News: Developer appeals refusal of Cyma House plan

A planning proposal which was objected to by Chilbolton Parish Council, and was refused by Test Valley Borough Council planning officers, has now been appealed by agents for the developer.

Cyma House

Cyma House, on Village Street, is a plot of land which was formerly known by the more prosaic name “Land adjacent to Copyhold”. It has been the subject of planning applications since 2006. In 2011 a plan for a four-bedroom house with a detached double garage was given permission.

That permission still stands because it was “implemented” by creating an access onto Village Street and removing roadside planting. No actual building work has taken place at the site.

Planning application refused

In October last year, the developer lodged a new planning application for a 5/6 bedroom property.

Chilbolton Parish Council objected, saying that the house was too large with little to no garden, amounting to over-development, and it would overlook adjacent properties. They pointed out that it would contravene the “no more than three bedrooms” policy in Chilbolton’s Neighbourhood Development Plan. They also raised concerns about road safety and water run-off.

TVBC Planners refused the application, saying

The proposed development, by virtue of the unsympathetic design of the proposed dwelling, would fail to respect, integrate, and complement the character of the area, and would fail to preserve or enhance the setting or significance of the Chilbolton Conservation Area or adjacent heritage assets, Chalkdell Cottage, Broxton House and Hazel House.

TVBC also said that the proposal would go against the Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Appeal lodged

Now agents Carter Jonas have lodged an appeal against the refusal, on behalf of the developer.

The appeal focuses on three main areas:

  • Whether the design is sympathetic to the surrounding area and integrates with its established character
  • Whether the proposal would enhance the significance, character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the adjacent properties
  • Whether proposed vegetation and landscaping can be relied upon as screening development

The appeal is supported by a heritage impact assessment and a statement of case prepared by the architect who designed the proposed building.

Key points in the appeal

The appeal makes the following specific points:

  • TVBC is unable to demonstrate a sufficient housing land supply to provide for five years’ worth of its housing requirement, therefore there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development
  • They quote TVBC’s Landscape Officer, who responded with “no objection”, saying “The frontage proposals with increased and improved screening would enable the proposal to integrate into the local street scene”
  • They quote TVBC’s Design and Conservation Officer who said “there is a possibility of vegetation being lost or significantly reduced in the future”. The appeal says that this is speculation, and that planning conditions could be applied “to secure long-term maintenance”
  • The appeal acknowledges CNDP policy HD1, but says “a 5-bedroom home would be suitable in this location, both due to the Site’s size, but also from a market interest perspective”
  • CNDP Policy HD4 says “All development proposals must achieve a high standard of design, which responds positively to the context” and that in the Conservation Area, development proposals should be “designed in context with their surroundings, including existing buildings, street pattern, open spaces, trees and other historic characteristic features”. The appeal claims there is no conflict in the proposal with policy HD4
  • TVBC’s planning refusal did not list as reasons things that residents had objected to: the size of the house; visibility from the street; overlooking of other houses; of pedestrian safety
  • Having a house in use, with additional trees and hedgerow on what is currently a “derelict and overgrown site” would outweigh “very limited” harm

Next steps

The developer has asked that the appeal be decided at a hearing because “The nature of the appeal is such that there are complex technical issues of heritage and design which will require discussion.”

The most recent statistics for planning inspectorate decisions show it takes an average of 25 weeks for a hearing to be held and a decision to be made.

The developer has also made an application for the award of appeal costs. These include the time taken preparing for it, attending the hearing and the use of consultants and witnesses. The award would only be granted if someone involved in the appeal behaved unreasonably.