Agenda item

Conversion of the garage to a studio ancillary to the dwelling and construction of an extension to proposed studio, store and patio. Alterations to rear of property. Surface front garden area. Install air conditioning unit.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the existing, extant approval and proposed elevations were shown. Images from within the plot as well as views looking towards the proposal from neighbouring properties were included. Members were informed of the proposed building materials, noting wood cladding on the frontage and resin bonding gravel to replace the soft landscape at the front. Officer’s felt that the modest front garden made a limited contribution to the character of the area and therefore the proposal could be accommodated and integrated into the street scene. Impacts regarding neighbouring amenity were explained, particular detail was given to parking was as officers had identified that there was only one viable parking space due to the need to retain access to the neighbouring drive. The highways team did not have any objections regarding highway safety, but the proposal was contrary to policy I2 of the Purbeck Local Plan which required adequate parking to be provided. The officer advised that notwithstanding the policy position, having regard to the fall back provided by the extant position which could have still been implemented, she were unable to recommend refusal on the grounds of loss of amenity and insufficient parking provision.

Images of the site showed an attractive cottage character. There was no flood risk identified and a noise assessment had been carried out which identified that the air conditioning unit would not have impacted neighbouring amenity. The officer recommendation was to grant subject to conditions.

Public Participation

Mr Heaton, a neighbour, spoke in objection to the proposal. He felt that the application was flawed as it was a 5-bedroom home with only one parking space. He considered that  the proposal failed to meet parking standards and if approved it would create a dysfunctional access to the property. Mr Heaton didn’t object to the building; however, he highlighted the garages should be converted without alternative parking provision. He felt that the fence next to the site could have been inset to allow for additional parking. One space was not acceptable, it would have constricted access. The proposal should meet parking requirements and without sufficient parking, he felt that the proposal should  be refused.

Mr Vincent, a neighbour, spoke in support of the proposal. He explained to members that he had lived on The Greenfor over 19 years. He explained that the existing garages were too small, and cars had been parking outside. Mr Vincent highlighted flooding and raised concerns regarding comments raised by the Parish meeting which he believed were based on one person’s opinion and not representative. He hoped the committee would support the officer recommendation.

The agent addressed the committee and explained the alterations. Mr Carter also raised concerns about the parish meeting’s  objection, stating that the application had only been briefly raised at theParish meeting. He confirmed that permanable materials were proposed for the front garden, the use would not change, nor would it impact flooding. The agent noted that parking was proven to be acceptable, and the applicants had always parked the way proposed. Due to the existing garage having not met existing size standards, there was no loss of parking. The principle of development was acceptable and there were no objections from highways. Therefore, the agent hoped members would support the officer recommendation.

Members questions and comments

• Reassurance regarding Parish meeting’s comments and from consultees.
• Clarification whether the aco drain would have led to a soakaway or surface water drain.
• Location of air conditioning units and whether acoustic fencing had been considered to mitigate noise impacts.
• Comments regarding the committee being in a difficult position due to the extant permission. Members sought clarification as to what couldpotentially happen in an appeal situation and the issues regarding fallback.
• Queries as to what would have happened if the committee were minded to refuse permission.
• Confirmation regarding alternative parking in the locality.
• Cllr Sowry-House felt that the parking was inadequate, and the proposal would change the character of the development. He did not feel it was a good design as it relied on remote parking contrary to policies I2 and E12.

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 REFUSE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Duncan Sowry-House, and seconded by Cllr Alex Brenton as o the proposed development provided inadequate parking provision as required by policy I2 (Improving accessibility and transport) of the Purbeck Local Plan 2018-2034 (adopted 2024). The proposal would increase pressure for parking elsewhere within the settlement and therefore did not represent good design contrary to policy E12 (Design) of the Purbeck Local Plan 2018-2034 (adopted 2024) and Chapter 12, in particular paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

Decision: To refuse the officer’s recommendation for approval.