Minutes:
The
Committee considered an application 3/19/2441/HOU for development at 74 Amyesford Road Ferndown to raise the roof and ridge height
of the property to create first floor, habitable accommodation with a dormer
window to its south elevation and three roof lights to the south and north
elevations. The application was designed to benefit what living
space there was available
to the occupants so as to enhance their quality of
life and enjoyment of their home.
With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained what the
main proposals
and planning issues of the development were; how these were to be progressed; and
what the benefits of the development entailed. Plans and photographs
provided an illustration of the location, dimensions, elevations and design of
the development; how the property would look and; the development’s
relationship with the characteristics of neighbouring properties; surrounding
town development and landscape around Ameyford Road.
A previous application had been refused on
the grounds of an excessive increase in height, bulk, design and scale of the development which and
in being overbearing, given its
close proximity to 30 Maple Drive and that the scale, design and visual
impact would be out of keeping with the character and spatial quality of
surrounding properties.
However, the
amended scheme was seen to have addressed the concerns previously raised, by
simplifying and reducing the amount of additional roof extension, so as to mitigate the visual impact of the development on
the character and appearance of the area and on neighbouring properties. The
amended design has considered the site location adjacent to other dwellings and
to its position on a prominent corner in the street scene. The ridge length
would be reduced, and the gables removed to give a simple, hipped sloping roof
to the eastern facing elevation. The outward facing elevations were now to be
simple roof slopes, with rooflights facing north, with the roof over the garage
being simplified to retain the spaciousness between the site and 30 Maple
Drive. The north facing dormer windows had been removed and replaced by three,
high level roof lights, which had removed additional bulk and reduced the overall
prominence of the roof form. Whilst there was a dormer window to the side roof
slope serving the stairway and which was not characteristic of the area, the
proposed dormer was not readily visible and, as such, would be acceptable.
Overall, the
amended proposal was seen to have taken into consideration the planning
inspector’s comments in
his previous refusal and being amended following pre-application consideration.
For those reasons, it is considered that the proposed amendments had overcome
the previous reasons for refusal. As such, it was considered that, on balance,
the proposal would be compatible with its surroundings in respect of its scale,
height, design, materials and visual impact and, on that basis, was seen as
acceptable, with officers now recommending that this application be approved.
Formal consultation had generated objections from a
number of local residents that the development would be out of keeping
with the characteristics of the area. Ferndown Town
Council had objected on the grounds that
the resultant height, bulk and mass
of the proposed alterations were unacceptable and that there would be an
adverse effect on neighbour amenity due to potential overlooking and loss of
privacy and did not sufficiently address objections to the previous
application. Moreover, the Town Council asked that, should the application be
granted, the access needs of a neighbouring family to address their disability
requirements should be taken into account. In particular how the construction traffic could be
effectively managed was of concern.
The attention of the Committee was drawn to the
views of one of the two local Ward members for Ferndown North, Councillor Mike
Parkes, who considered that the application should be refused on the
grounds that it’s scale, height, bulk, design and visual impact would be out of
keeping with the character and spatial quality of surrounding properties.
The Committee
heard from John Baylem who expressed his concern at the application in being
out of character, with other properties in the area being bungalows and this
ostensibly now becoming a house. It remained overbearing and too close in
proximity to the neighbouring property in his view and would be prominent in
its excessive bulk and height.
Wayne Barrabell, the agent,
confirmed that the issues raised in the Inspector’s refusal had now been
satisfactorily addressed by the reductions being made and the roof lights
replacing the dormers, making the development less dominant. There was now no
opportunity for neighbouring properties to be overlooked and how the
development would look took into account the character
of the area, being sympathetic to this. He considered that there would be
negligible effect to the majority of those objecting
and, given all this, asked the Committee to support the application.
The
opportunity was given for members to ask questions of the presentation and on
what they had heard. Officers confirmed that the revised application
satisfactorily addressed the issues of the development being overbearing with
its prominence in the community being considerably reduces by the measures
being proposed.
Having had the
opportunity to discuss the merits of the application, having understood what
was being proposed and the reasoning for this; having taken into account the
officer’s report and what they had heard at the meeting, the Committee were
satisfied in their understanding of what the proposal entailed.
The Committee were satisfied that the revised scheme now
addressed much of the concerns raised by the Inspector in his refusal of the
previous application, given that the proposals had now been simplified and reduced,
so that concerns about the bulk and
prominence of the development were addressed, mitigating the visual impact of
the development. Members were reassured to see that the amendments had been
made in consultation with the planning officer’s advice to ensure this was the
case. Members considered it beneficial that this development would provide the
opportunity for a younger family to be able to remain living locally and was
seen to be acceptable and of merit. However, members did ask that the concerns
raised over r accessibility being maintained during the construction period be
given due consideration and that Condition 5 should take this into account
accordingly.
On that basis – and on
being put to the vote – the Committee considered that the application should be
approved, subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report and taking into account the issue of accessibility being
maintained as mentioned by the Town Council.
Resolved
That planning permission be granted for
application 3/19/2441 subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 12 of the
report
Reason for Decision
The property is located within the urban
area of Ferndown, where extensions to
the dwellings are supported in principle,
subject to other material planning
considerations being complied with.