Agenda item

Demolition of an existing bungalow with a garage and erection of 2 no.
replacement two storey dwellings with separate access and parking

REFUSE

Mrs Stevens introduced the application. 

Additional information was provided on the agenda update sheet relating to amended conditions regarding the boundary treatments, the provision of cycling and refuse storage facilities, and the use of porous materials for the proposed hardstanding and driveway.  A further verbal update was provided with regards to condition 13, confirming that the strategy must reflect the WSCC Parking Guidance 2019, and also that a condition removing permitted development would be reasonable.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr Bill Buckland – Parish Council

Mrs Sue Miles – Objector

Miss Heather McCrudden – Agent

During the discussion Members debated the character of the proposed dwellings within the setting, over-development, sub-division of plots and appropriate number of sub-division of plots, height of the proposed buildings causing loss of the open vista of the street, loss of single floor accommodation, number of proposed parking spaces, loss of a traditional dwelling, greater sustainability of proposed buildings, hedgehog provision and whether one dwelling could be positioned to the front and one to the rear of the plot.  The Chairman reminded the Committee that they could only debate details regarding the application as presented.  Mrs Stevens responded that the current dwelling was not a listed building and could be demolished without planning permission.  The width of the plot was slightly wider than other plots within the vicinity which had been sub-divided as proposed in this application, and some other plots would not be considered as suitable for sub-division.  Mrs Stevens confirmed that weight could be given to the ‘Village Design Statement’, and that this identified the eclectic design within the area.   Mrs Stevens further confirmed that it would be possible to walk between the two proposed dwellings and the neighbouring property and other properties had been built-out close to their boundaries.  It would be necessary to identify the harm caused with regards to refusing the application on the grounds of the width of the plot.  Mrs Stevens also added that it would be possible to reverse into the parking area, there would be provision for one car charging point for each dwelling as part of the considerations, the highways authority had made no objections and the road was used at low speeds allowing any necessary manoeuvres.   

Members sought further clarification regarding whether it was considered by officers reasonable to refuse the application and the likely outcome, should the applicants appeal the decision.  Mrs Stevens confirmed that all applicants have the right of appeal, and that the officers’ recommendation was for the application to be permitted. 

Members further debated whether the parking of six vehicles would negatively impact on the character of the street and if in accordance with NPPF 127 this may provide reasonable grounds for refusal, the issue of granting permission and further applicants citing previous permissions for similar proposals, the improved energy efficiency of proposed dwellings, over-burdening of the site, and the impact of an accumulative effect relating to sub-division of plots.  Mr Whitty added that the change in character would not result in significant harm, although it is recognised that there would be some change, the proposals broadly accord with other plots within the vicinity.

Members sought further clarification regarding whether the potential to demolish the current dwelling could be prevented, if the area could be protected, whether bat bricks could be included, whether planting could be conditioned to continue after the five year period, would the larger proposed dwellings in comparison with other dwellings conflict with the authorities own policy, and whether the layout of dwellings in considering the VDS, may provide grounds for refusal. Mr Whitty confirmed that the applicant could choose to demolish the current dwelling, however this would leave the applicant with a plot of reduced value if planning permission could not then be secured and suggested this action was therefore unlikely but the Council did not have powers to prevent demolition.  Mr Whitty further reminded the Committee that decisions must be made in accordance with current and not future policy, that bat bricks could be added as a condition.  With regards to the planting, it would not be reasonable to expect this to be retained beyond a five year period, small changes which do not require planning permission could be considered to change the character of an area, and the VDS recognises an eclectic mix of dwellings which provides support to the proposals for which the applicant was seeking permission.

Members sought further clarification regarding whether car use and ownership was being encouraged by the number of proposed parking spaces.  Mr Whitty confirmed that with the potential number of occupants, they would need to be catered for and further explained that the West Sussex County Council ‘Guidance on Parking at New Developments’ would be discussed later on the agenda. 

Contrary to the recommendation of officers, permission was Refused permission for the following reason; 

The proposed development by reason of its size and depth comparative to the prevailing form of development in the locality, and the cumulative impact of enclosing open views between properties at first floor level and above, would result in over-development of the site, which would be out of character with the surrounding area and harmful to the visual amenities of the street scene.  Furthermore the proposal would result in a car dominated frontage due to the excessive amount of hardstanding, which would be out of keeping with the open character of the street scene. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy 33 of the Chichester Local Plan, and paragraphs 127 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Committee took a five minute break.