Agenda item

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 5 dwellings.

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of a bungalow and erection of 5 dwellings.

 

Two further representations were received following publication of the report that had been included in an update sheet circulated to the committee the day before the meeting.

 

Members were shown site location plans showing the existing bungalow and large rear garden, properties along East Street, allotments to the south of the site; the relationship of the site to the town centre showing the site outside, but adjoining the Defined Development Boundary (DDB) and Conservation Area (CA). 

 

The proposed site plan showed the vehicular access was via the existing access, however, the boundary walls would be removed in order to improve visibility.  This access followed the rear of 64-80 East Street.  The hatched areas in the site plan were as a result of comments made by the Conservation Officer to provide some glimpses towards the allotments and countryside beyond the garages in that location. Trees along the site boundary of Nos 54 and 56 were to be retained.

 

An aerial photograph of the site showed the existing bungalow and wider garden area of the site as well as the extensive garden area of the neighbouring property at 92 East Street.  Representations had been received in relation to the impact of amenity due to overlooking from plot 1 on this property that was addressed in the report.

 

The proposal included land controlled by the applicant for a secondary pedestrian access onto the site (between 62 and 64 East Street) and highways required details to be submitted should permission of this application be granted.

 

Photographs were shown that included the access off East Street, showing the narrowness of East Street itself with many parked cars on one side of the highway; the large garden area of the application site; looking towards the side of the existing bungalow and rear of properties in East Street, including the proposed pedestrian access.

 

A plan was also shown that included a bin storage area at the rear of No 86; the provision of 14 car parking spaces and 2 garages; proposed rear and front elevations; ground floor & first floor plans; side elevations;

cross sections of the existing, withdrawn and proposed scheme; and details of materials. The key planning points were highlighted.

 

A comparison with a scheme on Portland for 3 backland dwellings with a single narrow access where the planning inspector concluded the risk to be low had been outlined in the report.

 

A number of written representations in objection to the proposal were received from members of the public and Beaminster Town Council that were read out at the meeting and are attached to these minutes.

 

Cllr Rebecca Knox - Dorset Council - Beaminster, addressed the Committee, saying that in order to satisfy the greenfield status of the application site, that proposals should be for affordable housing and come with evidence of unmet housing need.  However, Beaminster Town Council had outlined other significant opportunities for housing in that area and the proposal included no affordable housing.

 

She drew attention to the undulating elevation of the site with the houses along East Street sitting at the bottom of an incline meaning that the field would need to be dug out in order to sink the elevation of the new properties into the field.  She considered that this would give rise to a flooding issue and identified flood zones 1, 2 and 3 in the immediate vicinity and that soakaways would not work in clay soil and serve as mitigation.  The report did not include the view of the Environment Agency or Wessex water. She also questioned the comparison made with the application in Easton Street, Portland given the difference in the width of this street when compared to East Street and that other applications in the area had been refused on highways grounds.

 

The committee adjourned at 10:33am for 5 minutes and reconvened at 10.38am.

 

In response to comments made during public participation, the Enforcement Manager confirmed that consultation with the Environment Agency had not been a requirement of this application and that a condition included finished floor levels. The comparison with a scheme on Portland was made due to a single access with vehicles emerging between a terrace of properties which the Planning Inspector had concluded was low risk, rather than the width of the streets in either case.

 

Members asked about the definitive status of the site and the impact on the application and were advised that there was no lawful development certificate to state that the garden land was associated with this property, but was an open field owned by the owner of the property. In terms of the site being outside the DDB, members needed to determine whether there were significant adverse effects that outweighed the presumption in favour of development.

 

Further to questions it was confirmed that bins would be collected from the bin storage rather being collected from the individual properties, meaning that the refuse lorry would need to park at the site access for a short period in order to collect the bins. It was also confirmed that a condition of the recommendation required details of the pedestrian link between 62 and 64 East Street needed to be submitted, approved and carried out prior to occupation of the new houses.

 

The Highways Engineer outlined some previous applications in the area that had been allowed or refused on appeal.  He stated that the development would create approximately 18-20 trips a day which was not considered to be so severe as to warrant refusal on highways grounds.

 

The width of the access would enable emergency vehicles to access the site and there were several similar accesses in the vicinity.  The access complied with guidance in terms of the low speed approach due to the reduced vehicle speeds through this area as a result of the narrowness and parked cars in East Street.

 

Members remained concerned about the vehicular access and safety of exiting the site despite removal of the existing walls, fence and pillars on either side to improve visibility.  The view was also expressed that removal of the walls could remove a degree of protection for the boundary properties.

 

Members also highlighted that sites outside the DDB were outlined in the Local Plan as exception sites used for affordable housing and that this proposal went against that policy.

 

The Enforcement Manager referred to the position with regards to the housing land supply and advised that the Council had granted a number of permissions on land outside the DDB. 

 

Further comment was made that photographs viewed as part of the presentation had been pieced together to form a panoramic view, in such a way that it was difficult to gage the size of the site.

 

Throughout the debate, the question of undertaking a site visit was raised on a number of occasions. The Solicitor drew attention to the practicalities of arranging a site visit having regard to social distancing rules and its impact on the length of time taken to determine the application.

 

Proposed by Cllr David Gray, seconded by Cllr Kate Wheller.

 

Decision: That the application be deferred for a site visit.

 

Following consideration of this application, the committee adjourned at 11:35am for a short comfort break and reconvened at 11.40am.