Minutes:
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.
Supporting documents: