Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

 

The Committee considered application 3/19/1504/FUL for the erection of a pair of 3 bedroom semi-detached two storey houses, with associated parking, and ancillary works at Garage Court, New Merrifield, Colehill, Wimborne.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers provided context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were; how these were to be progressed; how the development would contribute to meeting housing needs; and what this entailed. The presentation focused on not only what the development entailed and its detailed design, but what effect it would have on residential amenity and the character the area, including the AONB and protected trees.

 

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location, dimensions – form, bulk, size and mass - and appearance of the development and of the individual properties, along with their ground floor plans; how it would look; proposed street scenes; the materials to be used; the need for the existing garages to be demolished to accommodate the development; what landscaping there would be; its relationship with the highway network; the characteristics of the site; its relationship with other adjacent residential development and its setting within Colehill. Views into the site and around it were shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of what the application entailed.

 

The officer’s recommendation was for permission to be granted on the basis that:-

· the proposal comprised new residential development within the urban area which would contribute to housing provision.

• paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) set out that permission should be granted for sustainable development unless specific policies in the NPPF indicated otherwise;

• the location was considered to be sustainable and the proposal acceptable in its design and general visual impact.

• there was not considered to be any significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity.

• the number of residential units (2) and the mix of unit sizes (3 bedroom dwellings) were considered to be appropriate for this site.

• the traffic movements generated by the development could be accommodated without detriment to highway safety and adequate parking would be provided to serve the dwellings

• adequate mitigation could be secured through planning conditions to offset any harm to the ecological and biodiversity value of the site.

• the development would not be significantly harmful to the residential amenities of nearby dwellings by reason of loss of privacy, overshadowing, dominance or noise; and an acceptable level of residential amenity was capable of being provided for occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

• adequate parking provision would be provided to serve the proposed dwellings

• the scale, layout, design and landscaping of the development would respect the context of the site and preserve the visual amenities of the locality.

• other environmental impacts had been assessed and there were not any which were potentially significant, and which could not be controlled by conditions.

• other issues raised by consultees have been assessed and addressed, as necessary.

 

The officer provided the following updates to the published report in her presentation:

·       The application did not include the demolition of garages as these lie outside of the application site

·       In 8.03 the GIFA has been calculated as 67sqm which accords with the SPD requirement for a four bed space dwelling as proposed.

·       In 8.09 the reference to ‘Treetops’ should read ‘Snowdrops’ as this is the name of the new build.

 

 

Whilst officers accepted that the houses were somewhat small in size, it was considered that the development made the best use of the available land. The orientation of the houses would not compromise privacy of neighbouring residents, with obscured glazing of bedroom windows, as necessary, to achieve this, with there being considered to be adequate distance maintained between them. Whilst it was acknowledged that some parking currently available would be displaced with the need to find alternative parking on adjacent roads, the summitted parking survey indicated that sufficient spaces were available in the vicinity.

 

Formal consultation had generated an objection from Colehill Parish Council in that the removal of the garage forecourt would have a profound adverse effect on the many residents of New Merrifield where parking on the narrow roadways/tracks was extremely difficult. Furthermore, whilst it was accepted that the proposed dwellings had sizes of accommodation to national standards, the design of the bathrooms and the third bedroom were considered awkward and impractical.

 

The Committee were then notified of those written submissions received and officers read these direct to the Committee - being appended to these minutes. Having heard what was said, officers responded to some of the pertinent issues raised, being confident that each one could be addressed by the provisions of the application and the assessments made.

 

The opportunity was given for members, to ask questions of the presentation and what they had heard, in seeking clarification of room sizes, design and the arrangements being made to identify alternative parking for those displaced by the loss of their garages and parking spaces.

 

Officers addressed the questions raised, providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers based on the assessments made, the material planning considerations applicable and for the reasons set out in their report and presentation.

 

Members were concerned that the development would compromise the privacy of neighbouring properties, particularly the property ‘Snowdrops’. Given that the secondary bedroom windows to the side elevations would have obscured glazing to help achieve this indicated that there certainly was an issue with this. They were concerned that the loss of the garages and the forecourt would be detrimental to those existing residents who would be disadvantaged by not having the convenience of being able to access secured and assured parking provision close to their residences and having to identify alternative parking, some distance from their properties, which would not always be readily available, to any same extent. Access too was seen to be compromised and, with access to public transport being limited, would invariably have an adverse effect on those currently living there.

 

Members also expressed concern at the size, design and appearance of the dwellings and the limitations of the third bedroom which they considered to be wholly inadequate. The density of the development was too cramped and compromised what the development had to offer. It was acknowledged that the design of a development had an effect on well-being and it was their opinion that this proposal did nothing to enhance that. Moreover, there was a need to accommodate the needs of those most vulnerable in society with an equality impact assessment being able to determine that, but felt that this would not be achieved by what was being proposed.

 

As the Planning Authority, members said that the Council had an obligation to ensure development achieved good planning standards and design and met what was necessary and expected, in being wholly satisfied that those standards had been met. They considered that this was not the case for this development.

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application, having understood what was being proposed and the reasoning for this; having taken into account the officer’s report and presentation, the written representations; and what they had heard at the meeting, the Committee were satisfied in their understanding of what the proposal entailed and the reasoning for this.

 

The Committee considered that, notwithstanding the assessments made by

Officers, the proposal should be granted permission, they could not agree to what was being recommended on the basis that there would be an unacceptable loss of amenity, having an adverse effect on those current residents; the site constituted overdevelopment; its design was not to an acceptable standard and the unacceptable impact on resident’s parking.

 

On that basis – and being proposed by Councillor David Tooke and seconded by Councillor Shane Bartlett, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed unanimously that the application should be refused.

 

Resolved

That planning application 3/19/1504/FUL be refused.

 

 

Reasons for Decision

The proposal represents overdevelopment of the site which would result in cramped and contrived development and an adverse impact on local amenity as it would displace off-street parking provision traditionally associated with adjacent dwellings which lack opportunities for alternative parking provision. On-street parking opportunities are sufficiently distant that the displacement of parking would result in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity and fails to add to the overall quality of the area contrary to Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan (2014), and also contrary to paragraphs 122 e), 124 and 127 of the NPPF (2019) that require a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants.