Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

Members considered application 3/20/2260/FUL, which was designed to sever a plot, demolish the remaining part of the existing dwelling and erect a replacement dwelling at Smugglers Hyde, 47 Brook Lane, Corfe Mullen.

 

Officers explained that following a severe fire at the original property - which had destroyed the majority of the structure - the site had been previously the subject of numerous alternative applications for its redevelopment, all of which had either not been fully pursued, granted, refused or remained undetermined, with appeals pending, in respect of the latter.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers provided context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were; how these were to be progressed; 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 the area, taking into account the policies against which this application was being assessed.

 

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of how the plot was proposed to be used overall; the location, orientation, dimensions and appearance of the development and how it was designed to be in keeping with other neighbouring properties; along with its ground floor plans; the materials to be used; access and highway considerations; environmental and land management considerations; drainage and water management considerations, the means of landscaping and screening and the development’s setting within that part of Corfe Mullen. Drawings also showed how Smugglers Hyde looked before the fire.

 

Officers showed the development’s relationship with other adjacent residential

development, with the characteristics and topography of the site being shown. Views into the site and around it was shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.

 

What assessment had been made in the officers coming to their recommendation were drawn to the attention of the Committee, with the proposal being considered to be acceptable in relation to material planning considerations, with all significant planning matters having been appropriately, or adequately, addressed.

 

The Committee were notified of a written submission – received from Corfe Mullen Parish Council - and officers read this direct to the Committee, being appended to these minutes. Their objection was on the grounds of highway and access issues; the size and characteristics of the development and how the plot was to be used; and overlooking.

 

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.

 

Officers updated on a response received from the Rights of Way team, who had no objection on the basis that access to the bridleway would not be compromised in any way.

 

Concerns raised from local representations were that construction of the basement could compromise the stability of the surrounding ground and cause issues to nearby dwellings. However, assessments made showed that that would not be the case, given that there was 12 metres separation between this proposal and the nearest other residential property.

 

The opportunity was then given for members to ask questions of the presentation and what they had heard, in seeking clarification of aspects so

as to have a better understanding in coming to a decision.

 

Some important points raised, some of which they considered still required clarification, were:-

•    how access arrangements and highway issues would be managed and what effect there would be on the highway network and how this had been assessed

•    how the S106 agreement would be enacted and on what basis this would be, in the event this element was required

·        how the relevant policies in the Local Plan were assessed and applied in respect of this application - in terms of density of development on this specific site

·        how the design of this development was assessed and how it compared with the previous applications submitted

 

Officers addressed the questions raised – and provided what clarification was needed - providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers, which the Committee understood to be, and saw, as generally acceptable.

 

Of importance was that officers considered that:

·        the proposal was located within the boundary of the Corfe Mullen Main Urban Area and was considered to be sustainable and acceptable in its design and general visual impact.

·        there was not considered to be any significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity.

highway safety was not harmed by the proposal.

·        there were no material considerations which would warrant refusal of the application

and that this was the basis of the assessments made and the recommendation before the Committee.

From debate, the majority of the Committee considered the proposal to be acceptable - in making the best use of the land available – and considered that this development would be of benefit, given the condition of the site as it stood, and had been standing, for a number of years.

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an

understanding of all this entailed; having taken into account the officer’s report

and presentation; the written representation; and what they had heard at the

meeting, in being proposed by Councillor Shane Bartlett and seconded by

Councillor Barry Goringe, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed unanimously - by 6:1 - to be minded to grant permission, subject to the conditions and informative noted set out in paragraph 17 of the officer’s report, with the enactment of their ‘minded to’ decision being made by the Head of Planning.

 

Resolved

1)That planning permission for the application be ‘minded to’ be granted, subject to the conditions and informative notes set out in paragraph 17 of the report and the completion of a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure the following:

·        an agreement not to build out the approved dwelling to the north of the site (3/19/0382/FUL) and recommends that the Head of Planning or Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement determines the application accordingly.

2)That the Committee would be minded to refuse planning permission, for the reasons set out below, if the legal agreement was not completed by 1st June 2022 or such extended time as agreed by the Head of Planning.

3) Having taken into consideration the Committee’s minded to decision, the

delegation to the Head of Planning to be authorised to grant permission be enacted.

 

Reasons for Decisions

In the absence of a satisfactory and completed legal agreement not to build out the approved dwelling to the north of the site (3/19/0382/FUL), there would be an extant planning permission for a development considered to be incompatible with the proposal; due to the contrast in design style and close juxtaposition of the dwelling in this proposal and the approved dwelling to the north of the site these two dwellings would read as one disproportionately large building with a visually discordant relationship with each other and the neighbouring development. As such the proposal would be contrary to policy HE2 and paragraph 134 of the NPPF 2021.

and recommends that the Head of Planning or Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement determines the application accordingly.