Agenda item

Erection of 8no. flats (demolition of existing dwelling).

The Development Management Team Leader presented the application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection of eight flats. A map of the town centre was shown with the application site and areas of Special Character identified.

 

The site context was illustrated through photographs showing the current condition of the land and surrounding area. It was explained that the proposed flats would be positioned at a similar distance from neighbouring properties as existing buildings. Attention was given to the relationship with Flat No. 14, where the proposal would impact the outlook from that property. It was considered necessary to require additional obscure glazing to certain proposed windows, up to a height of 1.7 metres, to protect privacy. The main impact identified would be a reduction in outlook from two flats. A rooflight at No. 14 was also proposed, and further obscure glazing to a height of 1.7 metres was proposed to prevent overlooking. The inclusion of a balcony and windows was addressed, with a screening solution proposed to avoid harmful overlooking.

 

Properties to the rear of the site, located on Ringwood Road, were described as chalet bungalows. The proposed three‑storey building was acknowledged as having the potential to create overlooking; however, the it was advised that the separation distances were sufficient to avoid unacceptable harm.

 

Flood risk was considered in light of updated National Planning Policy Framework guidance and new data received during the course of the application. The area was identified as having high groundwater levels, with the potential for shallow flooding of up to approximately 10 centimetres at the rear of the site. The site was not located on a flood flow path, and the predicted depths were considered modest. An indicative drainage plan had been requested and provided, demonstrating that flood risk could be managed through measures such as permeable paving. A sequential test was not considered necessary, as sufficient mitigation had been demonstrated.

 

Highway safety was also assessed. The proposed parking provision was in line with relevant guidelines. The road was described as relatively narrow, and existing on‑street parking could result in a single lane of traffic, which had been raised as a concern by local residents. It was noted that congestion had occurred previously during construction works at No. 14 due to vehicles parking on the highway. A construction traffic management plan would therefore be required by condition. It was explained that parking on the highway was lawful, and any restrictions, such as double yellow lines, could be pursued separately by the Town Council if required.

 

In relation to habitats and biodiversity, the proposal included provision for a bat roost within the cycle store, and elevations showing this feature were presented. A temporary bat roost would also be provided during the construction phase.

 

The development would result in a net increase of seven dwellings, which carried significant weight given the current lack of a five‑year housing land supply. It was also confirmed that there would be no substantial harm arising from any departure from the Special Character Area designation.

 

Public representation was received from Giles Moir, as the agent for the application. He stated that the scheme had been designed to reduce the bulk of the building and retain the appearance of a domestic property. He noted that the proposal was compliant with policy and met the minimum required separation distances to neighbouring dwellings and that the Flood Risk Management team were satisfied that flood risk could be managed.

 

In response to questions from members, officers provided the following responses:

·       The proposal was considered to meet intention of the guidance of the Special Character Area in terms of landscaping, scale, mass and height and ecology.

·       Trees were proposed to be retained and there would be new boundary hedging included in the proposal.

·       The flood risk assessment had identified some risk of flooding on the site up to a depth of 10cm, which the Flood Risk Engineer was satisfied could be effectively mitigated through a drainage scheme.

·       Condition 5 required submission of a landscaping plan that would be agreed before any works above ground level.

·       All 10 parking spaces on site would be unallocated.

·       Condition 4 required a Construction Method Statement to be submitted, that would include how all vehicles would park, the agent expected that parking could take place of site, although there may still be some on-road parking.

·       The plot size was 0.15ha and the amenity space would be partly private with some communal space.

·       The bin store was proposed to be located at the front of the site and the Waste team were satisfied with this arrangement.

·       The applicant had submitted an Ecological Impact Assessment and had determined that the roof of the cycle store would be an appropriate location for a bat roost.

·       Condition 3 required the detailed submission of a Surface Water Management Plan, which would be checked with the Flood Risk Management Team.

·       The site was located approximately 100m from the junction with Ringwood Road and was located on a 30mph road, so there were not concerns about highways safety and if parking on the road was causing issues, that could be explored separately.

 

Having had the opportunity to debate the merits of the application members expressed that many of the concerns that had been raised through the course of the debate had been addressed by officers.

 

It was proposed by Cllr Morgan and seconded by Cllr Robinson that the application be granted.

 

Decision: That authority be delegated to the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management & Enforcement or the Eastern Area Development Management Area Manager to

 

A)   grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the appendix to these minutes and the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation under Section106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (S106 agreement) to secure New Forest Habitat Site mitigation.

 

Or

 

B)   Refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes if the S106 agreement is not completed by 20 November 2026 or such extended time as agreed by the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement or the Eastern Area Development Management Area Manager. The reasons for refusal for failure to secure the necessary obligations are set out in full in the appendix to these minutes.