Agenda item

Proposal: Erection of 1No. dwelling with 2No. car parking spaces, cycle & bin storage.

Additional Documents

(The site was viewed by the Site Viewing Working Party)

Proposal:      Erection of 1No. dwelling with 2No. car parking spaces, cycle & bin storage

The Committee considered the written report and recommendation from the Head of Planning to grant permission.

The Committee received supplementary information, circulated prior to the

meeting, which included:

1. Written deputations submitted by

a.     Councillor Diamond

b.     Mr Morris, the applicant’s agent

c.     Mr Lancaster

d.     Ms Clements

e.     Mr Simmons

2. An update paper

The Committee was addressed by:

1.     Councillor Diamond, who reiterated the issues set out in the written deputation.

In response to questions from members of the Committee, Councillor Diamond pointed out the access to the side is not acceptable as there is a school nearby, which already generates plenty of traffic.

Councillor Diamond also pointed out that at the moment she was not aware of any complaints of parking problems in the Widley Gardens in the hammerhead.

2.     Mr Morris, the applicant’s agent, who reiterated the issues set out in the written deputation submitted on behalf of the applicant.

In response to questions from members of the Committee, Mr Morris pointed out that he was familiar with developing near schools. Rules and regulations would be laid down prior to commencement of the development.

Mr Morris added that the development would take around four months to complete. Vans would be used to access the site during the development in order to reduce the inconvenience which were to be brought to the neighbourhood.

In addition, Mr Morris stated that with reasonable co-operation among neighbours, the access road could be clear from parked cars.

Mr Morris also stated that it would be more convenient for owners of the property to take their bins out from the access to Widley Gardens than walk 30 metres up the alternative access track.

Mr Morris added that it would be inappropriate for any contractors to park and block the access route towards Widley Gardens. During the development, the site would be able to accommodate 7 transit vans.

The officers commented on the issues raised by public speakers and in the written submissions as follows:

·       The site would not have a detrimental impact on occupiers of the properties to the south.

·       Backland development could provide housing for the Borough.

·       Due to the size of the plot and the separation distances between existing properties, the site would be a suitable location for a dwelling.

·       2 parking spaces to the rear of the site would be reasonable and has been granted similarly in other places.

·       The Highway Authority had raised no objection to the proposed development.

·       There are no planning reasons that would deem the refuse bin location in Widley Gardens being inappropriate.

·       There were no objections from Southern Water regarding foul and surface water drainage The Council’s Drainage Team raised no objection on surface water grounds.

·       Since the site cannot be viewed from the public realm, the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.

In response to questions from members of the Committee, officers stated that:

a)    Private access would not be within the jurisdiction of the Highway Authority.

b)    Conditions 4 and 5 had removed a number of permitted development rights in the application, which included the construction of extension, and rear dormers in the roof.

c)     If permitted development rights were exercised for outbuildings, it would not necessarily impact adjoining neighbourhood properties.

d)    There would be a number of trees replaced around the site.

e)    The intention of planting of trees to the south of the site would not materially block sunlight coming from the south.

f)      The hedging along the western boundary would be replaced by a beech hedge.

g)    The beech hedge replacement would be carried out as secured by Condition 14 in the report.

The Committee discussed the application in detail together with the views raised by deputees.

The Committee considered the layout and the size of the site, and suggested that the site would be too small for backland development. The proposed dwelling would also be relatively dark for occupants as there were to be planting and high walls surrounding the house.

The Committee also raised concerns for flooding in the site as the site would be located in a flood zone. Furthermore, the Committee also argued that the view from the house would not be pleasant as it looks out to a tiny lane and to the sides of surrounding buildings.

In addition, the Committee considered the turning of vehicles down the lane would be difficult due to 2 existing garages off the driveway. The Committee also raised concerns around the increase of traffic at the access lane during the construction of the site. 

The meeting was adjourned at 6:33 pm to allow officers time to put together a summary reason for refusal.  The meeting resumed at 6:38 pm.

In view of the Committee’s concerns, officers put forward a summary reason for refusal, and was voted on.

RESOLVED that application APP/23/00112 be refused for the following reason:

The location and design of the proposal would result in an unacceptable layout in a confined plot which would result in significant harm to the locality, contrary to policy CS16 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.