Demolish existing residential buildings and erect block of 15 apartments with parking, bin and cycle stores.
Minutes:
An update was
provided by the Case Officer as follows:
· A
detailed assessment had now been carried out regarding the previous deferral.
The Case Officer confirmed that there had been an oversight that an assessment
on paragraph 58 of the NPPF and associated guidance in the NPPG was not
included in the previous report. A detailed assessment had now been carried
out, resulting in officers updating the recommendation.
· A
letter received from the agent on 7th March 2023 in connection with
this application requests in the event that Members
are unable to support the application, that the item be deferred to allow
Members time to consider the points raised and to allow the applicant time to
provide a full response to the Officer’s report.
The Case Officer
showed members aerial photographs and a map of the site. Details regarding
screening and impacts on nearby dwellings were also provided. The Case Officer
discussed the impact on traffic and included google street images to highlight
this. Members were shown the proposed site plans, layout plan for flats as well
as allocated parking spaces and site access. The Case Officer informed members
of a relocation of a bus stop and post box which was outside the proposed site.
Members were also provided with details of the previous site plan and were
informed that the applicant had amended the site plan. Neither Dorset Waste, nor National Highways
had any objections to the proposal subject to conditions.
Details regarding
the previous concerns relating to viability and assessment of NPPF paragraph 58
was also discussed. The Case Officer also informed members of the applicant’s
response to this following the previous committee and how the development
didn’t contribute to affordable housing, therefore, the application was
contrary to policy..
Public Participation
Melissa-Griffith Jones spoke in
objection of the application. She discussed how she had previously been
approached by developers and rejected their requests to sell her family home.
Mrs Jones discussed the negative impacts that the development would have on
neighbouring properties, in particular excessive overlooking, and dangerous
site access. She also informed members that there were no other properties in
the area like this, therefore the site would stand out and impact the character
of the area. She did not believe that the site was economically viable and
hoped members would support the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning
permission.
Alan Davies spoke on behalf of the
applicant. He informed members that the applicant was disappointed to
acknowledge the change in officers’ recommendation and believed further notice
should’ve been given. Mr Davies discussed the previous deferral and believed
that the applicant had solved previous concerns made, particularly concerns
regarding refuse vehicles. Mr Davies was aware that the development couldn’t
meet affordable housing requirements but discussed how an agreed sum had been
met to compensate this. He urged members to defer the application to allow the
applicant time to respond.
Members questions and comments
· Concerns regarding
viability test not being justified. Members raised that the NPPF made it clear
regarding affordable housing and stated that the applicant should have met the
requirements.
· Local members commented
on the location of the site and access. They informed other committee members
that the A31 was a busy road, used by all vehicle users. They requested
clarification on the new proposed location of the bus stop and raised their
concerns regarding safety.
· Members discussed the
viability assessment which didn’t support the local plan. They believed this
should be considered for refusal.
· Clarification regarding
National Highways comments.
· Considerable risk to the
safety of residents and those that use the road.
· Clarification regarding
whether historic collision data had been considered.
· Members accepted the
concerns made from residents and local members.
· Praised the officer for
the detailed report and presentation.
· Members commented the development
not being policy compliant with existing local plan.
· Confirmation regarding
grounds of refusal and the merits of them.
· Did not believe that the
application was compliant with policy HE2. Members requested adding a condition
about excessive height and the bulk of the proposed development. They believed
the proposed development would not be in keeping with the character of the
local area.
Having had the opportunity to
discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed;
having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written
representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to approve
the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission as recommended, with the addition of a second reason for
refusal, relating to scale, bulk and overlooking was proposed by Cllr Robin
Cook and seconded by Cllr David Morgan[UF1] .
Decision: To
approve the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission.
[UF1]There
was also the condition added regarding scale, bulk and overlooking - contrary
to HE2
Supporting documents: