Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings & erection of 20no. dwellings, including access, parking & landscaping. (With variation of condition 2 of planning permission P/FUL/2021/05768 to amend approved plans).

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. The National landscape impact was deemed to have an acceptable impact. Layout was still acceptable and biodiversity still acceptable. It would be viable to secure 5% of affordable housing equivalent to 1 unit. There were no significant adverse effects. 

 

 

Public Participation

 

Mr Hiscock addressed the Committee. The informed that the nearby Frogmore development of 7 bungalows has been discussed as a committee. In contrast, this development of 20 houses was delegated, despite 10 objections, affecting 13 existing homes, 29 consultees, ongoing concerns from neighbours and a Development approximately 3 times the size.

 

He asked why, was this delegated to a single case officer, despite the strong and continued opposition & significance of the development?

Plots 1-8 look directly into our private garden and windows. Privacy and amenity have been lost by this development, in its current format.

Alternative, smaller housing styles were needed, preferably bungalows. This has already been changed and approved for the nearby Frogmore development. Policy HE2 - Bungalows are far more in keeping with the local housing mix of almost exclusively bungalows and could provide the required privacy and amenity.

The SUDS water basin seems to justify the location of plots 1-4, with no regard for the amenity and privacy of our home.

If this location was fixed, plots 1-4 should be redesigned / relocated to afford our property the privacy and amenity required.

Over the 3+ years of this application, the development had undergone many significant changes, including housing styles, quantities and a change of architect. Revised plans and the officer’s reports state that all plots have moved both levels and locations.

 

He explained that this completely undermined the original grant of permission upon which all original consultees based their professional judgments on. He add that you could not pass something and then simply move the goal posts!

With regards to affordable housing, the case officer’s own words include “the proposed housing mix would not comply with estimated SHMA figures”

Policy DES11 - All new development should add to and enhance the AONB. The addition of 20, 2 storey houses and the proposal of wooden fence boundaries does Neither.

 

A native hedge around the property had been planted, that would take years to fully establish and provide privacy.

To meet Policy DES6 – he proposed that the developer does the same, along our 2 boundaries.

Other plots on site have had conditions imposed, such as obscured glass and fixed windows, yet, no such conditions have been imposed that help protect our amenity.

 

Mr Annen addressed the Committee.  He explained that he was a Chartered Town Planner and Director of Pure Town Planning and was speaking in support of the proposal on behalf of the applicant; Stanborough Construction.

 

He commended the quality of the planning officer’s report and thanked Mr McDonald for the professional way he handled the application and worked throughout this application process to overcome initial concerns raised by internal consultees. The amendments which have been made have resulted in a scheme which is fully supported by your planning officer, their team leader and the Council’s professional consultees. He outlined the main considerations for why planning permission should be GRANTED today in line with Officer’s recommendation.

 

Firstly the Principle of Development

 

• The application site has been an allocated for residential development since 2002 under saved Policy CHASE6 in the East Dorset Local Plan.
• As you have heard, planning permission was granted in June last year for the erection of 20 dwellings, including access, parking and landscaping on this site.
• clients purchased the site with that extant planning permission and have implemented it as you have seen from photographs on the screen - the access point and internal roads are in the process of being formed as well as the large soakaway which has been dug.

 

Secondly; Character and Appearance

• The alterations proposed under this minor amendment application relate to subtle adjustments to the footprint and position of each dwelling, as well as the addition of veranda elements, gable features, car ports and improved porch details which your officer agrees are sympathetic and he concludes the overall design and visual appearance of the amended dwellings architecturally finesses those already consented and provides an overall higher quality visual improvement.

 

• The officer noted that this amendment scheme continues to exhibit strong traditional building forms and locally appropriate materials which ensure the development would assimilate well within existing built form and the village envelope and not jar with the overall character of Sixpenny Handley.

 

Thirdly; Amenity

• At paragraphs 16.37 through to 16.74 of your officer’s report the case officer has re-assessed the impact of the development on all of the potentially affected neighbouring dwellings surrounding the site again with regard to this amended scheme.
• It had been confirmed by the officer that because the distances to neighbouring properties have been retained and the spatial relationships have been maintained from that of the approved scheme, together with the levels and intervening boundary screening, these amendments would not result in any significant harm by virtue of an over-bearing or overlooking impact - thereby safeguarding neighbouring amenity

 

Finally; Highway Safety

• The proposed access points and layout of the internal roads have followed the extant permission. The required visibility splays and widths remain and ensure it would be acceptable for refuse vehicles and kerbside collection.
• Initially there was an objection from the Highway Authority, however following submission of amended plans re-introducing a 2m footway and including suitable crossing points, the Highway Authority no have no objection to the development which provides safe provision for pedestrians.

 

He summarised that the applicant, was a local developer who had been building high quality, beautiful family houses in the Dorset area for many years. This scheme provided the opportunity to help the Council meet its housing targets by delivering 20 new energy efficient family dwellings of good architecture whilst not conflicting with the development plan.

 

Cllr McLean addressed the Committee. He explained that there were two objections, but the applicant had rescinded the proposed removal of a safe access pavement under threat of non-approval from Dorset Council Highways department.

However, he remained concerned that the proposed changes to property elevations and other building variations encroach upon the amenity and privacy of our parishioners living adjacent to the development in St Mary’s Close and Littlefield Lane respectively.

He explained that the Parish Council respectfully submit that the applicant’s variation proposals to the original approved plan represent a significant and not minor variation to the elevation and site location of the planned structures.  

Specifically, it appears that some 8 properties would overlook existing residences at numbers 12 and 14 Littlefield Lane. The new properties were very close to these existing homes and barely meet accepted separation distances.  Despite previous correspondence and requests to the developer that there had been, as far as we can tell, minimal or no discussion with affected parishioners to answer their concerns. The application contains no information or proposals on what screening or other measures they will provide.

He also noted that it appears plots 15 and 16 are now to be effectively changed to that of houses of 3 storeys resulting in significant increased overlooking and overshadowing of two properties at numbers 16B and 31, St Marys Close. This seems inconsistent with recent elevation conditions imposed on new properties in St Marys Close adjacent to plots 15 and 16.

It was difficult to understand how the applicant can properly articulate the proposals without providing clear and unambiguous details of how they will provide acceptable and suitable measures to protect affected residents’ privacy and amenity. 

It was his view that these significant variations to the site have not been supported with sufficient evidence of how the privacy and amenity of existing residents will be remediated and asked that more work by the applicant to ensure that these changes do not push the existing approvals (just within “margin”) in to becoming unacceptable, unfair and not in the interests of proper planning.

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 GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Jespersen, and seconded by Cllr Major.

 

Decision: To grant planning permission for reasons set out in the officer’s report.