The evidence of the applicant
22.Mr Dickinson explained that he has lived at the Property since 2011 and expects to continue living there for the foreseeable future. Since obtaining the 2017 consent his family circumstances had changed and the purpose of the development was to provide separate accommodation for his elderly parents in the bungalow, while he and his son would live in the house.23.Mr Dickinson was conscious of the objectors’ concerns that the shared common access area may be obstructed and suffer damage during the construction period. He had therefore instructed Mr Ian Smith MRICS, a building surveyor, to prepare a method statement for the development to ensure that access would be unimpeded during the construction period and that the access area would be kept in good repair. During the 11 years that Mr Dickinson had lived at the Property no repair works had been necessary to that area, even though construction works had taken place for the garage at the Property and for an extension at Shincliffe. However, he was willing to give an enforceable undertaking to make good any damage, under-written by a deposit of £5,000 which the objectors could draw on should they feel the need to carry out repairs themselves. He agreed that patch repairs would be unsatisfactory and that the whole area would be resurfaced if necessary.24.Mr Smith’s method statement provides for a photographic schedule of condition of the access area to be prepared prior to commencement of work. Early enabling work would include construction of a temporary access road and turning head within the site, together with provision for temporary storage of spoil and a zone for plant and site accommodation. Once the existing bungalow was demolished there would be a large area of hardcore surface for delivery lorries to park. Vehicle movements for deliveries and removal of spoil would be managed by a banksman and his assistant. The access area would be cleaned of debris after each vehicle movement. A complaints procedure would be put in place for the objectors, who would be given a contact telephone number for the site manager in case of a problem with access.25.Mr Dickinson was also aware of the objectors’ concerns that because the development included no garages there would be insufficient parking for two dwellings, leading to the parking of cars in the access area once development was completed. His architect had been told that the local planning authority prefer developments without garages, which are additional built structures frequently used for storage rather than parking. By reference to the approved plans for the development, and during my site inspection, Mr Dickinson showed where three parking spaces for the house and two for the bungalow would be sited within the development. The two dwellings would share an access drive, which includes a lay-by where two cars could pass. This could also be used for temporary parking.26.Currently delivery vehicles to all three houses turn into the drive and up to the house and this practice would be expected to continue. Parking in the village can be difficult and sometimes local residents park their cars on the side of the road opposite the access area, or even ask if they can park temporarily in the access area itself. The access area is also used by large delivery vehicles to turn around if they have taken a wrong road out of the village. Mr Dickinson said that none of this causes any problem.27.Turning to the objectors’ concerns over the view of the Property from the road, Mr Dickinson pointed out that the Property is currently the least attractive property in the road since it has an unattractive 1970s design and is rather tired. The ridge line of the single house consented in 2017 would be the same as that of the replacement dwelling consented in 2020, but the view of the 2017 house from the access area would be more imposing because it would be larger, with two gables facing the entrance. In his view the development would be an improvement to the street scene.28.Mr Dickinson quoted from the planning officer’s report on the approved replacement house: “The Council is supportive of creative and contextual new design in conservation areas as this is often preferable to pastiche and provides more opportunity to enhance the conservation area, making a high quality 21st century contribution to the development of the area over time. The submitted design is reflected of the predominant style within the conservation area, with its gabled roof form, traditionally styled dormers and material choices.”29.Regarding the new bungalow the planning officer’s report commented: “There is dense vegetation screening along Lower Street and the new building would be single storey. There would only be glimpsed views of the building from the public realm. Officers do not consider that a new dwelling in this location would impact the character of the conservation area.”30.The final objection raised by the objectors concerned the density restriction imposed by the covenant, and the risk that lifting this for the application land could become a precedent for increasing the density in surrounding properties. Mr Dickinson commented by reference to a plan of surrounding properties that almost all of them had practical impediments to division, such as a small or banky garden or a square plot shape. The Property was unusual in having a long thin shape which could be divided between the front and back with a shared access drive. 31.Mr Dickinson confirmed that the length of time for completion of the development was expected to be no more than 12 months because the two dwellings would be timber framed with off-site assembly. The architectural survey required as a condition of the planning consent would involve digging four trial trenches to see if anything interesting was found, bearing in mind the proximity of Sutton Hoo, followed by a watching brief during the development.