Agenda item

Demolition of existing building and erection of four residential dwellings, including associated landscaping. As amended by plans to amend access.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of four dwellings. The site was identified on a map of the area, noting that it fronted onto Dorchester Road. It was explained that the lawful use of the site was commercial, although it had been unused for approximately ten years.

Photographs of the site and its surrounding context were shown, including views of Forge Hall, Gavity, and 1 Forge Close. Existing buildings on the site were illustrated through survey drawings, and it was confirmed that these structures would be demolished as part of the proposal.

The proposed site plan was presented, along with front and side elevations. The design was described as traditional in appearance, incorporating red brick and timber-framed windows.

It was advised that the principle of development was considered acceptable due to the small scale of the proposal and the quality of the design. The site was located within a small village with access to local services, which further supported the proposal.

It was noted that the site lay within a Conservation Area and that Forge Hall was regarded as a non-designated heritage asset. A Grade II listed building was also located opposite the site. The impact on heritage assets was assessed as resulting in less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area. It was explained that Forge Hall was recommended for demolition due to structural defects, and its loss was not considered significant given its limited scale and condition.

The impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupants was considered. The relationship and distances between the proposed dwellings and neighbouring properties, including Gavity, were reviewed. Floor plans, elevations and separation distances were shown, and it was concluded that impacts on neighbouring amenity were acceptable. The living conditions of future occupants were also assessed, with the scheme judged to provide adequate levels of amenity.

In terms of character and appearance, the proposal was considered acceptable and likely to enhance the Conservation Area. Features such as chimneys and painted timber windows were highlighted as positive design elements. The modest depth and set-back positioning of the dwellings were considered to allow them to sit comfortably within the street scene.

Highways considerations were addressed, with two parking spaces proposed per dwelling. Access to the site would be provided via a five-metre-wide route between buildings, which was considered acceptable.

An ecological impact assessment had been undertaken and a bat emergence survey confirmed that no bat roosts were present on the site. Mitigation measures were proposed, including sensitive lighting and the avoidance of works during the bird nesting season.

Conditions relating to contamination and drainage were noted. The proposed surface water drainage scheme was confirmed to comply with policy requirements.

Public representation was received in objection to the application from Emma Hall. As a resident of a neighbouring property she expressed concerns about overlooking and loss of light, due to a larger building being situated on the site and closer to the property boundary.

Clare Lees and Julian Smith spoke in support of the application. They noted that Forge Hall was in poor condition and replacing it with a new development would improve the visual amenity of the area.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the scheme was considered acceptable in terms of neighbouring amenity, due to the rear extension being single storey and the fact that there were multiple windows within the impacted room in the neighbouring property, providing multiple outlooks.

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

·       Officers had visited the site and could confirm the poor condition of Forge Hall and the scheme would make up for the loss of the non-designated heritage asset due to its high quality.

·       The distance between the buildings was approximately 1.7m.

·       Officers considered that the harm to the Conservation Area from the loss of the non-designated heritage asset was less than substantial and the proposed scheme would be appropriate in the Conservation Area.

·       The ownership of the shared courtyard area would be a private matter and conditions would control access and landscaping.

It was proposed by Cllr Sowry-House and seconded by Cllr Morgan, that the application be granted.

Decision: That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.