To consider a report by the Head of Planning.
Minutes:
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.
Supporting documents: