parish Council should be addressed and actioned by the respective authority. Subject to this, Baydon Parish Council had no further objections to the application.

 

It was agreed that a letter be sent to the planning officer documenting all the issues and concerns raised at the meeting. A copy of which should be placed on the noticeboard. 

 

The meeting concluded at 8.30 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed :  ________________________________                      Date : _______________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 2006-07