Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered an application - 6/2020/0281 - proposing

alterations to an existing dwelling at 5 Ballard Estate, Swanage, so as to erect single storey extensions with pitched roofs and insert three rooflights within the north east elevation and install a rainwater harvest tank.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers provided context of what the

main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were; how

these were to be progressed; what the proposal was designed to do; and

what this entailed. The presentation focused on not only what the

development entailed and its detailed design, but what effect it would have on

residential amenity and the character of that area of Swanage, being in the

Dorset AONB. The planning history of the site and the Ballard estate was described too.

 

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location, dimensions –

form, bulk, size and mass - and appearance of the extension, along with  ground floor plans, layout and elevations; comparisons between the existing dwelling and that proposed; the materials to be used; the topography of the site; its relationship with the highway network; the characteristics of the site; its relationship with other adjacent residential development; and the impact on amenity, environmental and planning designations relating to its setting within Swanage. Views into and around the application site were shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of what the application entailed.

 

Whilst a number of objections had been received  including from the Town Council, assessments made by officers had considered it to be acceptable in terms of scale, height, design and layout and in terms of impact on local character and neighbouring properties and on that basis, the recommendation to approve was being made.

 

Following formal consultation, Swanage Town Council had objected to the

application on the grounds of its bulk and being detrimental to the street scene and character of the area, considering it to have a potential adverse impact on neighbouring amenity. Representations received from neighbouring residents, also objecting, raised concerns about the design and dimensions of the extension, with its height and mass giving rise to concerns of overbearance: being not in keeping with the character of the area. It was not seen to accord with restricted covenants and conditions emplaced on the estate – particularly that all dwellings on the estate should be single storey.

 

The Committee heard directly from one of the two Ward members for Swanage, Councillor Bill Trite – on this occasion solely as a Ward member in his own right – who agreed with the views of those objecting and the Town Council  - expressing concern that this could well be regarded as a two storey property and, as such, should not be supported.

 

In asking the Committee to refuse the application, he also asked that there be a site visit, so his concerns might be seen at first hand. The Council’s Solicitor had previously outlined the guidance from the Planning Advisory Service and the LGA that, in the current circumstances, site visits were not appropriate at this time and could not necessarily accord with social distancing measures.  The Chairman, in accepting this advice, felt that it was unnecessary to visit the site as the Committee had all the information they needed before them. The other local Ward Member, Councillor Gary Suttle, similarly agreed with the sentiments of Councillor Trite in that the application should be refused.

 

The Committee were then notified of those written submissions received and

officers read these direct to the Committee - being appended to these

minutes. Having heard what was said, officers responded to some of the

pertinent issues raised, being confident that each one could be addressed by

the provisions of the application and the assessments made.

 

The opportunity was given for members, to ask questions of the presentation

and what they had heard, in seeking clarification of the proposal and what it entailed. In particular reference was made to the height and mass of thr extension , to the necessity of the roof light windows Officers addressed the questions raised, providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers based on the assessments made, the material planning considerations applicable and for the reasons set out in their report and presentation.

 

In making their planning assessment, officers had considered the proposed

development to be acceptable in principle, of an acceptable scale and design

and, on balance, it was considered to be acceptable in terms of the impact on

the character and appearance of the area and the amenity of the occupiers of

neighbouring properties. Whilst recognising the perception that the extension was not typical of he form of the original estate, officers considered that there were a number of other properties in that part of the estate that had similarly extended their footprint in varied configurations. Windows in other property roofs were also readily apparent. Officers confirmed that as there were no internal stairs proposed within the property, there was no reason to believe the residency would not remain a single storey bungalow. Officers also confirmed that there was no policy to govern the comparative volume of any extension; i.e. there was no means for proportionality to be calculated and that the proposed installation of roof lights could be achieved under permitted development in any event.

 

However, whilst accepting the clarifications made, the majority of Members remained concerned – and somewhat unconvinced - that what was being proposed could be seen to constitute a two-storey dwelling and would compromise the amenity and character of that part of the Ballard Estate and, if approved, could well set a precedent for similar applications to be made on those grounds and, similarly, be successful. However other members considered the application to be acceptable on the basis that the estate was seen to have evolved into a varing size and appearance of properties and, in that context, this proposal was not considered to be out of keeping.

 

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 presentation; the written representations;

and what they had heard at the meeting; and the views of Councillors Bill Trite and Gary Suttle, the Committee were satisfied in their understanding of what the proposal entailed and the reasoning for this. The Committee considered that, notwithstanding the assessments made by officers that the proposal should be granted permission, they could not agree to what was being recommended by reason of the bulk of the roof, in having a harmful impact on the local character of the Ballard Down area contrary to policy STCD of the Swanage Local Plan (2017) and policies LHH and D of the Purbeck Local Plan (2012).

 

Before being put to the vote, the officer provided the proposer and seconder

with an opportunity for them to accept a form of wording for refusal she had

drafted. On that basis, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed that the application should be refused.

 

Resolved

That planning application 6/2020/0281 be refused.

 

Reason for Decision

The proposal would, by reason of the bulk of the roof, have a harmful impact on the local character of the Ballard Down area contrary to policy STCD of the Swanage Local Plan (2017) and policies LHH and D of the Purbeck Local Plan (2012).