Agenda item

Demolish garage and outbuilding and erect 2 No 2 bedroom bungalows with parking. Creation of new parking area to No 50.

The Development Management Team Leader presented the application for the demolition of a garage and outbuilding and the erection of 2 bungalows with parking.

The site was outlined on a map of the area. It was explained that the special character of the 1950s estate, with dwellings set around the open space, was recognised in the Neighbourhood Plan. Attention was drawn to back land dwellings on Churchill Close, with similarity to the proposal, that had been granted at appeal prior to the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan and to bungalows to the north of Churchill Close.

The site plan was shown to members and the location of the outbuilding and garage, which were set to be removed were identified. The proposed floor plans and elevations of the two new bungalows were provided and it was explained that due to the back land position, the single storey design was judged to be in keeping as it would not compromise the character of the estate.

The key constraints of the application site were summarised. Officers considered that the pitched roofs would prevent an adverse impact on neighbour amenity and the location of the new bungalows would be typical of the existing dwellings in the area. Oblique overlooking from a neighbouring first floor bedroom window would not demonstrably harm amenity for future occupiers. There was not considered to be any parking or highway safety issues arising, ground water flood risk had been discounted and a surface water management plan had been provided including use of a soakaway.

Public representation was received in objection to the application from Mr Eaton, Mr Weaver and Cllr Palmer. They stated that the new properties would have a negative impact on the character of the area contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan and harm to neighbouring amenity by causing excess noise pollution and obstructing views from the neighbouring properties. They also raised concerns about the impact the properties would have on local flooding issues, by increasing the areas of hardstanding and the wildlife impact.

Mr Miell, spoke in support of the application as the agent, he stated that the character and appearance of the bungalows would be in keeping with the area and that they would be screened from the street scene by the existing properties.

In response to the public speakers the Development Management Team Leader clarified that the hard surfacing would be permeable to mitigate against flooding and officers did not consider any overlooking to be harmful to the neighbouring properties.

The Development Management Team Leader provided the following responses to members questions:

·       There was fencing and hedging in place to provide screening between plots, additional planting may be achieved however this wasn’t considered necessary to make the application acceptable.

·       Due to the size of the land affected by the application and its use as garden, an Ecological Impact Assessment was not required under the Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol, but a condition could be added to require a reptile survey if judged necessary by Members on the basis of the neighbour’s concerns.

·       Officers considered that the development would not detract from the character of the area, as the bungalows would be set back and be of a low profile.

·       There would be a separate area for bin storage, so it would not contribute to clutter on the street.

·       Officers didn’t consider there to be a significant loss of light to neighbouring properties, due to the dwellings being single storey and having pitched roofs.

Having had the opportunity to debate the merits of the application several concerns were raised by members; these included an impact of harm to neighbour amenity arising from overlooking and noise due to the proximity of the bungalows to the neighbouring properties at the rear and an adverse impact on the area due to overdevelopment. It was also raised that there would be a detrimental impact on the outlook of the existing properties.

It was proposed by Cllr Goringe and seconded by Cllr Ezzard to grant the application with an additional condition to ensure a slow worm survey be carried out. Upon being put to a vote the motion fell.

It was proposed by Cllr Coombs and seconded by Cllr Trite to refuse the application.

The meeting adjourned to allow officers to draft the wording for the reasons for refusal. 12:35 – 12:44

Decision: That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes.