Welcome to the large text version of Birdham Parish Council website. If you are here by mistake please follow this link to return to the standard layout.
Welcome to the dyslexia friendly version of Birdham Parish Council website. If you are here by mistake please follow this link to return to the standard layout.
Welcome to the Non Styling version of Birdham Parish Council website. If you are here by mistake please follow this link to return to the standard layout.
Birdham Parish Council > Planning > Planning matters October 2007

Planning matters October 2007

Planning matters for the meeting of 15th October 2007

Plans considered since the last meeting to be ratified:

BI/07/04658/DOM – Yendor House, Hundredsteddle Lane, Birdham – One of the applicants, Mrs Cobbold, is a member of Birdham Parish Council and has been excluded at all points in the consideration of this application. The Council has NO OBJECTION to this application but would like a clause inserted in the permission to ensure that the self-contained extension cannot be sold separately from the main property.

BI/07/04495/DOM – Windward, Westlands, Birdham – The Council raises NO OBJECTION to this application. We would recommend that attention be given to the provision of lead flashings on the dormers and behind the barge boards.

BI/07/04475/FUL – Cluan Lodge, Westlands Lane, Birdham – We were at first concerned about the height of this new house, at 9.5 metres but are satisfied that the situation can bear that, despite the fact that the house lies within the AONB and will be fairly visible in the landscape from the south. We assume that the natural screening will be retained and enhanced. We would also look for confirmation that natural materials and good quality bricks will be used throughout. The Council raises NO OBJECTION to this application.

BI/07/04531/TPA – Mr and Mrs S Grisdale, 31, Walwyn Close, Birdham – cut back to previous wound points, thin by 20% southeast segment, remove to lowest branch overhanging school playing field on 1 no. oak T4 subject to TPO/28/BI
This application refers to tree T4 of TPO/28/BI. There are two parts to this application. The lowest bow overhanging the primary school playing field is causing the owner concern as the children are beginning to swing on it as it becomes lower and he is concerned about his liability under health and safety legislation. To remove this bow would balance the tree and would not detract from the shade afforded to the school field. The thinning on the south east segment is to re-establish the light to the house and garden from the previous pruning and would not unbalance the tree. We therefore have NO OBJECTION to this application.

BI/07/03838/TPA
23 Longmeadow Gardens, Birdham

This application refers to TPO/27/BI. The Black Poplar Tree (T5) is fast growing and needs attention fairly frequently. Great efforts were made to preserve this tree when the adjacent house was built. We are happy to see it taken back to the previous pruning points. The two Larch trees (T6 and T7) are not in good health and the Council has NO OBJECTION to their removal. We understand that the owner intends to plant a Field Maple in place of them and we would welcome this.

BI/0703767/TPA
Magherymore, Claytons Corner, Birdham
This is a response to a revised application received from the applicant on the 5th October.
T1 Sycamore. We are pleased to see that the applicant concedes that this tree should be left as it is.
T2 Horse Chestnut. We are happy that the work on this tree should be no more than the removal of the damaged limbs.
T3 Silver Birch. We remarked that this tree seems perfectly healthy and requires no attention. The applicant assumes that it is responsible for the feeling of cold and damp in the house and is concerned that the roots may interfere with the house from 8 metres away but there is no evidence of this. He proposes to reduce the tree on one side and thin the whole tree by 15%. Our concern would be that the tree would become unbalanced if reduced only on one side. An overall reduction of 15% by a qualified tree surgeon would be acceptable.
T4 Weeping Willow. We remarked that this is a very large tree and in need of some management. We would be happy to take the advice of the Tree Officer and/or a qualified tree surgeon but any “hard reduction” and “pollarding”, suggested by the applicant, should not be such that the aesthetics of the tree and its place in the landscape is ruined.
T5. Horse Chestnut. We do not accept that this tree is overbearing and should be reduced because it creates shade, nor that it makes much difference to the light in neighbours’ gardens as it is to the east or north east of most of them. The proposal to reduce and thin is no different from the previous application. This is a handsome tree which contributes to the landscape. The two oaks next to it are either one and the same tree with a bifurcated trunk or planted very close together but they are about sixty feet tall and do not appear to be suffering in any way from their proximity to the horse chestnut.
The reason for a TPO has nothing to do with development; it is in order to conserve significant trees in the landscape. We understand that the applicant intends to redesign the garden, which has recently been extended. We would expect a good designer to take advantage of the presence of this group of trees as a contrast to the remaining area of this large garden.

BI/07/04529/DOM – Mr AJ Payne, White Water, Lock Lane, Birdham – revision to garage building permitted under planning permission BI/07/02912/FUL – replacement dwelling and garage, new access drive.
The Council raises NO OBJECTION to this revised plan for the garage at White Water but makes the following comments.
In section 4.11 of the Planning, Design and Access statement and line two, the dimensions should read “an additional 1.8 metres to the length …. and 3.00 metres to the width”. We note that the height of the six Velux windows on the eastern roof plane are 1.8 metres above the floor and the overlooking of the neighbouring property is therefore minimised. We also note that the applicant would be happy to accept a condition controlling the use of the annexe and recommend that it should be for domestic use only and that it cannot be sold separately from the main house.

CDC Decisions

BI/07/03325/DOM – Gary Bell, Forge Cottage, Martins Lane, PO20 7AU – rear extension with room in roof and new double garage – PERMIT

BI/07/03985/DOM – Mr and Mrs J Goodhew, Kinderhook, Court Barn Road, PO20 7BQ – Double garage to existing property, amendment to planning permission BI/04/02058/DOM – PERMIT

BI/07/03799/FUL – George Haines (Itchenor) Ltd – Field south of Holts Cottages, Shipton Green Lane, Itchenor – development of a boat storage facility – WITHDRAWN

BI/07/03486/FUL Mr Noon and Mr Cobley, Tate House, Main Road – Retention of Tate House and Widdicombe and the erection of 4 no. one and a half storey dwellings – PERMIT