Erection of 3 dwellings
Minutes:
The application had been the subject of a site visit on the morning of the planning committee meeting. The Senior Planning Officer presented the report which sought approval to erect 3 dwellings within the defined development boundary for Easton Portland. In addition, plans and photographs were shown to the committee.
Councillor Garcia addressed the committee as the ward member. She expressed concern that due process had not been followed in that previous representations by herself had not been referred to and that she had not been notified that the application was being brought to committee. She read out the contents of her email to the planning department sent on 20 June 2018, where she requested that the application be called in for determination and set out her objections to the application. She also made reference to a letter from Highways which included comments related to the turning circle and access, parking and the effect on neighbouring properties. She asked why the application had been brought to this committee for determination at this time?
In response the Development Manager noted that the application would be brought to committee when officers had concluded their casework and they were in a position to bring the application before the committee. The application had not been rushed onto the agenda, had been submitted some time ago and all publicity and consultation completed.
P Kimber confirmed that he was not a ward member for this application.
Mr Cowling addressed the committee as a neighbour to the proposal site. He expressed concern with regard to the affect of the development on light levels in his house. In addition he noted that the submitted plans did not show the garages in front of his house. This also had an effect on light levels in his property. He noted that if the development went ahead, he would no longer be able to access the gable wall of his house for maintenance.
Mr Burgess spoke as the agent for the application and provided some background to the site and the plans. Local materials were to be used and Dorset County Council Highways had no objection. In response to objections made by Portland Town Council he noted that similar examples of back land development could be seen within the area. The site was within the development boundary and issues such as overlooking had been addressed by not including rear dormer windows and by having relatively small windows in the units. He felt that there was a need for properties such as these on Portland and that they would be attractive to local people. Mr Burgess requested the opportunity to speak again after any members of the public had spoken, in order to address any points raised.
Paul Simpson addressed the committee and made reference to apple trees which had been cut down, the size and length of the proposed building, the wish to keep Portland open, the access to the side of the former pub, the size of the proposed gardens, lack of parking and the affect on other houses around the site.
In response, Mr Burgess explained that some historical work on the site had been undertaken and that it had previously been used as a coaching inn. It was thought that the access points to the site may have been historically used. He also noted that the fire escape was to be relocated and would be internal. He felt that the design of the houses was not sub-standard.
Members considered the issues arising from the application and during discussion the following points were made:
· A point was noted that the design of the houses was a personal preference and not a planning matter
· It was noted that there were around 14 or 15 examples of back land development in the area
· A comment was made that there should be allocated parking
· A point was noted that 3 units was too many for the site and that 2 units, possibly bungalows, may be more appropriate. It was also noted that the proposed skylights would overlook surrounding dwellings which could create a loss of privacy for neighbours
· In response to a question with regard to parking provision for the houses, the agent, Mr Burgess, confirmed that the applicant would be content to accept a condition that parking was for the development only. He noted that the guest house did not have allocated parking and that this would remain the position
A number of members requested that electric car charging points should be included for 3 of the parking spaces. In response, the Development Manager noted that as there were just 3 dwellings there would not be a policy requirement to provide electric charging points. She advised that this would not be a viable condition. In response, a comment was made that this condition had been included in the case of a private dwelling previously.
Following discussion it was proposed by R Nickinson seconded by J Orrell that if members were minded to approve the application, then a condition be added to require the provision of electric charging points for 3 of the spaces to be allocated to the new dwellings.
On being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED.
It was proposed by P Kimber seconded by S West that the application be refused. Members considered that despite the officer’s recommendation, the 3 dwellings would be overdevelopment with an overbearing relationship with the surrounding properties causing overlooking and adverse impact on amenity; in addition the vehicle access was considered to cause conflict and potential danger with pedestrians.
Decision
That the application be refused for the following reasons:
1. The scale and siting of the proposed dwellings would represent overdevelopment in this location, resulting in a cramped footprint with insufficient garden sizes for potential occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies ENV10 and ENV12 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015
2. The proposed design would be overbearing and allow overlooking to neighbouring properties, in particular to No. 29 Easton Street. The proposal would be contrary to Policy ENV16 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan and Section 12 of the NPPF
3. The proposed vehicular access onto Easton Street would have insufficient visibility for emerging vehicles and cause conflict with pedestrians. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy COM7 of the West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015.
Supporting documents: