Demolish existing residential buildings and erect block of 15 apartments with parking, bin and cycle stores.
The Case Officer presented to members the demolishing of existing residential buildings and erect block of 15 apartments with parking, bin, and cycle stores.
The Case Officer gave an update regarding the waste scheme. Members were informed that the current waste arrangement didn’t comply however this could have been resolved by movement of the bin store or the option of private waste collection.
With the aid of visual representation, members were shown aerial photographs of the site as well as neighbouring amenities. In addition to this, the presentation included details regarding the proposed site layout, design of dwellings as well as street scenes which showed how the proposal would look. Details regarding retaining most trees on the site was also discussed, members were informed that some trees would be removed. The Case Officer also provided information regarding refuse vehicles and informed members that the site had no impacts on neighbouring amenities. Members were informed that there were no objections from National Highways or Dorset Council Highways, therefore the recommendation was to approve planning permission subject to conditions set out in the officer report or refuse if a section 106 is not secured.
Representations of the public spoke in objection of the development. They raised their concerns regarding the site contributing to an already busy and dangerous road. This concerned residents as a serious safety issue. They also believed that the development would become an unwelcome precedent to the area and would ruin tranquillity and create noise pollution. The objectors didn’t see how the development referred and acknowledged the local planning policy. They didn’t believe it was in an acceptable location and hoped for the proposal to be refused.
The agent spoke in support of the development. He informed members that careful consideration had been made to make access to the site safe. He also discussed onsite parking; he believed that 15 parking spaces would support the site comfortably. In addition to this, the agent also informed members that the development was designed to create visual interest and that a retaining existing vegetation to the frontage would reduce visual impact. Members were informed that the applicant agrees to the conditions set out in the officer’s report and believed that the proposal would have provided improved landscaping. The agent hoped the committee would approve planning permission.
Members questions and comments
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Concerns regarding parking spaces are not sufficient for the number of flats and visitors.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Concerns regarding the site being next to a busy and dangerous road.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Financial contribution to affordable housing was a very low figure. The development didn’t contribute to affordable housing or conform with the neighbourhood plan.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Concerns regarding access the proposed development.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Clarification of refuse vehicles and how it would be managed.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Confirmation as to whether the site was shared access or not.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Members requested information regarding nearby public transport.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Members discussed the lack of parking spaces and requested to revisit the parking policy as they didn’t believe it was fit for purpose.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Questions regarding if an area character assessment had been carried out.
In accordance with Procedural Rule 8.1 the committee voted to extend the duration of the meeting.
Steve Savage, DC Highways, addressed concerns and comments made regarding highways. Members were informed that the development complied with the highways safety requirements and National Highways have raised no objection. He also informed members that site access had been widened to ensure a car and refuse vehicle could pass. National highways were satisfied with the information provided.
An additional concern raised was the submitted viability assessment and whether this should be given weight as per paragraph 58 of the NPPF. Officers could not answer this question during the meeting and the application was therefore proposed to be deferred as proposed by Cllr Robin Cook and seconded by Cllr Alex Brenton.
Decision: To defer this item to the next meeting.