Agenda item

The Committee considered application 3/21/1471/FUL for the demolition of existing flats and dwelling and the erection of 12 x 3 bedroom houses, arranged as 6 pairs of semi-detached properties, together with associated parking and access at 442 Ringwood Road, Ferndown, Dorset, BH22 9AY

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, 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 took into account the policies against which this application was being assessed.

 

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location, orientation,

dimensions and appearance of the development  and of the individual properties, with examples being given of how typical  properties would be designed, along with their ground floor plans; the materials to be used; access and highway considerations; environmental considerations; drainage and water management considerations, the means of landscaping and its setting within that part of Ferndown.

 

Officers showed the development’s relationship with other adjacent residential

development and how the buildings were designed to be in keeping with the

characteristics of the established local environment. The characteristics and

topography of the site was shown and its relationship with the highway

network. Views into the site and around it was shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.

 

How a Section 106 agreement would be enacted and what this entailed was explained to members: in that the construction was not necessarily required to commence until 2025, but this could be brought forward to within 18 months so as to demonstrate the commitment to build out, therefore not requiring a viability assessment. Officers explained the implications of these options. The applicant’s viability appraisal was that the proposal could not support any affordable housing or other financial contributions, apart from CIL. This was the view of the District Valuer Service too, whose option of an earlier start to the scheme had been accepted by the applicant; this being reflected in condition 1. However, the Dorset Council Housing Officer still raised an objection to the lack of affordable housing on that basis.

 

In summary, the officer’s assessment considered the acceptability of the proposal in relation to the Development Plan and this formed the basis of the recommendation being made.

 

Giles Moir, agent, considered the application would make a positive contribution to the housing stock in Ferndown, having taken into account local issues raised and addressed these as best the applicant might. He hoped there would not be a need to enter into a S106 - for a viability study - and that work could progress at the earliest opportunity.

 

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.

 

Formal consultation had seen Ferndown Town Council object to the scheme on the grounds of overdevelopment and access issues.

 

The opportunity was then given for members to ask questions of the

presentation and what they had heard, in seeking clarification of aspects so

as to have a better understanding in coming to a decision.

Some important points raised were and which they considered still required clarification were:-

·        what the options were as a consequence of Condition 1 being reduced from 3 years to 18 months and what this entailed in practice

·        on that basis, what proportion of the overall scheme would need to be built to avoid a viability assessment

·        how the District Valuer’s assessment and calculations had been made

·        how the buildings would be orientated so as to ensure sufficient privacy

·        what the access arrangements were for waste collection and the assessment made of this being able to be achieved satisfactory

·        what was the prospect of having a communal bin area

·        what prospect there was for an affordable housing element in the scheme

·        was sufficient parking available and could on street parking be regulated so as to ensure waste collection vehicles could readily manoeuvre

·        drainage and tree issues

 

Officers addressed the questions raised – and what clarification was needed - providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers, which the Committee understood to be, and saw, as generally acceptable. In particular they confirmed that the proportion of build to be achieved so as to not trigger a S106 would be assessed and determined by the Council’s legal section. The management of on-street parking could be accounted for in the Management Plan and enacted by the management company.

 

From debate, the majority of the Committee considered the proposal to be acceptable - understanding the fundamental issue of housing land supply, the need for accommodation of this sort and in making the best use of the land available. However, some uncertainty remained over :-

·        the enactment of a S106 agreement,

·        traffic management and on-street parking and

·        waste collection logistics and how bins could be best stored.

 

On that basis it was agreed that these issues should be delegated to officers – after consultation with the Chairman - with a view to them needing to be finalised and formalised so as to complement any permission and fulfil the necessary obligations. Officer’s view was that the on-street parking management element could be best addressed by an Informative Note.

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an

understanding of all this entailed; having taken into account the officer’s report

and presentation; the written representations; and what they had heard at the

meeting, in being proposed by Councillor Shane Bartlett and seconded by

Councillor Robin Cook, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed - by

3:1, with one abstention by Councillor Alex Brenton - to grant permission, subject to the conditions and informative set out in the officer’s report and the in the need for a S106, traffic management arrangements and waste collection and storage being readily pursued by the means set out above.

 

Resolved

That application 3/21/1471/FUL be granted permission subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report and in taking into consideration what need there was fora S106 agreement, traffic management arrangements and waste collection and storage being readily pursued by the means set out above.

 

Reasons for Decision

- The location is considered to be sustainable, and the proposal is acceptable in its scale, design, materials and visual impact.
- The proposal has an appropriate layout and design and would not have an
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area or the landscape
- There is not considered to be any significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity and the occupants of the proposed dwellings would enjoy an acceptable standard of amenity.
- The proposal would not have an adverse impact on road safety and the
access proposed and on-site parking provision are acceptable
- The proposal would provide appropriate mitigation for its impact on
biodiversity and biodiversity enhancement would be provided
- Other issues raised by consultees have been assessed and there are not any which would warrant refusal of the application.