Agenda item

The Planning Committee is asked to consider and determine this planning application for:

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two no dwellings

RESOLVED

Refuse for (a) overdevelopment and (b) adverse impact of increased on-street parking on residential amenity

[Note This decision was contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation]

Mrs Stevens presented this planning application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection in its place of two dwellings.

Mrs Stevens explained the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens consisting of (a) a location plan; (b) ground floor plans; (c) drawings of the proposed buildings; and (d) photographs of the extant dwelling-house from the front and rear, its relationship to the adjacent properties, and the street scene.

Mrs Stevens drew attention to the agenda update sheet which reported (a) an amended version of condition 5 (not 4 as stated) set out on page 63 of the agenda namely:

‘No development shall commence until a strategy outlining details of the sustainable design and construction for all new buildings, including water use, building for life standards, sustainable building techniques and technology, energy consumption maximising renewable resources, and how a reduction in the impacts associated with traffic or pollution will be achieved including but not limited to charging electric vehicles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This strategy shall reflect the objectives in Policy 40 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029. The approved strategy shall be implemented as approved prior to first occupation unless any variation is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise the impact of the development upon climate change. These details need to be agreed prior to the construction of the development and thus go to the heart of the planning permission.’  

and (b) an additional condition 9 (boundary treatments), namely:

‘Prior to first occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted the associated boundary treatments shall be provided in accordance with a scheme that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include:

(a)            scaled plans showing the location of the boundary treatments and elevations to include finished height and

(b)            details of the materials and finishes.

The boundary to the front of each property shall have a solid brick wall to ensure the bin storage area is screened from the street.

Thereafter the boundary treatments shall be maintained as approved in perpetuity.

Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of neighbouring properties and the visual amenity of the surrounding area.’

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee for this item:

(a)  Mr J Templeton – objector

(b)  Mr D Seaman on behalf of Mr L Murray – objector

(c)  Mr P Cleveland – agent for the applicant

During the debate a majority of members expressed concerns about the proposal, the principal points relating to (a) overdevelopment and (b) the adverse impact of increased on-street parking on residential amenity. Whilst it was felt that the design was an improvement on the previous withdrawn applications and the replacement of the bungalow itself in favour of a two storey building would be an improvement within the street scene, it was felt that:

·       The proposed development would constitute overdevelopment of the site in terms of width and height.

·       The development would have a terracing effect.

·       The proposed dwellings would be too close to the boundaries with the adjoining properties.

·       There would be no rear access to the cycle stores in the back gardens and so bicycles would have to be brought through the inside of the properties, which were narrow.

·       The construction of 2.5 storey dwellings on this site would have an adverse impact on other properties in the street.

·       The storage of refuse and recycling bins at the front of the properties would be unsightly and would require a high wall to conceal them from view which would detract from the street scene.

·       West Sussex County Council Highways in its response to this application had suggested that the local planning authority consider the potential impacts of the development on on-street car parking (para 6.2 of the report on page 54 of the agenda). The street already was very challenging for parking and this development would exacerbate that situation.

Mrs Stevens and Mr Whitty responded to members’ questions and comments on the foregoing matters and other points of detail with respect to (a) the feasibility of building the dwellings from within the application site if the neighbour (as intimated) would not allow builders to come onto his property; (b) the lack of a rear access and the acceptability in such properties of having rear bicycle storage; (c) the on-street parking situation concerns should take into account the sustainable location of the site to the city centre; (d) bin storage at the front; (e) the distances between the site and the adjoining properties; and (f) internal living spaces of the proposed dwelling-houses. 

At the end of the debate it was proposed by Mr Oakley and seconded by Mr Hixson that the application should be refused on the grounds of (a) overdevelopment and (b) adverse impact of increased on-street parking on residential amenity.

Decision

The Planning Committee voted on the foregoing proposal to refuse by a show of hands and there was a majority of eight votes to five with one abstention to support it for the reasons set out below.

RESOLVED

Refuse for the following reasons:

(1)  The proposeddevelopment byreason ofits expanseacross theentire widthof thesite and theresultant incorporationof anexisting externalside accesswould resultin overdevelopment ofthe siteproducing developmentthat wouldbe outof keepingwith other semi-detachedproperties inthe localityand tothe detrimentof theliving conditionsof the futureresidents andthe outlookof neighbouringproperties. As suchthe proposalwould be contraryto paragraphs14, 17,59, 60,61 and64 ofthe NPPFand ChichesterLocal Plan 2014-2029policies 33and 47.

(2)   The proposalwould increasethe requirementfor on-streetparking inan areaof highparking demand tothe detrimentof theconvenience andamenities ofthe existingproperties inthe road. Assuch theproposal wouldbe contraryto paragraph17 ofthe NPPFand policy33 of theChichester LocalPlan 2014-2029.

[Note This decision was contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation]